Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Yad Vashem citation

In the definition section, it says "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.[34][h] " One of the sources for "h" is Yad Vashem. However, on this "What is the Holocaust" page of the Yad Vashem website, it says "The Holocaust is an historic event which began in 1933 and ended in 1945". And actually, the "h" citation says ""The Holocaust was the murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators. Between the German invasion of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 and the end of the war in Europe in May 1945, Nazi Germany and its accomplices strove to murder every Jew under their domination. 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, Yad Vashem is saying that the Holocaust "era" and the Holocaust are the same thing at the same time. Yad Vashem -is- saying that the mass murder, or genocide, or large scale, systematic slaughter part of the Holocaust started in 1941. However, Yad Vashim is -not- saying that the Holocaust began in 1941. Their site is also saying, quite clearly, that the Holocaust "era" and the Holocaust are the same time period, 1933 to 1945. The Yad Vashem citation is not supporting the point that wikipedia is trying to make. Socialresearch (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant this interactive timeline page on the Yad Vashem site https://www.yadvashem.org/education/what-is.html That's where it says "The Holocaust is an historic event which began in 1933 and ended in 1945," Socialresearch (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious why the date range makes such a big difference one way or another; the article necessarily covers events starting with the rise of Nazism, regardless if we call that first period "Holocaust era" or "Holocaust". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

My suggestions started as friendly suggestions, on something comparatively small. My suggestions have ended up, however, as demonstrations of how strongly you folks are opposed to even discussing any revisions at all, even though I have fairly clearly demonstrated my points. As JP Gordon wrote "any change of this sort will be strongly and appropriately resisted." Socialresearch (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Good selective quote. It's right here, we can all see it. I said 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. I call for broader discussion and you parse it as opposition to discussion? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

How about this quote from jp gordon? "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". That is, you doubt Sarah would be convinced, so you think it unlikely such a change could be discussed. And it is pretty obvious none of you would consider any changes. You didn't -really- call for a broader discussion. No one had any comments like "Hmm, this is an interesting point. Please bring it up in a request to comment." Or "I'd like to see a discussion of this point". Or, to expand on what you wrote "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", you -didn't- write "A discussion here is a good place to start. Let's see if we can get a consensus from a group of us, and then we can bring it up for a request to comment." There was ZERO encouragement of further discussion, and just total DIScouragement of any further discussion. So your comment about strong resistance is representative. Socialresearch (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Motives

I apologise in advance if that question had already been discussed before (I briefly checked talk page archives, but found nothing), but why Nazism is not included as a motive? Actually, I intuitively understand that that is probably correct, but I am not 100% sure. Is it because under "motives" we mean some simple feelings that drive ordinary perpetrators, whereas Nazism is a more sophisticated category?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I came to create this topic before seeing yours. The nazi regime didn't enact the holocaust jusr because they didn't like Jews or others unlike them, it was part of a larger nazi ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 20:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Hans Frank - NSDAP-politician, who were a main organisator of the holocaust

the main organisator of the holocaust was Hans Frank, a jurist, who made a political career in the nsdap and the judiciary ...

hans frank was the general governor of the german occupied poland ... all, that happened in poland, was coordinated and organised by Hans Frank ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:fa:5f1b:df00:5c80:65e2:9739:e70c (talk)

Hi. Help:Talk pages: Talk pages (also known as discussion pages) are administration pages where editors can discuss improvements to articles or other Wikipedia pages – So what would like you see changed? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

Add Catholic clergy and Jehovah's Witnesses to the list of others persecuted during the Holocaust, as listed at the end of the introduction.

More information on these groups within the context of the Holocaust can be found on these pages, among others: Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland; Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany.

Indeed, there are other examples that could be cited in the main body of the text, but I would resolutely argue that it is especially important for these two to be highlighted in order to emphasise to the reader that the Holocaust explicitly included religious groups other than Jews, and it is important that their suffering does not go unnoticed by the casual reader.

Specifically, could the following be changed:

From:

The European Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event during the Holocaust era (1933–1945), in which Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered millions of others, including ethnic Poles, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, the Roma, the disabled, political and religious dissidents, and gay men.

To:

The European Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event during the Holocaust era (1933–1945), in which Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered millions of others, including ethnic Poles, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, the Roma, the disabled, gay men, and political and religious dissidents including Catholic clergy, Jehovah's Witnesses, and communists.

Editorrandom2124 (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Already included a "political and religious dissidents" The requested edit makes the already-unwieldy sentence harder to read for no gain in clarity. As linked in the request itself, there is already substantial documentation of the persecution of these groups on this wiki. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"Germany" v. "Nazi Germany"

This semantic question was hashed out on this page several years ago. It has come up again so I will summarize the consensus that was created then. The actions of a state - whether it be Germany or any other state - are referred to by the name of that state. Hence, "Germany invaded Poland" not "Nazi Germany invaded Poland" - just as one would say that "the United States invaded Vietnam", not "The Democratic United States invaded Vietnam." Similarly, "German policy", not "Nazi policy" when referring to government policies. The fact that Germany today is no longer "Nazi Germany" is irrelevant, as Germany today is the same national entity as Germany in 1941.

However, when referring to the era of German history, "Nazi Germany" is indeed appropriate in order to distinguish it from other historical eras. It's part of their history. Germany didn't disappear during the Nazi era, it was still 100% Germany.Narc (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

:First of all, I don't see such consensus, since you didn't provide a link. And even if it existed, that was years ago, as you said. You need a new consensus to implement your changes to the long-standing version. Second, see WP:Get the point. As I explained you before, the link you added here goes to the German state created in 1990. Nothing to do with the Holocaust whatsoever. Nazi Germany or the Third Reich was the country or state that perpetrated the Holocaust, not the Federal Republic of Germany. And "Nazi Germany" is not a political party, but the German state that existed from 1933 to 1945. There's an entire article about it, you should read it. Germany today is NOT the same national entity as in 1941, not even close. We must be more precise pointing out the state that carried out this genocide. You can make an RfC if you want. I'm sure you will lose. Until then, don't touch the article's introduction.--SoaringLL (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

Fully agree with SoaringLL. Nazi Germany was a specific state; it does not refer to the Nazi Party controlling Germany. The modern German state that exists today (and that was formed 45 years after the end of WWII) did not perpetrate the Holocaust. Similar to how the French Third Republic is an entirely different political entity from modern-day France. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 19:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, are you all referring to this link: Germany ?? If so, read it, it has an entire section on the Nazi period. Same Germany.... "Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany"..."Germany also reacquired control of the Saarland in 1935".... no use of the term "Nazi Germany" there.Narc (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Narcissus14: You will notice that the section in the Germany article discussing Nazi Germany (and the Weimar Republic) clearly and explicitly says: Main articles: Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. Also note that Nazi Germany already has its own article. The Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, and the Federal Republic of Germany are all separate and distinct political entities that have existed at separate points in time. Only one (Nazi Germany, which again, has its own article and is a different thing from modern day Germany) perpetrated the Holocaust. Based on my linear understanding of time, the Federal Republic of Germany could not have perpetrated the Holocaust as it did not come into existence until nearly five decades later. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 00:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

All true, but you are ignoring the main point, that Germany is not limited to modern Germany, it refers to the German nation, and includes Nazi Germany, and that Germany is not limited to the FRG, and that the German nation perpetuated the Holocaust. Why do you want to absolve the German nation from their history? I will bring you a further argument - the entity that you want to say is the perpetrator of the Holocaust, Nazi German is actually (per that article) properly called German Reich, and if you read that article, it states: "The Federal Republic of Germany asserted, following its establishment in 1949, that within its boundaries it was the sole legal continuation of the German Reich". They are one and the same.Narc (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that Nazi Germany is a subset of Germany, it's still better to use the more specific "Nazi Germany" than the vaguer "Germany". To go with your example, it was Nazi Germany that invaded Poland, not the German Empire or the FDR. Just saying "Germany" leaves that distinction unclear. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, doing so has two problems - (1) it whitewashes the truth a bit - it creates greater cultural distance between the perpetrators (the German people) and the actions. It was not the actions of the Nazis alone, it was the German nation. (2) It is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia; for instance, above user SoaringLL used the example of the French Republic - throughout the article on Napoleonic Wars the article frequently refers to "France" as opposed to "Napoleonic France" or "The French Empire". Similarly, the United States invaded Vietnam, not Democratic United States.Narc (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This didn't have consensus when you raised it in 2012. It didn't have consensus when you raised it in 2017. Last time you tried to make this change in 2018, it didn't have consensus then, either. Still no consensus and now you're edit warring in 2021. Time to drop the stick. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't justified why "Nazi Germany" makes sense here but "Imperial France" doesn't make sense by the Napoleonic Wars etc. I'm not talking about the linking, that doesn't bother me. It was the nation-state (yes, a social-construct) that committed the acts, not a subset of it. It was the official act of the state. Why would you want to minimize that? It doesn't make it clearer, it actual obfuscates it. You sound like you want to absolve Germany of the crimes. I'm sure that's not your intent, but that's how it comes across. "Germany invaded Poland" is much more forceful and to the point than "Nazi Germany invaded Poland". No, you say, it wasn't Germany, it was the aberration called Nazi Germany (which is not even an official name)??? Narc (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Using your own words: "It was the official act of the state." The "state" in question is Nazi Germany. Using the phrase "Nazi Germany" does not in any way obfuscate who the perpetrators were. Nazi Germany was not an aberration, it was a country that existed for twelve years that did indeed invade Poland. The German nation is not collectively responsible for the Shoah (nation being defined as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory"). The reason it just says "Germany" throughout the rest of the article is because repeating "Nazi Germany" over and over is repetitive and bad writing. Gwyneth Kate Paltrow's article introduces her as such, and the rest of the article just says "Paltrow" because it's easier to read. The same as literally every single page on this website. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 03:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Nation" is a social construct. For better or worse, people don't get to choose where they are born. It is no more a German youth of today's responsibility than any other youth's.

Leaving that point aside, linking to Germany is simply less helpful to the reader. Nazi Germany covers the period in which the Holocaust was perpetrated so it is more contextually relevant. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

What's at stake here is not the linking; that's fine, keep the links to Nazi Germany. The issue here is the language throughout the article, regardless of the links. Is the perpetrator of the Holocaust the nation of Germany or merely the aberrant limited political entity of Nazi Germany?Narc (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You tell me!? Was Friedrich Ebert a perpetrator, was Gustav Stresemann? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Not following your logic. Was the bombing of Vietnam perpetrated by its domestic opponents?? Yet it's called "U.S. bombings", not "Democratic US bombings" (but they were ordered by the Democratic regime in the White House!)...Narc (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It is called "US Bombings" because the United States of America is the country (political entity) that perpetrated the bombings. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 03:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The United States that invaded Vietnam then is the same one today. That is the difference. Nazi Germany doesn’t exist today but is the predecessor to Germany today. No one is trying to erase Germany’s vulgar past history. Of course not. But they aren’t the same states. We should be factually not deciding how to interpret I think. Germany takes you to today’s modern country as apposed to the state that existed in the 40s which is what the read would want to read about regarding in connection to the Holocaust there. OyMosby (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Already existing refs...

