Misplaced Pages

This is not a forum, and your ill-informed commentary is of no relevance whatsoever to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

subtle difference between "dying" and "lying"

dear all, I do like the way this page is totally clear from propaganda. unfortunately it came to my attention that the image of a child have an incorrect description. from the file info you can see and read that the image is decribed as "child lying on the streets", instead in our glorious propaganda free entry it states "child dying". Please dear admins who protected the page provide correcting the mispelling in our page. thank you and keep up the good work keeping wikipedia free of npov and unsourced material. cheers!--Lorenaalsalzia (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mommsen quote

I agree with the 09:20, 27 November 2014‎ edit by Giraffedata that the quote is excessive, but Mommsen is an important expert and his three forms are generally used by other historians, perhaps under different names, i.e. Friedlander uses the term redemptive antisemitism for the violent racist form. I have paraphrased Mommsen's forms and re-inserted the reference.Joel Mc (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The reference for this quote is to a primary source (Mommsen himself is interviewed). Our manual of style asks for secondary sources, so you would have to find books or journal articles by other authors that quotes Mommsen's theory.-- _Lavender 11:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This reference is not what is usually meant by primary source. Mommsen is interviewed by a Yad Vashem team which quoted him in their published interview. He has written the same thing in one of his books, but it is in German.--Joel Mc (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "primary source" at all (not that there's any rule against using primary sources). The real issue is whether it is sufficiently noteworthy to be given such prominence. Paul B (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Joel Mc An interview in that form (with direct quotations, word by word) is a classic example of a primary source by any academic standard. And yes, there are rules against using primary sources, Paul Barlow, see WP:RS.-- _Lavender 20:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not by any stretch a "classic example of a primary source". This is a scholar summarising his research. The fact that it is spoken rather than written is irrelevant. A lecture by a scholar is also not a primary source. You seem to have next to no idea what a primary source is. Regarding "rules against using primary sources". Why don't you read WP:RS. You will find there is no ban on primary sources as you initially claimed. So you are wrong on both counts. If you want to debate the issue go to WP:RSN. Paul B (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The link you're posting goes to a noticeboard, Paul. Mommsen is the original source for his theory. A lecture by a scholar about his own theory is a primary source. While primary sources may be allowed under some circumstances, an important high profile article with lots of traffic that seems to be locked down all the time for edit wars (seriously?) is certainly no place for any leniency on sources. You'd have deniers roaming the place in no time. If you couldn't find the place on the page I linked which according to you I didn't read, here is the link to the section: WP:WPNOTRS. -- _Lavender 06:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another link that also directly explains primary, secondary, tertiary sources: WP:WPNOTRS. It also specifically mentions that you should, like I said, use common sense on when to allow primary sources. Again, a difficult topic like this one is obviously not the place, imho.-- _Lavender 07:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the 5 million non-Jews

