Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 → Archive 35

Source Misrepresented

In the lead paragraph we have "Some definitions of the Holocaust include additional five million non-Jewish victims of the Nazi campaign of mass murder, such as Romani, the Soviet prisoners of war, the Aktion T4 patients, the Ukrainian Holodomor victims as well as victims of crimes against the Polish nation, Polish intelligentsia, Serbs and others, bringing the total to about 11 million." The source for this sentence is given as The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust pp. 45-52 which does not make this statement. The source has been misrepresented for the following reasons.
1-The Ukrainian Holodomor is not mentioned.
2-Serbs are not listed among the Holocaust victims
3-The total number of victims using the broader Holocaust definition in the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust is given as 17 million not 11 million.
I own the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and will provide jpgs of pages 45-52. Please contact me by E-mail. This is an important article, we need to cite our sources correctly.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for pointing it out, User:Woogie10w. You are absolutely correct. Donald L. Niewyk and Francis R. Nicosia in their Columbia Guide to the Holocaust state on page 45 (quote):
"The Nazis also killed millions of people belonging to other groups: Gypsies, the physically and mentally handicapped, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, political prisoners, religious dissenters, and homosexuals. Can it be said that any of these groups were treated the same way as the Jews and for the same reasons and hence deserve to be included in the history of the Holocaust? A positive answer to this question would require a broader definition of the Holocaust and acknowledging as many as 17,000,000 victims."
Holodomor and Serbs are not mentioned. The source has been misrepresented. Poeticbent talk 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Please note, Niewyk and Nicosia in their Conclusion (pp. 51-52) provided four separate definitions of the Holocaust in the most objective manner, and admitted themselves to adopting just one of them, i.e. the third definition when writing their own Guide to the Holocaust.
  1. First definition: "the traditional view that it was the genocide of the Jews alone."
  2. Second definition: "parallel Holocausts, one for each of several victim groups (the exact number being debatable)"
  3. Third definition: "In this view members of other groups were killed selectively and can be safely excluded." This definition: "broaden the Holocaust to embrace Gypsies and the handicapped along with the Jews."
  4. Fourth definition: "encompassing all racially motivated German crimes and all their victims" thus placing "additional burdens on scholars and their students."
Poeticbent talk 19:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
You may want to use this source instead of the Columbia Guide (17 million victims) since it ties out to 11 million victims "According to the College of Education of the University of South Florida Approximately 11 million people were killed because of Nazi genocidal policy.[1] --Woogie10w (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Florida Center for Instructional Technology, College of Education, University of South Florida, A Teachers Guide to the Holocaust". Fcit.usf.edu. Retrieved March 4, 2016.
Snyder (2010) in Bloodlands speaks about the 11 million on page 384, and we already have his work listed in reference section. I prefer to use sources which can be attributed to historians by name. Thanks for letting me know about the Teachers Guide to the Holocaust. Poeticbent talk 21:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Needless to say, the 17,000,000 victims listed by Niewyk & Nicosia (2000) would have to have a much broader support in Holocaust literature to be included in the opening paragraph of this article. Poeticbent talk 21:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Re: Timothy Snyder. One: - The geographic area covered by the "Bloodlands" is limited to Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states and western Russian regions occupied by Germany, he does not include the rest of Europe. Two: - 5.4 million Jewish victims in the Holocaust ( he does not include an additional 300,000 deaths outside the Bloodlands), page 410-12. Three: -The source for Snyder's figures is Dieter Pohl, Verfolgung und Massenmord in der NS-Zeit 1933–1945. I would use Pohl as a source but I suspect that many readers would object to a source in the German language. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Poeticbent you are correct that Snyder puts the total of Nazi victims at " perhaps 11 million" on page 384. The caveat here is that Snyder on p 410 notes that he "generally excludes from the count deaths due to exertion, disease, or malnutrition in concentration camps; deportations, forced labor, evacuations; people who died of hunger as a result of wartime shortfalls, and civilians killed by bombings or other acts of war." Dieter Pohl puts the total at 12-14 million based on the deaths attributable to all causes. Poeticbent note well that Snyder does not even mention the figure of 2.7 million Polish victims that was published in 2009 by IPN or the official Russian figures of 13.7 million civilian deaths and 1.3 million POW. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
IMO we should use both Synder and the College of Education of the University of South Florida. They are in agreement on the figure of 11 million and the University of South Florida has a detailed explanation on their webpage. In any case Synder has his critics in the academic world, his word is not gospel. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I avoid editing this page because I believe that the Holocaust was the genocide of the Jews alone. Thanks to Jimmy Carter Poles and Ukrainians were included. It was smart politics in 1980 but real dumb history. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to summarize the body. Why are we attempting to provide sourcing for this nuanced definition in the lead section at all? VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder,
"verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." This is where we stand now. Numerous Holocaust historians quote each other in a circular manner: scholar "A" quotes scholar "B" who quotes "C" who quotes "D" who quotes scholar "A" again. With so many hundreds of books on the Holocaust already out there, deciding whom to quote in the opening paragraph (and why this one) has not been resolved in terms of providing a rationale within the article itself. Works already named leave the impression of being chosen at random. This is what we are discussing. I invite everyone to chip in please. Poeticbent talk
06:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
There should be some discussion before making fundamental edits to referenced material such as removing Gerlach's reference which represents an increasing trend among historians. There may be a better place for it, but surely we can discuss it. I am away for the rest of the day, but will return. Joel Mc (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Joel Mc, I didn't mean to actually remove Gerlach's reference, except that absolutely every reference (!) we quote, in the opening paragraph, speaks of the mass murder of European Jews interchangeably with the term genocide ... beginning with Niewyk & Nicosia (2000) who are already quoted in the preceding line of the same paragraph. – The same term "mass murder" is in the following paragraph as well (quote): "every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics and the carrying out of the mass murder". I'm reinstating the Gerlach reference where the term mass murder is used. But naming Gerlach as "some historians" is unnecessary.

User:Joel Mc re-added the sentence "Killings took place throughout German-occupied Europe, as well as in Nazi Germany, and across territories controlled by its allies" ... without reading the following paragraph which says (quote): "Killings took place throughout German-occupied Europe, as well as within Nazi Germany, and across all territories controlled by its allies.[1]" Please, if you happen to have too little time to pay attention to such details, leave it for later, and ping me instead. I will happily deal with tautologies for you. Poeticbent talk 17:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Niewyk & Nicosia 2000, pp. 45, 51–52.

Source Misrepresented cont'd

I had decided to move on from this discussion. However, the comments of VQuak and Woogie10w require a response.

I have been following this page for over ten years. I learned sometime ago to keep my head down and avoid the flotsam of different editors’ agendas. Mainly I have spent the time tweaking, correcting, adding references, discussing definitions, etc. For some time, the messy lede has been niggling at me. Finally recently I decided to take crack at it.

I tried to take into account issues that seem to keep arising: I put links (in the footnote) to other Nazi mass murders in order to pre-empt the accusations that other victims were being neglected when in fact they have their own pages; I tried to show that the definition was that used by the major historians of the period writing in English, with references to a few of them. I left in the Niewyk reference even though I don’t really like it, preferring not to use references from other encyclopedias when there are peer-reviewed books or articles available.new text I agree with Woogie10w's position and comment about dumb history.

However, my edits were replaced by another editor without any discussion, which in effect led to the reference problem identified by Woogie10w. I am not under the illusion that my edit was perfect. Discussion could have prevented some of the reference problems.

I see that I am accused of putting in "tautologies"(I believe that the editor means repetitions) to which I plead guilty. In the previous editing confusion I hadn't notice that the offending sentence had been moved down to a different para. Simple solution: delete one of them. Finally, as an historian I am afraid that I don't really recognize many scholars who are represented by the A, B, C, D, cycle of quotes. Joel Mc (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • User:Joel Mc, and I, have been here for a very long time. Joel Mc made his first edit in this article on 7 January 2007. I made my first edit here on 7 June 2008. In the following years, we did pretty much the same: we both came to the rescue, because this is a high traffic article with constant need of maintenance. – One would assume that after a decade of working side by side, we would find a way of communicating more efficiently. User:Joel Mc replaced "genocide" with "mass murder" recently, without corresponding citations,[1] and now seems indignant at the way it turned out. – So, here's a bit more background for you. On 28 October 2012 (!), Joel Mc added a cluster of pseudo-citations with no page numbers, no publishers, and no ISBN numbers in support of a statement reading: "genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory." <ref>further examples of this usage can be found in: Bauer, Yehuda (2002), Cesarani, David (2004),Dawidowicz, Lucy (1981), Evans, Richard J. (2002), Gilbert, Martin (1986), Hilberg, Raul (1996), Longerich, Peter (2012), Phayer, Michael (2000), Zuccotti, Susan (1999)</ref>[2] – Amazingly, these pseudo-citations survived till today in almost the same form, although apparently they are being used now by Joel Mc to provide support for his change of heart. Please take a closer look at them. We are made to believe that "Cesarani, David (2004)" supports one phrase over the other, while in fact Cesarani is the book editor: authors are Frank Bajohr, Hans Safrian,
    Christopher Browning, Walter Manoschek, Christoph Dieckmann, Christian Gerlach, and Ian Kershaw. Each scholar wrote a separate article expressing their own point of view. – I believe, User:Joel Mc has a lot to offer, but drop the attitude please. Poeticbent talk
    04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Clicking on each one of the so-called "pseudo-citations" shows that each of the titles uses the word Holocaust to mean the genocide/mass murder of the Jews. Perhaps I should have explained it better but it did seem obvious to me. Time to move on. Joel Mc (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of the Holocaust

This new article may be of interest to readers of this talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

On the Wikipedia Homepage portal, typing in "Holocaust" produces a suggestion box below with link suggestions. The Holocaust link is followed by the sub title "it never happened." This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's neutral stance position. I don't know how to alter it. Theratch (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a technical issue. In order to get to this page, you need to type into the suggestion box the full title, but getting to "holoc" already brings up the denial and other pages. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I reverted an edit to the Wikidata item, and the issue seems to have been resolved. The suggestion now says "programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany". Gulumeemee (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Uniqueness question section type

In the quote at the bottom, "worldenemy" should be two words;

"in Holocaust scholarship" would be better written as "among Holocaust scholars" 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I've fixed the run-together words. Regarding your second request, please seek consensus—or at least provide a clear explanation as to why it would be "better". RivertorchFIREWATER 03:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's a matter of style: it's how I would phrase it if I needed to write a text on the matter. Now it's my editorial opinion and if you disagree, well then fine we'll agree to disagree, it's not like it is some crucial omission or anything. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
x.103, I gave this some thought. I do not think these two phrases are identical in meaning; "in Holocaust scholarship" means within the written works of scholars while "among Holocaust scholars" is more connotative of a verbal debate or conversation. As a result I think the status quo version is better. VQuakr (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Six million in lead paragraph

The current lead paragraph says this:

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"), also referred to as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which some six million European Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, and the World War II collaborators with the Nazis. The victims included 1.5 million children and represented about two-thirds of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe. A broader definition of the Holocaust includes non-Jewish victims of the Nazi campaign of mass murder, based on biological factors, such as the Romani, and the Aktion T4 patients who were mentally and physically disabled.

