Talk:The Holocaust

New picture

I have just added a new picture /media/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Holocaust01.jpg This was taken by my father in law at the end of WWII. Please look at it and use it if appropriate. I'll try to get more information on it later he, is very upset right now he was going through this among other pics and is very emotional right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belizian (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Belizian - thank you so much for posting this photo. I can well understand how your father in law would be very emotional after finding this among his old pics. I've seen scores of similar photos, and yet something about the unadorned authenticity of this one really stunned me. Please let him know that it is much appreciated.

I assume your father in law was an American G.I.? Please do your best to get as much info as possible, when he's up to talking about it. That would include an approx. date, the location, a brief summary of what was happening to give it context, anything else he may feel is pertinent. Also, his name (if he's okay with that), his military rank, and if possible, the details of his military unit (as much as he can supply in terms of brigade, battalion, division, etc.) I hope you understand why all of this would be important -- all of those details are what will give the photo rock-solid veracity, which unfortunately is very much required when the planet is crawling with Holocaust deniers.

Cgingold 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Persecution began in 1938?

I was always of the impression that persecution began before the Nazis even came to power. Before Hitler became chancellor, the SA were attacking political opponents and inidividual Jews. I think the date should be changed from 1938 to 1933 --Hadz^Talk 13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've retitled that section 'Increasing Persecution (1938-1941). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am writing a paper on the importance of shoes in the Holocaust. So far my research has been very slim, anyone have any suggestions as to what way i should approach this??? April 9th 200774.117.67.3 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Manda

Yeah, try Google. Results 1 - 100 of about 1,070,000 for holocaust shoes. Gzuckier 13:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The heaps of shoes have become a much used and powerful symbol of the Holocaust - the Imperial War Museum used that image for an exhibition poster a few years ago, IIRC. Shoes were also important according to Primo Levi, an Auschwitz survivor, as badly fitting shoes caused blisters, which caused limping, which made an inmate unfit for work, which meant they were gassed. (This is somewhere in his book If this is a man.) HTH. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading on Anne Frank I noticed that her age - having just turned 15 - kept her with her sister ( and supposedly not getting gassed immediately). Was 15 the cut off age for work in Germany ( or just for prisoners)? Many children seemed to have survived the camps. so it appears that immediate gassing was not universal - but maybe being assigned a job if you were over 15 was universal. Any links or documents as to the selection process - 15 years old seems to be one but other than the writer talking about Frank i can't find anything else.159.105.80.141 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bergen-Belsen concentration camp was not an extermination camp; no reason to expect she would be gassed there, since nobody was. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe she was transferred to Bergen Belsen before she died. She sent some time at Auschitwz I believe. Articles in the 1929 Geneva Convention required the transferr of prisoners out of an imminent war zone, so unfortunately she and others went from a work camp to a sick camp, in retrospect not a good move.159.105.80.141 18:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As its title hints, The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva July 27, 1929 did not discuss 15 year old girls or other civilians, (other than "Individuals who follow armed forces without directly belonging thereto ... military support contractors and civilian war correspondents etc."). You are no doubt thinking of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "published on August 12, 1949, at the end of a conference held in Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949". While your argument that the Nazis inadvertently managed to wipe out the Jews of Europe due to their adherence to the requirements of this treaty of the future is certainly novel, I feel that it is not likely to win widespread acceptance. Gzuckier 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial or not?

see Matica slovenská and a reference [1]. Thanks. --Mt7 12:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting

As I look through the history of the Holocaust article edits, I see a lot of one "term": Holohoax. I tried to see what article would come up if I searched for this on Wikipedia, and I get this article, the Holocaust. Shouldn't it redirect to the article Holocaust denial? --Wassamatta 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Wassamatta

LGBT POV crusade concerns

User:Samsonite07 has been consistently adding LGBT-related links and categories to many articles, often inappropriately, and using misleading edit summaries. I am concerned that his/her edits to this page are part of a POV crusade, and undue weight. There is also the problem that many of his edits seem nonsensical: talking about LGBT in WW2 seems anachronistic, for example, and his edits to the paragraph about Nazi antisemitism have changed the title of the section to be about Nazi antisemitism and homohobia, yet the paragraph body itself remains stolidly about Nazi antisemitism only.

I do not presume to know enough about this topic, therefore I'd like to ask neutral editors of this article to review Samsonite07's edits. Thank you! --Ashenai 11:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the 'Jews and Judaism' template needs to be there when we already have 'antisemitism'. It's lengthy and doesn't touch upon the holocaust except in one regard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samsonite07 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Samsonite07 is a suspected sock of blocked User:DavidYork71. Merbabu 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Porajmos

Hi. Since the Hebrew term, Ha-Shoah, is used in the introduction, the Romani term "Porajmos" (literally "devouring") should also be included.

70.53.193.16 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Banner

I deleted the Project:LGBT Banner, because I think that if there's no indication of this being part of Wikiproject:Judaism (which it is), than Wikiproject:LGBT really has no need for a banner. Feel free to reprimand me. Bentobias 18:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider yourself reprimanded :) I've put it back, but in the "This article belongs to..." box on the right. Which, by the way, is where the WikiProject Jewish History banner is as well. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a better place for it, although I don't see it there now -- if it's moved I didn't do it this time. Bentobias 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The word 'khurbn' is used in Yiddish but it is originally in Hebrew, pronounced in modern Hebrew: khur-ban, the first part being emphasized. There is no need to check in a dictionary, I am a native Hebrew speaker and know some Yiddish as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaplan84 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

What's the function of this passage?

