CPCEnjoyer (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
François Robere (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
:::{{u|CPCEnjoyer}}, Do we have sources that explicitly connect them to the Holocaust? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
:::{{u|CPCEnjoyer}}, Do we have sources that explicitly connect them to the Holocaust? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::Perhaps next time you and your friend should read the sources before you remove them? Or did you skip over {{tq|Gilbert, M., 2002. The Routledge atlas of the Holocaust. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-28145-8.}}? [[User:CPCEnjoyer|CPCEnjoyer]] ([[User talk:CPCEnjoyer|talk]]) 18:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
::::Perhaps next time you and your friend should read the sources before you remove them? Or did you skip over {{tq|Gilbert, M., 2002. The Routledge atlas of the Holocaust. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-28145-8.}}? [[User:CPCEnjoyer|CPCEnjoyer]] ([[User talk:CPCEnjoyer|talk]]) 18:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::: Martin Gilbert, ''The Routledge atlas of the Holocaust'', 2002, gives this as background on the state of Jewish communities at the eve of the war. He also mentions Poland in ''The Holocaust: The Human Tragedy'' (2014), along with Ukraine (and more broadly the area "from the Baltic to the Black Sea"), as part of background on historical antisemitism in EE. He later mentions it in a chapter on the effects of the Nuremberg laws outside Germany ("in four years, the German government had turned Jews into less than second-class citizens. Now other governments, and other peoples, especially those in Eastern Europe, looked with envy at the Nazi achievements, and allowed their own anti-Jewish prejudices to flourish"); he mentions other countries there as well, but I think it would be fair to say that he gives more emphasis to Poland. |
|||
:::: David Cesarani, ''Final Solution'', 2015: also as background, and I think a necessary background :"the Jewish population was heavily Polonized at all social levels, especially the middle and upper classes. A generation of brilliantly gifted Jewish writers, poets, novelists and essayists dazzled Polish readers. This did not stop anti-Semitism, though. On the contrary, since the late nineteenth century the development of a Christian Polish middle class caused increasing friction with the Jewish communities. The rebirth of independent Poland in 1918–19 was accompanied by vicious pogroms. Throughout the interwar years nationalist parties campaigned for Polonization of the economy and encouraged a boycott of Jewish businesses. On the eve of the German assault, Polish Jewry was socially stratified, politically divided, economically stretched, and at odds with the Christian majority." |
|||
:::: Apologies for the lack of pp., I'm using an EPUB. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 18:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Recent edits... == |
== Recent edits... == |
Revision as of 18:28, 29 June 2021
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Holocaust was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2021
For it to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article that the Holocaust is an event where 17 million people were killed, which includes 6 million Jews, not that it was an event where 6million Jews were killed. Most people think they killed 6 million people, when they actually murdered 11million more. The Nazis did not just hate one group, they hated anyone that wasn't them. This should be at the top, not halfway down the article as if gays, disabled and the gypsies, and POWs are some kind of afterthought. 86.150.81.87 (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit extended-protected}}
template. That's a pretty contentious change you're requesting. You'll need to get consensus for this change before anything will be done. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
It seems like the definition in this first paragraph should be brought in line with the definition in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims It is non-sensical to define the Holocaust as Jewish-only and then listen the many millions of non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust.
Siiiimo (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Simon
No. Holocaust specifically refers to the genocide of six million Jews. Don't try to be accused of antisemitism. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Well then certainly the holocaust victim page has to be edited to remove all the references to non-Jewish victims. What page would you suggest they be moved to? Siiiimo (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
No - there were other victims of the Holocaust. This does not change the fact that the Holocaust was the genocide of European Jewry. Stop trying to redefine the Holocaust. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The holocaust was also clearly also a genocide of gypsies, lgbt, the mentally ill, as well as the concentration camps themselves being used for Generalplan Ost, ie the genocide of North Slavs in where Germany's Lebensraum was meant to be. I see no reason why at least gypsies, the mentally ill and lgbt shouldn't be included. They're widely considered to be part of it, and it's taught as such internationally.
