Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Can Category:Holocaust survivors be used for non-Jews?

Ex. survivors of concentration camps that don't have a dedicated subcategory yet. (Context: I removed this from [1] per WP:OVERCAT and then I started wondering if it would be allowed if the Category:Buchenwald concentration camp survivors did not exist? Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why this was asked here instead of somewhere else where it's more relevant (category pages or a noticeboard or a wikiproject). The answer is going to be "it depends on what the sources call the article subject". If no sources call the subject a Holocaust survivor, the category wouldn't be supported. If sources do call them that, then the category is supported and should be used. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-Jewish victims

If they are not going to be even mentioned in the lead ([2]) then the entire section on The_Holocaust#Other_victims_of_Nazi_persecution should be deleted, as it is off topic to this article. If it is relevant and kept, then the mention of other victims should be restored in the lead. Lead should summarize main sections of the article, or such sections are undue here, it's one or the other. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed in the past...check the archives. The inclusion is minority position and thus is discussed in the body, while it does not need mention in the very first paragraph of the lead as if it was a consensus view among scholars, which is what the edit that was reverted said. --Ealdgyth (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should not adapt said minority positions, but correct me I am wrong, right now it does not summarize this position anywhere? WP:SUMMARY is quite clear that if something is important enough to warrant a section it should get a sentence or so in the lead. So either this info should be added to the lead somewhere, or this entire section is undue and must go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Um, it is in the lead. The fourth paragraph. I’m assuming that you read the entire lead before bring this up on the talk page? --Ealdgyth (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Canvass for opinion

I'm canvassing for opinions of editors on a Request Move [name change] at Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews. The discussion (with explanation) is here: Talk:Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews#Requested_move_17_April_2020. GPinkerton (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I suggest using a different term, as WP:CANVASSING usually has a negative connotation on Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: Thanks, I checked there earlier and WP:APPNOTE suggests a note on a related talk page is within bounds. I'm not campaigning; the discussion is self-explanatory. GPinkerton (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: It is indeed, I'm just suggesting you use a different terminology so as not to be associated with that particular meaning. François Robere (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The True beginning

I propose a change... The Holocaust should officially have begun September 1939.. The first victims of the holocaust were the Disabled, under Aktion T4, and that began in September 1939.. We cannot continue to allow this fact to be overlooked in the eyes of history.. For like anti semitism, the danger of ableism is just as ever present as it was. The fact that this has been so thoroughly overlooked can undoubtedly have attributed to it, the continued murders of the disabled by strangers, and even by their own parents. The world must remember RenatusUpborne (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We would need a lot of reliable sources that date the Holocaust that way...enough to overcome the preponderance of the sources that consider otherwise. --Ealdgyth (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Undue? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Germany

I don't think my edit earlier on Hitler's view section about Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an undue weight, because it is directly related to Hitler's own book Mein Kampf and supported by another work by Nora Levin. The article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion also detailed it. Then, which part is undue? (User:Ealdgyth) — MusenInvincible (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. Its undue weight because major works on the Holocaust such as Gilbert's Holocaust, Longerich's Holocaust, or Casarini's Final Solution do not mention Protocols at all (there are no entries for it in their indices). There ARE discussions in each of those books on Mein Kampf, I'll note. And there is a further problem in that the addition appears to imply that the Protocols were not a forgery. Gain consensus on this talk page for the addition before readding it. --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. WP:UNDUE

So, according on the policy Your accusation that my addition is undue is obviously inappropriate when you arguing 'due weight' only from 'major works' sources whilst the policy telling 'reliable' sources. it is your own prevalence when you think that Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf is undue, while it's definitely reliable source from the leader whose role directly involved in the event (Holocaust) himself and it's better source than other history analysts (Gilbert's Holocaust, Longerich's Holocaust, or Casarini's Final Solution) who only analyzed the event without any significant influence on that event. While you mentioned my addition implied "the Protocols were not a forgery", anyone can add it anyway without reverting it. — MusenInvincible (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is a primary source. We rely on secondary sources (such as Longerich, etc.). See WP:PSTS. And yes, we do indeed determine due weight by the coverage in sources. And for a well-covered subject, the best way is by the coverage in the major sources, such as I noted above. --Ealdgyth (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read carefully on my previous edit this you might find secondary source references from Nora Levin and B. Segel books that supported my addition
Then If you said "we do indeed determine..." (we? who?) & "for a well-covered subject, the best way is by the coverage in the major sources", can you give me quotation from which policy suggested so? or it might be your own prevalence without rely on policy. — MusenInvincible (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a long article, so everything has to earn its keep. Your edit said that Hitler believed the Protocols to be authentic. It isn't clear how that informs people about the Holocaust. You could ask about adding it to the Political views of Adolf Hitler, if it's not already there. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My edit is not a single addition from my own edit, It's mentioned verbatim as in article section The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Germany suggesting "Hitler believed the Protocols to be authentic" even with direct quotation from his own book Mein Kampf.
If you read the section where I added my revision The_Holocaust#Germany_after_World_War_I,_Hitler's_world_view that obviously related to my edit which showed his view (his belief) about the document uncovered dangerous 'world domination' plan by Jews (or Zionists) so "The Protocols" motivated Hitler then he decided to do anything to prevent such domination threatened Europe through annihilation of Jews across Europe / Holocaust. Thus, being contrast on your argument "It is-defi-n't-ly clear how that informs people about the Holocaust". Therefore, as long as it's relevant to the article, or section, I do think my earlier addition on the article shouldn't have been reverted. — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yiddish name

Please add the Yiddish name for the Holocaust חורבן אײראָפּע (or just plain חורבן). --Shad Veyosiv (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction to death toll

According to k12 learning guides and text books, and other websites the death toll is actually 11 million instead of 6 million. 24.9.134.213 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Already done. Read the article more carefully -- it says 6 million Jews and an additional 11 million non-Jews. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Common name

El cid, el campeador, please gain consensus here for your proposed changes. The vast majority of Holocaust historians say that six million died during the Holocaust, not 17 million, although many more than six million died as a result of Nazi persecution during the Holocaust era. But the Holocaust is the common name for the genocide of the European Jews. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador, please do not edit war. Please observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Thank you. El_C 20:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you also reverted other changes I made and I wanted to preserve them without too much confusion. I'm not here to argue about the common name of the Holocaust (as I don't disagree), just to say that the way the article was written was rather confusing. It said: six million were killed but then later included the figure of 11 million. It ultimately gave the impression (at least to me, even knowing what it meant to say) that there were six million Jews killed, and five million non-Jews, totaling 11 million, as opposed to 11+6. I will say that this article discusses, in great detail, the number of non-Jews killed; again I'm not arguing about the common name, just that the article -does- cover these deaths as well. I think the lead should at least reflect that, and not in the final sentence of the lead, in a way that can easily be misinterpreted. In any case, as ever, please make any changes you see fit, I just don't think it was necessary to revert every single change I made (I realize it's hard to revert single changes in large edits or even see what changes were actually made). Also, I don't know where you got the idea that I'm here for an edit war. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead does discuss the non-Jews killed during the Holocaust era; see the final paragraph. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador, you did edit war. That's just a fact. Who said you were here for that, though? Not I. Please be responsive about observing WP:ONUS. El_C 21:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Is no one listening to me? I was merely attempting to preserve my substantial, non-controversial edits. If I missed something controversial, this could have been changed manually instead of reverting every change I made. But now I am being threatened not only with edit warring but discretionary sanctions for trying to improve the language of the page. Is this how an encyclopedia is built? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 23:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No one has threatened you with edit warring, whatever that means. And a discretionary sanctions alert is not a threat. It necessary to affirm WP:AWARE with respect to articles falling under that regime. El_C 23:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead reflects the sourcing that supports the main usage being the genocide of the Jews. The minority opinions are also covered because that's what we do, but we should not imply in the lead that that including non-Jewish deaths into the total is anything but a minority position. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask this a different way: can I re-institute my non-substantive style changes, assuming I leave the discussion of non-Jewish deaths where they are and don't change the infobox? I guess in the future I should avoid making substantive and non-substantive changes in the same edit, but I'm really just trying to make the lead read better now. I think this is all a misunderstanding - it was never my intention to radically change this article or start a debate about the scope of the Holocaust. Thanks. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I object to your changes. None of them were okay, and they weren't style changes. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You all really should go back and carefully read what El cid, el campeador actually a wrote in his above posts. Every single one of you completely missed what he was trying to explain. His English is not the best in the world, but that is no reason to gang up on him like a mob because nobody could be bothered to take the additional time to carefully understand what he was trying to explain.

