Talk:Silent Holocaust (Judaism)/Archive 1

Good start
Good start IZAK. Thankyou for mentioning the orthodox view. I suppose it would be too much to ask to be allowed to post the whole truth that orthodox Judaism considers anything less than conservative judaism as being a major contributing factor to the silent holocaustr wouldn't it? It is true though. Reform is the death of Judaism as a national way of being and the birth of a religious identity from which one can easily lapse. Worse still, all kinds of Goyim are running around calling themselves Reform (or less) Jews these days. I was one of them. Zestauferov 16:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, according to most Orthodox rabbis, Conservative Judaism or Reform Judaism "is not Judaism at all" (A Historic Declaration, The Jewish Press, Friday, April 4, 1997, p.24). However, Conservative or Reform JEWS are most definitely Jews if their mothers were truly Jewish or if they underwent valid Orthodox conversions. IZAK 06:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The above diatribe does nothing to improve this article, besides point out the trepidation the Orthodox community feels when coming to terms with the fact Reform Judaism saved the religion. It's the future; why else would so many young Jews gravitate towards it? Jim Steele (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Recommendations
IZAK, I would strongly recommend you do a few things:
 * 1) Rather than just listing all the references you can find to Silent Holocaust, summarize the views of the different speakers, and give links to the pages in question.
 * 2) Include the non-Jewish usages of Silent Holocaust in a Christian section.
 * 3) Do not include links that do not actually refer to a "Silent Holocaust".  Someone calling something "another Holocaust" is not an example of usage of the term "Silent Holocaust". --Jayjg 20:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Everything you want. IZAK 06:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace
I cant believe my eyes. Such one-sided and prejudiced article (essentially a poster for Orthodox Judaism views) does not belong to the class of wikipedia articles. It needs serious editing and NPOV attitude. The authors better do something about it (other opinions, linx), since this is a presentation of an autistic and extreme, almost obsessive ethnocentric worldview. Mir Harven 14:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not even a poster for Orthodox Judaism views, just for the views of some Orthodox Jews. Jayjg 16:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Lubavitchers. Mir Harven 20:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, no not specifically Lubavitchers. I don't think any of the Rabbis quoted are Lubavitch, and the author of this article certainly isn't Lubavitch. One day when I have time I plan to work on the article a little, as I've outlined above.  Jayjg 00:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mir Harven: The article provides an exact description and explanation of how the term silent holocaust is used, who uses it, and why it is used by them. Your reaction is not rational. IZAK 02:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Rational or not-your edition of the page does not dispassionately present what is the meaning of the term, but- and I doubt I'm wrong- gives the impression (bearing in mind the artillery barrage of the citations) that the coiners of the term are somehow right in their perception and, not questioning the authenticity of their worries, the term is, well, realistic and OK. So, it's not only explicatory but contains very visible value judgement. A problematic value judgement, to say the least. Anyway- maybe this entire affair is blown out of proportion. Just, NPOVy approach should have mentioned opinions that differ: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/toexist/ShiksaHome.html Mir Harven 12:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The latter point and link have now been inserted. IZAK 10:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not similar to racial purity
I'm having difficulty seeing the dissimilarity between those who don't like miscegenation because they are worried about "Aryans" becoming "Jewish" and those who don't like miscegeneation because they are worried about "Jews" becoming "goyim". Whatever the rights and wrongs of the views, they certainly do seem very similar. If you are arguing that in one case the distinction is racial and in the other ethnic, okay, that's reasonable, but you should note that "racial" and "ethnic" are distinctions based on the POVs in question, rather than something neutral that simply attaches to the distinction. Grace Note 06:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I note that Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald even suggests that the ends of the Silent Holocaust and that perpetrated by Hitler would be the same. Suggesting that there is no similarity would seem to run counter to that quote. Are you saying your perception should be more strongly weighted than Buchwald's? Can you please point to the publication that printed your view, so that your contention is properly sourced? -- Grace Note.
 * As stated before, Jews are not a race, and Buchwald is concerned about the disappearance of Jews as a people. Jews come in all races, and Buchwald is not concerned that any specific "racial" group within Jews will disappear. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jewry isn't a race, but it certainly has its racial/genetic character (a rather tightly-delineated one, in fact), like all ethnic groups, and your answer is essentially a dodge.