I would change the last sentence to say:

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"), also referred to as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which some six million European Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, and the World War II collaborators with the Nazis. The victims included 1.5 million children and represented about two-thirds of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe. Broader definitions of the Holocaust, including non-Jews, range up to 21 million.[1]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rummel1992 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Just a suggestion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Content

Is there a way that both historical and contemporary views that justify and glorify the genocide can be addressed? They are rather serious issues that have barely been mentioned.

talk
) 17:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know any historical or contemporary views that "justify" and "glorify" the Holocaust. Do you mean views that question the authenticity of the Holocaust? DenygDengue (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@
WP:WEIGHT; what sources do you propose using? VQuakr (talk
) 03:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@
talk
) 08:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Rummel and 21 million

Rummel has done good work on mass murder, but is an outlier among historians; his definitions, i.e. “democide” are not used by major historians of the period. His larger category of “genocide” which includes non-Jews uses the figure of 16,315,000, not 21 millions. Joel Mc (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. The edit at issue bothered me because of the wording: "Broader definitions of the Holocaust...range up to 21 million victims." Figures or estimates range; definitions don't range. I couldn't quite decide how to reword it elegantly, but it looks as if you found a stronger reason to undo. However, the 21 million figure appears again, this time uncited, in the Victims enumerated section. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Joel Mc: When you undid my change, you said "Such a removal from a page referenced text should be first discussed first (see talk)." My reply is "I did and the above section is the discussion going back to March 17, one week ago." I suggested my change in the talk page (above) and got one positive reply. A week later, I made the change. Was I supposed to do something else?
Do you want to discuss my change further? I feel that the intro should delineate the smallest and largest reasonable victim count. I didn't realize that the count of 21M was uncited. Using the figure 16,315,000, properly cited, is fine with me. (You might also change the count in the Victims section.) You could also use the estimate of 17M by Niewyk or the USHMM estimate of 15 to 20M. As an alternative, I would also support the elimination of the upper count in the intro: the whole sentence relating to "broader definitions" could be removed.
Glad you guys are on top of it. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@RoyGoldsmith:Sorry, I should have been clearer. I had seen your proposal before but hadn’t realize that it meant removing reliable sources. It was the removal of the Niewyk etc reference without any discussion that I was particular concerned about. Niewyk has been there for over 10 years i.e. March 2006. If my memory serves me right, it was put there as result of the ongoing debate whether the Holocaust refers only to the mass murder by the Nazis of European Jews, or to other mass murders by the Nazis as well. It has been pointed out a number of times that the major historians and experts dealing with Nazi history define the Holocaust as the mass murder of the Jews. Niewyk is an exception as he includes the Roma in his definition. In addition he gives some examples of others who use a wider definition. Some of contemporary historians while recognizing its wide use prefer not to use the term "the Holocaust” at all, using "mass murder of the Jews" instead (ie. Snyder, Gerlach); the deleted Gerlach reference explains his view on this. Joel Mc (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Soviet role in the Holocaust

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Stalin deliberately aided the Holocaust by ordering Jews to be left behind in the cities as the Red army evacuated from them in 1941. He refused to use his huge air force to bomb the death camps in 1944-45. (86.133.85.180 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC))

Do you have some refs in support of what you wrote? Carlotm (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple references online and from various biographies I have of Stalin and books about World War II. It must always be remembered that Stalin invaded Poland in 1939 as an ally of Nazi Germany, and then gave Hitler the fuel and grain to invade France and the Low Countries. Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement the war would never have happened, and the Nazis would never have had control of continental Europe and all of its Jews. (86.133.85.180 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC))

Holocaust definition is not simply applicable to Jews. Clarification needed in the article

There is a problem when we define the word "Holocaust" as being applicable to only the Jewish holocaust. Africans also had a holocaust, and also so did the people we now call Native Americans. Imagine if the link to slavery only mentioned the unfortunate slave experience of Africans, African-Americans. Let's be more transparent in our articles and edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:7C3D:C0D1:2058:B975 (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

11 Million?

Sorry but I have a real problem with listing the number of Jews killed as 6 million - 11 million, 11 million is a preposterous number with very little scientific evidence to back it up. The number is obviously very hard to pin point but scientists have collectively agreed to estimate it as 6 million, having as 6-11 million is very misleading and false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormingsheep (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The number 11 million is only used if one includes Hitler's non-Jewish victims, which the article notes is controversial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
My 2 cents: saying that the Holocaust only caused the death of 6 million persons would be false - It is true that the main target were Jews, but the Holocaust wasn't only about them, it was also about other minorities, and therefore not talking about them would be some kind of slight POV pushing, equivalent to saying "The Holocaust is only about Jews"... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

MORE THAN 11 MILLIONS

SHOAH – The process of a racist antisemitic war Avner Shalev, Director of Yad Vashem (the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, the world center for documentation, research, and education of the Holocaust), used the word Shoah” for the Nazi murderous war only against the Jews, when, in June 2013, at the opening of Yad Vashem’s exhibit at the Jewish Holocaust Museum at Auschwitz, he stated: The Holocaust of the Jewish people, Shoah, the attempt to annihilate the Jewish people. … racist ideology … was the main driving force behind the destruction of the Jewish people.

Shalev does not use the word “Holocaust,”

It should be noted that many scholars and teachers, especially in Europe, now use the specific term Shoah for the persecution and murder of six million Jews. For example, in Germany the term Shoah is only used to refer to the genocide of Jews under the Nazis, whereas Holocaust includes other victim groups, too.

The most tragic result of the Shoah was the destruction of two thirds of European Jewry, one third of the Jewish people, their culture and way of life gone forever. “The twelve years of the Nazi regime, from its rise in 1933 to its demise in 1945, represent the most tragic era in Jewish history. … Of the total world Jewish population of eighteen million in 1939, one in three had been killed.” (Gutman, Yisrael at Yad Vashem, ed. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. 4 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1990; p. 666).


HOLOCAUST – The process of a racist, exclusive, and ideological war “The Holocaust is an extreme example of the context of despair. It was motivated by a murderous ideology.” http://www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se/stockholmforum/2000/page898.html Nazism or National Socialism was the ideology behind the Holocaust. Therefore, the racist national domestic, and international goals of the main perpetrator, Nazi Germany led by Hitler, and the characteristics of Nazism determined the definition of the Holocaust and its victims.” Y. Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust. “Holocaust” refers, not to an event, but to the geo-political process of the war against the Jews and others/ undesirable groups/non-Jews - “The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews and millions of others by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II. … By war's end, almost six million Jews and millions of others had perished in the Holocaust” (the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (ushmm). Elie Wiesel appropriately declared: “Not all the victims of the Holocaust were Jews, but all Jews were victims. Conclusion, it is best when referencing the total number of victims of the Holocaust to say 6 million Jews and millions of others. All Holocaust organizations are making a united move to adhere to this message.” Indeed, as per the historical record, the Holocaust was an ideological murderous process and war against all the Jews and other “Undesirables,” by a barbaric regime bent on an ‘Aryan’ world domination and a racial utopia. “The Nazis pursued a strategic vision of a dominant German race ruling subject peoples” (ushmm). Professor Saul Friedlander at UCLA, correctly stated: National Socialism/Nazism tried to determine who should and should not inhabit the world. Yehuda Bauer, academic advisor at Yad Vashem, its former Director, and a most respected authority on the subjects of the Holocaust, explained: the Holocaust {was} a defining moment in European and world history. … Nazism did not just inflict horrendous suffering on many millions of people, but it proposed to reorganize humanity according to race, all over the globe, and that ideology, did and does not endanger the Jews only. That global project of Nazi Germany's new world order demanded "Aryanization," enslavement and annihilation of Jews, Christians and "Undesirables" (“threats” or enemies of the German state such as political and religious dissidents, Afro-Germans, Roma-Sinti/Gypsies, the physically and mentally challenged, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, some of the Slavic peoples - Catholic Poles, Russians, Soviet prisoners of war-, Jewish and African American POWS, and others), who were targeted by the Nazi regime and its collaborators between the years of 1933-1945 for religious, racial, political, ideological and behavioral reasons. However, at the center of the Holocaust, was the Final Solution aimed solely at the Jews.

“Every Jew that we can lay our hands on is to be destroyed now during the war, without exception. …obliterate the biological basis of Jewry” (SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler). “… we say that the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely, with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews” (Adolf Hitler Speech at the Berlin Sportspalast, January 30, 1942; after the Wannsee Conference of January 20, 1942). On March, 27, 1942, Joseph Goebbels wrote admiringly in his diary: No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Regarding the Jews, the Nazis were equal opportunity killers. (Bauer).

The priority target was indeed the Jews, wherever the Nazi regime and its collaborators could find them. From political Europe (including the overseas European possessions of Italian Libya, and pro-Nazi Vichy North Africa), to the Middle East and Asia (Iraq and Shanghai), there was no exception in the Nazi regime's attempt to murder every last Jew within its grasp. “All Jews were victims,” correctly declared Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.

“Totality – all Jews everywhere, those who had three or four Jewish grandparents, were to be killed for the reason that they had been born. Globality.”(Bauer at Yad Vashem)

Henia Perlman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"Not all the victims of the Holocaust were Jews" - That's one thing and "The priority target was indeed the Jews" that's the other thing. So, stating only "6 million" would be wrong - priority target does not mean sole target; and not mentioning that fact would be against WP policy of inclusion (which is, if it's mentioned in many
WP:RS, then it does belong here). 69.165.196.103 (talk
) 16:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Hitler primarily targeted Jews, but also black Germans, gays, etc. Let's not ignore the other victims, that's another form of bigotry, yellow journalism. Imagine a discussion about Sept 11 attack that only focused on the New York born victims, who were the majority, but ignores the non-New York born victims. Transparency is needed if we are to end bigotry, and academic dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:ddd1:4900:7c3d:c0d1:2058:b975 (talk • contribs)
The article already discusses this, reflecting the nuanced discussion given the topic by contemporary
reliable sources. VQuakr (talk
) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

64.150.5.24 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


One of the most famous examples, was when hitler murdered 6 million jews during world war ll. This included the victims of 1.5 million children. Hitler also murdered people who were mentally and Physically disabled.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Poland article

To my mind the Holocaust paragraph of the Poland article could be improved. Anyone with a view either way about that, please chime in on the Talk page there. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Revert of Rachelle Perlman's edits

It is better to start out indicating where refs are needed than just reverting all the text--in this case even some references were reverted as well. I will try and do some work on this. Joel Mc (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations...

