Template talk:The Holocaust sidebar/Archive 3

Place

Shouldn't we move Racial policy of Nazi Germany outside of the "Jews" Category into maybe another place... It didn't apply only to Jews... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My changes

Good idea on the template. I did a fairly large overhaul of this, suggestions or comments appreciated. Goodoldpolonius2 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks Great. :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) Why not use WP:Infobox, as other templates do? and 2) don't you think Righteous Among the Nations and Yad Vashem are missing? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 10:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) I didn't use the infobox format because I have never used it for other templates, and I modified the template started by Toya. You are welcome to change formats. 2) I don't think Yad Vashem belongs, currently, as the template concentrates on tying together the articles about events of the Holocaust, rather than aftermath and discussion -- for example, I didn't want to address things like denial and victim counts, since they are covered in the main article. As for Righteous Among the Nations, we can use either that or the List of people who helped Jews during the Holocaust, both are redundant. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with width

The alternating white and blue rows is nice, but the template is too wide, due (apparently) to trying to fit whole categories per row. I noticed this wasnt consistent, at least for the first line, so Ive inserted breaks for the longest lines. I also added Gleichshaltung|German dissidents under the Other Victims line. Heres the diff-St|eve 02:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, thanks for the effort. I am not sure now that this is the best display method, but it is certainly less wide. I made some changes to fill up the space a bit better, to make formats consistant, and to restore the collaborators section. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sherit HaPletah

Following correspondence with other people who are interested in the topic of DP camps, I have decided to restructure this topic by emphasizing the emerging Jewish community (Sherit haPletah) within the context of the Holocaust, rather than the DP camps themselves. I also believe we need to clean up the articles related to "illegal" immigration from Europe to the British Mandate; there seems to be some overlap there. But I'll get to that later. --Leifern 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial

First, let me state that I am not a holocaust denier myself. But in the interest of fairness, shouldn't we put a link on the bottom of the template for Holocaust denial? --Kitch 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change

I think the template should not use middots in some places and commas in others. If you decide to keep line breaks, perhaps they should be changed to <br/>. What do you think about this:

Early elements
The Holocaust (Phases)
Racial policy, Euthanasia, Concentration camps (List)
Jews
Nazi Germany, 1933 to 1939
Pogroms: Kristallnacht, Iaşi pogrom, Jedwabne pogrom, Lviv pogrom…
Ghettos: Warsaw, Lodz, Lviv, Krakow, Theresienstadt…
Einsatzgruppen: Babi Yar, Rumbula, Paneriai, Odessa Massacre
“Final Solution”: Wannsee Conference, Aktion Reinhard
Death camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Majdanek, Treblinka, Auschwitz
Resistance: ZOB, ZZW, ghetto uprisings (Warsaw uprising)
End of war: Death marches, Berihah, Sh'erit ha-Pletah
Other victims
Slavs. and Poles, Romany, German dissidents, communists, gay men, Jehovah's Witnesses
Responsible parties
Nazi Germany: Hitler, Heydrich, Eichmann, Himmler, SS, Gestapo
Collaborators: Romania, I. S. Croatia, Hungary, Vichy France, Slovakia, Italy, Ukrainian/Latvian/Lithuanian units
Functionalism vs. intentionalism, Nuremberg Trials, other trials
Survivors, victims, and rescuers
Famous survivors, famous victims, rescuers

Instead of having the articles on the leading political figures of Italy and Hungary appear under the label of “Italy” and “Hungary”, perhaps these should be included:

History of Italy as a monarchy and in the World Wars#The Fascist regime (1922-1939), #Italian occupation of Albania (April 1939) and #Italy and the Second World War (1940-1945) (which seem not to mention the holocaust as of 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)).
Fascism#Italian Fascism
History of Hungary#World War II

Wikipeditor 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I support these changes. Not to diminish the suffering of any other group but political disidents were also sent off to die. --Vultureneck 23:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet partisans

Perhaps that article needs expansion or we need a new one titled Jewish partisans. There is plenty of info about thousands of Jewish partisans, particularly in Belorussian forests. Here are some links [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and I have more materials. True, some partisans and their peasant supporters were antisemitic, but it is also true that thousands of partisans from Italy to Russia were Jews. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created Jewish partisans, a stub for now. It will grow into a full article soon. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Width

Anyone else feel this template is now a little too wide for its use on the right-hand side of articles and perhaps contains too much unused space...? Regards, David Kernow 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have fixed width to 220 pixels and made formatting more flexible for future inclusions. Hope this okay. Regards, David Kernow 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jasenovac

I have removed Jasenovac from the template. It was not established by the Nazis but rather the Ustaša (Ustasha) regime. Indeed, it may have met the qualifications of a "death camp", but rarely is it actually cited as such. Most sources recognize merely the other six listed.Michael 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of thousands of people died at Jasenovac, and the guards held competition in throat slitting, for example. It was run by a puppet Nazi regime, the Ustashe, whose leader was incidentally known as the Poglavnik (Fuehrer). If this isn't a death camp, then I'd hate to think what is. --estavisti 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet POWs

Except looks like they don't have their own article (yet). --HanzoHattori 12:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the murder of POWs, i.e. captured combatants, considered part of the Holocaust...? David Kernow (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controvery Section

I had added a "Controversy" section, partly on the suggestion made by a user above many months ago. This controversy section included a link to "Holocaust Revisionism and Denial" (which redirected to Holocaust Denial) and "Auschwitz Bombing Debate." It was reverted by User:SlimVirgin for the reason that he didn't think it was "appropriate." I'd like to discuss this revert.

Basically, I wanted to provide a section that other templates have. For example, the Scientology series template includes a controversy section. Because the two articles I linked to are considered controversial, and are associated with the Holocaust, I see no reason not to add them. I even took great care to use -both- terms (revisionist and denial) so that both sides are satisfied (because revisionist is favored by some and denial by others, including both makes it so that no group is excluded.)

So I am not quite clear why this revert occurred. I feel that saying it's not appropriate to have a controversy section in the Holocaust template is kind of confusing (after all, why is it appropriate in the Scientology section, among other sections, but not in the Holocaust?) Certainly Holocaust Denial and the Auschwitz Bombing Debate are controversial holocaust topics... so why not put them in? .V. 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V, could you discuss this on one page, please, and not on article and user talk? Posting my previous reply below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the controversy section in the Holocaust template, there is no controversy regarding the Holocaust; those who engage in Holocaust denial are a tiny minority with no credibility. Please see WP:NPOV about "undue weight." Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the holocaust deniers are a tiny minority, why is there an article on it, and why is that article a good article nominee? Tiny minority opinions are, by Wikipedia policy, supposed to be kept to a section within a currently existing article. So if it -was- a tiny minority opinion, then it wouldn't be as it is above.

Additionally, because there was that huge Holocaust Revisionism conference in Iran recently, I think it's a bit more than a tiny minority. So therefore, the "undue weight" wouldn't apply.

Do you still really think it's a tiny minority? If so, you should probably AfD the article. .V. 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood the policy. Tiny minority views belong in their own article, so long as there are third-party sources. If you're going to try to argue that Holocaust denial is not a tiny minority, disreputable opinion, note that you'll get zero support from good editors, so you're wasting your time; unless, of course, you can produce a reliable source in support of your views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "huge" conference in Iran consisted of 67 attendees, none of them known Holocaust scholars. One of them was a computer science teacher at an adult education college. That was about the caliber of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Virtual Library alleges that [| holocaust denial is one of the most notable anti-Semetic propaganda movements.] If they're claiming this, I think that's notable enough. .V. 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also [[6]] this book here, which claims that "Holocaust-deniers, once dismissed as a lunatic fringe, have been growing in numbers and influence during the past 20 years." and this was published almost 10 years ago. .V. 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V, I'm not going to continue this discussion. Holocaust denial is regarded as unreliable nonsense on Wikipedia. If you want to change that perception, you'll have to find good sources suggesting they should be taken seriously and that their material should be included in articles as though it might be true, which is what the word "controversy" suggests. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are a tiny-minority opinion when it comes to history. Wikipedia doesn't base "majority" and "minority" opinions on thumb-in-the-air polls of what we imagine the "man-in-the-street" believes. "Majority" and "minority" refers to the consensus of experts in the field. And no experts in the field of history give any weight whatsoever to the views of Holocaust deniers. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider a "good source"? I gave you a source from a Jewish organization -and- a book regarding the subject. Perhaps this [[7]] Would be good? It's a 30 page selected bibliography on Holocaust denial topics. I mean, honestly... this should be more than enough. So please tell me what would be a good source so I can provide it. .V. 02:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good source would be an acknowledged Holocaust scholar saying the position of the deniers is worth taking seriously — not their existence (as disreputable pests), but their position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"worth taking seriously" is not our consideration. Keep in mind WP:NPOV. Whether something is worth taking seriously is a POV judgment. As NPOV states, "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views." It's not an "extreme minority view"... we've got tons of books written about it, we've got a Jewish organization saying it's one of the most notable anti-Semetic ideologies, and we've got a 30 page bibliography citing articles on this opinion... so it's certainly not an "extreme minority." Having to say "worth taking seriously" undermines NPOV. Obviously some people take it seriously, and some don't. If we take a side, we're not being neutral. .V. 03:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V, I'm afraid it's becoming increasingly difficult to AGF. All I can add is that you should review our content policies before editing any further: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to discuss this if you're not going to tell me exactly where I'm going astray. The issue you raised was that the holocaust revisionism/denial is not notable. I have shown, through quite a few sources, that it is. Whether it's "worth taking seriously" is a POV judgment. Wikipedia is not concerned about the absurdity of an idea. If it's notable, it goes in. That's why there's a Holocaust denial article in the first place. So I don't really see why we should keep excluding it, and a general reply saying I should go read policies really doesn't help at all. .V. 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust deniers are in that fringe minority that WP:NPOV#Undue weight talks about. It is perfectly fine to have an article about them, but since they do not constitute a notable group among historians, they do not belong in the template. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that article, Jimbo says: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." We can name prominent adherents, just like this policy says. The undue weight policy is all about keeping tiny fringe groups from looking notable, or in some cases, true. I hardly think adding a link to Holocaust Denial to the Holocaust Template is giving them any credibility at all. Holocaust denial is notable... the holocaust denial article exists... it's relating to the holocaust... so put it in the Holocaust Template. .V. 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be holding the opinion that the deniers are a "significant minority", please show what makes them significant. Did they make significant contributions to the subject? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of Holocaust Denial has several aspects. The first is the fact that the Jewish Virtual Library considers Holocaust Denial one of the most notable Anti-semitic threats [[8]]. The ADL believes it to be a significant problem. Those two alone establish that they are significant, if only for negative reasons. If you want to go by the Undue Weight policy, if we can name prominent adherents (David Duke, and so forth... this includes those who are genuinely interested in holocaust revisionism) it's a significant minority. Since no further definition is provided in that policy, I guess that's what we'll have to go with. This combined seems to result in significant minority. I can't see any further requirement for that title. If you have some, I'd like to hear of it. .V. 04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both sources consider it important for antisemitism, and not for the Holocaust research. Even though we do not necessarily follow the narrative JVL or ADL, our {{antisemitism}} template does indeed contain link to Holocaust denial. Oh, and not deniers are not a significant minority (what makes them significant?), they are a radical fringe. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do link to Holocaust denial on the antisemitism template, because it is indeed an important aspect of antisemitism. No scholar says it's an important aspect of the Holocaust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the controversy is part of the Holocaust. Because the controversy is there, it should be included. .V. 05:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it is "part of the Holocaust"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it's a part of the information available on the Holocaust. .V. 06:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, what are you talking about? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who are Holocaust Deniers/Revisionists make up a significant minority. You claim it's only for antisemitism, but even so, that anti-semitism comes out through commentary on the Holocaust. Whether this commentary is valid or not, that's still the vehicle of choice. Because it's a significant minority that's associated with the Holocaust and discussion of the Holocaust, it should be in the template. .V. 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They make up a significant minority of what? Not of scholars, not of Holocaust experts. They're not even a tiny minority of Holocaust experts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind weasel words. It's very weasely to be focusing on whether we consider them to be scholars or not, instead of focusing on notability. .V. 07:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our content policies. Notability isn't the issue. Saddam Hussein is notable but he's not a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he's not. Hence the section title... controversy. Which means it's disputed. .V. 07:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment on this issue. The basic facts of the Holocaust are not disputed. There is no controversy. The only people who believe there is controversy have zero credibility with reliable sources. Therefore, we will not be mentioning them on this template. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't rank ideas by whether they're right or wrong. You're passing a POV judgment. Keep in mind WP:NPOV... "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There is some dispute here. Whether you think that it's not credible or if they don't have enough proof is immaterial to this. There are quite a few people out there disputing it, and thus, there is controversy. .V. 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. We are an encyclopedia and it is our responsibility to represent factual information. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's our duty to represent factual information, but it's also our duty to represent viewpoints. Should we just delete the article about God because there's nothing to say it's definitively true? .V. 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should not give WP:NPOV#Undue weight to radical fringe.

