Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 41

Another revert
I added the estimate of more than 10 million non-Jewish non-combatants from Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust: The Human Tragedy. The relevant page can be previewed in Google Books:. Note that Gilbert's figure is in fairly good agreement with the widely cited USHMM page discussed above.

Buidhe reverts with the edit summary:

The problem I see with her argument is that as far as I am aware, the chapter shown in the above preview is specific to the 2014 edition titled The Holocaust: The Human Tragedy. This has a dual "1985, 2014" copyright. (The 1980s' edition also had a different title: The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy).

Here is a search for the relevant passage in the 1980s version (to paste into your browser):

https://books.google.co.uk/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&redir_esc=y&id=hRJnAAAAMAAJ&dq=martin+gilbert+"the+holocaust+the+jewish+tragedy"&focus=searchwithinvolume&q="more+than+ten+million+other+non-combatants"

No match. Here is a search for the relevant passage in the cited 2014 version:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=92lsDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=holocaust+human+tragedy&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q="more%20than%20ten%20million%20other%20non-combatants"

To exclude the possibility of an OCR mistake, I've tried to find any other snippets from the relevant chapter in the 1980s version, like the mention of "millions of non-Jewish civilians", "defenceless Greeks", all without success. The content is unique to the 2014 version, published a year before Gilbert's death.

So absent any weighty arguments to the contrary, I'd like us to reinstate Gilbert's estimate, which is also in fairly good agreement with the USHMM page that Buidhe has objected to as well. Andreas JN 466 08:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There's an omission in the above, dropping "other" in the search string; it should be "more+than+ten+million+other+non-combatants". Using the latter string, I'm able to locate a 2006 source that cites "Gilbert, 1987: 824" for the 10 million number: The Myth of Evil: Demonizing the Enemy, by Phillip Cole. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have inserted the missing word for both searches above. The search results for the two editions remain unchanged of course. However, the 2006 citation you found does indicate that the same figure must have been in the earlier edition as well, in some form, even if Google searches fail to find it. This does not change the fact that Gilbert republished it in 2014. Buidhe's argument that "The same figure of 10 million cannot be found in the more recent Never Again" doesn't strike me as convincing. We don't require authors to republish a figure in every book they publish before we accept it. For what it's worth, here is the equivalent page in Never Again. It mentions two million non-Jewish Poles killed (of which a quarter million in Auschwitz), Communists being shot on sight, Russian villagers murdered "in the hundreds of thousands", three million Soviet POWs murdered in captivity, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Greece and Yugoslavia, a million Serbs, Gypsies. Yes, it doesn't give a total, but it is entirely consonant with what Gilbert writes here. It indicates nowhere that Gilbert was correcting his earlier analysis.
 * It seems to me we are clutching at straws to disallow any source that gives a higher figure than Gerlach. Andreas JN 466 10:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Gilbert was a prominent historian at one point, but a lot of his work is out of date now. The field changes pretty quickly; Arad's Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka (1987) was getting called out of date when it was reissued in 1999 and The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (2010) was explicitly cited as out of date as a rationale for the Wiley Companion to the Holocaust (2020). I believe we should only cite recent and high quality sources in this article, since there are so many to choose from. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in hearing about the policy that requires our sources to confirm to some ideological view of history that is currently dernier cri. It seems to me more pertinent whether the data is correct. Has anyone refuted it? If not, why would we not mention it? Elinruby (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * /me re-reads some more...I see, recency is being used as a metric of quality? I'd agree with that if the topic were computing. It isn't though, is it. Has anyone done an analysis of the reasons for the discrepancy? I think what's needed is a definition of "quality". As far as the scope of the Holocaust goes, maybe it's a common name question. I don't have an opinion but it would be nice if Wikipedia had a single working definition.
 * If we define the Holocaust as the killing of Jews only, then it is reasonable to ask where the articles are on all of the other people, and the answer should not be scattered across a million pages. I am not convinced by the assertion that the other targeted groups weren't selected for their identity. They were other.
 * Getting back to the disparate numbers, why not just: Author X in 1946 said a, while historian Y in 1972 published documents from archive b, while recent research has focused on Topic æ. Teach the controversy, as someone said above. Elinruby (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Elinruby, this is your first edit to this page. Have you followed me here?
 * Re numbers, a good amount of Holocaust related demographics was actually proven wrong when the Eastern bloc archives were opened.
 * I continue to defend the use of recent, high quality scholarly sources in this article.
 * Lastly, this article is about the genocide of Jews, the unquestionable primary topic. If there were a significant controversy about the number of non-Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, this article would not be the place to cover it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If we mention the number of non-Jewish victims, we might as well be neutral about it and report the range. As mentioned above, both the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust (Columbia University Press, 2000) speak of 17 million. It's not like giving one of those other estimates alongside Gerlach costs us lots of space; it's half a dozen words. Andreas JN 466 19:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, you vastly overestimate my interest in you. I've been editing articles about the Holocaust for months, years if we aren't limiting it to Eastern Europe, and I don't think there is any one author who is automatically higher quality. Now that we have dealt with your usual aspersions, I repeat: What this policy needs is a definition of "quality source" and I don't think that it should necessarily be "most recent", nor should we as Wikipedia be making calls on disputed numbers. Long years at RSN indicate that the answer to such controversies is usually if not always to explain them. Also, unilaterally declaring a special definition of "Holocaust" will almost certainly impact other articles I have been, bit by bit, nudging forward for months. I am not necessarily against limiting the definition of the Holocaust, but if we do, I think we should do so consistently. But there's no question that I am affected and therefore, excuse me, Buidhe, definitely allowed to express policy-based concerns, whether you choose to take this as an affront or not. Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * in other words, if certain numbers have been "proven wrong", an assertion to which I am open, pending some sources on that, then the thing to do is succinctly explain how and when. Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For those questioning the 2014 book by Gilbert, I went to my library, and here is what it says: «As well as the six million Jews who were murdered, more than ten million other non-combatants were killed by the Nazis»