Recent edits such as "Common to all Europe's North Africa territories was the murderous intent of the Nazi regime and its collaborators." is almost a direct copy of here "However, common to all three territories was the murderous intent of the Nazis." or "The Jews of French North Africa were subjected to the same series of stages that were the prelude to murder: the Jews were stripped of their liberty, their livelihoods, their property and their dignity. All across Vichy North Africa, they were sent to labor camps where hunger, disease and horrific treatment were rampant. The force majeure that saved the Jews from the last stage of the Final Solution – systematic mass murder – was the tide of the war." which is almost exactly repeated from "Like their brethren in Europe, the Jews of French North Africa were subjected to the same series of stages that were the prelude to murder: the Jews were stripped of their liberty, their livelihoods, their property and their dignity. All across North Africa, they were sent to labor camps where hunger, disease and horrific treatment were rampant. The force majeure that saved the Jews of the Maghreb from the last stage of the Final Solution – systematic mass murder – was the tide of the war.". This: "The total victory of the Allies in North Africa in May 1943 prevented a catastrophe." is exactly the same sentence in Longrich - "The total victory of the Allies in North Africa in May 1942 prevented a catastrophe." (Longrich Heinrich Himmler p. 663, but the edit said p. 662). I don't have access to Sabille and Litchfield Les Juifs de Tunisie sous Vichy et l’Occupation, so I can't check that, but I've once more removed the latest edits as they are clear

WP:COPYVIO. We do not copy exact phrasing into Wikipedia, this is a very strong policy. Ealdgyth - Talk
00:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"We do not copy exact phrasing into Wikipedia, this is a very strong policy." - Still, I read in "how to cite in Wikipedia, that we are allowed to cite one sentence verbatim. Henia Perlman (talk)
You are if you put it in quotation marks. The best practice is to paraphrase, however. But, to use anything verbatim (even less than a sentence) you should put it in quotations. This isn't just Wikipedia - this follows for any sort of writing - journalism, scholarly writing, essay writing for classes. Not making something clear that it is a quotation is considered a major problem in writing anywhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth cites a few sentences and then deletes 3000+ words without looking deeper. I checked a few and they seem ok. you need evidence of copyvio and have not provided it. for example "murderous intent of the Nazi regime" is not a copy vio --it is in common usage for decades with dozens of examples. eg "Patterns of the Past: Interpreting Ontario's History - Page 320 used it in 1996. The phrase "prevented a catastrophe" has been used thousands of times. Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Further issues - now gone from the article, edit: "In October, 1940, Pétain’s Vichy government, not the Germans, passed antisemitic legislation called the Statut des Juifs. There was no German pressure on Nazi collaborator Pétain to promulgate those racial laws in the fall of 1940, nor was there German pressure on Pétain to apply the Statut of the Jews to the French territories of North Africa," source: In October, 1940, Pétain’s Vichy government, not the Germans, passed antisemitic legislation called the Statut des Juifs. There was no German pressure on Pétain to promulgate racial laws in the fall of 1940, nor was there German pressure on Pétain to apply these racial laws to the colonies of North Africa.. WP edit: "In October 1940, Pétain repealed the 1870 Crémieux Decree, which had made the Jews of the three French departments in the territory of Algeria full citizens 70 years before." Source: Finally, there was no German pressure on Pétain to repeal the Crémieux Decree, which had made the Jews of France and of Algeria full citizens 70 years before, in 1870. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This leaves aside the issue that some of the (badly mangled) sources do not support the information they are supposed to support. This source (mentioned above) is given as the source for "The Shoah of European Jews and the implementation of the Final Solution in imperial political Europe, took different trajectories in Denmark, metropolitan/mainland France, Vichy Tunisia, Vichy Algeria, Vichy Morocco, Italy, and Italian Libya (European North Africa), "due to differences in terms of occupation regimes and relative strength of the perpetrators." The Jewish communities of Denmark, ferried to safety in neutral Sweden, and of Vichy Tunisia, Vichy Morocco, Vichy Algeria, and Italian Libya, liberated by the Allies by May 1943, were spared the mass deportations that took place in the rest of Europe " but no where in that source is Denmark mentioned. This newspaper article is cited as the source for "Some 5,000 Jews were round up in thirty-two slave labor camps near the front line, under horrid conditions. The internees sometimes worked fourteen hours a day, and suffered from hunger, biting cold, and lack of sanitation. They slept on dirty and thin straw, had fleas, and were punished for the smallest wrongdoing. Many perished there from diseases, hunger and sometimes just because one German guard started to shoot erratically. Some Jews tried to escape and were executed. The Jewish committee tried to improve the lives of the internees, providing them food and clothes, and taking care of their families. The workers in the Italian camps were better treated than in the German ones. The Nazi regime in French Tunisia deported, by airline, twenty Jewish political activists and some Jewish and non-Jewish members of the Resistance to concentration camps (Dachau and Orienenburg) and death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland." but most of the information is not found in the very brief newspaper article - for example nothing is said about the treatment being better in the Italian camps, no mention of airlines being used to deport prisoners, nor is a Jewish committee mentioned. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

ethnic or biological factors

can someone provide a quote for the source of this statement in the lead as part of the "broader" definition of genocide? I have not seen this term used outside of modern (Post-Yugoslavia) genocide trials - biological factors, for example, is a legal term referring to forced sterilization. I am wary of bringing it in as part of the definition of the Holocaust unless it is strongly supported by a significant number of mainstream sources. For example, many scholars consider the persecution of the Church and Catholics under the Nazi regime to be part of the Holocaust. I see a few references to Catholics in the article, but nothing about the persecution of the Church. For example, this Britannica article about Alfred Rosenberg says that under Rosenberg's conception of "Semites" - Catholics (and Christians) were considered "Semites" (i.e. enemies of the Nordic race). Seraphim System (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials"
if you are.)

For

guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk
) 22:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, done as you requested. Let me know if I messed any up, missed any, or you need any back. Antandrus (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference format ...

Right now, the article is a mix of various systems - list defined, sfn, full cites, etc. As part of the

WP:Core Contest, I'm going to be working on verifying and cleaning up the information in the article (note - this will not be a wholesale rewrite - mostly cleanup and making sure everything is cited as well as verifying that the citations are correctly attached to information. Any major additions/subtractions, etc. would only come after the cleanup... have to know what we have before we can add or subtract from it). I'd like to standardize the references on one system. I lean towards using the Template:sfn system ... if that's okay with most of the editors here? (Actually, I prefer to use the system I used in Middle Ages, but I doubt everyone would be happy if I barged in and just changed it over to that... so we'll stick with a system in use in the article already). Ealdgyth - Talk
15:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:sfn system: Great idea. Go for that. Joel Mc (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Strangely enough {{sfn}} is never used in Middle Ages, nor any other template, except for {{efn}}. Carlotm (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. If I was starting this article from scratch, I'd use the <ref name=XXX>Author ''Title'' p. #</ref> system (with full cites in the References section) I used there. But this article doesn't use that at all, so it'd be rude to switch over. Thus, per
Template:Harvnb or Template:Sfn, they are clearly the most common style used here, so unless everyone panders to me (which I do not expect, let me make it clear), we need to stick with one of the prevailing styles already in use. Ealdgyth - Talk
22:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The Template:Sfn makes it the easiest to re-use content across articles, so I would recommend it for this one. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone else going to weigh in? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't have a strong opinion. I usually use sfn as it is small and is easily generated on Yadkard. I use it when taking notes on my Evernotes. Then it is easy to retrieve, but there must be a dozen similar systems used by others. --Joel Mc (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Standard euphemism"

This sentence "The "

WP:PRESERVE) as much information as I can, I've not rewritten the information. Please do NOT restore sources that have failed verification. It just makes more work for others. Ealdgyth - Talk
20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Notes vs. citations

It appears that there are some cases where notes are being formatted as citations, like #327 in the Citations section in this version (current version when I wrote this).

I am happy to change them to the notes format, but thought I'd check here first to see if there is a reason why some notes are appearing in the citation section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Because I haven't yet verified the information in the citation - I'm still waiting on a few books to come in through ILL. Some of them are just quotes from the sources, rather than true explanatory notes - current ref #79 is just a long quote, but I haven't gotten my hands on the book yet so ... I've left the verifying quote in for now. And that's why there are still some books with full bibliographic information in the citations - haven't gotten those books in yet, so its easier for me to keep track that I need to keep working to track them down. Any references that I can't verify, I'll have to hunt up new references for them. It's still very much a work in progress as we go through. This is where we were when I started cleaning on the citations. HOpefully, we'll be able to verify most of the uncited stuff with current sources... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, Yep, I wasn't referring to the ones that are citations with quotes, like #79, I meant the ones that appear to be just notes, like #327.
What I am getting from what you are saying is that you're working on the citations in general - and it sounds as if it's better if no one else gets in the mix right now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to warn folks off... but yeah, it's not exactly easy to coordinate with others to clean up those last niggling ones that haven't been converted. The main problem children are #233, #327 (if you happen to read Slovenian .... feel free to tackle this one), #341, #408 (I have qualms about this work - it appears self-published from the little I can see, and I'm afraid it might be not so reliable). #400 appears to be a Russian book just badly formatted, but I've just ignored it up until now as I worked on the bigger issues. If you happen to speak any of the non-English languages that have sources here, it'd be wonderful if you could verify that the sources are verifying the information.... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha. No, I don't speak Slovenian or Russian. I totally understand where you're coming from.
Let me know if there's another way I can help.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A concern...

With this edit, the edit summary was "I put the chapter number, as I donated the book to a Holocaust center." - does this mean that the information it is sourcing (which is still unclear what exactly it is) was not actually put in from reading the work to make sure what the article is now saying is supported by the source being cited? Forgive me, but I have difficulties with information being added from memory if someone does not have the source in front of them. This is a problem, as it can very easily mean the information is not actually correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

copy rights. Information from memory

1. Thank you so much for reminding not to copy - I should have put quotation.

2. I am not the editor who wrote: In many other genocides, pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy.

I am the one who rearranged the style of the sentences, and added the citation of the chapter of Bauer, in parenthesis. Somebody, I think, use the template.

I did find the article of Bauer online. The sentence, "In many other genocides, pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy" does reflect Bauer's wording in p. 7: "The third element was an ideology that was based not on any pragmatic, economic, political, military, or other consideration, but on what Marxists would call pure ideological superstructure. ... Take any other genocide and you will find similar pragmatic bases, on which of course ideologies were then built as rationalizations. ... There were no such pragmatic elements with the Nazis." End of quotation.

Here the link for the article: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/ghhrcenter/main/Holocaust_and_Genocide_Today-Bauer.pdf

3. I was asked to provide a quotation for "It has been estimated that 250 Jews died under Nazi occupation;[124][full citation needed]" I did state that it is the number written in table at the Auschwitz museum in block 27, that I visited with my husband.

Thank you for your input.Henia Perlman (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

addressing the third point, a museum exhibit is a poor quality source. It is going to be difficult to verify, and is subject to change easily. For the same reason that we avoid using archival sources, we try to avoid using such things as exhibits and other similar sources. I'll reply to the rest when I'm at my actual computer and not on a tablet. But you added more than just that sentence that started "in many other genocides..." you added the sentences preceding it in the paragraph. By putting the Bauer ref at the end, you are saying Bauer is the source for ALL of the paragraph. And the source still is not clear...the citation says it is from a work titled Companion to World War II but there is no Lear idea what that work is. This is why I tried to gently steer you from editing this article, it's going to be difficult for you to learn without getting frustrated. The learning curve demanded here is going to be stiff, since this article is well developed and high profile. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
So ... this is what you added:

Nazism or National Socialism was the driving force behind the Holocaust. (Bauer), and its symbol was the swastika. Nazism mainly combined the elements of racism, with the concept of the Aryan race as the master race, and lebensraum (living space). But at its core was a murderous racial antisemitism, which makes the Holocaust an unprecedented kind of genocide. In many other genocides, pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy. Yehuda Bauer, "Holocaust and Genocide Today" in “A Companion to World War II.” (2013).