Other groups were also persecuted and killed by the regime, including some 220,000 Sinti and Roma (see Porajmos), as well as the disabled (see Action T4), homosexuals, Communists and other political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish citizens, and Soviet POWs (Ukrainians, Russians and Byelorussians).[2][3] Many scholars do not include these groups in the scope of the Holocaust[citation needed], defining it as the genocide of European Jewry, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" ("Die Endlösung der Judenfrage"). Taking into account all of the victims of Nazi persecution, the death toll rises considerably: estimates generally place the total number of victims at 9 to 11 million.[4]

Can we please get rid of this? The Holocaust was a mass extermination of "undesirables" by the Nazi government, carried out against Jews, Communists, Homosexuals, the Handicapped, and anyone else they perceived as inferior, for varying reasons, and that's the position held by pretty much every historian of German history. I feel like this passage implies that the vague "many scholars" have some sort of pro-Jewish bias causing them to ignore the deaths of millions of other human beings at the hands of the Nazis. Alluding to "many scholars" ignoring non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust and giving no specific examples serves only to undermine the facts of the Holocaust and implying that "many" of its scholars do not agree on them, which is not the truth. --Zackgidding 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zackgidding on this. Bentobias 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pls see my comment in the section 'Holocaust "used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews"', below. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Roma death toll

The Roma death toll cites the most conservative estimate out there. On the Porrajmos page it states that estimates range from 200,000-2 million, can that be added to the introduction of the article? 76.167.178.204 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust "used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews"

Many, many people were killed in the Holocaust, and at least half of the total deaths were non-Jews. I say we rephrase the first paragraph to something about the Holocaust being the systematic extermination of certain groups, or something like that because to say it refers to those six million Jews who were killed is dishonest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.165.74 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Some academics use the term 'the Holocaust' to refer to the destruction of the European Jews. Only. This is not to deny that the Nazis persecuted other groups. One example is Zygmunt Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust. Others argue that the policy of extermination was directed solely at the Jews, and that their treatment was unique (eg Guenter Lewy's The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies). An encyclopedia can't take sides and rule that the persecution of certain groups was, or was not, a part of the Holocaust. We have to report that the term is primarily associated with one group, the Jews, but that the Nazis persecuted other groups as well. That is the balance I and other editors have tried to strike in the lead para. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be true, but I don't think Wikipedia using the term "The Holocaust" to refer to the entire extermination by the Nazis rather than the extermination of the Jews poses a threat to neutral point of view or constitutes "taking a side", and I think adding a statement about a perceived disparity in the use of the term "The Holocaust" in academia does nothing to enrich the article and serves only to attack its credibility, in however small a way. There are historians who conform to both usages of "The Holocaust": As a specifically Jewish catastrophe accompanied by the simultaneous extermination of other Nazi "undesirables" (the latter of which is referred to by another name), and as a catch-all phrase for the entire Nazi extermination of Jews, Roma, Sinti, Communists, and others. I ask, what is the harm in using the latter definition for the sake of simplicity and clarity, when the alternative is to open the door to the further categorization and fracture of an event that, quite frankly, requires no further dissection? --Zackgidding 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Any historian worth his or her salt would not ascribe the Holocaust as a Jewish catastrophe. It is a large element of the Nazi killings, however it is not the sole event, nor the sole aim. To deem it simultaneous implies direction, planning and organisation. All of which we know to be false. The Holocaust WAS and IS the understanding in Britain. It is also the accepted social wording and also follows the historiography, which has shifted even further towards a more shared ownership, especially since the fall of communism in Russia and eastern europe. Londo06 03:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ownership. This offends me greatly. The Holocaust WAS the murder of those the Nazis deemed their enemies; Slavs, Gypsies, Intellectuals, Communists, Homosexuals, etc. Londo06 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

school report

i am doing a school report about the holocause that killed jews. i trying to find refenernces to these 6 million jews that where killed i cant find any thing, only proof i found was from red cross that estimated about 150,000

but 6 million is a very large number, there would need to have been a gas plant right in the place of termination, how could there be 6 million? i know of anne frank but thats only one? help me please!

Please access any number of history books. I recommend Martin Gilbert's book on the Holocaust. It's a hard read due to the subject matter, but it's a good one. What do mean by the rest of your post? References? Gas plant? Darkmind1970 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a Holocaust that the Nazi's carried out against multiple targets, but mainly racially targetting Jewish peoples. The figures banded about are 6 million Jews and 11 million in total. The book on Auschwitz by Laurence Rees gives a very good insight into implementation, selection and the chaotic nature of the murders by the Nazis. Londo06 10:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

This article is riddled with errors, it is far form being worthy of good article status. In fact it requires a major overhaul and several experts to bring it up to standards. Londo06 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have any actual suggestions to improve the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• ownership issues are prevalent throughout the article. The Holocaust was not a Jewish event, this warrants attention. Londo06 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In other words, no actual suggestions to improve the article. And, yes, it was. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Could do with the physical implementation of the Holocaust being more prominent. The article could be broken up as it is long. There is alot of prominent Jewish elements throughout the early part of the article. It could do with a clean-up as the Holocaust saw the murders of many disparate groups, not just Jews. Ownership of the Holocaust belittles the deaths of all those who died at the hands of the Nazis. Londo06 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Interested readers should google "ownership of the holocaust" to get an idea where it comes from. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this is a well-meant suggestion, it's understandable that some Wikipedians might be sensitive after untold accusations of there being a Jewish cabal which controls Wikipedia, has hijacked articles such as The Holocaust for their own ends, etc.; a teapot variant of the same arguments made outside Wikipedia, of course. However, Assume Good Intent, and all that. It's a particularly repugnant axiom of antiSemitism that the Jews "wanted" the Holocaust, so any suggestion that they have somehow stolen it a posteriori will, of course, uncover a sore spot, no matter how innocently intentioned; particulary with use of such phrases as "belittles the deaths of all those who died at the hands of the Nazis".

