Template talk:The Holocaust sidebar

Remembrance

Just "edited boldly" and changed the Remembrance section as follows, using two links:

• Days of remembrance
• Memorials and museums

This change answers the question I raised in the previous section plus concerns of Milhist74.

Hope it looks good to others! NearTheZoo (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mohammed Amin al-Husseini

He had great influence to the holocaust. Pls read Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and youtube video [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No he didn't. I've never seen him mentioned by reliable sources as a major influence on the Nazis or as an important figure in the Holocaust. Please STOP adding your own original research all over the place. You must read and understand the policy on original research before you can contribute usefully. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

With other words: just because you never heard of him means that he and his influence never existed? Lets make this easy. Here is a picture:

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni meeting with Adolf Hitler (December 1941).

The right person is Adolf Hitler, the left person is Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. He was the Leader of a lot of Moslems, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Leader of the Palestinains and he spent world war 2 at Hitlers side. There are several books in existence which name Mohammed Amin Al-Husseini as a comitter. Youtube Video: [[2]] and [[3]] This is no propaganda, these are conclusions of historicans and universities. --Santiago84 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) There's no need to 'make this easy', I've studied history to PhD level. Adopting a patronizing attitude is uncivil.

(2) He didn't spend WWII at Hitler's side. They met after the decision on genocide had been taken. He wasn't an important figure in the Holocaust, he wasn't an important influence on the Nazis or European anti-semitism. The sources YOU CITED ABOVE demonstrate this.

(3) Various people have been reverting your edits, because they are in breach of the original research policy. STOP EDIT WARRING. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, it is not my original research nor uncivil. It is an historical fact. And lot more references. Again, this is not a theory i developed. These are historical facts. I cantrealize why you dont understand this. Even on the Wikipedia article of him these facts and many more information are mentioned. Various people also tried to add informations here. --Santiago84 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Mufti was a Nazi wannabe, but he had no role in the Holocaust. There's absolutely no reason for him to be in the template. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He signed contracts about the extermination of Jews in europe and the arab world. How can you say that he had no role or wasnt responsible for the holocaust? Again, just because it opposes your personal believe doesnt give you permission to delete valid additions based on references. --Santiago84 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I explained at Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust#Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and islam, your sources (with one possible exception) either don't qualify as reliable sources or don't say what you claim they say. How about a mainstream historian who says that the Mufti was responsible for the Holocaust? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Inside the references of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni page are a lot of historicans named. Read them!. --Santiago84 (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

References for this section

Joint Declaration

This template should contain a link to the Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations, the first Allied acknowledgement of the Holocaust, but I don't see any relevant section in this template. Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Aftermath? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that it happened in 1942, well before the worst atrocities, that seems very odd placement. Raul654 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've given it some thought. I think it might be worthwhile to add a section "Allied response" or perhaps "Western response". It would have links to Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations and Auschwitz bombing debate (neither of which are included on this template but probably should be) and Nuremberg Trials (currently in the "Aftermath" section). I'm sure there are other articles out there that should also be included. Raul654 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "Allied response" is good, and those articles are good choices. Germany and Italy were also Western countries. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to the template

I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I have introduced changes to this template. One reason for changing the templates is to improve accessibility for visually impaired users using a screen reader. Whenever a screen reader encounters a dot, it calls out the word "dot". The material presents as a lot of tiny disjointed paragraphs rather than a list. With the new mark-up, the screen reader will announce that a list is coming, and then will proceed to read out the items on the list. Application of the hlist and plainlist class is about presenting the material as actual lists, which helps not just people with vision issues, but those viewing the site using phones and other non-traditional devices. Search engines also will read lists better.

The use of the dots is now deprecated, and have been since August. Each dot requires the application of a template, and templates are expensive, as they increase server load. There are limits as to how many templates can be placed on a page. Application of the latest method, using plainlist to create the lists, results in a reduction in post-expand include size of 22% and a reduction in template argument size of 24% on this template. This is a substantial improvement that will lead to quicker load times for pages and a better experience for our viewing audience.