I did format the attempt at refs - but at some point your failure to do that properly is going to become disruptive. Carole very nicely explained how to format the refs on your talk page, I urge you to put forth the effort to learn how to do so.
By putting that paragraph in with the (mangled) attempt at the citation to: "Yehuda Bauer, "Holocaust and Genocide Today" in “A Companion to World War II.” (2013)." you are saying that ALL the information starting at "Nazism or National Socialism..." and ending at "...were central to the genocide policy." are sourced to this incomplete citation to Bauer. There are a number of problems with this edit
  • The very first sentence is ...."Nazism or National Socialism was the driving force behind the Holocaust." This is relatively fine but .... rather useless information.
  • The next bit is not at all clear. It's ungrammatical. "(Bauer), and its symbol was the swastika." Did you mean for this to be a clause of the first sentence? What is the (Bauer) here supposed to mean? And it's totally unneeded in an article on the Holocaust because we don't need to know what the Nazi symbol was to understand the Holocaust. It adds nothing to our knowledge.
  • Next bit isn't too bad: "Nazism mainly combined the elements of racism, with the concept of the Aryan race as the master race, and lebensraum (living space)." but has some formatting issues. We have a
    WP:MOS
    , or Manual of Style that helps us format things - and it says to use italics for foreign words.
  • The next sentence is a BIG problem. It violates a lot of rules. "But at its core was a murderous racial antisemitism, which makes the Holocaust an unprecedented kind of genocide." Whether Nazism was a "murderous racial antisemitism" is much much debated. This is the central core of Goldhagen's thesis and it's been roundly rejected by some Holocaust scholars. We cannot say baldly that Nazism was at its core "a murderous racial antisemitism" because we reflect what the consensus of the scholars is, and they don't have a consensus on this. This is a very important policy and all editors are expected to adhere to it. It is even MORE important on highly visible and contentious articles like this one. Then the last bit of the sentence does the same violation again - "which makes the Holocaust an unprecedented kind of genocide." This is again a contentious point in historical circles. Its so contentious that we have a section in THIS article about whether or not the Holocaust was unique. If we have such a section, we cannot say previously in the article that the Holocaust is an "unprecedented kind of genocide." We just can't. It isn't a consensus of the sources at all, as we demonstrate right here in this article.
  • The last bit isn't a problem, thankfully.
  • But .. there are OTHER issues. As I said above - by placing the (mangled) Bauer citation at the end, you're saying Bauer's article supports ALL of the information in the sentences preceeding it until you run into another citation. So ... Bauer's article needs to support each one of those sentences - and it doesn't. Just searching the online link to the article you gave above, there is not a single mention of "swastika/swastica", "symbol", "lebensraum", or "living space" - so it cannot support the bit about the swastika nor can it support the sentence "Nazism mainly combined the elements of racism, with the concept of the Aryan race as the master race, and lebensraum (living space)." - because it does not mention the lebensraum or living space part so it doesn't support the whole sentence. Nor, on a quick read through, does Bauer seem to support the first sentence, but I may have missed that.
So there are a huge number of problems with your edit, leaving aside the mangling of the templates to format the reference. The whole thing needs to go. And, I'm not trying to be mean here, but I am trying to point out how much needs to be learned before tackling such an article. This edit badly fails
WP:NPOV, and I'm sure some other policies and guildelines. This is why people are urging you to not jump into such a contentious article because things on this article have to be done RIGHT. Ealdgyth - Talk
22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Editing "Ideology and scale" with definition of Nazism
Ealdgyth, thank you so much for taking the time to read and your thoughtful analyse of my edits. I put numbers to keep me focused.
I. I didn’t write: pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy.
II. Ok with museum not being a good source.
I do have a diagram with the numbers of Holocaust victims, by a written source mentioned sometimes in tWikipedia. Is it ok? Will you help insert the diagram?
III. I don’t think that “Nazism or National Socialism was the driving force behind the Holocaust."’ is …rather useless information.”” Books on the Holocaust always include a paragraph/chapter on Nazism, to describe origins of the Holocaust.
I think that
1. a definition of Nazism, a main driving force behind the Holocaust, and the mention of swastika are logic, useful, in a section with its main title “Origins” and the subtitle “Ideology.” That’s what other books do logically when they write “Ideology”. The reader would like to read one or two sentences about that ideology.
2. Swastika should be mentioned, because
Thank you again.Henia Perlman (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read
WP:TPG
and try to follow those best practices when replying to someone's posts - don't start a new section, you can use formatting to reply. I've made this a subsection of the above section, but really it shouldn't be even that, it should just be a reply to my post above. As for the "pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy." - you attached a source to the information, thus you are saying that the source supports that information. But, yes, you just put a source on it. But.... that's the one sentence in that paragraph that isn't an issue. Do you understand all the problems I enumerated above? They are very very very important. Verification and NPOV are the foundation of what makes a good wikipedia article. We must always remember that we are an encyclopedia and we just report what the sources say in the proportions that are in the sources. We can't let our own beliefs of what is true influence our editing - if there is a controvery or disagreement in the sources, we report that, we do not choice which is the "right" side.
III - we aren't a book. We have wikilinks. We link to other articles so we don't have to bloat up an article with information that isn't strictly germaine to the source. This applies to the swastika and long definitions of what Nazism was. Again, we are not a book. We are an encyclopedia. A paper encyclopedia would so something like "see Nazism" where things like symbols (i.e. the swastika) would be covered. We use a wikilink instead to link to that. This is a major difference between writing a book and writing for an encyclopedia. This article is already very long and large. It's about 7,000 to 12,000 words over suggested size for an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Working together to improve article Holocaust

I want to clarify something that I told another editor: My field is Holocaust history and I continue to be interested only in that; I had specialized in: teaching, training teachers, researching and presenting at international conferences.

Lets's work together so Holocaust's article becomes class A article, and also a not controversial article. This request is for everybody and not only for Simon/irondome, because of my lack of wiki technical skills (I am a lost case!). Putting numbers help me to focus:

1. Can you please help insert a diagram with the most updated figures of Holocaust victims. The current table has wrong figures.

2. I have a good map of Europe in the Holocaust, from a relying source, can you please help insert this map?

Thank you. Cheers.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Which table is "wrong"? What source are you using to source these figures? There are four or five tables with death tolls in them - they all show different things and we are trying to show the range of estimates. I'm pretty sure there isn't a scholarly consensus on a set of agreed-on number of victims, so we shouldn't be editing the article as if there was one set of correct figures and all others were not correct. This is again the whole point of
WP:NPOV, which several people have urged you to read and understand. 2. We cannot use copyrighted maps. Period. All our maps must be copyright-free or at least compatible with a free use license. It is highly unlikely that any map you have from a source is going to be of a copyright status that we can use. Please read our policy on images at Wikipedia:Image use policy
Both of these concerns again speak to the need to understand what Wikipedia is. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Henia Perlman
Your background may be the Holocaust, but you are having significant issues with Wikipedia and seem to be reluctant to hear what has been said to you several times by several people. Collaboration and consensus is a key mode of operation, but it seems that you want to make the article the way that you want it, versus how it has evolved with the work of many editors and work by senior editors currently to tidy up citations, content, etc.
The advice to work with other articles first --- or try edits in the sandbox first and get them "article ready" -- seems to not be something that you are interested in. And, I mean no disrespect, but it doesn't seem that you really want to hear advice about how to follow Wikipedia guidelines. There have been a lot of patient people attempting to work with you, but this is getting out of hand.
Going forward, I am going to start posting warning tags on your user page for edits that are not ready to be posted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Simon. Irondome reversed my edit on the number of 38 areas connected with the Holocaust

I am trying to resolve a conflict.

  • 1. I would like Simon to explain
    • a. his reasons to reverse my edit specifying 38 areas and not 20, in section “Ideology and scale”, based on a reliable source and good faith. I asked and he didn’t answer.
    • b. the use of “rollback” for article the Holocaust.

I am not engaged in “vandalism”, “disruptive behavior“, editing (or other behavior) deliberately to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose.” My goal is to improve the article “Holocaust” in good faith, by using my 20 years of extensive knowledge of books on the subject, and teaching to non-experts a delicate and controversial subject.

I am trying to help the Holocaust article, a class B article, to become a class A article.

Looking forward for Simon’s answers. Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(
talk
) 01:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Henla:
WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is also worth a read. Encyclopedia articles don't try to cover every last nuance of a given subject, and as Irondome says, they don't reiterate what's covered in more specialized linked articles. Acroterion (talk)
01:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Reiterate what's covered in Holocaust article
1. The reader/student does not like sometimes to read links with long article, and it is helpful to summarize in one or two sentences the definition of Nazism - frankly, it is the long paragraph on Volk that could be shortened and have a link.
2. Simon/Irondome reversed my editing in the section: WWII.
The current version:
Germany's invasion of Poland increased the urgency of the "Jewish Question". Poland was home to about three million Jews (nearly nine percent of the Polish population) in centuries-old communities, two-thirds of whom fell under Nazi control with Poland's capitulation.
My proposal:
Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, started World War II. Poland was home to about three million Jews (nearly nine percent of the Polish population) in centuries-old communities, two-thirds of whom fell under Nazi control with Poland's capitulation.
“increased the urgency of the "Jewish Question" - this sentence should be taken off, as the "Jewish Question" is not mentioned previously in the article, and I think it started to be used at the Wannsee conference – thus, there is maybe an issue of anachronism.
What do you think?
3. I am still waiting for Simon/Irondome to explain why he reversed my editing, with reliable reference, describing 38 areas in "scale of Holocaust" - the current version mentions only 20 territories.
Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The
Theodore Herzl wrote his seminal work using the phrase in it's title.[1]. You will note the quote marks around it also, signifying it as a peculiarity. Again we are back to Swastika
I fear. Do not cherry pick please. Read things in their entirety. However, we can discuss it's presence further and call on other colleagues for consensus as to its incorporation or removal.
With regard to 3. I have explained several times that the edit was sub par in use of citation format and had not been discussed. Frankly your editing last night was arguably borderline disruptive and was irritating colleagues. In order to head off a possible unpleasant incident I chose to make a clean sweep and hold out my hand to assist you. Please note Henia, that this will be the third time I have explained my actions and motivations. I would sincerely ask you to listen more, internalise, and not repeat the same questions when they have been answered. This internet method of communication does not always lend well to clear understanding however, so I will be generous in my interpretations. Now it is a beer and bed for me. Good night Henia. Simon.
talk
) 02:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Inserting

References

  1. ^ Theodor Herzl (1896). Der Judenstaat: Versuch einer modernen Lösung der Judenfrage (in German). M. Breitenstein's Verlags-Buchhandlung. Retrieved 2008-03-25.

so that the citation does not fall to the bottom of this page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

38 areas of Holocaust

I am trying to read the article as if one of my students were reading it. And my students didn’t understand it. Sorry that people are getting upset - that's not my goal. No ultimatum. I still don't understand: "I have explained several times that the edit was sub par in use of citation format and had not been discussed." What is “sub par”? Will I have to discuss every edit I make with a reliable quotation? An editor told me that I have just to provide a reliable quotation.