This edit inserted "such as the puppet Government of National Salvation headed by Milan Nedić’s." right before the ref {{sfn|McKale|2002|pp=192–193}}. I then moved the McKale ref to the information it DID support with this edit, so that it McKale was no longer appearing to say things he didn't say. I didn't have any real doubts that the information inserted was correct - it just wasn't supported by McKale. I spent a great deal of effort a while back going through this article ... sentence by sentence and source by source making sure that all the information was actually sourced to the sources attached to them, and I do not want to see the article slip back into the sloppy sourcing pracitces. Please make sure that if information is inserted, it is either supported by any sources already there or that you insert sources that support the information added. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I see now. I was confused before but as you said you moved it ahead to remedy the citing. I should have, as I told the other editor, double checked the sourcing and info I carried over from the Holocaust in German Occupied Serbia article. My lazy error. Sorry about that. I don’t mean to mess up the article. OyMosby (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a crisis. Just... that was a hell of a lot of work checking this thing ... and I really don't want to see it degenerate again. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

For it to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article that the Holocaust is an event where 17 million people were killed, which includes 6 million Jews, not that it was an event where 6million Jews were killed. Most people think they killed 6 million people, when they actually murdered 11million more. The Nazis did not just hate one group, they hated anyone that wasn't them. This should be at the top, not halfway down the article as if gays, disabled and the gypsies, and POWs are some kind of afterthought. 86.150.81.87 (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. That's a pretty contentious change you're requesting. You'll need to get consensus for this change before anything will be done. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the definition in this first paragraph should be brought in line with the definition in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims It is non-sensical to define the Holocaust as Jewish-only and then listen the many millions of non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

Siiiimo (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Simon

No. Holocaust specifically refers to the genocide of six million Jews. Don't try to be accused of antisemitism. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Well then certainly the holocaust victim page has to be edited to remove all the references to non-Jewish victims. What page would you suggest they be moved to? Siiiimo (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No - there were other victims of the Holocaust. This does not change the fact that the Holocaust was the genocide of European Jewry. Stop trying to redefine the Holocaust. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The holocaust was also clearly also a genocide of gypsies, lgbt, the mentally ill, as well as the concentration camps themselves being used for Generalplan Ost, ie the genocide of North Slavs in where Germany's Lebensraum was meant to be. I see no reason why at least gypsies, the mentally ill and lgbt shouldn't be included. They're widely considered to be part of it, and it's taught as such internationally.

Also, if there were other victims of the holocaust, why aren't they in the total count. This seems to be an attempt to redefine and whitewash (if that's the right word) the holocaust to only be a genocide of Jewish people. If other groups are mentioned at all in the article, they should be in the total. ReiPeixe (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Surely if half the victims are non-Jewish then that should be mentioned. 2604:3D09:2A7A:6700:71A0:92A7:C8A6:D1A3 (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

The info about Milan Nedic, the puppet regime he was put in charge of and Zbor seem very much relevant and should be stripped for trimming the section. It’s a sentence. Readers wouldn’t even know about them nor that they assisted the Germans in the Holocaust if this sentence wasn’t there. Otherwise why not state all puppet regimes or entities as just “local”? Seems like a small sentence to specifically remove. And there are ample sources showing it to be relevant and notable. They definitely didn’t have the autonomy nor built there own camps like the Ustase but that doesn’t make Them irrelevant enough to not be worth mentioning their role. OyMosby (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, just cleaned that section with verifiable sourced references Aeengath ([[User talk:|talk]]) 10:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay… but then why remove it if you agree? It was mentioned in the part talking about the partition of Yugoslavia but you removed it in your c/e edit. Not sure if you realized. OyMosby (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Yugoslavia

@OyMosby, I am surprised that you have deleted the content I added by reverting, this is quite unconstructive... all the quote referenced in my version are sourced and can be verified with one click, you may notice that I have also used most of yours. Why removing all that information related to The Holocaust in Serbia? as I said before I am really not interested in Edit warring so I think it’s best to ask if other editors have concerns or maybe experienced editors like @Diannaa: and @Buidhe: what version is best suited. All my best.

• OyMosby version

Yugoslavia, home to 80,000 Jews, was dismembered; regions in the north were annexed by Germany and Hungary, regions along the coast were made part of Italy, Kosovo and western Macedonia were given to Albania, while Bulgaria received eastern Macedonia. The rest of the country was divided into the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), an Italian-German puppet state whose territory comprised Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, with the Croatian fascist Ustaše party placed in power; and German occupied Serbia, governed by German military and police administrators who appointed the Serbian collaborationist puppet government, Government of National Salvation, headed by Milan Nedić. In August 1942 Serbia was declared free of Jews, after the Wehrmacht and German police, assisted by collaborators of the Nedić government and others such as Zbor, a pro-Nazi and pan-Serbian fascist party, had murdered nearly the entire population of 17,000 Jews.

• Aeengath version

Yugoslavia, home to 80,000 Jews, was dismembered; regions in the north were annexed by Germany and Hungary, regions along the coast were made part of Italy, Kosovo and western Macedonia were given to Albania, while Bulgaria received eastern Macedonia. In the Bulgarian annexed zones of Macedonia and Thrace, upon demand of the German authorities, the Bulgarians handed over the entire Jewish population, about 12,000 Jews to the military authorities, all were deported and murdered. In the region of Bačka, which was under Hungarian rule, more than 1,500 Jews were killed in the winter of 1941 by Hungarian forces. The rest of the country was divided into the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), an Italian-German puppet state, ruled by the Croatian fascist Ustaše, whose territory comprised Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; and German-Occupied Serbia, the only former province of Yugoslavia placed under direct military occupation. In Serbia the Nazis appointed a puppet government under former Serbian general Milan Nedić. The German police and the Volksdeutsche directed antisemitic policy and the introduction of the Nuremberg Laws, large-scale roundups followed with the help of Serbian collaborationists like the pro-Nazi Zbor and the Belgrade Special Police. Between July and November 1941, as part of "retaliatory executions” (Geiselmordpolitik) following the uprisings in Serbia, almost all of the Jewish male population was executed by the Wehrmacht. In mid-March 1942, all the remaining Jews, mostly women and children, held in the Sajmište concentration camp, were murdered by the Nazis in a mobile gas van dispatched from Berlin. In August 1942, Serbia was declared judenrein (free of Jews) by the head of Einsatzgruppe Serbia, after the entire population of 17,000 Jews had been murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeengath (talk • contribs) 12:26, June 18, 2021 (UTC)

References

This is an overview article - we are covering the entirety of the Holocaust here - for the sorts of details such as the "only former province of Yugoslavia placed under direct military occupation" or the fact that a gas van was dispatched from Berlin or who declared Serbia free of Jews are unneeded details in this level of article. There's more that could be trimmed - to be bruatally frank - the former Yugoslav territories were not the main area of the Holocaust, but yet the sections on them are getting about three times the space that the invasion of France is getting - which had 300,000 Jews in it, as opposed to the Yugoslav territories 77,000. We don't need to be tied completely to some sort of "so-many-Jews died so we give so much space" ratio - but it is also something we need to keep in mind - that WP:UNDUE does mean we cover in this article things in rough proportion to how they would be covered in an overview of the Holocaust (something like Longerich or similar). Ealdgyth (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I totally understand thank you for clarifying it makes total sense, I did not realised this was an overview article, I will bring it back to the way I found it and use that content in the appropriate article instead. All my best Aeengath (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The articles listed in the "further" template at the top of the section would probably be a good start for this information (and I'm not saying it's not useful...or important .. either, just that it's very hard to balance the upper level articles sometimes. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aeengath What is unconstructive is accusing me of something I didn’t due as you didn’t look at my edit. Your edit removed content I added. So I undid your edit. Actually. As I mentioned in my dif. In fact the one new bit of i fo you added that I undid is hardly comprable to you removing Nedic and his government. Even though you said before you agree with it being there….. You have now remived a lot of relevant info unnecessarily. You removed over 3,000 characters of info. I don’t see how WP POINT is helpful. As Ealdgyth said. This is a summary. There is a middle ground between removing 3,000 characters and adding every detail. OyMosby (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Editor @Ealdgyth: already combed through the section. Why now wipe it as if all for nothing??? Why does this even need to be an issue??? All was good up to this morning…. I don’t think they asked you to return it to as you “found it” as there were various versions. Editor @Peacemaker67: being that you have experience with WWII Balkan article editing perhaps you could chime in? I agree that it could be more streamlined but the “original” seems too bare bones… I think. OyMosby (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, perhaps we can first discuss massive changes here before going forth with such edits tot avoid inadvertent edit wars or disruptions to the page. Will make it easier to keep track of edit ideas too… OyMosby (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aeengath:, above you said:

all the quote referenced in my version are sourced and can be verified with one click... Why removing all that information related to The Holocaust in Serbia?

By your comment, I believe you are saying that since all of your material is sourced and cited, therefore it is okay to add it to the article. But reliable sourcing and citations are not sufficient to add your material. Your are missing the core principle of WP:DUE WEIGHT. I'm not sure of OyMosby's motivation in removing the material, but I agree with the removal, for reasons of WP:DUE WEIGHT. I've addressed this issue in more detail in the the next section.