 * In any event, does anyone have any gripes to quote that AREN'T simply from Jews indignant over the holocaust comparison? I.e., non-Jews offended that intermarriage with them is compared to genocide, Jews offended at the insult to everyone in the world except Jews inherent in the comparison, etc?  Might be nice to consider the goyim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.131.149.122 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

NPOV and intermarriage quotes
I think that the quotes and attribution could be more NPOV. For example, I'm not sure what the advantage is of quoting David Duke quoting someone...I found that passage really confusing actually. Also, the praise of Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald as a "well-known rabbi (respected by all streams of Judaism for his outreach work to secular Jews)" is both unsubstantiated (how do you know he's so well respected?) and not on point (even if well-known, does that make this bit of his thought mainstream?) Just having the link to NJOP seems sufficent and nicely neutral (notice that the NJOP page is much more NPOV).

Also, I don't see that they establish that ""Silent holocaust" as referring to intermarriage/s is actually quite common, both among scholars and lay people". That is, I don't see that it's true that the commonality "can be seen from the following sources:". Indeed, the Buchwald quote does not identify intermarriage as the primary cause, in fact, he is much more forceful in blaming mal-education and Holocaust focus.

Other uses of term
Having Googled the term Silent Holocaust, the results show that the term is used to refer to a whole number of different situations, and that the descriptions given here does not even appear to be the most common ones. Additional uses of the term that had multiple references allude to.

-Abortion. -The AIDS epidemic. -The ‘Subjugation of Palestinians’ under Israeli occupation. -The ‘creeping Islamisation’ of the West. -The uncoordinated destruction of the Jews of Romania prior to the Nazi's systematic mass killings of the Holocaust.

There are others, though most appear to have been one off uses of the term.

Should this article be expanded to cover all uses of the term?


 * I would say so, though I don't have the resources/time to do so. RiotGearEpsilon 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also have neither the time nor the resources, but absolutely agree this article ought to be expanded beyond the narrow definition of the term for which it is currently written. I have just now nominated the article for expansion.  TJ0513 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Abortion
I was under the impression that abortion was allowed in some situations in Orthodoxy; why does it say in the article that many Orthodox rabbis refer to it as the silent Holocaust? Mo-Al 16:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikilink
There is also an article "HIV/Aids in Asia". Referring to the Hindu world and its swastika, it might be useful to. But now I see your article is considered POV. ;-) I guess people should cut the link they make between Hitler/diabolics etc. and hinduism, it is so cheap. Hindus would never kill Jews: ahimsa! Instead, they were attacked in history (by Islam).  Dartelaar   [write me!]  01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How many jewish males are coupled with white gentile women?
How many jewish males are coupled with white gentile women in the USA?
 * This talk page is to discuss the article, not the topic itself.  See WP:TALK for more information about the purposes of article talk pages.  janejellyroll 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your reason for asking? Maybe it is relevant to the article. Bus stop 01:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the Worldwide Extermination of Muslims and Media Apologists
POV Clearly in this section some opinions about the actions of the US government and others are presented as fact. Extermination is definitely a far too loaded word for this context. Perhaps it might be re-written as such: "Silent holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to actions taken by the government of the United States and other nations that have allegedly caused the deaths of many Muslims. The sanctions placed on Iraq after the first Gulf War are one example.

All this is conditional on the term being used in such a way.

WHY is that section still standing AS IS and POV slanted beyond belief - there has been no "systematic extermination" of muslims by the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.241.91 (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambig
I'm looking at this article, and it looks to me like it shouldn't be an article at all. Shouldn't this be a disambig page? Compare to forgotten holocaust - a simple disambig linking to the various topics using that name. This article should be the same, and all the linked to articles should mention Silent Holocaust as a term in their intro.