.V., we have policies for assuming good faith and against biting newcomers. By now, you have exhausted both with me. I suggest you reread the last message by SlimVirgin. Good bye. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout this discussion, you've constantly fallen back on the "radical fringe" part in NPOV. But if you look at how that article describes significant majority, it fits. You've ignored that every time I posted it. I think it's time for you to stop being evasive and make even the smallest attempt at neutrality. .V. 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust deniers are neither experts in the field of Holocaust studies, nor reliable sources regarding them. Thus, they are not given much weight, per WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have much weight, but it's not "radical fringe." There's a clear distinction here. .V. 23:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Holocaust deniers are not a "radical fringe"? Which mainstream, non-radical historians deny the Holocaust? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky can be described as a Holocaust revisionist (let's not forget that Holocaust Revisionism is included in the denial article.) Keep in mind that the "radical fringe" listed in that article is for things like "flat earth" believers-- where it's demonstrably false. Additionally, all that matters here is that a substantial amount of people believe in it, and thus it generates controversy. And we can tell that quite a few groups do. .V. 23:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources describe Chomsky as a Holocaust Denier? As for Holocaust denial, it is demonstrably false, just like "flat earth". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust -revisionist-. He believes that the Holocaust is manipulated by Israel, and therefore, he's in favor of a revision. They are two seperate things. .V. 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring a reliable source which backs up your assertion. Thanks. Also, sophistry is not the same as argumentation; if you revise the meaning of Holocaust denial to whatever you want, then your argument is meaningless. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article talks about how Holocaust Denial is a part of Holocaust Revisionism. You should probably read it... it even gives a very clear distinction between denial and revision. Perhaps I'll just quote it here: "While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, "deniers" have been criticized for seeking evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts. Broadly, historical revisionism is the approach that history as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate and should hence be revised accordingly." Anyway, it's in Chomsky's book "Israel, the Holocaust, and Anti-Semitism". It talks about how Israel allegedly manipulates the Holocaust for its own benefit. Removing that manipulation restores historical accuracy, and as such, he is a revisionist, just as it says in that quote above. .V. 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article specifically states the opposite, that Holocaust denial is not Historical revisionism. You should probably read it. Which reliable source has described Chomsky (who, by the way, is a linguist and political polemicist, not a historian), as a "Holocaust denier" or "Holocaust revisionist"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, well, if you read my post, you'd see that I was referencing Chomsky's own book. .V. 18:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky called himself a "Holocaust revisionist" in his book? I find that very hard to believe; can you provide a quote and a page number? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I'm saying the philosophies match up. .V. 02:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the Holocaust is being used for nefarious purposes is not the same as denying the Holocaust; please stick to reliable sources, not your own original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I keep saying "revision", but for some reason, the word used in your posts seem to be "denial." Why is this? They're two different things in this case. .V. 20:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V, again you are falling into the same trap: the alleged abuse of the Holocaust is not relevant to the Holocaust itself. The denial link is already included in {{antisemitism}}. BTW, Chomsky is a linguist/polemicist and not a historian. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about the other link that was included in my controversy section, Auschwitz bombing debate? .V. 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ready for inclusion; needs a lot of work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? It seems well-sourced and well-written to me. What work do you refer to? .V. 03:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To abide by the Wikipedia "non-biased" policy, shouldn't the Holocaust page be run by an unbiased non-Jew? It is evident that this page includes a lot of myth, such as Wannsee and the 6-million figure. I'm sure this comment will be erased soon by the Jews that run Wikipedia!

Placement of template

Whats the policy on the placement of this template? Which articles should it be placed in? Perpetrators, victims, concentration camps, labor camps? Articles to avoid (related to holocaust that is)? Is there a guideline on whether it must always be at the top of the article or can a photo be placed above it? I placed a box in Josef Kramer , Bergen-Belsen concentration camp (moved a photo down) and Warsaw concentration camp (also moved a photo down to make way for the box). --Eqdoktor 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Title Change

Someone changed the title of this Infobox to "The Holohoax". I've changed this back to the correct heading. --Threatis 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Blacks to Other Victims

Was hoping that you all would agree to add the article History of Blacks in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust to the template under other victims. I added it the other day, but it was deleted. If someone could please chime in here that would be excellent. --USHMMwestheim 13:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under: "Responsible parties"

I would like to add Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany under "Responsible parties". As the template is now: there is no article listed there which is in the [[Category:Holocaust charities and reparations]] category. As the above article is rather central in that area I suggest we add that. Regards, Huldra 16:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasenovac

Holocaust is accepting "only" 6 extermination camps. This are Auschwitz · Bełżec · Chełmno · Majdanek · Sobibór and Treblinka US Holocaust museum . I am interested to know how many times there will be need to delete Jasenovac from this list. If somebody else is sure that Jasenovac need to be only list he need only to say that so we will go to Arbitration Committee for decision.-- Rjecina 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Era in Croatia: Jasenovac 1941 - 1945, from the very US Holocaust Museum website. And considering that it was (today there are opened questions, but mostly because of the 1990s nationalism) considered the 3rd largest Nazi camp, of course it should be there. --PaxEquilibrium 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)r[reply]

1 thing is Holocaust era in Croatia, another thing is Holocaust extermination camp and only 3rd thing is number of victims (3rd largest Nazi camp ????) My question is if you accept that we put this question to Arbitration Committee for decision.-- Rjecina 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want. On my part I cannot understand how can one deny that Jasenovac was an extermination camp. --PaxEquilibrium 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination camp - educate yourself first. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, Rjecina, state a specific reason why not to include it? --PaxEquilibrium 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will tell me that this fact:

"Holocaust is accepting "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps"

is not clear enough ??

For now your thinking that Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camp is original thinking and because of that it is against rules of wikipedia. Only when Holocaust museums accept like truth statement of serbian minister of foreign affairs Vuk Drašković:

"Serbs are the thirteenth, lost and the most ill-fated tribe of Israel"

this thinking will not be original any more.

We are now having discussion if Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camp and until now nobody has supported this original thinking.

-- Rjecina 07:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite still getting it... ;) --PaxEquilibrium 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe during Hitler reign of terror there has been maybe 50 extermination camps and you want to put in template 6 historical Holocaust extermination camps + Jasenovac. Why not other 49 ?

My position is very clear and very neutral. We must put in Holocaust template only historical Holocaust extermination camps (6) or all extermination camps from period 1933 -1945. Writing 6 + 1 is POV thinking. Name of camp number 7 is not important.

After end of discussion I will revert every time when somebody write that Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camp and if that POV editor insist he will recieve wikipedia vaccation. -- Rjecina 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, that only extermination camps specifically for Jews should be there? --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not her to think but to edit using rules of wikipedia !!! Rules of wikipedia are very clear and they are against original research. For me is surprise that user with is having so many edits on wikipedia support original research. You really need to read again Wikipedia:No original research !

If you thinking that only Jasenovac need to be added on Holocaust extermination camps list you need to read this rule of wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view !

It is possible to add Jasenovac and other extermination camps to original 6 Holocaust extermination camps only if we create template extermination camps during WWII. I will stop hear our discussion because I do not see point in future talk about this-- Rjecina 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust Era in Croatia: Jasenovac 1941-1945 by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
I suggest you check out the Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: Analyses and Testimonies book from Barry M. Lituchy.
Apparently, there was a Jasenovac Holocaust Museum in Croatia until Franjo Tudjman in 1991 for his own ideological aims turned it into a bird sanctuary.
By many accords, the Jasenovac concentration camp was the third larges in Europe
The Jasenovac Research Institute considers that which occurred in Jasenovac a part of the Holocaust
The recent denial of the genocide that has occurred, initiated by Franjo Tudjman, is called Holocaust Denial in Croatia by everyone
The Jewish Virtual Library considers Jasenovac a part of the Holocaust.
The Yad Vashem's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust considers Jasenovac a part of the Holocaust
Nebojsa Malic from Antiwar considers that which occurred in Jasenovac a part of the Holocaust
The Holocaust Learning Center considers it too.

How can you say it's OR? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By posting a link to "Emperor's Clothes" and "Antiwar" websites of supporters of Milosevic, you discredited yourself, so I'll just ignore you but redirect again to extermination camp article per defintion. (Also, I wonder if you noticed irony in writing yourself "By many accords, the Jasenovac concentration camp was", Yoda-style.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got that just from 20 secs of Google. Also, I don't think this is a funny subject. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concentration camps Banjica and Sajmište and Holocaust

What about Banjica concentration camp and Sajmište concentration camp?
I'm talking about Nedić's Serbia and its proud declaring of being Judenfrei?
Where are they in this template? Kubura (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this page someone spelled RECIEVE wrong its RECEIVE :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.69.87 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template style

The narrow box becomes little crowded - I suggest creating proper template to be placet at the end of articles (so called classic style like e.g. Template:Linux.--Kozuch (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A picture

Recently a Template:Expulsion of Germans has been included. The template contains a (more or less) emotional picture and uses strong green color. I have several times protested against such form. I believe that templates should be "proportional", that a template describing less important matter should not be more visible than one describing a more important matter. Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please discuss contentious edits here on the talk page instead of reverting the article. Although the three-revert rule permits three reverts per day, this is not an entitlement, and disruptive editors may still be blocked for violating the spirit behind 3RR. Thank you. EyeSerene^talk 08:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not part of this edit warring but......

If anybody will try to add again and again Jasenovac on this list it will be blocked because of last year consensus. Yes consensus can change but until then .... My proposition for administrators which are part of this discussion (about Jasenovac) is to talk with Mackensen.--Rjecina (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasenovac Concentration Camp was an extermination camp. There is consensus on the academic/scholar level confirming this historic fact. That fact is accepted by Wikipedia here [9] (Jasenovac concentration camp (Croatian, Serbian: Logor Jasenovac; Cyrillic script: Логор Јасеновац) was the largest concentration and extermination camp in Independent State of Croatia during World War II.) and here [10] (The Ustaše collaborators conducted a systematic extermination of large numbers of people for political, religious or racial reasons. The most numerous victims were Serbs The USHMM and Jewish Virtual Library reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp[74][75][76] However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac.[77]). Also the same fact is visible in the Encyclopedia of Holocaust and the Encyclopedia Britannica. Personal point of view of a few editors, lead not by knowledge but rather by some irrational reasons, are not obligatory here.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Google Books/Scholar searches gave a large number of scholar references classifying the Jasenovac concentration camp as the extermination camp too - see [11] and [12]--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that Jasenovac was a death camp, however... in terms of the Holocaust there have always been six camps designated as extermination camps: Auschwitz-Berkinau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka. Perhaps another designation is needed for camps like Jasenovac or Maly Trostenets. We could designate the traditional six as "Main extermination camps" and have a section below entitled "Other extermination camps." How does that sound as a compromise? AniMate 02:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with AniMate. It is pretty clear that Jasenovac was an extermination camp, but all the other extermination camps listed were Nazi camps (other than Treblinka in Poland, I think), while Jasenovac was controlled by the Ustaše. The question is, is this going to be all extermination camps enacted during World War II, or should we stay with a specific focus on Nazi-controlled ones? The Ustaše were protected by Germany and Italy but they were still a completely separate organization, so to speak. A puppet rather than direct control. At the Holocaust article, Jasenovac is mentioned mostly for the Southern Slavs killed, but here, it is being placed under the Jews. I think it could go under the "Other victims" subsection as an extermination camp there. Does that seem like a decent compromise? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't even see that section in the template. Seems like a pretty easy to implement solution. Still, I find it rather puzzling that people are edit warring over this template when it has never been used in the actual article on Jasenovac. A ni Mate 03:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe my compromise will be OK (this is taken from old version of article) ?
        
        Use of template in article Jasenovac (and everything connected with that) is defeated in RFC with votes 5:1--Rjecina (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While I certainly agree that Serbs belong in the "Other victims" section, your declaration that the problem is solved ignores the fact that we were specifically discussing Jasenovac and if it should be included in the template not the article about persecution of the Serbs. As for your statement about a previous Rfc, votes, and the template being defeated... you have much to learn about collaboration, consensus, and the correct language to use when discussing controversial topics with people who disagree with you. A ni Mate 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not like situations in which new account is demanding changes in article and we all are then starting discussion about that. I and you are having experiance (bad ?) with similar situations.
        