It is crucial for you to understand the principle of WP:DUE WEIGHT, which will likely govern the outcome of any dispute with respect to how much content you can add to that section, or indeed, whether it should be cut back significantly. On the other hand, WP:DUE WEIGHT would certainly permit the addition of all of your material to the articles The Holocaust in Greece, The Holocaust in Serbia, and The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia, because that is what they are about. But here, your opportunity for expansion will be severely limited, and it's not clear how much, if any, of your recent added content can remain in this article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Notes

I agree. I undid their edit as they removed material in the first place in that very edit about the Government of national Salvation and Milan Nedic being placed in power by the Germans after partitioning of Yugoslavia commenced. Which seems more relevant I would think from a weight standpoint. So the point of me removing sourced content seems ironic here. I did not disagree about the citation validity but with removing a more substantial fact and puting in a less substantial one instead. This isn’t cutting down the section. They removed content directly about the Holocaust in Serbia not I. I had added it. This was a concern to me. OyMosby (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood; thanks. I didn't want to mind-read your motivations, because I realized there might be other reasons, as seems to be the case here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: Can you explain why my opening phrase "In Serbia the Nazis appointed a puppet government under former Serbian general Milan Nedić.". is less substantial than: "German occupied Serbia, governed by German military and police administrators who appointed the Serbian collaborationist puppet government, Government of National Salvation, headed by Milan Nedić"? on why I removed content see my answer below... Ps: I go with he/his ;)

Hi @Mathglot:, no this is not what I meant, I said that I was using verifiable sourced references because the previous editor had first used a citation that did not match its source here and then added a statement that was unsourced here which he admitted came from another article and wasn’t verified. (He gracefully acknowledged his mistakes here errare humanum est...). I understand about WP:DUE WEIGHT and I'll keep that in mind, I think it would be good to also insist sometimes a bit more on WP:VERIFY especially when it comes down to contested issues in historiography like this one. En tout cas merci pour ces quelques mots au passage. Aeengath (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I removed the content that said that the Germans murdered 17,000 Jews "with the assistance of the Nedić government and others such as Zbor." because I could not find it in the sources that you provided, I found mentions of roundups which I added as well as mention of collaborators like the Belgrade Police which I added as well. One of the reference provided (USHMM No preview available on googlebooks but I do have that book) is about “Zbor and the Institute for Compulsory Youth Education” Second reference from Yugoslavia in the Shadow of War (I also happen to have that book) has more material but nothing about directly assisting in the murder of 17,000 Jews the closest quote is: "the pro-Nazi Zbor, was far too marginal and thinly supported to play anything more than an auxiliary role in the collaborationist set-up this despite Zbor’s full-fledged ideological adherence to Nazism… Ljotić’s party militia, the ‘Serbian Volunteer Guard’, took part in the Nazi occupation regime’s anti-Partisan reprisals the targets of Zbor’s violence were often, however, Serbian and Jewish civilians”

I also added details about the Holocaust in other parts of Yugoslavia like Bačka since the Holocaust is the topic of this article and I was actually planning to develop also the French section (not any more!) that’s why I could not understand the removal of that content as well "In the region of Bačka, which was under Hungarian rule, more than 1,500 Jews were killed in the winter of 1941 by Hungarian forces." it's not "an accusation" just a comment. Since collaboration with the occupiers is still one of the most contested issues in Yugoslav historiography I assumed it was important more than ever to be precise and go by the source... that’s all! All my Best Aeengath (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Yugoslavia and Greece section is out of proportion

While I admire the passion and effort of recent editors in adding well-sourced content to the article, notably users OyMosby and Aeengath, there is a problem with the amount of content in this section of the article. While no one (I think, I'm just ramping up on this) is complaining about unsourced or poorly sourced material in the additions, the problem is that the length of the section is WP:UNDUE and will likely need to be cut back. It sounds like Ealdgyth has been trying to make this point before, repeating that this article is about "the entire Holocaust", the point being, there's a WP:DUE WEIGHT problem here. It's simply untenable, in my opinion, that the section #Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece should be nearly double the size of #Invasion of France and the Low Countries. My off-the-cuff guess, is that it should be the other way round. (Expand the "Section sizes" gadget in the Talk page header above to get an idea how these sections compare now.)

Books at the Wiener Library

There is a very large number of sources about the Holocaust; entire libraries cover that topic. A minor library you may never have heard of, like the Tauber Holocaust Library, has 12,000 volumes in its collection; larger ones like the Wiener have 70,000. Clearly, it would be possible to add impeccably referenced and sourced content into the article, from books solely about the Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece until that one section became 90% of the article, and nobody could complain that a word of it was unsourced.

But reliable sourcing is not the only policy that applies here. Just as important, is the policy of WP:DUE WEIGHT. In order to comply with this policy, we need to adjust the amount of content on various subtopics in an article so that they are in rough proportion to the amount of reliable sourcing on the topic. Clearly, given the huge quantity of written material on the Holocaust, this cannot be done by enumerating every source, and counting up what proportion of them deal with the invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia. (If you *could* do that, that would be an excellent way to determine roughly what proportion of the article should be about this subtopic.)

So, if we can't do that, what do we do? In a case like this, one of the best ways is to turn to WP:TERTIARY sources and compare their coverage on subtopics. You can check numerous trusted tertiary sources like encyclopedias, look for the article on the Main topic, and take a measure (column inches, paragraphs, words, whatever makes sense) of how much material there is on various subtopics, and use that as a guide to proportion. Try a range of tertiary sources, not just one. (And, if using Encyclopedia Britannica, please use the printed version; there are various problems with using the online version, which I can explain later if interested.)

Storming of the Bastille, 1789

I've participated in this exercise of checking TERTIARY sources in order to solve a DUE WEIGHT question a couple of times before. If you want to see what it looks like in practice, the French Revolution is another case like this one, where there is so much source material available that it's impossible to check it all, and so when a question of DUE WEIGHT came up at that article, we checked TERTIARY sources to gain some confidence about how to proceed. The question was a dispute about how much to say about the influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution. One side thought the influence was profound, and central; and so we should devote significant coverage about American influence in the article. The other side thought that there was some influence, but it was nowhere close to the top ten causes or influences, and so minor it should be covered as a brief mention. The French Revolution has so many sources, that it is possible to find endless reliable sources about American influence on the French Revolution if you specifically search for it, but how much coverage is there about it, in proportion to the entirety of scholarship on the French Revolution? That is the crucial question. We relied on tertiary sources to discover the answer. You can find that exercise here, if interested.

Deportation of Jews from Ioannina

In the case of how much space to devote to Yugoslavia and Greece in a general article on the Holocaust, we can do a comparison to see how this has changed over time. On November 14, 2020, for example, the section #Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece was 1 paragraph, 217 words, and 1319 bytes. This was longer than #Invasion of Norway and Denmark by about half (1p, 141w, 812b), and one half the size of #Invasion of France and the Low Countries (5 p, 421 words, 2508 bytes). Off the top of my head, this feels like approximately the right proportion to me.

Currently (rev. 1029230756‎ of 17:33, June 18), section #Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece is (7 paragraphs, 494 words, 3027 bytes), #Norway and Denmark is (1p, 141w, 812b), and #France + LC is (3p, 293w, 1745b). In my opinion, this proportion is untenable, and will need to be cut back significantly. But I could be wrong, and we will have to see how the evidence shakes out when we look at tertiary sources. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. Having worked with Ealdgyth with added content to the section and fixing the sourcing to make sure it matches the content, it seems it started to get to expansive with details of types of gas vans used to a government or territory bejng deamed “the only one during the war under direction rule” which doesn’t focus enough on the Holocaust itself which I agreed. In response to that it seems the the other user then removed 3,000 characters but it appears they didn’t exactly understand what Ealdyth was aaying. I think there would be a logical middle ground between removing 3,000 contents about the killing of Jews and who the purps were vs adding facts about a territory being the onky one directly ruled by the Germans. Or types of Gas used. These definitely aren’t in the same league. I was fine with Ealdyth’s c/e final edits. Couple days later here we are with a new issue…. I thought all was done really. I appreciate all your input Mathglot and share your views on this. Quite frankly it is starting to feel like we all may have spent too much time on this section… OyMosby (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby:, hi, and thanks for the comment; this helps fill in more of the backstory, while I come back up to speed on what's been going on at the article recently . Would be good to hear the opinions of other regulars here as well. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking the time to give more insight on the matter. End of the day we all just eant to make things better really, I think. I pinged an admin familiar with WWII Balkan matters and I see the ofher editor also pinged some editors who have experience who could perhaps help shed some more views. The more eyes the better I think. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mathglot, this is very interesting especially reading the talk about the French Revolution, I hope something like this could work for the Balkans. Aeengath (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Was pinged by OM. I would say, that based on the state of the rest of the article and taking into account due weight, the Yugoslavia and Greece section should be two middling-sized paras, one small para and one largish para. The two key Holocaust aspects in occupied Yugoslavia that need to have a para are 1. the activities of the Ustashas, and 2. the Germans and their collaborators in occupied Serbia. They are where the vast majority of Jews were killed. The small para should wrap up the rest of occupied Yugoslavia, including a sentence on the Bulgarians in annexed Macedonia, one on the fate of the Slovene Jews, and one on Jews in the Yugoslav Partisans. I am not all that familiar with Greece, but expect that a largish para would do for that. For a high-level summary article of this sort, that is the level of detail needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think other collaborators should be named as well beaides the already mentioned Ustashe who collaborated with the Germans agreeing to the racial laws imposed for Jewish civilians. Not sure to what extent Germans had impact in the occupied territories of Bosnia and Croatia (NDH ruped by the Ustashe). This was lacking before. Of course not all were equal in their complicity or eagerness. What do you think of the current version? OyMosby (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken, any thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Distinctive features... Collaboration?

Was collaboration a unique feature of the Holocaust? In general, collaboration in any conflict is rather a common occurrence. The section presents a legitimate point of view, however it is not the only one on this subject matter, yet this one view and an opinion of one historian is presented as the single authoritative statement on the issue. Also, what I find most troubling is the gross oversimplification used to describe the issue. After all, there are different definitions of collaboration (by some standards certain acts would not be classified as collaboration). For example, there is a big difference between the Slovak Republic paying Nazi Germany to send its Jews to concentrations camps, versus Polish railway workers or policemen being forced to participate in the deportations under the threat of the death penalty or being sent to a slave labor camp. This is a major, major article on Wikipedia, yet some of the text resembles a grade C article. --E-960 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Additional point, the entire Distinctive Features sections is very problematic, it acts as a pseudo summary (on top of the intro paragraph) and it only severs to highlight a particular POV, citing just one historian's opinion and presenting it as definitive on a particular issue. --E-960 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. The features of a genocidal state, collaboration, and medical experiments are important to understanding the Holocaust.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree with teh removal of this cited and pertient information. It should be restored. If the problem is with the paragraph on "distinctive features" .. that can be discussed, but we don't remove the information on collaboration and medical experiments also just because they might not be utterly distinctive features - they still happened in the Holocaust and removing the paragraphs on them is akin to whitewashing them as if they didn't happen. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I restored two of the sub sections. AFAICT the collaboration part is WP:SYNTH and original research. Even taken at face value, what exactly is distinctive about collaboration being part of mass murder? Volunteer Marek 22:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed edit request

Please change the name of "Pogroms in occupied Poland" subsection[1] to "Pogroms in Poland" as the subsection doesn't solely talk about the pogroms during the occupation of Poland, but also about the pogroms before the war. Thank you, CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned pre-war pogroms were prior to the Holocaust and should be probably removed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a straight-up removal is the answer, the pre-war pogroms still carry relevance, especially in the the context they are presented. Though perhaps other editors should chip in as well, the more heads the better, as they say. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

CPCEnjoyer, Do we have sources that explicitly connect them to the Holocaust? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps next time you and your friend should read the sources before you remove them? Or did you skip over Gilbert, M., 2002. The Routledge atlas of the Holocaust. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-28145-8.? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert, The Routledge atlas of the Holocaust, 2002, gives this as background on the state of Jewish communities at the eve of the war. He also mentions Poland in The Holocaust: The Human Tragedy (2014), along with Ukraine (and more broadly the area "from the Baltic to the Black Sea"), as part of background on historical antisemitism in EE. He later mentions it in a chapter on the effects of the Nuremberg laws outside Germany ("in four years, the German government had turned Jews into less than second-class citizens. Now other governments, and other peoples, especially those in Eastern Europe, looked with envy at the Nazi achievements, and allowed their own anti-Jewish prejudices to flourish"); he mentions other countries there as well, but I think it would be fair to say that he gives some emphasis to Poland.