97.113.105.1 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish-Christian relations
There should maybe be information on the percentage of Jews that marry Christians. I think Christians, and especially Catholics, have been the most popular source of inter-marriage with Jews, and in some ways it seems unfair to accuse the Church of causing a second Holocaust. ADM (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

White Race
Some ppl use it to describe disappearing of a White race. --DumnyPolak (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to have an article on a single organization
This article is on the term "Silent Holocaust", and describes 3 different usages of the terms. While mentioning the organization "Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust" may be appropriate, I do not feel this is the correct venue to have a full write up on that one specific organization. I would propose that the content below be moved to Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, assuming the topic meets WP:GNG. Because there are no independent reliable sources cited, I haven't created the article myself yet. I'd urge editors interested in the topic to create the article according to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Here is the deleted text: -Andrew c [talk] 17:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted section
Beliefs and Goals "We believe that it is not enough to know that abortion is wrong...we are called to expose the horrific truth to the world."

The primary force behind the Survivors' anti-abortion activism is belief in God, and belief that "human life is precious in the eyes of the Creator." The Survivors believe that life begins at conception, so they equate abortion with evil and murder, and believe that sex was meant strictly for marriage. Sexual purity and abstinence is their primary method of birth control and abortion-prevention. They believe that abortion is a sin, but also believe in forgiveness of sins, including abortion.

The Survivors' ultimate goal is to "reach out to the lost and broken with the gospel of Christ and His message of life for all."

In addition to being anti-abortion, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust are also deeply opposed to the use of many forms of birth control, including the birth control pill, claiming that use of such contraception can actually cause abortions. Survivors are also opposed to stem cell research and euthanasia.

History

Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust began on January 22, 1998, the 25th anniversary of the ground-breaking 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust was founded by Jeff White and Cheryl Conrad, both national leaders in the pro-life movement, who deem anyone born after 1973 a "survivor."

Activism

Survivor activism includes participation in: pro-life training camps and seminars; Christmas carols and evangelism at local abortion clinics; die-ins; 'Show the Truth' sidewalk displays; campus life tours; weekly meetings to train youth in logic, critical thinking, debate, and evangelism skills; annual events to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, including Survivor Sunday on Sanctity of Human Life; and work at a home for unwed mothers.


 * Pro-Life Training: This involves 12 days of "boot camp" -- intense training and activism for high school and college students, designed to produce the next generation of pro-life leaders. Participants are trained to debate and speak competently on the topic of abortion. Workshops are taught by experienced pro-life activists who provide an overview of the abortion debate, and who teach "sidewalk counseling" techniques for evangelizing to pregnant women entering abortion clinics.
 * Campus Life Tours: These consist of 8-10 young adults who visit college campuses across the United States, sharing their "educational displays" and provoking debates about abortion. The displays may include graphic images and/or descriptions of abortion techniques, and the volunteers may distribute pro-life literature.
 * Survivor Sunday: This is an annual event during which church pastors and Sunday School teachers may preach a pro-life sermon to the congregation, or a time when church youth may testify on the subject. Organizers focus on youth, claiming that this generation of young people has lost one-third of its potential peers to abortion.

for starters
This has a dead link/no source:

"...Unlike the persecution that the Jewish people have endured by the hands of others for over 3,000 years, Jews on this continent now face a "silent holocaust" stemming from within their very own communities and their very own households..." [4]