        To answer your proposition about "Other extermination camps" we must know number of this camps. Answer is 5, 10, 20 or ... ? In my thinking members of all european nations will start to add camps in that section and then template will have another problem.--Rjecina (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, accept it. Until we get a better checkuser system (one that doesn't take three weeks to get to) or we just start blocking people from entire cities, we are going to keep getting "new" users trying to game the system. It's part of the process. I hate having to repeat the same arguments to users who clearly know very complex wiki markup (this template isn't exactly simple to find), but who play the "I don't know your rules" game but I accept it. It's just the way things work. If too many other camps are wanted, we'll deal with it then. The question, where is the line now? I think it should be in a separate heading at best but if Don Luca doesn't come back, I would suggest we go to the consensus which is without them. If someone new comes in and argues again (which I suspect), then we'll deal with it then. But we'll make it clear that multiple users gaming the system over time isn't the way to make friends. If someone wants to get something done, you are going to have to argue it based on a reputation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All above is an attempt to push a blatant POV and a misinterpretation of the Wikipedia's consensus. The facts are:
- Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, MacMillan, New York, 1990 vol. II, entry Jasenovac by Menachem Shelach on pages 739-740
- Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, MacMillan, New York, 1990 vol. IV, entry Sajmiste by Menachem Shelach on pages 1323-1324
- The same fact is already accepted by Wikipedia here [13] and here [14] and here [15]

So the conclusion is obvious - Jasenovac i Sajmiste are the Holocaust terms and any vote as the ones above is null and void. Bear in mind that Jasenovac was added to this template at least twice - last time by an Israeli citizen; so you have at least three people including me who already voted against this nonsense.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Luca, please don't come in here with about how the conclusion is "obvious." Are you at all interested in discussion in compromise or are just going to namecall everyone who disagrees with you to start? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky you are wrong in you thinking that I always think about puppets of banned users. For me it is not important if new user is really new or somebody puppet. I am protecting established versions of articles against new (or "new") accounts which are "guilty" of massive rewriting of controversial articles. Normal situation is that we try to talk with new user and if he is accepting wikipedia rules then OK. You have seen that I am talking even with users which are waiting "Croatian economy to collapse because Croatian culture is not worth preserving" [16], but my only demand is that they accept Wikipedia rules, or that administrators will enforce wikipedia rules.

My problem with this situation is fact that administrators are refusing to enforce even Wikipedia:Consensus which is Fourth pillar of Wikipedia code of conduct. What is point in consensus if administrators refusing to enforce consensus against newly created SPA accounts ?

Consensus about template and Jasenovac has been reached in November 2007

User:Don Luca Brazzi has been warned by me that his edits are against consensus [17] and he has edited on talk page where this consensus is reached. In the end this "new" account knows in which way wikipedia is working [18] so he can't say that he do not know wiki rules.

Because of all reasons I am asking consensus enforcement (administrator restoration of version before last User:Don Luca Brazzi revert) and "award" for User:Don Luca Brazzi because of edit warring. After day or 2 he can return to discussion about new (?) consensus !--Rjecina (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a straightforward issue. It's clear that Jasenovac wasn't one of the Nazi extermination camps, so it really shouldn't be in that category on the template. However, it's also clear that the Croatian government was a puppet government, that the camp was run along Nazi lines, and that most of the country's Jews were killed there. Most of the scholarly books about the Holocaust that I have on my shelves do not include Jasenovac, including the official book of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which doesn't mention it that I can see. On the other hand, some notable scholars do include it e.g. Saul Friedländer in his highly respected Nazi Germany and the Jews 1939-1945: The Years of Extermination, pp. 227-230, particularly p. 229, where he calls Jasenovac "the uniquely Croat Jasenovac extermination camp," citing Menachem Shelah, "Jasenovac," in Yisrael Gutman (ed) Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 1990, vol 2, pp. 739-40.

Should there perhaps be two sections — one for the Nazi extermination camps i.e. the camps erected and directly controlled by the Germans, and a second category for "other" extermination camps, or "camps run by puppet regimes"?

It would be good to know exactly what Shelah says about Jasenovac in the Encyclopedia. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are having quotations and comments added by member of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee about this ?--Rjecina (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a question, or was the question mark a typo? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To solve this question 1 time for all I have called in 2007 RFC members of Arbitration Committee, but this will never end.

Maybe is time for me to say my thinking about this ?

Yes Jasenovac has been extermination camp (maybe even greatest non Holocaust camp), but there is agreement between Holocaust scholars that Jasenovac is not Holocaust extermination camp. Official Holocaust sites (Yad Vashem center, USHMM, Jewish Virtual library), are saying many things about Jasenovac but never that it is Holocaust extermination camp.

We can create new consensus that all WWII extermination camps are on this list and this is all. If we want to create new consensus about this we must call RFC because I am sure that we will have many interested editors.--Rjecina (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom members have no special influence over content issues such as this one, though of course their opinions as regular editors are respected.

Regarding how the camps are described, can you find any scholar who calls even Auschwitz a "Holocaust extermination camp"? It would be an odd expression to use.

Point is that some scholars do include deaths at Jasenovac as deaths in the Holocaust, so it's perfectly acceptable for us to do the same. On the other hand, we shouldn't include it as a Nazi extermination camp, given that the Germans appear to have had no direct control over the camp itself, though they clearly did have significant influence over Croatia's policies, especially its policies toward Jews.

I think an RfC is an excellent idea. Given that even Holocaust scholars can't agree about this, it's going to be up to Wikipedians to decide how best to handle it, and it's a sensitive issue, so the more people are involved, the better. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I meant to add that I'm sorry you're feeling so frustrated about this. I've dealt with similar issues before, and I know how frustrating it can be. We're dealing with an area of history that's in flux, that's the problem, with definitions of the Holocaust changing, with even the same scholarly sources using the term differently within the same book. Then you get editors arriving with very particular, and completely understandable, nationalist or ethnic sensitivities, who feel outraged that the damage done to their fellow countrymen is being ignored, or somehow downgraded. It's a very difficult situation. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for frustrated part.

1 small mistake. Holocaust scholars agree that there is 6 historical Holocaust extermination camp (not Jasenovac, Sajmište or ....). I am sure that there is no problem to find confirmation of this fact using google (I am saying that without looking). Other thing is our discussion about adding all extermination camps to this list.

I will let you call RFC (we are having agreement) because I do not want to start 3rd RFC in 7 days because of new account edit warring (Don Luca Brazzi). This is fact and not incivility (Magnum Crimen, Jasenovac). Now I will take 60 hours break from article talk page to leave place for other editors writing (we can continue our discussion on our talk pages). It will be interesting for me to see on saturday how this discussion is heading--Rjecina (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, it's more appropriate for one of the editors of the template to start the RfC. I can't get too involved because I've protected it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to my understanding, there was a clear distinction by the Nazis between extermination camps and concentration camps. The former are "death factories", designed for the purpose of mass murder, where most of the victims were murdered shortly after arrival. The distinction wasn't as clear in camps operated by the Ustase in Croatia. By the Nazi definition, Jasenovac wasn't an extermination camp, and by most characters it was very different from the extermination camps in Poland. But as the Ustase's main "enemy" were Serbs, and the Nazis had no interest in genocide of Serbs, so sending them to extermination camps wasn't an option, the Ustase used Jasenovac and other camps for mass murder of Serbs, but by Nazi yardstick, it was very far from a systematic "death factory". As far as Jews were concerned, they were "by product" for the Ustase, and were taken to Croat concentration camps as a "favour" for the Germans, and were intended to be sent to die in the "classic" extermination camps. But, as was the case in many concentration camps throughout Europe, the hard labour, harsh living conditions, and the resulted spread of deseases killed many detainees while they were in concentration camps, and they didn't survive long enough until it was their time to be sent to Auschwith etc. As being in the "premier league" of camps as far as harsh conditions and brutal treatment of guards are concerned, the "natural" death rate at Jasenovac was among the highest.
Bottom line: I wouldn't consider Jasenovac as extermination camp, definitely not by Nazi definition.
Disclaimer: My mother's side of the family were Croat Jews, and as such many of them were detained at Jasenovac and other camps in Croatia. My grandfather is among the numerous victims in Jasenovac, my grandmother was detained at Loborgrad camp and died in Auschwitz. Several other relatives also were victims of Nazi-Ustase genocide--Nitsansh (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to know the timeline of the concentration/extermination camps. Concentration camps existed in Germany since 1933, but were used primarily to treat German political and social "enemies". After the Nazis occupied Poland in 1939, they erected the Ghetos, which is a form of concentration camps. But this sort of "camps" were almost unique to Poland. As far as I know, in the countries occupied during 1940 (Denmark, Norway, Benelux & France) there were no concentration camps at the time of the invasion to Yugoslavia in early April 1941. It should be also noted that the invasion to USSR and the mass murder by the Einsatzgruppen that followed it didn't start until 2 months later (June 22 1941). The first Nazi extermination camp was also yet to be established. It isn't clear that at that point in the Holocaust timeline it was allready decided by Hitler that the "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" is total extermination. So, at the time that Jasenovac and other camps in Croatia were established in the summer of 1941, there was no "Nazi model" of extermination camps that the Ustase could copy into their territory. In the first stage at least, Jasenovac functioned as a camp of hard labour, which resulted in numerous deaths, but in this character it's not very different from the Ghetos in Poland. As previousely said, the majority of Ustase victims were Serbs, and the Jews were quite a small minority. As far as I understand, it was a sort of "deal", in which the Nazis gave the Ustase permission to treat the Serbs as they wished (and they certainly knew what it means), and in exchange they will also do the same to the Jews, therefor saving the Germans the need to treat the Jews themselves. It should be noted that at that time, the Croats were the only ally country of the Nazis that fully agreed to implement the Nazis measures toward their Jewish inhabitants. No other axis country, as far as I know, killed the Jews on a massive scale by its own forces, but "just" rounded them up and handed over to the German authorities. And in most countries, this was done later in the war, from 1942 onwards, as the "death factories" in Poland reached full operation. In Croatia, the Jews that survived the Ustase camps were eventually sent to extermination camps in Poland (mainly Auschwitz), and this was done in the summer of 1943, IE after about 2 years in the camps, and by that time the majority of detainees were dead. This was also a deal between the Germans and Croats, as the Ustase regime recieved money for the Jews they "gave" to the Germans. Very few inmates of the Ustase camps system managed to survive the war. Most of the Croatian Jews that survived managed to escape to the Italian-controlled zone, where they were safe from persecution of the Ustase. This is a fact very little known about WW2: The Italians saved hundred-thousands of Jews, not only in their own country but also in their occupied territories.--Nitsansh (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion shall not be based on personal views - rather on the deep and profound knowledge of the discussed topic. I do not see any of the scholar references supporting your 'bottom line'.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Luca Brazzi like you are knowing very good deep and profound knowledge of the discussed is not needed for discussion or edits on wikipedia !

I am having 4 lists of Holocaust extermination camps. This lists are [19] [20] [21] [22] . Because it is not possible to add all "minor" camps in template (see list) I am again asking administrators to enforce 2007 consensus about Jasenovac because we are having enough respected wikipedia sources (this links and books added from previous consensus) which are showing that Holocaust scholars are accepting "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps!--Rjecina (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe is time to add better sources (who is behind this sources) which are speaking about "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps:

Middle Tennessee University [23]

Florida Center for Instructional Tehnology [24]

USHMM Extermination camps are called killing centers

This Holocaust Teacher Resource Center Holocaust chronology with all camps

Site Holocaustsurvivors.org [25]

I am not having problem with adding of Jasenovac, Sajmište or Banjica in this template, but we must have sources which will say that they are Holocaust Extermination Camps.--Rjecina (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a source above for Jasenovac — Saul Friedländer in Nazi Germany and the Jews 1939-1945: The Years of Extermination, pp. 227-230, particularly p. 229, where he calls Jasenovac "the uniquely Croat Jasenovac extermination camp," citing Menachem Shelah, "Jasenovac," in Yisrael Gutman (ed) Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 1990, vol 2, pp. 739-40. He doesn't use the expression "Holocaust extermination camp," which is a kind of odd phrase, but he's a Holocaust scholar writing about the Holocaust, and he includes that camp.

I suggest you put up that RfC you mentioned last week to get more eyes on the page, or run with Animate's compromise of listing those camps in a separate section. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see... There is agreement between me, you, user:Animate and Ricky81682 that for Holocaust schoolars Jasenovac is not Holocaust extermination camp. Now because you 3 are thinking that Jasenovac must be on the list we will add this camp ? My advice for administrators is to read rules Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

For anybody who is thinking that we must create sub-category in which we will have Jasenovac and maybe few other camps my advice is to read Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:POV pushing because I do not know how is possible to explain that 1 extermation camp will be on this list and other not. Who will make decision about that ?

I will not call RFC because we will have "good old" Balkan nationalism without any interesting arguments and in next few days I will be on new wiki vaccation.

For the end I am not frustrated with actions of newly created edit warring account, but I am frustrated with administrators which have refusing to enforce old consensus and which are refusing to accept Holocaust scholars--Rjecina (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, my views here don't count toward any consensus, because I'm the admin who protected the page, so I can't also count as a regular editor. I'm offering some opinions only in case they're helpful.

Regarding the expression "Holocaust extermination camp," you're not going to find any scholar who uses those exact words, at least I can't imagine you will, because it's an odd phrase. The question is only whether scholars include the disputed camps when discussing the Holocaust, and as we've seen, some do. Perhaps we could ask Wikiproject Jewish History (though that might not be exactly the right name of it) to give us their views. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can agree with your statement that it is very hard to find scholars which are using words Holocaust extermination camp, but you must agree with me that scholars are speaking about 6 Holocaust camps and we are never having Jasenovac or Sajmište on this list. For me this situation is similar to situation in which Ricky has demanded: "provide an opposition proof" for statement about Franz Ferdinand king of Yugoslavia [26] ????

