Talk:The Holocaust

Not just jews

The holocaust wasn’t just Jews. It was gypsys blacks and basically any minority that the natzi came into contact with. I understand Jews were heavily hit. But so where gypsys 2A02:C7B:124:1400:89CA:7EC8:B80D:5135 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This will be a point of contention until we cover this a bit..... it is odd that this is one of the only articles about the topic that doesn't cover that aspect like Holocaust victims...... I can see why things are confusing for our readers.... Thus we end up articles with tags like at Aftermath of the Holocaust. Moxy🍁 04:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a Holocaust victims page already. Perhaps a link somewhere as "see also" may help? But the FAQ does deal with this a bit. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not confusing readers, and these comments are not indicative of what readers think. Some people not believing that what an article says is true is not an indication of a problem with the article. Reliable sources contradicting the article would indicate a problem. Until and unless somebody brings some actual sources, there's no reason to change the article based on evidence-free talk page comments. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We clearly need to be more clear...... as indicated by multiple inquiries here over a period of years. We need to educate the reader off the bat that these things are associated but not the same. It's obvious most only read the first paragraph or so. Moxy🍁 15:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should add to the first paragraph, "Please read at least as far as the third paragraph". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree we need to hold the reader's hands but that's excessive and funny...lol..... The first paragraph define what this is it should also define what it is not.Moxy🍁 16:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph should define what is, and what it is not?? That doesn't make sense to me. It's not a lot of things? I also disagree that it's clear we need to be more clear. The article gets 125k+ page views per week; one comment a week (always by an IP or brand new account), or 0.001%, doesn't indicate a problem with the article. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy here. The first sentence reads The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II., while the FAQ reads: understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews.

We shouldn't just ill-define something, only to walk things back later. Especially when the FAQ already gives a clear alternative. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The FAQ is not an RS. To the extent the FAQ differs from the article (and I don't think it does), the FAQ should be changed, not the article. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I find it odd you don't want to educate readers on this point off the bat. Why are we defining this in two different places of the lead? With the second being completely out of place in the context of its paragraph. Moxy🍁 16:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'll move it back to the first paragraph. I think it flows better in the third but if you think it'll help I guess it doesn't hurt to try. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's try and see what others think. Moxy🍁 16:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe wikilink to Holocaust victims page in the first paragraph too? Ramos1990 (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It is wiki linked in the first paragraph. It's also a hatnote at the top of the article. It's also a hatnote in the relevant body section on deaths, and its wiki linked in the body. (And all this for an article that is a tagged POVFORK of this article.) Levivich (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. I see it. Thanks. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That "primarily" quote in the FAQ is from an older version of the article and no longer appears in the current version. I edited the FAQ to replace that quote with quotes taken from the current version. That should help clear up any confusion between the FAQ and the article. Levivich (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

5 million non Jews. It’s so much worse than 6 million Jews. My 100 relatives were Czech. According to hitler’s final solution they were good enough to be worked to death. Gypsies, Jews, & gays went straight to the showers/ovens. Poles & Russians might have had the honor of being worked to death for the reich as well. To only say 6 million Jews cheapens it. The Jews don’t own the holocaust. My 100 relatives got put into the same ovens JWK1970s (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely right not just jews were the victims of the Nazi genocide. We must acknowledge all victims not just one group. 142.179.239.73 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ and Holocaust victims Meters (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The FAQ is not RS or authoritative of any decision. I might be wrong but my understanding is that this article in the past mentioned the other victims alongside Jewish people in the lede. Something weird is going on with how this article is framed so strongly about one identity targeted other others. Obviously others are noticing it too. Spudst3r (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The internal logic of this article as structured doesn't make sense. Currently it defines The Holocaust exclusively as being about Jews, then references another article referred to "Holocaust victims" for the other victims such as gays, Romani, slavs, disabled, political dissidents, etc without mentioning them in this article?! This level of bias did not exist in this article in the past.