I also think we are confusing the word with the event. I haven't looked up the origin of the word, even in this article, but it certainly has that Judeo-Christian ring to it that leads me to believe it was originally coined to refer specifically to Nazi antisemitic genocide. Having a term for that is not "belittling the death" of the other victims of persecution any more than the term homophobia belittles the death of victims of racism.

It all boils down to a matter of definition. If you define the Holocaust as the destruction of European Jewry, then that's what it means. If you define it as the Nazis' persecution of various groups, then that's what it means. If you define it as any genocidal event, then that's what it means. And that brings us right back to intent; is the intent to point out that the Nazis were relatively free to slaughter not just Jew, but Gypsy, Jehovah's Witness, homosexual, et all with the quiet collusion of much of the world's population? Or is it to suggest that it's the Jews' fault, for hogging all the genocide? (See also: Antisemitism#Etymology_and_usage) That's the oldest game in the book; pit victims against each other while their oppressors watch.

The object of such historians and their sympathizers is to make it seem that, however tragic and terrible the Holocaust, it certainly was but one of many wartime calamities. The Jewish tragedy becomes more understandable in that context, especially when compared with all the other horrible events of the twentieth century. Why, therefore, is there any need to focus on a single crime? There was, after all, the Armenian annihilation during World War I. There was, after all, the Ukraine famine, and there was the Stalin's terror, both of which claimed millions of lives. There was Vietnam. There was Pol Pot and Cambodia. There is Burundi and Rwanda. There is the Balkans. There are many other places, and, therefore, why is the Holocaust so different when viewed in comparative and relative perspective?

Perhaps I am putting the cart before the horse by raising this subject early on, but the irony of all this is that such arguments tend to pit victim groups against one another and to provoke them to declare, “Oh, no, ours was different. Ours was worse.” [2]

The Holocaust was certainly a Jewish tragedy. But it was not only a Jewish tragedy. It was also a Christian tragedy, a tragedy of the Western civilization, and a tragedy for all humankind. The killing was done by people, to other people, while still other people stood by. The perpetrators, where they were not actually Christians, arose from Christian culture. The bystanders most capable of helping were Christians. The point should have been obvious. Yet comparatively few American non-Jews recognized the plight of the European Jews was their plight too. Most were either unaware, did not care, or saw the European Jewish catastrophe as a Jewish problem, one for Jews to deal with. That explains, in part, why the United States did so little to help.The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941-1945 by David S. Wyman

Gzuckier 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• In Britain the Holocaust is broadly defined as the results of the systematic killings, as opposed to only the racial hatred of the Jews and the murders of that one group. There is reason to focus on the areas of atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis, because of the vast amount of them and the disparate groups they targeted. However to the British historical community and also in a social context, the Holocaust was perpetrated against all those systematically killed, the Jews being the largest denomination. Londo06 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to Gzuckier, the history of the word is covered in Names of the Holocaust. Though the word originally did have a religious meaning, by the early 20th C it was a common word for any great disaster, mass slaughter, or act of obliterative destruction. It could also refer to quite minor acts of destruction well into the 1970s. With regard to current usage, there is real inconsistency, but I don't think there is reason to accept Londo06's claim that "the British historical community" has some specific consensus on this matter. The big problem is defining the difference between deaths in the "holocaust" and general war-crimes, atrocities and even ordinary military deaths. We can reasonably say that the Jews were specifically targetted for annihilation. We can also say that Gypsies were treated similarly, but were not systematically murdered. Other deaths are less easy to characterise. The idea that there was some systematic attempt to murder all homosexuals, for excample, is not not well supported by the evidence. Paul B 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously debate about who the Holocaust belongs to, thats why the word broadly was used. Many Historians in Britain are peeved when the Holocaust is seen in popular opinion as a Jewish event. The masses in Britain see it as the slaughter of the enemies of the Nazi state, those transferred to places such as Auschwitz and Ravensbruck, the latter not starting as a extermination camp, but to deny it as an concentration camp in that context, is to belittle the women who died there. The numbers that see the Holocaust as the systematic murders by the Nazi State far outweigh those who see it as the anti-semitism through to the racial targetting of Jews, and their eventual murders. Many more historians (social, military and otherwise) predicate their arguments on the actions rather than the motive, whilst dispassionately addressing this later. I would say one in four see the Holocaust as a Jewish event, so it certainly not an uncommon stance. Londo06 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When exactly were you granted the right to speak on behalf of the British historical community and even, apparently, of "the masses" in Britain? "To deny it [Auschwitz] as a concentration camp in that context is to belittle the women who died there"? What exactly does this mean? Paul B 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ravensbruck, sorry not the clearest, however auschwitz is the case in point. good book by Laurence Rees, well worth a read. Londo06 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was my misreading - you did say "the latter". I don't think it belittles anyone who was a victim of the Nazis to say that they were not specifically victims of "the Holocaust". I don't think Violette Svabo is belittled. I don't think the villagers of Lidice are belittled. It could even be argued that their specific vicimhood would be "belittled" by absorbing them in a catch-all term, and not emphasising the distinctions between different forms of Nazi brutality. The question is really about the extent of this particular term. It can never have an absolutely clear and defined meaning and there is real difference in usage. I have tried to balance the introduction rather more - but I still think we should have a specific section on the question of why there is a debate about who is and is not included (I raised this a while ago). Paul B 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many who would fall outside the term Holocaust, despite being murdered by the Nazis. The most common form of understanding in Britain today goes with the mechanical killing, ie in the camps. (generalised) The other side is the reason for the killing. ie. a Jewish person killed by a Nazi gun in a ghetto, is that part of the Holocaust, and there so why not a French resistance person at the end of the same gun. Obviously the lines can blur, but most tend to go for the actions, rather than the reason for deaths.