I won't be able to understand the technical aspect of Wiki - I have been trying very hard, but I am too slow. The issue: is it more important to improve the article or to keep arguing about my technical skills?

" I chose to make a clean sweep and hold out my hand to assist you": ok, if you and all the others want to improve the article:

  • 1. can you please help insert a diagram with the most updated figures of Holocaust victims. The current table has wrong figures.
  • 2. If I provide you with the link for a map, can you please help insert a map of Europe during the Holocaust?
  • 3. Can you do something about this long section about volkish? I still don’t get it.
  • 4. Can you write history of the Holocaust in a chronological order, as per historical accepted standards?

The history of the persecution of other groups should be presented in the chronological order of the article, and not as a separate section.

Thank you. Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the organization of the article is that it's a compromise between having the article be exclusively on the Jewish genocide versus having the other victims be in this article. By making the main section chronology deal mainly with the Jewish genocide, it makes it clear that the Jewish aspects were the largest part of the what is generally considered the Holocaust. It is very very unlikely that this will change as we are, again, writing an encyclopedia, not a history of the Holocaust. Such a long-standing consensus is very unlikely to be overturned, and I would imagine trying to change it would be very very frustrating. As for the volkish section, it's not very long and, frankly, I understand it fine. It may need some work later, but ... there is no point in rearranging stuff while so much of the article and content is not verified. The other two are addressed below. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a section on the Handicapped

I just want to let you know that I added a section on the handicapped, since they are mentioned without a section of their own. Please feel free to discuss or add on the section. Thanks.Henia Perlman (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There is actually a section already in the article - "Disabled and mentally ill" and it is sourced, unlike the ungrammatical section and unsourced section you just added. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Map of Europe

Ealdgyth wrote: It is highly unlikely that any map you have from a source is going to be of a copyright status that we can use.

I am slow, but I am reading Wiki material. You should assume that I am sincerely trying to learn, and my proposed map has no copyright issues at all.

I was all the time told to provide/add material based on reliable sources. And I did read about copyright issues.

Why should there be a double standard with me? (which reminds me Dershowitz's statement about attacks against Israel)

So, if the map has no copyright issues, I understand that you will use it.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you think there are no other Jews than you editing and watching this article Henia? As of this moment? As a Jew I find that somewhat rude. Your actions Henia, are being judged by one simple criteria. It is critical you read this link Henia.
talk
) 22:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course it will be used if it has no copyright issues. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Without any question. We want you to succeed and stay Henia. It is a steep learning curve but you are capable of positive contributions. Just ask. How to insert a citation, how to link articles, how to discuss if a book is good to be used..etc. Just ask. The easy things first. Simon.
talk
) 00:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Map of Europe

Robby, Simon and Carole: Thank you for your kind word and encouragement.

1. Here link to relevant map in Wikipedia with “no copyright issues”: European theatre of World War II animation map, 1939–1945 — Red: Western Allies and Soviet Union after 1941; Green: Soviet Union before 1941; Blue: Axis Powers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Can you please help inserting it, if you find it appropriate? Thank you.

2. “It has been estimated that 250 Jews died under Nazi occupation;[123][full citation needed] Source: Yad Vashem.

Please, consider deleting sentence with too large number of 2,250 Jewish victims.[124]“, as I think that YV may be more reliable with that number than author Gaon – I may also be wrong.

Thank you for your encouragements. Have all a great day!Henia Perlman (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what File:Second world war europe animation small.gif adds to this article though? It doesn't mention or show anything specifically Holocaust-related, so I'm not seeing the relevance to this article. If readers want to see more details on the territorial gains and losses during the war, they can go to the World War II article for that information. 2. If Gaon is normally a reliable source, then the only reason we should remove their estimate is because all the other scholars think Gaon's estimate is wrong. We'd need to see sources for this estimate being discredited. I'm also a bit confused, because you added the 2250 number here, so why now is it not a reliable number? And, "It has been estimated that 250 Jews died under Nazi occupation" is sourced to the exhibit display that we are still needing a full citation for, not to Yad Vashem. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
1. So sorry, I deleted the 2,250, before I saw message of Easdgyth. Originally, I didn't put the 2,250 - it was there. I took it out, and then put it back, after I added the 260 in table of Yad Vashem. Aricles in WIKi do mention Yad Vashem as a source (somebody in wiki stated that YV is partisan, but there is, for the moment, no reason to believe that their table, which includes number of Jewish victims in Finland, not mentioned in current table in wiki, is less accurate than Dr. Gaon, who is not an expert in Holocaust (his parents died in the Holocaust)

2. I found out that my Holocaust students did like the wki map, which make sense, because all scholars agree that the Holocaust took place in Europe during World War II, and evolved in that context.

I am ready to argue more on the subject, and seek a consensus from other editors. Meanwhile, I have to have breakfast, but will look for more sources to base the proposed map.

Thank you Ealdgyth for your comments. I do appreciate the time you take to explain me things with patience. Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, click on map to see photos. Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I watched all the way through the animation on File:Second world war europe animation small.gif, and there are no photos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II is NOT a map, it's our article on World War II. Given that you said above that it was an animated map with red/green/blue - I assumed you meant you wanted to insert File:Second world war europe animation small.gif... if that's the case, I cannot understand the comment "Please, click on map to see photos." as the map animation doesn't have photos. We already link to the World War II article right in the very first sentence of this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspect Henia means the specific phases of the animation when she refers to 'photographs' here Ealdgyth. Simon.
    talk
    ) 17:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the number of Jewish people who died in Tunisia, I am looking around... and will keep looking, but the 250 vs. 2,250 might be apples and oranges. It seems that might not be a large number of people that were killed out-right, but it seems there were a couple/several thousand there were many killed in air raids, after having been sent to European concentration camps, or while at the slave labor camps. So, when talking about the number of Jews that died under Nazi Germany, what is the intended population of people?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
1. Location of animated map (orange, green and blue) with some Holocaust photos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Section: Axis attack on the USSR (1941)

Map: European theatre of World War II with “territorial gains .. during the war”/German-occupied/controlled, and some of its photos, is directly connected with the Holocaust:

1. The article itself correctly specified: World War II[edit source] German-occupied Poland Germany's invasion of Poland increased the urgency of the "Jewish Question".

2. In article: Statement, names of title of book mentioned in bibliography of the article: The Holocaust Part of World War II

“Killings took place throughout German-occupied Europe, as well as within Nazi Germany, and across all territories controlled by its allies.[10] Most who survived the journey were systematically killed in gas chambers. … This continued until the end of World War II in Europe in April–May 1945. “Martin Gilbert estimates a total of more than 220,000 of the 700,000 Romani in Europe.”

Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe during the Second World War. Henry Holt and Company: New York, 1985

Bergen, Doris (2009). The Holocaust: A Concise History (Second, revised ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

ISBN 978-0-7425-5714-7
. Bergen connects Holocaust with Nazi gained territory (my book is in one of my 50 boxes)

3. All historians agree that “No war, no Holocaust” (Weinberg and Bergen), and that “territorial gains… during the war” by Nazi Germany brought to their hands more Jews to deal, and “increased the urgency of the "Jewish Question".

Nazi regime tried to deal with the Jewish question in every gained “territory …during the war”, when they could – Finland, not listed in the current table of Jewish victims, had 7 Jewish victims – Denmark, 116, because the Jews of Denmark were ferried to neutral Sweden, before Hitler’s Germany could implement mass deportations as they did in other places.

Carole: The names of 260 Jewish victims in Nazi occupied French Tunisia, killed with Vichy collaboration, are listed in the Book of Names compiled by Yad Vashem. List does not count Jews killed in air raids, as it does not do that for other countries.

Thank you both for your comments.Henia Perlman (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Your deployment of sources and focus of specific points is improving rapidly. Please add page numbers wherever possible. Simon.
talk
) 17:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If only I knew what it was that was wanted to be added. I gather we need to add a line to the table for Finland's deaths and for Denmark's. We can get to that in a while - because quite honestly we're going to have to revisit the issue of the tables because I'm not sure why we have the table giving Dawidowicz's outdated numbers and we should be giving a range of estimates in the tables rather than a single figure. Ideally, we wouldn't NEED footnotes in the tables because all the numbers would be given in the text with estimates, along with sources, so we wouldn't have to source the tables. Again - please say what you want to add. I do appreciate the sources being brought forward, but it isn't clear to me, at least, what (beyond the numbers for the tables) is wanted to change. I've pointed out before that this article is incredibly bloated and way over
WP:ARTICLESIZE
, so we really should be focusing on streamlining once I've finished checking all the sources. I can already see a few spots where we go into too much detail (the incredible detail on Karski/Vrba's various movements after escaping Auschwitz is standing out in this respect), but ... again... we need to take things slow.
If there is a source for the Finland and Denmark deaths, it would be helpful to give that so that the information might be added. I do have an issue with the Yad Vashem Book of Names being used as a source for deaths, as they themselves say (in the FAQ here) "The Database presents, side by side, personal records each based on independent sources of information. It is therefore possible that an individual name appears multiple times in as many different sources." and ... it would be considered a
WP:Primary Source
, which would need a historian to interpret the information within to determine the number of victims for a specific area. Yad Vashem's secondary works, such as the articles on the Holocaust in the various countries/regions, are considered secondary sources and thus are fine to use (as, indeed, we do use them in this article).
The war definitely facilitated the Holocaust, but it did not cause it. There is some nuance there with the various historians. I cannot recall ever reading any historian say that the cause of the Holocaust was the war. The war helped make it happen, but it's not an immediate cause so, again, we don't need to cover information that is in the World War II article here unless it has a direct bearing on the Holocaust itself.
On the map, I'm now again confused. You said above "Here link to relevant map in Wikipedia with “no copyright issues”: European theatre of World War II animation map, 1939–1945 — Red: Western Allies and Soviet Union after 1941; Green: Soviet Union before 1941; Blue: Axis Powers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II " Now, you're saying "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Section: Axis attack on the USSR (1941) Map: European theatre of World War II with “territorial gains .. during the war”/German-occupied/controlled, and some of its photos, is directly connected with the Holocaust:" ... in that section there is only one map.... and two photos. (see them at the right). Those two photos do not depict events from the Holocaust. They aren't really relevant in this article. I am repeating myself here, but we focus on the article topic in Wikipedia. We provide links to other articles. This is pretty much how Wikipedia works, and it isn't going to change, especially here on this article where we have a multitude of relevant photos to chose from. We shouldn't be adding photos of German soldiers throwing grenades (unless they were throwing grenades at Holocaust victims, which they aren't in this photo), nor should we be showing citizens of Leningrad after being bombed out of their homes during the Siege of Leningrad. Please, can we try to understand that? The whole focus on the topic of hte article thing? Because I've a number of times to explain it and it's obviously not getting through. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Map of Europe

Simon, sorry, I missed your post. Your deployment of sources and focus of specific points is improving rapidly. Please add page numbers wherever possible. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to learn as much as possible, reading wiki guidelines, and following your advices. Unfortunately, box number 10 didn't have my Holocaust book.

I read that: "Perpetuation of distortions, or failure to debunk them, ill seriously hinders the ability of educators and students to derive meaningful lessons from study of the Holocaust." - Florida Holocaust Center

Thank you for your kind words. Henia Perlman (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Map of Europe

Sorry, Ea. I also missed your post. Thank you for your lengthy and helpful information. I will try to learn faster.

