Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 36

Who were "the collaborators"?
"collaborators" link to "Collaboration" section. The section links "Collaboration with the Axis Powers". But you are either Axis Power or a collaborator of an Axis Power. Any encyclopedia should be integrated.Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please correct the over-archivization
Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My mind-reading faculty is a little dodgy today, but I took a guess. Mathglot (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hebrew text in lede
I realize this is an incredibly minor point and not necessarily reflective of Modern Hebrew's employment of the niqqud but can it be considered to transliterate HaShoah with ISO convention? 216.165.95.144 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019
I belive that some info on the holocaust is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.118.235 (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For example? Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Dates of the Holocaust
Has there been any discussion of the dates given for the Holocaust in this article, line 1, 1941-45? revrob (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1941 is way too late—and this isn’t my opinion. It’s well-supported that 1933 is a more proper date—if not before. Refer to: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/an-introductory-history-of-the-holocaust, https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/holocaust-remembrance-day/when-did-the-holocaust-begin-1.5323231 and https://www.historyhit.com/when-did-the-holocaust-start-key-dates-and-timeline/. jareha (comments) 20:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the footnotes in this article:
 * "Ronnie S. Landau (The Nazi Holocaust: Its History and Meaning, 1992): "The Holocaust involved the deliberate, systematic murder of approximately 6 million Jews in Nazi-dominated Europe between 1941 and 1945.""


 * "Timothy D. Snyder (Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, 2010): "In this book the term Holocaust signifies the final version of the Final Solution, the German policy to eliminate the Jews of Europe by murdering them. Although Hitler certainly wished to remove the Jews from Europe in a Final Solution earlier, the Holocaust on this definition begins in summer 1941, with the shooting of Jewish women and children in the occupied Soviet Union. The term Holocaust is sometimes used in two other ways: to mean all German killing policies during the war, or to mean all oppression of Jews by the Nazi regime. In this book, Holocaust means the murder of the Jews in Europe, as carried out by the Germans by guns and gas between 1941 and 1945."


 * Nazi persecution of Jews ("the Holocaust era") began in earnest in 1933, but historians tend to restrict the date of "the Holocaust" to a more narrow range. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The dates belong to Functionalism versus intentionalism controversion, not mentioned in the text.Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Almost all Jews within areas occupied by the Germans were killed. "
Tried to highlight this sentence is either wrong or should be reworded. Didn't understand your answer 's ("Not dubious it was that High the death rate".) I cannot check if this statement is in the source mentioned after the next sentence (Bauer & Rozett 1990, pp. 1799–1802), but this statement contradicts the fact that ~20% Jews were killed in Occupied France, and ~25% in the occupied Italian Social Republic (unfortunately high, but not "almost all Jews".) Azerty82 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost all Jews within areas occupied by the Germans were killed. Such as in Poland, it does so after that, "there were 3,020,000 Jews in the Soviet Union in 1939, and the losses were 1–1.1 million. The Einsatzgruppen killed around one million Jews in mass shootings in the occupied Soviet territories." Jack90s15 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * what I'm trying to say is that: if this statement is true for most countries occupied by Germany, this is not true of all of them. The whole of France and northern Italy were military occupied by the Germans from 43 to 45 and not "almost all Jews within [that] areas occupied by the Germans were killed" Azerty82 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A word of caution regarding survival statistics - they often include survivors who fled the occupied zone (and in some case - even those from before the Nazi occupation) - e.g. The Holocaust in Poland - survivors who remained inside Poland (loosely defined) during the war number roughly 40,000 (vs. 3 million casulties). Counting people who escaped Poland (and in some cases - people who were deported by the Soviets in 1939-1941 from former Eastern Poland) - you get up to 350,000 survivors (estimates vary). Italy and France are exceptions. It is complex. Denmark is perhaps the most famous in this regard - Rescue of the Danish Jews - very few (or even no?) Jews remained in Denmark following the evacuation to outside the Nazi occupation zone. Icewhiz (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I had your word of caution in mind before editing the page. That why I mentioned Italy and France knowing they would undoubtedly contradict the statement. Even if we look at the overall scope of the Holocaust, this would be "most" and not "almost all" Azerty82 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * but it is true when looking at the overall scope of the HolocaustJack90s15 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

for the deaths it was all most all

Albania

Jewish population in 1937: approximately 200 Deaths: unknown Austria

Jewish population of Austria in 1938: 185,026 Deaths: 65,459 Belgium

Jewish population of Belgium in 1939: 90,000 Deaths: 24,387 Bulgaria

Jewish population of Bulgaria in 1937: 50,000 Deaths: unknown Czechoslovakia

Jewish population of Czechoslovakia in 1921: 354,000 Deaths: 260,000

Sudetenland Jewish population in 1939: 2,363 Deaths: at least 360

Bohemia-Moravia Jewish population in 1930: 117,551 Deaths: 77,297

Slovakia Jewish population in 1940: 88,951 Deaths: approximately 60,000

Hungarian-occupied Southern Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus Jewish population in 1939: 142,000–148,000 Deaths: 114,000–120,000 Denmark

Jewish population of Denmark in 1937: 7,500 Deaths: 52–116 Estonia

Jewish population of Estonia in 1937: 4,500 Deaths: 963 France

Jewish population of France in 1937: 300,000–330,000 Deaths: 72,900–74,000 Germany

Jewish population of Germany in 1939: 237,723 Deaths: 165,200 Greece

Jewish population of Greece in 1941: 71,611 Deaths: 58,800–65,000

Bulgarian-Occupied Thrace Deaths: 4,221 Hungary

Jewish population of Hungary in 1937: 490,621 Deaths: 297,621

Hungary (borders of 1941) Jewish population: 825,007 Deaths: 564,507 Italy

Jewish population of Italy in 1938: 58,412 Jewish population in German-occupied Italy: approximately 43,000 Deaths: 7,858 Latvia

Jewish population of Latvia in 1939: 93,479 Deaths: 70,000 Lithuania

Jewish population of Lithuania in 1937: 153,000 Deaths: 130,000 Luxembourg

Jewish population of Luxembourg in May 1940: 3,500–5,000 Deaths: 1,200 Netherlands

Jewish population of the Netherlands in May 1940: 140,245 Deaths: 102,000 Norway

Jewish population of Norway in April 1940: approximately 1,800 Deaths: at least 758 Poland

Jewish population of Poland in 1937: 3,350,000 Deaths: 2,770,000–3,000,000 Romania

Jewish population of Romania in 1930: 756,930 Deaths: 211,214–260,000

Hungarian-occupied Northern Transylvania Deaths: 90,295

Bessarabia and Bukovina Jewish population in 1930: 314,000 Jewish population in 1941: 185,000 Deaths: 103,919–130,000 Soviet Union

Jewish population of the Soviet Union in 1939: 3,028,538 Deaths: approximately 1,340,000 Yugoslavia

Jewish population of Yugoslavia in 1941: 82,242 Deaths: 67,228

Slovenia (German-occupied) Jewish population in 1937: 1,500 Deaths: 1,300

Serbia with Banat and Sandžak (German-occupied) Jewish population in 1937: 17,200 Deaths 15,060

Macedonia (Bulgarian-occupied) Jewish population in 1941: 7,762 Deaths: 6,982

Pirot, Serbia (Bulgarian-occupied) Deaths: 140

Albanian-annexed Kosovo Jewish population in 1937: 550 Deaths: 210

Croatia with Dalmatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina Jewish population in 1937: 39,400 Deaths: 30,148

Montenegro (German-occupied) Jewish population in 1937: 30 Deaths: 28

Backa and Baranja (Hungarian-annexed) Jewish population in 1937: 16,000 Deaths: 13,500

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-losses-during-the-holocaust-by-country

Jack90s15 (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we should provide a precise figure to replace "almost all". In mind mind it means 90-95%, but not everyone seems to share the same definition Azerty82 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nazi Germany killed approximately 6 million of the 9.5 million Jews in pre-war Europe. Of the 3.5 million who weren't killed, most were living in the USSR or USSR-occupied Poland (and escaped east), or in various areas of Europe that were never occupied by Germany. Other Jews managed to escaped Nazi Germany and the areas it occupied, so weren't actually "within areas occupied by the Germans were killed". When you add it all up, that means "Almost all Jews within areas occupied by the Germans were killed". "Almost all" followed by the specific numbers (as are listed in the article) is fine. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to enter into a never-ending debate on this question. I've never contested any figure given on the article, but as long as we don't have a source for this statement, or the number of Jews who fled occupied Europe during WWII, I'm going to ask for a reliable proof for this claim. The figures from the Encyclopedia of Holocaust are the following: 300k Polish Jews fled to USSR (39-41), +1m Soviet Jews who escaped to unoccupied USSR after Operation Barbarossa; 30k to Swtz., 37k to Spain (39-44), 7k to Sweden (from Dk), 18k to Palestine (37-44), 20k from S. France. source. So I get 1.4m who fled occupied zones & 6m who were killed. Do you understand why we cannot write this claim based on our own calculations without a reliable source that has properly done the addition with all elements taken into account? Azerty82 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I tried to summarize my argument as followed: Also,, in your answer you say "most [...] escaped east" without giving a precise number (~1.3m from Poland and occupied USSR), and you claim that "almost all" is followed by specific numbers while it does not give the total Jewish pop. living in occupied Europe. I'm not saying my numbers/conclusions are more reliable, but rather that I try to give precise numbers to support my doubt concerning this assertion.
 * Jews living in unoccupied Europe (i.e. never occupied by Germany): ~1.1m (1939) = UK/Ireland (300+4k) + unoccupied Russia USSR (800k) + Switz. (18k) + Southern Italy (7k) + Spain (4k) + Portugal (1.2k)
 * Total European Jewish population: 9.2m (1942, estimate)
 * Total who fled occupied Europe during the war (39-44): ~1.4 (calc.) (addition based on Jewish encyclopedia)
 * Total Jewish pop. killed (41-45): 5.8—6m
 * The remaining ~1m ~0.7m may have fled or hidden in occupied Europe, or the Jewish Encyclopedia does not give the compete number of Jews who escaped occupied Europe. Anyway we cannot draw a conclusion
 * EDIT: recalculated with better USSR numbers (800k living outside of Soviet occupied zone — don't have figures for European USSR, you'd have to subtract ~80k, didn't do it in my calculation): 0.7m out of 6.7 who apparently remained in Nazi-occupied zones (10.4% survival rate). Azerty82 (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * EDIT2: I've searched the internet and I've been only able to get the several-time-given figure of 7m Jews who were living in German-occupied Europe, which is close to my 6.7m calculation, but no reliable source found for the moment. That said, I'm going to ask specialists of the period if they can find a global and reliable estimate for the number of Jews who survived the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Europe (see the thread here). Azerty82 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * EDIT3: I’m honestly beginning to lose hope improving WP. 1. The articles The Great Replacement and Conservative Revolution were jokes, I had to spend days alone rewriting them. 2. Nobody wants to provide a source or a figure for that claim, I have to spend hours doing calculations and searching reliable references for an non-sourced claim on a decisive article (the burden of proof should be on the contributor who wrote the non-referenced statement but anyway). 3. and now I discover that such an important article like Sobibor is mainly based on a dead source that doesn’t give an author and cannot spell a German word. Azerty82 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I’ve removed the "almost all" sentence. This article does not benefit from vague phrases like "almost all", and it’s just a honey-pot attracting editors to argue about *their interpretation* (i.e. original research) of the phrase. Either get a reliable source that uses those exact words and quote it, or find another way to say it. The long lists of numbers killed in the discussion above is exactly what we should *not* be doing here, ie, trying to persuade other editors that *your words* should be in the article. Just stop this wasteful discussion; either get a source for that exact phrase, or drop it. Mathglot (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a source from yad vashem Jack90s15 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