Ownership issues may well warrant a section of its own.Londo06 18:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether talking about "ownership" is especially helpful. There are complex issues here, since advocates of various groups are as much keen to be included in the holocaust as - possibly - to exclude others. There may be legitimate and problematic motivations on both sides. The desire for inclusion often seems to be based on an assumption that being targeted for murder by the Nazis is proof of ones virtue, that to be listed as victims of the holocaust creates a kind of sanctity that honours the group in question, and that to exclude them is somehow - as you said yourself to "insult" them. There is the problem of including everyone who died in concentration camps and of distinguishing between people who were incarcerated for offences that are still thought of as criminal today, and those who may no longer be considered criminal. For example Prostitutes were sent to concentration camps. I assume some of them died there, but Prostitutes are not normally listed among victims of the holocaust. Homosexuals often are, despite the fact that both prostitution and homosexuality were either legally restricted or downright illegal in almost all European countries at the time. So there's no logical reason why sending a homosexual to a camp for the crime (as it then was throughout Europe) should be treated as significantly different from sending a prostitute - if were are to take into account the legal norms of Europe at the time. However if we were to discuss these problems in detail we would need citations. Paul B 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ownership is one of the key areas of academic debate. Since the opening up of Soviet files the common position has been to view the Holocaust in one of two mutually divergent and exclusive positions, both being accepted standpoints in society. The first being the Jewish tragedy relies on motive and the second thematic would be the mechanics argument which points to the systematic killings and the disparate groups that were killed at the numerous camps.

It is not a case of also these groups were killed, it is the thematic of groups targetted, groups killed. Lest we forget the first killed at Auschwitz were not Jewish. The lack of attention paid to what is the prevelant perception in Britain in both the academic field as well as socially held views means that the article really does address a common theme. Ownership. Londo06 14:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. As far as Wikipedia is concerned citation is the key. You tend to make sweepting ex cathedra statements about what "the common position" is, or what the "British" view is (as though it has some sort of precedence). Provide examples of discussion in the literature about inclusion/exclusion issues, or about how advocacy groups work regarding this matter. If ownership is "one of the key areas of academic debate" provide examples of publications in which this is debated. Paul B 14:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Ownership is the biggest thing being debated about the Holocaust, especially with the de-classification of Soviet files that Holocaust deniers are laughed out of the building. I will be working on a page focused upon Ownership, but that will take some time as it involves going back into work I did a couple of years back in helping someone to become a Doctor of History. It may take some time, but the differences between the Final Solution and the Holocaust will be shown, and attributed. Londo06 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Death toll

but there is little evidence[citation needed] that the Nazis planned to systematically target them for genocide as was the case for the groups above.

With regards to the Soviet POWs, that may well be due to the fact that the German command had not allowed for food for all those captured, thus all the hundreds of thousands of Soviet POWs that died from starvation would have no need for transportation to a death camp. I think Hitler might have also mentioned his desire for lebensraum once or twice, and the desire to wipe the Bolsheviks from the face of the earth.

It is however, in my eyes not part of the Holocaust, but those Russian POWs, among the first killed at Auschwitz, were part of the Holocaust. Londo06 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, but what about the eyes that actually matter: they eyes of reliable and verifiable sources? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• That is true. If they were at Auschwitz then one could consider them part of the Holocaust. Besides, let's just say that Hitler did take over Europe. In his quest to create a "perfect race," he most likely would have tried to eliminate as many Russian POWs in the end as Jews. They would have been part of the Holocaust too. The fact that he didn't get the chance to doesn't mean it wasn't his plan. But if you don't want to include them, just list the death toll the the other groups of people, Russian POWs, Communists etc., and say that 5 million other people died but not as part of the Holocaust. But it's really from where you see it. MaulYoda 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comes down to the act versus thought argument - 1. act being Jews and many others = shared holocaust, 2. thought being race laws, etc against Jews and the (acts against communists) = Jewish holocaust and the acknowledgement of desire to eliminate communists in the east and at home, along with the other groups.

The act is the most common view today with the opening up of Russian files since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the declassification of British files. 90.192.37.118 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I talked to the elderly Polish couple the other day. They said the worst thing they seen was the totally miserable column of the Soviet POWs, and that the Germans warned the locals to not give them any food under the pain of death. I think these old folks were "reliable sources", especially since they didn't like the Soviet Union at all. --HanzoHattori 12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

6 million? It was 12 million

12 million people died in the NAZI bastards persecution of Romani and Jews during WW2 other races people were also persecuted and exterminated. How dare you downplay the holocaust like it was something that only happened to jews when everybody knows that more Roma people than jews were killed in WW2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

MadeinFinland, this is patent nonsense. Your ranting is blatantly racist. Dinlo juk 13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use civility when editing. If you want to discuss euthanasia of Gypsies, and can reference and substantiate your words, then start and article on it and stop vandalising the Holocaust article. Going by your obvious lack of encyclopaedic skill and ability to maintain an adult discussion, I think a blog far away from Wikipedia is where you belong. --Hayden5650 11:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Got ya but when we are are dealing with retarded condescending idiots?

