Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

The only "undue weight" in this most important article, is given to the Nazis

Romania did everything the Nazis did. The Nazis weren't unique. Fundamentally, in principle, Romania was on par. Granted, in scale there is no comparison. I honestly can't stand the "Nazi absolutism" at play here. The prevailing notion that Hitler always led the way, when in fact it was Romania having the most antisemitic legislation before Barbarossa started, and indeed, actually spearheaded the Holocaust for at least the first 2 months of Barbarossa, per Hitler's own account. Romania was killing Jewish women and children more than a month before the Nazis started to do so. All of this is duly sourced, it's in the article, kindly go give it a read.

You think what I'm doing is to radical? Trust me, I'm (still) holding back, a small fear that if I go too hard in one fell swoop it will all be reverted. But yes, we should have more of Romania in the heading, the sections, and the infobox. That part in the Barbarossa section, stating that the Nazis started going after women and children from 1 August? Yeah uhh, Romania had been doing that for over a month! And I'd add this there for context.

I am very familiar with the - to put it mildly - lackluster Holocaust memory in Romania. With the public cult of war criminals - street names, monuments and the like - including Antonescu. But then, I look at us, over here in the West. We expect the Romanians to be impacted, we keep reminding them of the Wiesel Commission report which states that Romania was the 2nd greatest perpetrator. And yet...What would a Romanian, checking out this article, be seeing? Nazi this and Nazi that, oh and look here, a few lines on Romania, like a footnote, almost like an afterthought. You see, Romania was the second greatest perpetrator. Not only that, it was the only other "full package" perpetrator country, and for a while, at the beginning, the biggest perpetrator. And it's high time we start acting like it. Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Article talk pages are for discussion on how to improve the article - i.e. concrete suggestions with supporting sources. This seems more like soapboxing.

2. There is already a section on Romania's involvement, with links to entire articles on it.

(Hohum ^@) 12:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor is "discussing" this edit where they elevated Romania to being co-equal with Nazi Germany as a instigator of the Holocaust. I reverted the edit, sayin it was undue weight to Romania, but the editor reinstated the edit. (The issue of making a dog's biscuit of the references and referencing style of the article is another kettle of fish). They are clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with some sort of bee in their bonnet about Romania being evil or something. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I doubt the sources support giving such prominence. I think the editor should abide by WP:BRD properly, and revert their edit, pending discussion here. (Hohum ^@) 12:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Do please actually read the sources, and you'll stop doubting.

Ealdgyth I never said Romania was an instigator, though it's a good point: the fact that Romania started killing Jewish men and women over a month before the Nazis probably nudged the latter in that direction faster. No, I made Romania "co-equal" because it implemented its own plan. It makes no sense - to me at least - to list Romania as a collaborator, because...it didn't collaborate to the Nazi scheme, it implemented its own. As for WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, this specifically mentions the issue of lacking sources. Thus...I don't think you are in the right to hit me with this. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read many many many of the sources listed in this article - and they are pretty unanimous about giving Nazi Germany the prime role in instigating and pushing through the Holocaust. Sources like Longerich, Bauer, Friedlander, Gilbert, Hilberg, etc. all give the prime role to Nazi Germany and the other countries/leaders that took part are considered collaborators, not on the same level as the Germans and their leaders. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about any "prime role", it's about Romania doing its own thing. Why's it a mistake to stress that? The heading implies that Germany alone made such a comprehensive extermination plan, "from definition to killings", and that's just not the case, because Romania did too. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Germany bore the overwhelming responsibility, and was assisted to greater (Romania) and somewhat lesser (France) degrees by collaborationists. You imply that Romania was a coequal instigator with your edits,whether you think so or not. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the status quo implies that Romania just played along with Germany's plan, rather than implementing its own, which is also inaccurate. How about...In the heading (leaving the infobox untouched), next to "its collaborators", I add "(notably Romania)", along with the annotation with the 3 sources which state that Romania did its own thing? Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No, because the sources you're bringing to the table are outweighed by the many others who don't single out Romania especially in this way. Hilberg's foundational but no longer current in the historiography. Arendt isn't even a historian (Why does everyone think citing Arendt's work on Eichmann is somehow going to trump more modern scholars?), another source is this one which is a focused history on one Romanian family and it's experiences in the Holocaust (and thus shouldn't be used to make sweeping statements on Romania's place in the Holocaust), and your other two sources are focused on either the Balkans or the Romanian Orthodox Church and thus ... again, shouldn't be used to assess the place of ROmania in the whole Holocaust. Note also that we already STATE much of what you want to insert ... with Dan Stone's quote ... it's right there in the Romanian section "According to Dan Stone, the murder of Jews in Romania was "essentially an independent undertaking"." So all you're adding in the Romania section is a bunch of either outdated quotes (Arendt) or OR in interpreting some stuff Hitler said ... and it's too much weight for the information - this article is the top-level article for the topic - we necessarily have to be somewhat brief given the depth of the subject that needs covering. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. Silly me for having even tried. Keep whatever you might find of value from my work here, if indeed, anything at all. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I wish to add two brief statements from my original attempt in Romania's section, those sourced to Hilberg and stone. And to add (such as Romania) next to "its collaborators". Am I asking too much still? Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, you need to bring some sources that are recent and cover the entire subject of the Holocaust in order to add "such as Romania" into the lead. And we already USE Stone in the Romania section and he discusses what you're trying to add. We don't need to add more than that - we're already SAYING what you're wanting to add quotes for. We don't need to add words just to add words - there is no "we know that Romania was a big bad perpetrator in the Holocaust because it has more words than France in the article" rule... Ealdgyth (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I add some of this info in the Romania section of the Responsability article? Look, it's just that I spent time and effort digging these up and wording them, I want something to come of it... Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Transylvania1916 I think what you're really looking to edit is History_of_the_Jews_in_Romania#The_Holocaust, which should probably be split out into a separate article titled The Holocaust in Romania (its just a redirect right now). Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, main articles are general overviews of the topic, and the sub-articles can go deeper in depth on particular issues. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Holocaust the exclusive domain of the Nazis? Why is Romania lumped together as a "collaborator" when it didn't collaborate, implementing its own plan instead? Why is all this allowed? How on Earth is it fair to nit-pick on my sources - which I do make sure always come from academic publishers - when there are books-worth of unsourced content on the Wiki? Why do you think it's fair to revert my hours worth of work with a few despicably dismissive words then be surprised when I naturally react? Why you despicably dismissively revert all my work, and don't make the slightest attempt to salvage anything? Why am I even bothering to write this, when I know that you people are too dense to understand what I'm saying? Why do you hit me with a WP:Something instead of talking to me like a normal human, a dignity which I do afford you? Why is "the consensus" only interested in perpetual stagnation? Why do I even bother?... Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of image

@Buidhe - Please explain in more details why the long-standing image of Pilecki has been removed [1] and what precisely is undue in this long-standing version. Let's start with this one. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is a high-level overview, so detailed information on individual sources of information to the Allies is UNDUE. Although Pilecki was an important source of information, there were many others who also provided key knowledge. NPOV extends to images, so highlighting one individual out of many can be a violation of due weight. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Who exactly were these "many others", what sources cover them, and what is the indication that they were more significant? Any of them volunteered to be sent to Auschwitz to gather intelligence? Volunteer Marek 05:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Buidhe - I disagree. You need to build consensus for your massive changes. I’m going to revert you (already done by different user). Please discuss line by line. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Another issue in the Mass Shooting section

It reads:

Notable massacres include the July 1941 Ponary massacre near Vilnius (Soviet Lithuania), in which Einsatgruppe B and Lithuanian collaborators shot 72,000 Jews and 8,000 non-Jewish Lithuanians and Poles.

Please take a peek at the Ponary massacre article. The victims are listed as follow:

• Polish Jews: 70,000
• Poles: 20,000
• Soviet/Russians: 8,000

Where are non-Jewish Lithuanians come from? I would like to see a quotation, particularly regarding non-Jewish Lithuanians. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

These numbers can be found in this source. Volunteer Marek 08:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's on page 192 of my copy of Bloodlands - 2010 paperback edition by Basic Books, ISBN 978-0-465-03147-4. "Some 72,000 Jews from Vilnius and elsewhere (and about eight thousand non-Jewish Poles and Lituanians) were shot at Ponary." This is referenced to endnote 12 on page 485 which is "Tomkiewicz, Ponary, 191-197" which appears to be listed in full on page 458 as "Monika Tomkiewicz, Zbrodnia w Ponarach 1941-1944, Warsaw: IPN, 2008". Most other sources give more imprecise numbers - usually "from 70,000 to 100,000 victims, most of them Jewish". Also - can we try to at least pretend to follow the citation style in use in the article - at one point I had it cleaned up nicely - all the book sources were in sfn format, but so many people just coming by, dropping in their own little bit of whatever without any care for the article as a whole have totally messed up the effort. It's very .. .discouraging, and frankly annoying, to watch the hours of effort to bring this article up to a status where everything was sourced and it was consistent ... fall down the drain again. It's once more subject to undue weight on several points, because no one is paying attention to the whole picture and keeping in mind this is an overview article, it needs to be kept in balance with what the high quality academic works on the broad subject cover. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ll fix the citation style shortly (have to go now) - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

New edit - Quotation request

@User:EnlightenmentNow1792 - In light of your edit - [2] I’m requesting a quotation from the source you evidently based your edit on (Stone page 2-3). Pinging User:Ealdgyth as well. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not EN, but here's the quote. Maybe this Google Books link will work for others?

"For the purpose of this book, the Holocaust is understood as the genocide of the Jews, as they were defined by the Nazi regime, during World War II and, importantly, as a key part of Germany's war effort. Europe's Romany (Gypsy) population was also the victim of genocide under the Nazis. Many other population groups, notably Poles, Ukrainians, and Soviet prisoners of war were killed in huge numbers, and smaller groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Black Germans, and homosexuals suffered terribly under Nazi rule." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. After the above alternation our text now reads:

• Roma, Poles, Ukrainians and Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, were killed in especially large numbers, while smaller groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Black Germans, the disabled, and homosexuals also suffered terribly under Nazi rule.