There has been an effort to remove any reference to the five million non-Jews from the lead section apparently invoking the "uniqueness" argument discussed further down in the article. This has gone so far as to suggest that contrary opinions are "Fringe." While I absolutely agree that we can't just say that the total number is eleven million, we can't ignore the very significant debate on this subject which definitely exists within mainstream academic circles. I adjusted the text to reflect the controversy while giving weight to the six million. This seems to be a reasonable compromise. I would like some consensus however in the event that there is disagreement and a desire to adopt the "uniqueness" argument as the official position of Misplaced Pages based on reliable source coverage. If the more expansive view is indeed Fringe then we would also need to heavily edit that section to reflect this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is demonstrably false to assert that suggestions by credible historians that non-Jewish victims should be counted amongst those included in the Holocaust are 'fringe'. Our article cites multiple sources which argue the contrary. This is a controversial argument, but that is no reason to exclude it from the article - and if it is in the article, it should also be noted in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I agree that we need to reach some consensus. I've asked for the page to have temporary full protection to stop edit wars etc until an consensus can be reached. The question is: should we include the deaths of non-Jews in the first sentence of the introduction? Unless someone has a better question? Gaia Octavia Agrippa 02:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not in the first sentence. It's in the second. The first references only the six million. However, the real question is can we exclude any mention of the controversy from the opening paragraph of the article where the very term is being defined? I think not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the issue here is about a definition, not about the "uniqueness" argument which is something quite different and a bit of a red herring in this discussion. The major historians of this period writing in English use the definition of the Holocaust as the mass murder of the Jews. (The French do not have this problem as the term "Shoah" does not include the 5 million non-jews) I still have yet to see a reference to a major historian which includes in the definition the mass murder of 5 million non-Jews. Secondly, I have no problem in mentioning the 5 million, it just that they aren't usually part of the definition. Thirdly, I have no problem putting in that there is controversy about the definition--I would like to see the multiple sources that would include the 5 million--Niewyk et al list 4 possible definitions, but in the end do not opt for including all of the 5 million non-jews. The references they examine are not using the term as a proper noun, i.e. The Holocaust, but in a more generic sense, i.e. the other holocaust, the Polish holocaust etc, thus interchangeable with the word genocide. Finally, I reverted Gaia's insertion of 11 million because it did not represent a consensus. I am not interested in an edit war, but would appreciate if the the 6 million figure remains until a consensus for change is found. I would not agree to adding the 5 million figure to the definition of the Holocaust Joel Mc (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Shoah is clearly defined, Holocaust is not. Niewyk (p. 51-52) states that there is a trend back towards usage of a very broad definition, including all Nazi victims. He says it's mostly too complicated to analyze this, and says scholars make it easier for themselves by narrowing the definition and then proceeds to use a narrow definition for his own work. Also, according to this author (p.45), the term was used during the time of WW II to describe the entirety of the massacres. Another thing to consider is WP:COMMONNAME. The common name for the Nazi mass murders is Holocaust. The original intention behind the ideology of the Nazis was based on Eugenics - first and foremost, according to this ideology, they wanted to murder everyone who didn't belong to their vision of a so called master race. The real execution of this plan did turn out to be first and foremost an incomporable genocide of Jews. I think the current version of the lead is a good solution. And I'm not sure that the issue of uniqueness is unrelated. In any case the uniqueness aspect is not adequately covered in the article. There's a tiny section at the bottom that has only primary refs. -- _Lavender 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is the link to the ref that was mentioned by me and Joel Mc above:

Niewyk, Donald L. and Nicosia, Francis R. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, pp. 45-52. -- _Lavender 21:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I shall give it a proper read through tomorrow. Interesting that he highlights the controversy around the definition of The Holocaust and the fixed definition of Sho'ah: perhaps we could keep the article, The Holocaust', as an overarching summary of the wider definition (Jews and non-Jews) with a re-direct to Sho'ah for the Jew-centric/narrow definition (that sounds terrible and I apologise, I'm just not sure what else to call it) holocaust? One quick point of interest: p. 46 says 'roughly half of the 11,000,000 European Jews' were murdered this contrasts with the 2/3 of 9 million European Jews in the article. I also wonder of there is a difference in European vs American definitions (I'm British).Gaia Octavia Agrippa 00:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Wiesenthal pull that number out of a hat? What research corroborates his claim? 71.169.181.208 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Finkelstein

@Monochrome Monitor: @Ykantor: Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:VERIFY. Note the Google citation index for the work: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16867769263411460043&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ; 389 results. It is thus a work of scholarship, a notable one at that. It's also hardly fringe, as lead Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg has defended its thesis, and many reviewers have defended it. The book has its own article, and is very notable—much more so than the other works which were cited. It is published, notable and claims made by it are attributed to it. There is no reason for it to be excluded. If you continue to play this game on deliberately excluding prolific scholars to maintain your perverse, POV Zionist narrative in a section which shouldn't even exist, I will RfC. JDiala (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)