• Um, like, from the start? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Like we are all equal here, never heard that before? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Good article review

This article is currently up for for good article review. When consensus is reached editors will decide whether to list it as a good article, if you have read and understand the criteria feel free to comment here. Quadzilla99 17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is LONG, it somehow needs to be split into sub-sections, it is under that criteria right now, isn't it? 69.158.74.118 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just like Marlon Brando said.....

Writing

Paul, please don't keep reverting the lead. Your addition is problematic for two reasons: first, because most scholars and members of the public regard the Holocaust as equivalent to the Final Solution. You may think they ought not to, but they do. Secondly, your sentence basically says "some scholars do include others, but some do not," which isn't good writing, because it's self-evident (obviously if only some do, then clearly some do not). It's better writing and more informative simply to say, as the current lead does, "Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" ("Die Endlösung der Judenfrage")." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not my sentence, but a sentence arrived at by several editors. It is not for you to assert what is "better writing", nor is it a matter what I think people should think but what the evidence suggests. See section below (added separately due to edit conflict). Paul B 09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A brief look at the discussions above will demomstate that Slim Virgin's preferred edit causes unnecessary dispute and is not even consistent with the footnotes given, vis that the "Columbia guide to the holocaust" says,

"The Holocaust is commonly defined as the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II." Also see "The Holocaust," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this "the final solution to the Jewish question."

Sine the EB clearly says and millions of others it is inaccurate to use this to claim that only Jews are included on ther EB's definition. I do not have access to the Columbia book, but the contents page here strongly suggests that the quotation does not reflect the content of the book as a whole:

Contents

Introduction I. Historical Overview
Historical Overview
Excluding the Racially Inferior, 1933--1939
War and the Beginning of Genocide, 1939--1941
The Final Solution, 1941--1944
The End of the Holocaust, 1944--1945
Aftermath and Legacies
II. Problems and Interpretations
Defining the Holocaust
The Gypsies
The Mentally and Physically Handicapped
Soviet Prisoners of War
Polish and Soviet Civilians
Political Prisoners, Religious Dissenters, and Homosexuals
Conclusion

I deplore any attempt to minimise the central and distinctive importance of the genocidal aims towards the Jews specifically. There is always a big danger that these lists of victims lead to the impression that Jews were not special. They were, absolutely. But we also have to be fair and accurate when we make claims about sources. Incidentally I far prefer the specific 220,000-500,000 to the rather vague "up to half a million". "Up to" is one of those almost meaningless phrases beloved of journalists, designed to make the high figure prominent and make the lower one vanish from sight. Paul B 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I adjusted the number of Roma victims of the Holocaust to "up to half a million" is that it more accurately represents current thought. SlimVirgin claims that it puts undue emphasis on a minority POV and cites an out-of-date pamphlet from the USHMM, which gives a figure of 220,000 to 500,000. Going to the source of this data, Sybil Milton, we find that what she actually stated was:

"(...)based on current knowledge and historical evidence at least a minimum of 220,000 Roma and Sinti (a subgroup of Roma) were killed in the Holocaust and that the figure is probably higher, possibly closer to 500,000."

There has been a trend to minimize the number of Roma victims of the Holocaust, and without getting into cynical speculation as to why this is, it's interesting to note how the USHMM currently represents Milton's work:

"It is not known precisely how many Roma were killed in the Holocaust. While exact figures or percentages cannot be ascertained, historians estimate that the Germans and their allies killed between 25 and 50 percent of all European Roma. Of the approximately one million Roma living in Europe before the war, up to 220,000 were killed."

Far be it for me to point out that 220,000 does not come close to representing 50% of Roma living in Europe before the war. The official Nazi party census of 1939 put the figure at 2,000,000, which is almost certainly an underestimation, particularly given the current Roma population of 8 to 10 million.Dinlo juk 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean by "out of date". Has new evidence come to light since then? The quotation from Milton gives 220,00-500,000, so what's the problem with giving that range? "possibly closer to 500,000" is not an endorsement of the higher figure, only that it is "possibly" closer to the higher than the lower one - e.g. possibly 400,000 rather than 300,000. The only reason I can think that "half a million" is preferred to 500,000 is that the former contains the word "million". We shouldn't play journalistic tricks with readers. We should give information with precision where we can. Paul B 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I used "half a million" for two reasons. One, that it is in line with the style used elsewhere in the introduction. Two, that the most commonly used phrase amongst Romani historians is "between half a million and one and a half million". By all means change it to "500,000", but all other figures should be quoted in numerical format to be consistent.

The pamphlet is out of date in that the USHMM no longer appears to agree with the figures it quotes. It also does not take into account research conducted since Sybil Milton's estimate, such as the chapter by Ian Hancock in The Historiography of the Holocaust, quoted in the reference I gave.