Sampling random archives of this page from the past:

2009: https://web.archive.org/web/20090224230830/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150101012804/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Show much more balance. Over time you see an evolution of editing to exclude balanced emphasis of the ~5 million other victims.

It is insane to me that I can show up to the wikipedia page for The Holocaust, do a keyword search for "homosexual" or "romani" and it yields no significant mention beyond a footnote outside the article. Why are these victims relegated to a separate page? Surely if they are Holocaust victims they deserve mention in The Holocaust article? Spudst3r (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what this article used to say or what other Wikipedia articles say; Wikipedia is not an RS. What matters is what the RS say. I think this definition is well explained by the FAQ and by the article itself, with cites and quotes from RS. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich The article should simply state and address both definitions: the narrow Jewish-only definition, and the broader inclusive definition. There is no necessity to be exclusive when the article can simply be adapted to be inclusive. This is distinctly insulting and demeaning to those groups who were victims, so should be resolved and not dismissed.

The term "Holocaust" itself predates World War II and is not etymologyically or otherwise related to any specific group, see for example E.M. Forster's "A Passage to India" from 1924: "Her friends kept up their spirits by demanding holocausts of natives". Utopial (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course it does; the original term meaning "an offering or a sacrifice to a deity that is completely burnt to ashes" has been used metaphorically for a long time. The Great Gatsby uses it in 1925. Richard of Devizes is possibly the first to connect it to the murder of Jews, in the 12th Century. However, meanings of words change, sometimes rapidly; the overwhelming use of the term post-WWII (more specifically, post-1970s) refers to the Shoah, and that should be the focus of this article (as it is); the genocide of the Jews was qualitatively and quantitatively distinctive. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jpgordon The usage of the word is not exclusively and consistently in reference to the Jewish genocide. Hence, the article should be inclusive. There is no necessity for it to be exclusive - the article can simply state both definitions and be adapted to be inclusive.

Marginalising and subordinating the genocide of other groups is frankly a form of discrimination. Utopial (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The article does state and address both definitions. In the first paragraph of the lead, and in more detail in the terminology and scope section (where it also addresses the pre-Holocaust meaning of the word "holocaust"). The notion that defining the Holocaust as the Nazi genocide of the Jews marginalizes or subordinates other groups is nonsense. Just because scholars use a particular word to describe a particular genocide does not mean they are marginalizing or subordinating other groups who were victims of genocide or other atrocities. (Nobody who argues about this ever brings sources to the discussion, sigh.) Levivich (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Between the explanations in the lead and body and the hatnote at the top of the article, I think we're getting readers interested in non-Jewish genocides to the correct target articles. This is in the FAQ for a reason. I wouldn't have said "nonsense", but the marginalization/subordination argument is covered so infrequently in a body of sourcing so expansive that we shouldn't base article changes on that argument. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This encourages stereotypes..

Half a million north African Jews were murdered in the holocuast. Writing "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews" supports the stigma of the Jewish people being purely european, and is factually incorrect.. Would love if that can be changed 2A06:C701:9A23:A700:88DD:DF41:D61A:AB67 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Please cite a source for 'half a million'. While there is no question that Jews in North Africa suffered persecution, the figure you quote seems wildly at odds with most scholarship I've seen. Our article on Jews outside Europe under Axis occupation covers the topic, though it could no doubt be improved. For that though, we need sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yad Vashem says, "less than a thousand Jews died in camps in North Africa, and of these, a small number in camps in Europe after being transported."[1] --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2024

Request to change wording in fourth sentence of Background.

Current:

- "By the early twentieth century, most Jews in central and western Europe were well integrated into society, while in eastern Europe, where emancipation had arrived later, many Jews still lived in small towns, spoke Yiddish, and practiced Orthodox Judaism."

Proposed Change:

- "still lived" to "continued to live"

Reason:

- Proposed version shows less of a bias or inclination towards assimilation. "Still" can give a sense of inevitability. Both are true but "continued to" is more neutral.

Thank you for considering this change! TritonOblong (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)