Moreover, the source for Reform membership (only 2 million??) is not reliable. Verifiable statistics have it the largest number of Jews and fastest growing, much to the chagrin of the Ultra-Orthodox. Jim Steele (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss
While this article needs improvement, and will get it soon (Wikification standards get upgraded all the time and it takes articles time to catch up too), please discuss your concerns. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with this article is that it's not properly an article, just a collection of mentions of unrelated things that have all been described with the powerful "silent holocaust" metaphor. I thought my edit summary was clear about this - portraying these topics as related is a novel synthesis that we must not engage in. Hence I reduced this to a disambiguation page for the topics where this metaphor has been used. I should point out that I have no particular issue with any of the text that I removed, except that it shouldn't be here. If you or anyone else wants to integrate that material into the appropriate articles, then do so with my blessing. However, there shouldn't be anything here except a disambiguation page. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
I've redirected to the primary article, The Holocaust, due to this article being used by various political factions to promote their fringe POV. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What is this "ethic" holocaust section ?
Governmental agencies using "secret technologies" to prevent "whistleblowers" from breeding? (Perhaps there was a poisoning by a nuclear power industry of one of their whistleblowers, but whistleblowing is not hereditary.) This either sounds like UFO or NWO or "black helicopter" paranoia to me, or else it's a reference to the A-A AIDS myth. Why is that section here? GIVE EXAMPLES OR USE A CONDOM.173.162.253.101 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silent 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/20040815001511/http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=83913 to http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=83913

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) 11:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Split suggestion
The article title is a clean-cut case of a disambig page. The two remaining section must go its different ways as well.

For the first one, the evident merge target is Jewish assimilation.

For the second one is Abortion debate.

Opinions? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I see the motivation for this, however I'm opposed. Both the Jewish sense and the pro-life sense have lots of GHits and so both are notable. The solution is WP:CONCEPTDAB.– Lionel(talk) 00:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If they are both notable then write two articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW. "Silent Holocaust" is not a concept, it is a political POV-pushing sticker applied to assimilation and abortion respectively. However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page -- We do not have links to the ambiguous usage, we have only specific usages. unlike the broad term, e.g.,  'Secretary (title)'. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the value in making the proposed split. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, every article is about a single concept. The reason of putting such disparate things as "Abortion Holocaust" and "Jewish assimilation" in a single page is beyond my ken. Further, the term is "SH" is not about special concept, it is political insult for various things known under neutral terms. Therefore my suggestion was not to write new articles, but to merge the content into articles about exactly same issues, but under neutral titles. So the suggestion probably should have called  "diffuse" rather than "split". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a cite for the policy that says "In Wikipedia, every article is about a single concept"? In point of fact, many articles have sections called "Other uses" or something similar.  I think one article is better than multiple sub-stubs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSPLIT. "Other uses" belong to disambig pages. They are preserved in some other pages from auld layng syne of wikipedia when structure was not yet settled. We put the disambig hatnote on top for a reason of "least astonishment", which is defied by "Other uses" at the bottom.  Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * better than multiple sub-stubs - My suggestion is not about sub-stubs. (I also clarified this in my prev reply you probably did not notice due to edit conflict.) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * one article is better - Yes, it is better if substubs speak about the same subject. (BTW I routinely remove section headers from sections with one sentence for the reason you have in mind.) When subjects are different, in is important to put them into different categories and wikilink them differently, for convenience of navigation. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have asked for the opinions of other editors. It doesn't help matters if you then WP:BLUDGEON the discussion by repeating your own opinion.  Please allow a consensus to develop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was (1) answering your question about policy (2) clarifying that you misunderstood my suggestion (3) discussing  the "other uses" issue. If you feel bludgeoned, I am sorry. BTW I fail to understand why you are heated up: we both agree that there is no sense in new microarticles. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Split/disambig done. If you find better disambig targets, you are welcome to change. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

far-right conspiracy
Why is the ""threat"" of jewish assimilation not described in the same way as the White genocide conspiracy theory? Should the proponents of this myth not be called "far-right conspiarcy theorists", "racists" and potential terrorists instead of "Concerned Jewish people" as it says currently? FilterOppossumWhatever (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not invent descriptors ourselves, we use what mainstream reliable sources write. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearer reorganization
NOTE: Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Silent Holocaust now redirects to Silent Holocaust (disambiguation)
 * Silent Holocaust (Judaism) is about the use of this term in Jewish communal life especially in the United States.

Working on fixing citations
Because some citations used were taken from a past edit, they are being updated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)