 * Buidhe. with respect, you do not own the page. I see considerable disagreement with your various positions over several threads, and the most recent revert is silly. What people have been arguing, against you, for yonks is one simple sentence that would state that other than several million Jews, a figure for non-Jews of upwards of that, killed essentially on the same grounds, should be mentioned in the lead. This is no offense to the doctrinal approach to the Holocaust as a phenomenon affecting Jews, the byproduct of a decades'-long politicallydriven restriction of a term to that ethnicity only. It is a matter of historical context, which, yes, contradicts the nonsensical thesis that the 'holocaust' was unique. It was distinctive, but not unique, a concept that serves no useful function in historiography where all events are, by definition, unique, and therefore no one event is 'more unique', except for people who enjoy non-sequiturs.
 * "The Nazi regime and its allies also killed millions of non-Jews, although Jews made up the majority of the civilian war-related deaths in some European countries."
 * I read that as a slightly obscene, grasping after straws. with that 'although' clause, to amend the perceived damage, by whoever crafted it, of conceding a bare minimum (not the 8-10 million) hint that other people died aside from this holocaust. Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's obscene about this; it closely follows what's written in the cited source. I don't see how it's intrinsically irrelevant to mention that Jews—who made up in the single digits of the prewar population—actually suffered the majority of civilian losses in some areas, although not everywhere. As for "on the same grounds", plenty of reliable sources beg to differ with your assessment. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with what is known as the 'polite English put down' cultivated by the nicer classes and Oxbridgean luminaries. Christopher Ricks introduced it to literary criticism, with great effect. If you are tone-deaf to this nuancing instinct in prose, but just read grammatically, then I won't argue with you. But it's there. That is the way language functions.Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you propose an alternative wording for the sentence "The Nazi regime and its allies also killed millions of non-Jews, although Jews made up the majority of the civilian war-related deaths in some European countries"? Andreas JN 466 09:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I could, but I believe the sentence is cocked for bias and suppression of the fact that 'The Nazi regime and its allies also killed several million non-Jews as part of its general policies of extermination.' However, the text should simply read, instead of that, something along the lines of, 'the holocaust refers to the murder of approximately 6 million Jews, the primary target of a genocidal policy that killed a further 8-10 million non-Jews by similar methods.' The refusal to accept this is purely doctrinal. WW2 genocide must prioritize Jewish suffering, and then glance at the rest as a footnote. No one disputes the figure range. It's just that the USHMM is the Vatican of holocaust studies, and its sectarian rulings, however offensive to historical neutrality, must be obeyed.Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Kay indeed could support similar methods. But the central reason why Jews were killed, namely that the Nazis' kooky conspiracy theory that Jews were pulling the strings behind the Allied powers and plotting to destroy Germany, was not present when it came to other groups. I'm not convinced your wording is an improvement, especially since there seems to be some debate as to whether other victim groups—such as Soviet POWs—were killed because of a top-down policy or whether these deaths are more accurately described as resulting from decisions made at a lower level in the face of a genuine food shortage (See Moore 2022). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 'central reason' 'kooky theory'. That convinces me you don't have a solid grasp of the material, Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm astonished that you would reduce Nazi racial ideology to such a shallow depiction. It is utterly incomplete, and in my opinion bordering on the offensive with regards to their non-Jewish victims. The ideology was clearly and unequivocally built around concepts of racial hierarchy, with Aryan purity at the top, besieged by 'others'. Not just Jews, but Slavs, Romani, and others each portrayed as enemies to be subjugated, displaced, or eliminated. Jews (or people they classified as Jews - not always the same thing in such thinking) were their prime target, certainly, but other victims were murdered on an industrial scale to suit the warped ideology. Not because of who they were, but because of how the Nazis represented them. You would do yourself a great service to take a little more care about how you too depict such victims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said that this conspiracy theory was the entirety of Nazi racial theories, merely that it was the most important factor in the Final Solution, according to various sources including Stone 2023. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We are going around in circles here. The discussion concerns the extent to which non-Jewish civilian victims of Nazi genocide should be discussed in the article. Clearly the phrase 'final solution' was applied to Jews, but that is of no relevance to the point being discussed. The Nazis racist ideology as a whole led to mass killings, and our article needs to emphasise that. The racist ideology, not its specific application to Jews, was what led to genocide. Genocide of Jews, Slavs, Romani and others. Regardless of whether the specific term 'Holocaust' should be applied to the systematic killing of non-Jews, it would be entirely improper for this article to in any shape or form to imply that the killing of non-Jews was somehow incidental, or that they were in some manner 'lesser victims'. We simply cannot do that. The article lede must place the killing of Jews in its broader context. Unequivocally. With no concession to disputes about words use afterwards to describe the Nazis crimes. We owe that much to the victims. All of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nazi racial theories were one important factor in the regime's crimes, however, various sources differ in terms of how much emphasis is placed on different factors in explaining each of these crimes (others being food shortages and real or perceived security threats). It is also in dispute that each and every large scale crime can be attributed to an intentional policy of the central government as I stated above. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nazi policy was a consequence of their ideology. As were the conditions that led to food shortages and 'security threats'. And I am beginning to run out of patience here. Given your stonewalling, and given that you appear to be in a minority of one over this, I am inclined to suggest that we simply proceed without your consent. Per normal Wikipedia practice, consensus need not be unanimous, and I think that the remaining participants here are essentially in agreement as to the requirements for the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's really frustrating when editors are advocating wording that goes against what reliable sources say. I guess I can't stop you. But if you're willing to reconsider, perhaps think about the following sources. People have been advocating above that the article needs to cite even weaker sources, but now they want to contradict the following ones in wikivoice : You may be right that the question of intent may not be the right question to ask, but we are still doing a disservice to the reader by misleading them into thinking that there is a deliberate policy to kill all the millions of victims listed when sources disagree. Indeed, the larger number of victims cited, the less evidence that the Nazi leadership specifically intended their deaths.(t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Moore argues against there being a specific policy of mass killing of Soviet prisoners of war, instead "their deaths were the result, not of deliberate planning, but of a lack of planning on a massive scale"
 * The same argument is made here,, the idea that there was a plan by the Wehrmacht leadership to kill the great majority of the prisoners who eventually died "completely misses reality", instead it was intended to keep most of them alive for forced labor, but for various reasons that didn't end up happening.
 * Another example: in (also see Kay 2021 p. 234), Blatman covers a similar situation where mass death of hundreds of thousands of concentration camp prisoners occurred, but without clear instructions from above (p. 420, passim). Are they justifiably counted as victims of Nazism? Certainly. Was there a policy to kill them? No.
 * Hundreds of thousands of forced laborers died after being deported to Germany (Gerlach pp. 3, 11). I'm sure they are counted in some of the estimates of deaths that have been offered. Kay does not list them as a victim group in his book because it doesn't sit well with his concept of "mass killing". Although no doubt these deaths were caused by the poor conditions endured by forced laborers, their deaths were neither intended nor desirable to the Nazi leadership because if they were dead they could not be used as slaves anymore. Not to mention that the death rate varied due to the conditions, which were partly set by the various companies and agencies employing them.


 * The discussion got a bit off track. For example, IIRC, there's been some debate whether the persecution of the Soviet POWs was genocide / deliberate mass killing, or simply "malign neglect". But I do not recall sources that would say that the non-Jewish victims were killed in the Holocaust (unlike the Jewish POWs were specifically segregated and shot as early as at the collection points).
 * This is all a discussion for the Mass killings by Nazi Germany which was started in this form, but then redirected to this page (which made no sense). It's now a disambig, but should really be a fully fledged article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In short, of the several million Jews who died in the Holocaust, those who died on death marches were not victims of the Holocaust, because 'death marches' were not a component of the orders-from-above.policy of killing Jews, but, like the general run of non-Jewish slave labourers who were shifted, they just happened to die for logistical reasons, not intentionally. Well done.Nishidani (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the thread(s) on death marches attentively. That is what is clearly implied above. This is the sort of conceptual fuckup fallout one gets when one reads history ethnically. Worse still, those who make such distinctions don't appear to grasp what their remarks imnply. Nishidani (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think that I'm reading history ethnically, but the article already states that, although many Jews died during the death marches, there was no systematic mass killing of them during the last months of the war. It's true that many sources would still consider these events part of the Holocaust, but even if it isn't, it still merits mention in the article. Other events such as the 1941 pogroms in eastern Poland are also in dispute about whether they are considered part of the Holocaust. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 'when one reads history ethnically' refers to the sources, not to you. Holocaust histories count Jewish deaths in the death marches as part of the Holocaust total. That is, as victims of a policy. In maintaining per sources, that victims of death marches did not die as a result of a deliberate set of extermination orders or policies, it would follow logically that such Jews are not Holocaust victims (reductio ad absurdum). Blatman (20911:10 et passim) is aware of this awkwardness, which stems from the assumption of ethnic uniqueness, and struggles with it in his book, unsuccessfully in my view.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If there are no further objections to the Gilbert estimate he cited in his 2014 book, I'll be adding it back. XavierItzm (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Medical experiments
I've only just realised how much of this article was deleted over the past few weeks, since about 20 April (!).