1. I’m sorry I somehow lost patience in my last message, but you can surely understand the reason. I did not intend to say the assertion was wrong (I came to a 90% death rate with my calculation), but rather that we need sources worded like the article or a precise figure to support it (“most” can mean 51% or 99%).

2. Please do not use emotional sentences like “a population that had been flourishing was destroyed”, I’m not a Holocaust denier (!!), please do not insult me by implying things like that with such a sentence that followed the debate.

3. Anyway, I’m not here to add on this debate but rather to propose something: can we add the fact that escaping Nazi-occupied Germany became nearly impossible after 1941, that a few non-Jews were willing to help and risked death if they did, and that few countries were willing to accept refugees. That fact, following the policy of systematic killing of Jews by the Nazis and collaborationnist behaviors, is responsible for the high death rate (i.e. Jews were trapped with their persecutors after 1941). This is sourced, reliable and explanatory. That's what I tried to explain to the readership by precising that Nazis killed 90% of Polish Jews and that the "remaining 10% survived only because they managed to escape before 41" Azerty82 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I wrote my proposition but I don't know what I need to precise from the source given: it says 1,000,000+ fled to unoccupied USSR but several thousands were deported to Siberia and other places; most survived — the low accepted numbers in Switzerland and Spain after 1941 was due to pressure from the Nazis — Croatian fascists, and the Vichy police, the Italian authorities refused to hand over these Jews. Azerty82 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I have to hold my hand up and take responsibility for the "almost all" situation. The sentence referred to the Soviet Union: "There were 3,020,000 Jews in the Soviet Union in 1939, and the losses were between 1 and 1.1 million. Almost all Jews within the areas occupied by the Germans were killed." I moved it by mistake in 2017 during a copy edit in which I cut text in an effort to reduce length. For some stupid reason, I flipped the "almost all" sentence so that it no longer followed the Soviet Union: "Almost all Jews within the areas occupied by the Germans were killed.There were 3,020,000 Jews in the Soviet Union in 1939, and the losses were 1–1.1 million."  My apologies for causing all this confusion. SarahSV (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * no problem, now we have the complete perspective in the article: 3m Jews in 1939, 2m killed, 1m fled eastward. I'm going to reintroduce the "almost all in Germany-occupied USSR" based on these figures Azerty82 (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting the problem. SarahSV (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, it helps. Don't worry about the glitch, we're all human and we make mistakes. I just wish everyone were as candid about their possible involvement as you just were, and I'll remember your comments going forward as a paradigm of transparency to strive for myself, when it's my turn to atone. Thanks again for your contributions here, and elsewhere, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. I really appreciate that. SarahSV (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria weren't occupied by Germans during a certain period, the nations participated in the Holocaust as partners, at least partially.Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust Museum data prove that the Holocaust definition is wrong. It ignores the allies of Germany and Austria. Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Pogrom as a basic tool of the Holocaust
Pogroms are listed before mass shootings and gas chambers. What is your source? Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Romania
You quote Dan Stone that Holocaust in Romania was "essentially an independent undertaking". Why is this opinion valid in one subsection and ignored in the whole text, especially in the lead?Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Auschwitz, Bełżec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibór, and Treblinka in occupied Poland

 * Poland was not occupied according to international law. Part of Poland was annected to Germany, part was colonised as General Government.
 * The list of the death camps is alphabetical. I believe that Reinhardt camps should be divided from the Reich ones. The phrase also ignores that Auschwitz and Majdanek-Lublin were muliti-goal.Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This must be why the Polish government in London has never acknowledged the "occupation" and the "colonization" a legit according to "international law". --Lebob (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * However, London's recognition is not equal with the international law (International recognition is not equal with the Allied POV). There were events (annexations, territorial changes, etc.) that was recognized by all parties before WWII, afterwards the Allies did not regonize some changes, as vica versa the Axis, or even among the Axis powers some happenings were not mutually recognized and after the war some events were not even reverted and become recognized by the Allies as well, etc. These de facto and the de jure cases are abundant, but just because i.e. some of the Allies did not recognize de jure something, but the Axis recognized it de jure and de facto as well supported the latter, we simply cannot ignore it and pretend it never happened or did not happen. See just the case of Czechoslovakia, the country did break-up, regardless a govt-in-exile was recognized by a dozen persons by the Allies, it does not mean the country existed de jure and de facto and was internationally recognized, as well we should not pretending it. Regardless of the recognition issue, Xx236 has right, much of the territoriy Second Polish Polish republic has been annexed to Germany, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC))
 * This Wikipedia doesn not have a page about occupation, the closest page is also Military occupation, "Military or belligerent occupation". "The rules of occupation are delineated in various international agreements". The page does not include the word Poland.
 * The Germans did not obey the rules, they exterminated, annected, drafted, robbed, expelled etc. in Eastern and Southern Europe. Occupation of Western Europe was different, German-occupied Europe does not inform about the differences, so I copy my text there.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fix Citation on Martin Gilbert's estimate
There is a broken citation in the death toll section of this article. Where it says Martin Gilbert arrived at a minimum of 5.75 million., this sentence was originally cited to ''The Routledge atlas of the Holocaust, 3rd Ed. London'' (plz see this revision for the full citation).

However, the citation has got corrupted and now links to The Oxford Companion to World War II. Although Gilbert does discuss the death toll in the Oxford Companion book, the figure quoted there is different.
 * p292: "Six million Jews, one-third of the world's Jewish population in 1939, were murdered".

Six million is not 5.75m.

I'd fix the article myself, but 1) the article's locked and 2) I don't have the right editions of the books to hand (my edition of The Oxford Companion is 2005 and my edition of the Routledge Atlas is the 2nd). -- Oshah (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * For those wanting to know the page number where Gilbert discusses the minimum death toll, in the 2nd edition (ISBN 0-460-86171-9), it is p166. I originally came upon this whilst working on the List_of_genocides_by_death_toll article --Oshah (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , thanks for pointing this out. It will take a bit longer to sort out than I thought at first glance, because we do cite the Routledge Atlas but a more recent edition than in the revision you linked to. Also, there are other Martin 2001 cites, so I don't want to change only one. SarahSV (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * One option would be to update the sentence to "Martin Gilbert concluded that 6 million Jews were killed", no? Based on the 'Oxford Companion book, Martin Gilbert had, by 2005, accepted the 6 million figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. --Oshah (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a secondary source for now. Gilbert said at least 5.75 million, but the secondary source doesn't say that, so I've left it at 5.75 million. He gave the figure in the 1980s (I believe), so we need to find the right book and edition—I think it was in The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy, but it may have been earlier—then we can add exactly what he said and when. SarahSV (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