Here's the bottom line: the controversy was NEVER about whether 'Holocaust' refers to 'all Nazi victims' or 'only Jewish Nazi victims.' El cid's issue was that the article as it was ambiguously worded on the subject of Jewish + nonJewish Nazi victims. Apparently there is a 'vaguely defined reference to the number 11 million. The 11 million is in reference to non-Jews, but this is not made clear. If interpreted as being a total death count, then that would be misinterpreted as meaning that only 5 million non-Jews were killed, rather than 11 million, or that only 11 million people were killed rather than 17 million. Either way, the difference in question is 6 million. And to reiterate, NONE OF THIS has ANYTHING to do with the definition of 'Holocaust.' Even so, if the article is to mention the non-Jewish Nazi victims, as it did, what justification is there for having them reported in such a way that could imply the death count was 6 million less than it actually was? And please do not respond with anything about what's "in the sources", because there's NO disagreement here about what the numbers actually are, and we are not obligated to have poorly written articles simply because the sources were poorly written; and likewise, it is absolutely not OR or synth to rewrite poorly presented source material in order to make it easier to understand. Cheers, Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering your recent comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler, in which you did not know that "legitimated" was an actual English word, and that the paragraph you wrote above is almost incomprehensible, I don't think your opinions as to what is "poorly written" carry much weight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2020

Change "genocide during WWII" back to "WWII genocide" in first sentence of opening paragraph; emphasis is placed on the time period as opposed to the genocide aspect – essentially can be interpreted as somewhat trivialising the Holocaust. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the request. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2020

Change "genocide during WWII" back to "WWII genocide" in first sentence of opening paragraph; emphasis is placed on the time period as opposed to the genocide aspect – essentially can be interpreted as somewhat trivialising the Holocaust. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To editor Durdyfiv1:  Already done, see below. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism link to Christian theology needs to be expanded or clarified

The section on Anti-Semitism says (uncited) that Christian theology blamed Jews for killing Jesus. I was somewhat taken aback by this statement; it was certainly not the THEOLOGY which blamed Jews. This rather abrupt, conclusive statement appears to be somewhere between NPOV and unsourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.161.252.6 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Death toll in Poland

Your Death Toll table by country puts Poland at 2,100,000. The Hebrew Wikipedia article puts that figure at 2,900,000-3,000,000 out of 3,300,000 Polish Jews, citing Yad Vashem (https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/he/holocaust/resource_center/faq.asp). You may want to address this discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.136.239 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

This edit complicated things. 272,000 is the number killed in the Baltic states, while 2,100,000 is the total number of Jews killed across the Soviet Union (excluding Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia). Currently both figures appear as the Soviet Union, which doesn't make sense.--Zemilofa (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Shhhnotsoloud:, in case they don't have the article on their watchlist. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zemilofa:@Robby.is.on: Thank you for pinging me. All I did was edit a wiklink to avoid a deleted disambiguation page redirect. I agree that there seems to be an anomaly but I must leave it to experts in this important subject to correct it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, @Shhhnotsoloud:, you didn't just replace the link, you also modified the meaning. "Baltic states" are not the same as the "Soviet Union". It would have been better to just remove the link. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: yes, you're right, I'm sorry. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Kudos for owning up, @Shhhnotsoloud:. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, @Zemilofa:.

This is the best we can do for now, I think. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Mistake

In the beginning of "Invasion of France and the Low Countries", in "Main articles" Belgium and the Netherlands are in the wrong situations. Have a look at it. I'm not allowed to correct that.--Kani (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Poland

Jews were already segregated in Poland before the German-Soviet invasion in 1939. Poland's government had passed increasingly anti-Semitic laws during the 1930s, and there had been much violence against the country's Jewish population. (81.147.63.163 (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

Please re-write the opening sentence, i.e. return it to its former state, so it doesn't look like Holocaust trivialisation – this was not just one of many genocides that occurred. There was nothing wrong with how it was written. Moderators should note that this opening sentence has been re-written several times by antisemitic trolls. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Durdyfiv1

Please explain in more detail. Which revisions are you referring to? What should be changed? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The opening sentence of the lead paragraph used to read: The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the WWII genocide of the European Jews. The way it reads now can be seen by many to be somewhat trivialising the Holocaust, suggesting it was just a particular genocide of many against the Jews. There has been no, and will not be any, other genocide quite like this one. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

So you mean the placement of "during World War II"? Robby.is.on (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please use the "View history" feature to find a version of the sentence that you propose to return to, and copy it here. We can't read your mind. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Durdyfiv1, I've restored the previous version. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes Robby. Thank you for doing this again, Sarah. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Durdyfiv1: I was the one that submitted the change, and I would like to apologize sincerely. I admit I acted a little too bold here, and I did not check the talk page for past discussions. I did not mean to trivialize the Holocaust; I merely thought my edit made the sentence flow better from a copyediting point of view (WP:SEAOFBLUE says that in general we should avoid placing Wikipedia links next to each other, but I recognize this is not a hard-and-fast rule). Mz7 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7 Understood. I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned the trolls, as I had seen your reason for editing. Thank you for your comment nevertheless. (Apologies if this doesn't tag, I'm not sure how to.) Durdyfiv1 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

Change "The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah," to "The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah from its Hebrew name" or something similar. While I don't object that this should be included as a name, it is unfamiliar to most eveyone on the English Wikipedia and I think its explanation is deserving of more than just a note. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 19:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done It's in the note that follows the word "Shoah", and it is in the Terminology section. The lead does not have to have everything in it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Shoah Survivors stories link

https://www.aish.com/jw/s/Are-Holocaust-Survivors-Heroes.html?s=rab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.184.226 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Recognizing other victims.

Beginning should say the killing of European Jews, non-Jewish Poles, and other groups throughout Europe. All victims matter, not just the biggest group. The same can be said about death toll. It should say 11 million, including 6 million jews, not just saying 6 million jews. JazzBandDrummer (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The Holocaust only refers to the killing of Jews. (81.147.63.163 (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC))

Except that it also refers to the whole system of extermination.138.88.18.245 (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Uniqueness

If the article is going to spend so much time on the uniqueness question (I argue it gives too much weight to the historians' dispute), it should also mention that the most extreme of the uniqueness claimants (Jackel and Lewy, probably others) also reject that the Armenian Genocide was a real genocide. (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A short mention would be appropriate, but watch out for WP:SYNTH. François Robere (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

theft

I think this article doesn't talk much about dispossession. I heard that at least 30% of Nazi Germany war effort was done with the money stolen from Jews. Can we add some informations about that please? Citing Hidlberg's work The Destruction of the European Jews. NB: I note Germany hasn't done anything to give that huge sum back.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/hitlers-nazi-party-financed-ww-ii-with-stolen-jewish-money/articleshow/6900244.cms?from=mdr

--Vanlister (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanlister, there's a brief section called The Holocaust#Reparations with links to other articles. We can't do much more than that because of length issues. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's important to talk more about it, because it was essential in the Nazi policy of dispossession and then mass murder. I don't think it's a problem to have a complete article though. Thank you--Vanlister (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Since we're discussing reparations, we could include estimates of the total amount and worth of stolen property, and the magnitude of slave labor. François Robere (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Pearl Harbor

This paragraph

"On 7 December 1941, Japanese aircraft attacked Pearl Harbor, an American naval base in Honolulu, Hawaii, killing 2,403 Americans. The following day, the United States declared war on Japan, and on 11 December, Germany declared war on the United States.[239] According to Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, Hitler had trusted American Jews, whom he assumed were all powerful, to keep the United States out of the war in the interests of German Jews. When America declared war, he blamed the Jews."

seems to have a broken logic. How could American Jews be blamed for not preventing the war if it was Japan who attacked USA, and it was Hitler who declared a war on the US? It seems Hitler's words were just a pure propaganda, similar to Hitler's justification of his decision to attack the USSR, and his actual thoughts were quite different. Indeed, no mainstream sources can seriously claim that Hitler believed Stalin was going to attack him, and that is why Barbarossa started. Similarly, it would be ridiculous to seriously believe American Jews could prevent the Perl Harbor attack. We should always discriminate a real motif and a pretext. I don't remember where I read that, but I know Hitler was pleased when he learned Japan attacked the US, so his Kriegsmarine got an ooprtunuty to start a full scale war in Atlantic. I have a feeling the sources cited in that section are good experts in the Holocaust, but they are less knowledgeable in WWII as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The text says that Hitler assumed American Jews were all-powerful. That mistake underlies a lot of (all?) antisemitic conspiracy theories, namely that the Jews can and do control world events. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

...and prevent Japan from attacking Perl Harbor and Hitler from declaring war on the US? I can imagine Hitler might sinscrely believe Jews forced Britain to declare war of Germany in 1939 (Hitler didn't expect Britain and France would do that, and he himself didn't declare war on them). However, in 1941, Germany's ally attacked the US, and Germany declared war on the US. How could Jews prevent that scenario? And, again, Hitler was not disappointed by that: he didn't consider the US as a serious military power, and the state of war with the US was not seen by him (in 1941) as a serious problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're saying this isn't a strong-enough source or valid point, you're welcome to suggest something else. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, the evidence suggests that Hitler and Nazi leaders firmly believed that the Jewish conspiracy was real. (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

References

• I've added Kershaw 2008 to the bundle. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The United States had already declared war on Germany when Roosevelt publicly confirmed shoot on sight on 11 September 1941. The US attacked Japan first by sending the Flying Tigers to China in April 1941. Whether Stalin was going to attack Germany at some point cannot be proven, but he broke the pact with Hitler first by invading Bukovina in June 1940. (86.148.226.26 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

Can somebody add these two pictures into other victims category the first picture is dead Soviets civilians, the other one are polish intellectual about to be killed. Since there victims of Nazi persecution and there's only one pic in that category. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1970-043-52,_Russland,_bei_Minsk,_tote_Zivilisten.jpg

89.229.132.234 (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.229.132.234 (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

‎Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

In this section, please add the link for Children in the Holocaust next to "Jewish population by country" in the "See also" at the beginning. Like this:

See also: Jewish population by country and Children in the Holocaust

In this section, please add "History of the Jews during World War II" to the list of "Main articles", like this:

Main articles: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe, Jewish Combat Organization, Miła 18, Jewish Military Union, Fareynikte Partizaner Organizatsye, and History of the Jews during World War II

Finally, in this section, please add a link to Holocaust survivors inside text where it says "Jewish survivors", like this:

....The government of Israel requested $1.5 billion from the Federal Republic of Germany in March 1951 to finance the rehabilitation of 500,000 Jewish survivors...

Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Done. François Robere (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Handicapped

Can we change handicapped to disabled? Disabled people, myself included, find it offensive Gracey72 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. warmly, ezlev. talk 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Found an US Army intelligence report from 1945 on Dachau liberation

Cover of PDF: US Army intelligence report from 1945 on liberated KZ Dachau

I recently found the adjacent 72-page PDF in completely uncategorized and quite poor condition (no description at all) while browsing on Commons. It was uploaded last year by a bot from the web, there it arrived somehow from a US Holocaust archive. I put some work into the file description page. Quote:

This is a 72 page internal intelligence report written by members of different (military) intelligence branches and agencies, lead by the G-2 section (cf. bottom of fourth page of pdf) of the 7th US Army which liberated the Dachau concentration camp near Munich, Germany, during the last days of World War II in Europe. It is a detailed account on nearly all aspects of the concentration camp Dachau and was written with assistance by former inmates, namely, e.g., members of the "International Prisoners' Committee", the names of which are listed on p. 67.