Maybe I am making mistake but rules of wikipedia are saying that user (or users) which want to add this camp (or any controversial statement) must provide proof that this is Holocaust extermination camp or we are changing rules ?--Rjecina (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Most of the literature I have read refers to Jasenovac as an extermination camp, including texts from Yad Vashem. My concern is that Jasenovac may not qualify as a "Holocaust extermination camp," which is indeed an odd phrase. Just like the Porajmos refers to the genocide of the Roma people, the Holocaust generally refers to the genocide of the European Jews and Jasenovac was primarily concerned with the genocide of the Serbian people. That's why I think a sub-category would be appropriate rather than adding it to the "main" extermination camp category. However, as Jews were indeed massacred there I believe the camp should be included in the template. A ni Mate 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create sub category you must find scholary source which is speaking about other camps which will be on this list. Can you please find this source ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from SlimVirgin's reference from Saul Friedländer, there is also this from Yad Vashem. And from Google books: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

Are these satisfactory? A ni Mate 04:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are having agreement that Jasenovac is extermination camp (how many times I need to write this), so this links are not adding anything new to discussion (or I have looked wrong links ?). Problem is if we will create sub section question is which other camps will be on this list. I have discovered 2-3 other camps but question is which source will be used for naming of this camps. Yes our "edit warring" will end with creation of this subsection and adding of Jasenovac, but can you please think about other nations which will start similar edit warring about other camps ?

In the end name of this template is Holocaust. Can you please tell how is possible to add Jasenovac if term "Holocaust" specifically refers to the acts of Nazi Germany against European Jews ?--Rjecina (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the template, we also have a section titled "Other victims of the Nazis" and the addition of this subsection is a kind of extension of this. As for justifying the inclusion despite Jews not being the main victims, the reality is that Jews were victims in these camps as well. Finally, I'm not too concerned about edit warring over the inclusion of an "Other extermination camps" as the main person objecting to them is... you. Besides, I firmly believe that most Wikipedians are willing to come to talk pages and work things out rather than edit warring and I also firmly believe that most people will not object to attempts to expose more readers and users to other victims of the Nazis and their allies. Honestly, the easiest answer in regards to inclusion: these camps are related to the Holocaust. Anyone who argues otherwise is either self-deluded or lying. A ni Mate 07:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is agreement about self-deluded or lying, because I can't understand how NPOV editor can say in discussion about commander of Jasenovac camp that articles about Nazi concentration camp personnel are awful (about Croatian commander is "OK") and then demand rewriting of articles only about Croatia. If I really think that articles are awful I will rewrite articles about all Nazi concentration camp personnel, but I am honest and naive....--Rjecina (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are unfairly misquoting me. I said those articles were awful because they had "no inline citations and those few that do are... of vague origins". A ni Mate 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

Hi, there's no point in reverting back and forth over the same issue, so I've protected the page for a week. Hopefully you can reach some kind of compromise. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protection expired and User:Rjecina reverted immediately. Even though I somewhat agree with that version, I want to make sure the war doesn't just continue so I reverted. I still think Jasenovac shouldn't go under "Jews" but go into another section. Other views?-- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree as well, though the idea of putting external links into a template is just horrible and unnecessary. I clearly agree with your reversion. Protection is used to encourage discussion, not as a countdown to resuming an edit war. A ni Mate 09:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682 can you please stop to write false statement ( reverted immediately ) about my edits (this is not 1 similar mistake) ? Protection has ended on 01:35, 14 October 2008. 17 hours after end of protection I have asked administrator which has protected article about this [61] and he has not answered. Now can you please explain you words "reverted immediately" which has happened ulmost 53 hours afer end of protection (and it is not revert because of sources) and what is source of statement that Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camps.

All scholars list are speaking about "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps ? Your (or anybody else) private thinking of 7 or 1000 Holocaust extermination camps is not important for wikipedia ? --Rjecina (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky probably should temper his statement, but the fact remains that we shouldn't be adding external links to templates. I don't know how many articles this template is used in, but I can guarantee that when other editors see external links added into tons of articles without discussion there's going to be trouble. A ni Mate 10:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are having agreement about everything --Rjecina (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why to remove parts of discussion?

I could disagree with someone, disagree to something - but removal of a part of discussion I do not see civil.

So from the removed text - I am putting back very useful information

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust included in the dictionary of the holocaust five entries - Ante Pavelic, Ustashe, Independent State of Croatia, Jasenovac, and Sajmiste. So the *bottom lines* as *I wouldn't consider Jasenovac as extermination camp, definitely not by Nazi definition.*, or *Most of the scholarly books about the Holocaust that I have on my shelves do not include Jasenovac, including the official book of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which doesn't mention it that I can see.* are dishonest at least. See the truth here: [62], [63], [64], [65] and especially about Jasenovac and Sajmiste listed under the title 'Yad Vashem The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority' - here [66].

It shows clearly that the Jews included both Jasenovac and Sajmiste in the Holocaust era extermination camps. This fact must be respected.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this links are saying very different story.

First link is speaking about Serbian historians which are trying to sell story about Jasenovac "Holocaust Extermination camp" to Yad Vashem [67]

Definition for Jasenovac in second source is: "Jasenovac - the largest concentration and extermination camp in Croatia" [68]

Source number 3 is speaking about Jasenovac camp complex and not about Jasenovac "Holocaust Extermination camp". [69]

Source number 4 is speaking about "chronicles crimes committed during the Holocaust in Croatia and highlights artifacts from the Jasenovac Memorial Area Collection." Again not about crimes in Jasenovac "Holocaust extermination camp" [70]

Must interesting source is number 5. User is demanding that Jasenovac and Sajmište are added to Holocaust template because they are on this list. For me is interesting why in his thinking we must add this 2 camps and not all extermination camps which are on this list (like for example Buchenwald) [71] . In my thinking only possible answer is that Jasenovac and Sajmište are on Croatian territory (during WWII) and Buchenwald and other camps are outside of Croatian territory. This is clear example of POV pushing !

Maybe is time that I say this again: I will support adding of all extermination camps in template, but I will block any try to add only "Croatian camps" (Sajmište is Nazi camp od Croatian territory)--Rjecina (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there has been talk about Yad Vashem it will be very good to look article about extermination camps which is writen by this organization [72]--Rjecina (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Yad Vashem links you gave above says, "Established in August 1941 and dismantled only in April 1945, Jasenovac is known for having been one of the most barbaric death camps of the Holocaust ..." That's pretty close to them calling it by the phrase you say sources must use — "Holocaust extermination camp." [73] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is close, but like you can see in that even in this article they have used definition "Jasenovac - the largest concentration and extermination camp in Croatia".

On other side you are having all other sources--Rjecina (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's denying it was in Croatia. The questions are (a) whether it is regarded as an extermination camp involved in the Holocaust, and (b) whether it should be referred to as a Nazi extermination camp. It looks to me from the conversation above that editors (and the sources) are saying yes to (a), and no to (b), which is why Animate suggested including it in a separate category. What is your view of Animate's suggestion? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Answer on (a) is no and answer on (b) is no. AniMate is saying "Jasenovac may not qualify as a Holocaust extermination camp,..." and Ricky is saying "I still think Jasenovac shouldn't go under "Jews" but...". Because of that answer on (a) is no ! For me problem is that I am looking everything black or white, and others want to use many colours (it is not but....,)

I will end this with words of users from last RFC:

"Right or wrong, the term "Holocaust" specifically refers to the acts of Nazi Germany against European Jews" (User:Ledenierhomme), "the term Holocaust should not be applied for other ethnicities. It has been traditionally refering only to the destruction of European Jews" (User:AccountInquiry), "The template is misleading and should be removed. It suggests that this was part of the Holocaust campaign, which it wasn't" (User:Sxeptomaniac).

Can somebody please explain what has during last 12 months ?? I am calling all users from last RFC to enter this discussion --Rjecina (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment about sub section "other extermination camps" is that I know 7 places which need to be on that list, but I am sure that nobody has checked that !? Because of Balkan trees it is not possible to see forest. Now I will start massive calls for discussion. SlimVirgin is right with comment that we need to call users which are editing Wikiproject Jewish History, but in my thinking we must call users from Baltic countries (events in 1941) and Hungary (events in 1944) because this countries will be inolved on this template if we vote for sub section "other extermination camps". Maybe I am mistaking but we are discussing creation of this sub section because it is not possible to add Jasenovac on visitors door and now we are trying to enter on service doors.--Rjecina (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non involved users

Our agreement is that Holocaust scholars are speaking about "only" 6 Holocaust Extermination camps (stupid definition but ....). Our disagreement is about creation of sub section other extermination camps. With knowledge that there has been many others extermination camps and sites (I know 7 of them) question is: Will we create subsection in The Holocaust template for this camps ? Can you please hear your comments about this question in section Non involved users ? This invitation I will be added on many places and to many users --Rjecina (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Should the Jasenovac concentration camp in Croatia, which operated from 1941-1945, be included in a list of Holocaust extermination camps on Template:The Holocaust? There is agreement that it was an extermination camp, but disagreement as to whether it counts as a death camp that was involved in, or associated with, the Holocaust.

Also, if it is included, should it be added to the section "Jews" or to "other victims," or should there be a new section to include camps such as Jasenovac?

There are other camps at issue too, but how we handle Jasenovac will largely determine how we handle the others. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am interested to hear if decision of this RFC will be used for all other camps or only to defeat Jasenovac RFC from 2007 which has made "wrong" decision ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see we are having all this sources:

Middle Tennessee University [74]

Florida Center for Instructional Tehnology [75]

USHMM Extermination camps are called killing centers

This Holocaust Teacher Resource Center Holocaust chronology with all camps

Site Holocaustsurvivors.org [76]

Site Jewishgen.org [77]

Which are speaking about Holocaust extermination camps, but they are never speaking about Jasenovac. Then we are having Menachem Shelach and his book Encyclopedia of the Holocaust which is speaking about Jasenovac but he will latter say in interview published by Israeli weekly Hotam (December 30, 1994), that he deathly hates the Croats (in Hebrew: sin 'at mavet)!! ...

Then we are having Serbian nationalism which is using WWII (Jasenovac) like reason for Serbian war crimes during Yugoslav Wars:

Boose, Lynda E. "Crossing the River Drina: Bosnian Rape Camps, Turkish Impalement, and Serb Cultural Memory." Signs. Vol. 28, No. 1, Gender and Cultural Memory. (Autumn, 2002), pp. 71-96.

- "But in ways disjunct enough to suggest once again a dangerous displacement at work, the epithet Ustashe was used as often against Bosnian Muslims as against Croats, and the illogical reference to Jasenovac, the most notorious of the Croatian Ustashe death camps, came up frequently as a justifying rationale for concentration camps holding Muslims and for the Serb massacre of Muslims at Srebrenica." (77-78)

Hayden, Robert M. "Constitutional Nationalism in the Formerly Yugoslav Republics." Slavic Review. Vol. 51, No. 4. (Winter, 1992), pp. 654-673.
- "Croatia also presents a loaded political context fraught with nationalist strife since about 13 percent of the population are Serbs who remember well the genocidal campaign against them by the "Independent State of Croatia" set up by the Germans but run by Croat fascists in 1941-1945." (657)--Rjecina (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, I have to ask you to modify your behavior. This is not a Croatia love or hatefest. It is an issue that the scholarly sources disagree over, and their disagreement is reflected on this page. Creative suggestions are therefore welcomed, not entrenched black and white views, not sarcasm, and particularly not defamation of living scholars. I understand your frustration, but this needs to be approached calmly and in a scholarly manner. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are wrong. All my comments in this section are confirmed by sources. Only thing added by me is "respected". Nothing more nothing less and because of that I will restore "my" comments which are only part of attack on him (now I have added full text). Can you please show me evidence that Menachem Shelach is living scholar ?

On other side I have given sources and show that Menachem Shelach is not reliable source about Holocaust in Croatia. It is not possible to have discussion if 1 part is showing sources and second is speaking about unnamed scholars ?

Do not worry tomorow I am out of this discussion because of real life problems. --Rjecina (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to show in a respectful and professional manner that reliable sources regard a source as unreliable, please do, with links or citations. If you want to insult people, your comments will be removed. Please observe that distinction so that the discussion here is as fruitful as possible. There is simply no point in this repetitive back and forth. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from Israeli weekly Hotam (with date) is enough to declare Menachem Shelach not reliable source for things about Croatia or not ?

My point is that on this talk page we are having around 10 sources which are saying that Jasenovac is not connected with Holocaust "program" and only Menachem Shelach who in his own words hate Croats which is saying different story. For me results in sources 10:0. --Rjecina (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are now saying that these camps are in no way associated with the Holocaust, I believe you need to contact every historical source and agency you can find and have them subtract the Jews killed by the NDH from the estimates of Jews killed during the Holocaust. Those that died at Jasenovac and other camps outside of the six are included in the tallies, which would seem to make these camps related to the Holocaust. Do you think the Jews who died there should not be considered Holocaust victims? A ni Mate 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will use words of another user:"There's no obvious connection between the Nazi program and the Ustaše program, beyond the connections between the two Fascist governments"

I do not understand your point. Do you want to say that only Jews for NDH and Jasenovac are included in the tallies or from all other camps.