American vs British/European spelling
What is the rationale behind using American English? The logic would be to use British spelling, as the subject is related to Europe as per WP:ENGVAR. DMY format is already used for dates. Azerty82 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Prompted by a spelling change you made just now (and before I saw your post here) I ran a script to make spelling consistently American English. I did that because the article seemed to be written predominantly in American English. However, your point in favour of British spelling is a good one. I'd be interested to hear what others think. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. The point about it being a European topic is strong. A cursory look at the works cited also seems to show more European authors than American (if that matters). Either way, I think consistency is most important. Timothy (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Being "European" is not normally accepted as being "British" per WP:ENGVAR. You need to look at the history & see if there has been a previous consensus decision. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm with Johnbod here. I don't believe there is such a thing as "European English" so unless there is "strong national ties" to a specific country, we stick with the way it is written. Hydromania (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I found no consensus in the history of discussions. There is indeed a "European English", it is called British English (Irish English does not differ in spelling). Virtually all European newspapers and institutions writing in English use the British spelling. Most of the time, the consensus for using the American dialect is only obtained because there is a higher number of American contributors. This is no rationale for using US English as the "default" variant on Wikipedia. Azerty82 (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Browning 2001
Azerty82, you added the page-needed tag after Browning 2001 ("Madagascar Plan". In Laqueur, Walter (ed.). The Holocaust Encyclopedia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. pp. 407–409). This is a short entry. The text is "In May 1940 Madagascar again became the focus of deportation efforts ..." Is it the month and year you need a precise page number for? SarahSV (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake sorry! I automatically tagged Sfns without a page number Azerty82 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I swapped it for Browning 2004 with page number, but I left Browning 2001 in the bundle as a see also. SarahSV (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why have you removed The consistent determination of Hitler was to eliminate all Jews living inside the Greater Germanic Reich that he had programmed to establish in Central and Eastern Europe, either by mass deportation or, from 1941 onwards, by physical and systematic extermination though?
 * Snyder (2012, p.168): What was consistent was Hitler’s determination to eliminate Jews, a notion that always included the possibility of (although did not require) their immediate physical extermination Azerty82 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know what it meant or what its function was. Consistent since when? What does "programmed to establish" mean? If you're following Snyder, please attribute it and also note that Snyder (and the others) are choosing their words very carefully. When paraphrasing, it's important not to change the meaning or use the words in a different context. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What Snyder meant is that Hitler had planned to create a Lebensraum in Central and Eastern Europe that would have not welcomed Jews as residents. And as most European Jews were living in that specific area, they had to be somehow "removed" from there, either by deportation or, *de facto* after 1941, by systematic killing (which, *according to Snyder*, had always been a possibility). Azerty82 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand what Snyder is saying. The problem with this article is that it has been written by many editors over several years, each using whatever sources they had to hand. The result is a smorgasbord of views, some outdated. What we need to do, first, is not make that any worse, because fixing it is a huge amount of work. It can easily take a day to locate one source to decide about one sentence whether it should stay or go, and if it needs to be changed, how exactly.
 * Ideally, we should choose a core group of sources and not wander outside that group unless there's a particular issue that one source is known for or stronger on, or where there has been an update. Introducing a new source should not be done haphazardly, in other words. Then, when summarizing, we have to stick closely but not too closely (without attribution), and understand that the sources are sometimes choosing their words very carefully. Attribution is almost always the best thing, unless it would be silly (e.g., "according to Browning, Hitler was an anti-semite"). See WP:INTEXT.
 * Because these are contentious issues, try to make sure you know something about who is saying otherwise and why. Again, this advice is directed at myself as much as anyone else. SarahSV (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try to replace Snyder (2012) with Bloodlands or Black Earth, and Browning (1994) with The Origins of the Final Solution, when possible. Azerty82 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. It might be worth looking at reviews from Richard Evans: Bloodlands (this was where he made the comment that Gerlach said was pure invention, and Black Earth. SarahSV (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Section “Territorial solution and resettlement”
Can’t see the reference on page 73 for the second half of this sentence: “In May 1940 Madagascar again became the focus of deportation efforts[140] because it had unfavorable living conditions that would hasten deaths.[141]“ Is this the author’s opinion as to why Madagascar was chosen or did Nazis discuss that somewhere? I find it hard to believe Nazis discussed deportation there would “hasten deaths”. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When you say you can't see the reference, do you mean you can't see p. 73 or you can't see where the author discusses the living conditions? It's definitely there. It can be accessed via the Internet Archive. SarahSV (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict. I did log in, it’s the author’s opinion, second half of sentence should be removed.Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Current population of Madagascar is 27-million, hardly uninhabitable; it was 5-million in 1940. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But you made a similar edit yourself to Madagascar Plan in October 2018, using a source that says: "Scores of people would have succumbed to tropical diseases or starvation from lack of resources, and those who survived would have been subject to abuse or murder at the hands of the SS." SarahSV (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, it’s absurd, “500-families or less could be accommodated”, the source isn’t a Nazi saying it. There are now millions of people “accommodated” there than were there in 1940.
 * The discussion in sections above is to give accurate attribution to who says what. Nazis did not choose Madagascar because it would “hasten deaths” but because it was a viable place. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Choosing and summarizing sources


There seems to be a mix of using this source to say things it doesn't quite say and repeating it word for word without in-text attribution. Because of the topic area, it's important to stick more closely to the sources than usual. Where there's a need to paraphrase very closely, we should use in-text attribution (Snyder writes that ... or Snyder writes "xyz").

We're also burying important points. For example, "The crucial change in policy, from deportation to systematic killing, occurred in Eastern Europe during the summer of 1941." Does everyone agree that there was a change in policy in the summer of 1941? This is buried under the heading "Territorial solution and resettlement".

Another difficulty is making sure that the author being used to support a particular point would agree with the overall thrust of the sentence or paragraph. There are authors being added who have very different views from other authors discussing the same issue, sometimes even within sentences, but we don't signal it. It's better to use fewer sources and present a coherent narrative. Ideally, we would present different views throughout and explain why they differ, but it's harder to do that. It's also important not to use sources that have been superseded, unless the point is that they said a certain thing at a certain time. (All this criticism is aimed at me too, by the way.) SarahSV (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * -- I don't understand what you mean. Snyder is not a new source, he had been used throughout the article, this is just another of his publications. a) Can you provide a precise example of "things it doesn't quite say"? The wording repeated from the source is, I think, rather limited. I only kept some terms or expressions like "in a territory where the German [Lebensraum] was supposed to arise" to avoid editorialization. b) Does everyone agree that a crucial change in policy occurred in the summer of 41? Of course yes, the systematic killings began in the summer of 41, and it was rationalized as a necessary politicy in the context of a "total war" by the leaders of the Eisatzgruppen. Can you provide a source that states the contrary? Azerty82 (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Here are the quotes from Snyder and Longerich to clarify the background of the discussion: German policy towards Jews was in an important sense consistent: at first they were all to be deported, and then they were all to be killed. The crucial change in policy, from deportation to killing, took place in eastern Europe, where the German racial empire was to arise, where most Jews lived, and where the technologies of mass killing were institutionalised. [...] The shift from the deportation to the extermination of Jews was in part the consequence of the failure, or indeed the internal contradictions, of Nazi colonial plans. The deprioritisation of the murder of Slavs and the prioritisation of the murder of Jews in the second half of 1941, the moment of crisis, reveals the structure of Nazi racial thought and the priority of anti-Semitism. (Snyder) & The 1st Infantry Brigade began as early as the end of July also to shoot Jewish women, doing so as part of a ‘cleansing operation’ that took place between 27 and 30 July in the Zwiahel area. After this mass murder brigade units carried out further ‘operations’, in the course of which they murdered an estimated 7,000 Jewish men, women, and children. Himmler was not satisfied. [...] By the beginning of October 1941 Einsatzkommando 6 belonging to Einsatzgruppe C was the only one that had not yet executed any Jewish women. (Longerich) If the precise matter of debate is the sentence the crucial change in policy occurred in the summer of 41", I agree that it's only indirectly argued by the two sources. But as it's not really a matter of debate among historians, I can find a better quote that explicitly states that if necessary. Best regards, Azerty82 (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * -- Edit: I found a paper that is more explicit than the two others: Browning (1994) . Again, it's a publication not yet used in the article, but not a new author. I'm going to summarize it and propose modifications for the specific section in discussion. Azerty82 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to use Browning, please use The Origins of the Final Solution, 2004. Historians refine their positions, so it's usually better to use their most recent publications. That's especially true in Holocaust studies because of the opening up of the Soviet archives. There's a good lecture by Browning on YouTube: "Hitler and the Decisions for the Final Solution" (2015); the issues we're discussing begin around 00:21:06.


 * The words that were copied are:
 * Snyder 2012: "The area around Lublin, initially a laboratory of German colonisation plans, became instead the testing ground of a new means of killing Jews."
 * WP: " ... the area surrounding the Polish town of Lublin, initially a laboratory of German colonization plans that included a Jewish reservation, became instead the testing ground of new means of killing Jews ..."


 * That's just what I noticed; I haven't looked to see whether there's more.


 * Re: "The crucial change in policy", this sounds as though Wikipedia is saying there was a decision at that point. There were several periods from summer 1941 onward that can be highlighted as the point at which a decision appears to have been made. We shouldn't put any of it in Wikipedia's voice. SarahSV (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, I support SV on the decision framing. Historians have differing ideas of when a/the decision was made ... and this article should reflect that, not state categorically that one specific point was the decision point. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * -- I could have worded it better, but the term "crucial change in policy" does not mean a concerted decision, but an actual change in policy on the grounds that occurred during July 1941. My intention was not to date the decision point, but rather to depict how the Holocaust began.
 * I have reworded this specific sentence. I don't think there's any other since I always reword from the source (except that one curiously)
 * I have use Browning's 1994 work because it was quicker to summarize from this source, but what I took has not changed in his analysis since then (see "euphoria of victory and decision making, July–October 1941" p.309). That said, if you agree, I'm going to summarize that chapter in the coming days and propose improvements regarding this section Azerty82 (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Azerty82, please use Browning's most recent work on this issue instead. Look, here's an example of how easy it is to misunderstand the evolution of these views. (I'm writing the following from memory.) Gerlach 1998: Hitler announced the decision in December 1941. Evans 2010 (a review of Bloodlands): Gerlach stated that Hitler announced the decision in December 1941, but no one agreed with him and he subsequently withdrew that position. Gerlach 2016: Evans has accused me of having withdrawn my statement. I did not. That is pure invention.
 * Anyone relying on Evans 2010 would have been mistaken. For these reasons, we need to use the most up-to-date, detailed scholarly text that we can find on these issues, and add in-text attribution for anything contentious. SarahSV (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I proposed: I'm going to summarize that chapter [i.e., Browning's chapter from his 2004 book] in the coming days and propose improvements regarding this section. And again, I may have not worded this contribution adequately, but I have never talked about a *decision* but a *change in policy* (i.e., the policy applied by the Einsatzgruppen on the ground) that occurred in mid-July 41. Azerty82 (talk)

Toward the Holocaust section
I've removed this for now for three reasons: it was in the wrong place; it would have to be more detailed about which historians take which view; and it would have to be written differently (e.g. Göring, Lammers, Rosenberg, and Keitel are introduced without saying who they are; it's unclear what pacification campaign and Garden of Eden refer to; "laboratory of technical solutions" is (as I recall) the source's phrase, and so on.