1. Please, can you consider deleting Dawidowicz's table and the other one with “outdated numbers,” as the table of Yad Vashem is more accurate. You can write to them, and they will email it to you.

2. I completely agree that the article is too long.

3. I am also checking if the source is saying what the text is saying; it is difficult as I don’t have all my books. But I did find that there is a citation that don’t correspond to content of text in the article.

4. The volkish section is too long. I have already mentioned that section ;-)

5. You went to wrong map; it has no name of countries. Still, because of your comments, I found another map (with no animation), connected to topic of the article, and I hope you won’t object:

“Category:Maps of Europe under Nazi occupation File:Europe under Nazi domination.png in rectangle inside map: Europe at the height of German expansion, 1941-1942

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_under_Nazi_domination.png

6. Sorry, I should have written “table” like the one by Dawidowicz, and not mention the Book of Names.

Thank you again for your comments and patience - I sincerely appreciate both! Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Right now, I'm not trying to do much editing of the article (beyond fixing quotations and very occasionally culling a quote) except to make sure we're not too closely paraphrasing things. I'm still working through a huge pile of books I've gotten from the library - right now I have 70 some books out from the library. Eventually, I'll run out of books to check and then we can work on the content. But, one thing that makes editing Wikipedia hard is that it's a collaborative work, so I'm trying not to run roughshod over the work of the previous editors. It's only polite to work with what we've got and not just wipe the article out without input from others. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Jews of Vichy Tunisia

Thanks, Henia Perlman for the clarification. So far, I cannot find a source for 250 or 260 people killed... or counts for the Book of Names compiled by Yad Vashem.

But, I found: "More than 2,500 Tunisian Jews died in a network of SS slave labor camps before the Germans withdrew" in this article. Which is about the number that you removed with this edit that had been in the article. I can find other sources that say a couple of thousand, but I'm not finding the lower number.

Do you know why there would be a difference?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I've circled back around on this. This page says that about 2,575 Jews from Tunisia died during German occupation, but most of those died during air raids.
Since it's hard to find a source for the 250/260 numbers - and the one in the article is an incomplete source, what about a note: {{efn|About 2,500 people died during the German occupation, but most of those died during air raids.{{sfn|Gaon|1995|p=109}}<ref>{{cite book|author=R. Saltman|title=Sacred Humanism without Miracles: Responding to the New Atheists|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5RLHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA44|date=24 April 2012|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-137-01271-5|pages=44–45, 55}}</ref>}}<ref>{{cite book|author=Michael Mewshaw|title=Between Terror and Tourism: An Overland Journey Across North Africa|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FoZaoLV0JXYC&pg=PA171|year=2010|publisher=Counterpoint|isbn=978-1-58243-434-6|page=171}}</ref>
That way people that read the several thousand number - which seems to be more prevalent have context? Just a thought.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I put numbers to remain focus :-)

1. I allowed myself to write "Vichy-Tunisia" as it is the term used by the Tunisian historical archives, and as inference of Poznanski, who wrote: Vichy-Metropolitaine (mainland Vichy) in her book. And, besides, thousands of Jews in the French protectorate of Tunisia were French citizen and about 5,000 were Italians. All Jews of Algeria were French citizens, and still Yad Vashem and others write: Algerian Jews. An American Jew has American citizenship.

Carole, thank you so much for going into the trouble! 1. 260 victims – Yad Vahem has a table showing more accurate numbers than the current table in wiki, and shows 260. Yad Vashem is trying to reach the number 6 million, and I feel that they want to provide accurate number, to prevent deniers ..

2. Your proposition: “About 2,500 people died during the German occupation, but most of those died during air raids.” I still feel very uncomfortable with this high number. What do you think: “Between 260 and 600 Jews died in slave labor camps run by SS, during air raids, and less than 10 in death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland.” (I saw that somewhere in the table of Yad Vashem. Maybe, Karlsfeld mentions that. I really don't think that the numbers are crucial, when we compare with the Jews of Nazi Poland. And I won't pursue that issue of numbers.

3. Because one editor objected to my map proposal, I found a better map, and I hope to have a consensus: “Category:Maps of Europe under Nazi occupation File:Europe under Nazi domination.png in rectangle inside map: Europe at the height of German expansion, 1941-1942 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_under_Nazi_domination.png

Carole or Simon, who offered his help, can you please insert it? Thank you.

4. I am going over Holocaust article, because I would like Wikipedia to present correct knowledge and it is very difficult with politicized Holocaust education (the same Holocaust institution presents 2 or 3 definitions of Holocaust, confusing my students ;-) .

I am doing a lot of reading; I just read that in The Holocaust and World War II: In History and In Memory, edited by Nancy E. Rupprecht, Wendy Koenig:

“One of the first demand on Holocaust education must be that it tells the truth about the facts … A glance into the material offered for Holocaust education on the Web still leaves much to be desired … University lecturers, regretfully, also occasionally contribute to this confusion of minds with scholarly works. ….

This makes, however, these aspects of Holocaust education an easy target for deniers. … much material of dubious value has flooded the market … Let’s hope that within the course of time all dubious material will be eliminated and only teaching aids that meet the requirements that the seriousness of the subject demands will remain on the market."

Carole, thank you again!Henia Perlman (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

2. Can we see sources for this information you're wanting to add? We go by sources, not by what we as editors believe.
3. The map is nice, but we already have this map in the article - which not only shows the extent of the Nazi conquests but also shows the major camps and extermination camps. So I don't see the need for a map that just shows the conquests without showing anything that is related to the Holocaust. It's not that the map isn't nice - it's that it doesn't show anything at all directly related to the Holocaust. If we didn't already have a map showing the extent of the conquests along with important Holocaust sites, then, the suggested map might be useful. It's redundant to the current map (plus we also have the second map I've shown.)
4. I'm not sure what the point of bringing up Holocaust denial is here. I'm hoping to.... once we've verified the information in the article, to expand the section on holocaust denial, as it's woefully covered right now. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the count of 250/260 vs a couple of thousand, you all are the experts on the Holocaust. I was just trying to sort out the discrepancy and better understand it now. Whatever you all thing is fine with me - whether to have a note or not. If all of the other numbers do not include air raid numbers, it's probably not needed. I think I got caught up in the difference in the numbers.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Jews of Vichy Tunisia. Editing the article

Sorry Carole, but I will stick with the numbers of Yad Vashem; here my new proposal:

“260 Jews died in slave labor camps run by SS, inclusive of less than 10 in death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland."

Cheers! Henia Perlman (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC) 

Ealdgyth - thank you for your hard work!
Oh, just saw this. If that works for others, it works for me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Working together on Holocaust article

Ealdgyth cannot do it all alone. I am also checking citations; I did find some issues. Please, Ealdgyth, start to read Leni Yahil’s book. “It's only polite to work with what we've got and not just wipe the article out without input from others.” I agree, but we can work with what we’ve got, and still edit the article.

As an experienced former Holocaust educator, who can understand how students/public can read the current article (my former students found it hard to follow), I am suggesting that editing can be done, with reliable source and consensus, while Ealdgyth fixes quotations. One person cannot do it all.

We should “* Contextualize the history: Events of the Holocaust should be placed in historical context…Similarly, the Holocaust should be studied within its contemporaneous context … providing a greater understanding of history of the Holocaust.

  • Strive for precision of language: Because of the complexity of the history, there is a temptation … to distort the facts…Avoid this…Words … often have multiple meanings. … generalizations…tend to … distort historical reality.” ushmm

Michael Marrus in The Holocaust in History, quotes the Israeli novelist A. B. Yehoshua: “… further study will require that, generally accepted views, which, it seemed, were firmly and solidly established, be abandoned.”

Holocaust history is very politicized. We shouldn’t "give credence to Holocaust deniers," and we should "avoid any perpetuation of the appearances of distortion of the facts of the Holocaust."

“an unintended symbiotic relationship of sorts” between the representation of the Holocaust in the public sphere (to which Holocaust education largely contributes) and which he calls “the myth of the Holocaust,” and Holocaust denial.

p. 224: One of the first demand on Holocaust education must be that it tells the truth about the facts … A glance into the material offered for Holocaust education on the Web still leaves much to be desired … University lecturers, regretfully, also occasionally contribute to this confusion of minds with scholarly works.

P. 25. This makes, however, these aspects of Holocaust education an easy target for deniers. … much material of dubious value has flooded the market … Let’s hope that within the course of time all dubious material will be eliminated and only teaching aids that meet the requirements that the seriousness of the subject demands will remain on the market.”

Let's all think about the above, when we edit.

Have all a good day!Henia Perlman (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia, don't take this wrong, but is English your first language? And were you teaching in English or some other language? I ask because I'm finding that you're not necessarily understanding what I'm saying and this is obviously leading to some confusion. Above, with the maps, it appears you think that the two maps I listed were what I though YOU wanted to put in. However, those two maps are the ones already in the article, I was merely putting them on this page so others could see that they cover the Holocaust details much more than the map you're proposing. Also - do you think this article is supposed to give lots of context on World War II? Or are you thinking this article is supposed to be a substitute for a history class on the Holocaust? Because either of those ideas isn't what Wikipedia is. We aren't a classroom and we don't aim to write history textbooks. What is important for a textbook isn't always important for an encyclopedia article. We aren't a substitute for the various Holocaust educational websites and groups, we are an encyclopedia. I keep reapeating this, and it's getting a bit old to be the only one carrying the point on this, but its important to remember what Wikipedia is when we are working on articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, and didn't say it that way, but I have commented about the intention of the edits that are not in synch with Wikipedia guidelines and mode of delivering content. Much of this was said on the user talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Henia, I removed the animated map because it's in German, it's essentially a duplicate of the subsequent map, and it is an overuse of images in the article. I know that you like adding images, but they should chosen thoughtfully for pertinence. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. There is also something about not using images that duplicate information.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Henia, the improperly cited / uncited content added to the top of the World War II section in this edit has also been deleted. Since proper citing content has been mentioned a number of times in the edit summary, this talk page, and your talk page, I am sorry but I added a level 2 warning on your talk page. The need for the quote is also questionable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, {{U|Henia Perlman|Henia]], I agree that we don't need this quote. Without the war, their would have been no opportunity for the perpetration of the Holocaust is somewhat
talk
) 20:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

World War II - removed info

I have moved this from my user talk page:

Holocaust Article - Section WWII

Good morning Carole,

I just saw today your message - I am so slow with technology (I don't know how to use a cell phone) !

You wrote: "I have no idea what you mean about me removing citation information."

Carole, I put 2 sentences, below “WWII”, which nobody removed, explaining correct link between WWII, a context, and Holocaust. Then, I found the citation by Doris Bergen, that I thought it was good to add as per wiki regulations. 

I added Bergen’s citation, without using template, as I was not sure how to do it (sometimes, I could figure it out!).

Then, Carole, you removed my 2 sentences about link between Holocaust and WWII and the citation, because I didn’t put them in template.

I would have appreciated it if you would have kept the 2 sentences and put the citation in correct template.

I still think that the my addition with reliable source is important. Can you please, reconsider and add them back with using template for citation. I am now reading Longerich who also noticed the relationship between WWII and Holocaust.

