Talk:The Holocaust

'Hear-Say in subarticle 3.2.3'

In the subarticle 3.2.3 'South and East Slavs' there is hear-say statement of a former Nazi official which is taken as true, or at least trying to imply something for a fact.

Quote: Hitler's high plenipotentiary in South East Europe, Hermann Neubacher, later wrote: "When leading Ustaše state that one million Orthodox Serbs (including babies, children, women and old men) were slaughtered, this in my opinion is a boasting exaggeration. End quote:

The objective data is at the end of the subsection.

Quote: The USHMM reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp[73][74] However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac.[75]This is not the truth. You can see on Yad Vashem website in the article about Jasenovac (http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206358.pdf) that it is quote: many thousands were murdered, most of them Serbians" The person who wrote this section is a lyer End quote:

Instead of the quote from Neubacher I suggest putting a list of WW2 casualties in Yugoslavia of all nationalities not just one.

The following link contains one such list. It is an online version of the paper number 69 in the quote list. Table 5 of the paper has a column named 'victims in camps' which should indicate victims in concentration camps. http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p06.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mljk (talk • contribs) 23:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yiddish Speakers

In describing the Holocaust, mention should be made of the ethnic/linguistic characteristics of the people being eliminated from Europe (ie. Jews). In other words, for example, a major European language (Yiddish), was effectively almost eliminated from Europe (and perhaps the world) as a result of the Holocaust. So, I think the article should mention somewhere that around 85% of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were speakers, readers, and writers of Yiddish. In other words, the situation of the disappearance of Yiddish (Yiddish press, etc) should specifically be mentioned as one of the visible effects of the Holocaust.Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Find a high quality scholarly source which says that this is one of the visible effects of the Holocaust, and it may be accepted. But you can't make up or synthesize your own material, per WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Crum375 (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that before the Holocaust Yiddish was an official language in Belorussian SSR and even its coat of arms had inscription in Yiddish. After the war it was abolished.--MathFacts (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

7 million

There were 7 million Jews who died in the holocaust. You who say there were only 6 million are Anti-Semites! 7 million died. You who say there were only 6 million are holocaust deniers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.164.210 (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How about instead of running onto this talk page and offending every single contributer who has worked very hard on this article, you instead provide a reliable source that supports a death toll of 7 million. So far almost every reliable source cites the number at slightly under 6 million.

Also, please see the top of this page which clearly states: "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette." Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many conservative Jews who say that the death toll was 7 or 8 million jews. I think all the sources are in Hebrew. Could you please assist me. I know that 6 million is a gross underestimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.164.210 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who spent a significant chunk of my undergraduate studies studying the holocaust, I find "6 million is a gross underestimate" quite surprising. But nevertheless, if you have links to sources in Hebrew, post them here or on my talk page. My Hebrew isn't that bad, and there are enough people who contribute to these Wikipedia pages who speak fluent Hebrew who could also follow such links. We can then determine the reliability of those sources. In the meantime, I would suggest taking a look at the information provided by Yad Vashem, which can be found here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the Holocaust happened, but there is no reliable figures that can back up 6 million figure, except Raul Hilberg's theory that 5-6 million died. He provided demographic data/changes, but he did not take into account that millions of Jews moved from Europe into America as a part of the persecution conducted by the Nazi fascists. Nobody can deny that the Holocaust happened. It happend! But, there is simply no reliable figure that 6 million died. Now you claim that more than 6 million died? This smells like another propaganda aimed at inflating the numbers so Israel can get more sympathy and put the horrendous war crimes against Palestinians under the rag. Shame on you.Bosniak (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, have you read WP:AGF? Seriously, a new editor comes in here and disagrees with certain facts in the article. I calm him down and ask the new editor to provide some sources. And from that you jump to accusing the new editor of trying to cover up war crimes against the Palestinians? Please, take a step back and calm down. Like the new editor, please see the top of this talk page which reads "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette." Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a lot of reliable research which says the figure is between 5 million and 6 million. Read the sources in this article, or take a look at the external link I added earlier in this thread. Singularity42 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, while the discussion continues apace, the IP in question hasn't made a contribution to Wiki before or since his edit here. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Troll.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Successful, so it seems. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the image of emaciated corpses in the lead too graphic?