One section that seems to have completely disappeared is the one about medical experimentation. I would have thought this deserves at least a mention in the article. Andreas JN 466 20:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As I stated earlier this was not a significant aspect of the Holocaust. The article cannot cover everything tangentially related and still meet article size requirements. A mention would frankly be UNDUE. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's so important it wasn't mentioned once in Longerich 2010, a book of more than 400 pages. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources differ.
 * Martin Gilbert devoted about a dozen pages to medical experiments on Jews and Roma in The Holocaust (963 pages)
 * The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust (475 pages) has a full page on medical experiments, another half page on Mengele, and about a dozen other passim mentions
 * The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (779 pages) devotes three pages to the topic (pp. 40, 51–52)
 * Related USHMM page:
 * In an 8,000-word article like this one, half a percent corresponds to about 40 words ... I would have thought we can afford a sentence, and some wikilinks. Andreas JN 466 22:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The experiments are more relevant to the article Nazi concentration camps, where they actually took place. While popularly the Holocaust and the concentration camps are conflated, the intersection was less than commonly assumed. Even then, the estimates of 25,000 or so experimentation victims are a tiny fraction of the total population of concentration camps. Their perception in popular culture has to do with being perceived as gory and being prosecuted at the doctors' trial and other postwar trials. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree we don't need to go into details, but I would like to see a mention with a link to Nazi human experimentation. Andreas JN 466 09:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. A link in half a sentence or so would be good. Wiki is NOTPAPER, we have room to include links to such related content. If it is good enough for Columbia and Oxford Guides/Handbooks to include for a page+, it should be good enough for us to include a link.
 * This is the problem when content is removed without consulation :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request - typo
“German Jews were levied a special tax that raised more that 1 billion Reichsmarks (RM).“

This is the last sentence in the second paragraph of the “Persecution of Jews” section of “Rise of Nazi Germany” section. I think it is meant to say “raised more than” instead of “raised more that”

Thank you! 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:BCD8:E996:64ED:9759 (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for pointing it out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with giving Romania due weight?
I worked hard to dig up and cobble together a section solely for Romania, in which I detailed - somewhat briefly - they key points and events. A while later, I come back and see this article transformed, with many of the Romania-specific points gone. I particularly resent the persisting trend to force the Nazi and Romanian destruction processes together, implying that the latter was part of the former, some sort of branch of a big Nazi tree. It's just not the case. It absolutely isn't. The coordination between the Nazis and Romania was negligible, and Romania - as one of the deleted sources stated - was the only country other than Germany to implement all of the steps of the destruction program, "from definitions to killings". How can all this not worth at least a separate subsection? Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Not just Romania but other countries too. One even completely washed away from the article.
 * Instead this was added to the new “Deportations from elsewhere” section.
 * “ Romania and Hungary did not send any Jews, which were the largest surviving populations after 1942.”


 * Implying both contries did not partake.


 * ” Romania set up concentration camps in Transnistria, reportedly extremely brutal, where 154,000-170,000 Jews were deported from 1941 to 1943.238]” “ The Romanian military killed up to 25,000 Jews during the Odessa massacre between 18 October 1941 and March 1942, assisted by gendarmes and the police.

[236]”


 * ” However, prior to the Nazi occupation within the area of Hungary 63,000 Jews were killed. In late 1944, 437,000 Jews were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where the majority were gassed on arrival. ”


 * It mentions only Independent State of Croatia murdering its Jewish population and Serb population though the latter is not part of the Holocaust as other ethnic groups like Roma persecuted is not mentioned for any states. However the number of Jews Killed and number deported is gone. Also any mention of the NDH criticism by the Nazis for not being more aggressive with persecuting Jews and it being the only area in Yugoslavia to have a surviving Jewish community is removed meanwhile Hungary and Romania are mentioned to have a large population remaining.


 * What used to be in the article:


 * ” the Ustase took part in the Holocaust, and killed the majority of the country's Jews; 193] the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum estimates that 30, 148 Jews were murdered. [36] According to Jozo Tomasevich, the Jewish community in Zagreb was the only one to survive out of 115 Jewish religious communities in Yugoslavia in 1939-1940. 194]”


 * Also any mention of the Collaborating Puppet Regime in occupied Serbia and the deportation and killing of Jews also removed entirely.


 * This used to be in the article:


 * “ Serbian collaborationist puppet government, Government of National Salvation, headed by Milan Nedic. [18711188](189] In August 1942 Serbia was declared free of Jews, 190 after the Wehrmacht and German police, assisted by collaborators of the Nedic government and others such as Zbor, a pro-Nazi and pan-Serbian fascist party, had murdered nearly the entire population of 17,000 Jews.1871|188](189]”


 * The mass deportations of Jews from Hungary aren’t mentioned anymore nore the crimes of the Arrow Cross party there. Ther was a number of victims that used to be listed as well.


 * What used to be:


 * “ Although Hungary expelled Jews who were not citizens from its newly annexed lands in 1941, it did not deport most of its Jews 244]” “ the Hungarian government cooperated closely in the deportation of 437,000 Jews in eight weeks, mostly to Auschwitz.(358](347(359]”


 * Appears this all happened in a mass number of edits in early May. I don’t understand the logic behind it or reasons. Perhaps they forgot to put it back in when editing? Possible I missed some places it was moved or reworded to? I used text search to try and see in the new version. Still think a number of parts are missing at least. Perhaps anyone can take a look if I overlooked some. Though the first quote added is still at odds with mainstream historical takes. OyMosby (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request - correction
"In October 1941, Higher SS and Police Leader of Lublin Odilo Globocnik began work planning Belzec—the first purpose-built extermination camp to feature stationary gas chambers—amid increasing talk among German administrators in Poland of large-scale murder of Jews in the General Governorate."