I am really really trying hard to learn, improve, and listen to suggestions. My goal is to improve wiki with collaboration so wiki is good for everybody!

I have been considered very good at presenting the Holocaust, in an encyclopedic manner, so the public (I gave lectures) and students could understand the: what, who, where, why and when (I add the how ;-)

Thank you Carole for helping me being better!Henia Perlman (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman,
The information and files that you had added, that I deleted from this edit was:
The Holocaust took place during World War II, and is connected with the progression of the war. Doris Bergen, in page 172 of her book, “War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust”, states: “… without war and German victories there would have been no genocide of the European Jews. The vast majority of Jews murdered by Nazi Germans – about 95% - came from outside of Germany. Without military conquests the perpetrators would never have got those victims in their hands.”
Irondome
is your mentor, and as a contributor to The Holocaust article can weigh-in on whether this is appropriate for the article:
"The Holocaust took place during World War II, and is connected with the progression of the war. Historian Doris Bergen states, "… without war and German victories there would have been no genocide of the European Jews. The vast majority of Jews murdered by Nazi Germans – about 95% - came from outside of Germany. Without military conquests the perpetrators would never have got those victims in their hands.”
As a exercise in formatting citations, in the meantime, here's an example based upon your information:
<ref>{{cite book|author=Doris Bergen |title=War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust |year= | location= |publisher= |isbn= |page=172}}</ref>
What is still needed is the year, publisher, and isbn. Do you have that, if this is a helpful addition? I like to add location if I have it, but it's not needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Bergen is used as a source in this article - so it would be good if the same edition is being used for this (IF it gets added back), the format of the citation was actually what is being used in the article. Learning to adapt to varying citation formats is a good thing for an editor. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ealdgyth. The other cited content from Bergen is also a quote. I personally wouldn't add another quote from the same author, and I see that you're working to condense the content of the article.
If the quote is used, though, the format would be {{sfn|Bergen|2009|pp=172}}, using {{sfn}} for bibliography items. I looked it up, and the quote comes from page 172 of that edition. So, now, the only question is: is it needed / helpful?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need the quote or the informaiton. Too much of this article is already quotes rather than paraphrasing. But I'm not going to go against a consensus of other editors either. I just think it's not really relevant. It could easily be summarized somewhere in the "causes" section as "Without the war, the conditions for the Holocaust would not have happened." Heck, it may already be there - there's almost 21,000 words in this monster. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it does not appear to me to be needed. For the most part, it's stating the obvious. Regarding the statistic that 95% of the murdered Jews came from countries other than Germany is an interesting point, but isn't it clear that if Germany had not occupied the other countries then the people would not have been murdered? Basically a rhetorical question, I will agree with consensus as well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes,
talk
) 20:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Systematically premeditated and the largest genoside in history

The Holocaust is unique in its extent, being ideologically motivated, mostly predetermined, planned out, and unique for its vast implementation in many different countries and with the participation of many different ethnicities and religions.

But the three terms: Systematically murdered, in the deadliest genocide in history, based on ideology, all well sourced, come only way later after the opening paragraph.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is undergoing a large and much needed work of double checking references, cutting bloat, and making sure all important areas are covered. The lead is generally the last area that needs to be worked on, since it depends on the contents of the body of the article. It makes little sense to worry over the lead (which does say those things, mostly) before the main article is cleaned up. Its entirely too subject to change at this point. (And none of those things are as clear-cut as are being made out - various other genocides can claim deadliest - since if you include the Native Americans after Columbus, you're talking 10s of millions of deaths). Nor is "predetermined" well supported by Holocaust scholars - most now would say that the genocide was not set in stone until after the invasion of the Soviet Union. And the genocide in the Ukraine in the 1930s was also based on ideology - just a different, non-racial one. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead in Holocaust article. Uniqueness

Hi, 1. I completely agree with Ealdgyth that "The lead is generally the last area that needs to be worked on, since it depends on the contents of the body of the article."

2. Pashute, I strongly suggest that your read Rethinking the Holocaust and the articles by Yehuda Bauer (just google his name): he explained very clearly why he does not thing that the Holocaust is not unique, but is unprecedented. I respect Bauer a lot for his thoughtful analysis and comparing genocides. I always end my Holocaust class discussing the Native Americans after Columbus.

3. Also Bauer states that the Holocaust didn't have to happen.

It's so interesting to discuss the Holocaust, because it is such a complex subject. I have taught it and research it for almost 20 years, and I know that I don't know and understand everything.

Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Simon: Henia is following your instructions

Following your instructions, I have not edited articles, but I did discuss some issues, and presented very politely, suggestions in the "Talk" of the article.

Thank you again for being my mentor.

Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Somebody is editing the Holocaust article: Uniqueness and Wannsee

Sorry InternetArchiveBot, but I have no technology skills - at all!

I don't know how to see alerts when somebody is editing. So, only today I noticed important modifications. I will mention the most important ones in the too long section on the "Wannsee Conference."

1. WIKI ARTICLE: “The conference's initial purpose was to discuss plans for a comprehensive solution to the "Jewish question in Europe." Heydrich was put in overall charge of "final solution" throughout Europe.[citation needed] “

KERSHAW more accurately wrote: “Heydrich opened the meeting by recapitulating that Goring had given him responsibility … for preparing the ‘final solution of the European Jewish question.’

THE PROTOCOL: “At the beginning of the discussion Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, reported that the Reich Marshal had appointed him delegate for the preparations for the final solution of the Jewish question in Europe and pointed out that this discussion had been called for the purpose of clarifying fundamental questions.”

2. PROTOCOL: The Reichsfuhrer-SS and the Chief of the German Police (Chief of the Security Police and the SD) was entrusted with the official central handling of the final solution of the Jewish question without regard to geographic borders.”

“without regard to geographic borders.” LONGERICH quoted in this section, like many other scholars wrote: The “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” was the Nazi code name for the elimination of Jews. For the first time in history, the annihilation of a people had become official government policy.” (p. 305-310) (Ealdgyth, please, double check), Longerich does not mention even once the words “the Jewish question in Europe” in his analysis of the Wannsee meeting.

Other sources: “In January 1942 a conference was held in Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, in order to coordinate the implementation of the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”, the codename for the plan to murder all Jews within reach. “ (YV)

On January 20, 1942, 15 high-ranking Nazi Party and German government officials gathered at a villa in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee to discuss and coordinate the implementation of what they called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." (ushmm)

3. WIKI ARTICLE: a final solution that would involve some 11 million Jews living not only in territories then controlled by Germany, but throughout continental Europe, Ireland, Great Britain, French North Africa, and Turkey.[135] = Longerich 2010, p. 307

LONGERICH (Ealdgyth, please, double check): “This list {in a statistical addendum to the minutes} not only includes Jews living in areas under German control , but also those of Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Turkey. Included in the 700,000 Jews for unoccupied France are those of the North African colonies". p. 307

There are also issues with citations in the definition, and I don't have all the books (Ealdgyth, please check), and other important issues. I am sure that all editors want to see a neutral article.

Regards. Henia Perlman (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

again, this is an overview article. The details of who gave Heydrich authority, how wide that authority was, and an exact listing of how many Jews were included in unoccupied France are all details that belong in the article on the conference itself, not in an overview article on the entire Holocaust.
WP:SUMMARY is our guiding principle here. I just spent three days carefully culling out unneeded details from this article. I'm sure I haven't gotten the mix just right, we're still missing some subjects that need coverage - Holocaust denial, memorials, more on historiography, Other things aren't weighed right - too much of the death camps coverage is on Auschwitz, we need a bit more on other occupied countries, the mass killings in Russia are skimped, the reaction after the war needs more, etc. but the solution isn't to add more detail to sections on single events. As for the definition - we need to cover ALL the views of scholars. This means that of necessity we will cover definitons that we as people may not agree with. We can't let our own opinions on the various controversies influence what the Wikipedia article says. Ideally, no one will ever know what a given editors opinion is on any controversy. Ealdgyth - Talk
12:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we may also have an issue with understanding how we include information. We do not generally just string together quotes from various sources. Instead we paraphrase and summarize sources. So it isn't inaccurate to summarize point 1 as "Heydrich was granted authority..." when the source says that Goring gave Heydrich authority...in fact, we are supposed to do that. If we get too close to the language of the source, it's a bad thing called "close paraphrasing".
I'm also going to have to beg folks' indulgence... my stepdaughter is expecting her first child and we're currently out of town over with her. She's having a lot of contractions, but not quite into full labor, so I've kinda had to stop in mid project here. I'm working from a tablet mostly, so I'm slow...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your comments,
assume good faith
about the people that have contributed to the article. It's insulting to say that the article is not neutral without clear evidence. I am not at all seeing that there is an intention to reflect one side at the expense of another.
For what it's worth, most people don't express their background and it seems that there are quite knowledgeable people working on the article - both from the per perspective of history and Wikipedia guidelines. You don't really know who you are insulting and what their background is.
I think the issue is that you have clear ideas about what you'd like to add to articles, how you want the information presented, and how much detail that you think should be in the articles. Unfortunately, though, your approaches are generally against Wikipedia guidelines regarding brevity, presenting multiple prevailing opinions, summarizing content, not repeating information that is in related sub-articles, etc.
From what I can tell, Ealdgyth, has done an excellent job condensing and reviewing the article, summarizing the content, being historically relevant, seeking brevity and avoiding overuse of quotations, and following Wikipedia guidelines, like ensuring that content is properly cited with reliable sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. Editing with collaboration

Hi all,

1. I apologize: I should have said that 1000s of my students and members of the general public have told me that the Holocaust article in wiki is not neutral and not well written - we are writing for the regular person. Now, that I am retired, but old with issues connected to memory, I decided to use my expertise to try improving the article, with input.

2. I have to express my background, and I have to respectfully ask some editors not to bite, bully, and threaten a newcomer who is a person who is a bit slow. I do not have anymore a mentor, because, as I am, I learned better from many persons. I am requesting to be kindly patient with me, and to explain in plain, and not wiki language, where I erred, and how to correct.

3. My issue: to present a brief article, “presenting multiple prevailing opinions, summarizing content …being historically relevant,” and following Wikipedia guidelines with your help and the best of my ability.

4. I appreciate the hard work that one person, Ealdgyth, has been doing, but let’s not forget the word “collaboration.”

I am thankful to the persons who had appreciated my additions/modifications and even took the time to put my quotation in the right template thinking that what is important is the content.

Warm regards. Have a wonderful week-end!Henia Perlman (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia, there has been so much discussion about these items before. In theory the points that you make are good points. I would say that we all want an article that has a neutral point of view -- which in Wikipedia world means that prevailing views are presented, some of which may be against our personal opinions. When it gets to actual edits there have been consistent issues that have been mentioned many times, but I am happy to summarize in the "Reminders" section of your talk page if you'd like. Please let me know if this would be helpful.
The key point that I would like to address is collaboration. On an article with visibility such as this one, I think it's very safe to say that there is implied collaboration when so many edits have been made to an article... and if no one is raising an issue. Which to me is implied collaboration. I have been watching the nature of the changes and have not had concerns for the changes that I have read.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Explanation for my modification of section Wannsee Conference

I am welcoming your input, comments, and corrections of English, to make it a better section. Thank you.