The transition has not been trouble free; some kinks have had to be ironed out, and there may still be a ways to go. However, we have the templates displaying adequately in the two latest versions of the problematic Internet Explorer (IE8 and IE9), and we can't hold back development of Wikipedia for older, buggy browsers. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk)—Preceding undated comment added at 06:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Serbs in template

Can anyone explain to me why Serbs are included as victims in this template? They were, of course, subject to genocidal policies implemented by the Ustase which resulted in about 200,000deaths, but this was not the work of Nazi Germany, it was the work of the Ustase. Do we include any ethnic group that were killed by their collaborationist government during WWII, or are we defining it as per the Holocaust article as those killed by Nazi Germany? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there respected sources that consider the genocidal acts of the Ustase to be part of the Holocaust? Were any such sources provided when this entry was added to this template? Absent such sources, it shouldn't be up to us to widen the definition of the Holocaust.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I fulsomely agree. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do put some time and effort into looking at what the following 3 sources have to say about the Serbian victims of the Holocaust:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ , http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/jasenovac// , http://www.yadvashem.org/

It would be insensible for us to exclude ethnic Serbs from this list of Holocaust victims. Until you can actually prove that ethnic Serbs were – in fact – NOT Holocaust victims, then we really should include them under this list. I really can’t see why we should exclude them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipsword (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see where on the USHMM website you are asserting that it says that Serbs are considered to be victims of "The Holocaust". Serbs were subjected to genocidal policies in the NDH, but they clearly do not fall within the definition of "The Holocaust" on the website of the USHMM here [4], Which clearly says "Jews". I suggest that including Serbs as victims of the Holocaust on WP when they are clearly not included by the USHMM would be contrary to WP policy. Please provide scholarly sources that explicitly state that Serbs are included. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tulipsword, the onus is on those wanting to include Serbs in the template to show that Serbs are considered to be Holocaust victims. The onus is not, as you suggest, on others to show "that ethnic Serbs were – in fact – NOT Holocaust victims". I recommend providing the information that Peacemaker67 has requested. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, the USHMM – a reputable and unbiased source – has dedicated an entire website to just the Jasenovac death camp – the hallmark of the Holocaust in Yugoslavia, and whose primary victims were ethnic Serbs. Just because the USHMM’s Holocaust Encyclopedia has not EXPLICITLY stated that ethnic Serbs are, in fact, victims of “the Holocaust” – despite that the United States HOLOCAUST Memorial has dedicated itself to researching and informing us of, what you referred to as, the genocide against the Serbs in WWII Croatia – does not constitute as a reason for us to arrive at the conclusion that “No, the systematic murder of ethnic Serbs alongside Jews and Romani in places like Jasenovac is not part of the Holocaust, but part of some other similar genocide that just happened to take place at the same time and at the same place”. Because of the sensitivity associated with this topic, I do insist that we take another approach here. For the sake of the truth, please provide a REPUTALBE and UNBIASED source – like the USHM – that explicitly states the bold conclusion you – Peacemaker and Skeezix1000 – are purporting. Until then, I do insist that we include ethnic Serbs as one of the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, along with ethnic Poles, Romani, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipsword (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tulipsword, I haven't "purported" anything. I have no strong opinion either way, and haven't suggested otherwise above. My only concern is adherence with WP:V and WP:RS.

As for you "insisting", nobody insists anything on Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project, and we operate solely by consensus. I ask that you review WP:CON. If the template is changed to include Serbs, it will be because we have achieved consensus, not because anyone has insisted on it.

Thirdly, and I am repeating myself here, the onus to include the Serbs in the template is on those wanting to include Serbs in the template. Please review WP:ONUS. It isn't up to anyone else to provide sources proving a negative. Please stop insisting that other people provide sources - I do not need to provide sources simply because I want this template to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS. Your time and efforts would be much better spent providing the necessary sources (and links thereto) and showing how they support your proposition, rather than making inappropriate and unnecessary demands on others. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe Serbs should be removed until consensus is achieved. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I will try to help with this issue.

Here is work which explicitly says: "some 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Iews and 26,000 Gypsies—men, women and children—perished in a gigantic holocaust"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But not "The Holocaust". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, removing ethnic Serbs from the list would amount to excluding them. Clearly, we have not reached a consensus, yet.