I would suspect that this document was used in some form in the Nuremberg Trials or others. It is probably one of the few investigation reports that was created by US intelligence professionals (four different US intelligence departments) very soon after a major KZ was liberated. I just wanted to make this more public than it is on Commons, in case that this is (as I assume) of some significance for the WP or for the research in general. Regards, Pittigrilli (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

In the section on non-Jewish victims, a hatnote to List of Nazi genocides might be helpful as a main page for the topic. Mondodi (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Mondodi, I'm not sure that list article should have been approved at all, given that it relies on only two sources; of the two, one is questionable per WP:RSP and neither support the application of the term "genocide" with regard to the groups listed. However, I have added a hatnote to Holocaust victims. warmly, ezlev. talk 03:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Highly questionable 11 million figure

I thought it was fairly well established that this is an arbitrary figure invented by Simon Wiesenthal for political reasons. He wanted the Holocaust to be as big as possible to gentiles while still being clearly a Jewish issue, hence the six plus five. In reality it is either much less (on the order of 1 million or fewer gentiles plus six million Jews) or much more (counting *all* East European victims of German massacres as Holocaust victims, pushing it well above 11 million and making The Holocaust a mostly non-Jewish affiar [!])

Please see Deborah Lipstadt below for confirmation:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/

https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/217/simon-wiesenthal-and-the-ethics-of-history/

Let's correct the figure by using sources that don't arbitrarily slice some Soviets in and some out of "The Holocaust" to get to a total number that was ultimately just made up in the first place. 70.24.21.65 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To amplify.

• The figure of 11 million killed by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during the "Holocaust era" (1933–1945) consists roughly of 5.7 million Soviet civilians; nearly 3 million Soviet POWs; around 1.8 million non-Jewish Poles; 312,000 Serb civilians; up to 25,000 disabled; up to 220,000 Roma; around 1,900 Jehovah's Witnesses; at least 70,000 criminals and asocials; hundreds of gay men; and an unknown number of political opponents.8*

If you actually check the source it says something completely different. The Holocaust is defined in the very first sentence as the murder of six million Jews. There *is* a breakdown of "Holocaust era" victims offered, but it differs sharply from what is given by Wikipedia citing it. The "Holocaust era" total, as I suggested above, is massively larger, on the order of sixteen or twenty million, not eleven. Once again: There is no intellectually respectable way to get to 11. All you can do is cherry-pick the Soviet losses somehow to make the numbers right, but that's not scholarship. 70.24.21.65 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You make valid points, but before I address them I would appreciate it if you could refine your message to be a bit less crude. François Robere (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have done so. I was salty because Wikipedia is repeating something on the level of a chain email, which is very uncharacteristic on such an important and highly trafficked article. I apologize. 70.24.21.65 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and I agree that our sourcing standards aren't always up to par.

The Times of Israel story is interesting, but not usable in its own right (see WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations). The USHMM is usable, and you're right there are some discrepancies between it and Wiki. The USHMM also makes clear two of the problems in making any such assessment: defining the Holocaust, and compiling the data. On the former, I read it not as making a distinction (as our current revision states), but as trying to avoid the problem by making a more general statement ("era of the Holocaust"); on the latter, I think it is usable as-is. I'll make some edits and we'll see where we stand. François Robere (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Done.[3] François Robere (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That's too much change. I've replaced the 11 million with "millions". Note that the sources are talking about the Holocaust and the "Holocaust era", which are different periods. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Self talk? Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 36#Enumerating Non-Jewish Deaths.--Moxy 🍁 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP has misunderstood. It isn't 11 million overall; it is 6 + 11. But I agree that it's better not to specify the 11 million. This article is about the Holocaust only. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP has it right - the figure is usually cited as a total (also see the Times of Israel, Jewish Review of Books links).

Re: "Holocaust" versus "Holocaust-era" - RS do make the distinction, and it's clear in either revision of the body; the problem was that the infobox made it clumsily and inaccurately. Instead of redefining things on my own, I opted to just clean things up and get some feedback.

Regarding what should be listed in the infobox - if we don't keep a comprehensive list there, then a) I'd rather we at least keep the non-Jewish communities that were slated for immediate and wholesale destruction, specifically the Romani, homosexuals, dissidents, artists and people with disabilities; and b) that the amended list is moved to the body, replacing the existing phrasing (the second part here). François Robere (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP doesn't have it right regarding this article. Re: your point (a), all these groups weren't "slated for immediate and wholesale destruction". Sorry, I don't understand (b). SarahSV ^(talk) 22:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but their point regarding the numbers stands.

Re: (b) - this edit has three parts; I'd like to restore the second and third parts, and incorporate the correct numbers (from the first part) in the second. Unless you object, I'll make an edit after 1RR has passed and we can continue the discussion with something more concrete.

Re: (a) I'll try to clarify, since I think my point was not taken as intended: first of all, I'm aware of the politics of the issue (see eg. what Moxy wrote below), and have no intention of reinforcing them. Second, we've had a lot of discussions around the TA specifically on whether to state that ethnic Poles were victims of a genocide, and my position has always been the same:[4] that there were some groups that were persecuted more or less concurrently since the rise of the Third Reich; that were slated for destruction in some foreseeable future; and whose destruction had already progressed during the war. Those groups include those I listed above (but not, for example, Soviet POWs or the majority of ethnic Poles), and I'm okay treating them differently in contexts like this. Hence my suggestion that if we narrow the infobox listing based on the distinction between "Holocaust" and "Holocaust era" (which is an interesting solution to the uniqueness issue, and I think a relatively recent one), then we still specifically list those groups as "other victims of the Holocaust era", rather than mention none of them. François Robere (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, you wrote: "our sourcing standards aren't always up to par". Which sources in this article aren't up to par? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I wasn't referring to any particular source, but rather to the longstanding issues with sourcing throughout the TA, of which we're both aware. François Robere (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Those issues don't apply to this article that I know of. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: No intention to offend. I know you do a lot of work on sourcing, and I'll take your word for it. François Robere (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

François Robere SlimVirgin Why not for the infobox for deaths just put 17 million 6 million Jewish deaths?84.208.159.63 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC) [5][6]

When you add up the Jewish deaths and non-Jewish deaths you get 17 million deaths from the Holocaust and Nazi Persecution https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution.84.208.159.63 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Old and tested system "blur the uniqueness of Jewish suffering" " the more the merrier"......one of the ways Holocaust deniers work is by asserting that all numbers of other victims be associatied with the Jewish Question and Final Solution thus making the number seem less relevant or that they were not specifically targeted and we're just caught up in the fold. The Holocaust Museum in attempt to outline numbers has put fuel on this fire as they are being used to the detriment of their purpose.-Moxy 🍁 02:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: The discussion you linked suggests the USHMM is not an RS. Am I reading that correctly? François Robere (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Request

François Robere, I don't understand your post above. First, this article is about the genocide of the European Jews between 1941 and 1945. It isn't about the Holocaust era and the other groups that were targeted during that period (1933–1945). We have stand-alone articles about those other groups.

Second, can you say clearly what you're proposing? I don't understand the issue of the edit having three parts, etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: First - Understood. However, we just moved from "listing all of the others" to "listing none of the others", and I'm not sure that's a right move.

Re: Second - I'll make the edit and ping you for comment, okay? François Robere (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I've settled for this for the body, and this for the infobox. François Robere (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted. The article isn't about other groups, and there have been objections to the figures. Please don't restore detailed figures about other groups to the lead or infobox. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: a) I didn't restore detailed figures to the infobox, just one general estimate; and b) The lead already has detailed figures, only they're not exactly what the source states. There's no reason not to cite the source correctly while Moxy's objections are being looked at. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

Ukrainians or Soviet civilians should be mentioned in the lead as they are stated as victims of Nazism on the page. The Source in the opening States regular Ukrainians and Slavic civilians, were victims of Nazism so they should be in the lead also. From the source in the lead,

Dan Stone (Histories of the Holocaust, 2010): "Europe's Romany (Gypsy) population was also the victim of genocide under the Nazis. Many other population groups, notably Poles, Ukrainians, and Soviet prisoners of war were killed in huge numbers.37.214.1.26 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 37.214.1.26 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Seagull123 Φ 19:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with this: reliable sources state that "Nowhere was the wartime German Occupation of Europe more brutal and destructive than in the Soviet Union."[7] (t · c) buidhe 06:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Soviet civilians added. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Source issue