Which might be a copyright violation. Too close to WP:COPYPASTE from the book. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's too close for comfort. Plus, understood as ... the genocide of the Jews". While I'm nitpicking, "especially" has a connotation that makes it unsuitable here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: This is a genuine question, in aide of potentially avoiding any further befuddlement on my - and that of other editors' - part, is there a reason as to why you are unable to read/see/access any sources yourself? Presuming there is, might I suggest making a note of it on your User Page or Talk Page? Otherwise you run the risk of your reverts/deletions of RSs, and queries of sources in instances such as this, as being interpreted as needlessly combative or else deliberately tendentious. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You can’t discuss this topic at the moment EnlightenmentNow1792 see -->[3] so I’ll not answer. You also continue breaching your TB elsewhere. [4],[5] (I’m posting it here because the user asked me not to post on his talk page --> [6]) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

off-topic

My question has nothing to do with Eastern Europe. Given your edit history, your refusal to answer my politely worded enquiry, is all the answer I - or anyone else - needs. Thank you. (P.S. I'd be absolutely delighted, and I'm asking you for the 9th time now, to please cease your WP:HOUNDING and WP:HARASS) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Look pal, you pinged me in your comment directed to me, so I responded. You continue breaching your TB. Read this --> WP:TBAN - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Then why are you all over my Talk page? And the Talk pages of other editors I am engaged in a discussion with? Your - as in GizzyCatBella's - inability or refusal to look at sources, is not contained in, or covered by, anything written in, WP:TBAN. You won't find it in there now matter how many times you keep pasting it to every page/article you keep following me to. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Ending this exchange since it’s off-topic - @EnlightenmentNow1792 you are welcome to use my talk page if you want to continue this exchange, but please be cautious not to breach your Topic Ban. Someone will report you eventually if you continue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Why in the first paragraph, it is written "Some six million jews" Instead of "Around six million jews"?

Why in the first paragraph, it is written "Some six million jews" Instead of "Around six million jews"? רם אבני (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It's just a less common phrasing, it means the same thing. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I boldly changed "some" to "around" per this comment. Endwise (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Just give a darn mention of the nonJewish victims on the splash page.

I see now that this debate had come up before and that the article does at least get around eventually to a discussion of the Gentile victims of the Holocaust deeper in with specific sections on various groups.

The problem is that the masses, googling "the Holocaust" for the first time, are going to read the first line and think "Ok: that's the basic story [and scope] of what happened," which is totally erroneous.

With nothing like a total scholarly consensus (and frankly it wouldn't change the inaccuracy even if there *were* one), it seems to me either absurdly pedantic or clearly slanted to insist on the nonmention of the nonJewish victims in the first sentence which is, for good or ill, the only sentence many readers will ever read.

Exactly the young and uneducated people who are already beginning to have the impression that only Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

In another 75 years of heading the current direction we're going the nonJewish victims will be considered an "alternative fact."

If most mainstream scholars had somehow come to the agreement that the Holocaust never in fact took place, is that what Wikipedia should reflect?

Obviously not.

It should reflect the truth.

Ya know: the actual, rational, reasonable empirical truth of the basic factual reality of an event for which we have no other name in common parlance.

Not just the most popular opinion. 97.115.170.34 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try reading as far as the fourth paragraph. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree, and for a more niche article that may be fine, but for something as broad as The Holocaust where especially a younger audience first learning about it might stumble upon this Wikipedia page, I think it would make more sense to describe it as the systematic murder of mainly European Jews along with several other minorities and ethnic groups, instead of solely naming Jews as the victim of the Holocaust. Prioritise but do not exclude. Redfordia (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

> Perhaps you should try reading as far as the fourth paragraph.

as much as you might wish otherwise, not everyone is going to do that. the jewish death toll is in the first paragraph but, i had to go to a separate article to find the total number of deaths.

i personally see no reason that should be the case. it seems like the most significant number would be how many people died, and that doesn't seem to be easily accessible anywhere. Binarycat64 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@97.115.170.34 They're splitting a hair on the term "Holocaust". Mleonard85032 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Non-Jewish victims

As another user noted, it's simply disgraceful the lack of mention for gays, gypsies, blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, the disabled, etc. It's an insult to these groups to not treat them as equally worth mention in the first paragraph along with the Jewish death toll. Mleonard85032 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you suggest?Moxy- 01:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

We follow the sources - most sources do not consider the Holocaust to refer to the genocide of other than Jews. You'll find that information in the article itself in the footnotes. The issue has been extensively discussed in the talk page archives, you'll need to bring new sources that counteract the others. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that kinda splitting a hair? Mleonard85032 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The WW2 museum website includes prisoners of war as "Holocaust victims". Mleonard85032 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

Suggesting to make an addition to a sentence.

Original: The Holocaust is understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews, but during the Holocaust era[8] (1933–1945), systematic mass-killings of other population groups occurred, including Roma, Poles, Ukrainians and Soviet civilians and prisoners of war.

Suggestion: The Holocaust is understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews, but during the Holocaust era[8] (1933–1945), systematic mass-killings of other population groups occurred, including Roma, Serbs, Poles, Ukrainians and Soviet civilians and prisoners of war.

The Serbs were also targeted during this war - see article on Jasenovac concentration camp. 2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:250C:406E:DE77:FB56 (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: In the section Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece the persecution of the Serbs is reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, the sentence in question is not meant to be all-encompassing regarding the groups targeted. I don't see a compelling reason to explicitly add the Serbs to the requested sentence. —Sirdog (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response,

I would argue that the purpose of the sentence is to generally address the systematic mass-killings of targeted non-Jewish populations. As Serbs were one of these major targets, there would be no reason to exclude them in the summary, especially when considering the number of civilian casualties fall within a similar range to another group that is named, the Roma. What would be the justification of naming the Roma and not the Serbs? What criteria determine who belongs in this sentence?

If the purpose of the sentence is to provide a general overview, perhaps it would be more productive to name the "Roma and Slavs" instead of naming specific populations, since the Slavs are addressed as a group in Hitler's written and oral works when they are described as subhuman. Otherwise, if specific populations are being named, I can't see a logical reason to the exclude a major genocide such as that of the Serbs in this sentence.

Furthermore, you've suggested that this sentence is not meant to be an exhaustive list. I agree with you - however, I would argue that in its current form, it reads as an exhaustive list to the reader. That's the reason that drove my initial suggestion. If it is not meant to be exhaustive, that should be explicitly expressed. Ex. "including Roma, Poles, Ukrainians, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, among other targeted populations". I think this would be a fair addition as a minimum.

Thank you 2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:ADAB:6D71:900A:A0EC (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon, IP! To be forthright, I am not by any means well versed in this subject matter. I simply made a judgment call in my capacity as a reviewer of edit requests based on the following factors: a) prior talk page discussion regarding the mention of Serbs had some contention as to how prominently it should be displayed, b) the sentence is within the lead and thus is prominently displayed, c) the material requested to be mentioned is covered elsewhere in the article, and d) this article covers an extremely contentious topic area - hence it's level of protection and the discretionary sanctions.

After reviewing talk page history again it would seem the sentence in question is mostly from a book. With this in mind, I think your suggestion of adding among other targeted populations is suitable, as editors in that discussion expressed interest in phrasing it to be more original. I will do so momentarily.

Considering my factors from above, I would want editors with more experience in this subject area to chime in as to whether they believe adding the Serbs to the list is appropriate. I am simply not informed enough to be comfortable making that edit myself. That doesn't mean it isn't worth making, though. —Sirdog (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, I appreciate it. 2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:6C1E:5A2F:EEE4:E41 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Nazi plunder is mostly about arts

The page partially describes the Holocaust. Some integration is needed.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

'Jewish emigration' ignores plundering of the emigrants by the German state.Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2022

Please add a link to the White Ruthenia under the Romani section.

White Ruthenia is not very well known so a link to its page is recommended. Aayaffe (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. Endwise (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

Could we edit the death toll on the right tab to reflect the 5 million non-Jews killed in the Holocaust? i.e. "Deaths" would say "6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews"? Especially since the persecution of non-Jews is mentioned later in the article, without a specific toll.

Philoquaker (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Philoquaker

You'll want to read this newspaper article which debunks the "11 million" figure. There's no scholarly basis for the 5 million other victims figure - how many other victims died in the Holocaust era is dependant on which victims get included - it could be over 5 million if you count deaths from disease, starvation, and other causes ... and include all the civilians that died. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request in the lead

I wish to return to an earlier version of the end of the lead:

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.

It's a better description, besides it had been changed by a blocked editor.

"Political and religious opponents" is way better than just Jehovah's Witnesses, Black Germans were rarely targeted.

References

RF354 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2022

Change "including, according to David Cesarani" to just "including" as mentioning the name of the historian casts doubt on his opinion and implies that his statement is contentious which it clearly isn't Originalcola (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Nythar^T.C 06:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I misread the section, please disregard this request. Originalcola (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Lewi Stone's quantitative analysis

It may help the article to include Lewi Stone's analysis of Operation Reinhard. Analyzing railway transportation records, Stone found that 25% (1.47+ million) of all Jews murdered in the Holocaust died during the 100-day Operation, arguing that it was more violent than relatively recent genocides and yielded a kill-rate ten times higher than some authorities have estimated for the Holocaust. ScissorMeRamses (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

How come this article is so jewish centric?

17 million people died in the holocaust but the other 11 million get even less coverage. 125.238.231.204 (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As the lead says "The Holocaust is understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews, but during the Holocaust era[8] (1933–1945), systematic mass-killings of other population groups occurred. These included Roma, Poles, Ukrainians, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, and other targeted populations." Meters (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Smaller groups

In this section of the lede, I think the word smaller is a bit dismissive of the suffering of these groups. The Holocaust is understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews, but during the Holocaust era (1933–1945), systematic mass-killings of other population groups occurred. These included Roma, Poles, Ukrainians, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, and other targeted populations. Smaller groups were also victims of deadly Nazi persecution, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Black Germans, disabled people, and homosexuals. Could we just replace smaller with the word Other? Or if we have to reflect total numbers, how about Other less numerically smaller groups, or Other groups in smaller numbers? Incidentally smaller is presumed here to reflect total numbers, e.g., some sources state that percentage wise the Roma were the largest group of victims. Pngeditor (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Holocaust only refers to the killing of Jews. (86.148.205.136 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC))

Which has nothing to do with the question. Are the groups in question not numerically smaller? A smaller group is less big than what it's being compared to. A group of 3 is smaller than a group of 10. Is this dismissive of the group of 3? This concern is, I believe, seeking out offense. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

3 victims out of a total of 6 is not smaller in percentage terms that 10 out of a total of 15. I'm sure you see what I mean. The lede only gives a number for Jewish victims. If we are going to compare the size of the groups of victims, then we should either give the number of victims for each group in the lede or make it clear what is being compared. The term smaller does not at present make it clear if it is the total size of the group or the number of victims that is being referred to. I don't know why you feel it necessary to accuse me of seeking out offense, when I made it clear that the term can be misleading. The Roma/Sinti are said by some sources to have suffered the highest percentage rate of deaths of all victims.Pngeditor (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"The lede only gives a number for Jewish victims." Indeed, because this article is about The Holocaust, the genocide of European Jews during WWII. And, yes, 3 out of 6 is smaller in percentage terms than 10 out of 15, but I don't know what difference that makes. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the sentence, "Smaller groups were also victims"; this says nothing about the number of victims within the groups, but rather about the size of the groups. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this article is also about other victims as well. I think you misunderstand; 'smaller' here can easily be interpreted as the number of victims, and it is not required, so it can be removed without disrupting the meaning. We only need to say other groups. Otherwise we should give numbers for all groups. Smaller can easily be perceived as implying that total numbers are meant as opposed to percentages. Why take that risk?Pngeditor (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this article is about the Shoah. There is a section in the article about other groups; each of them is primarily a link to their main articles. Your perception of "smaller" is peculiar, but whatever, if you can get a consensus for this change it will occur. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, read this. 'The Holocaust is understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews, but during the Holocaust era (1933–1945), systematic mass-killings of other population groups occurred'. Primarily is the key word here. Those other groups are covered here. The perception of the Holocaust is slowly changing regardless of what you say, as it becomes clear that the Roma/Sinti were marked out for genocide. However that is not part of this discussion, so I don't understand why you mention it. The word Other is better here.Pngeditor (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

HI everyone.