David Cesarani, Final Solution, 2015: also as background, and I think a necessary background :"the Jewish population was heavily Polonized at all social levels, especially the middle and upper classes. A generation of brilliantly gifted Jewish writers, poets, novelists and essayists dazzled Polish readers. This did not stop anti-Semitism, though. On the contrary, since the late nineteenth century the development of a Christian Polish middle class caused increasing friction with the Jewish communities. The rebirth of independent Poland in 1918–19 was accompanied by vicious pogroms. Throughout the interwar years nationalist parties campaigned for Polonization of the economy and encouraged a boycott of Jewish businesses. On the eve of the German assault, Polish Jewry was socially stratified, politically divided, economically stretched, and at odds with the Christian majority."

Apologies for the lack of pp., I'm using an EPUB.

Insofar as we use this for background, I think it's DUE. Insofar as there were similar events elsewhere, which we can similarly source, then they should be mentioned as well. François Robere (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be POV-pushing to include non-related events in Poland as part of Holocaust.None of the sources above make any connection between the events and actual Holocaust--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 09:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits...

I see we're getting a spate of edits - including importing from other articles (without actually making the effort to put in the sources used ...examples - Gordon 1984, Piotrowski 2007, etc) and massively expanding certain sections which is causing the article to get a problem with WP:UNDUE. The article is quite large as it is, and we don't need to be expanding it endlessly nor do we need to be expanding it without trying to keep the fact that this is a summary article on the entire subject in sight. Let's not return to the bad days when this article was wildly out of balance and went into unnecessary detail in places while in others totally neglecting vital aspects of the Holocaust. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, removals such as this by E-960 and this by Volunteer Marek combined with the addition by MyMoloboaccount add up to presenting alternative facts on the Holocaust, not the way it is usually developed.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. I suggest restoration to lgv. Levivich 17:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, This seems fine, the other stuff does merit more discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Levivich. François Robere (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

alternative facts on the Holocaust What do you mean "alternative facts"?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that seems like escalating the dispute and potentially a personal attack or civility violation, from an account regarding which there have been serious issues raised. Volunteer Marek 22:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose 16:17, June 17, 2021 as the last good version (lgv) (diff of changes); it's the last version prior to major edits by an editor who was just blocked for violating a TBAN by making these edits, as well as other major edits by other editors since then. As you can see in the diff, an entire section was removed, and other sections significantly expanded. There are some good/uncontroversial copyedit-type edits in there as well that could be preserved or reinstated. Levivich 20:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I don't think it's a good idea to restore the inferior version - some editors found inaccuracies. I suggest working from the current one.- GizzyCatBella🍁 20:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with that version, for instance describing Nazi policy towards ethnic Poles as just killing educated Poles and sowing dissent, which is simply wrong.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about me, please ping me. Now, do you have a specific objection to the edit or is this just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek 22:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Another option might be 00:44, June 14, 2021 (diff of changes), which predates the recent Yugoslav controversy (see above #Yugoslavia and subsequent sections). I do not think working from the current version is a viable option here. We should follow WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, meaning restore to lgv and then discuss the disputed changes. Levivich 20:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately that version too misinforms on what the German Nazi policy was towards ethnic Poles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich - I'm afraid it's not a good idea to go to that version either. See WP:BRD - not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it’s up to you if you want to try. I would rather work from the current version to make sure we avoid edit wars. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer to have the three big paragraphs that were removed restored as the removal has been objected to. The given reason above about "distinctive features" is not really relevant to the paragraphs about medical experiments and collaboration, which right now are not well covered in the article because the sections covering them were removed wholesale. They need returning and frankly, again, too much excess detail is being inserted - as well as the whole issue with plopping down references in any old format without any respect to the hard work that went into getting the references consistent. I'd be happy to return to the June 14 edit and then discuss further changes on the talk page before we put them in. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on whether you want some paragraphs removed or you want other paragraphs restored. The complaint about excess detail seems to contradict the request to restore. Volunteer Marek 22:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I restored two of the paragraphs that were removed, the two that weren't SYNTH and OR. Volunteer Marek 22:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is way too much detail in the Balkans coverage. And in a few other spots. And we do need to cover collaboration - it's a significant part of the Holocaust - that the Germans either forced or inspired others to take part in their genocidal efforts. Can exactly what is thought to be SYNTH and OR in the collaboration section that got cut be set forth with sources? Or is the argument that there was no collaboration at all? Because ... leaving aside the contentious issue of Poland ... there were definitely collaborators in France (the police definitely helped round up Jews there), the Balkans, and in other spots also. Certainly the bits of "Although the Holocaust was planned and directed by Germans, the Nazi regime found willing collaborators in other countries, or forced others into participation. This included individual collaboration as well as state collaboration. According to Dan Stone, it became increasingly clear after the fall of former communist states in Central and Eastern Europe, and the opening of their archives to historians, that the Holocaust was a pan-European phenomenon, a series of "Holocausts" impossible to conduct without local collaborators and Germany's allies. Stone writes that "many European states, under the extreme circumstances of World War II, took upon themselves the task of solving the 'Jewish question' in their own way."" are not SYNTH or OR. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at the Balkans section so I can't speak to that (I will go over it shortly). As far as collaboration goes, yes, it definetly should be discussed, the problem here is that the section claimed that "collaboration" was a "distinctive" feature of the Holocaust. Yet, afaict, none of the sources given in that section actually made that claim (it's possible that I'm wrong and may have missed it - if so Id appreciate it if someone provided the relevant text). The issue is not whether collaboration happened or not (it obviously did), but whether it was a "distinctive feature". Volunteer Marek 23:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for "distinctive" features paragraph and heading having to be in there... we can discuss that paragraph differently. However, we could definitely change the header to "Features" and put collaboration back under it, or we could move that paragraph of collaboration to another section ... perhaps right after Extermination camps in the Final Solution section. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"Features" would still be OR as it's just substituting a vague word for a more specific (OR) one while implying the same thing ("Features" here would obviously mean... "Distinctive features"). A separate section would probably work better, especially since what was there before was pretty non-informative and superficial. Additionally that last sentence of that paragraph was a pretty clear case of WP:SYNTH. Volunteer Marek 23:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The above misses also the issue of Jewish collaborators like Group 13--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an overview article. Something as small as Group 13 does not need mentioning when we're not mentioning things like the Blue Police or the Dutch police. The bit I quoted above very carefully doesn't mention ANY collaborationist groups - not the various Western European police groups, not the various Ukrainian collaborationist groups, or any others. This is what an overview article is supposed to be doing - going in the big picture and leaving the mentions of small details to the linked articles. THAT is what I mean about too much detail - we don't need to mention every pogrom nor do we need to mention every ghetto - stick with the big events and what caused them. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Something as small as Group 13 does not need mentioning However the general issue of Jewish collaboration of which it was part of, should be mentioned, as the article mentions resistance but not collaboration.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we please ... indent replies properly on the talk page? And first.. let's get a basic bit on collaboration back in before we move on to more contentious bits of who were the collaborators. Right now, there's nothing at all about any collaborators, which is clearly wrong. See the quote above which at least is a start and could stand to be returned. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I assume that when we talk about collaboration being not mentioned, we are talking about this removal https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=1030992960&oldid=1030970637&diffmode=source ? As I said above, I support restoring the removed content. That said, MMA makes a valid point that the phenomena of Jewish collaboration should be mentioned, at least in one sentence or so. The phenomenon may be controversial and politically incorrect, but that doesn't change the sad fact that it was significant and impactful enough to merit at least a sentence here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth - Collaboration section has been restored[2]. In my humble opinion it reads fine and it is well sourced. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is that it is being put in the “Distinctive features” section which is OR. Second problem is that it singled out Easter Europe, as if collaboration didn’t exist in Norway, France, Belgium etc. Volunteer Marek 12:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@VM - Good point’s, I didn’t notice that. Now when I think about it, I agree it is a bit problematic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

References

First use of "Holocaust"

Crowe 2008 says the first recorded use of the term "Holocaust" was 1895 in NYT, but that's not exactly right and disputed by other RS. It's definitely not the first recorded use, as we have recorded uses of the term earlier in the 19th century, as well as back to the 11th (see Oxford's etymology, and our Names of the Holocaust article and sourced cited therein). The problem is that these earlier uses probably used the term in a different way, meaning "consumed by fire" or "sacrificial offering", rather than "large massacre of people." NYT 1895 might have been the first use of the term in that sense, but still I've seen some argue that there are earlier uses of the term (King Louis). Anyway, I don't think we should adopt Crowe 2008 in Wikivoice and should instead write something that massages it a bit better. I've removed the sentence in the meantime; we really shouldn't say "first used" or "first recorded use" in 1895 based on one RS when there are recorded uses from other RSes much earlier, at least not without explanation. Anyone have thoughts or suggested sources? (By the way, the second edition of Crowe is pending. Anyone have it? Maybe this part will be changed.) Levivich 14:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think Crowe probably is right, NYT 1895 is the first recorded use (not mention) of the term (not the word), but I don't think for our reading level that distinction will be understood. Perhaps the better way is a qualifying explanation, like "first use of the term in its modern sense" or "first modern use" or something like that? (Has been discussed somewhere in the archives?) Levivich 15:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal seems reasonable to me, I think we should go with it unless someone objects or proposes a better wording.--V. E. (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, I edited the sentence slightly, restored your addition of "recorded," and added "modern." Levivich 15:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

the Hungarian Arrow Cross forced 50,000 Jews to march

The Arrow Cross Party did many nasty things, but only the march is mentioned here.Xx236 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion for incorporating more information about the Arrow Cross Party into this article? —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 02:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The mentioned article contains several facts.Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Recognition of Other Victims

As this article is titled The Holocaust and not The Jewish Holocaust, I believe the article needs to be clear Jews were not the only target of the killers.