Considering that many people feel sick just by the talk of dead people, especially family members of holocaust victims, I think the image of the starved dead Jews might be a little too much for a Wikipedia article. Anyone interested in images of holocaust victims can always just search for them. A picture of a concentration camp would be more suitable. Powerchicken (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Why sanitize the reality of it? Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This topic has been discussed before, with WP:CONSENSUS to keep the picture. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

no, too many people don't know the reality off it. i have relatives who were killed, and believe it should be shown what and how things have happened (people should have trouble seeing these crimes, otherwise humanity doesn't learn) Markthemac (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC) :::This doesn't seem to be an image of Jews, as they are not circumcised.Perhaps, unless we want to expand the Holocaust to include non Jews, we should just stick to pictures of Jews for this article?Die4Dixie (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC) per request. I have also read the rest of the article and not just the introduction.

Excuse me, but what is the point of your comment, unless you are trolling? (1) which people are not circumcized? (2) this article does as you must know include the suffering of non-Jews. Please explain. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your comments were not civil, were the opposite of WP:AGF, and were definately uncalled for and not appreciated. If you examine the genitalia carefully, it will be self evident the corpse to which I refer. The introduction makes reference to the exclusivity in certain circles to the term. If you aren´t interested in my input, it is a big project and plenty of communist propoganda for me to rectify elsewhere. I really don´t have much more time for attitude and maudlin sensibilities.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, your saying that victims of the Holocaust are not Jewish, and making a tendentious comment about circumcision, are not civil, and are the opposite of good faith. I am sorry you cannot appreciate it. Obviously you are not going to answer my question, about which individuals specifically are not circumcised, because you cannot. Proof enough of your bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. The dark corpse in the bottom half of the picture. Follow the white hand that is at approximately 6 o´clock along the darker cadaver that points towrds two o´clock. Follow it until you reach the external gentile genitalia. Use the larger picture that you can reach by clicking on the image See above.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a well known Holocaust photograph. Take your Holocaust denial somewhere else. Stellarkid (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We should take the opinion of a guy who stares at pictures of dead peoples' penises on the internet over the word of the photographs and archivists who've labeled the image? Are you really claiming to have such an incredible level of expertise at determining the state of dead people's penises on the internet that you can make that determination? Do you have any idea how what you're saying sounds? "I've been staring at dead flaccid cock for hours, and I'm pretty sure that's an anteater, a turtleneck, a y'know, ... christian... so, I'm sure this whole thing's a farce and there's no holocaust, so we shouldn't have this picture, which is obviously faked, up on this page.' That's how your comments above read. Seriously. ThuranX (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I can't stand this picture. 3rd graders are probably coming here to research their school reports. At the very least, the uppermost image on the page should be PG-13, not the most brutal Holocaust photo we can find. I understand the argument that the Holocaust really happened and Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, but I'm also concerned that people with a gag reflex might be so turned off by the picture that they won't be as likely to look at the rest of the page. Some of my ancestors died in the Holocaust, and in my opinion, the people who can stand the thought of the Holocaust the least should be the ones thinking about how to prevent another Holocaust the most. In this, I'm concerned that such an in-your-face picture is actually counterproductive. Perhaps the picture could be put into a collapsible box, so that people who don't want to see it don't have to? And regarding whether the people in the picture were Jews or Gentiles, the proportion of Jews to Gentiles who died in the Holocaust was around 50/50. Lack of circumcision is not hard evidence that someone is Gentile--not all Jews are observant and even Orthodox Judaism allows a few exceptions to the rule--and conversely, circumcision is not hard evidence that someone is Jewish. Plenty of non-Jews get their sons circumcised. So I think the Jew vs. Gentile question is a moot point and unless the people are individually identified or the photograph is known to come from a section of the concentration camp that was murdering a particular group, can never be resolved. --AFriedman (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust was brutal. Do you really expect us to 'sanitize' it? And your argument that teaching people about it will be counterproductive, and create more people who want to commit genocide, is absurd. If you don't want your kids to learn about death, dying, and the evil men do, then I suggest you monitor your own family in your house, and not impose your whitewashing of history on the rest of us. ThuranX (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, do you think this is WP:CIVIL? --AFriedman (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I have been one of the strongest defenders of NOTCENSORED in a variety of contexts, political as well as sexual. I also tend to be rather inclusionist when it comes to the relevance of illustrations, including the appropriateness of unpleasant pictures in context--and this article is certainly an appropriate context for this picture. But the maintenance of such standards also requires their appropriate usage within the article, and one of the requirements for the exercise of an unrestricted liberty is some degree of discretion in using it. For example, we normally illustrate sexual activities by drawings, not photographs. As another example, we usually do keep particularly shocking photographs out of the lede section. True, it could be said that anyone coming to an article like this ought to know what to expect--but not everyone actually will--and people will click the link without necessarily realising. The solution is to move the image out of the first position and use one of the many somewhat less sidturbing ones there; this image would then go somewhere later down. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG, why not something like this picture for the lead, which doesn't pull any punches, but not so up close? The scale of the holocaust should be emphasized, not individual corpses. Pirate^Argh!!1! 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the function of the top of an article such as this, I think a pertinent question is whether or not such an image would be seen as appropriate for the cover of a book which plans on being very widely circulated. If you look at some of the current best selling books on the holocaust, you'll find that they manage to present powerful imagery on their covers without crossing over into 'shock' territory. One would think Wikipedia should be able to do the same. --Aryaman (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AFriedman and others to the extent that perhaps it should not be first. There is another well-known photo of starving Jews in their bunks that would not jump out so badly. I would put the dead body pile a bit further down. They are shocking, they shock, they tell the truth, and we don't need to soften it. What was done was horrible and God forbid such a thing ever happens again, to any group of innocent people. I will go try to find the picture now. Stellarkid (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is this famous photo on About history. They say "courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives." I know nothing about how to deal with copyright issues and such but I think this photo would be a better lead-in to start with, and move the bodies down a bit . Stellarkid (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the alternate photo that Pirate proposed, and his point that it emphasizes the scale of the Holocaust's destruction. Maybe the dead body pile could be put a bit farther down, possibly in a collapsible box, with a warning that it contains nudity. --AFriedman (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I take no position regarding the first suggestion (alternate photo), but I definitely disagree with the second suggestion (collapsible box with warning). Not only is that contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED, since when have we put up warnings in Wikipedia that a photo contains nudity? This article is about a genocide that involved industrialized mass killings. It will be graphic. Warnings are inappropriate for Wikipedia. 02:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would add that all articles link to Wikipedia's disclaimers, which includes Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. As per WP:NODISCLAIMERS, that should be enough. Singularity42 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about it some more and I now also agree that the photo proposed by Drunken Pirate should be moved to the lead. It still fairly depicts the horrific nature of the genocide and the scale of the death toll, and is graphic without being needlessly shocking. The original photo should stay, but moved further down the article - without a warning, etc. With all due respect to the photo suggested by Stellarkid, it just doesn't get across the full nature of the Holocaust. I agree that thee photo is quite famous and could be added to the article, but not as the lead. So to summarize: 1) this photo in the lead, 2) the original lead photo moved down with no disclaimers or warnings, and 3) if a free version of this photo exists, possibly add it later in the article. Singularity42 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty amazing picture. I agree with you that the bunk picture isn't sufficient. I was just thinking about those young kids seeing the naked body pile first and thought a slower lead-in might be better. But I like your version better if others do. Stellarkid (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Singularity42, I think this is coming down as the consensus. --AFriedman (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with singularity too, but, this picture I proposed was the best choice out of the pictures already on the page, someone is still more than welcome to search for a better lead pic.. Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your picture which is the picture that Singularity put up . I came to the party late, you must excuse me. Stellarkid (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The danger is in reducing the Holocaust to an abstraction. It is for this reason that the photo presently in the uppermost position of the article is the preferable one. The photos being suggested by some editors contain within them the shortcoming of distancing the viewer from the holocaust. There is nothing vulgar about the photograph presently in the uppermost position of the article, apart from the inherent vulgarity of the holocaust itself. The picture presently in the uppermost position of the article is photographed from a distance that is simply appropriate to the subject matter. It is not photographed from an especially close vantage point. Several bodies are contained within the total image, and some space remains for background. It is a photograph of real individuals. The real individuals are dead. That they are naked is secondary to their being dead. The visual representation of the situation should be appropriate, and not a depiction that takes the reader away from the death which was the aim of this particular event in human history. This is an inappropriate depiction relative to the picture that is in the article now (in the uppermost position) because it distances the viewer (the reader) from the most relevant facts of this event. This photograph would also be inappropriate for the uppermost position in the article. The implication of that photograph is that the event being written about was an internment camp with inhumane conditions. But that is not what the holocaust was. I don't think the holocaust was merely an internment camp with unbearable conditions. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For me the nudity is a non-issue, unimportant. But isn't there the possibility that body pile is just too shocking and people, especially young people, will turn away immediately without reading on? Stellarkid (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) (BTW - I don't think anyone anymore is saying the About.com picture should be used in the lead. At this point it is a question of moving the current one further down and using the concentration camp photo from the commons as the lead picture...)

