Talk:Names of the Holocaust

Dark animal
About this bit of text near the top of the page:

''In Greek and Roman pagan rites, gods of the earth and underworld received dark animals, which were offered by night and burnt in full. Holocaust was later used to refer to a sacrifice Jews were required to make by the Torah.''

What is a "dark animal"?
 * A animal with a black hide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the phrasing suggests that the Roman rites predated the Jewish ones. I'm guessing what is meant here is that the word "holocaust" was used in English (and maybe Latin and/or Greek?) to refer to the Jewish sacrifice ritual, which if I have it right, is called olah in Hebrew. In other words, the Jewish "olah" predates the Roman, and maybe the Greek "holocaust" rituals, but the word "holocaust" only later became used to refer to olah, right?

Perhaps this could be written more clearly? Pfly 05:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It means dark in colour. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the text implies that "Roman rites preceded the Jewish ones". It means that the Greek term "holocaust" was later used to refer to sacrifice described in the Torah. Whether or not that predates "Roman" practices depends on when you date the Torah and how you define the origin of Roman culture, which arose from earlier Indo-European traditions. Paul B 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The use of the word holocaust, which is Greek, for Greek sacrifices, is certainly older than its uses for any Jewish ritual and probably older than any significant contact between the cultures. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)                                                                       o