Because we are only editors until now I have asked SlimVirgin to change this RFC from Jasenovac to Maly Trostenets extermination camp. With that we will evade Balkan nationalism and red-black battles, but on other side if RFC will be for creation of sub section other camps nobody will question adding of Jasenovac (if there is agreement we can delete all RFC comments which are only copy of earlier discussions). Your thinking ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was being pretty clear. The Jews who died in Jasenovac and Maly Trostenets are included in the 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust. If you are arguing that these two camps aren't related to the Holocaust, then the Jewish victims from the camps cannot be called victims of the Holocaust. Yet they are. It seems pretty simple. Do you have sources saying that the Jews who died at Jasenovac and Maly Trostenets are not victims of the Holocaust? A ni Mate 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that they are added to victims of the Holocaust, but important question is who will say which camp will be in this list and which will not be ? Decision will be made by Wikipedia users or Holocaust scholars ? What will be needed number of Jews victims to enter this list ? Last question is if we will have on this list camps and sites of massacres in 1941 or only after Nazi decision about Final solution (1942) ?--Rjecina (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the disagreements amongst scholars, I have suggested a separate section for these camps. Since you seem to be agreeing that they are related to the Holocaust, shouldn't they have a section in the template? A ni Mate 23:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of this but ....Can you please confirm with something statement that there is disagreements amongst scholars (I am asking this 2 time in only 4 hours) ? I do not see answer about my 22:56 questions so it is not possible to answer your question, but.... If we can established rules about which camp or site will be on this list and which will not be then we can add many sites (no problem), but without rules....--Rjecina (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent) What would you like me to prove? Your argument is that there were six main extermination camps. Fine. We won't touch that list. My argument is that these, Jasenovac et al, were also extermination camps. You've said that you agree with that. Jewish Holocaust victims died there. You agree. So why shouldn't they have a section in the template. The six camps you are so adamant about will be the only "Holocaust extermination camps". Okay. These will go in another section. What are your objections? A ni Mate 23:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am hearing about disagreements amongst scholars, but I am waiting to see evidence (source) about scholars disagreements ?

Question:If we will create sub section In which way we will make decision about which camp or site will be in this section ?

Adding Jasenovac to this list is against all Holocaust definitions, because this definitions are always speaking about Nazi Germany and Jews. It is possible to see around 15 definitions of Holocaust in that article. My personal thinking is not important. It is possible to say that I am Empire historian. If we look documents Western Roman Empire has fallen in 480, but historians are speaking that it is fallen in 476. Similar is with Eastern 1453 and 1460/61. I am sure that historians are speaking false, but we can use only historian informations on wiki--Rjecina (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, I have twice posted a citation from a Holocaust scholar who includes Jasenovac as an extermination camp associated with the Holocaust. The problem is that you call anyone who disagrees with you (whether scholar or Wikipedian) wrong. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first comes first - as usual Rjecina falsely references her claims; for example this link USHMM Extermination camps are called killing centers is all about the concentration/extermination camps in Poland - not about all Holocaust related extermination camps. The very next thing is - The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. This book is a joint project of a number of Jewish/Israeli scholars led by Israel Gutman. Menachem Shelach was well-respected Haifa University professor and historian. His entries in the Encyclopeda ... passed strict accuracy scholar test conducted by his peer scholars/professors. The very book is a reference book in all university libraries and in any bigger public library across in the USA. Tell-tales and hear-says about this prominent scholar and the Holocaust era survivor cannot be a part of any serious discussion. Her further nonsense is 'Adding Jasenovac to this list is against all Holocaust definitions, because this definitions are always speaking about Nazi Germany and Jews' - there is no such definitions which Rjecina tries to sell - calling up on nothing.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will like that everybody which is attacking my position show us sources for his position. I am seeing in this RFC only sources in support of my position ? --Rjecina (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This supports what I'm saying. It specifically discusses Jews who died in the Holocaust at Jasenovac. Here's another great one specifically titled Jasenovac: The Jewish Serbian Holocaust (the Role of the Vatican) in Nazi-Ustasha Croatia. Here's Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia. I don't know what more you're looking for. A ni Mate 01:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are serious with this sources ?? I can't believe that. Let me see... First source is Yad Vashem which is saying that is Jasenovac - the largest concentration and extermination camp in Croatia. Nobody question this, but 2 other sources :) First is writen by genocide denier Milan Bulajić [78] and in second he is member of publisher council. Sarcasm is earned because we have discussed Bulajić in other discussions and I can't believe that using him again like source is mistake. Maybe desperation but mistake no--Rjecina (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we discussed Bujalic, I have forgotten. Was it on this page? Assume good faith, Rjecina, because, unlike you, I edit in many areas. Regardless, you can accept Yad Vashem! Great, because the location doesn't matter as long as it is considered an extermination camp related to the Holocaust. Great. Now that you've accepted Jasenovac, perhaps we can move forward with other camps. A ni Mate 04:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Were the Jews who died at Jasenovac victims of the Holocaust? A ni Mate 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust is clear

often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the b: a mass slaughter of people ; especially : 'GENOCIDE'

- therefore " and especially Jews by the Nazis" (and not only Jews) - German, Croat, Slovak etc Nazis.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In additoin to above, I've found 30 books about the Holocaust regularly including Jasenovac. Some of them are :
  Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia by Barry M. Lituchy
  The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965: by Michael Phayer
  Holocaust: A History by Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Van Pelt
  The Smell of Human Flesh: A Witness of the Holocaust: Memories of Jasenovac
  The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945 (Nazi Germany and the Jews) by Saul Friedlander
  The Righteous: The Unsung Heroes of the Holocaust by Martin Gilbert--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm becoming concerned that Rjecina doesn't want to hear any of the arguments because they don't specifically use a really unusual phrase that he seems to prefer. He has conceded that it was an extermination camp. He has conceded that Jews died there. He has conceded that those Jews are included as victims of the Holocaust. He has now been shown multiple sources that include Jasenovac in the Holocaust. Can we expect yet a different argument because he doesn't want to hear valid arguments that disagree with what he's already decided. I hate to be too personal, but at this point... everyone on this page seems to be arguing for inclusion of these camps in some form except for one user who moves the threshold for inclusion every time it is crossed. AniMate 01:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry but I do not see this multiple sources or we need to trust word of newly created edit warring account ? Where are Quotations from this books ?? Only after seeing this list 2 have been out from reliable sources list (Saul Friedlander which is using data about Croatia from Menachem Shelach which is has declared for newspaper his deadly hates toward Croats and Human flesh)
    - On other site we are having Middle Tennessee University [79] ,Florida Center for Instructional Tehnology [80] ,USHMM Extermination camps are called killing centers, This Holocaust Teacher Resource Center Holocaust chronology with all camps, Site Holocaustsurvivors.org [81], Site Jewishgen.org [82] which are refusing to write about Jasenovac. It is interesting that "my" sources everybody can read, but other side scholary sources nobody.
    - Because I am going on wiki vaccation I am sure that "we" will have new consensus, but it will be invalid and reverted if "we" have not respected wikipedia rules in creating this consensus.--Rjecina (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, I hate to tell you this... one person disagreeing doesn't invalidate consensus. Threatening to edit war makes your position even weaker. If you're not participating in this discussion for a while, that is your problem. As it is, there is consensus on this page, but everyone is being too polite to tell you. The fact is no one agrees with your desire to completely exclude these camps from the template. Everyone else seems to believe these warrant inclusion in some form. Your assumptions of bad faith have gotten repetitive, and your last attack against me was unnecessary. Accusing me of inserting a source as bad faith move since we had allegedly talked about it... when we never actually discussed him is... troubling. I hope your wikibreak helps you grasp this essay better when you next return. A ni Mate 05:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Again I am guilty ? Please read earlier comments about Don Luca Brazzi and look his edit warring history. Similar to that you are not knowing anything about Bulajić, but what about your comments added in RFC about Jasenovac. They are added not long after my comments about Bulajić. Too many mistakes for good faith..--Rjecina (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I haven't edited Jasenovac for about two weeks. I probably should have remembered, but honestly... you say the same things over and over it all kind of runs together. I forgot about your objections, frankly in between work, my personal life, and an upcoming project I'm working on, I remember very little specifics about what I edited two weeks ago. I'd probably remember as well as you since this is the only area you edit in, but I'm more diverse. Sorry. I'm sure you'll find reasons to dislike the other sources.A ni Mate 05:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

I'm going through my bookshelves to see whether I can find more references to that camp or to Croatia in general during the Holocaust; these are all scholarly sources, by the way.

Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, p. 392. Doesn't mention camps by name, but makes clear that she regards what happened to the Jews in Croatia as part of the Holocaust.

Friedländer, Saul. Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945: The Years of Extermination, p. 229. Writes that Croatia "launched a genocidal crusade" against the 2.2 million Orthodox Christian Serbs and 45,000 Jews who lived there. Citing Jonathan Steinberg in his All or Nothing: The Axis and the Holocaust, 1941-1943, p. 30, he writes that Serbian and Jewish men, women, and children were "literally hacked to death." He also writes that some Franciscan monks played a leading role in killing Serbs and Jews "in the uniquely Croat Jasenovac extermination camp." A footnote after this point cites Menachem Shelah's "Jasenovac" in Gutman, Yisrael (ed) Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, vol 2, pp. 739-740.

Hilberg, Raul. The Destruction of the European Jews, pp. 756-766, vol II. Refers to Croatia as a fascist-Catholic "German creation." Discusses its antisemitic measures. Describes Jasenovac and Stara Gradiska as "death camps." Writes that more than half of Croatia's Jews were delivered to these camps, dying of typhus, starvation, shootings, torture, drownings, knifings, and blows with hammers to the head. He gives the number of Jews killed as 19,800, including 13,000 in Jasenovac alone. Thousands more were deported, at least 2,000 of them to Auschwitz. On p. 1074, vol III, he discusses the murder of the Roma in Croatia, who he writes were taken to Jasenovac in June 1942.

SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to post something over at WikiProject Jewish History and possibly Judaism to ask for input about how and if this should be included in the template. I'm going to wait until Wednesday as we're technically not supposed to be working tomorrow, and honestly editing here feels like slave labor (and the post will probably get more eyes on it after the holiday). A ni Mate 06:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Animate. I did post a request on Wikiproject Jewish history [83] yesterday, but the more people asking for help, the better. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

(made due to appearance in RFC). "Holocaust" strictly refers to a severe fire. It is applied particularly (metaphorically) to the Nazi genocide against Jews. However this is merely the worst of the Nazi genocides. Others also suffered including Gypsies, mentally-defectives, Blacks, and (I think) Poles. Should the term not be applied to all the Nazi genocides? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the issue is whether to qualify the Ustaše's conduct as part of the Nazi's. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much it sums it up

The dictionary definition by Merriam-Webster, and many other dictionaries is clear. While the main victims of the Holocaust were certainly jewish, any death/extermination camp run by the Nazis and allies in WWII is part of the Holocaust. Bosniaks, Serbians, Croatians, Roma and Jews were killed in this particular camp.

That this is even being subject of discussion is amazing; it is like trying to discuss if water gets you wet: the English language defines "water" as having the property of getting you wet. Likewise, it defines Holocaust as the systematic killing of civilians - in particular Jews - by the Nazi State. This is not subjected to interpretation from the perspective of language.

Any denial/revisionism of the Holocaust itself (the only "valid" reason not to call this camp a Holocaust camp) would belong in Holocaust denial, but not in any other article, as per WP:NPOV's statement of "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Holocaust denial/revisionism is an extreme minority view and belongs in the ancillary article about it.

So please lets move forward. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other extermination camps and sites

Because during our heated debate there has been agreement that we need new section. Now I have added this section. All added sites (-Jasenovac) are from Britannica 2002. With hope that nobody will protest bye--Rjecina (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes I am against removing Jasenovac and Sajmiste from the list of concentrations camps - they are the holocaust era camps - per Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.--I am Mario (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is agreement between Holocaust scholars about 6 (not 7 or 8) Holocaust extermination camps (bad definition but...). Because of that it is not possible to write camp number 7 (for example Maly Trostenets) to this list.