I decided to post a modification, after I read Carole’s message: there is implied collaboration when so many edits have been made to an article... and if no one is raising an issue. Which to me is implied collaboration.” I decided to post a modification today, a modification I had prepared sometime ago, after I took “French North Africa” from the Wannsee section, and Carole put it back. Carole’s move challenged me to double check the source, as Ealdgyth correctly insists on doing, Longuerich’s book, p. 307.

Here below my reasons for the modification:

1. Longuerich’s book, p. 307: “This list {in a statistical addendum to the minutes} not only includes Jews living in areas under German control , but also those of Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Turkey. Included in the 700,000 Jews for unoccupied France are those of the North African colonies." So the Jews of French North Africa were not included in the 11 million, as implied in the current version. It seems to me that it was important to correctly present Longerich's writing.I condensed, as the reader can go to the main article.

In our article: “that would involve some 11 million Jews living not only in territories controlled by Germany, but throughout continental Europe, Ireland, Great Britain, French North Africa, and Turkey.” It seems to me that this sentence is quite similar to: “which would embrace as many as 11 million Jews across Europe (stretching, outside German current territorial control, as far as Britain and Ireland, …, Turkey, and French north African colonies)” – Kershaw, in The Holocaust, ed. Niewyk, p. 35.

2. Reliable sources show that the definition of the FS as mentioned at Wannsee, in my modification, is the prevailing view:

In January 1942 a conference was held in Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, in order to coordinate the implementation of the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”, the code name for the plan to murder all Jews within reach. http://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about/final-solution-beginning

“The Wannsee Conference was held near Berlin on January 20, 1942. High- ranking German officials convened to deliberate the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”, the code name for the elimination of Jews. For the first time in history, the annihilation of a people had become official government policy.” Peter, Longerich. House of the Wannsee Conference, The Wannsee Conference. House of the Wannsee Conference, Berlin 2012.

“… the Final Solution as it is now understood—the systematic attempt to murder every last Jew within the German grasp. Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939 – March 1942.

3 "Heydrich also made it clear what was understood by the phrase 'Final Solution': the Jews were to be annihilated by a combination of forced labour and mass murder."[156] I took it out to shorten the article, and because Longerich’s thesis is that the FS started in the fall of 939, and there was a radicalization after 1941. Two years, after he wrote his book, he clearly states in 2012: “The Wannsee Conference was held near Berlin on January 20, 1942. High- ranking German officials convened to deliberate the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”, the code name for the elimination of Jews. For the first time in history, the annihilation of a people had become official government policy.” Peter, Longerich. House of the Wannsee Conference, The Wannsee Conference. House of the Wannsee Conference, Berlin 2012.

The Wannsee protocol did not just list the Jewish communities of Germany or German-occupied territories, but was envisioning the final solution of the Jewish question without regard to geographic borders. - Krauss

So, I thought that it would be good to modify the text so it correctly reflects Longerich's writing, and I condensed it, since one can go to the main article.

Again, I welcome your input, because I maybe wrong, and somebody can bring arguments that I didn't think of.

Thank you. Have a great day.Henia Perlman (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia, you removed a sourced sentence that actually is important, and added a source in French to the first bit, while expanding information that really is redundant. While I appreciate the effort to source something, doing it with a French source is not going to help most readers of this article, who are presumed to want information in English, otherwise they'd be reading the French Wikipedia. Of course, I'm on the road and can't really edit, but I do not find your edit a complete improvement. When I'm home, I'll check the edit against the source. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Broken sentence

I found a broken sentence (introduced here) while reviewing the recent changes: "Another upriding an uprising in the Białystok Ghetto." It's in the "Armed resistance" section. I didn't touch it because the intended change isn't clear to me. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

should be "Another uprising occurred in the ...." sorry about that, thanks for catching it. Since I'm in the car on the way to se the granddaughter, could you kindly fix it? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was quick. :-) Sure. Done! Robby.is.on (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
have you ever driven through Central Illinois? It's flat as a pancake, and very boring.....Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Heh, can't say I've ever set foot on the Americas. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Final Solution

I took out the title of this section as it is part of WWII. Where do you suggest, if needed, to put this title, as there are different views when the FS was implemented?Henia Perlman (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was fine where it was, as it broke up the long section nicely. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, I am ready to listen actively.

1. Can you please explain to me why the “sourced sentence … actually is important”? I read in Wiki, that it is nice to explain to others the reasons for modifications. Somebody changed without explanation.

2. My link is not for the reader to read the article in French, but to see what the Nazi regime considered “Europe”. And I did specify that in the note. I am trying to read the article from the point of view of average readers.

3. “expanding information that really is redundant” – Can you please specify? You may be right.

4. I just saw about the Final Solution: “I thought it was fine where it was, as it broke up the long section nicely.”

I agree that it will good to break the long section, but you are creating a section, as if the FS is not part of WWII. We can think together how to break the long section.

I do really want to listen to your reasons, understand them, and be convinced.

A boy? A girl?Henia Perlman (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the previous editors didn't use a chronological narrative, but a thematic structure.

From my experience with average learners, I found out that they like the chronological structure, as adopted by most historians of the Holocaust and other historical subjects. A chronological narrative is also the national recommendation.

I have no intention of rewriting the article! I am just trying to improve and work with what is there.Henia Perlman (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I do like "Wanessee Conference and Final Solution"!Henia Perlman (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
please stop wiping out my posts. Please. I cannot fix them on a tablet! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry! You wrote that, in the past, it was written: Wannsee conference and the Final Solution, and you wanted to shorten that. I think Wannsee conference and the Final Solution is a good title. I am now leaving the Talk, and let you decide.Henia Perlman (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Henia,
You've been asked to work with a mentor, or at the very least talk about the changes before making them to the article, and still went ahead and made unhelpful changes. I have reverted your edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Modifying the Holocaust article

1. I explained, at length the reasons for the changes made in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. And I am discussing issues with Ealdgyth.

a. It seems to me, that I didn’t make "unhelpful changes". Can one explain to me the reasons? From my experience, I know that the average reader would like to see a map of Europe in 1942 relevant to the Wannsee Conference, even in French.

b. I pointed out to what seems to me plagiarism of Kershaw, and an inaccurate account of Longerich’s text.

2. Vandalism and threats to block me - It seems to me that there has been constant threats against a newcomer, who has always been stating that she is making a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Other editors can notice that now. I know how to put a reference with the correct template, and provide a reliable source.

3. “talk about the changes before making them to the article” – Wiki allows editor to modify text with reliable sources.

4. “You've been asked to work with a mentor” – I have explained that I am a person twho learns from comments by many editors. It is in good faith, that I carefully try to modify the text.

I would like to read from other editors.

Thank you and have all a wonderful day!Henia Perlman (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to actively protest at being accused of plagiarism. I did not have whatever source you are referring to in front of me when I worked on that section...since I can't even figure out from your phrase what the source is, given the incomplete nature of your source citations. As to the other points, I have to say that people have been very patient with you, but eventually it gets old to be cleaning up and having to deal with bad editing behavior. You still haven't figured out how to use talk pages properly, you continue to garble sources and citations, and yorure very quick to accuse others of things. People are trying to help you, but you aren't really learning...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Modifying by taking out "German-occupied"

I took out “German occupied” from subtitles because

a. I am not aware of any source using this wording.

b. The Hungarian government started to discriminate against the Jews in 1941 before it was occupied by the troops of Third Reich in 1944.

I am ready to actively listen to objections. Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

but we only discuss the time after Hungary was occupied, so it is correct. We dont have to have a source for headings and I've seen the phrase used for the situation in these countries. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the section is about Hungary before it was occupied: "Germany's allies Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland were pressured to introduce antisemitic measures, but for the most part they did not comply until they were compelled to do so I am putting back my modification.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
so Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, belgium and France weren't occupied? This section is also woefully skimpy and will need expansion to cover more details on these countries, plus all other occupied countries except Poland and the Soviet Union, which have their own sections? It appears to me that "occupied" better fits all those countries.also, may I bring your attention to the essay
WP:BRD, which is an excellent example to follow. Ealdgyth - Talk
17:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I reverted it again and gave you your final warning, Henia.
Please discuss items rather than forging ahead. You have a mentor who has offered to help you. I am happy to help you. Please discuss and attempt to attain consensus or compromise rather than making edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Wannsee section

Ealdgyth, I didn't accuse you of plagiarism.

I did assume that it was a previous editor who wrote the paragraph on Wannsee.

"you are very quick to accuse others of things": Looking again at comments directly at me, I still feel that I have been abused, bullied and threatened, when I was a newcomer and acting in good faith.

Thank you for your patience.Henia Perlman (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

No mentor. Help in improving my modifications in Holocaust article

I do not have a mentor, and I just ask sometimes for help.

I welcome the help of all editors!

I am kindly asking your patience for my technology and style issues.

I appreciate it very much when an editor sends me to the relevant wiki page.

I will listen actively to all comments of content to my modifications, aimed in good faith at improving the article.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That's too bad about no longer having a mentor.
I am very happy to hear that you are happy to actively listen to comments and I will move ahead with an earlier offer I made to you to summarize some of those points on your talk page... as they are throughout this and other pages at this point.
To get around technological and style issues, I am happy to help format citations and content, as I and your previous mentor have mentioned before as well. So, there's no reason to post content before ensuring that it is "article ready". That's the way to manage what you describe as your "technology and style issues".–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism

In my talk page, one editor accused me of vandalism, and warned me that I would be blocked.

I do not vandalize.

I am making a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.

I told the editor that It seems to me that she/he is abusing me and threatening me, when I am acting in good faith.

I have been working very hard finding reliable sources to use on my modifications.

I decided to be involved, because I retired.

I feel that I can positively contribute, because of my historical expertise and my experience with the average reader, with the true spirit of collaboration, and help with technology and wiki rules.

"When in doubt, edit! " And that's what I am trying to do, with use of reliable source, and actively listening to comments to my modifications.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, I am sorry that you are feeling bullied. I do not want you to feel that way and hope that is something that we can work through.
Your intention to actively listen is very encouraging, though.
The "When in doubt, edit!" does not apply if you have been receiving warnings for unhelpful edits. I am 100% sure that you are not trying to vandalize the articles you've worked on. But, you have been actively going against many conversations about the ways in which your edits are unhelpful. That is disruptive editing, and I have been posting disruptive editing warnings.
I am taking you at your word that you will actively listen and work on the summary of the things that have been mentioned to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

German-occupied Poland

Hi all,

I was wrong to have changed this subtitle, created by previous editors.

We do have to present the relevant history, as pointed out to me by editor Carole:

On September 28, 1939, Poland was divided. The western and central part of Poland was ruled by Nazi Germany, while the eastern pat was occupied by the Soviet Union. Thus, it was very much relevant to use: German-occupied Poland.

I welcome your comments and objections to my good faith contributions in the Talk page.

De la discussion, vient la lumière: from the discussion, comes the light.

Thank you. Have a great day!Henia Perlman (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Carole mistake in citation

Thank you Carole for your help! I just reposted before I read the two above messages. Here your message for your kind formatting:

In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe, because they could emigrate there without a visa.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

I am happy to see that people do want my contribution.

I have to go now, as I am traveling. Thank you again.Henia Perlman (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_31&oldid=1083537556"