Looking at the Holocaust victims Wikipedia page, it states

In addition [to six million Jews], 11 million members of other groups were murdered during the "era of the Holocaust".

Based on this, I suggest recognizing the other 11 million people killed by the Germans by changing the first line of the article from

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

to

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

I feel not recognizing the other victims creates the mistaken notion the Germans killed only Jews during the Holocaust, which is not true and/or misleading.

If it is the case that this article is meant to treat Jews exclusively, I suggest renaming the article The Jewish Holocaust to reflect the exclusivity of the article as has been done in other cases, e.g., the article about the extermination of European Roma by Germans during the same period.

References

Bezenek (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, and most reliable sources use "The Holocaust" to refer to the extermination of Jews in World War II. They do not qualify it. This is explained in the article. And using another wikipedia article to base edits here in contravention of the sources here, isn't what we do. Kindly read the talk page archives for the discussion of this. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

'Collaboration'

Please define 'Collaboration'. Did Austrian people 'collaborate'? Did Romanian state 'collaborate'? Linked article Collaboration with the Axis Powers does not have Austria, Croatia nor Romania section. USHMM quotes the HE dfinition, but below it explains 'By 1945, the Germans and their allies and collaborators'. 'Allies and collabotorators'. Please check your sources.Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-Jewish Poles vs Ethnic Poles-misleading term

The term non-Jewish Poles is a bit misleading. It is a wide umbrella term that covers German Poles, Ethnic Poles, Roma Poles, Greek Poles-all of which had different policies applied to them, the section in question described(very poorly) policies aimed at Ethnic Poles, not German Poles or Roma-therefore I have changed the title to more precise one and added more detailed description of polices of genocide directed at them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Which of the sources cited in that section make this distinction? Levivich 19:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Piotrowski, Gumkowski do, and the fact that Roma Poles, German Poles and Ethnic Poles were treated differently by Germans is quite known fact. I can bring up many sources if needed, for example Prelude to the Final Solution: The Nazi Program for Deporting Ethnic Poles, 1939–1941. By Phillip T. Rutherford. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What work is "Piotrowski 2007" that you cited? Levivich 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I see from your recent edit this is actually the same as Piotrowski 1998 which I believe was already cited in the article prior to the recent edits (and does use the term "ethnic Poles"). But the recent edits go much farther than just changing "non-Jewish Poles" to "ethnic Poles," for example this recent edit, with the edit summary "trimming as suggested" (who suggested trimming?) changed "has all the hallmarks of a genocide" to "was a genocide," and removed mention of the Warsaw Uprising. This recent edit with the edit summary "since more sources were asked for" (who asked for more sources? this article doesn't need more sources) added the sentence "In the first months of occupation Poles were the first victims of German physical terror, and the SS hierarchy defined ethnic Poles as the principal enemy, with calls to destroy "Polish element" in western annexed part of Poland," which portrays Poles, and not Jews, as the primary targets of Nazis. Levivich 20:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

...in the first six months. Don't leave that part out. Volunteer Marek 22:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

And you know, I went to a great deal of work a few years back to clean up the references in this article. It would be much appreciated if folks adding information actually took the trouble to try and make the reference format fit the format already in use in the article rather than just slapping whatever they feel like onto the article. It's very .. demoralizing to have folks just come in and slap stuff in from other articles without even trying to make it fit into this article's weighting and formatting. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The work of a wiki gnome is rarely appreciated :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

*wiki dragon. François Robere (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"In the first months of occupation Poles were the first victims of German physical terror, and the SS hierarchy defined ethnic Poles as the principal enemy, with calls to destroy "Polish element" in western annexed part of Poland," which portrays Poles, and not Jews, as the primary targets of Nazis. It says in the first six months, not the whole war. And all the statements are by Joshua Zimmerman. I am more than happy to provide quotes if you desire so. The fact that in the first period of the war Poles were main target of Nazis isn't really controversial that much. Historians such as Rossini, Rutherford and even Gross mention this in their works(in fact Zimmerman even states in his book that while in the beginning of the war anti-Jewish actions were of legal nature, the ones against Poles were lethal in nature:Whereas the long-term goal to clear German-occupied Poland of Jews took on a primarily legal character in the first period of the war, Nazi Polish policy was lethal during this same time). It doesn't mean the situation stayed the same later on as your sentence suggests, and Jews didn't become the primary target of German actions eventually. I think this is quite clear, and you are making more of this then there is. There certainly was very unbalanced sentence before on this page which focused on all non-Jewish Polish citizens(which in itself was bizarre as this would include German Poles) rather than ethnic Poles who were target of genocidal policies described, and there was information missing about genocidal character of these policies.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Other problem with that section was that it implied the main policy of Nazis towards Poles was just sowing dissent and killing higher educated Poles, which is just plainly wrong. Both German plans and actions went beyond that.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

p. 48 says that, p. 71 says something else.[3] François Robere (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No, no it doesn't. Volunteer Marek 07:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

p. 71: "As discussed in Chapter 2, the ZWZ-Home Army was also part of a larger underground state that included civilian (the Delegate’s Bureau) and political (PKP) wings. In the first six months of occupation, the primary victims of physical terror were ethnic Poles whose leaders were summarily arrested and executed in an effort to prevent an underground resistance movement from rising. With the threat of incarceration, executions, and forced labor deportations, the perception among the underground leadership and government officials abroad tended to be that Poles, not Jews, were the primary targets of German terror. This chapter argues, however, that underground records point to a changing perception. By May 1941, the ZWZ-Home Army reports clearly maintained that Jews, not Poles, had become the primary victims under German rule." MMA only quotes one of these sentences, and out of context (the context being Polish leadership and its perceptions). François Robere (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and how is that “something else”? Volunteer Marek 22:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should've spelled it out: WP:CHERRYPICK. François Robere (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

well, I’m sorry too, but your reply/clarification makes no sense. On one page Zimmerman says “x”. On another page Zimmerman says “Home Army perceived x”. How is that “says something else”? It isn’t. In fact, he’s pretty clear on exactly when the perception changed (May 1941). There’s nothing quoted out of context. Does Zimmerman say that this wasn’t the case anywhere? No? Then it’s not “cherry picked”. Volunteer Marek 06:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

On one page Zimmerman says “x”. On another page Zimmerman says “Home Army perceived x”. How is that “says something else”? "the AK reported X happened" == "X happened"? Also note the context of the quote (Polish leadership and its perceptions), and the fact that the source notes perceptions were rapidly changing. This seems like "significant qualifying information". François Robere (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Trial transcripts are WP:PRIMARY (already discussed at Talk:Racism in Poland/Archive 3#Molobo's changes and User talk:MyMoloboaccount#"Poles" before "Jews"). François Robere (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh come on, stop it. We have one page that says "X happened". We have another page that says "the AK reported X happened". You are trying to pretend that these two pages contradict each other. They don't. If a source says "it rained on Tuesday" on one page and then on another page it says "Francois Robere saw that it rained on Tuesday" then... IT STILL FREAKIN' RAINED ON TUESDAY! I have no idea how you come up with this argument.

There's nothing cherry picked here. Yes, the perception changed... by May 1941. More than a year into the occupation. Which is also after the German policy changed. What does this have to do with anything? Same thing with some old discussion on MMA's talk page - it has nothing to do with this right here. Volunteer Marek 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to read your messages when you're shouting. Please refactor. François Robere (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

My comment is perfectly clear. Volunteer Marek 02:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Jasenovac concentration camp

I am trying to find name of the camp in the text. I seem to be inefficient. Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xx236: Jasenovac concentration camp is not currently mentioned in this article. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 02:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it should be.Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You are an extended confirmed user, so feel free to be bold and make any reasonable edits. Just make sure to thoroughly explain your contributions in your edit summary. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Basic source ignored here

G. Aly, Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State and the Nazi Welfare State [4] Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You are an extended confirmed user, feel free to be bold and make any reasonable edits. Just make sure to thoroughly explain your contributions in your edit summary. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I am a persecuted editor, my English language has been mocked here several times.Xx236 (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well then you're going to need to make your edit requests specific and in a "change X to Y" format. Unfortunately I can't guess what changes you want made to the article. Also I'm not sure persecuted is the best word to use. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

References with no bib entry

References 198 and 199. Goldstein & Goldstein 2016 doesn't have bibliographgy section entry. For some reason it is missing, and it is pointing to nothing/null. I found this: [5] IVO GOLDSTEIN, SLAVKO GOLDSTEIN THE HOLOCAUST IN CROATIA, but the page numbers are wrong. Could somebody have a go at fixing it. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 07:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible unreliable source

Reference 128, Jewish Virtual Library is showing red, by the script, as a generally unreliable source. Can somebody check it and perhaps find something better. . There should be lots of stats on Jewish numbers in the United States. Thanks scope_creep^Talk 07:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: It seems like the Jewish Virtual Library is a reliable sources. They show their work cited for the stats as coming from several databanks. Additionally I found another RS that covers some of the same early years and matches almost exactly. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 18:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Added hitler in perpetrator section

He held supreme power as dictator of Nazi Germany, and was the central figure and leader of the Nazi regime. Osama bin Laden is in the perpetrator box in the 9/11 article as he was the leader of Al-qaeda

Sure, Hitler was responsible, but then you need to include everyone from the List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust. Were some of them any less responsible than Hitler? Just linking to the list of major perpetrators would probably be better. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

Change full stop to exclamation mark at the end of final sentence beneath image of SA troopers (first image below 'Rise of Nazi Germany' section). Apx26031992 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Should Hitler be in the perpetrator box?

I am conflicted about whether or not Hitler should be in the perpetrator section? As dictator of Nazi Germany, he bears overall responsibility for the Holocaust, but he was not solely responsible. However, other perpetrators are linked in the List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust, so I think we should keep him the the section.