I do think a section about when it seems a decision was made would be useful later on in the article (in the Final Solution section or lower down where we discuss the uniqueness question), but it would have to include more views. Ideally it would explain how the views evolved too. SarahSV (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC) (edited 20:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC))

Azerty, I've restored your "Toward the Holocaust" heading, but I placed it within the Soviet Union section along with a draft of a subsection. I've based it for now on Browning 2004, Longerich 2010 and Gerlach 2016. Let me know what you think. It needs some more work and decisions about what to move into it, but it will serve as a placeholder at least. We also need to move some other sections and subsections. We can't have a strict chronological article but there's a bit too much flip-flopping around, so I'd like to try to improve the flow. SarahSV (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My intent was to describe *how* the Holocaust began. The section ‘Final Solution’ (*why* it began) first approaches Hitler’s speech which followed the Pearl Harbor attacks of December 1941. But the Einsatzgruppen had already begun to systematically kill Jewish men, women and children in the Soviet Union by the summer of 1941. In fact, when Hitler pronounced the December speech, Estonia was declared Judenfrei, more than 1 million Jews had already been killed, and the first steps in the constructions of extermination camps at Sobibor and Belzec had already been taken by Sep-Oct 1941. Azerty82 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to ask about Estonia. You added "Estonia, declared by the Nazis Judenfrei in December 1941", sourced to an interview with Synder, but I can't find that in the source. Longerich mentions that Einsatzgruppe A sent a note from Estonia in October 1941 saying "the rural communities are already free of Jews" (Longerich 2010, p. 237). By then the Jewish men had been killed and the women and children had been moved to a camp (there had been 4,000 Jews in Estonia and, Longerich writes, the army had encountered 2,500 of them). In February 1942, according to Longerich, the women who were not being used for forced labour were also killed. Does Snyder say elsewhere that there was an additional communication about this in December 1941? SarahSV (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. Estonia was declared Judenfrei during the Wansee Conference on 20 January 1942 (based on reports from Einsatzgruppen Oct-Dec 1941.) Concerning the “towards the Holocaust” section, I’m going to write a draft to be proposed in the coming days/weeks, based on the last books of (Snyder, Browning, Longerich, Gerlach, Evans) Azerty82 (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't add anything else about this without consensus. For example, today you added "Timothy Snyder writes that on 31 July 1941 'Heydrich secured the formal authority from Göring to formulate the Final Solution. This still involved the coordination of prior deportation schemes with Heydrich’s plan of working the Jews to death in the conquered Soviet East.'"
 * The section would have to explain what "secured the formal authority ... to formulate the Final Solution" means. Almost directly above it, there is: "Longerich argues, in general, that the gradual increase in brutality and numbers killed between July and September 1941 suggests there was 'no particular order'; instead it was a question of 'a process of increasingly radical interpretations of orders'." If one source appears to contradict another, it has to be resolved. SarahSV (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

 * "In occupied countries, the survival of the state was likewise correlated with lower Jewish death rates: 75 per cent of Jews died in the Netherlands and 99 per cent in Estonia, declared by the Nazis Judenfrei in January 1942,"

Does Rhodes 2002, p. 237, say all of the above? And is that a good source? SarahSV (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * --It does not appear that you’re mastering the subject; maybe that’s why you’ve been removing sourced content for the last couple of days. Rhodes, a reliable source, was supporting the “Estonia declared Judenfrei in Jan 41” part, while Snyder (2015), also a RS that you keep on removing, was supporting the rest of the sentence (you asked for the Snyder interview to be replaced with the book—which I have, without pagination—. Then you eventually removed the book and placed a instead, wtf. The next step I suppose is to remove the full sentence after saying it wasn't sourced) Azerty82 (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * " Some Christian churches defended converted Jews, but otherwise, Saul Friedländer wrote in 2007: "Not one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews ...".

Why did you remove the ellipsis? SarahSV (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits (Dec)
Piotrus, please assume that the text is supported by the source(s) closest to it, and check those before adding a fact tag.

Can you explain these edits? I'm not sure I follow the reason for them. SarahSV (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * re: . Did you verify the source states this? In either case, I am somewhat worried w/ regards to possible UNDUE here. Are "Some Christian churches defended converted Jews" the only group that merits mention here? The article does not mention, for example Zegota, and actually doesn't the existence of Zegota contradict the quote that follows ("Not one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews")?


 * re:, I just removed what I think is excess information. First, do we need the detail that Polish government in exile learned about this from their agents in Poland? It is rather obvious that's how it would happen. Ditto what's the point of specifying the place Pilecki was arrested? And the part about "Polish leaders learned about the mass killings taking place inside Auschwitz" in 1942 is not necessary either, I think it is disputable whether they learned about this only then, given Pilecki's report flowed from it in 1940 (as the prior sentence notes). Did no mass killings happened in Auschwitz prior to 1942?


 * PS. I think we should mention the Pilecki's Report and the Auschwitz Protocols in this section. And also Karski's reports (a relatively new article that I created few months back, before it was just a redirect to Karski). PPS. For the section discussing international response, here's another article I wrote a while back that might be relevant: Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The very last sentence misquotes what the source says
The very last sentence in the article says, “4.5 percent did not believe the Holocaust had happened at all.” (emphasis added)

The source doesn’t say “it didn’t happen at all”:
 * It is important to stress that there is an enormous difference between someone who maliciously denies the Holocaust happened and someone who is ignorant about it. 5.4% of poll respondents agreed with the statement ‘The Holocaust never really happened’ but this does not mean that 5.4% of the population actively and maliciously works to deny its occurrence.

There’s a big difference in saying “The Holocaust didn’t really happen” and “The Holocaust didn’t happen at all.” The former requires a definition of what Holocaust means, it can mean different things to different people but by saying “the Holocaust didn’t happen at all” implies the 5.4% don’t believe anything in this article.

Found several comments on Twitter wondering about the 5% methodology. I think we should be very careful how we say this! Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust
It remains entirely unclear, why 400 million Europeans (100 million households) were unable to hide and protect 6 million Jewish people and other people from deportation and murder. This should be discussed here also, based on evidence. HolySmokey (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM. Anyway: (i) it was a secret that the Jews were being exterminated (ii) propaganda depicted Jews as Untermenschen and many people believed that (iii) hiding Jews was a serious criminal offense and everybody knew it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It is somewhat difficult to believe that people would forget their former neighbours, friends and colleagues so readily, simply because invading army, dictators and fascists don't like them. Every concentration camp was within 5 km of a nearby town or village, e.g Dachau and Munich, Oranienburg and Berlin, Bergen Belsen and Celle, and so on. So the people nearby really knew, and did not keep silent. Surely, the research on this has been done in 70 yrs, since 1945. Is the article incomplete? HolySmokey (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The Nazis kept the extermination of Jews as secret as they could. Of course, some people knew. But the official line was that the Jews were sent to Palestine or something like that. After all, one wins elections by kissing babies, not by killing babies. There were decent people who would have never voted for Hitler if he said he wants to kill babies. There were Jews who were getting naked for "showers" without even knowing that they will be gassed there (most of them didn't until the doors were locked and it was too late). Jan T. Gross told during a course that some Jews had the idea that they go to camps in order to do business there. There are books about it, it's not a secret. E.g.:


 * Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It remains unclear, why the Nazi regime survived for more than five years, when the League of Nations could have imposed economic sanctions on Nazi Germany, forced the Nazi Govt to collapse. Both imports and exports could have been blocked completely, and the Nazi Govt would have collapsed in one month. Has the research on this not been done, or this this article incomplete? HolySmokey (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Scholars have come to a wide range of conclusions regarding the issues raised above. The issue of knowledge is not binary, there were degrees of knowledge for Jews and non-Jews (as well as others Nazis considered "life unworthy of living"), depending on time, place, and circumstance, just as there were degrees of complicity for perpetrators/facilitators/collaborators/fellow-travelers depending on time, place, and circumstance. Conclusions by extreme intentionalists such as Daniel Goldhagen have largely been rejected and would be considered WP:FRINGE. Any section on knowledge/complicity would have to take into account these factors and observe WP:NPOV and WP:V, be supported by WP:RS reflecting the diversity of scholarly opinion and find a WP:CON.  // Timothy::  talk  09:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Length of article and some suggestions
The article is currently at 250,000 characters which may be too long for the average reader. I have some suggestions: --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove section The_Holocaust -- Jews are not mentioned in the section. In any event, it was not a defining characteristic of the Holocaust, and many other nationalities/ethnicities were subject to medical experimentation.
 * Remove quote starting with 'He said he had "never seen British soldiers so moved to cold fury"'. Bergern Belsen was not an extermination camp, and a dedicated quote would probably best belong to the article on the liberation of Nazi concentration camps.
 * My 2¢: agree on shortening the article's readable prose (currently 81k characters, 12.7k words, of readable prose, per DYKcheck tool), and looking through K.e.'s most recent edits, those all seem to me to be improvements.
 * I'm not sure about removing the Dimbleby quote. I disagree with the reasons suggested – that we should remove the quote because BB wasn't an extermination camp, or that we should move the quote to an article about liberation of camps. I think our criteria for including quotes is that we should include the most famous/notable/significant (however you want to phrase it) Holocaust quotes as attested by RSes. I'm not sure what those are. If you asked me "what are the most significant WWII quotes?" I would instantly think of "Peace for our time", "We shall fight on the beaches" and "A date which will live in infamy", and I'd say those quotes should be at World War II (they are not currently). I'm not sure what the equivalent quotes would be for the Holocaust, but I think better to let the RS select the quotes rather than us editors doing it.
 * Finally, I strongly disagree about removing the medical experiments section, or that medical experiments aren't a defining characteristic of the Holocaust. Not much to say on that other than that I just think the opposite is true: the barbarity and inhumanity of the medical experiments, and things like lampshades made of skin, Dr. Mengele, the Bitch of Buchenwald. It's true these stories aren't typical of the overall Holocaust experience, they are (I think) typical of people's impressions... they're sensational, but that's why they're well-known. Hence Ilse Koch's trial receiving so much attention. So I think the medical experiments must be covered in the top-level Holocaust article in order for the article to be comprehensive. And I think the RSes back that up–I'm not sure there's a book on the Holocaust that doesn't talk about the medical experiments, but I'll admit I haven't done a comprehensive survey on that point, it's just my impression of the state of scholarship. – Levivich 20:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally, I strongly disagree about removing the medical experiments section, or that medical experiments aren't a defining characteristic of the Holocaust. Not much to say on that other than that I just think the opposite is true: the barbarity and inhumanity of the medical experiments, and things like lampshades made of skin, Dr. Mengele, the Bitch of Buchenwald. It's true these stories aren't typical of the overall Holocaust experience, they are (I think) typical of people's impressions... they're sensational, but that's why they're well-known. Hence Ilse Koch's trial receiving so much attention. So I think the medical experiments must be covered in the top-level Holocaust article in order for the article to be comprehensive. And I think the RSes back that up–I'm not sure there's a book on the Holocaust that doesn't talk about the medical experiments, but I'll admit I haven't done a comprehensive survey on that point, it's just my impression of the state of scholarship. – Levivich 20:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally, I strongly disagree about removing the medical experiments section, or that medical experiments aren't a defining characteristic of the Holocaust. Not much to say on that other than that I just think the opposite is true: the barbarity and inhumanity of the medical experiments, and things like lampshades made of skin, Dr. Mengele, the Bitch of Buchenwald. It's true these stories aren't typical of the overall Holocaust experience, they are (I think) typical of people's impressions... they're sensational, but that's why they're well-known. Hence Ilse Koch's trial receiving so much attention. So I think the medical experiments must be covered in the top-level Holocaust article in order for the article to be comprehensive. And I think the RSes back that up–I'm not sure there's a book on the Holocaust that doesn't talk about the medical experiments, but I'll admit I haven't done a comprehensive survey on that point, it's just my impression of the state of scholarship. – Levivich 20:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I tentatively agree through content should be moved to subarticles, not just deleted. PS. I did some minor cutting, mostly of excess information. I'd suggest removing the Gwardia Ludowa newspaper quote from Jewish resistance, seems extraneous.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to say to the idea that medical experiments weren't a distinctive feature or for the relevance of Bergen-Belsen not being an extermination camp. A lot of inmates were evacuated there. Some of the recent edits to this article are a concern. SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I generally agree much of the detail should be moved into subject-specific articles.
 * Within an article as broad as "The Holocaust" a quote would have to be exceptionally important (eg: Hitler's Prophecy) and placed in context.
 * I strongly disagree about removing the medical experiments section. It may not be distinctive but I believe it is clearly integral.
 * The idea that the Jews must be involved in every aspect of the Holocaust is incorrect. The "Final Solution" to the Jewish "problem" was the defining characteristic of the Holocaust, but the Holocaust as it actually unfolded consumed many others both in its prelude (pre-Poland 1939 - eg: the connection to T4/14f13), formative period (Sept 1939-c.1941 - eg: Einsatzgruppen in Poland) and then in its extermination phase (eg: Poles/Soviet POWs (in early Chełmno camp experiments), the Roma and gay men).
 * Concentration Camps are linked to Extermination Camps in some sense. They were often a psychological preparation ground for extermination camp perpetrators, they were often located together (Auschwitz, Majdanek) and had an evolutionary link to each other as a tool for National Socialists dealing with those they deemed "racial enemies". As they are included under the Holocaust, it is these aspects that should be emphasized as Wachsmann did in KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps or Sofsky and Templer in The Order of Terror: The Concentration Camps
 *  // Timothy::  talk  10:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Slightly confusing
From the lead: "The European Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event during the Holocaust era, usually defined as beginning in January 1933,[8] in which Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered other groups...". What is the name of that "larger event"? It is not named nor linked in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just a way of saying "Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered other groups" during the Holocaust era. SarahSV (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this should be reworded. The current text suggests there is an even that is even bigger than The Holocaust that we don't name or link to. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggestion
 * European Jews were targeted for extermination towards the end of a broad campaign of persecution and murder by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. This campaign began to take form during their rise to power and ended with their defeat in World War II. During this period the Nazis also targeted political and religious dissidents, those they considered “life unworthy of living” (“lebensunwertes leben”) and “asocials”, Slavs, Roma, Soviet prisoners of war, and homosexuals. Total deaths from this period exceeded 11 million persons.
 *  // Timothy::  talk  02:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Direction of the article
To explain my recent edits, there was a suggestion that we consider submitting the article for a GA review. I've therefore tentatively started trying to improve it so that it might be ready for a review. There are several problems: issues missing, some inappropriate or old sources, repetitive, problems with organization, too wordy in places.

I've started trying to remove repetition and in general tighten it and check for consistency. When I began, it was 14,098 words readable prose size, and although the article has been expanded, it's now 13,659. I've removed some older sources, news sources, and other non-specialist sources, and I've tried to consolidate the use of sources already in the article. I'll continue with this, time permitting, although I may have to take long breaks.

If anyone has a preference regarding the serial comma, please let me know. It's currently used inconsistently. Maybe that's okay. I tend not to use it, but I've left a few examples of it where it made things clearer. SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * My main suggestion would be better organization and proportion of information, with details left to individual linked articles. I think ideally this article would be a series of broad sections introducing the reader to how the Holocaust unfolded, the major events, individuals and issues related to the Holocaust, a working understanding of the “vocabulary” of the Holocaust (eg: Concentration vs Extermination camps). The organization could be something like this (a very imperfect and incomplete suggestion)

•Scope and Terminology •Background: pre-1933 European Antisemitism Herero and Namaqua genocide Impact of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles Rise of the völkisch movement •1933-1939   Racial Laws Nazi Propaganda and the Jews Concentration Camps Eugenics and euthanasia Resettlement plans Ghettoization Kristallnacht Economic Motivations and Plunder •1939-1945   The invasion of Poland The invasion of the Soviet Union Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution Operation Reinhard Extermination Camps Human Experimentation Sonderkommandos Non-Jewish Holocaust Victims The Holocaust in Axis Nations The Holocaust in Nazi occupied territory Rescue and Resistance Contemporary Awareness Germany Axis Nations Outside the Axis Death Marches Liberation •Aftermath Death Toll Trials Holocaust Denial and Distortion •Historiography •Select Bibliography

Some comments about the existing article. •Section 5.9 “Concentration and labor camps” and 5.8 “Ghettos” are under “World War II” and this seems out of place, chronologically and topically. •Euthanasia needs to include how T4 and 14f13 were connected to the Holocaust. •5.6 “Germany's allies” The three groupings of allies doesn’t seem to have any logic behind it. •“Gas vans” has its own section which seems out of proportion to its significance. •Some of the material in “Other victims of Nazi persecution” seems out of place. Eg: Roma connected to the Holocaust, but “Soviet POWs” seems off topic. •“Einsatzgruppen” is under the “Invasion of the Soviet Union” which is misleading. Could be its own section •“Pearl Harbor” is listed under “Final Solution” which could be misleading (and reflecting a POV) and the size seems excessive compared to its weight. •“Polish resistance, flow of information about the mass murder” could have a better title eg: “International Awareness about the Holocaust” •“Motivation” needs to be completely rewritten and I’m not sure a topic this broad and deep could be adequately covered here. POV would be a major consideration. •“Uniqueness question” I believe this has more to do with Historiography than “Aftermath”

I hope some of this is useful, it is offered with the best of intentions.  // Timothy::  talk  05:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Timothy, thanks, some interesting observations there. I'm hoping for improvement without radical change at this point because of the amount of work involved. Moving Einsatzgruppen is on my list. I agree about Motivation and was planning to remove it; I may do that now. I'll look at the rest of your list tomorrow. SarahSV (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I made a copy in my sandbox stripping out everything except headings and hatnotes. User:Levivich/sandbox6 I thought it might be helpful to have this to look at the structure and also to review the hatnotes and make sure we're linking to all the right articles in all the right places. I'll take a look through it and post here if I have any changes to suggest. Please feel free to edit the sandbox page. – Levivich 05:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you, that's very helpful. It does make the structure clearer. SarahSV (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ,, and , I'm not sure what to do now. No sooner had Levivich posted the headings than K.e.coffman arrived to change them and remove text, and now Piotrus has arrived too. To make significant, including structural, changes to an article like this, you need lots of sources, which means inter-library loans, and they have to be juggled. You work on what you can while you have the books, then you work on something else, reorder the books and wait for them to return (which can take weeks). When other people arrive and start moving and removing text, you have to stop and address that, so that's time with the books wasted. Also, you can't juggle structure (move it, think about it some more, perhaps move it back), when someone else is doing the same thing.
 * In addition, some of the recent edits are a concern. We now imply that pogroms that took part in Poland took part elsewhere, and information about pogroms before the invasion has been removed as "off-topic and not strictly relevant in the first place". If Holocaust historians discuss it, it's not "off-topic". Ditto the material about Bergen-Belsen. We're supposed to remove it because it wasn't an extermination camp? I don't see the relevance of that.
 * My aim was to produce a not-terrible draft that I could send to a Holocaust historian for review, then work on it some more and perhaps nominate it for GA. It isn't easy to do that. It's time-consuming, and it relies on the idea that other editors will respect that process to some extent and will collaborate rather than pull in the opposite direction. SarahSV (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think for live edits we should just follow BRD like normal, which is already what we're doing. As for getting it up to GA quality, I'd rather focus on the structure first and make sure all the headers and hatnotes are there and in the right order, and then come back to the prose of each section afterwards, and then the lead. So, the typical approach I guess. :-) – Levivich 06:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Errr, should I feel bad about "arriving" here? I commend you on thinking this can be GAed, and I think it is not far from that. My edits were just reducing some extraneous information that is irrelevant here, particularly since for this to be GA we still need to expand this article (due to see also containing some links to relevant content that should be mentioned on the article). So in fact the main challenge in improving this article will be in adding one or more new sections, which will of course exacerbate the current issues of this being already 'too long' (through IMHO this is not a big problem). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Sarah wasn't saying that at all. She was working solo and now that others are here issues/changes need to be discussed. As for being a GA, I don't think it's even close, but Sarah was willing to work on it and now we need to work constructively with her.  // Timothy::  talk  08:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

