Talk:Holocaust victims

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is no agreement that the article should be retitled as proposed, therefore we remain with the status quo ante. Per the "non-arbitrary break" at the bottom, it seems there are some bigger questions about scope to be worked out, and perhaps that should take place following this disucussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust victims → Victims of Nazi Germany – As per the discussion at "Definition and scope," the definition of the Holocaust in the very first line of this article contradicts that of the article for The Holocaust.

Whether or not the millions of non-Jewish people, such as gay men, the disabled, Romani etc. should be considered Holocaust victims is a point of contention even if there is broad historical consensus that they are people murdered by Nazi Germany. We do not need to identify the other groups as "Holocaust victims" as that is an academic debate in itself, nor excise their inclusion in the article if we just rename the article and make it clear that the Holocaust is mostly specifically used for the destruction of Jews.

• Oppose This proposal is a massive jumping to a conclusion, not carried by the discussion mentioned. The Banner talk 23:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's a more NPOV title for this topic. Whether these groups targeted by the Nazis were part of the Holocaust or not is secondary to the point that these groups were targeted by the Nazis. Scholars don't agree about which groups besides Jews (if any) should be considered victims of the Holocaust, but scholars do agree, very broadly, about which groups were victims of the Nazis. To maintain NPOV, Wikipedia should call the article about these groups by the name that most scholars agree on (victims of Nazi Germany) and not by a name that most scholars disagree about (Holocaust victims). As it stands, Wikipedia is taking a significant minority position (that everyone killed by Nazis were victims of the Holocaust, including Soviet POWs) and stating it in Wikipedia's voice as if it were the uncontested mainstream position. It contradicts the main The Holocaust article, which gives the mainstream position. This article has been a POVFORK of the main one for long enough; let's fix it finally with a rename. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose , many victims of Nazi Germany were not "Holocaust victims". The Holocaust is defined as the genocide of European Jews during World War. The topic of Holocaust Victims is notable enough to have its own article distinct from The Holocaust . Victims of Nazi Germany can be created as another parent article of this page (while The Holocaust is also a parent of this page). Marokwitz (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marokwitz Should the non-Jewish victims of Nazi Germany be removed from this article and mentioned as non-Holocaust victims in the lede? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main article, "The Holocaust," begins with, "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II." Although "Holocaust" sometimes refers to the persecution of other groups targeted by the Nazis, it would be inconsistent to choose different definitions (which are indeed used in reliable sources) in different articles. Marokwitz (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you're opposing this move? I don't understand. Levivich (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I suggested this article scope should be fixed, and a parent article Victims of Nazi Germany created... Unless what you are suggesting is to create a new article about Holocaust Victims instead of a redirect? In that case the result would be the same Marokwitz (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right except not the same result, because of article history. The content of this article is about a different topic than its title. So let's fix the title of this article so it stops misinforming readers. If someone wants to then create a Holocaust victims article they can do so. But more to the point, can all of us who agree that this article is a pov fork of the main article please agree on a solution at long last :-) Otherwise the problem will persist. Levivich (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The topic of Jewish victims of Nazi Germany is significant enough for a separate article. A scope change as Marokwitz suggested is a good solution for the currently discussed issue. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose of course. No valid reason to rename. Holocaust victims ≠ victims of Nazi Germany and the overlap is only partial. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Would like to see some more policy-based comments on this. —

talk) (contribs) 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I am not happy with the proposed title change because many of the victims currently listed in this article were not victims of Nazi Germany. Most victims of mass murder in Yugoslavia during the war were killed by the Ustasha puppet state or other factions like the Chetniks. Yes, some were killed by the occupying Germans (mostly Jews, captured Partisans and perceived sympathisers, although the Ustashas also murdered all of those groups as well), Italians (Partisans and sympathisers), Hungarians (Serbs and Jews mostly) and Bulgarians (Serbs, although they handed thousands of Jews over to the Germans). The 300,000 or so Serbs killed by the Ustashas are not considered victims of the Holocaust by the majority of historians of the Holocaust or of the genocide of the Serbs in the Ustasha state, so they should not be in an article about the Holocaust. So, we should not be calling all of these people "victims of the Holocaust" in wikivoice in the article title when that is the case, as Levivich wrote above, because that is misinforming readers. The content of this article should probably be Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators or something like that, if the content is going to remain roughly the same. Otherwise, this will remain a clear POV fork of the Holocaust article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a good point, but I'm not entirely sure if the distinction should be made. While many of the people here are counted as being killed by Nazi collaborators and their allies, keep in mind that most historians consider these individuals as still being categorized as those being murdered by the Nazis due to the status of such entities as puppet states of Nazi Germany. The same way the murder of Jews is considered to be the crime of both a soldier who commits it and Hitler himself, the thousands killed by pro-Axis puppet states propped up by Nazi Germany are considered to be victims of both Germany proper and the puppet regime.