On the question of precision, such an ideal is not attainable in relation to the Roma victims of the Holocaust. On one hand, we do not have the luxury of comparing accurate censuses from before and after the war. On the other hand, unlike the Jewish people, the Roma were often massacred outside of the death camps, and those that were gassed were often counted under unspecific labels. Dinlo juk 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not about "numerical format" it's about clarity. Using zeros becomes impracticable after a certain point, because the eye loses track, but it's more readable for lower figures. Giving the range as a whole is more concise and readable in numerical format ("two hundred and twenty thousand to five hundred thousand" v "220,000-500,000"). The reference to Hancock (who always maximises Roma figures as you know) did not, as I recall, give new evidence for estimates. Of course precision is not achievable - even for Jewish victims - but precision from a scholarly point of view means giving the range according to the best estimates. Paul B 15:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul, every single one of the books on my shelves about the Holocaust is about the Final Solution. The EB lead you mentioned above is:

Holocaust: Hebrew Sho'ah, Yiddish and Hebrew Hurban (“Destruction”) the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this “the final solution to the Jewish question.” The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation of the Hebrew word 'olah, meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen because in the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program—the extermination camps—the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria and open fires.

Anyway, please take the point about the writing. Your addition didn't actually say anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my point about the writing, my version: "Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question' ..."

Your version: "While some scholars include some or all of these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, others restrict its definition to the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question' ..."

What additional information do your extra words impart? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What additional information do yours impart?

My version doesn't have extra words. Yours does. My question is what extra thing does your version say with the extra words? I'm arguing that it says nothing different, so if I'm wrong, please tell me what it says that's different. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat it is not mine. It has very few extra words. The difference is the relevant phrase "some or all" indicating - concisely - a variety of positions. I also think that that contrast of positive/negative rather than negative/negative creates a better balance. Yours emphases not including. Paul B 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not about what is added, but about what is a the most accurate phrasing. I do wish you would stop calling this my edit. In fact the specific phrasing was created by Dinlo juk. What appears on your shelves is neither here nor there. Yes, I have read the EB lead - indeed the whole EB article. You have simply added a here a passage about the origin of the word holocaust, which has no bearing on the issue. It is also, as it happens, misleading. Though holocauston was used to translate Hebrew in the Septuagint, it was not created for that purpose, but described pagan Greek sacrifices. Its use to refer to mass murder, destruction etc in the 20th century was initially unrelated to Judaism. Paul B 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of the EB quote was to show that they call the Holocaust the "Final Solution." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not an answer, since that "point" was already there in the blockquoted passage I added above from the footnote. You have again not replied to the central issue raised by me above. Paul B 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be said right up top, as most people see 'The Holocaust' as the Nazi's murderous atrocities inside the camps and the Final Solution as the specific targeting and desired eradication of the Jewish race. Ownership of the Holocaust needs to be addressed as two people can have be talking about two different thematics inside the same article. Alexsanderson83 11:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You have no more idea about what "most people" think than I do. Paul B 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was referring to mainly the social understanding of the term 'The Holocaust' within Britain, I'm afraid I cannot impart knowledge of the overriding views from beyond my own borders. Alexsanderson83 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

People who read books about the Holocaust are in a position to say what most writers about the Holocaust define it as. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Try replying to comments directed at you. And try to understand them first. Paul B 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Look, the issue is very simple. If "many" scholars believe X, it means not all scholars believe X. Therefore, there is no need to say some believe X but some do not believe X. It isn't good writing. It doesn't mean anything. To make the sentence more informative and more concise, it says "Many scholars exclude these groups from ..."

My question to you is what does your version say that mine does not say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed quite evident that you have no idea. If you had bothered to check the context you would uderstand that I was replying to Alexsanderson83. Perhaps you would bother to look at what this user is saying and what he has been attempting to before blundering in with remarks like the above. I have already anwered the last question. Paul B 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you being so rude, as a matter of interest? Again, I am asking what your version says that mine does not say. Please be explicit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to your rude and frankly absurd remark about "people who read books about the holocaust". Paul B 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Before this deteriorates any further, could you say what additional information the extra words below impart? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered that. Paul B 07:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In my view shorter is better here; the version on the right doesn't add any information, and it says it in more words. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what a surprise to see you here. Note that it is shorter by precisely 7 words. If we are concerned about concision why do we need the Final Solution phrase in both English and German? And the word "between" can go. I have explained my reasons above, to which I have had no replies.

1. The footnotes do not support the assertion. Judging by the contents page the Columbia encyclopedia is not being accurately reopresented, but there is no copy in any local library IO can consult. However the EB clearly includes "millions of others" in its definition. SL has never addressed this fact.

2. The previous wording led to excessive argument here on the talk page, and an attempt by one user (possibly a sockpuppet of another) to delist it from good article status.