Globocnik was the SS and Police Leader of Lublin. He was not the Higher SS and Police Leader, that was Friedrich-Wilhelm Kruger, his direct superior. Edit0r6781 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Romania (again)
The Holocaust wasn't all Nazi. Romania killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, on its own, outside the framework of the Nazi Final Solution, outside any Nazi control. Then again, what is one supposed to understand by "Holocaust", exactly anyway? All of the killing of European Jews, or only the killing done by the Nazis? Because they didn't do all the killing. Around 95%, with over 4% being Romania's doing. And no, Romania doesn't count as a collaborator because, well, to what exactly did Romania collaborate? It would imply that Romania accepted and implemented the Nazi plan instead of its own. Why does this article keep neglecting Romania, and why should it continue doing so? Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Transylvania1916 We already have this article the Holocaust in Romania. Also, your point is mentioned in the "mass shootings of Jews" section of this article. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:ACC5:21A5:81F4:8BCE (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Romania accounted for 4% of Jewish deaths during the Holocaust. Romania doesn't account for 4% of this article, however. Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work like that. There are many other factors besides % of Jewish deaths. Anyways, take a look at my section below. I would like input from others like you. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:ACC5:21A5:81F4:8BCE (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2023
Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population ---> Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered about 17-19 million victims including around 6 million Jews across German-occupied Europe, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population

Infobox change request: around 6 million Jews ---> about 17-19 million victims including around 6 million Jews

Rationale: more neutral and less bias. It's consistent with Britannica (a source written by experts). All lives matter here. We should not emphasize some lives over others. More of my reasonings are found above this section. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:C53D:F9BF:5383:BFED (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * See the FAQ at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not reply to the IP from Madison. He is a troll who was banned because of supporting Holocaust. Check his ban and his own IP reveal. Please consider to block the IP range 2600:6C44:117C:0:0:0:0:0/46. He only roams around to avoid the ban. Thank you! 1.53.113.236 (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2023
To reduce repeated requests in spite of the FAQ (mostly link changes, hatnote may help assuage concerns without taking focus away from Jewish victims):

Change Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. to Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population.

Change The Nazi regime and its allies also killed millions of non-Jews, although Jews made up the majority of the civilian war-related deaths in some European countries. to The Nazi regime and its allies also killed millions of non-Jews, although Jews made up the majority of the civilian war-related deaths in some European countries.

Add 2601:600:9B7F:857E:284C:E3D0:66D6:1962 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I see nothing objectionable here and feel the template would be helpful, so I've boldly fulfiled the request. I could not fulfill the 2nd wiki link addition as filed as the relevant text had been completely refactored by another editor when I went to do it, so I just added it where I thought it made sense. — Sirdog (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Non-Jewish victims
According to Holocaust victims, non-Jewish victims outnumber Jewish victims, yet it is not mentioned in the introduction and infobox. Why? I have to scroll all the way down to "death toll" section to find the number of non-Jewish victims. All lives matter here, so we should not emphasize Jewish victims more than non-Jewish victims. I suggest putting something like this in the introduction and infobox, "17-19 million victims including 6 million Jews." 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:ACC5:21A5:81F4:8BCE (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * User:AndyTheGrump and User:Buidhe Hi, I would like input from others. I would appreciate it if you two leave a comment here. My edit request should be a quick fix. If denied, I'm interested to hear a good rationale behind it. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:3DA5:EFA9:94DF:2834 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That article Holocaust victims unequivocally says the "the vast majority of the victims were Jews".--Aristophile (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Same IP here, nice cutting the sentence. The full sentence is, "The vast majority of the Nazi regime's victims were Jews, Sinti-Roma peoples, and Slavs..." Jewish victims are not even close to majority (only about 1/3 of total victims). Not mentioning other victims at all in the infobox shows Wikipedia's bias.
 * "In addition, 11 million members of other groups were murdered during the 'era of the Holocaust'." This is an important fact. 72.33.2.167 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Britannica is less bias than Wikipedia as shown here: "Holocaust, Hebrew Shoʾah (“Catastrophe”), Yiddish and Hebrew Ḥurban (“Destruction”), the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II." Non-Jewish victims are mentioned right away in the first sentence in Britannica. Wikipedia does not mention it in the infobox. In the introduction, Jewish victims are mentioned first then non-Jewish victims get mentioned a few paragraphs later??? What is the reason for this bias? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:C53D:F9BF:5383:BFED (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * See the FAQ at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not reply to the IP from Madison. He is a troll who was banned because of supporting Holocaust. Check his ban and his own IP reveal. Please consider to block the IP range 2600:6C44:117C:0:0:0:0:0/46. He only roams around to avoid the ban. Thank you! 1.53.113.236 (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems like a valid concern though. There is a contradiction here. The article is called "The Holocaust" and starts with "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II", yet there is another article called "Holocaust victims" (quoted in the disclaimer and which was extracted from this article in 2006) that states that an important part of The Holocaust were non-Jewish people. Therefore the starting point of the article is either incorrect or the article "Holocaust victims" must be renamed to another term (consistency of titles is important). This is very confusing. I was very surprised by the amount of Soviets/Poles killed in the Holocaust, I didn't know that, hence my comment. The Centre for Holocaust Education even acknowledges it following a survey of 8000 young people ("Strikingly, however, the murder in Nazi captivity of some 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war received barely a mention.").
 * I think it would be interesting to address this more broadly in the header at the very least (e.g., reflecting the debates regarding the name of the Holocaust before the dedicated section). Another possibility would be to rename the article "Shoah" since (according to the "Terminology and scope" section) it seems strictly specific to Jewish victims, when, (according to the "Names of the Holocaust" page) "Holocaust" is more debated in this regard. Zwegenschen (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023
Change "Deaths [Around 6 Million Jews]" To "Deaths [Around 17-19 Million]"

If people want to see the specific breakdown by the victims they should click the hyperlink. The total death section should reflect the actual total death count. I say this as a Jew. Asdgdmkasrsudh (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see FAQ/preceding discussion Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Aktion T4
Please correct typo. It is Aktion T4, not Aktion T7. Rabari (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about adding Arab Jews
Why is the lead describing it as European Jews when concentration camps and nazi soldiers were in the Middle East attempting to kill Arab Jews? Does Holocaust only mean the killing European Jews or Jews in general? Shouldn’t it be worded as Jews or mostly European Jews? Bobisland (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Differences between this article and Holocaust victims
I was looking at this article and found interesting that the term only refers to Jews, excluding among others Roma or homosexuals from it. There may be historical sources for that (I personally would add everyone). The interesting thing is that the article Holocaust victims does include those that were not Jews. It would be interesting to discuss how we can handle all the victims from the Nazi concentration camps and mass extermination appearing at Holocaust victims, but not here. Is there any term to include everyone? Theklan (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The FAQ above answers this. Hope that helps, Knitsey (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand the FAQ2 and the introduction of the article, and that's why I'm bringing this here, because there is inconsistency between both articles. If you click in the "6 million victims" blue link of the infobox you get to a page where you can read 15 million victims. Theklan (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust victims article is wrong. It uses worse sources than this article, and in some cases misrepresents them. This article gets 10x as many readers, though, so I just don't think anyone has taken the time to clean up the other one yet. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023
Should we include dates per short description by following criteria:

49.150.0.134 (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not done. I don't think adding the dates would "enhance the short description as an annotation or improve disambiguation" (see WP:SDDATES). There is no disambiguation need here, and at least some scholarly debate about the start date (although mainstream view is '41). Levivich (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023
The holocaust did not only target European Jews, it targeted: Black People, Homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses, Disabled People, and Asocials. The page said it targeted only European Jews 2601:404:CD00:A200:65CE:8623:A1FC:C87F (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I guess this IP user means the infobox. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race(talk・contribs) 13:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Question
Why isn't this article simply named "Holocaust"? SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The name The Holocaust is common usage. Article titles follow subjects, not other articles. See also previous discussions on the question, linked in the move banner. Parham wiki (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've uncollapsed the short FAQ index to make it easier to see. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2023
I am a historian and want to add some more information about this event and want to make some changes in this page, please allow me. Ripinevitable123 (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

source needed
the introduction claims that reparations are not equal to jewish losses during the holocaust but does not provide a source or reference for this claim. 170.10.250.68 (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the entire article, not just the lead. The lead section is a summary of the sourced content, and by manual of style policy does not cite sources named in the body of the article. Read the entire section on reparations.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2023
Based on the discussion made earlier here about naming of the article Palestinian genocide accusation, I request the title of this article to be changed to "the Holocaust accusations". Eastern but not so Middle (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. Also See WP:CONSISTENT and Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust Parham wiki (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are also evidence and documentation for the Palestinian genocide but I'm yet to see the word accusation getting removed from the title of this page. Only reason I could see is that Zionists are still powerful, unlike Nazis, who died out decades ago. Eastern but not so Middle (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel has definitely committed crimes against the Palestinians (see Israeli war crimes), even in this article there is a sentence written about it, but whether these crimes are genocide or not, there is a difference of opinion (as written in the article). Maybe "accusation" will be removed in the future. A similar procedure has been done for Ukraine. Parham wiki (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Who Died ...
I believe, although defining The Holocaust death toll as 6 million Jews is crucial, including the fact that approximately 20 million PEOPLE were executed by Hitler's movement is equally important. Ricci64 (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC) AntiDionysius (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Certainly not equally important because this article is about the Holocaust and the Holocaust is defined as the "genocide of European Jews during World War II". But "separate Nazi persecutions" are covered in the "Death toll" section. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically, "The Holocaust" translates into "The Whole Burning". Middle English: from Old French holocauste, via late Latin from Greek holokauston, from holos ‘whole’ + kaustos ‘burnt’ (from kaiein ‘burn’). Which can be construed, if not specified as The Jewish Holocaust, to mean all 20 million victims killed. The OP's stands... justified. This article would be clearer if listed as The Jewish Holocaust. 97.126.130.106 (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The Holocaust" is near-universally understood in the English language to refer to the genocide of Jews by the Nazis. Wikipedia aims to reflect how reliable sources discuss a topic, not to attempt to impose changes on them that editors think would be improvements. AntiDionysius (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is the link to the relevant policy language, and we will follow policy on this article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Ricci64 and Robby and all; I agree that the total is important.  The total risks being lost in a nounless world (and thus un-look-up-able) if we insist on reserving Holocaust to only mean the Jewish Holocaust.  I don’t know what the authority is for that reservation to only Jewish.  The reply by Robby is fair but only on the acceptance of a particular definition.  There is, after all, a Wikipedia page Romani_Holocaust.  Thus it seems sensible to say [Group]_Holocaust, and ‘Holocaust’ to mean all.  And ‘Shoah’ to mean — and I don’t think it would encounter much objection, the Jewish Holocaust.  And there is then small-h holocaust, which may be applied without specifying Rwanda or Khmer Rouge etc.  And small-h holocaust would probably require a definition.   Note that my desktop dictionary already provides (and this is the whole schmeer): Antillarum (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * [sorry, incomplete, I tried to add a line break and then couldn’t edit; continue with dictionary:]  holocaust  --  noun  [example] 'apocalyptic thoughts have surfaced due to the specter of a nuclear holocaust': cataclysm, disaster, catastrophe, destruction, devastation, demolition, annihilation, ravaging; inferno, fire, conflagration; massacre, slaughter, mass murder, carnage, butchery, extermination, liquidation, genocide, ethnic cleansing. [end of entry] Antillarum (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So the usage on Wikipedia is not consistent with the existing dictionary definition.  That will be resolved if we respect the dictionary definition, and [Group] Holocaust (capitalised) for that applying to any group, and — probably — unornamented capital Holocaust to mean the terrible fire of Nazi murders that swept through Europe roughly 1935-45.   Does that make any sense?   Remember, I began this comment because there was no noun for the wholesale murder of non-Jewish, or including non-Jewish, victims of the Nazis (excluding deaths in battles).
 * Oh, sorry, I just discovered that a Return gives a line feed.  Apologies for my piecewise comment.  Thank you all for your work for Wikipedia.   Antillarum (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us -- Wikipedia editors -- to insist or not insist on a definition of "The Holocaust"; that would be original research. We summarize what reliable sources say -- for The Holocaust, that means recent academic works. (Also, this article isn't about small-h "holocaust," it's about the capital-H Holocaust.) Levivich (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors makes the distinction between "holocaust" and "The Holocaust" clear, and notes that the latter has a widely-understood, distinct, singular meaning in English:
 * "holocaust a whole burnt offering, wholesale sacrifice or destruction (cap. with hist, reference to the mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis, 1939-45)"
 * It's worth noting that this is answered in the FAQ at the top of this page, as well. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is in the FAQ doesn’t make it imune to questioning. I disagree with the assertion that Holocaust is usually understood to mean just the killing of Jews. Encyclopedia Britannica itself defines the Holocaust as “the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II”. Wikipedia should reflect that, otherwise it feels like it is biased - as hundreds of other posters have stated in this discussion page throughout the years, only to have their dissenting opinions (which feel more like the majority) quietly swept away to the discussion archives. 176.12.190.213 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Apart from the terminology, and the use or not of an uppercase h, are there academic sources for the figures of 6 million and 20 million? Especially the six million figure has become almost proverbial, but at a quick glance I cold find no reference for it in this article or in others, related. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2024
Broaden opening sentence definition to bring it in line with definitions found in other references. Change opening sentence from: "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II." To: "The Holocaust was the state-sponsored genocide of European Jews and mass killings of other groups during World War II."

Change Paragraph 3 ending sentence from: "Separate Nazi persecutions killed a similar or larger number of non-Jewish civilians and POWs; the term Holocaust is sometimes used to also refer to the persecution of these other groups." To: "Separate Nazi persecutions killed a similar or larger number of non-Jewish civilians and POWs." Since it is now redundant by the change to the opening sentence.

Definition references: https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/the-holocaust https://www.britannica.com/summary/Holocaust https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust 2601:140:947E:5000:C83E:5044:87C6:6DA5 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see FAQ, this has been discussed innumerable times, check out the archives if you want Cannolis (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is in the FAQ doesn’t mean it can’t be changed. The fact that every week people demand it to be changed only shows that the minority position held here needs urgent changing and can no longer be treated as impossible to be criticized. I just opened my own suggestion about it, which I hope will not just be quickly rejected because “the FAQ says so”, as that is not how Wikipedia works. If a majority of people and source understand that the Holocaust includes also non-Jewish victims, the Wiki article has to reflect that. 176.12.190.213 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Correcting the first sentence, with Encyclopedia Britannica as a source
As dozens of users have pointed out in this page throughout the years, there is no consensus that the term “Holocaust” applies only to Jewish victims and excludes all others. I would go with the world’s most renowned encyclopedia, the Britannica, which states that the Holocaust was “the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II”. Dozens of other users have suggested such edit throughout the years, only to have their opinions quickly removed to the discussion archives, yet I am convinced that if a proper and unbiased discussion were allowed to be held here, a majority of users and sources would long ago have led to an impartial version of the article in which all Holocaust victims are accounted for, and not just Jews. 176.12.190.213 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This has been extensively discussed, and the source-based consensus has consistently held that "The Holocaust" is specific to Jewish victims. A single source such as Britannica does not represent a consensus of reliable sources. You will need to present significant evidence that the term is a broad interpretation, which so far nobody has been able to do. That different groups keep trying to claim a portion for their particular suffering in WWII on this talkpage doesn't create a consensus or overcome the consensus of reliable sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Britannica is a tertiary source, and Wikipedia articles are built using secondary sources, not tertiary ones. As the article explains, some sources argue the term should apply to other groups (some sources argue the term shouldn't be used at all), but the mainstream academic view is that the Holocaust was the genocide of Jews. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some sources and quotes to the terminology section about this. If editors think the quotes are too much, no objection to someone reducing/removing them. Levivich (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2024
This sentence in the lead seems poorly worded and is hard to understand:

"Other Jews continued to be employed in forced labor camps where many died from starvation, abuse or exhaustion or used as test subjects in deadly medical experiments."