Since it was Hitler’s views that pushed the Holocaust forward, yes, he should be there. O Otto g him would feel like saying he had no role, when without him, there would be no Holocaust. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Decided - Hitler will be kept in the perpetrator box of the Holocaust article as he was overall responsible for the genocide, as well as the entire Holocaust era. Heydrich and Himmler didn't play much of a role for Aktion T4, and Heydrich died in 1942. Eichmann was a functionary, and Himmler was an 'instrument of Hitler's will'. Hitler declared the destruction of the Jewish race, which forever changed the regime's attitude towards Jews. Hitler was the main and central perpetrator of the Holocaust, and was overall responsible for the atrocities committed under his dictatorship.

Hitler is first only because it is in chronological order, btw.

Case closed Hitler will be kept.

RFC for adding the total number of victims of Nazi Persecution from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum source to the lead and Infobox

The following discussion 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.

---

Should we add the total number of Victims of Nazi Persecution to the lead and info box. I have seen in the page history people try to add the number [6] but some seem against it, I think we should as we discuss the other Victims of Nazi Persecution on the page.Thelostone41 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• No - the USHMM site given as justification specifically says in the very first sentence "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." and then goes on as the first sentence of the second paragraph to say "During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted and killed other groups, including at times their children, because of their perceived racial and biological inferiority: Roma View This Term in the Glossary (Gypsies), Germans with disabilities, and some of the Slavic peoples (especially Poles and Russians). Other groups were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals." This pretty clearly says that the USHMM defines the Holocaust as the genocide of the Jews. There were other victims of the Nazis "during the era of the Holocuast" not that they were also victims of the Holocaust. [[User:|Ealdgyth]] (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• No because according to USHMM site, these victims do NOT belong to Holocaust. It say "during the era of the Holocaust", not "Holocaust victims". This is a mainstream position on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Information While this article says, specifically, at the top that the Holocaust was "the genocide of European Jews during World War II". The article does also list other victims [7]. And I note that the related article Holocaust victims also lists other victims. Those are just observations. When I hear "The Holocaust", I tend to think of the Jewish genocide. Attic Salt (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• No, per Ealdgyth. It is true that some definitions of the Holocaust, especially in the non-Anglophone world, have a tendency to use a more expansive term which would catch, for example, the Spanish republican political prisoners at Mauthausen concentration camp but this is definitely not the consensus position in the scholarly literature. At worst, this kind of wide redefining to capture any mass incarcerations and killings of the period verges on Holocaust trivialization by drawing parallels which are mutually unhelpful with the scale and nature of the persecution of Jews in German-occupied Europe. In any case, why are we preferring the USHMM's website over more significant published sources anyway? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• NoWikipedia protocol for the Infobox seems to suggest that for conflicts where there is controversy, that info shouldn't be included in the infobox, there should be a link to it in the body where the controversy is discussed in detail. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• No, From the USHMM site, not all the victims are from the Holocaust. Sea Ane (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• No, I concur with the general consensus here, that the info should not be included in the infobox. As cited before, the USHMM defines the Holocaust as "the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its allies and collaborators." As such I do not support the inclusion the suggested victims. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• No As per above editors, USHMM defines "The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazi regime and its collaborators" hence not in support to include the suggested victims. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• No, not the normal definition.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

"Main article" link template in Wannsee Conference section is misspelled

It should be written as Wannsee, not "Wansee". Sesquivalent (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you, @Sesquivalent:. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop...

Moving others comments around and making it look like earlier comments were made in response to comments made later. These edits were the first comments on the pet issue - but above after this series of edits it now "looks" like those first comments were made in response to a whole big block of text that came later. Per WP:TPG, this should not be done. Please don't do it, it makes it difficult to keep the chronology straight. For the record, MY edit of "I agree. The only possible way I could MAYBE see inclusion is if some of the general histories of the Holocaust connected the two events, but I'm not seeing that in the sourcing given. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)" was in response to Acretion's original bringing of the discussion to the talk page and not in any response to Iyo-farm - who has so disordered the talk page order that it now appears that he brought the concerns to the talk page first - which is not the case.

I'd already asked the contributor not to do this once. [8] They did this again, after [9] my warning. Messing around with other people's posts is rarely advisable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the posts to chronological order again. Any further violation of WP:TPG is going to result in a report to WP:ANI. No contributor has the right to reorder discussions in such a thoroughly misleading manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I made the request but it takes time to produce a substantive comment, with references, unlike the simply dismissive "I don't like it" ones who find it inappropriate. You discuss pets, I'll revert it to section I wrote & present it as I did. Thanks --Iyo-farm (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

September Holocaust

As the proposer of the additional 45 words in a 16,000 essay referring to the September holocaust, I'll address this here but would at like to warn other users of WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:NOTCENSORED British pet massacre

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness

Looking back to the first edit summary, it's little more than a dogwhistle to the page's would be gatekeepers [10] & can I remember editors that this page is not a memorial to the victims but a factual encyclopedic record of the events leading up, during, & afterwards. Outrages about "appropriateness" really have no place. There are endless "bad looking" facts on the Wikipedia. That's not a defence against their inclusion.

What is happening here is simply a reaction to new, surprising, but entirely relevant information and I will explain why.

I think that those knee jerking to a moral outrage are both unaware of the facts, which is understandable, and consequently unable to think them through.

• However, before I do, would the opposers please state clearly what they see as the scope of this article is, & sustain it?

For example if, as Ealdgyth claims, this is a topic about "the genocide of the Jews" [11], why is there mention of the Armenian holocaust, widely accepted as the first use of the term for a human genocide?

The sources I am using to sustain the use of the term are;

• National Canine Defence League, Annual Report 1939. London, 1939. Page 2.
• Zeigler, Philip. London at War 1939–45. London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1995 Page 74
• Calder, Angus. The People’s War. London: Cape, 1969 reprinted 1986. Page 34
• People's War, European Review of History: Revue eropéenne d'histoire, 22:5, Page 742
• The Phoney War on the Home Front. E. S. Turner, Faber & Faber, 17 Apr 2012 ("holocaust of pets")
• The Dog and Cat Massacre of September 1939 and the People’s War, Hilda Kean.
• European Review of History—Revue europe ́enne d’histoire, 2015 Vol. 22, No. 5, 741–756

Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The scope of this article is an issue that has been discussed many times on this talk page, and the clear consensus is that the article should confine itself to the specific historical events that are generally referred to as 'the Holocaust' - the systematic slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany. It is an article about specific events. It is not a dictionary definition, and as such is not expected to cover other events that may sometimes have been referred to by the same word. This is entirely normal practice in Wikipedia (and in printed encyclopaedias for that matter). Articles are about specific subjects. Not words. And I'd have to suggest that if you are serious about trying to overturn a long-standing consensus here, you would be well advised not to throw around words like 'gatekeepers' and 'moral outrage'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

As you will find as this unravels, this is new and relevant information pertinent to the transition of term from animal slaughter, to human genocide. A simple two sentence inclusion of a very proximal use, immediately before the application of it to the Nazi holocaust, that involved both the British & Nazi Elites, various departments within the wartime government include military intelligence, & deeply touched the people of London, the significance of which I will spell out. It's about the establishment of the term.

It is not about the actual event at all. It's about the word. They etymology. And I don't see the mention being expanded any further.

Lastly, if the article is about "the systematic slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany" why is there mention of the Armenians? Clearly that can't be the real reason. --Iyo-farm (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The answer is still no. The subject of this article is as already stated, per consensus. As for the Armenian massacre, this is mentioned briefly, as the first use, in its modern sense, of the term. Expanding the section to include every subsequent usage would once again result in a dictionary definition at best, and a rag-bag collection of random Google-mining dross at worst. Historians of the Holocaust don't discuss the killing of pets in the UK in their writings, so neither will Wikipedia. It is simply off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm raising the first uses of it relating directly to the Nazis. Indeed, their high command. Is that not historically relevant?

In short, underlining how the term was established in the public imagination at the time, & exploited in a propaganda war, before being applied to humans.

Take a look at the topic page British pet massacre & check the references.

For what it's worth, my preferred terminology for the events relating to the European Jews is the Shoah. It was the first proper title, it is a Hebrew word & the one used in Israel officially, & it relates entirely to humans, unlike holocaust which originally relates to burnt animals.

What the inclusion addresses is the missing connection, how it got from applying to animals, to being applied the Jews. Given that at this time, at least a quarter of the London population alone had suffered the trauma of losing a family member, & the term was being actively exploited in anti-Nazi propaganda at the highest levels in society. It's highly pertinent. --Iyo-farm (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I see several misunderstandings in Inyo-farm's assertions:

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is not about the word "holocaust."
• This article isn't an "essay." It is a singular discussion of a specific event or subject, as are most Wikipedia articles. If you want everything that has been tagged as a "holocaust," Holocaust (disambiguation) is thataway. This article concerns the specific, horrific event that inspires the often inappropriate or hyperbolic use of the term in times since.
• This article is about The Holocaust, the attempt by Nazi Germany to systematically eradicate Jews from Europe. The definite article has profound meaning. The scope of The Holocaust is sometimes expanded to cover other genocidal acts by the Nazis - this is a matter of debate.The notion that the extermination of a race of people by other people who hated them is in no way equivalent or belongs on the same page as a panicked reaction by a besieged populace that feared starvation. That the term is grossly misused by some writers intent on riding the coattails of tragedy and crimes against humanity to make a rhetorical point is not Wikipedia's concern.
• Your preferred term, "Shoah" is valid in Hebrew. It is not widely used in English - the museum in Washington is not the "Museum of the Shoah." We are concerned here with the singular event, which you are trying to use as a coatrack for animal rights. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

a) "not about the word". The etymology section is.

b) "essay". Essay/article you know what I mean. 45 words out of 16,000.

c) "Jews". The topic mentions the Armenians, & has a long section on "Other victims of Nazi persecution" (1,500 words, approx, versus an additional 45)

d) "riding the coattails". These were uses that predate the use of it for humans in WWII at the highest level of society, including the military.

e) "animal rights". I think what we are getting to here is the real cause of your reaction, which is that you don't like animals being correlated with the victims of the Nazi Holocaust. But that's missing the point. It's not about the animals, it's about the evolution of the word in the public's & establishment's mind at the time, & how it shifted from being used about animals, to first being about Jews in Europe (so far, I have the Jewish Frontier, November 1942, editorial, p 3, and the UK's News Chronicle, 5 December 1942, but even in 1960 it is still being used in a generic sense Shoah scholars, e.g. Francois Mauriac's introduction to Elie Wiesel's Night, 1960. Probably the first use in that sense).