May I suggest to include in the introduction a wikilink, in a new line, to the page photography of the Holocaust?

It would be nice to have a direct link to all the photage available (available in the page itself, through the navbox at the bottom).

Thank you. LucaLindholm (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Question: Thanks LucaLindholm - I was really surprised that there's not already a link to that page somewhere in this article. (Unless I missed it.) Based on the content of Photography of the Holocaust it looks like this might align closest with the section titled Holocaust § Remembrance and historiography. What would you think of putting a {{See also}} reference in a hat-note there instead of the introduction?

The navbox for this page (Template:The Holocaust) is only semi-protected so I think you should be able to edit without making a request. --N8_wilson 🔔 21:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: In the way of N8. Izno (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned sfn's in recent copy of content

There were some problems with citations in the recent copy of content from World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. I've fixed the main problem with the citation itself (which can now be found as "Filimoshin, M.V" in Works cited), but the paragraph of copied content had various orphaned {{sfn}}s, because the editor who added the content here included the {{sfn}}s from the original, but not citations they referred to from the Works cited of the source article. I've fixed up the Filimoshin orphans, but there are also some Krivosheev 2001 orphans which I haven't and are still orphans, and there may be others. Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to do more with Romania in the future...

Romania already has its own sub-section in the "Germany's allies" section, but I argue even that isn't enough. I plan to elevate it to a full section, which would be a miniature version of all that is said about Germany: background, road to the Holocaust, extermination phases and methods etc. Romania's track record of antisemitism had no match in Europe before the Nazis, with Nazi-like laws of state employment and usage of Yiddish going back to the 19th century. Romania was also the last country in Europe to give citizenship to its Jews. Finally, as already stated in the article, Romania was the only country that matched Nazi Germany, in principle if not in quantity, "all the steps of the destruction process", the only other country during the Holocaust that truly did its own thing, as it were. This is only an idea as of now, but I'd like to hear some opinions. Transylvania1916 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

As Romania undertook mass murder of Jews as an operation largely independent from Germany, I think expanding details on Romania's involvement in the Holocaust would be appropriate. Perhaps Antonescu could be added to the infobox in the "perpetrators" parameter. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Six million is the wrong number of victims

The Holocaust was the persecution of various ethnic groups, but primarily Jews. You can see here that there is probably around 15 million victims in total, if it is around the low end estimate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

It should be mentioned in the lede that it was a state-sponsored "ethnic cleansing" of various ethnicities, but of course Jews were the primary target. It is kind of weird that this is not mentioned in the lede section, considering how vital this article is. 2003:F0:F30:C00:F8CF:CA1C:AA4A:D408 (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason for that is in the lede: "The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II." and further down "The Holocaust is understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews". Robby.is.on (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: thanks for this. This inspired the next section, which in turn, inspired a brand new FAQ, partially based on your answer to the question above. As an example, had it existed yesterday, you could've responded to IP 2003 by saying:

• "See [[Talk:The Holocaust/FAQ#Q2]]." ⟶ See Talk:The Holocaust/FAQ#Q2.

You're invited to contribute to expanding the FAQ, and I hope you do. Thanks, Mathglot (talk)

Time for a FAQ

I was going to respond to the previous section ("Six million...") by pointing to the FAQ, and was surprised not to see one. I think creating one will save everybody a lot of time, and that would surely be one of the top three or five questions. The The in the title (also above) being another of the top five. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Following my own advice: I've added a rump FAQ section (see Talk header) but I need help expanding it. @K.e.coffman, Beyond My Ken, and Jpgordon: can you help? Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I went through the last ten archives (38–28) and made a list of what appeared to me the topics that recur the most often, and hence could benefit from FAQ treatment:

• Non-Jewish victims ignored; or, 11M victims not 6M
• Death toll in Poland, Baltics, (pick your country...)
• Jewish death toll: 6M, 5-6M, other
• Collaborators
• The term Nazis vs Germans
• The term murdered vs killed, exterminated, ...
• Plunder

The first one, regarding "why are all the non-Jewish victims ignored", or, "there were really 11M victims", or, "should be retitled, 'Jewish holocaust" and the like, occurred about as frequently as all the rest put together. This was a very subjective pass, so if others could take a look and give their impressions, that would help.

The FAQ exists now as a stub. You can edit it by clicking the [edit] link in the banner under the Talk header. Mathglot (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Over-categorization

I think this page should belong only to Category:The Holocaust or at least avoid over-categorizing. This is because the Category:The Holocaust already belongs to all necessary categories, such as Category:Antisemitism in Europe, etc. In addition, see my edit summary here. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Change name to simply "Holocaust"

The name of the article as of 26/8/2022 is "The Holocaust". However most other Wikipedia article titles don't have "the"٫ and this should be no different. I understand it might be to avoid leading the reader to believe that it's not a matter of "A Holocaust" but rather of "The Holocaust". But like I said earlier٫ if you look at pretty much any other Wikipedia title٫ they don't use "the". GenZenny (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

'The Holocaust' is common usage. Titles follow subjects, not other articles. See also previous discussions on the question, linked in the header above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Check the move log in the header of the talk page; the title change has been litigated several times over the years. aismallard (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

Dear Wikipedia editors it has come to my attention that you have failed to mention the six million head that died in the camps.

There is a serious problem of lack of holocaust awareness in the world 72.76.155.3 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

quote - Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Many Jews were shot outside the camps, Holocaust by Bullets. Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The picture

The picture shows 'Jews from Subcarpathian Rus (then part of Hungary)'. The caption 'Hungarian Jews' may be unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I added some text to the file that includes a source for verifiability. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 18:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It began in 1941

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Even Sir Martin Gilbert, a Zionist historian, confirmed the Holocaust did not begin until the summer of 1941: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/churchill_holocaust_01.shtml JamesEdwardson (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC) @JamesEdwardson: Do you mean to point out some contradiction with this Wikipedia article? Robby.is.on (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC) The lede implies it began in 1933, but even Gilbert admitted it began in 1941. (JamesEdwardson (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)) The second sentence states: "Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe; around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population". The infobox states: "Date: 1941–1945". The paragraph starting with "Germany implemented the persecution in stages. Following Adolf Hitler's appointment as chancellor on 30 January 1933," explains the developments that preceded the systematic mass-murder. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC) It never happened though. Poland, the Soviet Union and Hungary persecuted Jews as much as Germany did. (JamesEdwardson (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)) What never happened? I think you may need to be a little more deliberate about your wording. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC) The idea that the Holocaust began in 1933. (JamesEdwardson (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)) Okay, this is not going anywhere constructive. I tried, I'm done. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible wrong geographic name in the article.

There may be an incorrect geographic term in the article. In the section "Invasion of the Soviet Union (22 June 1941)" under the title "Mass shootings" in the 5th paragraph it is written "Einsatzgruppe C in the Ukraine with Army Group South". The term "The Ukraine" is not advised, using "Ukraine" would be better, in fact, it's even advised by the page "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukranian places)" So, if other editors agree that this is a mistake, Someone with editing rights should fix it. 83.178.143.2 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done CJ-Moki (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

What's the point of explanatory note [a]?

I'm not sure I really get what the first explanatory note is trying to do. It seems half of those sources are for establishing that the term "Holocaust" refers specifically to the genocide of Jews (and not e.g. Roma), but that's not really relevant to the sentence it is attached to, which doesn't actually use the term "Holocaust". And it seems the other half of the sources are for establishing due weight for describing the death toll as "some six million", by quoting other sources who do the same. I can kind of get the point of that, though wouldn't it be better to actually explain the context and reasoning behind quoting that figure? For instance, like we do in §Death toll:

The most commonly cited death toll is the six million given by Adolf Eichmann to SS member Wilhelm Höttl, who signed an affidavit mentioning this figure in 1945.[420][ac] Historians' estimates range from 4,204,000 to 7,000,000.[422] According to Yad Vashem, "[a]ll the serious research" confirms that between five and six million Jews were murdered.[ac]

To me something along those lines would be more informative, particularly given I'm not entirely sure what the point of the note is at the moment. I guess it's just "yes this is due" source dumps, but is there not a better way to present that? Endwise (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Having got no response, I'm going to boldly attempt a fix for the problem mentioned above. Here's what I'll do:

• Move the quote from Yad Vashem explaining the detail behind the death toll (now [ac]) to the bit about the death toll in the lead, where [a] is now
• Move [a] to the first sentence, because the point of it is to say basically that "The Holocaust" refers specifically to the genocide of Jewish people. The quote from David Wyman didn't mention the term, so I left that one out, but its otherwise the same.

Endwise (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial publication - an academic journal?

More eyes needed at the Journal of Historical Review, a holocaust denial publication by the Institute for Historical Review. There is discussion as to whether this should be categorised as an academic journal, and whether we should use the template for academic journals. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A common misconception has been added to this article

Well yes the Holocaust was mostly killing Jewish people, there was more to that, the list of “types” of people they killed includes but is not limited to; LQBTQ+, the mentally ill, and disabled along with those deemed “ugly” by societies beauty standards, please correct this to stop any misconception from spreading, especially because this website is meant to educate others and not spread misinformation. Raccoon dude111 (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to read the article and be educated before declaring "misconceptions have been added" - there is an entire section on The Holocaust#Other victims of Nazi persecution. Cannolis (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Richard of Devizes

In his account of the coronation of Richard the Lionheart in 1189, English chronicler Richard of Devizes was the first person to use the word holocaust when he described the mass murder of the Jews of London, although the use of this word simply refers to a " whole (holos) burnt (kaustos)" sacrificial offering to a god. 86.187.237.124 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2023 (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. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Article on English WP and the Holocaust

The Holocaust is not my topic but just stumbled over this article. So just a FYI:

Grabowski, Jan; Klein, Shira (9 February 2023). "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust". The Journal of Holocaust Research.