With regard to deciding what sections the article should have and in what organization, should we look at a few top sources that are overviews of the Holocaust (e.g., Fischel, Friedlander, Hilberg), and see how they arrange and present the material, and then compare that to this article's organization, and then make any adjustments as necessary? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy::  talk  08:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ,, and
 * I’ve been following the changes Sarah’s been making and think she is doing great work since she posted her ideas on 4 December. If a group is now interested in working together on this we absolutely need to follow the process to discuss changes and come to WP:CON. I think we need discuss more per WP:BRD. I feel we should roll back to 22:05, 11 December 2019‎ and begin discussing changes section by section in an organized fashion.
 * This is too important of an article for chaotic editing to break out; this should be one of the best articles on Wikipedia and disorganized editing will not produce that. It will just end up WP:DE, WP:EW, the result will be a mess and everyone will be unhappy. Structural changes to the article especially need to be discussed first before they are made . I generally agree with comments above on structure. See my comments below.
 * I share Sarah's concerns about some of the edits that have recently been made. So I think discussion to find a consensus is needed.
 * I’d propose we create drafts for each section as we begin working on them, discuss them on the talk page and work together to form a consensus and then once that is reached we can add the finished consensus version to the article. We can post a section on the talk page about the process the group is using to implement WP:EDIT / WP:BRD / WP:CON in a constructive and collaborative way and bring others interested in editing into the work.
 * We need to discuss what parameters/scope we are going to work within – for example, is the topic of T4 and 14f13 a part of the Holocaust? How much is “extermination through labor” a part of the Holocaust? How about Holocaust resistance and rescuers? The opening says the Holocaust is the “genocide of the European Jews”. Do we include Roma? Do we include gay men? We need to decide how much detail and background we will include – for example, how much information about the Madagascar Plan and the Nisko Plan do we include? How much do we go into the role NS ideology played in the Holocaust? If we define the parameters of the article document them on the talk page it will help future edits stay within scope.
 * We need to be very careful not to let opinion, WP:OR, WP:SYN, or WP:FRINGE creep in. If we try and get too detailed/specific here, or include too much background, we will undoubtedly run into historiographic debates that most people don’t understand and this should be an indicator too much detail/background is going in for an encyclopedia (I’m thinking about issues including but not limited to Intentionalism/Functionalism/Synthesis, Uniqueness, Responsibility).
 * There is a great deal about the Holocaust that is controversial. So for many things we are going to need to use multiple WP:RS, keep WP:RS AGE in mind and come to a consensus as to the preponderance of opinion in WP:RS and be general enough not stir up issues inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I feel strongly there are a vast number of books that are WP:RS from major or university-level publishers to support any fact suitable for an encyclopedia on this topic so that other types of sources should be used sparingly. Articles and monographs are probably either too specific or contain too much opinion for this topic in this context. WP:RSCONTEXT. I think if we can’t find a consensus of this type of WP:RS we are getting into too much detail for an encyclopedia.
 * Edit: I should have included articles by major Holocaust research organization such as Yad Vashem and USHMM as good reliable sources. 02:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)
 * This would have to be one of the most difficult articles on Wikipedia to work collaboratively on. If we can revise this article successfully, we will all be better editors.
 * Sarah mentioned sources. If we work together and pull our sources it will help.


 * My thoughts outside of what Sarah mentioned (which may be beyond what everyone wants to do).
 * I like the structural outline created to look at. I agree with  regarding structural issues being discussed
 * I think ideally this article would be a series of broad sections introducing the reader to how the Holocaust unfolded, the major events, individuals and issues related to the Holocaust, a working understanding of the “vocabulary” of the Holocaust” with details left to individual linked articles. There the historiographic debates/nuances/issues can be addressed in an appropriate way for an encyclopedia. In my early comments you can see how I would organize the article.
 * I hope you all are doing well. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy::  talk  07:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per, I've reverted K.e.coffman's structural changes. I could see the sense of some of them, but the other changes made no sense to me, and I couldn't find a way to disentangle them. This article has remained relatively free of the disputes that have plagued other Holocaust-related articles, and I hope it can stay that way. The aim is to produce an overview that reflects the up-to-date views and vocabulary of mainstream Holocaust historians, so that they wouldn't find anything in the article jarring or outdated, and wouldn't notice any important issues missing. SarahSV (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of recent edits
Sorry my editing turned out to be disruptive. Here are some explanations:
 * diff: section name "Ghettos, Jewish_councils" --> "Ghettoization". I felt that my suggested section name covers both ideas sufficiently; ghettoisation is how the Germans were "coping" with the much larger number of Jews in the German sphere of influence after the invasion of Poland. I also felt that "Jewish councils" was a bit gratuitous, as if implying the responsibility of Jews for their own misfortune. In any case "Ghettoization" addresses the section sufficiently.
 * diff: section name "Towards the Holocaust" --> "Escalation of violence". I was puzzled by the original caption as it implied that "the Holocaust" has not yet started, while the article has already covered the start of the genocide.
 * Some of my edits dealt with the coverage of pogroms under the header "Invasion of Poland" as in this version of the section: "Einsatzgruppen, pogroms".
 * The pogroms being covered in this section occurred in 1941, immediately after the start of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union. They are covered as such in the literature. It did not make sense to me to have the Kaunas pogrom in the "Invasion of the Soviet Union" section, while the Lviv pogroms (1941) that occurred at the same time were covered under the "Invasion of Poland". I'm not aware that anti-Jewish pogroms, spontaneous or otherwise, had occurred in Poland during the German invasion of 1939.
 * The same header introduces "Einsatzgruppen" while the anchor of ====Mass shootings==== is located under the invasion of the Soviet Union. Likewise, in the context of the Holocaust, the Einsatzgruppen are most associated with summer / autumn of 1941, the height of "the Holocaust by bullet".

Hope this makes sense. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The heading "Toward the Holocaust" signals that the start of the genocide of the European Jews, or a decision to do it, or a decision to allow further radicalization (depending on how you want to express it) can be dated to around this point. How on earth does the heading "Jewish councils" imply "the responsibility of Jews for their own misfortune"? SarahSV (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts on structure
The basic structural units are chronology and themes. Themes include country and type of action. The article follows chronology roughly: we can see a beginning, middle and end. But within that progression, the themes dominate, meaning that each section might look back and forward. Without that, important issues get lost.

The thematic architecture is complicated further by Germany and the Soviet Union moving through Europe changing boundaries and names, so certain "per country" portraits become difficult to write, particularly because we're writing for people with no prior knowledge. Should we respect Hitler's and Stalin's renaming? To what extent should our structure reflect their chaos?


 * I think we should use the pre-1933 geographic designations and use labels such as "German-occupied Czechoslovakia", "Soviet-Occupied East Prussia" with occupation names used when it would add clarity such as "Warthegau in German-occupied Poland" or "Sudetenland in German-occupied Czechoslovakia", "the German General Government region of occupied Poland". <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy::  talk  02:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

For example, do we discuss pogroms in Poland in the Poland section, even though it messes up chronology? Or move them to the Soviet Union section, because the Soviet Union invaded those parts of Poland before Germany did the same when it invaded the Soviet Union? Or should we create a separate pogroms section? The recent edits removed pre-invasion pogroms as "off-topic". I disagree with that. Pogroms illustrate the climate in which the Holocaust spread. One of the issues missing from the country sections is a sense of how Jews were treated before the Germans arrived.


 * "Pogroms illustrate the climate in which the Holocaust spread." /agree
 * I think adding Pogroms to any single geographic region is a mistake. It would be cleaner and clearer to cover it topically and include specific geographic references such as "Pogrom in German-occupied Lithuania", "Pogroms in German-occupied Ukraine". <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy::  talk  02:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not sure how or whether to proceed with the work now. I'll hold off on any more structural changes without discussing it here first. SarahSV (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the suggestion from of reviewing how major authors on the Holocaust structured these issues is helpful <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;">  // Timothy::  talk  02:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

December 14, 2019: Collaboration Comments
@ :: Sarah I made a few small changes for you to review. I also think the below Synder passage has some value (I slightly reworded) I didn't add because I wasn't sure, but thought it was worth considering.
 * Timothy Snyder writes the mass shootings in the occupied Soviet Union "required tens of thousands of participants and was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people".