3. The wording I prefer balances exclusion and inclusion, whereas SL's solely emphasises exclusion.

I have made these points above, but they have not been addressed. Paul B 07:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being so aggressive; you're being almost belligerent. The point is that "some do this, but others do that" isn't good writing, and it isn't necessary because it gives us no additional information. That's all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying I have made these points already is hardly aggressive. I repeat, you don't get to say by fiat what is good writing. Paul B 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what it would mean to say it by "fiat." It isn't good writing because there are words in the sentence doing no work, not to mention that it's a construction newbies are warned against. As for "what a surprise to see you here," Jay has made 93 edits to the article (to my 67 and your 27), and 28 to the talk page (to my 44 and your 103), so why shouldn't he be here? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The version on the left inappropriately emphasises the exclusion of groups and implies that the exclusive approach is more correct. The main reason that the Roma, for example, have been neglected so far in Holocaust research is that they have typically been an illiterate people. Unlike the Jewish people, who are typically well-educated, the Roma have not had scholars who could research their people's history. Jewish scholars naturally will concentrate on the suffering of their own people, and those that compile popular history books can only reflect the published work that is out there. Of course, there are those like Bauer, who still claim that the Holocaust was a uniquely Jewish experience, but they do not represent the majority. Dinlo juk 10:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that 10 times as many Jews as Roma were killed in the Holocaust, I would imagine the emphasis of Holocaust scholars on Jews would have much more to do with the fact that Hitler and his followers were obsessed with Jews, who they saw as vying with the Aryan race for world domination. They did not view the Roma that way, or other "races" they viewed as "inferior". For the Nazis the Holocaust was primarily about the Jews; that is the reason the Holocaust is primarily about the Jews for scholars as well. See Mein Kampf for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hitler and his buddies did a pretty good job on the Roma, considering they weren't obsessed with them. They managed to wipe out 25 to 50% of Roma overall in occupied territories, 80% in some areas. Dinlo juk 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they killed lots of Roma too, and lots of Poles, and all sorts of people. That doesn't affect what I said above. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First, saying "many scholars do not include these groups ..." does not imply that it's right or wrong, and it's anyway not a question of right or wrong; it's simply a matter of definition. Secondly, you say yourself that "Unlike the Jewish people, who are typically well-educated, the Roma have not had scholars who could research their people's history." That seems to be confirming that the mainstream definition does not include them. You keep saying that Holocaust scholars such as Bauer do not represent the majority, but you offer no evidence. All the evidence that I can see — including the couple of dozen books on my shelves about the Holocaust, which were earlier scoffed at — says the opposite. We can dig up source after source after source if you like, but I hope that won't be necessary. In any event, please take the point about the writing. The two versions don't have different meanings. The longer version contains some waffle, introducing the dreaded "some think x, others think x" structure.

It's unfortunate that this is the kind of thing that's being focused on here, when you had an entire section in this article plagiarized from the Encyclopaedia Britannica sitting here for almost a month. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is unfortunate. However, I will direct you back towards the source you used, that of the USHMM, who most definitely represent the majority view and who use an inclusive approach. If the "some think this, some think that" structure bothers you, I propose we simply change the word "many" for "some". Dinlo juk 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You've produced no evidence that the USHMM represents the majority view. What they say in the lead to their book is that they have decided to include all victims. It was a decision they made for political and undoubtedly financial reasons. We're not here to reflect their decision as though we're an extension of them. This article should reflect the majority and significant minority scholarly views, in due proportion. As for changing many to some, it's not just some. It's most. "Many" is already a compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You yourself pointed to the USHMM as the majority view in a revert of one of my edits. The onus is on you to provide evidence that most scholars currently restrict the definition of the holocaust as the Jewish experience. I'll freely admit self-interest. I'm half-Romani and relatives of mine died in the holocaust (or did they? Was it just a coincidence they happened to be in the death camps at the time?). If this is an idle waste of time for you, I hope you've got the stamina to stick this out. Dinlo juk 23:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added other references. There are more if needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to guess that the USHMM made their decision to include all victims for political or financial reasons. It was a decision based on their in-house research, argued by their senior historian, Sybil Milton, who herself decried the judeocentric view of the holocaust in her article "The Context of the Holocaust" German Studies Review 13, 269-283. Dinlo juk 10:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

Paul B/Dinlo juk

Other groups were also persecuted and killed by the regime, including 220,000–500,000 Sinti and Roma (see Porajmos), as well as the disabled (see Action T4), homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet POWs, Polish citizens, and political prisoners. Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" ("Die Endlösung der Judenfrage").

Other groups were also persecuted and killed by the regime, including between 220,000 and 500,000 Sinti and Roma (see Porajmos), as well as the disabled (see Action T4), homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet POWs, Polish citizens, and political prisoners. While some scholars include some or all of these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, others restrict its definition to the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" ("Die Endlösung der Judenfrage").

Holocaust memorial

• [3]

This is what the British govt considers 'The Holocaust' to be. It is also the held position of many scholars along with the public. Think Ownership needs to be addressed up top. Alexsanderson83 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Memorial Day’s aims are to: Remember all victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution ; Jews, Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), East European civilians, Russian prisoners of war, trade unionists, communists, political opponents, disabled people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gay men and lesbians and Black Germans

Ludicrously PC. That's an example of how bad these "inclusive" lists can be. How many "black Germans" were victims? I suggest the author reads Susan Samples, "African Germans in the Third Reich" in The African German Experience. Paul B 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

*Imperial War Museum - the victims of 'The Holocaust'

• - people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexsanderson83 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

That's right. Mixed race offspiring of French Senegalese occupying troops in the Rhineland were sterilised. Other mixed race children outside the Rhineland were unaffected. No-one was murdered. Hardly a 'holocaust' by any meaningful use of the word. Statistically, as Samples shows, African-Germans had a higher chance of surviving than white "Aryan" Germans, because they were not enlisted. BTW, Hilter does not say it was a Jewish plot. He says it was a French plot, because the French had become a "negrified" people, apparently. Paul B 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The entire second section was a copyvio, apparently taken word-for-word from the Encyclopaedia Britannica here, unless they took it from us, which I doubt. The writing was POV and a bit too elaborate for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Compare the link above with this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It was added by Ahadland1234 (talk · contribs) on April 9. [4] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The same user had made, somewhat worryingly, 91 edits to this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing again

Parts of this article read as though written for children, giving practically no information, and even verging on the offensive. For example:

The persecution and genocide included children, and victims were often tortured before being killed. Nazis carried out deadly medical experiments on prisoners, including children. The guards in the concentration camps carried out beatings and acts of torture on a daily basis. Some women (usually convicted prostitutes) worked in brothels for the guards and privileged prisoners. It has been argued that some were forced to do so.