--Jo1971 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

More relevant to The Holocaust in Poland than here, I think. See also the mess at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikipedia’s_Intentional_Distortion_of_the_History_of_the_Holocaust. Endwise (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right. It's already posted there on the talk page. --Jo1971 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia biased

Are the issues in this gonna be addressed? https://forward.com/news/536276/new-research-documents-how-wikipedia-distorts-the-holocaust/

66.31.80.7 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

References

A pity they didn't appear to try and fix it themselves instead of complaining about it elsewhere. I also can't find specific references to this article in their article, not do they seem to provide sources that we could use to fix other articles they mention.... (Hohum ^@) 22:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a systemic problem that wouldn't be fixed by a few corrections here and there. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

More has been done (by a number of different editors) to fix these problems in the past week since the study came out, than in the past four years I've been editing here. Levivich (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So why didn't you fix it yourself in those past four years? And as I've commented elsewhere I think you're really exaggerating this supposed "massive cleanup" that is supposedly going on. Volunteer Marek 17:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

See (amongst many other discussions on Wikipedia) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland. Whether the article in question accurately describes the situation, and what if anything needs to be done about it, is currently under debate. As to whether Wikipedia actually can tackle systemic problems when they are found to exist, that is another question that fewer contributors seem willing to address. Ultimately, in a volunteer-driven project, articles get written by those most interested in writing about a subject - and that may well include individuals most keen to spin things their way. In such circumstances, particularly with sensitive subjects, external scrutiny from academic sources should be welcomed - though with the obvious proviso that external sources, even academic ones, may also be less than impartial, and it may well prove unwise to take a single paper from such sources as definitive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• No. This article is actually in a good shape by WP standards. But if anyone can propose specific edits to improve the page, and they pass WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion, that would be great. Other pages in this subject area are not so great as this one, and sure, they can be improved. I checked. My instincts tell that I should not touch any of these subjects with a ten-foot pole, but we are all here to improve content... My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Deaths: around 6 million Jews

I've just Googled 'when did the Holocaust begin' and in the information panel that Google displays alongside search results was the phrase "Deaths: around 6 million Jews", which came from this Wikipedia article.

Two things struck me: 1. "around 6 million Jews" could be worded better I think. It is not encyclopaedic language and the word "around" has a "more or less" ring to it. That's fine if you're talking about what time you usually eat dinner ('around 6pm') or the price of a cup of coffee ('around 2 dollars'). This is talking about people's lives and I think "approximately 6 million Jewish people" or "estimated 6 million Jewish people" would be vastly preferable. 2. While Jewish people were the principal focus of the Nazi Holocaust, they were not the sole focus. Therefore "6 million Jewish people" should be edited (by someone more knowledgeable on the topic than me) to acknowledge that other groups were also targeted (either by being less specific or being more specific). 2A01:4C8:140A:C751:B501:B769:D156:601E (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

1. I wouldn't really care if someone changed "around" to "approximately". The number we're talking about is probably between 5 and 6 million, which is arguably more like "around" 6 million than "approximately" 6 million, but that's splitting hairs probably.

2. As this article explains, "The Holocaust" as a term is usually limited in scope to the genocide of Jewish people. Endwise (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2023

In the section on Romania the word "Transnistria" should link to "Transnistria Governorate". 93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

What's the point of extended-confirming this article when it is tainted with undetectable bias

https://www.jta.org/2023/02/28/global/wikipedias-supreme-court-tackles-alleged-conspiracy-to-distort-articles-on-holocaust

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-14/ty-article-magazine/.premium/new-research-documents-how-wikipedia-distorts-the-holocaust/00000186-4f0f-d02c-af9e-cfffa9900000

Academic sources have exposed that Wikipedia is purposely tainting the truth of the Holocaust. You guys are minimizing the Jewish losses and genocide against the Jewish people. The way I see it extended-confirming this article is pointless in protecting sockpuppetry as the most high-level people know how to avoid it, making them blend in with top-editors. Can you please explain why the holocaust is purposely being distorted to push an agenda on ethnic Poles being the victims while the truth is Jews of Poland were the primary target and not the ethnic Poles. 71.95.53.132 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you might read the article to see if it's distorting anything. I'll note that the academic paper that those articles are based on did NOT say that there was problems with this specific article. It's extended-confirmed protected in part to avoid drive-by-editing that almost exclusively does try to distort/minimize/deny the Holocaust. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Without protection this article would attract Holocaust deniers in droves. Acroterion (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think they mean that the protection level creates an ecosystem for socks to thrive as it thwarts any discussion because they are viewed as the truth. Raver3993 (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This talkpage is not protected. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Change ‘genocide of 6 million Jews during World War II’ to ‘genocide of 11 million people during World War II’ and include a link to the detailed victim count 86.31.149.143 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Transcription for the word "Shoah"

There's a tag requesting a transcription for the word Shoah in the first article. I also think there should be a pronunciation listed. I suggest the IPA transcription /'ʃoʊ.ə/, as that's the one I've heard most often. If there's a more common or accepted pronunciation, that should be added in its place. Aykazeb (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect link or caption

The link from "Ivangorod, Ukraine" points to Ivangorod, Russia. So either the link is wrong(most likely) or the caption is wrong. 2A00:A041:2D23:DC00:46ED:CEA7:93A:6FBB (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

North African Jews

Essay introduction and infobox written Genocide of European Jews while North African Jews were also killed in the Holocaust. Parham wiki (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a good article in Yad Vashem about the Jews of North Africa. The actual number of deaths was in the range of 1000, according to this article. ... If Holocaust means mass murder, then a “Holocaust” did not occur in North Africa. The history of the Jews in this period should correctly be discussed under the threat of a looming Holocaust which did not materialize. However, if what we mean by the Holocaust also includes the series of stages that (in Europe) preceded actual mass murder – e.g., concentrating the Jews in specific areas, stripping the Jews of their professions, despoiling the Jews of their property and material wealth, and depriving the Jews of their liberty by sending them to labor and other camps, then …. we are face to face with the looming Holocaust in its preliminary stages with all the considerable suffering involved. I think a paragraph or two about this would be a useful addition. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So write it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't because the editing of the article is protected and I am not allowed to edit it. Parham wiki (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So I suggest writing a few paragraphs in your sandbox. Then come back here and tell us about it. I'm now rather interested in the topic. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done

Parham wiki (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the content in the sandbox was a copyvio and has now been deleted.

A mention of North African Jews is worth making, but I think a paragraph would likely be WP:UNDUE. More information can be found in the article Jews outside Europe under Axis occupation (which is in terrible shape, tbh). (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

In this phrase:

In December 1942, the United Nations adopted a joint declaration condemning the systematic murder of Jews.

the words "United Nations" are linked to United Nations. This organisation didn't exist until 1945. As you can see at United Nations (disambiguation), the Allies of World War II were frequently known as the "United Nations" at the time.

With this in mind, please change [[United Nations]] to [[Allies of World War II|United Nations]]. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Quantifying Holocaust denial and distortion online

A study conducted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2021 showed that out of 1,028 pieces of content o Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Telegram and TikTok, 16.4 % either denied or distorted the history of the Holocaust. Figure 3 compares the proportion of content on each platform containing themes of Holocaust denial or distortion. On Facebook 8% of the content related to the Holocaust either denies or distorts it. That’s 3% of the Holocaust related content on Instagram, 49% on Telegram, 17% on TikTok and 19% on Twitter.

Distribution of 1,028 pieces of Holocaust content across five online plattforms, and the proportion (to the left of the white line) that denied or distorted history

While on some platforms (such as Facebook and Instagram), the proportions are relatively small, they are nevertheless significant in light of the enormous volume of content that is published on these platforms. Furthermore, the proportion of Holocaust denial and distortion may be underestimated on image-reliant platforms such as Instagram that rely on using CrowdTangle to research hashtags and keywords. This methodology does not identify these terms if they are represented in the image alone.

Secondly, across three of the platforms reviewed (Telegram, Twitter and TikTok), the proportion of Holocaust denial and distortion is relatively large – indeed on Telegram it approaches 50 per cent of the content reviewed. On this platform in particular, users who are looking for accurate and reliable content on that period in history have a high chance of encountering material that denies or distorts the Holocaust.

Holocaust denial and distortion are an issue in all the languages in question. Each platform, however, reveals different patterns. Facebook had comparable amounts of denial and distortion content in German, English and French, but none in Spanish. On Instagram, the small amount of Holocaust denial and distortion found was almost exclusively in English. On Telegram, all languages showed a high prevalence but German was particularly striking, with over 80 per cent of all German language content reviewed either denying or distorting the Holocaust. This chimes with other research claiming that German-language Telegram hosts conspiracy theories and misinformation, which is especially concerning as the number of German-language Telegram users continues to increase. On TikTok, French was the language that contained most denial and distortion. This was partly driven by the popularity of antisemitic French comic Dieudonné on the platform. On Twitter, the significant amount of problematic content was relatively equal across all languages. While no content relating to denial or distortion was found in Spanish on Facebook or in French on Instagram, this does not mean that Holocaust denial and distortion are nonexistent on online platforms in these languages. Considering that only approximately 200 pieces of content were reviewed per language for each platform over a period of about a week through a keyword search, it is not necessarily the case that there is no content that denies and distorts the Holocaust in these languages, but simply that the prevalence of this content is too low to be uncovered in a small sample. Other studies, such as the Anti-Defamation League’s report, “Holocuento y otras mentiras”: El antisemitismo en español en Facebook [“The Holohoax and other lies”: Antisemitism in Spanish on Facebook], suggest that moderation is actually a lot less effective on non-English content.

---

Lisa Rechelle (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This content might be relevant for the Holocaust denial article. (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Subjects of the Holocaust

I can see that there was some discussion of it and one resolved issue that (I think) is supposed to broaden the definition, but it doesn't seem that great to me. If you go back in the archives there's some great points which explain why extermination of Jews in particular should be the main topic of the article and I totally agree with it. Where I now have the issue is that at the moment the article defines the Holocaust as the extermination of Jews and Jews only. This is:

a) inconsistent with the page itself, which later does talk about other groups targeted (e.g. LGBTQ people, Roma people, Poles, Russians, etc.),

b) inconsistent with "Holocaust victims" - how can the Holocaust be only about Jews and somehow Holocaust victims be a larger group - it's a major inconsistency between articles.

c) (I'd say, with my knowledge of history) simply not true, as the Nazis targeted more than just one group with their policies, even in the same ways - as in, for example talking about certain groups destroying Germany and mentioning other groups than Jews as being "detrimental" (or said differently), e.g. LGBTQ people

d) feels exclusionary to people whose families and places experienced the Holocaust, but who were not of Jewish origin or did/do not identify with the Jewish identity - e.g. Polish people, whose families have been exterminated, etc.

e) seems historically and societally significant, as it shows hate (and in this case a very extreme form of it) going outside a particular group or its feature to a broader category of people deemed "worse" or otherwise "lesser", especially in the context of this being the top website listed after Googling "Holocaust".

Given that, I'd suggest framing the article in a way that clearly states the predominant impact of antisemitism and antisemitic narratives on the development of the Holocaust, and the fact that it predominantly targeted Jews, while understanding and acknowledging the fact that other groups were deeply affected and also targeted. I'd suggest adding a death toll for these groups and writing in the entry something along the lines of "[...] was the genocide of European Jews, together with other minorities and ethnicities in occupied territories, during World War II.". This could even be done on it's own, leaving the rest of the article focused on Jews, since I believe that way it frames the issue quite accurately.