Moxy, what's your objection to the USHMM? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would the lead use different numbers then the article itself and all the other articles. We have talked about that one page with the chart on it before.... can't find old talk...nor who was originally blocked for spamming and changing numbers all over because of it. Some of the numbers on that page and editor calculations don't match scholarly and peer-reviewed publications nor do they match what the USHMM says on other pages or what we are saying in our articles. For instance Soviet prisoners of War (before your revert) said 3 million as per the source. Normal estimate is between 3.3 and 3.5 million ....not just 3...half a million is a big difference. We say 3.3 and 3.5 at our Soviet prisoners of War article. The USHMM source we use at our Soviet prisoners article specifically says 3.3. Our main source say 3.3 to 3.5 David M. Crowe (2013). Crimes of State Past and Present: Government-Sponsored Atrocities and International Legal Responses. Routledge. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-317-98682-9.. So in my view that one page should be used with caution and accompanied with a secondary source. We should rely on what the majority of sources say and NOT just that one page for all our numbers. Its fine to use the USHMM, but only if the numbers match most publications including what the USHMM says on other pages that are not an amalgamation of primary sources without modern context as is seen at other USHMM pages.--Moxy 🍁 20:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's this page we're discussing. It says around three million Soviet POWs. Are you perhaps looking for a precision that doesn't exist? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply looking to regurgitate what most scholarly sources say including the USHMM. Why would we use a less accurate source that give zero context or further information on the topic? To me half a million individuals is one hell of a thing to get wrong. The USHMM has more accurate numbers on topic specific pages with contextual information and we can use many other scholarly publications with historical context.--Moxy 🍁 20:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's the same with the Jews: between five and six million. How do you know that the higher USHMM figure for the Soviet POWs is the more accurate? Why do you prefer Porter (in Crowe, p. 85)? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not the same .....most source say between five and six million Jews, thus we do the same here. As for Soviet prisoners the vast majority of sources say 3.3 to 3.5 even the USHMM on the page about the topic. So we should say the normal numbers....not the 'lower estimate from primary sources that even the USHMM does not use on topic-specific articles. --Moxy 🍁 21:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Moxy, I don't know how much you know about this or whether you're new to it. We give detailed figures for the Jews. The figures for Soviet POWs are not known with anywhere near the same precision. Which primary sources are you referring to? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Knowledgeable enough to know that scholarly publications by historians should be used over a websites when they conflict..... especially when the numbers conflict within the website itself. I am always weary when someone new to the topic comes with only this source...tells me they are not aware of what experts say or what the USHMM says are modern more accurate estimates.--Moxy 🍁 21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what "knowledgeable enough" means. Can you explain, please, why you favour Porter and say which primary sources you're referring to? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I favore the number ranges used by the majorty of sources and that the USHMM uses on pages that takes into account more than just the primary documents related to that one page. Let's give another example of a specific number vs the range by most sources : 312,000 Serbs again a very specific number as per the calculation of primary documents used for that one page. Yet per many sources the estimate is much broader in nature more like 200,000 to 500,000 (Yad Vashem) with the USHMM saying 320,000 and 340,000 on there page about the tropic .Mercedes Camino (9 June 2018). Memories of Resistance and the Holocaust on Film. Springer. pp. 107–. ISBN 978-1-137-49969-1.. Perhaps get others involved.....not much more I can say.--Moxy 🍁 23:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Moxy: When you say "the majority of sources", surely you're not claiming to have read all the sources about the Holocaust, such that you can ascertain what the majority of those sources say. What I think you mean is "most sources I've read", which begs the question: what sources are you referring to? Which books? Etc. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Referring to the numbers and sources we use here on Wikipedia (in this and other articles) that have been discussed by the community already....why use different number and different sources in the lead and random chart Holocaust victims. --Moxy 🍁 01:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• USHMM usually gives estimates in line with academic consensus, but I agree that it's not infallible. Moxy If you don't think it's correct in this instance, why don't you list several major reliable source estimates of how many POWs were killed and see how they line up with USHMM estimate? (t · c) buidhe 06:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

They do give proper estimates ...but not on that one page and is why there is a note with full estimates at main articles. I am clearly not getting my point across .....the sources are already in this and main articles ....the recent addition that was reverted did not use the same sources or numbers we have already vented and use..in this article 'The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum estimates that 3.3 million of 5.7 million Soviet POWs died in German custody. and at German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war. So why use a different number in the lead then what the article itself says or what or main article says?--Moxy 🍁 08:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

The page should and info box say what François Robere put,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=1004636785&oldid=1004629114

(11 million non-Jews during the Holocaust era) for the info box pre USHMM source. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution

and for the lead (In addition, 11 million members of other groups were murdered during the "era of the Holocaust) 2.85.230.69 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't need an edit request for this; you need consensus for this. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Figures

This was added recently, perhaps from an old version. I removed it but someone restored it, so I'm moving it here:

Year	Jews killed
1933–1940	under 100,000
1941	1,100,000
1942	2,700,000
1943	500,000
1944	600,000
1945	100,000

The page number is slightly wrong, as are two of the figures. Would the person who added it please say which edition you used?

Also Hilberg is on the low side. If we want to include these figures, it would make sense to use another source. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly, can you say which edition you used? I'd like to compare it because the figures seem to have changed. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC) :No idea, I just found this table on a different article. Where do you think this table should be inserted? Maybe in a different Holocaust-related article? I think it's pretty useful. If page number is wrong, then I'm sorry. I have no way to check its veracity.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not a good way to approach editing Watchlonly. Copying "things" from one wiki article to another without attribution is plagiarism. Worse again, you don't seem able to stand over its accuracy. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly, please don't add anything from other articles or from earlier versions of this article. Everything in here needs to be checked against its sources, and the sources have to be appropriate for the text that's being added. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I thought it was accurate since it was sourced to Hilberg. I didn't check it myself. I'll be more careful next time.--Watchlonly (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Review of the 6 Million figure

Revived from Talk Archive 10--RC.Nilsson (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Has there been any recent attempts to review the number of jewish losses during the war? I think the Holocaust page should at least merit a detailed analysis on how the number was calculated.

On this page: Expulsion of Germans after World War II the number of German losses caused by the ethnic cleansing is said to have been reduced through research from the figures ( 2 million?) stated in the years immediately following the war.

Has any similar analyzis been done for the Jewish losses? If not, can the same calculation methods be applied to both population groups? Stor stark7 14:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm new on this 6-million topic. The link to above posted by Berndd11222 [8] leads to a removed page. The user Berndd11222 is also removed. I found the old article with the tables mentioned in on web.archive.org [9] . Any other sources for how the figure 6 million was calculated? In the article there are many references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#cite_note-definition-3 , but does any of these references describe how the number was calculated? --RC.Nilsson (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Agood introduction is at https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

See our article at Death toll and footnote ad SarahSV ^(talk) 22:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2021 (2)

Implement definite article in opening sentence, so as to term Europe's Jews as a collective entity. I made a point about it on the relevant talk page. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It is extremely clear. Please re-read. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests are not the area to further content disputes. There's a discussion about it above. In any case; this looks like WP:HAIRSPLITTING; so I won't implement it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In addition, I've just realised there was an RfC about the opening sentence, closedjust a short while ago... I suggest you move on and stop beating the dead horse. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not a "content dispute". Nor are you in any position to considering what you disagree with a case of "hairsplitting". My request has nothing to do with the RfC... I suggest you stop talking rubbish. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You're obviously not astute enough to notice that there is a page on this actual topic. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Definite article

Is there a reason for the removal of "the" from "the genocide of the European Jews", i.e. the Jews of Europe? This is a standard construction, and it looks odd without it ("genocide of European Jews"). Does anyone mind if I restore it? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

:Yes, there is a reason. It's not necessary, it makes the text unnecessarily awkward and I personally will remove it if restored.--Watchlonly (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Aberbach, The European Jews, Patriotism and the Liberal State 1789–1939.
• Aly, Final Solution: Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews.
• Aly, Europe Against the Jews, 1880–1945.
• Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, 1933–1945.
• Friedlander, The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939–1945.
• Gerlach, The Extermination of the European Jews.
• Hauput, The Wannsee Conference and the Genocide of the European Jews.
• Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews.
• Longerich, Holocaust: the Nazi persecution and murder of the Jews.
• Mendelsohn, The Jews of East Central Europe Between the World Wars.
• Stiller, "The Mass Murder of the European Jews and the Concept of 'Genocide' in the Nuremberg Trials: Reassessing Raphaël Lemkin's Impact".
• Wasserstein, On the Eve: The Jews of Europe Before the Second World War.
• Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941–1945.

And many more. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC) (Added a few more. 00:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

So? WP:Other stuff exists--Watchlonly (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

We follow the scholarly sources. Throughout scholarly texts about the Holocaust, the definite article is common. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly, Scholarly sources use the definite article because Jews were targeted as a collective rather than as individuals. (t · c) buidhe 19:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Too many "the" in the opening sentence. As the article stands now, it's perfectly clear Jews were targeted as a group rather than individuals.--Watchlonly (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That's in part why the sentence was written as it was: "The Holocaust ... was the World War II genocide of the European Jews." It broke up the series of definite articles. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sarah, which sentence are you referring to? Frankly, I think it is an absolute disgrace and an insult to those who perished during the Holocaust not to title/group them collectively. I am referring to the opening sentence. The Holocaust did not just target "Jews" who lived in Europe, it targeted European Jewry as a whole. I appreciate the term 'genocide' is used, but it is still grossly disrespectful to imply Jews as a whole weren't targeted. "The" European Jews or "European Jewry" should be used. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop saying something is "insulting" or "disrespectful" because you disagree with it. 'The genocide of European Jews' doesn't need additional clarifications or stupid definite articles that make the sentence annoying to read. Genocide is by definition the killing of an entire group based on their ethnicity, race, nationality, etc. 'Genocide of European Jews' is perfectly clear.--Watchlonly (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You see, what you had there was a nice sentence: "The Holocaust ... was the World War II genocide of the European Jews." Strong cadence, tightly written, WWII tucked away because, while it matters, you don't want to emphasize it, ends with "the European Jews". Now we have a flabby thing: "The Holocaust ... was the genocide of European Jews during World War II." Loss of definite article, problem with restoring it because now the repetition of "the" is more prominent, ends with the war, no emphasis on the Jews. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We just had an RfC and everybody was against your version. Drop it, already!--Watchlonly (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing by numbers doesn't work. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Writing by following Wikipedia's policy does work, and there's no other way to edit in this encyclopedia. If you can't respect an RfC result (specially when the result was so overwhelming in favour of one side), then perhaps you should reconsider if you ought to be in Wikipedia at all.--Watchlonly (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

But of course, someone who seemingly wishes to insult those who were killed during the Holocaust WOULD claim my request to honour the identity of those slaughtered Jews comes out of a need to 'clarify matters'... and then, after chastising me for using the words "insult" and "disrespectful" for something I disagree with - uses the word 'stupid' for something HE disagrees with.

And then (to top it all off), after backing the use of a sentence with a clumsy structure, as well as other issues - as Sarah pointed out - he claims the addition of the word 'the' to a sentence makes said sentence 'annoying to read'.

You literally couldn't make it up. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And WatchIonly - contrasting Sarah's valued contributions to articles (including this one) in the past to yours, I recommend you refrain from suggesting she re-consider her place in Wikipedia. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

reversions and why?