Now, I'm not present WP:OR, just the facts & susbtaining them on the weight of those who were involved. I'm in the middle of digging out contemporary news reports, so expect more. Without the immediately prior context, it would have had little value. --Iyo-farm (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

'Digging out contemporary news reports' in order to promote you own particular opinions as to whether off-topic material should be included in an article is WP:OR, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No, not if no conclusion or theories are developed from it. What the topic lacks is an explanation of how the term holocaust came to be applied to the Shoah, who coined it, when etc. Therefore, within the etymology of the term, it is very much on topic (noting that it's been the subject of rigorous debate among academic etymologists and historians, e.g. [12] [13]). --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those two sources show that there has been academic discussion of how the term holocaust came to be applied to the Shoah, as you said. But what they don't show is that the British pet massacre and its ostensible description as a holocaust has any relevance whatsoever to the Shoah, which is what this article discusses. Neither do any other sources I've seen you provide. Without sourcing that draws a clear link between the "September holocaust" and The Holocaust, in the context of etymology or some other context, including the former in an article about the latter is original research and more specifically synthesis. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Pets

Inappropriate dramatizations of bad events by applying the term"holocaust" need to be strictly limited. The killing of pets, however awful, has no place in this article. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The only possible way I could MAYBE see inclusion is if some of the general histories of the Holocaust connected the two events, but I'm not seeing that in the sourcing given. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Not applicable to the article, by any stretch of imagination. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree. - Daveout(talk) 19:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, absolutely. Utterly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not about "pets", which is clearly a huge & prejudicial deliberate belittlement of the issue, it's about the prior & contemporary use of the word, as with the Armenians.

Once you get your heads around that, let me know.

Think it through, do you call Mass-Observation (it was the equivalent to a British CIA at the time) & the British intelligence black-propaganda unit, NARPAC & numerous leading members of the British war effort, Queen Elizabeth, Goering & von Ribbentrop, & pretty much the entire adult population of London (where its media & government are) "peripheral" to the development of what happened during WWII? Seriously?

So, where we have got to is a use of national significance in 1939, then a propaganda campaign in 1940 referring to the "hideous holocaust" of 3,000,000 dogs in Germany at that time. It's impossible to exclude the implications of that onto the evolution of the term relating to animal sacrifice, before it is used for humans in 1942.

Now, before anyone replies WP:OR, I am not presenting any such personal conclusions. Just the facts.

Whereas the Armenian Holocaust affected 100,000 to 200,000 individuals, the September Holocaust affected 500,000 in the London area alone, (over 25% of the population) with a noted traumatizing effect that became not only part of the propaganda war but, but raised the issues of animals in war to the highest levels of military/governance, leading to policy being adapted to suit.

I think a big part of the problem here is, no one's read the references. --Iyo-farm (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I'd strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process before people's patience runs out, and you find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

And what has Queen Elizabeth got to do with "the development of what happened during WWII" - she didn't become Queen until 1952 and was a 13 year-old schoolgirl in 1939. Neiltonks (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

First use of the term in another context

Courtesy collapse

The following comment was added to my user talk page. I am moving it here instead: Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Copy of comment originally at User talk:Mathglot#September holocaust: What I've discovered so far is the first direct use of the word holocaust relating to the Nazis by an individual acting as part of a black-propaganda campaign run by the British. An individual who had direct relationships with both high level Nazis, & the British royalty. With sources. That in itself is so inarguably, highly notable that it underlines the irrationality of the opposite to it. Explain to me why it cannot be. --Iyo-farm (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Moved from User talk:Mathglot § September holocaust Hello again, User:Iyo-farm. I've moved the discussion here, so other interested editors may participate if they wish to; they are unlikely to find it on my User talk page. I'm not quite sure what you are saying, here. Have you discovered something that has never been reported before in the field of Holocaust studies? Like the topic of the French Revolution, Holocaust studies is one of the most densely covered fields of scholarship in history. It would be pretty unusual for a Wikipedia editor to be the first to make such a connection. But if that is truly the case, then you should try to publish your findings somewhere, perhaps in a journal like T&F's Holocaust Studies, and then propose it on the Talk page for addition. (Even then, it would be WP:PRIMARY, and possibly WP:UNDUE.) Otherwise, it would be original research, and couldn't be added. Or, are you saying that this has been published in academic journals and has been picked up and covered in secondary sources already? In that case, assuming there's no fringe or due weight issue, and you're talking about the use of the term 'holocaust' as it relates to this article, and not some other use of the term for conflagrations, pets, and so on, then you're welcome to add it, along with the usual citations to back it up. If this is about adding other uses of the term that are unrelated to the topic of this article, then please note that there is already a hatnote at the very top of the article that should lead readers to what they are looking for. (Also, I don't think you meant notable, at least, not in the Wikipedia sense of the term, as notability has nothing to do with content inclusion in a given article. Maybe you meant WP:DUE?) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. Iyo, I just noticed dotted style under your username *after* I saved this. If that means something like a t-ban or partial block, then please *don't* respond here just now; I am not trying to bait or entrap you. If there is some kind of content or other restriction that inhibits your ability to respond to this, then I'll collapse this discussion at your request until such time as you are free to respond to it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Collapsed this to avoid the appearance of entrapment to violate a partial T-ban, based on recent activity at ANI. Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC) User is now indeffed and won't be responding. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

Second paragraph opens with:

Germany implemented the persecution in stages. Following Adolf Hitler's appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933

• Chancellor should be chancellor Darcourse (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

People with disabilities

Under "other victims of the Holocaust" I didn't see anything about people with disabilities. I am not an expert but I know some of the first "undesirables" to be killed in the eugenics movement were people with physical or mental differences. I came here to learn more about it. I'm not sure if that is within the definition of the Holocaust but I think at least there should be a link to an article about eugenics and/or medical experimentation. Thanks to all the contributors I learned a lot from this article. 184.10.199.16 (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. Although the killing of people with disabilities is mentioned in the article in some places, it isn't included in the 'Other victims of Nazi persecution' section. We cover the topic in the Holocaust victims article, but I don't think that is at all sufficient. The topic should certainly be discussed to a greater extent here, not least because as historians have noted, such killings (as described in further detail in our article on the Aktion T4 program) were not only the first examples of systematic mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis, but may have acted as an ideological precursor - to have assisted them in their objectives in convincing the 'ordinary German' that such mass murder could be morally justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2021

The word "killing" implies legal justification, rather, murder is more accurate to describe why the atrocities committed during that era were so terrible. There is a huge distinction between the term killing, and murder. Tonystinge (talk) 17:01, 28 December 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Intentionalist/Structuralist "no order" issue

Hi, there is the notion that Hitler did not commit any Holocaust plans to writing due to the negative public repercussions of being criticized for T4, which he did sign off on; I believe I read it first in Joachim Fest, but I'm not sure. I found this source, however: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=constructing . Anyhow, I don't know if it is important enough to bring into the article (under the section dealing with e.g. T4), or maybe only over at the T4 article, or not at all. T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding lead image on Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy

I have begun a discussion on the talk page of Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy regarding the lead images used in that article. Please see the images for yourself, and I would appreciate any input from the editors of this page. See Talk:Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy#Lead image used in article for further discussion. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Best books?

I may put this on my rotation to bring up to GA, and am hoping the regulars can suggest the best books on the subject. Pings appreciated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try to not sound like an owner or something, but ... if you've never read much on the Holocaust (and the fact that you're asking for recommendations for the "best books on the subject" sure makes it sound like you've pretty much not read much on the subject), I can't say that you should be considering trying to bring this article up to GA status. I've read and studied the Holocaust pretty much most of my life, and I've put in a good chunk of effort into fixing this article ... and I"m daunted by the idea of taking it to GAN, I'm aware that it's not really ready yet for that. It's closer than its been in the past, but, frankly, it's not there yet. And it's an incredibly complex subject with the serious potential to have real world harm if not handled well. And I'm not just talking about the victims and their families being harmed/offended - but getting information wrong on this article can only fuel the deniers who look for every single tiny error to exploit. And frankly, it's also insulting to the "regulars" here that you're dropping in, having (near as I can tell) never edited in the topic area at all, and want to "bring it up to GA" ... like the efforts of the regulars aren't worth acknowledging or even thinking its worth consulting with them whether they think it's up to a push to GA.

All that said, if you're serious, you're in for some seriously depressing reading. The place to start is with the bibliography of this article first - the big overviews we're using here are Bauer's A History of the Holocaust, Bergen's War and Genocide 3rd ed., Bloxham's Final Solution, Cesarani's Final Solution, Dwork and van Pelt's Holocaust, Friedlander's two volumes work Nazi Germany and the Jews - vol. 1 The Years of Persecution and vol. 2 The Years of Extermination, Gerlach's The Extermination of the European Jews, Longerich's Holocaust, and Waschmann's KL. Gilbert's The Holocaust and Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews are also foundational, but they have been mostly superceded by the previous books. For the historiography - look at Stone's Histories of the Holocaust and Niewyk and Nicosia The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust. Two briefer intros to the subject are Black Holocaust and Fischel The Holocaust - those two are designed more for high school or undergraduate students looking for introductions to the subject. You should also read at least one good book on the extermination camps - the problem is there isn't one on all of them together - the closest is Arad's work on the three Reinhard camps - which you'd need to supplement with one of the Auschwitz works and Montague's work on Chelmno. There's not a good coverage of Majandek. Also - you're going to want something to cover the ghettos and the "Holocaust by Bullets" in the Soviet Union. Oh, and then you need to cover the death marches, and the aftermath. And historical controversies afterwards. And Jewish resistance. And the other victims - euthenasia, medical experiments, Roma, ethnic minorities, etc. And that's just the start of the reading.... our Bibliography of The Holocaust is very cursory, but at least is a start. Bear in mind that the fall of the Soviet Union is a watershed event for Holocaust studies - works from before then are often outdated in details and even in overview because of the massive changes stemming from the opening up of archives, sites, and eyewitnesses after the end of the Cold War. So... yeah, there's more to this subject area than a few books. Each of the ten I listed first has its own take on the events, and while covering some of the same details ... often covers the subject from a different viewpoint than the others. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth Sorry, I didn't mean to be dismissive. But I believe in the spirit of Wikipedia, which is that anyone can edit anything. I imagine it would take me years or decades even to take it to GA, but I think its worth the effort. Plus, I would likely start with sub-articles. Or at least I might make some small difference. I greatly appreciate you taking some time out to list some books and explain the difficulties :) I of course would not take this article to GA, or any article to GA, without first extensively editing it and talking and working with its regular editors. This was mostly a feasibility request, and you have given me a highly useful answer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

New material on the number of Roma and Sinti murdered

Can I add in the following estimates to the Roma Section? This seems to meet the requirements for reliable sources as it is already on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_genocide Romani Genocide page.