P.S. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so pls be understanding if I messed up some terminology or this issue has been settled for good, etc. Chrisludw (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No, no—so much no. I have no idea how/why/what/when this article limited the definition of "The Holocaust" to the persecution of Jews, alone—but I cannot emphasize enough just how dangerous that is. My grandfather's family were Hungarian Jews that were murdered; so my own family are among the Holocaust's Jewish victims.

I have studied and followed the telling of Holocaust stories, since I was a teen in suburban Detroit (1980s). Poles, Jews, Communists, gays, Catholics—it was never just about the Jews (in the US; writing from an American social perspective), until major media projects like the Steven Spielberg film that focused on the Jewish experience and the 6 Million Jews, came out. That story needed to be told, and I'm glad it was told! But, The Holocaust is not taught in American schools—and in the US, we desperately need to not ever forget its scope or truth. To limit Wikipedia's article to only the Jewish experience, is such a disservice to the breadth of the 15 Million taken by Hitler's narrowing focus on ethnic cleansing. To never forget, is to never forget; and to limit the scope of this article, is to re-define the Holocaust. Which is not for wikipedians to do. Ninavizz (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes exactly! I totally agree with what you've just written, that was exactly my point. What I did say as well is that I'd agree for it to be mostly about Jews, though I do think it should be a lot broader than it is right now. It's just wrong on so many levels - as in, the article how it is right now. 2A00:F41:5849:DF29:54D3:86A7:28E1:33C4 (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea of the history of this article but agree that the scope/framing/definition ought to not inadvertently diminish the range of victims (nor the impact on any particular group of victims).

I actually came to the Talk page, not knowing this was a live discussion, to note that regardless of eventual decision on this topic there are currently dead links in the lead section which result in information on many persecuted groups being neither in this article nor immediately reachable from it.

The last paragraph of the lead links to what presumably used to be sections of this article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Political_and_religious_opponents) that do not currently exist, except for #Roma. (Roma is currently the only subsection under "Other victims of Nazi persecution" which regardless of opinion on the matter of what does or doesn't constitute "Holocaust victim", is simply inaccurate).

I recommend that while discussion over this specific page is live, these links are re-assigned to existing relevant pages (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany) to ensure relevant information is still reachable by readers. Would do this myself but the page is protected!

PS - similar note to Chrisludw's, I am also a relatively new & infrequent editor! FruitCrumble (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The links have been fixed. As noted in edit summaries, content has not been removed but rather placed in other parts of the article where it is relevant. For example, information on anti-Polish persecutions and euthanasia killings can be found in the #Invasion of Poland section of the article. This is in line with the approach that reliable sources take to discussing the topic. (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

The first 3-4 paragraphs of this article identify the Holocaust as only the murder of Jews. But let's be clear, the Nazis first came for leftists--communists, socialists, trade unionists. And the Holocaust included the decimation of many minorities and other ethnicities in the region--the Polish, Russians, etc. The current iteration on Wikipedia is SHOCKINGLY misleading. 76.37.232.1 (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Read this talk page, or the article Cannolis (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2023 (2)

The lead should be updated this should be replaced,

Besides the Jews, Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered millions of others, including Poles, Soviet prisoners of war, the Roma, the disabled, political and religious dissidents, and gay men.

with what Buidhe put in the death toll section,

Historian Alex J. Kay estimates that including Jewish Holocaust victims, around 13 million people died as a result of Nazi mass killings, including "300,000 mentally and physically disabled people, up to 100,000 members of the Polish ruling classes and elites... 200,000 European Roma, at least 2 million residents of Soviet cities, up to 3.3 million Soviet POWs, around 1 million unarmed civilians in primarily rural areas during preventive terror operations and reprisals in the occupied territories (even after accounting for actual partisans among the dead), and another 185,000 civilian residents of Warsaw".[348]

As that source is 1 year old and not more then 10 years old. Are you going to update that @Buidhe:? Dan white 76 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to make a similar edit. Although ideally the wording would be condensed somewhat because the lead is a summary. (t · c) buidhe 22:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Working (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust and rape

During my work on another article, I found something unexpected. It is generally believed that due to the Nazi racial laws any sexual contacts between Germans and Jews were strictly prohibited, so the mass murder of Jews, as a rule, was not accompanied by mass rapes. However, in this detailed study, the author states that whereas consensual sexual contacts between Germans and Jews (and only within the borders of the Reich) were considered a violation of racial laws, rape or other forms of sexual abuse and humiliation were not prohibited. The situation was especially terrible in the occupied Eastern Europe.

Using numerous documents and testimonies, the author demonstrates that mass rape and various forms of sexual violence were the essential component of deportation and execution of Jews. I think we may consider incorporation of this information into the article. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The race defilement laws simply weren't enforced when it came to rape of Jews by non-Jews. It is probably worth a mention somewhere in this article since sexual violence was well known to occur, as well as deliberately trading sex for survival. (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781138347762-52/sexuality-holocaust-anna-h%C3%A1jkov%C3%A1 (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"rape or other forms of sexual abuse and humiliation were not prohibited." You have got to be kidding, that was news to you? Have you bothered to check the articles on wartime sexual violence and Jewish sexual violence during the Holocaust? Because it is certainly not news to Wikipedia editors:

• • "While the Nuremberg Tribunals failed to charge Nazi war criminals with rape, witnesses testified about it occurring. Several of the victims who faced sexual violence during the Holocaust were Jewish men and women."
  • "Rapes were committed by Wehrmacht forces on Jewish women and girls during the Invasion of Poland in September 1939; they were also committed against Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian women and girls during mass executions which were primarily carried out by the Selbstschutz units, with the assistance of Wehrmacht soldiers who were stationed in territory that was under the administration of the German military; the rapes were committed against female captives before they were shot. Only one case of rape was prosecuted by a German court during the military campaign in Poland, and even then the German judge found the perpetrator guilty of Rassenschande (committing a shameful act against his race as defined by the racial policy of Nazi Germany), rather than rape. Jewish women were particularly vulnerable to rape during The Holocaust."
  • "Rapes were also committed by German forces stationed on the Eastern Front, where they were largely unpunished (as opposed to rapes committed in Western Europe); the overall number of rapes is difficult to establish due to the lack of prosecutions of the crime by German courts. The Wehrmacht also established a system of military brothels, in which young women and girls from occupied territories were forced into prostitution under harsh conditions. In the Soviet Union women were kidnapped by German forces for prostitution as well; one report by the International Military Tribunal writes "in the city of Smolensk the German Command opened a brothel for officers in one of the hotels into which hundreds of women and girls were driven; they were mercilessly dragged down the street by their arms and hair." "
  • "During World War II, some Jewish men and women in concentration camps faced sexual violence, due to wartime discrimination, antisemitism, and genocidal conditions among other reasons. This discrimination happened both inside concentration camps run by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime and also outside of the camps. This sexual violence and discrimination happened not only in Germany but throughout Europe in areas that the Germans occupied during the war. Outside of concentration camps, sexual violence happened in many places, including but not limited to Jewish people's homes, Jewish hiding spaces, in public, and at killing sites." Dimadick (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about the history of WWII, and the very fact that I am asking this question is an indication that a stereotype exists in many sources about scarcity of rapes committed by German military (and racial laws are frequently cited as a reason). If the fact about mass rapes is a news for me, then I have a reason to suspect that that fact is not obvious to an ordinary reader too. Maybe, that is an additional reason for allocating some space for that story in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of UNDUE content

This article needs to be shortened to give readers a concise summary of the topic and to meet Wikipedia guidelines for article length. In addition, there are prominent aspects of the Holocaust that are not currently present in the article.

Nazi human experimentation has its own article and as stated in the edit summary affected only an infintestimal proportion of Holocaust victims, while many experimentation victims were not Jewish. A quick persual of the high quality, recent sources listed at the top of this talk page shows that giving it a unique section is clearly undue weight compared to the coverage in these sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking we need to roll back to before all of your changes; there wasn't even a hit of consensus for such a massive excision. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement to seek consensus before editing an article. Where is the consensus that this content belongs in the article? (relevant per WP:ONUS. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

No requirement. But common sense dictates that massive changes should have massive discussion. Otherwise, you get exactly what's happening: serious objection. Anyway, the R part of WP:BRD has certainly happened. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reasoned arguments here against any of the edits I made that are compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no reason to have a bias in favor of the article's status quo, when it is not compliant with the policies and guidelines and is poorly written and organized. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You lacked WP:CONSENSUS. That's guideline enough for opposing such a massive change on such an important article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is, since bold editing has always been allowed on Wikipedia. I'm willing to discuss any of my edits on their merits, but not the idea that it is wrong to make dramatic improvements to Wikipedia articles in a short time frame. (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of focusing on specific content, please use the following sections to discuss: (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Nazi human experimentation

[7] Nazi human experimentation has its own article and as stated in the edit summary affected only an infintestimal proportion of Holocaust victims, while many experimentation victims were not Jewish. A quick persual of the high quality, recent sources listed at the top of this talk page shows that giving it a unique section is clearly undue weight compared to the coverage in these sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Disabled people" section

[8] Aktion T4 is not part of the article scope (see above discussions). (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

See my comments above; I oppose these removals, and the reasoning behind them, in strongest possible terms. Previous discussions only focused on the primary definition in the lead and the figure used in the infobox (which is, after all, a place where we have little room for nuance.) "This is the primary definition of the Holocaust" is vastly different from "this is the only definition of the Holocaust; or all other definitions are so marginal and WP:FRINGE that we cannot include anything about them regardless of the individual strength of the sources." --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

See my reply to your comment above. (t · c) buidhe 20:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Distinctive features" section

[9] These features don't actually distinguish the Holocaust from other genocides and the paragraph is extra confusing to readers, because many of the statements in this paragraph apply only to German Jews and not Holocaust victims from other countries. Additionally, most Wikipedia articles about historical topics start with a background section because it is confusing to readers to put historiographical debates (such as comparison with other genocides) before giving them the main information on the event itself. (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Causes of varying mortality rates

[10] Scholars have identified many factors that impacted survival rates, such as assimilation of the Jewish community, geography, attitudes of local non-Jews, and opportunities to emigrate before the killing began. To not even mention these and just cover in depth the theory that credits it entirely to state existence—without even mentioning the obvious counter-examples such as Slovakia—is obviously POV. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Duplication of information on deaths per country

[11] If there is going to be a table that lists deaths per country, there is no need to duplicate this information in prose. It would be worthwhile to add a couple sentences on *why* the death rate varied, but just giving non-contexualized figures is not very informative. (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I added the percentages, which is not in the table. Please leave it alone. Dovidroth (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If you think the percentages is essential information (although it is already implicitly there, since the table lists the prewar population and deaths), then it could be added as a column in the table. (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Then go ahead and add it to the table. There was an explanation regarding deaths per country but you didn't like it. Dovidroth (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