If there will be 7 camps last will be Maly Trostenets and not Jasenovac. Why ? Because 40,00-65,000 Jews is killed in Maly Trostenets and "only" 10,700 - 16,000 Jews in Jasenovac. For Balkan people it will be surprise (maybe) but WWII Holocaust is "Jewish" and not "Serbian" thing (sorry for this 2 words. maybe they are not enough civil ?)--Rjecina (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between the "agreement" and the fact: Encyclopedia of the Holocaust International Editorial Board counts 24 world-class historians (among them Martin Broszat) and more than 100 contributors. All together 124+ scholars agreed to include in the ecyclopedia five entries:

Ante Pavelic, Independent State of Croatia, Ustashe, Jasenovac and Sajmiste. Now about the holocaust notion - Merriam Webster dictionary is clear - the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the b: a mass slaughter of people ; especially : GENOCIDE All scholars - while writingt about the holocaust in this four volume encyclopedia, which is a reference book in libraries aroud the world - were dutifully and with full respect mentioning Poles, Serbs, Roma, and all others doomed to be annihilated by Nazis and their servants. Claiming 'but WWII Holocaust is "Jewish" and not "Serbian" thing' - is disgusting. Jasenovac and Sajmiste concentration camps: - in the holocaust context mentioned - my book/article search engine shows more than 2000 entries for Jasenovac and more than 700 - for Sajmiste and just 70 for Maly Trostenets. Book browser shows between 6 000 - 23 000 Jews died in Maly Trostenets. No problem to include this camp in the extermination camps because it was an extermination and a holocaust camp. Back to Jasenovac - at least 40 000 Jews entered that camp (25 00 from the Croatia proper, 7000 from Bosnia and 8000 from Slovenia). How many there died and how many were transfered into other camps - no one knows. Furher, 25 000 Roma and hundred thousands of Serbs perished there.
I've noticed that this fella (Rjecina) was eagerly removing quoted testimonies of the holocaust survivors from a number of the holocaust related articles under some frivolous excuses. Is there a way to curb this behavior inside Wikipedia or some anti-defamation actions shall be taken outside Wikipedia? I see that my previous warning about holocaust denial seen on this page - was removed by some administrator who even threatened to block me? --I am Mario (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any more reverting on this issue, I'll have to protect again, or block the next reverter. Mario, please don't make threats to report people for "Holocaust denial." Everyone here is acting in good faith. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SV that this needs to stop. All of the camps are listed as extermination camps, and the classification as "other extermination camps and sites" does nothing to change that. Think of it as a reflection of camps outside of the brutal system set up in Poland and as a way to include places like Babi Yar that don't necessarily fit in with pogroms. Finally, I'd like to applaud both of you for this edit warring over a template. A TEMPLATE!?! One that isn't even attached to the articles on the two camps you're edit warring over. In fact, I am Mario you've never edited either article before.

I'm tempted to revert to the compromised version because I simply cannot understand why you're so upset IaM. I would like to know why the location of the camps in the template is such an issue. The word "other" doesn't nullify "Holocaust" or "extermination." You do realize that don't you. "Other" doesn't mean "not", in this context it is very clear that "other" means "other holocaust extermination camps and sites". A ni Mate 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As promised on his talk page, I've blocked I am Mario (for 48 hours) for repeating his Holocaust Denial accusations. I have no problems with any other admin adjusting that upwards if they think it's necessary. Rjecina, I do see a rough consensus on this talk page that the camps under dispute can be fairly described as extermination camps, although they may not fall under a strict definition of Holocaust camps. Therefore I think your additions to the template are supported. However, revert-warring to keep them there is disruptive and against the spirit of WP:3RR. I realise that you believe you are acting to maintain a consensus, but if your edits are supported by the other article contributors (who, I hope you don't mind me saying, seem to feel less strongly about it than you do), it's perhaps best to let them make any necessary reversions; that way it's less likely that you'll end up facing sanctions too. EyeSerene^talk 13:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see:

On 1 side we are having sites: Holocaust survivors [84], Middle Tennessee state University[85], Teachers guide to Holocaust [86], United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [87] (I can add to this Yad Vashem and Jewish Virtual library) which are all making clear difference between 6 camps and Jasenovac (I will not even comment Sajmište)

On other side we are having Menachem Shelach which is speaking about Jasenovac, but he will latter say in interview published by Israeli weekly Hotam (December 30, 1994), that he deathly hates the Croats (in Hebrew: sin 'at mavet). Maybe because of my poor english maybe I do not understand good enough Wikipedia:Reliable sources, because when I read this rules he is not reliable source for Jasenovac or Sajmište ?

All in all we are having 4 reliable wiki sources which are saying white (example) and 1 non reliable source which is saying black. In the end wikipedia is writing black ????

Now about consensus:

There has been agreement between Animate and Ricky that there is 6 Holocaust camps and that we are needing another section for Jasenovac [88]. I have accepted this position in beginning of November with creation of this section [89]. User:Don Luca Brazzi has protested deleting of Jasenovac from this list, but he has not writen against creation of new section.

In the end we are having 3 users for subsection and 1 neutral. For me this is consensus !

If this is not good enough (sources + consensus) I will try to avoid future edit wars with adding of other extermination camps to template and deleting of subsection. EyeSerene, Animate, Ricky and SlimVirgin can you please write your thinking about this proposition ?--Rjecina (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the camps back to the "other" section, and again don't understand what is controversial about this. As to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust being a valid source, it unquestionably is. Menachem Shelach's comments about Croats do not outweigh the entire editorial board or Yad Veshem, who sponsored the encyclopedia. In addition, I'm not sure your understanding of WP:RS is correct. We do not disqualify a source simply because an author has said something controversial. We look at the source, in this case the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, and determine if it is a reputable publication. If we must look at the author, we judge his work not the man himself. Shelach has been published in the Oxford Journals. He's seems more than qualified to me as a reliable source. Rather than attack the man, perhaps a better tact would be to find other reliable sources that refute his writings. If there are sources out there that say the opposite of his writings, I'd like to see them. He's said something repugnant about Croats. I get that. Find me some legitimate scholarship that contradicts him and we can go from there. A ni Mate 10:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 2 reasons why we must have subsection. We are having agreement about minimal 1 thing (maybe both), and in this situation I do not see reason for discussion about Menachem Shelach on this template talk page--Rjecina (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will suggest that others review User:I am Mario's comment here at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Ignoring the possible WP:NLT violation for someone else, he seems to add some more details (why he doesn't mention it here is beyond me). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yad Vashem is established by Israel parliament for commemorating the 6 milion Jews killed in Holocaust. In Yad Vashem Hall of Rememberence we are having names of 22 largest extermination camps [90], but even Yad Vashem is making clear difference between 6 greatest and others. This is possible to see on Yad Vashem FAQ about Holocaust [91] which is speaking only about 6 greatest camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz. Similar situation is with USHMM [92]

Against this and all scholars (I can add more sources) which are making clear difference between this 6 camps and 16 other we are having user which is screaming: "There is 8 great camps (6 original + 2 Croatian)". It is interesting that 1 (Sajmište concentration camp) of this 2 camps on Croatian territory is not even between 22 largest camps on Yad Vashem list (see article. This data has never been disputed, but only sources which I can find are on croato-serbian language).

In my thinking it will be better if we find Yad Vashem complete list of camps, so that we can add all this other 16 camps in subsection. After that I or someboy else can ask never ending full protection of this template, because this is our only solution to end this --Rjecina (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning. Rjecina keeps falsely referencing Yad Vashem when saying It is interesting that 1 (Sajmište concentration camp) of this 2 camps on Croatian territory is not even between 22 largest camps on Yad Vashem list - see for detalis [[93]] where it is given almost identical map of the concentration camps as the one seen in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust on page 308, Vol 1. The most authoritative source about Holocaust - Encyclopedia of the Holocaust does not differentiate any six concentartin camps against other camps - as it was suggested by this person. --I am Mario (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this map we are having 4 x 14 = 56 camps and sites. Maybe I am mistaking but 56 is greater number of 22 ? --Rjecina (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of camps

Nazi camp divide into several categories. These includes: POV detention camps, camps for re-education of poles, hostage internment camps, transit and collection camps, labor camps, general concentration camps and extermination camps. None of these definintions is complete and many camps are of diverse nature, E.g. most concentration camps are labor camps as well. Extermination camps are the most important subject, they are specific camps that were not erected in other to intern inmates, who would labor, and be killed or parish due to circumstances, but be taken to systematic slaughter upon arrival. This definition too is incomplete: all concentration camps are, to some extent, extermination camps, yet only few are indeed reconed as such.

Central extermination camps: are big camps, planned for systematic destruction of people in the firm of genocide. Inmates are brought into such camps from afar, even of other camps, and most of them are usually taken to liquidation. Of these, three were established in the "Reinhardt aktion": These were extermination camps that were not concentration camps, and all incoming new-arrivals were killed. In others, a small part was kept alive to do labor, these were concentration and extermination camps althoughter. These camps are: Treblinka, Belzec, Sobbibor (Reinhardt aktion) and Auschwitz, Lublin-"Majdanek" and Jasenovac. Chelmno/Kulmhof also falls into that category.
Minor extermination camps: camps and sites where transit of small labor units were stationed, and in which systematic extermination took part for a while due to needs and interests of administration. These are Sajmiste, Maly-Trostenets, Janowska and several other small camps.
Concentration camps: camps where systematic extermination did not take place in a way consistent enough to be tagged "extermination camps".

79.179.252.228 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to accept the classification given in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. See this note on Jimbo Wales page given by I am Mario user [94]: Concentration camps entry is on pages 308-316, Vol. 1: The camps were subdivided into labor camps (Arbetslager), transit camps(durhgangslager), prisoner of war camps (Kriegsfangenlager) and extermination camps (Vermachtungslager). This is a good start - there is no minor or major extermination/concentration camps as you have suggested. Also, bear in mind that the same camp can be seen as concentration and extermination camp.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see that we are having agreement between Washington IP (user I am Mario) and Washington IP (user 72.75.20.29) :)

We are having nice link given to us by Washington IP on 23 November which is clearly making difference between 6 extermination camps and all others[95] .

It is possible to see that on this page we are having links to all camps and extermination sites and if we look all this articles we will come to this list of minor camps which have been from beginning or have became latter extermination camps:

Bogdanovka [96]

Janowska [97]

Kaiserwald [98]

Maly Trostines [99]

Mauthausen [100]

Sachsenhausen [101] (Extermination camp for soviet prisoners)

+Jasenovac and Sajmište.--Rjecina (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person (Rjecina) keeps falsely interpreting references: map says one thing but the text contradicts the map explicitly: Jasenovac was Croatia’s largest concentration and extermination camp. See [102]. Also, no 'minor camp' classification by Yad Vashem visible. Far more accurate classification of the concentration camps is given by Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. --72.75.20.29 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the definition of minot extermination camps is very good. Maly-Trostenets is generally considered as an extermination camp, though it cannot be listed with the large ones. The same definition appears in regard of Janowska and Sajmiste in "the encyclopedia of the holocaust" and in latest Yad-Va-Shem asseys. My determinations also lay upon the information given to me by specialists Menachem Granitza and Abraham Kuperman. Also, Jasenovac should be considered a central extermination camp, with Auschwitz and Majdanek. 79.179.252.228 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any definition of the 'minor' extermination camp in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. (Sajmiste - where At least 40 000 Serbian and 7–8 000 Jewish victims perished in it. is a 'minor' extermination camp???) Please, quote the definition in full and give the page where the definition is given.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are having problem because it is clear that Yad Vashem, USHMM Middle Tennessee University [103], Florida Center for Instructional Tehnology [104], This Holocaust Teacher Resource Center (Holocaust chronology with all camps), Holocaustsurvivors.org [105] are making clear difference between 6 camps and all others. Because I am person which is always accepting other side arguments supported by sources my proposition for you 2 is to write emails to Yad Vashem and USHMM with demand that they add Jasenovac to this 6. If only 1 of this organization accept your evidence then we will add Jasenovac to this 6. If not we can't add Jasenovac because of our rule Wikipedia:No original research
- Sorry Washington IP but we can't believe your book "sources" because in other article we are having evidence that Washington IP is writing false and misleading statements using book like sources.--Rjecina (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious incident

Rjecina keeps falsely interpreting and referencing the internet sources and falsely calling upon editorial rules. The Holocaust idea is not limited to the list of extermination camps listed here - nor any reference supports that selection. Moreover, far more people died in other types of concentration camps - labor camps most notably.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What this anonymous user wrote about Rjecina - is yet another proof of a primitive and tenacious attempt to revise the very idea of the Holocaust: as per Rjecina et all - Holocaust did happen mainly in six extermination camps and some people died on some other places. I've already warned mr Wales about this dirty activity here - got only deaf ear response. I am collecting evidence about this defamation activity and writing article/letter which shall be sent to the Anti-Defamation League, New York Times and Washington Post.--I am Mario (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored less cluttered version

I went ahead and restored the less cluttered version of the template. My reasoning is that firstly, templates are designed to make accessibility to certain information easier, and the presentation of the subdivisions list did not aid in that respect. Secondly, the subdivision list was misleading. I'm certainly not saying it was not truthful, but saying there are subdivisions and not actually classifying the camps by subdivisions is frankly lazy and sloppy. The way the list was presented made it appear that the camps were arranged by those classifications, when in fact it was just a list of all the camps that had been on the template. Finally, the subdivision list seemed like more of a definition of the different types of camps and that isn't the purpose of a template. Templates are a navigational tool and not actually an article. --A ni Mate 19:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of the Holocaust does not know anything about 'the less cluttered version' nor it can be narrowed to some selection of the extermination camps and 'other' camps.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This difference is created by Holocaust scholars and not by us. For me your proposition is OK, but for wiki rules it is not OK.
- My advice to 72.75.20.29 is to ask administrator thinking if your version can be used. If they say yes, then it will be OK !--Rjecina (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination camps