Today, a seemingly perfectly good edit was reverted, that replaced the word "some", which in one definition does mean "approximately", with the word "approximately". The reason given was "This has been discussed a few times. See the Talk page archives." How in this world does one search 37 archives stretching across almost 20 years for a discussion about the word "some"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Putting "some" "approximately" into the search box brings it up (here). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Typo

The word "synagogues" is spelt "synagogs" on part of the page. This needs to be fixed by someone with editing access to this page Thank you in advance TTTime05 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Thank you! Robby.is.on (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead does not inform about crimes committed by allies of Germany

'within territories controlled by Germany's allies' is unprecize. Compare: https://www.ushmm.org/learn The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its allies and collaborators. Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You were topic-banned in October 2019 from "all topics related to Poland broadly construed". [10] Unless the ban has been lifted, you shouldn't post here. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please explain me the connection between Nazi allies, USHMM and Poiand. If you want to ban me - be welcome. My opinion about this WIkipedia is very bad. It hurts if I know something better than you. Hypereditors unable to define the Holocaust. Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

FAQ

There is no {{FAQ}} on this talk page and I didn't see any discussions of it in the talk page archives (sorry if I missed it). I wonder if this has been discussed before and if a FAQ would be useful?

Last summer we made {{George Floyd FAQ}}, a modified {{FAQ}} wrapper that allowed for one global FAQ that can be used across the 100+ GF-related articles, as well as the addition of "local FAQ" questions that would only appear on one article talk page. (For example, Talk:Killing of George Floyd has local FAQ Q6 that doesn't appear on other pages, e.g. Talk:George Floyd.) This allowed dropping the standard FAQ on any GF article talk page just by adding {{George Floyd FAQ}}, as well as the ability to add additional Q's for single-article issues as needed.

My experience since then has been that while the FAQ probably did not reduce the number of repetitive questions asked by newcomers at the various article talk pages, it gave editors a quick and easy way to answer those questions ("see FAQ 1", etc.).

I wouldn't know what the questions or answers of a {{Holocaust FAQ}} would be (the numbers would obviously be one), but it might be useful to have one in this topic area so editors can easily answer the common questions. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, it's not a bad idea. One concern would be that, if it's made to work across all the Holocaust articles, we would have to deal with people constantly changing it to fit their own group's views. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Protection and RFCs could help with that? The history of Talk:Nazism/FAQ isn't so bad by comparison (though I would protect it... these high-traffic FAQ pages should just be indef ECP'd). Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't so easy to get long-term protection. I have no objection if you want to try it, but I don't want to get involved in anything that will be extra work. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Should "some 6 million" be replaced with "some 5–6 million" in the lead?

Yad Vashem reminds that "There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. All the serious research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million." (cited in the article; see 'death toll' section). For comparison, the lead of other WP articles states: German: "...5,6 bis 6,3 Millionen europäischen Juden..." (5.6 to 6.3 million), French: "... disparition d’entre cinq et six millions de Juifs..." (between five and six million), Spanish: "... la cifra simbólica de seis millones de muertos..." (the symbolic figure of 6 million). Alcaios (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lots to explain here....see Oren Baruch Stier (1 November 2015). Holocaust Icons: Symbolizing the Shoah in History and Memory. Rutgers University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-0-8135-7404-2....... hopefully this explains the reasoning why we use 6 million.--Moxy 20:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"5.6 to 6.3" is false precision IMO. "Some 6 million" says the same thing without the false precision. "5–6 million" is problematic because it implies no less than 5 million and no more than 6 million, which isn't what the sources say. "Some 6 million" implies (correctly) that there is no precise figure but it's somewhere around 6 million, could be more, could be less, and we'll really never know. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Some 5–6 million" would be better (most estimates are between 5 and 6 million). Another solution would be to add a note to the lead to explain that the "6 million" figure is symbolic. PS: I forgot to mention the Italian WP ("5-6 milioni di ebrei"), and the Dutch WP ("5,1 en 6") in the original post. Alcaios (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: how many scholars provide a figure greater than 6 million? I don't understand how you could contend that "some 6 million" is better that "some 5–6 million" when most estimates are between 5 and 6 million. Alcaios (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Alcaios, see the table in "Death toll" for one range. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I know that "6 million" is now part of the public consciousness, but it should at least be mentioned in a note that it is a symbolic figure that comes from Hoettl. This note should also provide a list of estimates given by authoritative scholars. As said above, the German, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch versions of this article either provide a larger range or mention that "6 million" is a symbolic figure. Alcaios (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That's in note ad. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) note ad is not in the lead (2) note ad does not mention where the "6 million" figure comes from. Please stop eluding the issue. Alcaios (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

See my recent edit. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you. I provided some additional information about the origin of the 6 million figure (Hilberg, p. 1201). Alcaios (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"Hitler and the Jews" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hitler and the Jews. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Hitler and the Jews until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Terminology - first use of Holocaust to describe Nazi persecution of Jews?

The claim of first use of 'the Holocaust' to describe Nazi persecution of the Jews may have been made by Joseph Roth in the preface to the 1937 edition of his book, The Wandering Jews about Jews who had migrated from Russia etc into Germany and other western European countries. Roth commented here that he was only able to hope for " conditions for Jews getting steadily and bearably worse. What happened instead was the Holocaust." This precedes Yehuda Eretz's use of the word in 1939.Cloptonson (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SEAOFBLUE

What is the problem with this edit? It doesn't change the meaning of sentence in any way, and it avoids a WP:SEAOFBLUE of different links.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for opening a discussion about the first sentence. The difference is this:

Current:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the World War II genocide of the European Jews.

Proposed:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II.

Both have lots of blue links, so that isn't a reason to change it; too much blue is a problem in general with leads. Apart from that, the current version is tighter, snappier, and it ends with (and therefore emphasizes) the European Jews. It also says "the" Jews, not Jews. In addition, the proposed version slightly gives the impression that there were other genocides of Jews. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

::I don't know how is that relevant, but of course there were other genocides of Jews. Take a look at Genocides in history: Bar Kokhba revolt, Khmelnytsky Uprising, Pogroms during the Russian civil war.--Watchlonly (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly, I support your proposed change here. The sea of blue created by placing the links World War II and genocide directly next to each other in the lead has confused me on multiple occasions, and I think "genocide... during World War II" is easier to understand than "World War II genocide" and flows better. SlimVirgin, the proposed wording could be changed to "the genocide of the European Jews," right? I agree with you that it's an important distinction to make. warmly, ezlev. talk 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

::::What's the difference between simply "European Jews" and "the European Jews"? It doesn't change the meaning and avoids repeating the word "the" in the same sentence several times.--Watchlonly (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, the current version is better writing. It's tighter, smoother, the cadence works, and the resolution is appropriate for the topic. The differences may seem slight but read it out loud. Imagine it's the first sentence of an academic lecture you're delivering about the Holocaust. Current version first, followed by the proposed:

The Holocaust was the World War II genocide of the European Jews.

The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II.

SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::I literally can't see the difference. It means exactly the same, except that the first version makes a "sea of blue" with several different links.--Watchlonly (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it could just be a dialect difference between you and me, but I still think the proposed version is smoother and more accurate. The Holocaust wasn't a "World War II genocide," it was a genocide which occurred during World War II - I would be in favor of the wording change for that reason even if WatchIonly wasn't right about the MOS:SEAOFBLUE guideline, which they are. It states that placing two wikilinks directly next to each other should be avoided, a goal which the proposed change accomplishes. With all that being said, if we can't reach consensus I think an RfC might be in order here. warmly, ezlev. talk 00:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"The Holocaust wasn't a 'World War II genocide'". Yes, it was. Genocide is the attempt to wipe out an ethnicity. It was arguably the only genocide of the war (possibly the Roma too, although Nazi attitudes to the Roma differed). And it was directly tied to the causes of the war, the reason for the war in the first place. It wasn't simply "a genocide" that took place during the war. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I agree with most of what you're saying there, but I think my point stands. After thinking about it more, I think this is mostly a grammar and style disagreement - I'm not sure of the proper terminology to describe it, but I personally prefer to place a definitional descriptor (like "genocide" in this case) before a contextual descriptor (like "World War II"). One example that comes to mind, although it might not be exactly comparable, is that I would describe the United States presidential debates as "debates (definitional) during a US election (contextual)" rather than "US election debates," although I think both are technically correct. Since my argument doesn't go beyond personal preference combined with a non-binding style guideline, though, I'm willing to drop it. Thanks for all the great work you do on Wikipedia. warmly, ezlev. talk 02:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Watchlonly: It's poor style to reinstate the change when the participants of the discussion haven't reached a consensus yet. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW I prefer the current: The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the World War II genocide of the European Jews...Modernist (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the current version is ambiguous. It is not clear whether 'World War II' is intended to communicate the time period, a relevant socio-political context or a causal link. Once it has been decided what the intended communication is, a better unambiguous phrasing can follow. Jontel (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? It communicates all three of those things, in just that order. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We should ask ourselves, what is the purpose of the adjective? Presumably, it should be to define the subject of the article by distinguishing between this genocide of European Jews and other ones e.g. pogroms in Russia. Much of the detail to enable a definition is in the succeeding sentence, so there is unnecessary repetition (WWII/ occupied, six million/ occupied, genocide/ murder, genocide/ systematic, Jews/ Jewish mentioned three times, Europe mentioned three times). Combining the two sentences would enable one to say, more succinctly e.g.: 'The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was a genocide between 1941 and 1945 by Nazi Germany and its collaborators, resulting in the deaths of some six million, or two in three, European Jews. Jontel (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I much prefer the proposed The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II. It puts emphasis on the genocide and the victims (which is what this article is about), not the war. The genocide was an event that took place during WWII. It was not a WWII event, such as the Pacific Theatre or the Invasion of Poland. I feel like mentioning the war before even defining what the Holocaust is in the first sentence results in an enormous amount of undue weight, and can potentially be seen as trivializing both events. The proposal also breaks up the sea of blue, which is small but nice for readability. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for watchlonly's version. It isn't the most compressed sentence, but it feels simpler (and I like that). I also wouldn't include that "the" before European Jews. - Daveout(talk) 20:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with @Daveout:, removing "the" would be an improvement. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