What I propose is that we make some adjustments to the template so that it is more consistent with what is being stated in the Wikipedia article titled “The Holocaust”, which the template in question is directly associated with. The following is taken from the introduction of the article titled “The Holocaust”:

“The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt")[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory.[3][4] Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed.[5] Over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.[6][7]

Some scholars argue that the mass murder of the Romani and people with disabilities should be included in the definition [of the Holocaust],[8][9] and some use the common noun "holocaust" to describe other Nazi mass murders, including those of Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, and homosexuals.[10][11] Recent estimates based on figures obtained since the fall of the Soviet Union indicates some ten to 11 million civilians and prisoners of war were intentionally murdered by the Nazi regime.[12][13]“

The title of the list in question is “victims”. “Victims” of what, though? “The Holocaust” against European Jewry (and, depending on which definition of “the Holocaust” you accept, Romani and disabled people)? If so, then Poles, homosexuals, Serbs, Soviet civilians, Jehovah’s witnesses, et cetera should not be included. If we are talking about the broader spectrum of “victims” who also suffered “a holocaust” alongside Jews, though, then we should absolutely – for the sake of decency, knowledge, and righteousness – include Poles, homosexuals, Soviet civilians, Serbs, Jehovah’s Witnesses, et cetera.

What I really do believe we should do is indicate by way of a footnote that what we mean here by “victims” is the broader spectrum of victims. And under this broad list of victims should be ethnic Serbs because there is no doubt that “a holocaust” was perpetrated against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipsword (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. "a holocaust" is not "The Holocaust" as I pointed out to AD above. There is a perfectly sound article on "a holocaust" perpetrated against the Roma at Porajmos. There is an article World War II persecution of Serbs which is probably poorly named but is the basis for an appropriate article on what happened to the Serbs of the NDH. Let me make it clear that in no way do I seek to minimise the genocide against the Serbs perpetrated by the Ustase. I've written new articles on two of the earliest massacres. However, the inclusion of Serbs in "The Holocaust" is controversial. I do not believe that they should be included in this template until consensus has been achieved to include them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Tulipsword, I have removed your addition to the template for now. We use a cycle of be bold-revert-discuss, not be bold-revert-revert. There's rules about edit warring as well. Edit warring is persistently re-adding content in spite of the objections of others, and doing it can get you blocked. As to my opinion that the Serbs should be included, I think not, as The Holocaust refers to a specific set of events, and does not include all massacres, not even all the massacres that occurred in WWII. In order to be included on this template, you will have to show that reliable sources are declaring that the Serbs of which you speak are considered by historians to be victims of the Holocaust. And by the way, referencing our article The Holocaust for anything is not a good idea at present as it is not in very good shape. It's due for a total overhaul. And Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source because it is a wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Excluding Serbs or any other people from the list of non-Jewish victims of Holocaust victims just because there is a separate article about genocide (yes persecutions is not appropriate title) is absurd. I think that this is a clear case of Sky is Blue assertion which is included even in the resource book for educators about the Holocaust (Teaching about the Holocaust : a resource book for educators: "The subjects of the essays include non-Jewish victims such as homosexuals, Gypsies, Serbs, Slavs, and pacifists."). I will return Serbs into template. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is based on arguments not solely on noconsensus position. Therefore I object to this edit in which Peacemaker67 again (for the third time) removed Serbs from the list of the victims without addressing points presented by other editors.

A citation of Simon wisenthal can be maybe useful to explain the absurdity of excluding a group of people from the list of Holocaust victims based on their ethnicity: "I always insist that victims must not be divided into Jews and non-Jews. I brought over 1,100 Nazis before courts in different countries, Nazis who killed Jews and Gentiles and Gypsies and Serbs." ... we shouldn't always talk about 6 million Jews who died in Holokaust. I say let's talk about 11 million civilians, among them 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust." I don't think that some people should be excluded from the list of the victims of Holocaust based on their ethnicity. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction AD. User:Dianaa was the second most recent remover of Serbs from this template. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker and Dianna, I have a very important question to ask you. What definition of “the Holocaust” are you basing your decision to exclude ethnic Serbs from the list of “victims”, but include such groups as ethnic Poles, Soviet civilians, homosexuals, Jehovah’s witnesses, et cetera? The reason why I suggest that we stick with the one given in the introduction of the Wikipedia article titled “The Holocaust” is so that we may establish some consistency between the “The Holocaust” template and its article-equivalent. The Holocaust definitions that are featured in the introduction of the “The Holocaust” article are backed up by sources and are not being challenged at all.