Would it be useful to change the template to have a separate classification for extermination camps? In fact Treblinka was not really a "concentration" camp as hardly any Jews were held there for an extended period, and Wikipedia draws a distinction between concentration and extermination camps in its classifications. Vidor (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my thinking we need to have clear difference between 6 camps and all others, but if you look history of article you will see problems--Rjecina (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria for ghettos

Regarding this: [106]. What makes a ghetto important enough to include on our template? There were a lot of ghettos and we cannot squeeze them all. I think that only the largest ghettos should be included. Lakhva / Łachwa ghetto can boast a claim to be the first place an uprising has occurred (however, not all sources agree on this, some state it was one of the first places...). Other then that, it was one of the smaller ghettos, in a town that has few other claims to fame. I do believe that the ghetto itself is notable (this is another issue debated right now at Talk:Lakhva Ghetto, but I don't think it ranks inclusion alongside the Warsaw, Łódź or the Minsk Ghettos in our templates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the inclusion of the Łachwa ghetto will give rise to a need to "squeeze" all the ghettos into the template. Given its claim to being the first ghetto uprising, it is easily distinguishable from the other smaller ghettos, and therefore does not create a precedent for inclusion. As for the suggestion that only the largest ghettos should be included, size is by no means the only criterion of significance. In fact, I would suggest that if the template is to fulfill its function of presenting an overview of the topic, then there needs to be some acknowledgment that the ghettos were not restricted to the large cities and there should be at least example of a ghetto in a smaller centre. Given that the Simon Wiesenthal Center estimates that there were over 800 ghettos in Eastern Europe, including a handful of only the larger cities would unnecessarily narrow the focus and ignore an entire facet of the Holocaust. Finally, I am not sure that the town's "other claims to fame", or lack thereof, have any relevance. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this is that the template should list only the best known ghettos. For future reference:"Łachwa Ghetto": 500 ghits, "Ghetto Litzmannstadt" 20,000, "Lemberg Ghetto" 500/"Lviv Ghetto" 1,000/"Lwow Ghetto" 4,000, "Kraków Ghetto" 20,000, "Budapest Ghetto" 15,000, "Kaunas Ghetto" 6,000/"Kovno Ghetto" 40,000, "Vilna Ghetto" 40,000/"Wilno Ghetto" 1,000/"Vilnius Ghetto" 10,000, "Minsk Ghetto" 6,500, "Warsaw Ghetto" 500,000. Looking at this we can easily see that Łachwa Ghetto is the least known, and that, by an order of magnitude. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significance is not determined by google searches. This is not a popularity contest. Moreover, relying solely on google searches as a test of inclusion would ignore any the additional criteria mentioned above. As the first uprising, maybe this is better listed as such, rather than a ghetto? Or perhaps the solution I mention below. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think significance should be based upon? ILIKEIT is not a solution. It is a fact that some ghetto's are much more known and discussed in the literature. I propose we use Google Book search instead of google. If you can prove that in printed works the popularity of ghetto's is different and Łachwa is among the most popular, you can re-add it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained above in some detail what I felt would be additional criteria and considerations. If my comments are not clear, please feel free to say so, but it's neither fair nor helpful to mischaracterize them as "ILIKEIT". As for Google Book, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. As I have said, this is not a popularity contest and google hits should not be the sole critereon (although it can be helpful) - Google search results are a very crude measure of importance and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive. If we are not going to agree that google results are the be and end all, then perhaps you could give some thought to the other proposals I have made. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, your argument above is that this ghetto is "distinguishable" from others, that's a rather fuzzy criterium - if I misunderstood you, please explain it to me again. Google Books provides a reliable and quantifiable way to determine popularity of issues (we could also try Google Trends but I am pretty sure most ghetto's would not rank high enough to yield a viable statistic here - ex. [107]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was making the point about it being distinguishable in response to your fear about precedent. I indicated that Lakhva's claim to be the first ghetto uprising, along with the need for the template to include a representative overview, are two other equally valid criteria. As for Google searches, we clearly don't agree -- they are a rough indicator, but they are certainly not a reliable indicator of importance or significance, and content decisions on Wikipedia should not be based solely on the basis of google searches. And I am not sure why "popularity" (can a ghetto be popular?) is relevant. Rather than harping on google searches, perhaps you could give some thought to the alternative ideas I have put forward. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What alternate ideas? And do note that the other editor who commented below noted that this template is/was too big and needs shortening. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted to work out a solution with you that we can both accept. In fact, I am trying really hard to do so. ~~However, it is difficult to have a dialogue when you seem disinclined to read any of my comments.~~ Today on this talk page I suggested: (a) that if Lakhva's significance is tied to being the first uprising, then perhaps we should list it among the uprisings and delete it from the ghettos, thus addressing your view that the ghettos list should be limited to the largest ghettos; (b) perhaps we eliminate all lists on the template, and simply refer to the general articles on ghettos, uprisings, etc. so as to avoid these types of debates and trim the template; or (c) convert this template to a navbox, which typically allow for a greater scope of inclusion than a side bar and can be made collapsible. Some of these comments were made in response to the comment about shortening. I think any of these ideas are worth considering, and I'd be happy to hear any ideas that you have. Let me know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ought not to have suggested you were disinclined - sorry, it wasn't necessary to make that suggestion, and I know that you have the best interests of the template in mind. I imagine that we can figure out some solution between the two of us. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the idea to move Łachwa from ghettos to uprising has merits, as it is indeed notable for the uprising. I think we should keep this template, but if you'd like to create a more comprehensive navbox, that may be a worthwhile project. If you're to do so, we could indeed cut specific examples from the existing template, leaving just the links to the general and list of... articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea. I'll make note of it down below, under the trimming the template section, and see what people think. In the meantime, I will move the Lachwa reference as discussed, and then we'll see where the trimming discussion takes us. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Personally, I think this template is way over the board. Its size discourages the reader from taking a closer look at it. Some items are there by accident, like the list of victims of Nazism which includes those whose deaths were not a part of the Holocaust (as the article explains). I have no idea how some links are justified, like the link to History of the Jews in Germany#Jews_under_the_Nazis_(1933–1939), which is a mere subsec. This template should be reduced by 40-50% for readability. For now, it act almost as a Wikipedia list, defying its own purpose. A number of groupings could be safely edited out, since the links are already there within the corresponding articles. For example: "Early elements" (Concentration camps are already listed below; there’s no need to repeat them twice...), "Pogroms" (especially the ones predating the Holocaust). The "Responsible parties" which really boils down to Nazi Germany (with its own list within a list within a template) and so on. Please express you opinion in this matter. As far as the ghettos are concerned, only those with major concentration of Jews should be kept. --Poeticbent talk 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would significance be based only on numbers? Perhaps the solution is to simply link to a general ghetto article, remove all links to individual ghettos, and thus avoid these fundamental debates over what it means to be significant (where we start to veer into WP:OR territory). Perhaps we could do the same with respect to a number of topics (e.g. uprisings), and thus trim the template. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the template

Some time ago I suggested that the list of ghettos should be trimmed up only to major ones; Poeticbent above suggests an even more wider series of cutting down the excess fat from this template - and I agree with his sentiments. Still, since this template talk is highly used and yet is apparently not cared for (as my original suggestion went uncommented upon for months), I think a wider RfC is in order. Comments appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

better idea would be to use the Holocaust navbox which doesn't crowd the page and is more flexible in terms of content.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should consider reinventing this template. Deciding what to "trim" might be a difficult debate, and it could be hard to get consensus. Alternative solutions, such as conversion to a navbox or a different structure, might be the way to go. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr up above suggested that we trim a lot of the content out of the sidebox, and then create a complimentary navbox for the bottom of article pages that could contain more content. Any comments? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust side bar - Error

I don't know how it can be edited but the side bar for the Holocaust - has a glaring mistake:

Concentration camps were not death camps and death camps were not Arbeitslager. However the side bar makes no distinction....

Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Majdanek (initially founded as a concentration camp but a death camp for most of its operation) should have their own section: Extermination Camps (or Centers)

Likewise Mittelbau-Dora and Ebensee concentration camp should be included but noted as work camps.

I think it would remove the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.106.133 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lublin reservation

Should the Lublin reservation be included into either the ghetto or concentration camp section? Or is it a "too early" stage to be considered a significant part of the Holocaust? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How important and know was it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A total of 95,000 Jews were deported there, and of the associated Burggraben camps, Belzec was later turned into the first Nazi extermination camp. AFAIK it was the only Jewish reservation ever set up by the Nazis. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vel' d'Hiv

I believe that the Rafle du Vélodrome d'Hiver in Paris, July 1942, must be included in this template. It is often simply called Vel' d'Hiv or Vel d'Hiv, which would make an appropriate short name for the template. -- In two short days, 13,152 (75% women and children, unlike many other pogroms) were arrested and rounded-up at the velodrome and in Drancy. Very shortly thereafter, they were crammed into boxcar transports. Most victims did not survive the trip to Auschwitz, dying en route due to suffocation, and lack of food or water. I realize there a numerous atrocities that could be included in this list, but this is certainly among the most famous ones in western Europe and France. And by magnitude, the number of victims is larger than a couple of the pogrom in Romania and other places that are included in this template. This atrocity is the centerpiece of exhibitions at the Mémorial de la Shoah research center in Paris. --- I could add this myself, but would prefer someone less connected to this than myself make the change. Respectfully, Charvex (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, if it's practicable, there should be a separate section for Transit Camps and collection points such as the Vélodrome d'Hiver; perhaps Theresienstadt (Terezin) would fit there, too. If a couple of camps could be moved to a new section, it might be easier to pick out specific names from a shorter list of Concentration/Extermination Camps. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. Perhaps you are confused by two articles with similar names. It is true that (1) Vélodrome d'Hiver («« this links an article about the cycle track and holding point) is the name of an internment site. The places where Jews were rounded-up like Terezin, Drancy, and the Vélodrome are of tertiary importance and do not belong in this template because there is enough in it already. - - - - - However, it is the Nazi action, « Operation Spring Breeze », called the (2) Rafle du Vélodrome d'Hiver or simply (2) Vel' d'Hiv («« which is the article about Operation Spring Breeze) to which I am referring that I believe should be included in the template. (Use of the term (2) "Vel' d'Hiv" to identify the event, the action is no different that use of the term "Kristallnacht".) The article about the raid and round-up of more than 13,000 people in a day-and-a-half who died in transit to Auschwitz is what I believe you should include in the template. - - - Doesn't the article about this event belong here? Respectfully, Charvex (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been heavily involved in editing this subject or this template, or the history behind the choices that have been made, but a first glance, most of the actions, as opposed to camps, seem to fall under pogroms, e.g. Kristallnacht, or Einsatzgruppen, e.g. Babi Yar or Autumn Harvest. But the Einsatzgruppen weren't involved in the Rafle du Vel d'Hiv', although the SS were. So what would be a good place to fit the Vel d'Hiv' in ? —— Shakescene (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I must believe that the Einsatzgruppen and the SS-Verfügungstruppe made the plans for Operation Spring Breeze (Vel' d'Hiv). Who else would order the extermination Jews in Occupied France? Germans certainly held all major positions of authority in Occupied France since they directly controlled it. (Paris was not in Vichy France, after all.) Let me quote from that Einsatzgruppen article:

« Western Europe: Following the German invasion of the Netherlands, Belgium and France in May 1940, the Einsatzgruppen once again travelled in the wake of the Wehrmacht, but unlike their operations in Poland, the Einsatzgruppen operations in Western Europe in 1940 were within the original mandate of securing government offices and papers. »

But, perhaps you know facts that lead you to make your statement: « But the Einsatzgruppen weren't involved in the Rafle du Vel d'Hiv' ... ». So, I have a couple of questions for you: 1.) I would very much appreciate a source for your own statement above. 2.) Did the Einsatzgruppen disband or cease to exist by July 1942? (Personally, I do not know.) 3.) Is it important to this Wikipédia template whether the SS-Verfügungstruppe or the Einsatzgruppen gave the orders for Vel' d'Hiv raid/round-up ("Operation Spring Breeze")? (Personally, I think not.) --- Lastly, to answer the question you posed to me: I believe Vel' d'Hiv belongs in the template under the heading: Pogroms, because fundamentally, it is no different than the Iaşi pogrom or other actions listed there, whether or not this action was an order by the German Einsatzgruppen or the German SS-Verfügungstruppe. Most respectfully, Charvex (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there appear to be no major objections, I will add this to the template. Charvex (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VT, TV and Waffen-SS

On a related topic, is there a reason why the « independent » VT : SS-Verfügungstruppe, TV : SS-Totenkopfverbände, and Waffen-SS are not included on this template under « Responsible Parties » ? Thank you, Charvex (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, again, that that's just a part of the sometimes-confused logic of this template, caused by the diversity of topics covered. I'd just as soon see Einsatzgruppen moved to "Responsible Parties" which already includes the SS, SA and Gestapo, and to which the Verfügungstruppe, Totenkopfverbände and Waffen-SS could be added. I think all of these were under at least the nominal control of the SS. Should the RSHA (Reich Security HQ), RuSHA (SS Race & Settlement Office) and Ordnungspolizei (which was involved in the Raflement du Vel' d'Hiv and several East European actions) be added? The counter-argument, as always, is that we don't want to make the template too long to be usable or readable.