More balanced explanations regarding deaths per country have been added. Additionally, I have noticed some factual errors / failed verification with your text. The source only lists the 1939 (or other years) Jewish population, and the number of deaths. It does not say, for example, that 25 percent of French Jews died in the Holocaust. In fact, most victims of the Holocaust in France were not French Jews, but residents of France with foreign citizenship. This is a reason why trying to paraphrase a table is not always a good idea. (t · c) buidhe 06:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Why was Template:Infobox civilian attack removed? We the infobox on articles about several other genocides (i. e. California genocide, Circassian genocide, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide). CJ-Moki (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of infoboxes (whether on this article, the Armenian genocide one, or for similar topics), but I've restored it upon request. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The Holocaust

this latest rewrite is totally bellitling the effect of the Holocaust in Europe in WW2 Did it not happen in the Baltics and Eastern Europe? It does not explain the Holocaust country by country or its effects I am personally disappointed with this latest version I wont be back to use oy as a point of reference or research. 82.132.184.31 (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you just go to the individual articles for detail? This article is an overview. See Category:The_Holocaust_by_country, so for example if you want to read about The Holocaust in Latvia or The Holocaust in Poland you will find more detail there. Antandrus (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Holocaust/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   An exceptionally well written, clear and concise article.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   The article contains a list of all references. Source formatting is consistent and all information necessary to identify the cited source is there.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   All citations are from hiqh-quality reliable sources.

   c. (OR):

   Each statement is verified by a reference to a scholarly work. I checked references 91, 131, 212, and 397.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No example of plagiarism or copyvio was detected in the checked references.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

   Perhaps some information about the non-Jewish victims of WWII could be described as superfluous in the article's context but in such a sensitive area we could hardly achieve a consensual presentation without mentioning them.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   An exemplarily neutral and fair presentation of an emotionally exceptionally demanding subject.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article received extended confirmed protection which prevents new users from edit warring but its history and Talk page show that reverts may occur. However, these reverts have not developed into edit warring and the article's Talk page indicates that most editors of the article are willing to reach a compromise. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

A highly sensitive theme that requires much attention. I planning to complete the review in a week. I have one preliminary question: why are not Zionism, the establishment of the State of Israel and Holocaust denial mentioned in the article? Borsoka (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial does not dominate discussions of the legacy of the Holocaust the way the state-led denial of the Armenian genocide does. I was surprised how few sources I consulted when writing this section even mentioned it. Kansteiner does mention Holocaust denial but suggests it is a marginal phenomenon. However, I'm not opposed to a brief mention. As for Zionism and Israel, they are already mentioned although perhaps coverage could be expanded and/or improved. Thanks so much for taking on this review. (t · c) buidhe 16:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am also thinking of a very brief mention. I will return to my preliminary question after completing the overall review. Excellent article. Thank you for it.

• ...a Greek word meaning "burnt offering"... A reference to the religious connotation of the term? Perhaps a link to Holocaust (sacrifice) or Burnt offering (Judaism)?
  •  Done
• ...was introduced in the 1950s... Do we know by whom (researchers, journalists, clergy...) or where (studies, journals, ...)?
  • The term was popularized for a number of reasons, among those I've read being its use in Night (book), the Eichmann trial, Holocaust (miniseries), and possibly an official policy of the Israeli government. But this detail is not covered in any of the sources currently cited in the article and seems UNDUE. I guess when it was exactly introduced is not so important either.
• By the early twentieth century, most Jews in central and western Europe were well integrated into society, while many Eastern European Jews still lived in small towns, spoke Yiddish, and practiced Orthodox Judaism. Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, Jews were subjected to antisemitism based on Christian theology, which blamed them for killing Jesus. I would change the sequence of the two sentences and refer to Jewish emancipation.
  • done
• ...was lent a scientific backing by nineteenth-century biologists... No, it has never been lent a scientific backing. It may have been backed by allegedly scientific studies. A reference to Social Darwinism?
  • Rewrote the sentence.
• ...traitors to the countries that they lived in... A reference to the Dreyfus affair in a footnote?
  • I'd rather take out this clause than add a footnote, since the Dreyfus affair is not actually mentioned in the sources.
• A reference to the survival/revival of pre-modern popular anti-Semitic concepts like the blood libel, and a reference to the early 20th-century progroms in Eastern Europe?
  • Done for the second one. Blood libel isn't mentioned in most of the sources.
• A reference to the mass immigration to the Eastern European Jews to Austria-Hungary? As far as I can remember Hitler wrote that he became convinced that the Jews form a separate race when he first met the "Galizianer" community in Vienna.
  • Mentioned the composition of the German Jews.
• ... right-wing political parties... The cited source names parties and movements but does not mention the Völkisch movement (that is linked). Perhaps some parties and movements could be mentioned in a footnote. I think the Völkisch movement should also be mentioned.
  • Removed link.

• • The cited source also names movements. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I checked some other sources and rewrote the sentence based on those. (t · c) buidhe 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• The turn of the twentieth century also saw a major effort to establish a German colonial empire overseas, including the Herero and Nama genocide and subsequent racial apartheid regime in South West Africa. Perhaps this is a consequence of a language barrier, but for me the major effort to establish a colonial empire does not include the genocide and the apartheid regime, but led to them.
  • Changed to "leading to".
• ... its ideology is often cited as the main factor to explain the Holocaus By whom? What are the other main factors that are often cited?
  • Gerlach cites Yehuda Bauer specifically as someone who holds this view, but I'm not sure it would be helpful to the reader to mention Bauer since I believe, and Gerlach states, that this is a common interpretation. Other factors (for example, more contingent and war-related reasons) are discussed later in the article.
• Nazi ideas of race and empire were developed from earlier ones... Some examples in a footnote or a link?
  • Actually, the linked articles Volksgemeinschaft and Lebensraum detail their pre-Nazi origins and/or precursors.
    • I would name some of the earlier ideas because the sentence is unspecific: "X ideas of Y and Z were developed from earlier ones..." is a valid statement in any context.
      • If you don't think it's a meaningful statement, I've removed it. (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• ...these ideas appealed to many Germans. Why?
  • As previously stated the Nazis beliefs were developed from earlier ones that already had considerable appeal in Germany. Dan Stone writes that many Germans liked the idea of national renewal according to the Volksgemeinschaft idea, subscribed to antisemitic conspiracy theories, and/or were imperialist.

• • I miss a reference to the social consequences of the Great Depression. All studies I have so far read about the rise of Nazi Germany emphasize the especially devastating economical and social effects of the Great Depression in Germany.
    • Added mention. (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• ...especially communists..., ...most Jews were not communists... Why not Communists?
  • Communist should not be capitalized except when referring to a specific communist party per MOS:IDEOLOGY.
• ...eventually 400,000 people were sterilized—primarily on the basis of feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, or epilepsy—and others subjected to forced abortion I assume the same groups of people were sterilized or forced to abortion. Consider linking Compulsory sterilization.
  • Compulsory sterilization is already linked. Rewrote sentence.
• ...the Nazis sought to control every aspect of public and private life... Consider linking Totalitarianism.
  • I'm reluctant to do so because of the recent historians such as Stone or Robert Gellately who argue that Nazi Germany was not "totalitarian" to most Germans.
• ...state-led measures... Consider linking Economy of Nazi Germany.
  • Done
• Who were the Jews according to the Nuremberg Laws? I think it should also be mentioned that tens of thousands of people who had no real Jewish (cultural) background was proclaimed Jewish based on "race".
  • Done

• • The cited source writes of full Jews and "Mischlinge". I think this differentiation should be mentioned because "Mischlinge" were treated as Jews in occupied Eastern Europe.

• How many people were defined as Jews by the Nuremberg Laws? What was their ratio in the population of Germany? How many among them adhered to Judaism?
  • Added background information to the Background section
• ...restricted Jews' economic activity..., ...they were barred from additional occupations... Examples in footnotes?
  • Added this information to The Holocaust in Germany and linked.
• ...their businesses were expropriated... All Jewish businesses were expropriated at this time?
  • Yes, according to Longerich all businesses owned by German Jews were closed or Aryanized in 1938.
• I would name (not only link) the Kristallnacht somwhere in the article.
  • Done
• I would mention (not only link) Mandatory Palestine instead of Palestine.
  • Done
• ...1 billion RM... Reichsmark is not introduced and linked in a previous sentence. Some context (equivalent to ..., X percent of state revenues)?
  • At the time, USD1 = 2.5RM. I could add a currency conversion here?

• • For me, it would be useful for better understanding.
    • Done. (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• The section title "Invasion of Poland" does not reflect its text because it also refers to the invasion of western Europe and Scandinavia.
  • Retitled "Start of World War II".
• ...more than two million Jews in the territory it occupied... What percentage of the local population?
  • I've looked for this figure in several sources but cannot find it.
• ...which invaded Poland from the east on 17 September. A reference to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?
  • Added
• ...contributing to a perception among many non-Jews that Soviet rule was a Jewish conspiracy Not reinforcing? In our region of Central and Eastern Europe, the association of Jews and Communists was quite common already in the early 20th century as many Communist leaders had Jewish background.
  • Rephrased to make it clearer that this is a pre-existing prejudicial belief
• I would mention the consequences of the occupation of Poland (2nd paragraph of section "Invasion of Poland") before mentioning the invasion of western European countries.
  • Done
• Some Jews fled to the Soviet occupation zone..., ... thousands of Jews were expelled into the Soviet occupation zone Repetition? If not, the two sentences should be linked and differentiated.
  • Combined
• Around 50,000 Polish leaders and intellectuals were arrested or executed; the bulk of these victims were from the region of Danzig–West Prussia with fewer in the Wartheland and fewer still in the General Governorate occupation zone. Is this highly relevant in the article's context?
  • It's included mainly because (see discussions above) some editors believe that the article should cover non-Jewish victim groups to some extent.
• By mid-1941 nearly 3 million people had been deported to Germany as forced laborers. I assume they were mainly Poles.
  • Correct, but I removed it here because forced labor of non-Jews is covered later on in the article in the "Forced labor" section.
• Some information about the Jews' fate in occupied western Europe?
  • Done
• The war also provided cover for the secret murder of around 70,000 institutionalized Germans with mental or physical disabilities, mainly with poison gas. Could we say this was the precedent or first experiment of the use of poison gas for the "industrial" extermination of people? I mean in the article's context we need some link between the extermination of people with mental or physical disabilities and the mass execution of Jews. Were they exterminated in special camps/institutions, or at random places?
  • Interestingly I checked several sources and they do not mention that this was the first killing of defenseless people with poison gas. Mentioned the euthanasia centers using poison gas.
• Criticism from Christian institutions... Some examples in a footnote? Criticism or protest? How were the Christian institutions informed about the secret murder of c. 70,000 people?
  • They weren't informed, they found out. However I rewrote as although some sources attributed the halt to organized religion, Cesarani states, “the T-4 action was not suspended primarily because of church protests”
• Many of the personnel involved in these killings and technology... Some examples in a footnote?
  • The obvious technology overlap would be stationary killing centers that used poison gas, but Kay also mentions similarity in misdirection efforts. I'm not it's worth adding a footnote here since the ones that mention the T4/Reinhard overlap don't list names of people involved in both.
• The Nisko Plan... Perhaps "This so-called Nisko Plan", or similar wording for clarification?
  • I think "so-called" would fall afoul of MOS:DOUBT.
• ...due to the opposition of Hans Frank... Why did he oppose it? I assume he was not the example of Nazi humanism.
  • Mentioned his reason for objection.
• The Soviet Union declined a proposal to resettle Jews in Birobidzhan. A proposal by whom? Jews from where?
  • German proposal. It's not clear Jews from where or how many. It is not mentioned in most of the sources so I've removed it.
• These resettlement plans envisioned the deaths of many Jews ... Is "envisioned" the proper term?
  • rephrased
• ...by local initiatives... I assume not by Polish but local Nazi. If I am right, it should be clarified.
  • Done
• However, in many smaller ghettos... Is "however" necessary? Some examples in a footnote?
  • Removed however. Not sure if a footnote would help since this describes the majority of ghettos that existed.
• Many inhabitants of ghettos were forced to work for the occupiers, although these work programs provided subsistence to some ghetto inhabitants and in some cases protected them from deportation. I would delete "although", and begin a new sentence.
  • rewrote