Is this seriously going to come down to an argument over vantage points? How does the proposed new picture "distance" the reader from the most relevant facts of this event? It shows huge area full of hundreds of dead bodies. Let's break it down a bit:

• As I said before, the Holocaust was graphic and horrific. We're all agreed there.
• Any lead picture on the Holocaust should represent that it was graphic and horrific. We're all agreed there.
• Both photos depict a scene from the Holocaust that is graphic and horrific. That should be pretty obvious (despite arguments that the new photo has a different vantage point.

A number of editors have expressed concern that the current photo is needlessly shocking when compared to the proposed new photo (and no, not just because of the nudity - the nudity isn't really the issue, it is just a very graphic scene). The full message still comes across in the proposed new photo. And the proposal is only to move the current lead photo down the article a bit, with the proposed new photo taking it's place in the lead. In this way, the horrific nature of the Holocaust is still demonstrated while also allowing us to build up the reader to the more shocking photo, rather than throwing it in their face right away. Singularity42 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have arrived here out of the blue. Even though I have two young children who use Wikipedia, I do not object to the very shocking image at the top. However, I think the picture pointed out by Pirate better illustrates the whole concept and so Singularity's suggestion is a good one. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to find a single image which represents all aspects of the Holocaust. But one aspect which has not been considered here is that, though millions died, there were survivors, some of whom are still alive today. A picture of the dead can give the impression that the Holocaust is "over", when for some, it is still a living memory of personal experience. I doubt that will be enough to get people off the "dead body" kick, but it is something to consider. --Aryaman (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't think the dead body photos imply that everyone was killed or that the Holocaust is not a living memory of personal experience. Many of the dead people in these photos were someone else's parents, children, spouses, brothers and sisters, dear friends, etc. etc. And regardless of whether some people survived, the photo Pirate suggested does hint at the massive, institutionalized destruction and loss of life. I think that putting the picture of the bunk farther down, license permitting, would make the survivor point you suggested. Heck, one of the people in that photo is even a notable survivor. --AFriedman (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Who?Stellarkid (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what is meant is that even one of them would constitute a notable life. Not in the Wikipedia sense of notable. But rather in the sense of a valuable life. I hope AFriedman will correct me if I'm wrong. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel is one of the men in the bunk picture. Barnabypage (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bus stop, it looks like both of us learned something today!  :) Stellarkid (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in the bunk picture. My mistake. I thought what was being referred to was the picture that is presently in the article. Yes, I now see, reference is made to the "picture of the bunk." Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, this is correct. I meant that Elie Wiesel is in the picture of the bunk. I believe that we do have the license to use this picture, given that it's already used in his biography on WP. --AFriedman (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a good image. But it would be a poor choice to be the topmost image in this article. The powerful image that is there now is far more appropriate, because it begins to convey the depravity that is the holocaust. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) We weren't talking about the image with Wiesel being in the lede, just about that image being added lower down in the article. There appears to be a consensus that the image with Wiesel in it does not capture that the Holocaust was a mass killing. I believe you are the only one here who objects to making the image Pirate proposed (panoramic view of dead bodies on the ground in front of ruined buildings) into the lede? --AFriedman (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that this image does a better job at presenting multiple aspects of the Holocaust. Though there's not much to "like" about any of these pictures, I think this one presents the viewer with some necessary context and scale without misusing the dead for their "shock" value. The only thing that might need to be noted in reference to this image (see Bozrat, 1970) is that it shows inmates of Nordhausen who likely died as a result of the Allied bombing raid on the camp (hence the badly burned and partially destroyed surrounding buildings). --Aryaman (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you have raised another issue, and that would be that if these people were likely killed as a result of an Allied bombing raid, as you say, then it would barely be representative of the Holocaust at all.  ? Stellarkid (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

True, I looked through a half-dozen foreign language Wikipedias and this was the most appropriate. Although I'm sure there are people better suited to the task than me. It has the caption "Nazi physician Fritz Klein stands inside a mass grave in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after it's liberation in April 1945". Since non of the pictures are really high quality, and too up close is distasteful, someone could propose multiple images, like how they do it at the beginning on the WWII article.Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with changing the top picture- an image that graphic shouldn't be at the top of the page. Any of the other pictures linked here would suffice. I also have no problem with the original picture being used elsewhere- preferably with a warning. Vivouk (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)vivouk

My only issue with the picture is that there is no information - where was it taken, when, by whom? All the other pictures have at least a location, but this one just says "Victims of the Holocaust". We really ought to say where it was taken. It's apparently from Yad Vashem. Lfh (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I see that it was captioned as Auschwitz until September 14, and this edit. To repeat my question, does anybody know for certain where it was taken? If not, then "Unknown location" may be better than simply not mentioning it at all. Lfh (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have tapered off without any action having been taken, but it seems like there is a rough consensus (though obviously not unanimous agreement) that the image should be moved elsewhere in the article (I've seen some requests for a content warning, but I don't think that's a good idea; it's either in or it's not). It seems like this image, has the most support. Is there another one that anyone thinks is more appropriate? -- Vary | (Talk) 04:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

castration wasn't just in Germany

the castration of mentally ill and gay people wasn't just happening in Germany but also in France/Italy and even England!Markthemac (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

evian conference and other holocaust issues

This article does not mention the evian conference

In 1938 a conference was held in the Swiss town Of Evian, termed 'the Evian conference'. At this meeting several representatives of nation states met to discuss the emigration question from Germany, including SS officers. In an agreement of non-intervention with regard to refugee questions, the 'organised world' ratified the autocracy of nazi Germany and Its policies of ethnic cleansing. (Breesheeth et.al., 1994, Schleunes,1990)

i wrote some analysis of the holocaust whilst studying a degree in social work : which is published online

does anyone have any thoughts or criticisms on the essay here http://www.socialworksearch.com/research/researchms3.shtml Darwinerasmus (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Try: Évian Conference. --Aryaman (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)