If I am understanding the intent of this sentence correctly, perhaps a better wording would be:

"Other Jews continued to be employed in forced labor camps where many died from starvation, abuse, exhaustion, or being used as test subjects in deadly medical experiments." Arcturus95 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think it's reasonable to believe this is what the sentence meant. Thanks to you! NotAGenious (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you. Arcturus95 (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Correcting the first sentence
Change "genocide" to "subjugation". Referencing the information on Wikipedia concerning the "American Bison" specifically the "subjugation of Native Americans". Reasons: The SAME and worse happened to Native Americans including pedophilia, pederasty, forced disappearances, microbiological terrorism, human experimentation, human trafficking, sexual trafficking, slander, deprivation in the forms of starvation and dehydration, murder, undeclared warfare, attacks on noncombatants, disinformation campaigns, blatant abduction, infiltration, and fraud. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2024
"The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews" - this is incorrect.

THE HOLOCAUST WAS THE GENOCIDE OF JEWS, POLES AND OTHER EUROPEAN CITIZENS, please correct.

https://www.auschwitz.org/historia/liczba-ofiar/liczba-zamordowanych/ 46.204.100.64 (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See FAQ at the top of this talk page.  (talk | contribs) 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024
Change "A quick victory was expected and was planned to be followed a massive demographic engineering project to remove 31 million people and replace them with German settlers" to "A quick victory was expected and was planned to be followed by a massive demographic engineering project to remove 31 million people and replace them with German settlers" Mchcopl (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you, Mchcopl. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs entirely omit the fact that 11 million other people were victims
Hi there, The Holocaust was the systematic killing of European Jews that resulted in the deaths of 6 million Jews. But with it, 11 million other people were killed. The content of Holocaust victims doesn't align with the opening paragraphs, nor the content here. I find it peculiar that concrete numbers of the other victims are left out, and that they are barely mentioned in passing. Thanks, Maqdisi (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Theres another that said 14 million were killed and only 6 million were jews...it is in effect biased 173.80.7.142 (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * See the FAQ at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And you'll find other sources which say 20 million gentiles PLUS 6 million jews for a total of 26 million. Most of the figures "estimated" by all of these sources are just wild guesses and exaggerations. 70.178.140.205 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Holocaust victims
Just saying that it wasn’t just Jews who were persecuted it was also disabled people, communists, and many others 2A00:23C5:1771:3501:FD4C:24DD:7CF2:F6BB (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is contradicting itself on this actually. The article unabiguously defines the Holocaust as the genocide of Jewish people by Nazi Germany, but the term is not only used within those parameters, and the page had many references to it which seem to have been scrubbed. More importantly, the article itself does not agree with this definition at the very top where it states: "For all peoples persecuted during this era, see Holocaust victims." Additionally, the Holocaust (disambiguation) page defines it this way: "a genocide during World War II in which Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators, systematically murdered approximately 6 million European Jews and 5 million other persecuted groups such as ethnic Poles, the Romani, homosexuals and people with disabilities." Even if the consensus is to explicitly only define the Holocaust in the way most of the article does, there should be a link at the top to an article that describes the broader genocide perpetuated by the Nazis, which is not easy to find from this page. Carthradge (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong, this is a well known problem, that other pages on Wikipedia aren't in synch with this one. And I think you're right about the solution, too. My read is that the whole problem is waiting on someone to write the page about the broader genocide perpetuated by the Nazis, and the reason it hasn't been written yet is the same reason I don't want to write it: it's a really grim subject to research and summarize. Levivich (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT is the correct response here. That this is a GA with such an obvious flaw is a bit of a problem, though, and a review of that status might be warranted.2601:601:A400:B5F5:15E:42C8:6D80:40EE (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The solution is simple. This article is tampering with Holocaust denial by under reporting the victims. It must be brought back to the scholarly consensus, which it currently does not match. There used to be a picture of Romani children on the page here on Wikipedia. It was well sourced. It has been removed. This article fails to provide evidence for why non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, as cited by multiple sources, are not counted in this article anymore when they used to be. The source for the "FAQ" cites the first paragraph of this article, which itself is unsourced. Citations are desperately needed from scholarly sources to make such a bigoted claim. Erasure of those victims is nothing short of Holocaust denial. When the article matched the scholarly consensus it did have sources however, and this article needs to be recovered ASAP. See the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&oldid=757748071 Stidmatt (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * FAQ or not, it does not matter. Denying the deaths of the 60% of victims who were not Jewish is Holocaust Denial. Auschwitz has the names of all of the victims who were murdered there, regardless of why the Fascists sent them to the camps. How does it not count if they were in the same bunkers, ate the same food, and were burned alive in the same chambers? Not counting the LGBT victims specifically is pure Homophobia. Stidmatt (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The holocaust was not only the mass murder of jews, but also Roma, Gays, Transgender, communists, and Slavs, and the number is around 17 million, this article is factually incorrect as per wikipedia itself