I will continue my review. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t let the GOCE template on the article stop you @Borsoka while I do the c/e. Given the length of the article and the importance of the article I’m going to take quite a while proof reading. That said, I doubt there are many if any errors. Just small c/e changes mainly. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I did not stop reviewing because of the GOCE template. This is an emotionally and intellectually extremely difficult theme, so I cannot complete the review in one read. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm doing one section at a time, and it gets increasingly difficult to read. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

“There were no facilities leading to a high death rate”. I was just going to add a comma after facilities, but maybe we need to explain what facilities?

Please excuse me here. Not trying to get involved in the review at all, just doing the copyediting but thought I’d raise that — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a perfect place to raise all issues to be clarified. :) Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Rephrased the "facilities" sentence. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• ...and at least 17,000 in the Soviet Union. Germany invades the Soviet Union only in the following section.
  • That's true. Now I've avoided any mention of the non-German victims of "euthanasia" killings. After all, if Kay is right these were motivated by different reasons than Aktion T4.
• The vast majority of civilian victims were Jews. Could you provide numbers?
• ... some in the senior Nazi leadership voiced doubts about killing German Jews Could you name some of them? Why did they oppose the murder of German Jews?
• ...Baltic States... No states existed in the Baltic.
  • Changed to Baltics
• Introduce Odilo Globocnik and Schmelt Organization.
  • Done
• This action reportedly reduced the black market... Some context? This is the first time the black market is mentioned so it should be linked here (not in section "Liquidation of the ghettos in Poland").
• ...including indirect participation the number rises to 500,000 Examples of indirect participation?
  • All Kay says about this figure is "If we consider all those who exercised functions of one sort or another in the machinery of annihilation, the total rises to more than 500,000 people for the Holocaust alone; many more were involved in policies of mass murder targeting other victim groups". The footnote is

    For the figure of between 200,000 and 250,000, see Dieter Pohl, Holocaust. Die Ursachen, das Geschehen, die Folgen (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2000), p. 124; Wendy Lower, Hi t l e r ’s Furies: German Women in the Nazi Killing Fields (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013), p. 244, n. 154. For the figure of more than 500,000, see Konrad Kwiet, ‘Rassenpolitik und Völkermord’, in Wolfgang Benz, Hermann Graml and Hermann Weiß, eds, Enzyklopädie des Nationalsozialismus (Munich: dtv, 2001 [1997]), pp. 50–65, here p. 62

    I do not currently have access to Kweit 1997/2001 to find out more about where this estimate comes from. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• • My concern is that the adjective "indirect" is too loose. I would rather paraphrase or quote the following text: "all those who exercised functions of one sort or another in the machinery of annihilation".
    • Done (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Non-German perpetrators and collaborators included... I may not understand the context, but I am pretty sure that Hungarian, Croatian, Bulgarian officers were also actively involved in the genocide.
  • Yes, however the list that's currently there closely follows the cited sources and non-German state perpetration is arguably already covered in the third paragraph of "Deportations from elsewhere" and the second paragraph of "Continuing killings". I could add a sentence here for state participation but I'm not sure what to write for non-redundancy. (t · c) buidhe 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I will continue the review later. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• I know that I compulsively insist on chronology but the chronology of section "Forced labor" is especially disturbing for me.
  • Reordered to put non-Jewish forced labor last.
• The distinction between concentration camps and forced labor camps or extermination camp is unclear. I assume both forced labor camps and extermination camps are concentration camps but I am not sure.
  • I have added a footnote to clarify.
• An even larger number of people were forced to work for the occupiers... Could the sentence be more specific by adding an estimation?
  • Gerlach states that this was true in France, Greece, and the Soviet Union. He states that at the end of 1942, close to 22 million people were employed in the Soviet Union compared to 3 million Soviet citizens who were deported to Greater Germany. Unfortunately, it is not clear if this figure includes voluntary laborers.
    • I would prefer the original wording (quoted above) to the new text. The original wording adds a relative range. Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • I changed it because while Gerlach strongly suggests it, I'm not sure he says it outright and I want to avoid any failed verification issue. Spoerer (pp. 137–138) suggests that the definition of forced labor might be decisive. I have looked for other sources but haven't been able to find a citable source that states this. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• In some of Germany's allies... Could you list them or mention some of them?
  • Done
• ...especially in Greater Germany... I assume this is a reference to the newly acquired territories. If I am right, this should be clarified; if I am wrong (and it is a reference to the whole territory of Germany) the text should be deleted.
  • Rewrote
• ...some of the forced-labor camps for Jews and some ghettos were converted into concentration camps... Could you provide some examples?
  • Some of the forced labor camp systems were split with some of them being designated KZ/KLs and others shut down; the Schmelt camps in Silesia being a prominent example. I have mentioned the Kovno ghetto as one that was designated a KZ/KL.
• ...inside the camp system... I assume "inside the forced labor camp system".
  • Rephrased
• ...a non-Jewish appearance... For me, this text is close to racism. Could a reference to stereotypes be made?
  • The source doesn't mention stereotypes. "Usually mentioned [characteristics important for survival] are non-Jewish looks, good relations with non-Jews and unaccented command of the majority language." From my American perspective, I wouldn't say it's racist to suggest that people of different ethnic backgrounds could have different appearance.
• The Polish government-in-exile's response to the Holocaust has polarized historiography, with some historians arguing that it did more than any other Allied government and others criticizing perceived indifference to the Jewish plight. What was the response?
  • I don't think there is enough space to elaborate the nuances of this response so I've removed the sentence.
• Introduce the Joint Distribution Commitee.
  • Done
• ...it was banned from sending relief into German-occupied Europe... By whom?
  • Done
• ...on death marches... Could this term be explained? (In our region, it is a well known term, but I am not sure that billions of people all over the world understand it without an explanation.)
  • Done
• ...the Arrow Cross... Perhaps "the Hungarian Arrow Cross"?
  • Done
• Is "urbanite" an encyclopedic term?
  • replaced
• Kay argues that all these groups, including Jews, were targeted as part of an actual strategy to win the war, although viewing them as a threat was informed by Nazi racial theory. I am not sure I understand what Kay says.
  • "While each of the killing programmes possessed a racial (and racist) component, the logic of war was central to the rationale for targeting each and every one of the victim groups, for they were regarded by the Nazi regime in one way or another as a potential threat to Germany’s ability to fight and, ultimately, win a war for hegemony in Europe. This view was informed and justified by Nazi racial thinking, so it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate German wartime strategy from Nazi genocidal racial policies." I'm not sure how I could rephrase the sentence to be more clear.
    • I think what you wrote above could be summarized in the article because the sentence is still unclear for me. Borsoka (talk)
      • Attempted to do this. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I will continue the review on Sunday afternoon or Monday morning. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I did not find a reference to the liberation of the camps only its consequences.
  • Added
• Israel is only tangentially mentioned. I thought that the Holocaust contributed to the strengthening of Zionism among the Jewish population of Europe. Was I wrong?
  • I understand there is a debate as to whether the Holocaust was a decisive or significant factor in founding Israel. This article does not seem to be the place for it. I do think you are right that Zionist attitudes were strengthened as a result, but this isn't covered in the cited sources (even Kochavi), so I'm unsure about WP:DUE. Kochavi does cover that many DPs appeared to support Zionism but offers no indication that this belief was caused by the Holocaust (Zionism was also popular in eastern Europe before World War II). My understanding is also that Israel wasn't the first choice destination of most of the displaced Jews gathered in Germany after the war, and the reason so many of them ended up there can be attributed to immigration restrictions.

• • At FAC, I will probably raise the issue again because I think some statement should be made about the possible connection between the establishment of the State of Israel and Holocaust. From GAN perspective, I do not think this is a grave problem.

• Many perpetrators showed no remorse. Could you provide examples? And also examples of those who showed remorse.
  • Removed
• ...150 billion after accounting for inflation In which year?
  • Fixed
• ... what these lessons are is disputed, Whether Holocaust memory actually promotes human rights is disputed. Could you provide examples in 2-3 sentences? Alternatively, could you link an article? My concern is that we do not have a picture of the debates.
  • Linked Lessons of the Holocaust.
• I may be wrong but I think the following themes are to be covered/mentioned in the article:

• Heroes of the Holocaust/Righteous Among the Nations
• Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel
• Holocaust in arts
• Holocaust denial Borsoka (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• For the first point, more of the cited sources discuss the contribution of Holocaust survivors and to memory and commemoration compared to awards for rescuers. Yad Vashem is not currently mentioned in the article at all; is it more significant that the USHMM or many other museums/memorials relating to the Holocaust that are not mentioned? Hard to say in my view.

• I think I will raise the issue again at FAC but for GAN purposes I can accept the present solution.

• See my comment above. My understanding is that this relationship is complex and controversial, which make it difficult to cover concisely.

• Also see my comment above. :)

• For Holocaust in arts, how do you feel about adding the sentence, "The Holocaust-inspired writings of Tadeusz Borowski, Jean Améry, Primo Levi, and others have been described by historian Dan Stone as "among the most remarkable texts of the twentieth century". Alternately I could go with the more bland but possibly more informative, "The Holocaust inspired literary writings from Tadeusz Borowski, Jean Améry, Primo Levi, Imre Kertész, and others, as well as the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, Theodor W. Adorno, and Emmanuel Levinas. (same source).

• I have just realised that there is a link to The Holocaust in the arts and popular culture. The link covers everything that I missed.