Hope all is well <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy::  talk  06:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for posting here about this. First the Snyder quote: I like it too, but I removed it because I'm not sure how the shootings could have been witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people.
 * Regarding the Soviet Union figure, your edit added the USHMM, but it didn't remove Crowe, so now Crowe is supporting a figure he doesn't support. (See text-source integrity.) As for which figure to use, I've found USHMM figures are often out of step with other people's, so I think I would favour Crowe, although he doesn't cite his source. Later in the article (The Holocaust), we say the death toll for Soviet Jews was 2,100,000. See that table for the sources. Therefore, I think I'd prefer to go back to Crowe: between 700,000 and 2.5 million. SarahSV (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd restored Crowe's figures and the final lead paragraph (important distinction: Holocaust v Holocaust era). We should try to find one source for the overall figures and stick to it (except for sections describing how the figures developed), so that we're not mixing and matching so much. SarahSV (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

TOC discussion
I've reproduced (paraphrased, condensed) tables of contents for the sources in the article that are histories/overviews of the entire Holocaust. If I've missed any works, please feel free to add them. I color coded the sections roughly into five chronological periods; if anyone wants to change or add colors, feel free. I didn't color code Gilbert because I was lazy. It seems to me like there's a consensus structure for the presentation of the topic. Our article's current outline seems to match this very closely, but we may want to consider moving some sections. If you have a proposal for a revised TOC, please feel free to post it next to the current TOC (so we can all compare the current and the proposed TOCs). Hope this helps. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 08:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is absolutely brilliant. Such a good idea. I may try to add Christopher R. Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution. Our "Toward the Holocaust" heading mirrors that book's "Toward the Final Solution, August–December 1941".By the way, I said recently that I wouldn't make any more structural changes without discussion, then I added a "Jews in Europe" heading for a table. Sorry about that. I wasn't thinking of it as structural, but of course it is. SarahSV (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Looking at it again, I realized I missed a bunch of A-F authors:
 * Browning – who I lost in a forgotten browser window :-D
 * Yehuda Bauer, A History of the Holocaust
 * Jeremy Black, The Holocaust: History and Memory (which has a section entitled "Towards Genocide")
 * Deborah Dwork, Holocaust: A History
 * And what do you think about Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews: 1933–1945? (It's not cited in the article.)
 * I'm sured I've missed others as well. But I'll chip away at adding these. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They would be great, except for Dawidowicz which we don't use. You could remove Gilbert and Harran too, if you want. The latter has been removed and the former is an older source. But the rest would be great. SarahSV (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Very nice job indeed. Do we have any proposed ToC outside the one by Timothy that for some reason isn't in this section yet? And I am not sure I follow the (pretty) color coding. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks! The color code is to indicate where each author discusses events by year (roughly):, , , , . – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Very helpful. I added Browning . I will work on Black, unless someone has started <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy::  talk  02:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Timothy, thanks for adding Browning. I've colour-coded him! SarahSV (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! I've got Black and the others done, pasting them here now. Could definitely use help reviewing/expanding the color coding. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, Browning, Bauer, Black and Dwork are added and colorized; Gilbert and Harran removed; at a 3-column layout. Thanks to everyone for their help! – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I posted an Alt 1 working draft TOC above with a few changes to consider: Thoughts? Please feel free to edit the Alt 1 version. These are just some initial thoughts. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 05:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Concentration camps moved before Poland/Einsatzgruppen, because the Conc. camp section says they started being used in earnest in late '38, and the Poland/Eins. section says the Eins. sent people to concentration camps, so concentration camps first?
 * 2) Promoted Invasion of Soviet Union up a level. I think most of the sources have a "section break" as it were at Barbarossa, and the current TOC has "invasion of Soviet Union" as a subsection to "Beginning of WWII" which is a bit confusing.
 * 3) Moved Pearl Harbor from beginning of Final Solution to end of the previous section (Invasion of Soviet Union). I agree with Tim's point above that Wannsee is a better start to the Final Solution section (and I think per more sources' TOCs? but I'm not 100% sure).
 * Update: I made some additional changes to Alt 1; although there are some changes to the subsections, I'm really just focusing on the lvl 1 headers with the alt 1 example (for now). – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Timothy's Thoughts and TOC

 * On My TOC:
 * I know this is a significant change. I propose it more for discussion and not expecting wholesale adoption
 * I think it is topical, yet keeps the chronology the user needs to understand the development
 * I see this as kind of a “portal” (not in the sense of an actual Wikipedia portal). I think it covers all the topics needed for a basic understanding and through “Hat notes” (I think I’m using that term correctly) the user can be directed to deeper articles.
 * Flowing from the above concept, I think we should avoid details and focus more on breadth and summary.
 * Most of the Level 3 and 4 points below may be part of the Level 2 text or their own sections, I added them mainly for discussion.
 * Some of the new sections could (would) be left out and written after restructuring the existing content. I think this would help the existing parts of the article gain stability, keeps existing interested editors involved, and it gives new editors who want to contribute to the article something to work on and will help keep the "tweaking for the sake of tweaking" at a minimum (is that naive of me, I think it is even as I'm writing this...)
 * I could probably tweak this endlessly, but I will stop (and I ran out of time) and get some feedback.
 * I need to add colors (ran out of time)


 * General Thoughts for discussion on other TOC's:
 * 1) The book TOC's were very helpful to provoke thought
 * 2) The sections and reordering I am suggesting are in my TOC, I didn't include it again here.
 * 3) Are we including “"life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben) victims as part of the Holocaust? or are they a separate genocide that is connected to the Holocaust? Action 14f13 continued into the period of the Final Solution, shared perpetrators. There is a line from Killing Centers >> Chelmno
 * 4) I would consider changing the word “persecution” to “genocide” on section 7
 * 5) I’m not convinced “Pearl Harbor, Germany declares war on America” bears the weight to be its own section.
 * 6) When we use “Invasion of” 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 its misleading. The topic isn’t the “Invasion of…” but the “Holocaust in…” Placing this under “Beginnings” implies the Holocaust played out Mostly/entirely in this period when the Holocaust played out during the entire period
 * (I'll probably add more later, ran out of time)

No one can ever accuse us of not "showing our math" on this article development.

Hope everyone is well <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy::  talk  17:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your suggestions, but I have a hard time looking at lvl 3 and lvl 4 headers at the same time as lvl 1 and lvl 2. I'd prefer to figure out the lvl 1 headers and then go through each one to discuss the subsections. To that end, my "Alt 1" suggestion is really just about the lvl 1 headers, I haven't really thought too much about the subsections yet. One thing I don't like about Alt 2 is that I think it's better to avoid dividing large time periods by geography. If there's one lvl1 section on 33-39, and one lvl1 section on 39-41, then there should be one lvl1 section on 41-45 and not three (SU, Euth., FS). I think there could be another lvl1 section about "the end", including rescue, death marches, liberation, destruction/concealment of infrastructure, which might effectively be 1945 in the timeline. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How would you title that section? Those are important issues that need to be included, right now some topics are only mentioned in see also, and a hallmark of Good+ article is not having anything important in see also. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "End of World War II" is what I had before, or maybe "End of the Holocaust"? I just changed my Alt 1 with some new proposed headings and a slightly different structure than before. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not seeing this section in the ToC? One concern I have is that limiting this to 1945 may not encompass all the phenomena you mentioned. For example rescue of Jews occurred throughout the entire period, not just 1945. Death marches, liberation and attempts to destroy evidence would fit that, but maybe rescue should have its own section? Or otherwise it should be covered where? I note it is one of those big topics that currently are just in this article's see also. A dedicated section could give an overview of it, and then discuss post-war recognition through YV's Righteous. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like three of the source TOCs put "rescue" in the pink section (41–45) and two in the blue section (after 45). I've updated my Alt1 in the section above to add a "rescue" section after resistance in the 42–45 section. Another way to handle it is to not have a separate "rescue" section at all, and instead mention the rescue efforts in each chronological section. So, for example, there would be rescue from pre-war Germany in 33–39 section; rescue from ghettos 39–41, rescue from camps 41–44, and liberation in 45. (These are "rough" boundaries; e.g., there was rescue from camps before 41.) – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I lean towards having a dedicated section, as it is always friendlier to readers who look for specific issues in ToC, and it also makes it less likely stuff will be removed from another section when someone things its off-topic (undue, etc.). Which also applies to other topics (my view is that if in doubt, create a dedicated section for any other topic too). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm that's a good argument for having a separate section. What do you think of the placement? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the best choice for that level, through I'd propose considering moving it a level up, together with death toll, which is also a subject that is not 'just for 1945'. Some topics like this don't fit neatly into any timeframe as they are relate to the entire duration, and they placing them in a particular time period is not ideal. If there are concerns that moving such topics a level up would make them undue we can try to put them under another heading if anyone can figure out a good name. Through considering the placement in other ToC I think it shouldn't be an issue to simply upgrade Rescue to a higher level. Since rescue was not always successful, the heading "Rescue attempts" might be better than Rescue".--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Timothy, you're talking about a complete rewrite. Bear in mind that for every new section suggestion, and even for suggestions to move a section, someone has to do the writing or rewriting, if only to smooth out the move. To do the rewriting, you need to have read the key scholarly sources, and not just one or two of them, because you have to be aware of areas in which historians disagree. In other words, don't underestimate the amount of work behind many of these suggestions. SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Timothy, I don't want to be mean here, but I do note that you've not been editing Wikipedia for a long time. And I don't think you've really edited anything quite as contentious or as big a subject as the Holocaust. This isn't to say you're input isn't helpful, but proposing significant rewrites and reorganizations on such big and contentious topics is something that both Sarah and I (who have been around a decent bit on Wikipedia and have edited in contentious and big areas) are both hesitant to do. The single biggest thing you can do is probably go look at other big topics (especially historical ones) that are GA or FA and see how they treat the subjects. While WP:Summary style is important, we can't strip articles like this to the bare bones - it's just not good form. Many readers will NOT go to the sub articles - they want a good grounding in the subject in one place. Another thing you can do is read read read (like Sarah says). And ... speaking as the person who spent months fixing all the citations in this article a couple of years ago to make sure they supported what they were attached to - read WP:INTEGRITY and understand that it is even MORE important for such a contentious article. Don't insert new information into a sentence that is sourced to a specific source without being positive that the old source supports the new information. It literally took me months to check EVERY sentence and fact in the article to make sure it was properly cited... and I do not want to have to do that again. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with the above. It's an interesting proposal, but the current structure is not bad enough (or at all) to justify a complete rewrite, with all the difficulties that entails. In an article of this order, as long as it doesn't have significant problems, we should opt for evolution rather than revolution - unless a plan is presented that minimizes disturbance to text that has been already verified and reviewed. A preferable alternative would be incorporating only parts of the proposal into the existing structure, where their benefit is the greatest. François Robere (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , there's no consensus for a radical overhaul of the structure. Posting how Holocaust historians have structured their work was helpful, and it showed that our article flows along similar lines, but posting suggestions from editors is less so, especially when they're radically different. As I said above, don't underestimate the amount of rewriting that would entail. As for a "rescue" section, it might be interesting to say more about which countries offered refuge, but not about individual rescues, because that would entail offering the other point of view about the problem of highlighting individual rescue. This brings us to what I meant when I said on 13 December that this page had remained relatively free of the disputes that have plagued other Holocaust-related articles, and I hope it stays that way, so I would oppose any focus on individual rescues. SarahSV (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you see alt1 as a radical overhaul? – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it starts the article about the Holocaust with several sections about what the Holocaust was not. SarahSV (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Do we need to include the term "Polish resistance" in our headings? It's not present in any other ToC. They do often mention resistance in general, but in different context (ours is about the flow of information, the other sources seem to focus in their respective sections on Jewish resistance (a lot of which happened in occupied Poland, but not all of it). We already have a section proposed for this ("Jewish resistance"). I don't think we need to mention "Polish resistance" at equivalent level. Thoughts? At the very least, the title "Polish resistance, flow of information about the mass murder" is unwieldy. How about renaming it to "Awareness of the Holocaust and flow of information"? Ideally, that section should contain a referenced sentence that most of the flow of information came from the Polish resistance, but that doesn't need to be in the heading. Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Should probably be included
I had at one point a list of subjects I thought needed coverage here ... it's gone AWOL in the move, but one at least is Holocaust denial... And wow, great work folks. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think denial should be mentioned in ToC. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on including Holocaust denial. It isn't a topic regularly discussed by Holocaust historians. 9/11 appears not to mention the truthers. Barack Obama doesn't mention the birthers. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting does mention the conspiracy theorists but only because the parents sued two of them. SarahSV (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