And, given the constraints on reasonable length, is "Collaborators" a sufficient link for all of the local forces allied with or recruited to the persecution and massacres? Or were a few so prominent, or so likely to be sought after by someone using this template, that they rate a special mention, e.g. Baltic, Byelorussian, Ukrainian and Yugoslave police/militia formations, the Milice, the Ustashe, the Hlinka Guard, the Arrow Cross Party or the Iron Guard? (I'm throwing these groups out abstractly; I haven't closely studied the relative involvements of each of these in the Holocaust).

If we moved the Einsatzgruppen down, what would be a suitable alternative title for the set of actions listed under their name now (Babi Yar, Rumbula, Ponary, Odessa, Erntefest & Ninth Fort), or should they be combined with the other pogroms? —— Shakescene (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Collapsible version

Template:The Holocaust is way to long for most articles. It creates gaps in layout and pushes everything else on the right side down to the bottom. I offer you an alternative with collapsible subsections and a captivating image. Please don't get alarmed by the revisions made before the consensus could be reached in talk, because the only way to assess the new version is by testing it. Feedback is much appreciated. Try not to shut our discussion down by reverting me without first drawing attention of the community to the proposed new layout. -- Milhist74 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is collapsible, and in its collapsed state is not unwieldy. Figureofnine (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you meant to say perhaps is that in your own browser the template works as collapsible. However, the actual formatting without proper parameters does not automatically make is collapsible in every browser. It doesn't collapse on my screen. -- Milhist74 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Internet Explorer and Firefox. No problem in either. Figureofnine (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be talking about different versions of the Template. The previous version does not show a hide (collapse) option on Google Chrome 5.0.375 for Windows Vista, which does show hide/show options for other templates. Long sidebars can be a huge problem, especially, say, if a topic merits its own infobox, the holocaust template and a "History of [---]" template, so in this case (unlike my views at Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1), I think the default should be collapse with a visible Show option. However, I think more subtopics (e.g. Einsatzgruppen, Pogroms) without all the details (Babi Yar, Poznan), plus a few major individual items (Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled), should be visible. And if we're saving length, perhaps a shorter image or logo. ¶ You might also be interested in an earlier parallel discussion and examples at Template talk:Internet. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new collapsible template. However, I very much dislike what is grouped under section title « Jews in WWII ». It is just too much for me. I strongly suggest that you consider grouping general articles about Jewish victimisation separate from the articles about extermination atrocities, i.e. under « Jews in WWII », only include: Jews in German, Jews in Europe, Ghettos, and Resistance; ----- Or, perhaps put these same items under your current section called « Victims ». (Are the Jews not the primary victims, after all?) ----- And, under a separate heading, perhaps called « Extermination » (... or something else appropriate. My English is not perfect; choose a better title if it strikes you) include: Pogroms, Einsatzgruppen, Final Solution, and End of World War II. I think it is very much needed. Thank you for considering this and making the appropriate modification. Charvex (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Charvex that all articles about the Extermination could be grouped together and split away from different parts of the Holocaust history perhaps in some sort of chronological order similar to other WWII templates. I also agree with Shakescene that just a few additional sections could be made visible as well. Below is the complete list of titles both visible and hidden. Please make your own proposed new sections with a roughly balanced number of selected titles in all of them if you want. The large number of varied articles without a given timeline or the sequence of events, makes it too hard for me. I did the initial formatting only. -- Milhist74 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust

Part of: Jewish history
Early elements [show]
Racial policy Haavara Agreement Nuremberg Laws Nazi eugenics Action T4
Jews in WWII [show]
Jews in Germany Jews in Europe Pogroms Kristallnacht · Bucharest Dorohoi · Iaşi · Jedwabne Kaunas · Lviv (Lvov) Vel' d'Hiv · Wąsosz Ghettos List of ghettos Budapest · Lublin Lviv (Lvov) · Łódź Kraków · Kovno · Minsk Warsaw · Vilnius Einsatzgruppen Babi Yar · Rumbula Ponary · Odessa Erntefest · Ninth Fort "Final Solution" Madagascar Plan Wannsee Conference Operation Reinhard Holocaust trains Extermination camps Resistance Jewish partisans Ghetto uprisings (Warsaw · Białystok Łachwa) End of World War II Death marches · Berihah "Surviving Remnant" (Sh'erit ha-Pletah)
The victims [show]
Romani people (Gypsies) Homosexuals People with disabilities Slavs in Eastern Europe Poles · Soviet POWs Jehovah's Witnesses
The camps [show]
Nazi concentration camps Nazi extermination camps Auschwitz-Birkenau · Bełżec Bergen-Belsen · Bogdanovka Buchenwald · Chełmno Dachau · Gross-Rosen Herzogenbusch Janowska · Jasenovac Kaiserwald · Majdanek Maly Trostenets Mauthausen-Gusen Neuengamme · Ravensbrück Sachsenhausen · Sajmište Salaspils · Sobibór Stutthof · Theresienstadt Treblinka · Uckermark Warsaw List of Nazi concentration camps

Responsibility [show]
Nazi Germany People Adolf Hitler Heinrich Himmler Ernst Kaltenbrunner Theodor Eicke Reinhard Heydrich Adolf Eichmann Rudolf HössOrganizations Nazi Party Schutzstaffel (SS) Gestapo Sturmabteilung (SA) Collaborators during World War II Nazi ideologues
Aftermath [show]
Nuremberg Trials Denazification Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany
Lists [show]
Survivors · Victims Rescuers
Resources [show]
The Destruction of the European Jews Functionalism versus intentionalism
v • d • e

I will offer this suggested arrangement. (I have moved some articles with categories, and underlined a few heading changes only to highlight them):

Comments and suggestions welcome. Regards, Charvex (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust

Part of: Jewish history

Responsibility [show]
Nazi Germany People Adolf Hitler Heinrich Himmler Ernst Kaltenbrunner Theodor Eicke Reinhard Heydrich Adolf Eichmann Rudolf HössOrganizations Nazi Party Schutzstaffel (SS) Gestapo Sturmabteilung (SA) Collaborators during World War II Nazi ideologues

Early Policies [show]
Racial policy Haavara Agreement Nuremberg Laws Nazi eugenics Action T4 Madagascar Plan Wannsee Conference

The victims [show]
Jews in Germany Jews in Europe Romani people (Gypsies) Homosexuals People with disabilities Slavs in Eastern Europe Poles · Soviet POWs Jehovah's Witnesses Ghettos List of ghettos Budapest · Lublin Lviv (Lvov) · Łódź Kraków · Kovno · Minsk Warsaw · Vilnius

Atrocities [show]
Pogroms Kristallnacht · Bucharest Dorohoi · Iaşi · Jedwabne Kaunas · Lviv (Lvov) Vel' d'Hiv · Wąsosz Einsatzgruppen Babi Yar · Rumbula Ponary · Odessa Erntefest · Ninth Fort "Final Solution" Operation Reinhard Holocaust trains Extermination camps End of World War II Death marches · Berihah

The camps [show]
Nazi concentration camps Nazi extermination camps Auschwitz-Birkenau · Bełżec Bergen-Belsen · Bogdanovka Buchenwald · Chełmno Dachau · Gross-Rosen Herzogenbusch Janowska · Jasenovac Kaiserwald · Majdanek Maly Trostenets Mauthausen-Gusen Neuengamme · Ravensbrück Sachsenhausen · Sajmište Salaspils · Sobibór Stutthof · Theresienstadt Treblinka · Uckermark Warsaw List of Nazi concentration camps

Resistance [show]
Resistance Jewish partisans Ghetto uprisings (Warsaw · Białystok Łachwa)

Aftermath [show]
Nuremberg Trials Denazification "Surviving Remnant" (Sh'erit ha-Pletah) Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany
Lists [show]
Survivors · Victims Rescuers

Resources [show]
The Destruction of the European Jews Functionalism versus intentionalism
v • d • e

Thanks, Charvex. Your proposed revisions make a lot of sense. I like them. I assume that the lack of additional comments and suggestions from the community means their basic agreement with what you did. Therefore I'm implementing your changes with just a few touch-ups of my own. I put the Nazi extermination camps together at the beginning of the Camps, and, the link to the List of Nazi concentration camps at the bottom of the same subsec. I also made the Ghettos visible inspired by Shakescene and added one more ghetto to the list. I highlighted the List of ghettos at the end of that subsec. And finally, I put the Jews in Europe ahead of the Jews in Germany. Please, feel free to make further changes yourself if you want. Thanks. --- Milhist74 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't commented further because I haven't had time to absorb and compare all the details, and then to compare them with what I might have chosen. That doesn't mean I disapprove or approve; I just don't know. But of course the template can (and will) be tweaked (or, for that matter, radically changed) in the future. The reason no one else has commented is in almost all cases not positive assent but just because they don't follow or know about this template. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist74, nice work, all in all! After seeing them, I am not sure about English capitalization for second words in heading titles, such as « Early Policies » and « The Ghettos », but you surely know best. (Wikipédia's capitalization rules are its own, and a bit confusing to me.) -- Regards, Charvex (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

link of the Collaborators during World War II

Milhist74 changed Responsibility for the Holocaust to Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II and linked with Collaborators during World War II without careful consideration.[108] It's wrong. Jew were genocided by Europeans because they were Asiantic, Asian Axis saved Jew despite of German alliance.[109] Do not put the blame on Asians.--Bukubku (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to improve neutrality and order

"Responsibility" -> "Creators"

"Early policies" -> "Policies"

"Atrocities" -> "Operations and events"

The headers should then be put in the following order:

The Holocaust
Part of: Jewish history

Creators
Policies
Operations and events
The ghettos
The camps
The victims
Resistance
Aftermath
Lists
Resources

This seems more logical to me. First the subject's name, then its creators, then its policies, and then its manifestations.

Cheers, theFace 19:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word Creators sounds a bit strange. One can say "the creators of the Holocaust Museum" or "the creators of the Holocaust narrative," but the creators of the Holocaust? Please improve. — Milhist74 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'to create' basically means to bring something in existence. It was the most neutral term I could think of. The word 'responsibility' is often associated with blame and guilt. It implies that the Holocaust was something negative, which is a POV. It's the majority's opinion, but still an opinion. Same goes for the word 'atrocities'. Hmm... how about 'architects'? Or 'designers'? Cheers, theFace 11:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV -- are you kidding? It is hard not to be POV (read: negative) about genocide. However, in historical terms, "architects" may come closest, although even that term lends a degree of legitimacy to immoral bureaucrats whose agenda was mass murder. W. B. Wilson (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Nazi might disagree with that. He or she may find that the Holocaust was an unpleasant thing to do, but that it was necessary to secure the nation. If I would live in a wooden house, and I'm visited by a termite colony, I would call pest control to exterminate them. An unpleasant thing to do, but necessary to secure the building. It depends on how you look at it, so they say.
Anyways, my point is that Wikipedia is about info, not about judging. On a sensitive topic like this, it is more important than ever to not be guided by feelings, because they influence what you perceive. When feeling frustration, remember that only complete freaks would approve of the Holocaust. Every sane person knows that it is among mankind's most terrible crimes, so in this case it's not even necessary to judge. Cheers, theFace 20:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like where this is going. — Milhist74 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ How about "Architects"; it's a slightly-overworn cliché, but that's because it seemed like an appropriate term. Or else "Originators" or "Designers" or "Planners" or "Preparers" (no offence, of course, intended to the planning, design or architectural professions, although some of their German members literally designed and created the physical plant of camps like Auschwitz). —— Shakescene (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to replace either "Responsibility" or "Atrocities". Millions were killed - I don't think it violates WP:NPOV to say that this is considered atrocious, and I don't think WP:NPOV requires us to be sensitive to the viewpoint of nazi ideology. More specifically, "responsibility", in my opinion, carries with it no more POV that either creators or architects. I do, however, agree that "creators" is awkward in this context. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and question

I just added a section to the template named "Remembrance," where I list some of the U.S. and international remembrance days, such as the Yom HaShoa, Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, and International Holocaust Remembrance Day. I hope others will agree this is an appropriate addition. I also wonder if it would be good to separate this section into two parts: Remembrance (Days) and Remembrance (Memorials and Museums). If so, I would be happy to make the second section, and try to start the list of memorials and museums. I also have another question, though. At the beginning of the template there is the statement that this is part of "Jewish History." I think it should be expanded to something like "This is part of Jewish History and World History (or even more). I think the Holocaust is most definitely a part of Jewish history, but I think that the success in terms of remembrance -- by the U.S., the EU, the UN, and others -- is based on the idea that it is part of a larger history/story as well. What do others think? NearTheZoo (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]