  And tagging @HilbertSpaceExplorer @Oleg Yunakov @Marokwitz- I would like to clarify that I am not opposed to the existence of a new article called "Holocaust victims." This article would focus on the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and clarify who is and isn't considered a Holocaust victim. That has plenty of justification for an article for itself- what I mean is that this current article, which details all of the groups murdered by the Nazis, should be renamed. Therefore, this article would not have to completely rewritten to fit its title but rather would correctly be identified for its actual contents. In other words:

  This current article: Renamed to Victims of Nazi Germany, an overview of all the groups targeted for extermination by Nazis.

  A new article will be created with the title "Holocaust victims" that follows the destruction of Jews.

  HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your perspective, and it is logically sound. What if we begin by drafting the proposed second article and then assess whether a renaming would be appropriate? It's just that currently renaming looks a bit misleading (before your explanation). Plus perhaps a name "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" might be more precise as overall in various countries victims were not just killed "in" and "by" Nazi Germany if you see what I mean. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would just make the point that murderous actions of the Ustashas, despite the state only existing because the Germans and Italians set and propped them up, were matters they decided. Would those people have been murdered if the Axis hadn't created the state? Probably not, but calling the 300,000 dead Serbs "victims of Nazi Germany" obscures the very real agency the Ustashas had to take action independently of the Germans and Italians. The Germans actually claimed to be appalled at what they were doing (for a range of reasons, mostly because it was generating an insurgency). They weren't "murdered by the Nazis", the academic consensus doesn't support that, and we shouldn't categorise them that way. My view is that "this" article should be renamed as Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators. If other articles are needed (I'm not sure about that), they should be created, but this scope of this article should either be limited to those that the majority of Holocaust scholars say were Holocaust victims (and the others removed, with a short explanation remaining about why they aren't here and which scholars might include the other groups), or be retitled as I've suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't everyone agree that there should basically be two articles: (1) one about Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and (2) one about non-Jewish victims of war crimes during WWII? If so, then the question is do we (a) rewrite this article into #1 and create another article about #2, or (b) rewrite (and rename) this article into #2, and create a new article about #1? Am I misreading the consensus here? I would support either option A or B, I just think B is easier. Levivich (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is what I was trying to say above. Marokwitz (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The appropriate course of action is b), because the article history of this article has been about that subject. If it is considered necessary to create a content fork of The Holocaust to specifically cover the victims in greater detail, as suggested, it should be created as a new article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I believe that everyone here agrees that a new article should be created for Holocaust victims in particular. I believe the best title for this article now should be "Victims of Nazi Germany and collaborators" after hearing the objections to the title only including Nazi Germany. (We should not replace Nazi Germany with 'Axis Powers' as this would include Imperial Japan). All groups participating in the war crimes described in this article are considered to be directly under the command of Germany or groups collaborating with Germany. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would (2) be an article exclusively about non-Jewish victims, or would it be an article about both Jewish and non-Jewish victims (this article's current scope)? The proposed "Victims of Nazi Germany" article mentioned above would seem to include both Jews and non-Jews, but this proposal only mentions non-Jews. Malerisch (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Malerisch It would include both Jews and non-Jews. Everyone covered in the new article for Holocaust victims will technically be already covered in this renamed article, but there's enough sources out there and content that two articles is warranted.

Also, I'm likely going to go ahead and move this article to Victims of Nazi Germany and collaborators and then start the seperate Holocaust victims article in the next few days if there's no substantial objections. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting on the fence I am still sitting on the fence at this point, as I am uneasy with the term "war crimes". A death camp like Natzweiler-Struthof concentration camp was not part of the Holocaust but is horrifying in its own right. And you had Oradour-sur-Glane massacre (retaliation, war crime) and Malmedy massacre (battlefield war crime). To throw them into one article seems odd at least. The Banner talk 17:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I see the concern about "war crime," a term that I used loosely in my comment above. I wasn't sure what term to use ("atrocities"? Just "crimes"?). But the dividing line being "victims of the Holocaust" and "victims not of the Holocaust" (commonly referred to in the literature as the "other groups," meaning other than Jews). Levivich (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something incorporating "Crimes against humanity" conform Crimes against humanity#Nuremberg trials? The Banner talk 01:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that both "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" are legal terms, whereas RSes describe some "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" whose cases may not have been legally adjudicated as war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc., so I think I prefer the broader scope of "victims." Levivich (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose the renaming of this article as proposed. But I would support a split as proposed. With a referral article named "Victims of Axis states and its collaborators" pointing to Holocaust victims, something with a better title than "Non-Holocaust victims of the Axis and its collaborators" plus an article about the atrocities in Asia. The Banner talk 14:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not thought through. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the proposed title better reflects the scope of the article, which includes those groups who were not victims of the Holocaust, such as political prisoners, Spanish Republicans, enemy nationals, etc. "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" is a good choice for the scope. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. The article is clearly larger in scope than the Holocaust proper. But "Victims of Nazi Germany" is just a very bad alternative. Everyone on the other side of the war could be called a "victim of Nazi Germany". The scope could be made a little more precise with something like "Victims of Nazi genocide", which is wide enough to include a variety of groups targeted for extermination. Walrasiad (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with that is that they're not all victims of genocide. LGBT, Jehova's Witnesses, Slavs, etc. were persecuted, victims of atrocities, but not genocide. Whereas other group, like Romani, were victims of genocide (but not nec the Holocaust). Levivich (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's leave "genocide" out of it. "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" is broad and inclusive, and doesn't claim "Holocaust" nomenclature for various groups that no-one includes as part of the Holocaust. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC);[reply]