ўʊʒ

Ownership
Probably wants addressing on this page also. Londo06 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge
Not seeing any compelling reason why the coverage of this subject in the main article isn't sufficient. Otto4711 06:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1970's?!
The thing about "The Holocaust" only being in wide use (to describe the genocide against the Jews in Nazi Germany) since a 1978 TV miniseries is simply bizarre, and not sufficiently sourced. I was alive and reading about the Holocaust years before that, and this is certainly news to me, as well as to those of my age group (and older) with similar experiences. simply reverted the edits I made, without adding a citation. I have no desire to edit war here, but you really need to source the hell out of that sort of statement if you want it to stand. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 08:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I assure you that it is not bizarre, but very widely accepted. I did not simply revert the edits you made. Please check before you make such statements. I added some citations and removed citation requests where I had added a citation. Citations are not required in the introduction if the citation is in the body of the article, which it is. Check MoS. There is nothing controversial about this. The word holocaust was barely used at all in the years immediately after the war, except in a descriptive sense along with other descriptive terms. "Holocaust" was a common word used to describe many things. I have a copy of Freud's letters published in the 1970s in which the editor says that Freud "made a holocaust" - meaning that he burned many of his letters. The word was sometimes used descriptively to refer to Nazi murders along with many other things, great and small. It became increasingly widely used in scholarly literature in the 60s as a standard term for Nazi murders, but it was still the case that if you referred to "the holocaust" in a general sense the most common meaning that would be understood by that was nuclear war in the near future, not mass murder in the near past. Do a literature search of books published on Nazism. You will find that almost all of the books with 'holocaust' in the title were published after the mid 1970s. See also the discussion in Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_17, especially the conributions of Woogie and Catherineyronwode. I suggest that you also read the cited article by Petrie. It was the TV series that led to the word becoming the standard term to refer to Nazi murders in common culture. I've no doubt that you were "reading about the holocaust" before the 70s, but it's unlikely that the literature you read used the term The Holocaust as a proper noun. Paul B (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. One certainly has to define here was is meant with wide use etc because the TV series has made this expression popular beyond intellectual and scientific debates, for sure. But the term was already in use and by the beginning of the 70s a well known term for the genocide against the Jews. See for example for an early use Commetary 4 (1947) S.292 or Elie Wiesel in "Teacher's study guide. Jewish Legend's. The image of the Jew in Literature" (NY 1969). By the beginning of the 70s the term had already been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.90.158 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Source query
I've removed this as a source &mdash; Petrie, J. The Secular Word Holocaust &mdash; as it seems to be a personal webpage. If it has been published elsewhere by a reliable source, we should cite that publication instead. SlimVirgin talk| edits 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been pointed out to you before - I think twice - that it was published in the Journal of Holocaust Studies. Paul B (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this has ever been pointed out to me, Paul. But if it has been published there, we should use that as the source, not a personal website. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One of his footnotes says that a version of his web article was published in the Journal of Genocide Research; we need to use the published version, not a self-published one. He also says he has participated in many H-Net discussions [www.h-net.org/lists], which he says can be found by following that link and looking for "Jon Petrie Soviet." It remains unclear who he is, though. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the article. It is quite close to the website, although more clearly ordered, and contains much the same evidence. The link should be edited; this is Vol 2, Number 1, of the Journal for Genocide Research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox Jews and Churban Europe
Why not mention that Orthodox Jews primarily use Churban Europe as the term to reference the Holocaust? Shoah is not a term widely accepted in the more Haredi Orthodox Jewish circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.186.197 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term for non jewish victims.
If tertiary sources are the reason for removing the dictionary references, then we will have to remove the paragraphs above which also use such references for the other use of the term Holocaust. If we are allowed to use dictionary references for one use of the term Holocaust then we are allowed to use them for the other use. Note the word also is already used in the lede, so it is acceptable here. Sometimes is POV. plea as reply and we can work out a consensus on removal,or acceptance.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The citations, including to the Macmillan Dictionary just added, make clear that the Holocaust refers primarily to the murder of Jews. "Sometimes used in a wider sense" is entirely correct. Tom Harrison Talk 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The lede states this 'The term is also used more broadly'  therefore the term also is already used within this article.  Therefore the phrase 'also used in a wider sense' is more correct.Why have you not given a reason for removing some of the dictionary definitions? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More correct than what? I removed the additional dictionary reference because it doesn't add anything that isn't already said and cited. Tom Harrison Talk 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More correct than the word sometimes which is clearly POV. The additional definition makes it clear that there are definitions which refer to other than Jewish victims without any subsequent qualifications.  It is additional information, and it does add to what is already there, which is why it should be restored.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes" is an accurate neutral description of when "Holocaust" is used for all the Nazis' victims. The additional citation repeats what's said in the other citations, supporting something that isn't disputed. Tom Harrison Talk 19:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * also is used in the lede, and it is NPOV, sometimes is clearly POV. The additional citation gives an alternative POV to the other citations.Dalai lama ding dong (talk)
 * Repitition isn't persuasive. Let's see if anyone else has thoughts. Tom Harrison Talk 21:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that "sometimes" is an accurate neutral description of when "Holocaust" is used for all the Nazis' victims, and that he additional citation repeats what's said in the other citations, supporting something that isn't disputed. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic passages
I'm parking the above content here to invite comments on its pertinence to this article. There is a vast difference between Holocaust with a capital H and holocaust as a generic term. This article is specifically about the former, and the above elaboration about holocaust belongs elsewhere.—Biosketch (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A vast difference? Sez who? I think a brief summary is relevant here. I think the "first reference ti Jews" is misleading, since the reference involves the normal use of the word to mean "conflagration". The fact that Jews were involved is essentially coincidental. Paul B (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A brief summary is one thing, and as long as it's confined to the use of Holocaust that's relevant to this article. The mention of holocaust with a lowercase h isn't relevant to what this article is about, unless there are sources that suggest otherwise.—Biosketch (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it's relevant - the article is about the names of the holocaust. That includes names that are not..."holocaust"! So we have to explain why the term "holocaust" came to be used, and the disputes about it. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the article is "Names of the Holocaust," not "holocaust." All of the restored content is irrelevant to this article because none of it has anything to do with the Holocaust in any way shape or form.—Biosketch (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. ASo what do you want me to do - just rebutt you bald assertions with my own? The whole freakin' point of the article is to explain the different names that have been used for the same event. To not explain the most common of all the names would be to shoot the article in the foot - or maybe the head. Paul B (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The whole freakin' point of the article is to explain the different names that have been used for the same event." That's correct, but that's not what the passages do at all. They don't have anything to do with the event this article is related to. Which passages of the ones you restored to you consider to "have been used for the same event"?—Biosketch (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me like something the reader would expect to find in this article. Tom Harrison Talk 22:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Names of the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212033031/http://bartleby.com:80/65/ho/Holocaus.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/Holocaus.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091028085816/http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559508/Holocaust.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559508/Holocaust.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605115413/http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/index_before_change_table.asp?gate=0-2 to http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/index_before_change_table.asp?gate=0-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Names of the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120922223115/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/Holocaus.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/Holocaus.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091014015633/http://www1.yadvashem.org/education/conference2006/Setbon,%20Jessica.pdf to http://www1.yadvashem.org/education/conference2006/Setbon,%20Jessica.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Names of the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120922223115/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/Holocaus.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/Holocaus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Names of 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212033031/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/Holocaus.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/Holocaus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Names of 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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5kwpf3JYp?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559508/Holocaust.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559508/Holocaust.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Names of 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113233924/http://www.radoc.net/radoc.php?doc=art_e_holocaust_porrajmos&lang=en to http://www.radoc.net/radoc.php?doc=art_e_holocaust_porrajmos&lang=en