• Added a sentence on Holocaust denial. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Could you add alt text to each picture?
  • Done
• Danzigers cheer for Adolf Hitler 2.jpg: could you refer to the annexation of the city in the caption? (It is unclear why the Danziger are rallying Hitler)
  • Done
• File:Unpaved steet in the Frysztak Ghetto.jpg; File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-134-0771A-39, Polen, Ghetto Warschau, Kind in Lumpen.jpg: could you mention that Frysztak Ghetto and Warsaw Ghetto were in occupied Poland?
  • Done
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1994-092-18A, Sowjetunion, Festnahme von Juden.jpg: can the connection between the picture and the quote be verified? Could the quote be attributed to someone in the caption? Could the location be identified in the caption?
  • The location does not have an enwiki article, but I've added it anyway. The quote is provided by Bundesarchiv in the image description: [12]. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• File:Men with an unidentified unit execute a group of Soviet civilians kneeling by the side of a mass grave.jpg: I think this picture could be deleted.
  • Why? We don't have another picture in the article of executions in progress. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    • You are right. The reference to Soviet civilians misled me.
• File:Przeładunek Żydów do wagonów kolejki wąskotorowej do Chełmna.jpg: link Chełmno extermination camp and mention occupied Poland in the caption.
  • Done
• File:Cumulative murders at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka from January 1942 to February 1943.jpg: I am not sure that its licencing is valid because the picture does not consist "entirely of information that is common property" but I am not an expert in the field of copyright.
  • The information displayed on any chart is not copyrightable. The design can be but this is a very simple chart. More complex ones have been kept in Commons deletion discussions (see c:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Charts)
• File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06c.jpg: I am not sure that this is a representative picture of the uprising. It rather depicts its fall.
  • The main reason this photograph is used is that it's probably the most famous Holocaust photograph that there is. Also, during the uprising only a small number of Jews actually attempted to fight with arms. A far larger number of Warsaw ghetto inhabitants tried to hide like these ones did. None of the other Stroop report photographs show armed conflict in progress although there are some with defeated resistance fighters. Also, we have no other image of Operation Reinhard-related roundups displayed and this is not a bad example.
• File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - 26559.jpg: Reference 3 should be fixed at WikimediaCommons.
  • Done
• File:Selection on the ramp at Auschwitz II-Birkenau, 1944 (Auschwitz Album) 3a.jpg: I would mention Hungary in the caption.
  • Done
• File:Holocaust death rate.svg: the caption is not helpful because the map uses more colours.
  • The map uses much smaller gradations than can be shown in efficiently in a caption. I first tried it with ten rows but I thought the current version was better. Hopefully it is clear that a darker red = greater proportion of deaths.
    • I would make a general statement saying that the deeper red means more victims with the deepest red indicating about 90% death toll.
• File:Jewish displaced persons receive bread rations at the Bindermichl displaced persons' camp in Linz.jpg: could you explain the abbreviation DP? Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there are four pending issues. If the caption at Holocaust death rate is modified in some way, I will probably promote this excellent article. Thank you for completing it. Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Article scope redux

I realize this is a subject that gets raised over and over again at this talk page. Editors have decided, based on the preponderance of reliable sources, that the primary topic of "the Holocaust" is the genocide of Jews, rather than being inclusive of all victims of Nazi persecution. Unfortunately, the article itself muddles its own topic and tries to have it both ways.

My concrete proposal is to remove the section "Other victims of Nazi persecution" and instead add a hatnote as follows:

This page is about the genocide of Jews. For other groups of victims, see Mass killings by Nazi Germany.

This scope and title of the proposed new article are inspired by the new book Empire of Destruction: A History of Nazi Mass Killing by Alex J. Kay. It would be a broad concept article that covers this article but also anti-partisan warfare, Romani genocide, nazi-induced famines, German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war, murder of political opponents, persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, etc.

I will start the article if the reception is positive. (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Doing... (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have redirected the stub back to this article for now. I can understand WP:BOLD edits, but please slow down; this is one of the most controversial and sensitive topics in the entire encyclopedia. Performing a split like that after a mere two days with no input from anyone else is bold to the point of being nearly reckless. And, at the very least, you said you would only proceed if the reception is positive; now you have gotten a response that is uniformly opposed to your changes. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Woah, I am just now seeing this. Please see my comment above. Where is a decision documented, to limit the scope of this article? I cannot object to that emphatically enough, and will collect whatever scholars I might need to, to support such an objection. Ninavizz (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:The Holocaust/FAQ or search the talk page history where you can find dozens of threads on this exact question.

I can actually see both sides of this argument, because you could argue that the common usage of "Holocaust" is often broader, but most RS do not agree and neither has longstanding consensus on this talk page. The main issue from my perspective is either that we have "The Holocaust" and "Mass killings by Nazi Germany" or "The Holocaust" and "genocide of Jews during World War II" without trying to cover both in one article, which is impossible to achieve while following Wikipedia policies on article length and balance. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot wrote the FAQ so quite possibly they have knowledge of specific discussions that this consensus is based on. (t · c) buidhe 19:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your boldness, but I firmly believe such matters should first achieve a consensus before being removed, especially if there is not article but a day old stub covering them in a much less exhaustive manner. At least keep those additions until the article you created is sufficiently built up. I'm sorry I didn't voice any objections sooner. Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This mass removal is totally inappropriate with so little feedback or consensus. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strenuous disagreement with the argument that the killing of disabled people, Roma, LGBT people, etc. is outside of the article scope. While we may have an agreement to use the killing of Jews as the primary definition in the lead and for the main number at the top of the article based on the way the term is used in the preponderance of presented sources, it is by no means a WP:FRINGE perspective to include those things under that topic; it has substantial representation among high-quality academic sources, which means that they cannot be excluded entirely. The gap between establishing "this is the primary definition" and "all other definitions are so marginal that they cannot be mentioned or referenced anywhere in the article at all" is huge. --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  As I stated above I'm not strongly opposed to changing the article scope to being about all mass killings by Nazi Germany. However, if we do that the article would need a far more dramatic rewrite than culling content that is not within the current article scope focusing on the genocide of Jews. We would need to reduce the content about Jews to a bit less than half the article content and change the intro of the article to say around 13–14 million deaths resulting from deliberate Nazi mass killing practices, of whom a bit less than half were Jews. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Would it? I'm not sure. There's no real contradiction in saying, and having the article reflect, that the primary usage is to refer to the Nazi genocide of the Jews, while acknowledging that there is also minority (but one clearly significant enough to be covered in this article) that includes other systematic killings by Nazi Germany. Therefore it would be appropriate for the bulk of the article to be about the genocide of the Jews, while also mentioning other aspects that are referenced in some sources to a lesser degree. WP:DUE does not require that we split things perfectly evenly; it's about having our coverage reflect the balance of the sources. (As I mentioned, my perception is that previous disputes focused primarily on the number in the infobox and the summary in the lead - places where it is hard to put that kind of nuance. But we can have it further down the article.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If we're dealing with two usages of the same term "Holocaust" to mean either:

1. The genocide of Jews during World War II
2. A variety of mass killings committed by Nazi Germany, of whom about half the victims were Jews

The canonical way that Wikipedia deals with multiple different uses of a term is with disambiguation, not by covering both in one article. At present, I feel the article does a disservice to millions of non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass killing practices, if you count them as part of the article scope and oppose a dedicated article that covers the second meaning. I don't believe it is possible to fairly cover both topics in the same article. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Aquillion, I'm still interested in your thoughts on this. Wouldn't you agree that if the non-Jewish victims are counted within the scope of this article, this should be made clear in the lead (the article scope should be clear from the lead, per MOS:LEAD, and all important aspects should be summarized in the lead)? And if they aren't, then I don't understand why you would oppose a separate article that covers all mass killings by Nazi Germany proportionate to coverage in reliable sources and removal of content that is not within the scope of this article. As it is, this article seems like the non-Jewish victims are tacked on as an afterthought. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to have petered out, perhaps we need a broader discussion to clarify the scope after all. Because if some editors seem to think the scope is a superposition of two different things, or the article lead has a different scope than the body, I do not think that such a local consensus is compliant with overall Wikipedia article scope policies. Ealdgyth, what do you think? (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm in agreement with the proposed scope, and the coverage in the other crimes against humanity / mass murder in general in the separate article. Per USHMM, INTRODUCTION TO THE HOLOCAUST: The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million European Jews by the Nazi German regime and its allies and collaborators. The Holocaust was an evolving process that took place throughout Europe between 1933 and 1945. Source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• My personal opinion (i.e. if I was going to write a book on the subject) is that the term "The Holocaust" should be used only for the genocide of Jews during WWII. Unfortunately, there are enough other sources out there that include other groups in the definition, that I don't think we can totally exclude them from this article - a good overview is Niewyk & Nocosia The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust part two, the chapter entitled "Defining the Holocaust". I'm not going to cry if someone edits the article and changes the definition and makes it stick, but I don't think it's going to stick. A review of the various discussions in the talk page archives might be best before setting out to do that. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth Thanks for your comment. I am not sure that trying to cover multiple uses of the word "Holocaust" in one article is going to lead to good results. How do you suggest that the ambiguity is handled? Mentioning non-Jewish victims when they were targeted alongside Jews, for example killings of Romani people in mass shootings and extermination camps, "anti-partisan" warfare directed at actual partisans, the civilian population in general and Jews in particular? That would be my preferred approach regardless of how we define the article scope exactly. A specific section that addresses non-Jewish victims (I don't think this is ideal, because it leads to segregation of related content, eg. in the examples above)? Do you support or oppose the creation of a separate article that covers all victims of Nazi persecution such as Mass killings by Nazi Germany? (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  You know, I'm busy. I read your initial postings (which this last reply basically repeats) and I made my opinion known so repeating it again in an effort to get me to opine further isn't really helpful and given how busy I am, just annoys me. (Granted, I'm trying to work on some stuff outside wiki and getting pinged to this discussion (twice!) is just ... frustrating. Oh, yeah, and on top of the lovely arbcom case I got dragged into... that was fun and ate up most of my wiki time for a while. So if I sound testy, its because I am. I'm not sure why I was singled out for a ping originally, and I carved out time for a reply, only to get pinged back again after I thought I'd made it clear I don't favor either option.) Life isn't always black and white and there isn't a good solution given the fact that the historians who study the subject have differing views. Sometimes things won't work out to the "perfect" solution. And there's a lot of folks who have opined in the past on this exact subject - please read the talk page archives, if you haven't. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My impression (which may be wrong) is that (i) a majority view is that the Holocaust was a genocide of Jews, and (ii) a significant minority view is that it included mass killing of several other categories. In connection to that, the article's structure in its present form ("the major part" and "other categories") seems quite adequate: we cannot remove the information about extermination of some categories of gentile population completely, because some sources (although definitely not a majority of them) combine these events.

I agree that we should probably discuss relative size of each part, and, maybe, remove some less important information. What should definitely be avoided is a dilution of a story of the genocide of Jews with other facts when it is done within the same section/subsection. However, that is not what we have right now. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think the hatnote, as proposed by Buidhe, is a great idea because it will be a service to the reader to direct them to related content. People may want to learn about these other mass killings. They might not know the full extent. We should help educate the reader. It will not serve the reader to turn this article into a bloated mess about many different topics. There's too much to include it all here. I do think it is important context to make people aware that they Jews were a primary target, but not the only target. We can briefly identify the other groups that were targeted for extermination and link out to those articles. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)