Talk:The Holocaust/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 23:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm no expert in this subject, but I would be interested in undertaking this particular GA review, with the help of others if they are also interested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Religious Leaders Definite 'Countervailing' Force Against Antisemitism
I definitely agree on the lack of neutrality in this article, but not for the same reasons sited in the review. The article portrays all German society as devote Nazis and antisemitic. It not only fails to acknowledge dissidents to the Nazi regime, but claims there were none. I have an interest in religious thought especially Lutheran religious leaders such as Bonhoeffer. A comment in the article reads:


 * "Saul Friedländer writes that: "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."[22] He writes that some Christian churches declared that converted Jews should be regarded as part of the flock, but even then only up to a point. Friedländer argues that this makes the Holocaust distinctive because antisemitic policies were able to unfold without the interference of countervailing forces of the kind normally found in advanced societies, such as industry, small businesses, churches, and other vested interests and lobby groups.[22]"

I believe this statement is the complete opinion of the writer, could possibly misrepresent Friedlander (although I have not read Friedlander's work), and is a false statement. The church was most definitely a countervailing force. Religious leaders such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer not only wrote as dissidents to Hitler, but also put their lives on the line (by choice) to stop Hitler. They used every means at their disposal to stop Nazism including plans to assassinate Hitler. Bonhoeffer was tragically killed before the end of the war by the same concentration camps he opposed. I think the article should, at least, be revised to include this alternative point of view and mention of leaders such as Bonhoeffer. The Bonhoeffer article also includes a more in-depth discussion of the church's role including claims of rigged church elections.

This maybe considered a fine point by many, but I think it is an important point underscoring the often overlooked German opposition forces to the Holocaust, antisemitism, and the Nazi party. Willsh10 (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(I posted the below yesterday, but it didn't show up on the watch list. I realize that I don't understand the process that is being used here so would appreciate any correction of what I have done.)
 * I would have responded earlier but I am traveling, in fact to study certain aspects of the Holocaust. Thank you for the effort and comments above.  I most certainly agree that the article is a long way from being a GA, if only because of the conflict between the definition in the first paragraph and the many paras and stats relating to non-Jews.  A lot of discussion has taken place about the distinction between the Holocaust and the Nazi mass murders of non-Jews.  This distinction, which is made by many prominent scholars of Nazi Germany, is well summed up by Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale as follows "The term Holocaust was introduced after the war and, by the 1990s, was generally (although by no means always) understood to mean the mass murder of the Jews by the Germans. 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. (Snyder, Timothy (2010-10-12). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (Kindle Locations 7591-7594). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.)


 * I am also rather surprised at the opinion about the use of the word "murder" as reflecting a POV. What is important is that most if not all (I know of none who don't) reliable sources use the word "murder" as a descriptive word.  I wouldn't consider a neo-nazi as a reliable source.  Perhaps the Nazi leadership would not have used the word murder, but they were certainly convicted of it.


 * Within the history profession, the proper noun, Holocaust, is no longer controversial.  Norman Finkelstein in his important muckraking book, The Holocaust Industry, describes how the capitalization was used by the American Jewish establishment for its own interests and prefers to use the term "Nazi holocaust".  But he is really an exception within the history community, an important one non-the-less.


 * Your overall assessment is well taken. But when a real editing expert, Dianaa, offered to put the article in GA form, her suggestion to remove the list of non-Jewish victims met with resistance from those who do not distinguish Holocaust victims from all Nazi victims.  This is an on-going problem and I see no resolution in the near future.  In the meantime, there are a lot a good references in the article and for anyone who is willing to drill down there is a lot to learn.  The more casual visitor will be rather puzzled.Joel Mc (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

point 2a

 * Reference 112 completely disagrees with the statement it is supposed to support. --Lacek2 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One should check not only of there are references, but if the references make any sense at all (particularly if they support a highly controversial statement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacek2 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It does not contradict the text at all, but it's not really a 'reference', but rather more a piece of supplementary information. The statement needs an actual reference. Paul B (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added an actual reference, of course there are more...Joel Mc (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)