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Lebensraum as impetus for genocide
This sentence was removed from the lead: “While mythological narratives seek to ascribe metaphysical narratives, it is today believed that the impetus for the genocide was simply to create space for the expansion of the German Empire, the "Generalplan Ost," calling for extermination of an additional 31 of 45 million of Slavs.” The first clause is unclear, and the anti-Jewish genocide was motivated by much more than a desire for Lebensraum. The Nazis believed that the Jews controlled all of their enemies’ governments and were responsible for “Judeo-Bolshevism.” Every one of society’s ills was blamed on the Jews; that genocide was driven by more than the desire for an expanded empire. It is true that Generalplan Ost envisioned the murder of millions of Slavs primarily in order to clear space for German expansion, and I hope that the preceding statement about the Nazi view of Slavs as subhuman does make it clear that they, too, were victims of Nazi aggression, and that millions of them did perish. Roches (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The etymology of Holocaust
Do not agree upon the explication in Greek. It isn't the burning of chrestians by Nero. This all started recently in collective memory. The origin of the word Holocaust must be around 1945. In Dutch this word is "Hollekast" in English 'Hollowcase'. It is of course the fake entrance of the Anne Frank house, of the what we always say Achterhuis, in English again Afterhouse. So disagree upon the old tales in Greek origin, all our language is old, but when did they start talking in this specific area. The meaning should be defined as all that happened after the door was made. The whole process of fear, hiding, transporting and make jews disappear literally. Sorry to ask you to change the article on this partuicular offence. Please read my article on this item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.25.238 (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

=Pejorative word "Holocaust" - has a direct line to Sufi - Antelman quote - was deleted as "fringey"= Also related to the preceding thread by :

I wish to object to and open to discussion 's edit index.php?title=Names_of_the_Holocaust&oldid=1020815688 that deleted 1248 byte of information that I had added about the origin of the usage "holocaust" for the Nazi genocide of Jews.

The reason cited by Buidhe's deletion was "fringey."

It is within scope for this article to include information about the origin this usage of "holocaust."

The preceding paragraph in fact offers explanations and why's of the usage "holocaust" in the case of Louis VII's massacres, as being due to occurring in a church, or being "divinely ordained" etc.

In the case of the Nazi genocides, the article already quotes two historians Laquer and Eley calling this usage of "holocaust" singularly inappropriate and mystifying, respectively, but in contrast with Louis VII's case it offers no explanations of why.

As per Controversial_articles, the section "Names: Holocaust" seems to do a good job of starting with the facts: the first usage was in this year, then in this case etc.

But now it is in the article's scope to include information of why and how this came to be; this is what I wished to add.

My addition and its deletion were already in a subsection titled 'Objections to the usage of "Holocaust" for Nazi extermination of Jews.'

(It is granted that if the true why of this usage's roots are obscure and controversial, as are questions of say, who were Hitler's true handlers, and why Nazi leadership was utterly devoted to eliminating the Jews even though thereby they'd be losing the war, it may be appropriate to include these why's in a sub-sub-sub-section called "Possible origins (or theories) of the usage of 'holocaust' for the Nazi genocide of Jews."

However since this is already a second-level subsection whose title already indicates possible controversy this seems unnecessary and cumbersome, and it suffices that it's in the scope of the section to include explanations of why as with Louis VII, even if worst case they be theories, since the origin may be obscure; but Antelman's information that was deleted is more granular and more documented than to be called only theory or fringe --)

Antelman's explanation complies with the three core content policies mentioned in Fringe_theories namely NPOV, not original research, and verifiable, and comes from his well-documented secondary source book, and is offered as a quote to maintain precision and NPOV.

I propose to undo Buidhe's deletion. Nissimnanach (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Nissimnanach
 * This is a conspiracy theory from someone who claims to have cured AIDS in 1996. It does not belong on a Holocaust-related article, unless it were an article specifically about Holocaust conspiracy theories.--Pharos (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

History of the word Holocaust
The wikipedia article mentions the first use of the word Holocaust in the twentieth century being in 1925, but in 1920, the French ministry of Foreign Affairs already referred to Fiume as 'la ville holocauste'. 89.205.227.72 (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)