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims 2603:6011:9203:1EA6:DE9F:7CF7:FDE4:E2FA (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Please see the FAQ at the top of the page - Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The FAQ’s logic is complete nonsense. It’s basically “because most people misunderstand it we repeat the common misunderstanding rather than reflect reliable secondary sources.”  Not going to bother engaging but this is embarrassingly bad logic and referring people to that FAQ is not an argument.  That the others are explicitly not mentioned despite their broad coverage in reliable secondary sources is a problem with pretty much all of WP:5P.2601:601:A400:B5F5:15E:42C8:6D80:40EE (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2601:601:A400:B5F5:15E:42C8:6D80:40EE, rather than reflect reliable secondary sources, as far as I can tell you haven't mentioned any? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree the FAQ does not answer the question, just restates the position the article is taking. The question is why this is the correct position for this article.
 * It's far from clear to me that the common use of the term refers only to the mass murder of Jewish people. For example, history.com https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/the-holocaust
 * "The Holocaust was the state-sponsored persecution and mass murder of millions of European Jews, Romani people, the intellectually disabled, political dissidents and homosexuals by the German Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945."
 * Britanica https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust
 * "Holocaust, the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others"
 * And the repeated comments on this topic are evidence that in practice people come to this article with the expectation of the broader usage.
 * Finally, the use of "Holocaust" across dozens of other wikipedia articles in the broader use further demonstrates that the narrow use is not obviously correct/common, for example: "Holocaust victims were people targeted by the government of Nazi Germany based on their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims or "The persecution reached its climax when the party-controlled German state set in motion the Final Solution – an industrial system of genocide that carried out mass murders of around 6 million Jews and millions of other targeted victims in what has become known as the Holocaust." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
 * I mean, this is all a bit pointless since the decision has clearly already been made. But imo, the correct choice here is to put the expansive definition in the opening paragraph. And this isn't an issue of historical fact, but rather of tone and perspective. When gentile victims are mentioned in the article, the wording often seems chosen to maximize the 'otherness' of Jewish people and gentiles. For example, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_Holocaust "the On 16 December 1942, Himmler ordered that the Romani candidates for extermination should be transferred from ghettos to the extermination facilities of Auschwitz-Birkenau. On 15 November 1943, Himmler ordered that Romani and "part-Romanies" were to be put "on the same level as Jews and placed in concentration camps" which shows near-identical mechanisms and facilities being used for mass murder, but The Holocaust article uses the language "Separate Nazi persecutions ..." to first introduce non-Jewish victims. I'm sure someone so-motivated can make a argument why "separate" is still technically correct, but the point is that this framing is a choice made in the article, not a point of fact.
 * The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims "Scope of usage" article does a much more balanced job of this, including the important note that people can and did belong to more than one targeted 'category'. Camipco (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct Campico. The article needs to be brought back to how it used to be and in line with scholarly consensus. We cannot erase victims of the Holocaust on the main page about the genocide. Stidmatt (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is in line with scholarly consensus. The article, as written, both in the lead and the body, explains this in some detail. It cites dozens of recent scholarly works, and quotes them.
 * If anybody has other scholarly works to bring that should be incorporated in the article, please post it. But don't quote other Wikipedia articles or Britannica, those aren't WP:RS. Quote sources similar to what the article already relies on: recent secondary (not tertiary) scholarship. Levivich (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the scholarly consensus of the term used to refer to all of the groups of people who were murdered in the concentration camps? It's been 80 years, there must be one. Stidmatt (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the term is, I don't know that there is a term for all of the groups of people who were murdered in the concentration camps, and I'm not sure why you think there must be one. Most Holocaust victims, and most victims of the Nazis overall, were not killed in concentration camps. Levivich (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This edit was funny, I guess you saw that despite being titled "The Holocaust: Non-Jewish Victims", that source says "However tragic, these non-Jewish victims are typically not considered victims of the Holocaust." I hope that helps convince you that non-Jewish victims are typically not considered victims of the Holocaust. Levivich (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Face fucking desk for completely ignoring AT4. SinoDevonian (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mind your language please (see "be polite" in the boxout above). Wikipedia: "The AT4 is a Swedish 84 mm (3.31 in) unguided, man-portable, disposable, shoulder-fired recoilless anti-tank weapon manufactured by Saab Bofors Dynamics" - not sure what the relevance is here? 185.13.50.219 (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I reckon SinoDevonian means Aktion T4. SinoDevonian, can you provide reliable sources that would prove scholars consider Aktion T4 part of the Holocaust? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Does wikipedia count as a reliable source? Because "which began with legalized social discrimination against specific groups, involuntary hospitalization, euthanasia, and forced sterilization of persons considered physically or mentally unfit for society." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims . That article sources:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/19990429211345/https://www.ushmm.org/outreach/euthan.htm
 * I think AT4 is not part of "The Holocaust" proper, which starts from the 'Final Solution' Wannsee conference January 1942, and is more an example of the genocidal nature of Nazism that historically leads up to The Holocaust. So while AT4 is definitely related and relevant, it isn't "The Holocaust". Then again, by the Wannsee definition, the murders of some 2 million Jewish people precede The Holocaust and so wouldn't count as part of it, when this article (correctly) does count, for example, the mass shooting of Jewish people in 1941 during the invasion of the Soviet Union in the numbers, similarly Jewish people who died of starvation, exhaustion and disease from conditions in the work camps are counted.
 * In any case, the omission of AT4 is a consequence of the goal of drawing a firm line between Jewish victims and gentile victims that this article apparently has decided is correct. Camipco (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR.  (talk | contribs) 13:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Aktion T4 was already mentioned in the body of the article, but to make it clearer and I guess easier to find, I made a slight edit to specifically mention the name of the program. Levivich (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBECR permits removal of comments that are not edit requests by non-WP:XC editors, and I'd suggest we do that more often on this page, or else we'll be here until the cows come home explaining things like WP:CIRCULAR. Levivich (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I slightly expanded Q2 of the FAQ to try and explain "mainstream view" and "significant minority view" under WP:NPOV policy. I don't think I did a very good job so if anyone can write that explanation better than I did, it'd be much appreciated. Levivich (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This needs a sorce.
Billions of dollars in reparations have been paid, although falling short of the Jews' losses. 107.15.144.184 (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead does not need to be sourced as it is a summary of material from elsewhere in the article. The material is from (and sourced in) The Holocaust Meters (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

17 million victims
Suggested edit ...

Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews and 11 million Christians.

"Taking into account all of the victims of persecution, the Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and an additional 11 million people during the war. Donald Niewyk suggests that the broadest definition, including Soviet civilian deaths, would produce a total of 17 million victims."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims 2601:444:300:B070:4D28:E7B6:760F:96EF (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Christianity was not a punishable offense in the Nazi Germany. The suggested edit is not acceptable.-Aristophile (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some 6 million Jews and 11 million non-Jews. 2601:444:300:B070:4D28:E7B6:760F:96EF (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The war and the Holocaust started in 1939
why does it say 1941 when it started before? 46.31.102.28 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The Nazi German regime implemented this genocide between 1941 and 1945. ... Moxy 🍁 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

WWII years are wrong on the first paragraph
it should say 1939 to 1945, not 1941 to 1945.

can someone fix this please?

thanks 8barzmusic (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Those aren't the years of World War 2the paragraph is referring to. Those are the years of the Holocaust itself.CRBoyer 23:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nazi Germany immediately began murdering Jews right after occupying Poland (1939). The Holocaust started in 1939. "In 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland while the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east. In German-occupied Poland, Jews were killed, subjected to forced labor, and forced to move to ghettos. Some 7,000 Jews were killed in 1939, but open mass killings subsided until June of 1941." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Poland 8barzmusic (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Read the complete lead at Final Solution for a more detailed answer. It is a matter of debate, yes. But the beginning of it isn't considered synonymous with a specific point in time. JackTheSecond (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Names of the Holocaust
Hi, I note the lede of the article Names of the Holocaust has degenerated into a mess. I was going to simply copy-paste the section The Holocaust from here to there, but fixing up the references would take more time than I have at the moment. jnestorius(talk) 13:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This encourages stereotypes..
Half a million north African Jews were murdered in the holocuast. Writing "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews" supports the stigma of the Jewish people being purely european, and is factually incorrect.. Would love if that can be changed 2A06:C701:9A23:A700:88DD:DF41:D61A:AB67 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please cite a source for 'half a million'. While there is no question that Jews in North Africa suffered persecution, the figure you quote seems wildly at odds with most scholarship I've seen. Our article on Jews outside Europe under Axis occupation covers the topic, though it could no doubt be improved. For that though, we need sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yad Vashem says, "less than a thousand Jews died in camps in North Africa, and of these, a small number in camps in Europe after being transported." --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2024
Request to change wording in fourth sentence of Background.