My second question is only to Peacemaker. Peacemaker, where did you get the idea that including ethnic Serbs as Holocaust victims is “controversial” as you put it? In order to provide an answer to this question, you will – once again – have to provide us with what definition of the Holocaust you are basing your argument on. That you have not at all provided us with a definition of the Holocaust from a reputable source is extremely problematic. It represents the Achilles’ heel of your argument. Peacemaker, you’re not at all going to find a definition of the Holocaust that explicitly includes European Jews, Romani, Poles, Soviet civilians, Jehovah’s witnesses, the disabled, homosexuals, leftists, freemasons, et cetera, but that explicitly excludes ethnic Serbs.

Lastly – for now – why has “Ethnic Serbs” been removed from the list of holocaust victims? That amounts to excluding them. When people go online and look at the template, what they should see – given that we have not at all reached a consensus, here – is a footnote beside our inclusion of Ethnic Serbs. The footnote will indicate that there is a debate going on as to whether or not Serbs should be included in the list.

First, however, we must agree upon a definition of “the Holocaust”. I think we should stick with the one provided by “the Holocaust” article. If we do that, then we’d have to specify in the template that what we mean by “victims” is the wider spectrum of “victims” – that is, ALL the people who suffered “a holocaust” perpetrated by the Nazis and their allies (e.g. the Independent State of Croatia), which includes Poles, Soviet civilians, freemasons, Serbs, Romani, Jehovah’s witnesses, homosexuals, et cetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipsword (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want the template to match the corresponding article, then it's time to start removing stuff from the template that is not included in the definition given in the opening paragraph of that article, not adding more stuff to the template. There's a problem both with the article and with the template: they're both getting too big, and need to be trimmed. The article for example is 18,000 words and the recommended upper limit for word count for our articles is 10,000 words. We can't make infinite-size articles that include a huge scope of material or people will no longer be able to load the pages, especially people on slow connections and those trying to access the article using a mobile device. The Holocaust article needs to be cut nearly in half in order to meet the site guideline for article size. I am planning on doing some major work over there when I finish my current project. In the course of editing the article the material in the lead may change, as it is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article.

I would just like to reiterate my previous point that Serbian people killed by the Ustase are not to my knowledge included in any tally of Holocaust victims, and if you have some sources that say otherwise, I would appreciate it if you could post them here for review. -- Dianna (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dianna: What is your knowledge about thousands Serbian people killed by Nazi Fascist other than Ustase? For example 32,000 Serb victims of Sajmište concentration camp? They were killed together with 8,000 Jews there. Is there any specific reason to divide victims of this camp based on their ethnicity? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

To Dianna, you said: “I would just like to reiterate my previous point that Serbian people killed by the Ustase are not to my knowledge included in any tally of Holocaust victims, and if you have some sources that say otherwise, I would appreciate it if you could post them here for review”.

Again, you’re failing to provide a definition of what you mean by “the Holocaust”. When you think of the victims, are you thinking of the 6 million European Jews that were exterminated by the Nazis and their collaborators (e.g. the Independent State of Croatia) or are you thinking of the wider spectrum of victims? Given that you do not accept ethnic Serbs as victims despite the fact that they were being systematically murdered alongside Jews in the same place, at the same time, and in the same manner, then I would believe that you are subscribing to the more narrow definition of Holocaust victims – the one that only includes Jews and, depending on whose definition you’re using, Romani.