The article explicitly says Poles, Homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses were targeted for extermination (as a group, even if individuals are left alive). If the term "genocide" seems too strong, then it'll have to be something in that ball park. That is, something that captures the idea of intentional and systematic policy of eliminating these groups. Because the proposed "Victims of Nazi Germany" definitely doesn't cut it. It would include everybody victimized by war, e.g. London Blitz survivors, occupied Danes, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Putting aside that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and this article in particular doesn't accurately sum up RSes) I'd be fine with "Victims of persecution by Nazi Germany [or Axis] and its collaborators..." although that title would not be concise. Levivich (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Victims of Nazi persecution" would be more concise. Although there is still the 'group' element missing (this is not a list of individuals, but groups), it would be better than the proposal. Walrasiad (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Groups persecuted by Nazi Germany and its collaborators"? Levivich (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Not really concise. I would prefer to omit the whole "persecuted by Nazi Germany and its collaborators" as too long, and simply replace it with "Nazi persecution". Maybe "Groups targeted by Nazi persecution"? Or maybe just leave it simple "Victims of Nazi persecution", and let the article explain it in terms of groups. Not perfect, but better than current. Walrasiad (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support any of those, and I support not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good :-) Levivich (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a move to Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators (for clarity for the closer). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As HadesTTW mentioned above, the Axis powers includes the Empire of Japan. Do you think this article's scope should be expanded to include the victims of events like the Nanjing Massacre, the Manila massacre, Sook Ching, and the Bataan Death March? Nobody else in this discussion has suggested anything along those lines. Malerisch (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW my 2c is that it would be OK to have multiple levels of parent/child articles, e.g. one article for all "Axis powers", separate sub-articles for Nazis+collaborators and Japan+collaborators, separate sub-articles just for Nazis and Japan and for (each of?) their collaborators, etc. Just on

WP:SIZE principles, there is enough RS material about this to probably have an article about every single country in the war, and so also for various levels of parent articles "up" from there. However, the content of this article as it's written right now, doesn't cover Japan, hence my preference for moving this to "Nazi+collaborators" but with no prejudice against someone creating a broader "Axis+collaborators" article as suggested by Peacemaker. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support This article should be moved to any reasonable title that doesn't contradict Wikipedia's definition of the Holocaust. Malerisch (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Despite what is currently written on Wikipedia, there is no academic consensus on which victims are covered by the term Holocaust. However for the term Shoah, there is definite consensus that this term is exclusively used to describe the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Of the total number of Holocaust victims, Jews make up 35% of those killed by Nazi Germany and/or their puppet allies. By separating victim groups into Holocaust and non-Holocaust victims, you create
  content forks that confuses readers as you have doubling up of articles. ElderZamzam (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't believe there exists even one modern scholar who says Jews were 35% of the victims of the Holocaust, which suggests there were 18 million victims of the Holocaust, which is another number that I do not believe even a single modern scholar says. I have seen multiple scholars explicitly reject this suggestion, though, some of which I've listed in another thread on this page. I haven't read everything though of course so I'd be interested to know if there are any modern scholars that give the 35%/18 million numbers. Levivich (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I obtained 35% solely from the Estimates of victims table on this Wikipedia page, 6/17 million being 35%. ElderZamzam (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP is not a reliable source. The table is wrong, and is one of the primary reason I put a {fact} tag on this article. The misinformation that you just believed to be true needs to be fixed (via a page move/rescope/rewrite) and is why I support this move request, so that others aren't similarly misinformed. Levivich (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The death toll table is well sourced by reliable sources so I am not sure why you have come to the conclusion that it is factually wrong. We may be misunderstanding each other (death toll vs which deaths are considered part of the holocaust). If you believe the death toll itself is debatable then that is beyond this talk page discussion and needs a dedicated discussion itself. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is sourced adequately, but the problem is that the weight of academic sources do not consider most of them victims of the Holocaust. That is the fundamental problem with this article that we are trying to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's a textbook example of

WP:SYNTH: combining multiple RSes to support a novel conclusion that none of the RSes support. The sources say some of those groups were victims of the Holocaust (though they don't all agree on which ones, except Jews), but none say that all those groups were victims of the Holocaust. Levivich (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]