Time permitting, I'll try to make a start on tidying it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

1st paragraph sounds worse now, it really sounds that only Jews were part of the Holocaust, that would ride in the face of many people, included respected scholars. Beyond that I think it could do with a bit of refining for the sake of clarity. Something along the lines of the Holocaust is this. A second paragraph for the word in other cultures and languages. For such an important article it lacks the clarity and consensus to bring it up to a Featured Article standard, something which it should be when several key issues on this talk page are addressed. Londo06 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to say the first paragraph sounds worse than the one I cited above. The first paragraph was written by an academic historian. The above reads as though aimed at 10-year-olds. We should try to get this thing well-written, well-referenced, and actually informative, and once that's done we can worry about the POV nuances at our leisure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Londo06, please focus on the the overall article, and the writing in it, rather than your singular focus solely on the "ownership of the Holocaust" issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The overall article is suspect on the basis of ownership. Dinlo juk 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence in the contribs of anyone trying to "own" it. Indeed, that's part of the problem. It looks as though it has suffered from too-many-editors syndrome. It's badly written, structureless, clichéd, and uninformative. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

You're missing the point. "Ownership" isn't about the article. "Ownership of the Holocaust" is a particular catch-phrase; google it and see what I mean. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing "suspect" are the editors who pretend that "ownership" is a significant issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. Yehuda Bauer makes that much clear. 25% to 50% of Roma exterminated in the Holocaust, but that doesn't count, does it? Dinlo juk 23:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying it doesn't count. We can add a section on the Roma. The point is to try to make the article more scholarly, rather than a collection of clichés or reflective of what some editors wish the definition was, rather than what it commonly is. I've added a section on the definition issue, written by Adam Carr. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What some editors wish very clearly incledes you, since you choose to minimise evidence which you find uncongenial. Paul B 10:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why SlimVirgin has removed my reference for the number of Roma victims of the Holocaust, which explains the figures used by the USHMM and presents an alternative POV by a respected Roma scholar, one who served on the US Holocaust Memorial Council. I'm also baffled that he/she replaced it with a pamphlet from a museum that he/she claimed did not demonstrably represent a mainstream POV. Dinlo juk 11:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than making me guess, please say which reference you mean. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and that it just got caught up in the numerous edits you did yesterday. The reference was as follows...

"Most estimates for numbers of Roma victims of the Holocaust fall between 200,000 and 500,000, although figures ranging between 90,000 and 4 million have been proposed. Lower estimates do not include those killed in all Axis-controlled countries. A detailed study by the late Sybil Milton, formerly senior historian at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum gave a figure of at least a minimum of 220,000, probably higher, possibly closer to 500,000 (cited in Re. Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (Swiss Banks) Special Master's Proposals, September 11, 2000). Ian Hancock, Director of the Program of Romani Studies and the Romani Archives and Documentation Center at the University of Texas at Austin, argues in favour of a higher figure of between 500,000 and 1,500,000 in his 2004 article, Romanies and the Holocaust: A Reevaluation and an Overview as published in Stone, D. (ed.) (2004) The Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave, Basingstoke and New York."

...or was there something that you found objectionable here? This is intended as a reference to the 220,000 to 500,000 figure. Dinlo juk 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind! I see it further down in the article. Will read it and comment. Dinlo juk 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does need to be tightened up, properly structured and balanced. There appears to be some solid progress being made, long may it continue. Londo06 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

MadeinFinland

I've trying to start a copy edit, but MadeinFinland keeps reverting from under me, so I can't make any progress. Please stop it. It's causing a lot of confusion, because I'm making further changes to sections without realizing that the first changes are gone, so the refs are getting messed up too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As all MadeinFinland seems to be doing is removing ref tags so that the footnotes in the lead become part of the text, I'm going to regard it as vandalism, and I'm going to override the edit conflicts. MF, if you want to make a serious edit, please wait until the copy edit is finished. I'm only going to do a bit more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

inuse tag

For those who are not aware, the inuse tag means an editor is currently involved in overhauling the article. As a courtesy to the editor cleaning up this poorly structured and poorly written article, please allow the edits to be completed so you can see the final product. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Done for now

I've added some material from User:Adam Carr, a historian who has written a draft of this article; references need to be added, because Adam listed his sources at the end of his draft rather than inline. It's a big job so patience would be appreciated. I've also started restructuring it; nowhere near finished yet, but I've made a start.

I'd appreciate if people wouldn't start reverting just because something isn't perfect yet. The changes have just started, so there may be unsatisfactory bits, repetition, bits moved and not yet returned, and so on. Please bear with me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As this page was very long, I moved the aftermath section to a new article at After the Holocaust. That brings this article down from 146 to a more manageable 101 kilobytes. If anyone disagrees, feel free to re-add it here, or rename the other one, or whatever. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Article flows much better now, and more properly acknowedges that many have a widely different use of the word 'The Holocaust'.

I'll throw this one out there; perhaps the details from Involvement of other countries and nationals down could be put on a separate page, and scaled down on this one. Alexsanderson83 06:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

There's a formatting problem after section 4, so that 4.1 etc aren't indented in the toc. I moved a section that was indented properly to that same place in the article, and the indenting broke, as those it's location-dependent, which is weird. Can anyone see how to fix it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to Holocaust?

Does anyone think this should be moved to Holocaust (without the definite article)? We do tend to avoid it in article names (see The Doctor, The Master, The Joker (see WP:NCD). I think it would be a controversial move, though, I'm seeing what others think on the subject. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)