Now, if what you’re thinking of is the wider spectrum of victims, then there’s a very serious problem, Dianna. Including such people as Jehovah’s witnesses, ethnic Poles, Soviet civilians with Asiatic features, homosexuals, freemasons, et cetera, but not Serbs – despite everything that has been written on how the Serbs suffered a holocaust at the hands of Germany’s ally Croatia – is very problematic, indeed. If you want sources that say that the Serbs suffered a holocaust during WWII alongside Jews and Romani, then I can most definitely provide you with sources. The Holocaust researcher Jonathan Steinberg (the Walter H. Annenberg Professor of Modern European History and former Chair of the Department of History at the University of Pennsylvania) once said that “The omission of Croatia from the conventional Holocaust studies is like a book whose first chapter is torn out." (This quote by Steinberg is very well-known. You can verify that he said it yourself by simply searching it up on Google.) I mean, even the USHMM website has an entire mini-website devoted to the Jasenovac death camp alone – Jasenovac being just one single aspect of the holocaust that was perpetrated against Jews, Serbs, and Romani in the Independent State of Croatia. Here’s the link:

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/jasenovac// — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipsword (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I will not be reponding on this topic any further, but will continue to watch. -- Dianna (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read the lead of The Holocaust. I have posted on the talk page of that article about this issue, as that is the appropriate place for the discussion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this edit by Tulipsword. I just want to make it clear that the reason I am dropping out of this discussion is because it is going around in circles and has become unproductive. I am moving on to other activities that make better use of my editing time. -- Dianna (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand, Dianna, and thanks for the heads up and your contribution here. I have moved the discussion to Talk:The Holocaust so that the wider community can get involved. This is really not about the template, it is about the article and the definition of "The Holocaust". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tulipsword,

Since your comment was related to this article I will reply here.

During WWII state-sponsored Fascists killed millions of people in Holocaust because of their ethnicity. Just because they were Jews, Gypsies or some of the Slavic peoples. Among them were also Serbs murdered because they were Serbs. Although I believe this is obviously WP:SKY IS BLUE case I presented sources which support it. Therefore I can conclude that consensus is reached based on:

1. wikipedia rules,
2. common sense and
3. sources

and that Serb victims of Holocaust should be, of course, included to this template. Will they be included? No. Why? You might (but just might) be able to understand why if you decide to be persistent with this issue. I recommend you not to waste your time and energy about it. Read the advice Marsellus Wallace gave to Butch. The one which starts with "The night of the fight, you may feel a slight sting...." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

complete misrepresentation of WP rules and the sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That Poles, homosexuals, Romani, Soviet civilians, and others are being included – alongside Jews – under the list of so-called “victims” in the template of interest implies that what is being meant by “victims” here is the wider-spectrum of victims. Ethnic Serbs are – undeniably – part of this “mosaic of victims” (The phrase "mosaic of victims" is taken from Michael Berenbaum, ed., A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis (New York: New York University Press, 1990).

Wikipedia operates by consensus. I do not agree with removing ethnic Serbs from the list of interest for the very good reasons that I have been giving for the past few days. Peacemaker has never directly confronted any of my arguments and, yet, insists that ethnic Serbs be erased from the list of “victims” – despite my persistent protests.

Please consider the following taken from the scholarly article “Circles of Hell: Jewish and Non-Jewish Victims of the Nazis” by Mary Johnson and Carol Rittner:

“Some scholars refer to the relationship between the Jewish and the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust as "the many circles of hell in Dante's Inferno." The Jews occupy the center, with the other victims extending outward in concentric rings. Michael Berenbaum has argued that in order to comprehend the Jewish center, one must "fully probe the ripple effects as well as the indis-putable core."”

The topic of “the Holocaust” and “Nazi terror” is a very important and sensitive one. When the public wants to learn about how this topic, usually they will go onto the internet and see what Wikipedia says. What is being done here is Holocaust revisionism and it must stop. Removing ethnic Serbs from what is – clearly – a “mosaic of victims” list is disgusting because it amounts to erasing the names and memories of people who were being systematically murdered because of something they couldn’t change about themselves – their ethnicity. I will be re-adding ethnic Serbs to the “mosaic of victims” list.

Tulipsword (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

that, quite frankly, is a load of crap. The discussion is going on over at the article talk page. Please join that discussion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

While there's no consensus for the proposed edits, Tulipsword & Antidiskriminator continue to (tag-team) edit-war[5]. It's high time this went to ANI as far as I'm concerned.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Will you please inform participants of this discussion if there is a consensus reached at Talk:The Holocaust for your idea to separate Jewish from non-Jewish victims of the holocaust? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice: possible move

There is a discussion at Template talk:The Holocaust (end) which may affect the naming of this template. --NSH002 (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)