THERE WAS PREVIOUS CONCENSUS ON A PREVIOUS TALK PAGE. WHY HAS THIS PAGE NOW BEEN DELETED? Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Try the talk page archive: here. - Daveout(talk) 23:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Jonmaxras. I do not know which literature course you took, but "WWII genocide" does NOT place any less emphasis on the genocide aspect of the Holocaust. Read the sentence to yourself and you'll see that the way the sentence flows means that the emphasis is naturally placed on "genocide" and not on "WWII". The only one trivialising anything is yourself, and you appear confused – the Holocaust was very much a WWII event, or an event which links to WWII. Your proposed sentence structure lends one to infer that this genocide should be categorised the same as any other genocides. It should not. There has been, and never will be, any other genocide quite like the Holocaust. This was THE WWII genocide of the European Jews. (I'd even so far so as to use a capital G in "genocide", but I understand if others find that petty. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Durdyfiv1: And I do not know who raised you but I'm sure they would have hoped you'd be kinder to people than you've been in this thread. If you want to try responding again without insulting my intention or intelligence, then go ahead. Also, the word 'genocide' is not a proper noun, which is why it's not capitalized. Jonmaxras (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonmaxras, no need to respond again. I think I made my point clear and you seem unable to challenge it. Forgive me for my tone but this discussion was had last year and we came to a concensus based on my comments. I do not know why WatchIonly restarted this discussion without first checking the archived talk-pages. Don't worry, I attacked him too. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Durdyfiv1: Attacking editors in not the purpose of Wikipedia. If you think your behavior is remotely in the realm of acceptable then you are clearly not here to help build an encyclopedia. Admitting that you attacked another user is not the defense you think it is. Regarding this discussion's content, I would direct you to Ezlev's and Jontel's comments above; they describe very well how the sentence structure could be improved in technical terms and there's no point in my repeating their words. My objection is that the opening sentence, as it stands, is clunky and awkwardly worded. Your argument consists of baselessly accusing POV pushing. Jonmaxras (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly (Personal attack removed) in claiming that there have been other genocides perpetrated against Jews. Please can he explain to the other readers why none of the other events have thus far been labelled a genocide? And by claiming "the" shouldn't be used, one could argue that he oddly believes those who perished in the Holocaust shouldn't be considered united in their collective suffering. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonmaxras. It is obvious that your claim that my argument "consists of baseless POV pushing" is only because I successfully invalidated your comments. My admitting to attacking another user was not my "defence", as one was not needed. There is nothing "clunky" about this sentence structure, and it is not "awkwardly worded" - it in fact reads more smoothly. See SlimVirgin's comments. Oh look, you're pushing a baseless POV. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Durdyfiv1, please note that consensus can change; the consensus which was reached previously, while something editors should be aware of, does not prohibit discussions like this one or the potential establishment of a new consensus. Consequently, your argument that "this discussion was had last year and we came to a concensus based on my comments" is not grounds to stop or disrupt this discussion, and does not justify disruptive behavior. You've now been warned multiple times, so please proceed with caution.

I think we should move from discussion into a more formal RfC, as there are still at least two proposed versions and no clear consensus. I'm not very experienced with setting up RfCs - SlimVirgin, Jontel, or anyone else reading this, would you mind putting one together with the versions and rationales from this discussion?

-- warmly, ezlev. talk 20:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC - First sentence in lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus to use Option 2 as the first sentence of the article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Which of these options you support for the first sentence in the introduction of this article (feel free to add more if you deem it necessary):

Option 1 (the current version): The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the World War II genocide of the European Jews.

Option 2: The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II.--Watchlonly (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 It doesn't change the meaning of sentence in any meaningful way and avoids a WP:SEAOFBLUE of different links.--Watchlonly (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: Calling it a "World War II genocide" sounds awkward to me. I much prefer to say it happened during World War II. Loki (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: In addition to satisfying WP:SEAOFBLUE, the proposed change streamlines the grammatical and logical structure of the sentence, making it easier to understand without changing the conveyed meaning. warmly, ezlev. talk 17:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It clearly identifies which genocide of European Jews is meant (vs. earlier pogroms), which should be its purpose. It does not imply causal links between the war and the genocide, which should be stated explicitly in following sentences rather than implied. It feels more deliberate than rushed, which is appropriate for an introduction and a serious subject. Jontel (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Sounds more natural. - Daveout(talk) 18:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 of the two, but it still needs work; it doesn't mention the actual actors. The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews by Nazi Germany. Implies the time period adequately for the header. Or something like that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Better structured sentence. Though I am not certain why we are linking World War II, since it is also linked elsewhere in the article. Dimadick (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Usually, the first occurrence of a term is the one that's linked. —El Millo (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Ezlev. —El Millo (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 flows better and removes the sea of blue. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Either, just use "Europe's Jews" or "Europe's Jewry" instead of "European Jews". If Option 2, add "conducted" before "during". François Robere (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with "European Jews"? —El Millo (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    • "European" can either characterize a trait ("it's very European") or suggest descendance or belonging, which is why it can look weird when used like it's used here here (what about the non-European Jews?). "Europe's" can only suggest descendance or belonging ("of Europe"), so the problem doesn't recur; and since we're discussing a community rather than a group of individuals the correct phrasing would be "Europe's Jewry", though "Europe's Jews" is also okay. François Robere (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
      • "European Jews" shouldn't be controversial. It simply means Jews who lived in the European continent (for several centuries I would add). The discussion regarding equality under the law and the fact that Jews are not originally from there has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. The term simply describes a geographic location, it's not a political statement, just like saying "European rivers" or "European cities". On a different note, why do you want to add "conducted during World War II"? An encyclopedia is supposed to economize words and try to be as concise and precise as possible, "conducted" in this context seems redundant. A genocide doesn't just "happen" like a tornado or rain, it has to be perpetrated by people (many times through institutions, states, organizations, etc), we don't need to explain that.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I agree with François Robere. People move, unlike rivers and cities, and European Jews i.e. Jews originating from Europe did, so this is introducing a little ambiguity. Thus we talk about European settlers, European colonists etc. Europe's Jewry (better) or Europe's Jews i.e. the Jewry located in Europe would be more specific and is the correct term. Jontel (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, but when discussing the rivers that flow through Europe as a group, you would usually say "Europe's rivers", ie the rivers of Europe (Europe's cities, England's football teams, Russia's national dish). As for "conducted" - I agree about conciseness, but it just feels like something is missing in that sentence. François Robere (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I suppose the full correct sentence would be 'The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of Europe's Jewry (which took place) during World War II'. I am not sure what an appropriate verb would be. While the phrase in brackets could be added, it is easily inferred. Jontel (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per nom and because it is grammatically unambiguous that "World War II" refers to the timeframe; in Option 1, "World War II" functions as an adjective, and while most native-speakers of English would not assume that it is describing a type of genocide, it is nonetheless not grammatically the best way to express the timeframe, while Option 2 is. --Chefallen (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 is better than option 1 as per above, but the dates rather than link to the war would be better and it would also be good to name the perpetrators (e.g. "Nazi Germany and its collaborators") in the opening sentence, as some commenters have already urged in the previous discussion section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with both suggestions: using dates avoids any suggestion of unstated implications and the identity of the perpetrators is obviously a critical component of the event. Jontel (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 is clearer. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It is absolutely absurd that this has got to the stage of RfC, when the two sentences are to all intents and purposes identical. I couldn't care less which you use.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 The Holocaust occured during WW2. WW2 didn't cause the Holocaust (which is how I read option 1). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-discussion comments

Please note that this RfC is the result of an earlier discussion on this talk page, titled "WP:SEAOFBLUE". I've set that discussion so it won't archive until the same date as this RfC. I'm also going to notify each involved editor from that discussion about this RfC, in accordance with the guidelines at WP:APPNOTE. warmly, ezlev. talk 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 on one condition: I'm Jewish... Earlier I took offence at the implication of the proposed sentence structure – one could take from that that there have been several genocides of Jews: if this was the genocide during WWII, are there any others, you could think to ask. Option 1 would lend one to be LESS likely to make such an inference. I still don't believe the sentence flows any better with Option 2, but it would be better to use "European Jewry" as opposed to "European Jews". It just sounds more respectful giving those who perished in the Holocaust a collective title.

Sometimes it isn't all about being "grammatically correct", the same way it isn't always right to be "politically correct". That's my opinion. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jontel, please see SarahSV's comments on the previous talk page. The historical persecutions, pogroms, massacres etc. against Jews have NOT been categorised as a 'Holocaust'. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say 'genocide' in the final sentence and not 'Holocaust'. Also, apologies for not responding directly in the same format – I'm not familiar with editing on Wikipedia. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm also Jewish. I don't know what your objection has to do with this discussion, but YES, there were other genocides against Jews before the Holocaust, despite you don't know it. The last genocide was the biggest one, it was 'industrialized' and we have pictures, but the extermination of Jews was nothing new back then. Check for example Bar Kokhba revolt, Khmelnytsky Uprising and Pogroms during the Russian civil war. Many scholars consider those were genocides, not to mention numerous killings and persecutions of Jews in Europe and elsewhere that don't qualify as genocide.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The exchange in the section above about the phrase "the European Jews" is too depressing for words, so all I can do is refer people to The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a good example. The author is not a native English speaker and one can hardly say that Europe's Jews were destroyed when one third survived, according to this article, so that does not seem grammatically correct, either. Book titles tend to privilege impact over precision and have space constraints. Jontel (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@WatchIonly, no there have not been other genocides against Jews. Look up term 'genocide' in a dictionary. Which scholars consider those events genocides? Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere and Jontel, regarding your comparative example of rivers, the Jews who lived in Europe at that time were European. Rivers are not inherently "European", they happen to exist in Europe.

WatchIonly – even if the argument can be made that other past tragedies in Jewish history can, and have been, technically termed a 'genocide', I think you can agree with me that no event in past Jewish history can quite compare to the Holocaust. The fact there has been unanimous consensus on the correct way to term the Holocaust validates this... You are comparing chalk and cheese – a few hundred thousand to 6 million. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Introduction

Hello, I think that the wording may be improved in " some six millions Jews". I think it's more appropriate to write " around" or simply to write nothing because an approximation makes it look like if it was dubious. There is too many Goebbels around the corners for not to be careful. --Mosoch (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"Some six million" means "approximately six million". As the article says (see "Death toll"), historians' estimates range from 4.2 to over 7 million. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This page does not include the North African Jewish community

While it is true that the death toll and many other parameters were larger in Europe.