Research cited by Ian Hancock estimated the death toll to be at about 1.5 million out of an estimated 2 million Roma. Pngeditor (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pngeditor: it's a chapter written by an established historian from a well-cited reliably published academic book, so yes, it's an excellent source. (It's worth nothing that it's not exactly "new" material, though, since it was published back in 2005). The chapter is actually already cited in the relevant section, The Holocaust#Roma, but after looking carefully at the cite it appears to be used incorrectly (our text cites page 385 to support "up to 220,000", whereas the chapter discusses the death toll at pp. 391–392 and directly contradicts this figure).

I fully agree our text needs to properly integrate Hancock's analysis, which will add important information to our summary. What he says far much more nuanced than simply "1.5 million", however. That number is the highest end of wide range estimated by another historian whom Hancock cites; Hancock does not provide his own figure. The key points are:

1. That the number of Romani deaths is extremely difficult to determine (he includes a relevant quote which says "it is an impossible task to find the actual number of Gypsy victims in Poland, Yugoslavia, White Ruthenia and the Ukraine, the lands that probably had the greatest numbers of victims"). We don't currently say this in the article, and I think we should.
2. The 1.5 million number actually comes from Sybil Milton, then senior historian at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, who in 1997 estimated that the number of Romani killed by 1945 was "between a half and one and a half million". It may be appropriate to include this range in addition to the "up to 220,000" estimate, it's worth looking at how other literature has treated Milton's estimates. At a minimum, I believe we should drop the phrasing "up to", as serious scholarly estimates appear to go much higher. I think it's notable that Milton's lowest figure is more than twice this.
3. He notes the historiography has developed significantly in recent years: "testimonials at first-hand from claimants throughout central and eastern Europe have shed startling new light on this issue: the number of Romani survivors is far in excess of anything previously estimated. By extrapolation, and from the same eyewitness accounts documented in recent years, the numbers of Romanies who perished at the hands of the Nazis have also been grossly underestimated. Eventually, these revised figures will find their way into the public record." This may be worth noting, depending on space constraints. Jr8825 • Talk 13:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

'Wählt Christlichsozial' does not mean 'Vote Christian Socialist', but 'Vote Social Christian'. It was not even remotely a 'Socialist' Party

Can somebody please correct this? It is misleading.--Mondschein (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! Just changed it now. –AFreshStart (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Holocaust

This page speaks only of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. It completely dismisses all of the others, non-jews, who were killed. Fix it. This is not the sole domain of Jewish people. 2601:8C0:4300:B990:C917:9E49:F21D:6409 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't actually read any of the article, huh? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

While the article certainly does not dismiss the non-Jewish victims, it does take the position that the word "Holocaust" applies specifically only to extermination of Jewish people and therefore these non-Jewish victims of the Nazis are not correctly referred to by the term "Holocaust". Compare "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II." and the title of the "Other victims of Nazi persecution" section. The closing paragraph of the introduction "The European Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event during the Holocaust era ... in which Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered millions of others, including ethnic Poles, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, the Roma, the disabled, political and religious dissidents, and gay men."

However, that is at odds with the opening to the Holocaust Victims article "Holocaust victims were people targeted by the government of Nazi Germany based on their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation." Camipco (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Holacaust

The item on the Holocaust says that only that six million Jews were murdered. This is just partially correct and is misleading. At least five million others were murdered by the Nazis—including three million Polish Catholics and three million others, including gays, the mentally and physically disabled, and those Hitler considered unfit. The Holocaust was not just a crime against Jews, but a crime against all humanity. This should be made clear in the Item on the Holocaust. Otherwise the item is just propaganda for one group . 2601:240:CB02:6E50:5162:170D:4175:EA19 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Some sources take the stance that the Holocaust refers solely to the genocide of Jews by Nazis; others include other mass killings in that total, with some disagreement as to which ones to include. This article goes with the former definition. The article Holocaust victims, meanwhile, goes with the latter, and the two should probably be brought in line, in one direction or the other. However, calling this "propaganda for [Jews]" is not remotely appropriate, and borders on antisemitism. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If we do decide to include non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust in this article, then it might be a good idea to have a separate article about the Shoah in the same way we have articles about the Porajmos and the Polish and Soviet genocides. Conversely, were we to keep this to be primarily about the Shoah, a summary style article about the Nazi genocides (including the Holocaust) wouldn't go amiss either. In any case, it's a discussion worth having. Sceptre (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There are summaries of other victims in this article already, and this is discussed in both the lead (final para.) and definition sections – so other groups are not being purposefully excluded. The definition section directly discusses this and asserts that "Holocaust historians commonly define the Holocaust as the genocide of the European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1941 and 1945". Not all of the sources for that sentence look watertight to me, but there are certainly very strong ones there. I think a thorough literature review would be necessary before embarking on a change of the article's current scope, and I'd be very surprised if this hasn't been discussed here many times before, so a trawl through the talk page archives would be helpful. A separate, broader article (along the lines of "The Holocaust era", which is linked from the current lead but points to the definition section) covering all of the Nazi genocides as Sceptre suggests may be a good ambition. The most important thing in my view, however, is to ensure that the summaries in this article of other groups' persecution are accurate and informative. This wasn't the case for the section on the Roma, something pointed out in the thread above; I've now boldly implemented changes on the basis of that discussion. Although I've always thought of the Holocaust as encompassing all of the victims of Nazi genocidal/mass-murder policies (this is what I was taught back in school), I see Britannica adopts the same usage as this article and constrains its definition to the genocide of Jews. Jr8825 • Talk 22:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The article scope has been discussed a number of times - the discussions are in the archives. From my attempts to keep up with current literature - things haven't changed in the scholarly field either - there's still a good majority of scholars who consider it best to limit the scope to the Jewish victims. The article attempts to not ignore other victims while also keeping within the bounds of the usual scholarly definition. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Polish "principal enemy" verification statement

On page 48 of Zimmerman - we have "In the first period of the war, the German leadership aimed to liquidate the Polish educated elite. Whereas the long-term goal to clear German-occupied Poland of Jews took on a primarily legal character in the first period of the war, Nazi Polish policy was lethal during this same time. German records reveal that the SS hierarchy defined ethnic Poles as the principal enemy in the first six months of the war. The German occupation forces called for the destruction of the “Polish element” in the western annexed region and for the liquidation of the Polish educated elite in central Poland. Evidence for this policy is found in the record of a local SS leader who told his soldiers in October 1939 that it was “the Fuhrer’s wish” that steps be taken to Germanize the annexed territories." and on page 71 "In the first six months of occupation, the primary victims of physical terror were ethnic Poles whose leaders were summarily arrested and executed in an effort to prevent an underground resistance movement from rising. With the threat of incarceration, executions, and forced labor deportations, the perception among the underground leadership and government officials abroad tended to be that Poles, not Jews, were the primary targets of German terror. This chapter argues, however, that underground records point to a changing perception. By May 1941, the ZWZ-Home Army reports clearly maintained that Jews, not Poles, had become the primary victims under German rule." so... while it technically supports the current sentences "While the long-term goal of Nazi Germany was removal of Jews from occupied Poland, Poles were the first victims of German physical terror during the first months of the occupation, and the SS hierarchy defined ethnic Poles as the principal enemy, with calls to destroy the "Polish element" in the western part of annexed Poland." it's definitely not exactly clear that this "principle enemy" period was very early. Given the overview nature of the article - I don't think it's a good idea to put this into wikivoice, especially as unclear as the current article text is about when the period of "principle enemy" situation was (and that Zimmerman is pretty clear that the Germans aimed the terror at the Polish elites, not the entire Polish population. We've also got a bit of an issue with perhaps too close paraphrasing -- Ealdgyth (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: thanks very much for the speedy source check. How does the following text look?

−

While the long-term goal of Nazi Germany was removal of Jews from occupied Poland, Poles were the first victims of German physical terror during the first months of the occupation, and the SS hierarchy defined ethnic Poles as the principal enemy, with calls to destroy the "Polish element" in the western part of annexed Poland.

+

While the long-term goal of Nazi Germany was removal of Jews from occupied Poland, in the initial months of occupation the SS predominantly directed physical violence towards ethnic Poles, arresting and executing educated elites in an attempt to prevent the development of organised resistance.

Jr8825 • Talk 23:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And closer to the whole text of the source - what the totality of the pages are saying. Going with that, we can probably just source it to page 48, not needing page 71. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder

One of the sources uses for the "Deaths" field in the info-box is Timothy Snyder's book Bloodlands (Basic Books 2010). Snyder is a very controversial writer, he is not an expert on the Holocaust, and his book was not published by an academic publisher. Furthermore, the quoted text does not mention how many victims there were.

I think it should be removed, but will wait for other editors' comments.

TFD (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, Timothy Snyder is a professor of history at Yale University (not some obscure community college) which says he specializes in the history of Central and Eastern Europe, and in the Holocaust, so I have trouble with your assertion that "he is not an expert on the Holocaust". Can you cite any reliable sources for your claim of his lack of expertise? What is the meaning of the words "very controversial" in this context? The book in question was widely reviewed but not widely denounced. Yes, there were some negative reviews but most were mostly or entirely positive. As for Basic Books, they have been bruised by the financial pressures of the internet era, as countless companies have been, but remain a respectable and reliable publishing house. Unless you can provide reliable sources that report that they have regularly published discredited books, that is. If you can provide a clearly better source, then fine. But I do not see the point of besmirching Snyder, his book and his publisher, while providing zero actual evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

First, Basic Books is not an academic publisher. AFAIK, Snyder has written only one article for academic journals or textbooks about the Holocaust. Richard J. Evans, one of the foremost scholars on Nazism, wrote, "But few who have described Trump as a fascist can be called real experts in the field, not even Snyder."[14] In a review of Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning, Richard Steigmann-Gall says that Snyder says "that Hitler was responding to an ecological crisis when he decided to kill the Jews."[15]

He wrote a four page article about the Holocaust 10 years ago, which was published by Contemporary European History,[16] but that is the extent of his career as a holocaust scholar.

Basically, he is a "public intellectual," as Steigmann-Gall calls him, who writes popular books that promote provocative theories, but have no influence in mainstream scholarship. The fact that someone who thinks the Holocaust was a response to an ecological crisis also considers it to be a genocide is unimportant to most readers.

I don't want to get into a big argument, but I think you must agree that there are better experts than him.

TFD (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)