How are we doing on the restructure project
Things seem to haves stalled a bit, what's the problem? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Enumerating Non-Jewish Deaths
As evidenced in the archives of this talk page – see, e.g., Archives 19 and Archives 35 – there has been scholarly dispute in recent years as to how many non-Jewish people who died at the hands of the Nazis should be viewed as Holocaust deaths. The number 5 million was used for decades but there is dispute among scholars, including Deborah Lipstadt, as to its provenance and accuracy. She points out that it either grossly understates the millions who were killed by the Nazis – easily as high as 11 million – or greatly overstates the number killed in anything like the systematically genocidal approach the Nazis took towards European Jewry. Indeed, Lipstadt suggests that the number of 5 million non-Jewish deaths was a deliberate fiction created for noble, if possibly misguided, reasons that has been embraced by antisemites. See https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/217/simon-wiesenthal-and-the-ethics-of-history/. My recent edits, mistakenly reverted by TheSunofman, attempt to bring this discussion to the page which appears not to have had any recognition of it before. I left the discussion mostly in footnote as a means of minimizing the modification rather than bringing the dispute into WP. Czrisher (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The figure of 11 million by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is counting the victim to Nazi persecution, it was estimated by a over a decade-long research to come to that number. It is saying that 11 million people are victims of Nazi persecution and that 6 million Jews were victims of the Holocaust, they separate the two like the info box. It was done by an academic Institute That is very reputable and the USHMM number has nothing to do with the other number that is mentioned in the news paper or with Simon Wiesenthal. Example from the article 'During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted and killed other groups, including at times their children, because of their perceived racial and biological inferiority: Roma (Gypsies), Germans with disabilities, and some of the Slavic peoples (especially Poles and Russians). Other groups were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals. What follow are the current best estimates of civilians and captured soldiers killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. These estimates are calculated from wartime reports generated by those who implemented Nazi population policy, and postwar demographic studies on population loss during World War II.'https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecutionTheSunofman (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not appear you have read or engaged with my edits. They bring the page into accordance with the USHMM piece to which you cite, which it was not previously and is not under your reversions. The citations you keep removing are to one of the main experts cited on the page and the USHMM itself saying that the "11 million" non-Jewish victims number is difficult for the reasons I inserted. They suggest that edits such as those you are making are a tool used by those who wish to minimize the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. I would like to believe, your ad hominem attacks notwithstanding, that you are acting in good faith; I wish you would accord me the same courtesy. Czrisher (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to minimize the Jewish significance of the Holocaust or do ad hominem attacks. But in United States Holocaust Museum online literature, it does state 17 million people were victims of Nazi persecution. That was put there (11 million) by an administrator who appears to have been working on this page for quite some time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=932755779&oldid=932470551 Example from the USHMM About the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Some key statistics about the Museum’s collections (Archives and Photo Archives): More than 170 million pages of documentation related to more than 17 million victims; 85,000 historic photographs and images, of which 23,661 are available on the Museum Web site.https://www.ushmm.org/online/world-memory-project/pages/about-the-museum/. If you count all non-Jewish Soviet deaths like the USHMM does (including 1.3 Soviet Jewish civilians, who are included in the 6 million figure for Jews). It still reaches 11 million So there is nothing wrong with the article as it is in sync with the USHMM.TheSunofman (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you summarize the sources that state otherwise? François Robere (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We have chosen long ago this is not the best source. In fact one editor was blocked for insisting its use. -- Moxy 🍁 23:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources say that one should distinguish the systematic killing of European Jews from the Nazis' other killings, which were equally brutal but not part of a genocidal approach such as that taken against the Jews. Thus, they say that listing non-Jewish victims as Holocaust victims is inaccurate. They go on to say that the often cited number of 5 million non-Jewish victims was a pure fabrication of Simon Weisenthal, made to engender support for his anti-Nazi work from people he felt would not be sympathetic if it was all about the 6 million Jews who were killed. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum citation catalogs the ~6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and, on the same page, counts "victims of Nazi Persecution", such as "Soviet civilians" and "Non-Jewish Polish civilians", some of which include Jewish deaths. I am guessing is referencing a discussion in Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 32 which is the only place I have found of prior discussion of one of the sources I added, an article by Ron Kampeas. But I did not see there anyone being blocked, and have found no discussion of the Deborah Lipstadt pieces cited by Kampeas. My read is that the scholarly conclusion is that we should differentiate the Holocaust/Shoah from other Nazi brutality in a way that TheSunofman would not have the cite do. The USHMM on which TheSunofman relies distinguishes, in its header and throughout between the two sets of victims. To include 11 million "Victims...of Nazi Persecution" in an article on the Holocaust, without explaining that distinction, appears to be doing a disservice to the cited source and the readers.Czrisher (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC) (ETA: Contra TheSunofman, I did not "remov[e]" the USHMM citation, which I consider an excellent resource, or [replac[e] it] with a newspaper citation, I added citations to a top scholar's article and a newspaper article that explains in simpler and more accessible language what the scholarly research says.)
 * And the citations..? François Robere (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where there is legitimate disagreement on a fact, it's always better to identify the different contentions, and their sources, rather than for WP to declare a single "truth." If there are different accounts of the number of Jews/non-Jews killed by the Nazis, we can identify the different figures and any explanations offered by the sources. It's unfortunate that people have chosen to place such emphasis on segregating the atrocities of the Nazis by ethnicity in the first place. I guess that ship has sailed. We've now apparently lowered ourselves to questioning the motives of those who seek accurate accounting of those killed. I guess there are those who will attempt to maximize or minimize the victims by ethnicity for their own purposes. John2510 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the USHMM museum website cited no longer includes the 11 million figure. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution 2601:643:8681:160:EC2F:5AA4:4F2B:D76 (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Austin Weisgrau

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020
In the section: "8 Other victims of Nazi persecution" "8.2 Non-Jewish Poles" it would make sense to change it to: "8.2 Poles" With same logic as other nations. In fact in first wave of Poles send to Auschwitz there were few Jewish people, but they were send there as members Polish intelligentsia. Germans were killing Poles for being Poles, not for being "Non-Jewish Poles".

Also there is very serious controversy in the section: "6.1.1 Einsatzgruppen, pogroms" In one line there are listed Jewish-Polish conflicts from before war (not state controlled pogroms), with June and July 1941, Lviv pogroms, where Ukrainian nationalist (with German administration permission) massacred thousands of Jewish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lviv_pogroms_(1941) This cannot be confused with the incidents where Jewish tradesmen had conflict with Polish villagers, resulting with maximum of couple of causalities on both sides! Please note that the source is note from the newspaper. But we speak here about very serious things. I could spend some time to edit it, but I believe most of Wikipedia administrators, can do it. It is just a matter of good willing.

Best Regards Kojoto Kojoto (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly we recognize that the Holocaust affected more than 6 million Jewish souls. While the facts come later in this topic, the entry to the page is misleading and should be corrected:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah,[b] was the World War II genocide of the European Jews and other individuals deemed 'undesirable' to the Nazi state. Between 1941 and 1945, across German-occupied Europe, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population and over five millions others.[a][c] The murders were carried out in pogroms and mass shootings; by a policy of extermination through work in concentration camps; and in gas chambers and gas vans in German extermination camps, chiefly Auschwitz, Bełżec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibór, and Treblinka in occupied Poland.[4]

Eurogil (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)eurogilEurogil (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)