Current:

- "By the early twentieth century, most Jews in central and western Europe were well integrated into society, while in eastern Europe, where emancipation had arrived later, many Jews still lived in small towns, spoke Yiddish, and practiced Orthodox Judaism."

Proposed Change:

- "still lived" to "continued to live"

Reason:

- Proposed version shows less of a bias or inclination towards assimilation. "Still" can give a sense of inevitability. Both are true but "continued to" is more neutral.

Thank you for considering this change! TritonOblong (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Not just jews
The holocaust wasn’t just Jews. It was gypsys blacks and basically any minority that the natzi came into contact with. I understand Jews were heavily hit. But so where gypsys 2A02:C7B:124:1400:89CA:7EC8:B80D:5135 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * please read the FAQ at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This will be a point of contention until we cover this a bit..... it is odd that this is one of the only articles about the topic that doesn't cover that aspect like Holocaust victims...... I can see why things are confusing for our readers.... Thus we end up articles with tags like at Aftermath of the Holocaust. Moxy 🍁 04:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a Holocaust victims page already. Perhaps a link somewhere as "see also" may help? But the FAQ does deal with this a bit.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not confusing readers, and these comments are not indicative of what readers think. Some people not believing that what an article says is true is not an indication of a problem with the article. Reliable sources contradicting the article would indicate a problem. Until and unless somebody brings some actual sources, there's no reason to change the article based on evidence-free talk page comments. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We clearly need to be more clear...... as indicated by multiple inquiries here over a period of years. We need to educate the reader off the bat that these things are associated but not the same. It's obvious most only read the first paragraph or so. Moxy 🍁 15:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should add to the first paragraph, "Please read at least as far as the third paragraph". --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 16:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree we need to hold the reader's hands but that's excessive and funny...lol..... The first paragraph define what this is it should also define what it is not. Moxy 🍁 16:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph should define what is, and what it is not?? That doesn't make sense to me. It's not a lot of things? I also disagree that it's clear we need to be more clear. The article gets 125k+ page views per week; one comment a week (always by an IP or brand new account), or 0.001%, doesn't indicate a problem with the article. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Moxy here. The first sentence reads The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II., while the FAQ reads: understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews.
 * We shouldn't just ill-define something, only to walk things back later. Especially when the FAQ already gives a clear alternative. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The FAQ is not an RS. To the extent the FAQ differs from the article (and I don't think it does), the FAQ should be changed, not the article. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I find it odd you don't want to educate readers on this point off the bat. Why are we defining this in two different places of the lead? With the second being completely out of place in the context of its paragraph. Moxy 🍁 16:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll move it back to the first paragraph. I think it flows better in the third but if you think it'll help I guess it doesn't hurt to try. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's try and see what others think. Moxy 🍁 16:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe wikilink to Holocaust victims page in the first paragraph too?&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is wiki linked in the first paragraph. It's also a hatnote at the top of the article. It's also a hatnote in the relevant body section on deaths, and its wiki linked in the body. (And all this for an article that is a tagged POVFORK of this article.) Levivich (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. I see it. Thanks.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That "primarily" quote in the FAQ is from an older version of the article and no longer appears in the current version. I edited the FAQ to replace that quote with quotes taken from the current version. That should help clear up any confusion between the FAQ and the article. Levivich (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 5 million non Jews. It’s so much worse than 6 million Jews. My 100 relatives were Czech. According to hitler’s final solution they were good enough to be worked to death. Gypsies, Jews, & gays went straight to the showers/ovens. Poles & Russians might have had the honor of being worked to death for the reich as well. To only say 6 million Jews cheapens it. The Jews don’t own the holocaust. My 100 relatives got put into the same ovens JWK1970s (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right not just jews were the victims of the Nazi genocide. We must acknowledge all victims not just one group. 142.179.239.73 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ and Holocaust victims Meters (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The FAQ is not RS or authoritative of any decision. I might be wrong but my understanding is that this article in the past mentioned the other victims alongside Jewish people in the lede.  Something weird is going on with how this article is framed so strongly about one identity targeted other others. Obviously others are noticing it too. Spudst3r (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The internal logic of this article as structured doesn't make sense. Currently it defines The Holocaust exclusively as being about Jews, then references another article referred to "Holocaust victims" for the other victims such as gays, Romani, slavs, disabled, political dissidents, etc without mentioning them in this article?!  This level of bias did not exist in this article in the past.
 * Sampling random archives of this page from the past:
 * 2009: https://web.archive.org/web/20090224230830/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
 * 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150101012804/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
 * Show much more balance. Over time you see an evolution of editing to exclude balanced emphasis of the ~5 million other victims.
 * It is insane to me that I can show up to the wikipedia page for The Holocaust, do a keyword search for "homosexual" or "romani" and it yields no significant mention beyond a footnote outside the article. Why are these victims relegated to a separate page?  Surely if they are Holocaust victims they deserve mention in The Holocaust article? Spudst3r (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what this article used to say or what other Wikipedia articles say; Wikipedia is not an RS. What matters is what the RS say. I think this definition is well explained by the FAQ and by the article itself, with cites and quotes from RS. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Levivich The article should simply state and address both definitions: the narrow Jewish-only definition, and the broader inclusive definition. There is no necessity to be exclusive when the article can simply be adapted to be inclusive. This is distinctly insulting and demeaning to those groups who were victims, so should be resolved and not dismissed.
 * The term "Holocaust" itself predates World War II and is not etymologyically or otherwise related to any specific group, see for example E.M. Forster's "A Passage to India" from 1924: "Her friends kept up their spirits by demanding holocausts of natives". Utopial (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it does; the original term meaning "an offering or a sacrifice to a deity that is completely burnt to ashes" has been used metaphorically for a long time. The Great Gatsby uses it in 1925. Richard of Devizes is possibly the first to connect it to the murder of Jews, in the 12th Century. However, meanings of words change, sometimes rapidly; the overwhelming use of the term post-WWII (more specifically, post-1970s) refers to the Shoah, and that should be the focus of this article (as it is); the genocide of the Jews was qualitatively and quantitatively distinctive. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jpgordon The usage of the word is not exclusively and consistently in reference to the Jewish genocide. Hence, the article should be inclusive. There is no necessity for it to be exclusive - the article can simply state both definitions and be adapted to be inclusive.
 * Marginalising and subordinating the genocide of other groups is frankly a form of discrimination. Utopial (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article does state and address both definitions. In the first paragraph of the lead, and in more detail in the terminology and scope section (where it also addresses the pre-Holocaust meaning of the word "holocaust"). The notion that defining the Holocaust as the Nazi genocide of the Jews marginalizes or subordinates other groups is nonsense. Just because scholars use a particular word to describe a particular genocide does not mean they are marginalizing or subordinating other groups who were victims of genocide or other atrocities. (Nobody who argues about this ever brings sources to the discussion, sigh.) Levivich (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Between the explanations in the lead and body and the hatnote at the top of the article, I think we're getting readers interested in non-Jewish genocides to the correct target articles. This is in the FAQ for a reason. I wouldn't have said "nonsense", but the marginalization/subordination argument is covered so infrequently in a body of sourcing so expansive that we shouldn't base article changes on that argument. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)