Many people in Jewish communities in North Africa were sent to concentration camps, many were used for forced labourer, many of them starved , and many were killed/died. We most not forget them.

For further reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_outside_Europe_under_Axis_occupation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Libya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Tunisia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Algeria https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Morocco

also in some middle eastern communities https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq

Please change the article to include the North African Jewish community and other Jewish communities. Colanderion1 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum distinguishes between the Holocaust (the murder of six million Jews) and "the era of the Holocaust",

The definition section of this article says "The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum distinguishes between the Holocaust (the murder of six million Jews) and "the era of the Holocaust"" I read the USHMM Introduction and I don't see where it distinguishes between the Holocaust and the "era of the Holocaust". I don't see that term, "era of the Holocaust" anywhere in the Introduction. Also, the source cited for this statement lists a specific author, but when I went to that Introduction page, I don't see any specific author listed, only the USHMM. How can I get these things changed? I can edit, if allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs) 23:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The phrase appears in an archived version of their page: "During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also persecuted other groups because of their perceived racial and biological inferiority." Writing from memory, Gray 2015 also uses the phrase or discusses the USHMM use of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's no longer on their page, does it make sense to go on saying they make the distinction, in present tense? --causa sui (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I added Yad Vashem instead. The point is a simple one: Holocaust era (from 1933); Holocaust (1941–1945). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

In case it matters in future, the USHMM does use still use that expression: "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. ... During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted and killed other groups ..." (bold added). See USHMM. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely clear. The second note, looks like "h", cites Gray, who offers three definitions of the "Holocaust", and two of these definitions indicate that it was the Holocaust that was from 1933 to 1945. In addition, the other citation, Yadvashem, doesn't actually say that there was a "Holocaust era" which differed from the Holocaust. On the other hand, the Vadyashem source implies that the Holocaust and the "Holocaust era" are the same thing. The Yadvashem source says "Because Nazi discrimination against the Jews began with Hitler's accession to power in January 1933, many historians consider this the start of the Holocaust era". That is, the Holocaust era began with discrimination against Jews, which culminated in mass murder. Socialresearch (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Another wikipedia page seems to make no distinction between the Holocaust and the "Holocaust era". "The Holocaust Era Asset Restitution Taskforce or Project HEART was a Holocaust restitution project that was created by a decision of the Israeli Government to locate Holocaust victims and their heirs and the property that was taken from them during the Holocaust" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_Era_Asset_Restitution_Taskforce

and another definition of the Holocaust actually lists the dates as 1933-1945. https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust

It seems likely that the more likely use of these terms is that the Holocaust was an event, and the Holocaust era was the time period in which the event occurred. Socialresearch (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I just edited my comments to make them all indented. I'm not quite an expert at wikipedia. Socialresearch (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following your point, and Yad Vashem doesn't say that, unless I've misunderstood you. Most historians say the Holocaust began around August 1941; see this section. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yad Vashem says "Because Nazi discrimination against the Jews began with Hitler's accession to power in January 1933, many historians consider this the start of the Holocaust era". They are saying, exactly, that the "Holocaust era" began with discrimination against Jews. What is it you are saying that Yad Vashim is not saying? And actually this Yad Vashim page specifically says "The Holocaust is an historic event which began in 1933 and ended in 1945" https://www.yadvashem.org/education/what-is.html Socialresearch (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This page, from the Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, makes it pretty clear that the Holocaust era is a time period 1933-1945, not an event. https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-the-special-envoy-for-holocaust-issues/ Socialresearch (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This John Jay College guide, "Guide for Library Research on The Holocaust" also gives the time period for the Holocaust as 1933-1945. https://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/c.php?g=288386&p=1922582 Same for the Army War College page, which says "Between 1933 and 1945, the Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, carried out the systematic persecution and murder of Europe’s Jews. This genocide is now known as the Holocaust." https://www.armywarcollege.edu/news/article/1762 This Rider University page, research guide to the Holocaust, says "The following details a list of key chronological events of the Holocaust, spanning from 1933 to 1945." https://guides.rider.edu/c.php?g=984640&p=7120908 This PBS timeline of America and the Holocaust covers 1933 to 1945 https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/holocaust-timeline/ This BBC page, the Holocaust year by year covers 1933 to 1946 https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/the-holocaust-year-by-year/zkxwgwx This Holocaust historical overview page from the government of Israel says "To say that the Holocaust of European Jewry (1933-1945)" ... https://www.knesset.gov.il/shoah/eng/ehashoah.htm It does say that 1941 was when "Systematic genocide of the Jewish people became official Nazi policy" Socialresearch (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That is, it's pretty clear that 1) the "Holocaust era" is a term to describe a time period, 1933-1945, and 2) the Holocaust was the event, also 1933-1945. Perhaps what you mean is that the systematic genocide is the thing that started in 1941. So it would seem much clearer to just say the Holocaust happened 1933 to 1945, but it was the systematic genocide that started in 1941. Socialresearch (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A few more sources that identify the Holocaust as 1933-1945. The Chicago Public Library Holocaust timeline covers 1933 to 1946. https://www.chipublib.org/holocaust-chronology/ Another PBS page, NOVA, covers 1933 to 1945. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/timesans.html The New York City Museum of Jewish Heritage starts their time line in 1933. https://education.mjhnyc.org/timeline/ The Sandra Bornstein Holocaust Education Center Holocaust timeline covers 1933 to 1945 https://bornsteinholocaustcenter.org/holocaust-timeline/ This book review on "Debates on the Holocaust", in reviewing three scholarly books, says " All three also identify the relevant period as 1933–45, that is, they identify the entire period of the Nazi regime with its destructive anti-Jewish policies, not limiting ‘the Holocaust’ to the comprehensive murder campaign of the Jews since 1941." https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1160 Socialresearch (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That is, all of the sources I could find put the Holocaust as 1933 to 1945. If you want wikipedia to agree with citable sources, sources that people can read for themselves, then the Holocaust would be 1933 to 1945. Socialresearch (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to address one point. You wrote: "the other citation, Yadvashem, doesn't actually say that there was a 'Holocaust era' which differed from the Holocaust". That's what I was responding to when I wrote that Yad Vashem doesn't say that." Is there something you want to change? If so, you would need to find Holocaust historians to support it. I've been trying to move the article away from reliance on museum websites. I added them because of ease of access, but it leads to problems, including the same site contradicting itself. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Question. You wrote this: Quote ( You wrote: "the other citation, Yadvashem, doesn't actually say that there was a 'Holocaust era' which differed from the Holocaust". That's what I was responding to when I wrote that Yad Vashem doesn't say that." ) Endquote. I'm still not clear on what your are saying. Are you agreeing that the Yad Vashem does not say that there was a 'Holocaust era' which differed from the Holocaust? Are you agreeing with the Yad Vashem page that says "The Holocaust is an historic event which began in 1933 and ended in 1945" https://www.yadvashem.org/education/what-is.html Socialresearch (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Second question. Again, all of the sources I could find put the Holocaust as 1933 to 1945. The book review I cited was by Professor Dan Michman, International Institute for Holocaust Research. He seems like a Holocaust historian. Also, the existing footnote in the wikipedia article, h, cites Michael Gray, listed as "a specialist in Holocaust education", and as I mentioned, two of the three definitions he gives list the Holocaust as being 1933-1945. Socialresearch (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My point is that the wikipedia article should be changed. These two statements "Holocaust historians commonly define the Holocaust as the genocide of the European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1941 and 1945" and "Historians distinguish between the Holocaust (the murder of six million Jews) and the Holocaust era, which began when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933" don't seem to agree with the sources I could find. Socialresearch (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatever change you want will need scholarly sources. Please post the citations here along with the change you'd like to see. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Very common term....so much so that the term is used for International recovery programs like International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims.Moxy- 03:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to mention, I'm not saying "Holocaust era" is not a term. Actually, I wrote above, "It seems likely that the more likely use of these terms is that the Holocaust was an event, and the Holocaust era was the time period in which the event occurred." And, I had also written, citing something very similar to what you listed, "Another wikipedia page seems to make no distinction between the Holocaust and the "Holocaust era". "The Holocaust Era Asset Restitution Taskforce or Project HEART was a Holocaust restitution project that was created by a decision of the Israeli Government to locate Holocaust victims and their heirs and the property that was taken from them during the Holocaust" Socialresearch (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The Holocaust is commonly described as having taken place during World War II. This page by the Imperial War Museum might help to clear things up for you. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw that page from the Imperial War College. Here is what it says, "The Holocaust was the systematic murder of Europe's Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators during the Second World War. For the first time in history, industrial methods were used for the mass extermination of a whole people. Between 1933 and 1945, Jews were targeted for discrimination, segregation and extermination." So, this says that the Holocaust was 1933 to 1945. Socialresearch (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read the words that you've just quoted. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've read them. What's the point, exactly? --causa sui (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If that's a question for me, can you rephrase? What is the point of what? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is my proposed revision of the section "Definition". First, I present the proposed revision. Then I list the sources, just author names, books or articles. Last, I list extended descriptions of the sources and authors, showing where they describe the years of the Holocaust.

REVISION

Holocaust historians commonly define the Holocaust as the genocide of the European Jews, along with millions of non-Jews, by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933, when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, and 1945. Victims of the Holocaust era include those the Nazis viewed as inherently inferior (chiefly Slavs, the Roma, and the disabled), and those targeted because of their beliefs or behavior (such as Jehovah's Witnesses, communists, and homosexuals).[34] Peter Hayes writes that the persecution of these groups was less consistent than that of the Jews; for example, the Nazis' treatment of the Slavs consisted of "enslavement and gradual attrition", while some Slavs were favored (Hayes lists Bulgarians, Croats, Slovaks and some Ukrainians).[23] Against this, Hitler regarded the Jews as what Dan Stone calls "a Gegenrasse: a 'counter-race' ... not really human at all".[d]

SOURCES

Colls, Caroline Sturdy. Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions. 2015. Springer. Cowan, Paula and Maitles, Henry. Understanding and Teaching Holocaust Education. Sage. 2016 Dean, Martin. Robbing the Jews. The Confiscation of Jewish Property in the Holocaust, 1933-1945. Cambridge University Press. 2008. Marilyn Harran, Dieter Kuntz, Russell Lemons, Robert A. Michael, Keith Pickus, John K. Roth. The Holocaust Chronicle. 2000. Publications International, Ltd. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_books/1/ Hartmann R. (2018) Tourism to Memorial Sites of the Holocaust. In: R. Stone P., Hartmann R., Seaton T., Sharpley R., White L. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Dark Tourism Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47566-4_20 Kucia, Marek. The Europeanization of Holocaust Memory and Eastern Europe. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures Volume 30 Number 1. February 2016 97–119. 2015 Sage Publications 10.1177/0888325415599195 Lefkovitz, Eliot, "The Holocaust". Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership. https://www.spertus.edu/holocaust

EXTENDED DESCRIPTION OF SOURCES

Lefkovitz, Eliot, "The Holocaust". Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership. https://www.spertus.edu/holocaust (note: I'm not sure of the date of this article. According to his bio page, "Dr. Lefkovitz has published studies on modern Jewish history, Jewish education, and Holocaust survivors. He serves as a historical consultant for Holocaust related films and theatrical portrayals, serves as an interviewer for survivor oral histories, and presents often on aspects of Holocaust history." https://www.spertus.edu/people/faculty/elliot-lefkovitz)

Colls, Caroline Sturdy. Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions. 2015. Springer. Says "The Holocaust is also considered to be broad in temporal scope, spanning from the Nazi's rise to power in 1933 until the collapse of the Third Reich in 1945" https://books.google.com/books?id=_3LdBgAAQBAJ&dq=holocaust+1933&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_3LdBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=holocaust+1933&ots=LamxQGnN1r&sig=ST3AjlIcFclUlMecicYFhjUTAq0#v=onepage&q=rise to power in1933&f=false Also, the introduction, including the statement above, is here http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/2675/9/Holocaust%20Archaeologies%20AAM%20Chapter%201.pdf

Dean, Martin. Robbing the Jews. The Confiscation of Jewish Property in the Holocaust, 1933-1945. Cambridge University Press. 2008. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/enterprise-and-society/article/abs/martin-dean-robbing-the-jews-the-confiscation-of-jewish-property-in-the-holocaust-19331945-cambridge-university-press2008-437-pp-isbn-9780521888257-6800-cloth-isbn-9780521129053-2899-paper/59C7033CF0F05F69FC7517E6B69DFEDD also here https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/51809176/Robbing_the_Jews.pdf?1487179667=&response-content-disposition=inline;+filename=Robbing_the_Jews_The_Confiscation_of_Jew.pdf&Expires=1618068880&Signature=V0iBPfBRadHxmDbzKka7Q9mXHp-uICJgCsi~-P9pYFIK9r9koRIwXTib-KavkATanxMNaRJk8NsKWrLVINJEHSG5vGyfEGFJTZIcoC76UbG8iNrFuQtOXWnZfCTTGsuWzZ2EKldfM4rLCpbU-c8VIL1gLPY9SKAnbuPIIhAF4NFxuAqR0NQnR8uT3foT7r-YBpZZrk60pl9jyNwHYBCQMU-fWHyowGPBNtIpD10uyVjIkxLQSVtyhLKrV9m-QpX~Sr1YZJ7BVly~kOdIDRFvrwjhFi0DQ3yRqQhqfoLjbcSXKA~IfexX8ap10SV6jRQFvjHF4DJnVbtEbKUKOIjc1g__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Cowan, Paula and Maitles, Henry. Understanding and Teaching Holocaust Education. Sage. 2016 Says on page 6, "Because nazi discrimination against the Jews began with Hitler's accession to power in January 1933, many historians consider this the start fo the Holocaust era." https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-8SCDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=holocaust+1933&ots=k2lOey1DyD&sig=q0khZoHcglRgXvNfdNlqstET_hw#v=onepage&q=began%20was%201933&f=false

Marilyn Harran, Dieter Kuntz, Russell Lemons, Robert A. Michael, Keith Pickus, John K. Roth. The Holocaust Chronicle. 2000. Publications International, Ltd. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_books/1/ The complete full-text of a seminal book for Holocaust studies, The Holocaust Chronicle. The site contains every word of the main text, as well as the index and all of the images from the print edition. The information within was gathered and fact-checked by top Holocaust scholars, and covers everything 1933-1945, beginning with the restrictive laws passed when Hitler took power to the deaths of at least six million Jews, Gypsies, Freemasons, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, prisoners of war, Communists, and others.

Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945. Volume I: Early Camps, Youth Camps, and Concentration Camps and Subcamps under the SS-Business Administration Main Office (WVHA). https://www.ushmm.org/research/publications/encyclopedia-camps-ghettos General Editor: Geoffrey P. Megargee According to wikipedia, "Geoffrey P. Megargee (November 4, 1959 – August 1, 2020) was an American historian and author who specialized in World War II military history and the history of the Holocaust. He served as the project director and editor-in-chief for the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 produced by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Megargee's work on the German High Command (the OKW) won the 2001 Distinguished Book Award from the Society for Military History." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_P._Megargee

Hartmann R. (2018) Tourism to Memorial Sites of the Holocaust. In: R. Stone P., Hartmann R., Seaton T., Sharpley R., White L. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Dark Tourism Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47566-4_20 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-47566-4_20 "Few historical periods in human history are so fatally associated with the destruction of human lives as Hitler’s ‘Third Reich’. Historic places honouring the victims of National Socialistic Germany form a wide and expanding network of heritage sites in Europe. Most of the places where the horrific events occurred during 1933–1945 have been broadly denoted as Holocaust memorial sites in the remembrance of the six million Jews who died, and the many other ethnic, religious, social, and political groups which were subjected to persecution." Hartman is a professor at the Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences, at teh University of Colorado, Denver. Among his areas of expertise are Europe and Geography of Tourism. Among his publications are Hartmann, Rudi. "Places with a Disconcerting Past: Issues and Trends in Holocaust Tourism," invited article In EuropeNow, Sept 6, 2017, Issue 10, pp. 6 – 12. https://www.europenowjournal.org/2017/09/05/places-with-a-disconcerting-past-issues-and-trends-in-holocaust-tourism/ and Horror and Human Tragedy Revisited: The Management of Sites of Atrocities for Tourism, Rudi Hartmann, Co-Editor, jointly with Gregory Ashworth, New York: CognizantCommunications Corp., 226 pp, 2005.

Kucia, Marek. The Europeanization of Holocaust Memory and Eastern Europe. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures Volume 30 Number 1. February 2016 97–119. 2015 Sage Publications 10.1177/0888325415599195 http://eeps.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com The article starts with this: More than seventy years since it happened, the Holocaust—“the state-sponsored persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945” I think the citation would be to here https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=903733 But the paper is available here https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/53125064.pdf The author bio says this: Marek Kucia is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Sociology of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków and Jean Monnet Lecturer at the Centre for European Studies. In the academic year 2013 -14 he was also Marie Curie Fellow at the Centre for European Studies of Lund University

Michael Gray, a specialist in Holocaust education,[29] offers three definitions of the Holocaust: (a) "the persecution and murder of Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators between 1933 and 1945", which includes Kristallnacht in 1938; (b) "the systematic mass murder of the Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators between 1941 and 1945", which recognizes the German policy shift in 1941 toward extermination; and (c) "the persecution and murder of various groups by the Nazi regime and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945", which fails to recognize that the European Jews were targeted for annihilation. NOTE that 2 of these three definitions have the Holocaust as 1933-1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You will need massive discussion and consensus to make such a major change. It will need to start with a request for comment; four people or even a dozen people talking about it on this page can not create consensus for such an important article. Until then, any change of this sort will be strongly and appropriately resisted. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm responding to a request by SarahSV "Whatever change you want will need scholarly sources. Please post the citations here along with the change you'd like to see. SarahSV" Socialresearch (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. Your proposed revision will need massive discussion and consensus to make such major change. Even if you were to convince SarahSV, you'd still need a far broader consensus to change the focus of the article in this way. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources should be Holocaust historians, not scholarly sources in general. The genocide of the European Jews is generally thought to have started in 1941 in the Soviet Union with the mass shooting of the families of Jewish functionaries, not the male functionaries alone. See the article here, 4th paragraph. This is described as "a process of increasingly radical interpretations of orders". SarahSV ^(talk) 02:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

Ukrainians or Soviet civilians should be put back in the lead as they are stated as victims of Nazism on the page. The Source in the lead states regular Ukrainians, were victims of Nazism so they should be in the lead also. From the source in the lead,

Dan Stone (Histories of the Holocaust, 2010): "Europe's Romany (Gypsy) population was also the victim of genocide under the Nazis. Many other population groups, notably Poles, Ukrainians, and Soviet prisoners of war were killed in huge numbers

reliable sources state that "Nowhere was the wartime German Occupation of Europe more brutal and destructive than in the Soviet Union https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article-abstract/CXXVI/519/386/382298 151.210.133.226 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The point of the lead is not to list every group, but to offer examples, which is why it says "including". I think we should probably cut the list down further. Bear in mind that this is about the Holocaust, not the war in general. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is an estimate of how many people were killed by the nazis in the Holocaust. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution Socialresearch (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a good presentation of the numbers of the victims both of the Holocaust and of Nazism as a whole. The coatrack in that last sentence needs some trimming, though. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's return to this list:

including ethnic Poles, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, the Roma, the handicapped, political and religious dissidents, and gay men.

"Political and religious opponents" is way better than just Jehovah's Witnesses, Black Germans were rarely targeted. RF354 (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, except for Soviet civilians. The figures are too murky. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I added it as suggested, including Soviet civlians. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)