Also, if there were other victims of the holocaust, why aren't they in the total count. This seems to be an attempt to redefine and whitewash (if that's the right word) the holocaust to only be a genocide of Jewish people. If other groups are mentioned at all in the article, they should be in the total. ReiPeixe (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Surely if half the victims are non-Jewish then that should be mentioned. 2604:3D09:2A7A:6700:71A0:92A7:C8A6:D1A3 (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
"Germany" v. "Nazi Germany"
This semantic question was hashed out on this page several years ago. It has come up again so I will summarize the consensus that was created then. The actions of a state - whether it be Germany or any other state - are referred to by the name of that state. Hence, "Germany invaded Poland" not "Nazi Germany invaded Poland" - just as one would say that "the United States invaded Vietnam", not "The Democratic United States invaded Vietnam." Similarly, "German policy", not "Nazi policy" when referring to government policies. The fact that Germany today is no longer "Nazi Germany" is irrelevant, as Germany today is the same national entity as Germany in 1941.
However, when referring to the era of German history, "Nazi Germany" is indeed appropriate in order to distinguish it from other historical eras. It's part of their history. Germany didn't disappear during the Nazi era, it was still 100% Germany.Narc (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- First of all, I don't see such consensus, since you didn't provide a link. And even if it existed, that was years ago, as you said. You need a new consensus to implement your changes to the long-standing version. Second, see WP:Get the point. As I explained you before, the link you added here goes to the German state created in 1990. Nothing to do with the Holocaust whatsoever. Nazi Germany or the Third Reich was the country or state that perpetrated the Holocaust, not the Federal Republic of Germany. And "Nazi Germany" is not a political party, but the German state that existed from 1933 to 1945. There's an entire article about it, you should read it. Germany today is NOT the same national entity as in 1941, not even close. We must be more precise pointing out the state that carried out this genocide. You can make an RfC if you want. I'm sure you will lose. Until then, don't touch the article's introduction.--SoaringLL (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fully agree with SoaringLL. Nazi Germany was a specific state; it does not refer to the Nazi Party controlling Germany. The modern German state that exists today (and that was formed 45 years after the end of WWII) did not perpetrate the Holocaust. Similar to how the French Third Republic is an entirely different political entity from modern-day France. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 19:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, are you all referring to this link: Germany ?? If so, read it, it has an entire section on the Nazi period. Same Germany.... "Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany"..."Germany also reacquired control of the Saarland in 1935".... no use of the term "Nazi Germany" there.Narc (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Narcissus14: You will notice that the section in the Germany article discussing Nazi Germany (and the Weimar Republic) clearly and explicitly says:
Main articles: Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany
. Also note that Nazi Germany already has its own article. The Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, and the Federal Republic of Germany are all separate and distinct political entities that have existed at separate points in time. Only one (Nazi Germany, which again, has its own article and is a different thing from modern day Germany) perpetrated the Holocaust. Based on my linear understanding of time, the Federal Republic of Germany could not have perpetrated the Holocaust as it did not come into existence until nearly five decades later. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 00:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)- All true, but you are ignoring the main point, that Germany is not limited to modern Germany, it refers to the German nation, and includes Nazi Germany, and that Germany is not limited to the FRG, and that the German nation perpetuated the Holocaust. Why do you want to absolve the German nation from their history? I will bring you a further argument - the entity that you want to say is the perpetrator of the Holocaust, Nazi German is actually (per that article) properly called German Reich, and if you read that article, it states: "The Federal Republic of Germany asserted, following its establishment in 1949, that within its boundaries it was the sole legal continuation of the German Reich". They are one and the same.Narc (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Narcissus14: You will notice that the section in the Germany article discussing Nazi Germany (and the Weimar Republic) clearly and explicitly says:
- Sorry, are you all referring to this link: Germany ?? If so, read it, it has an entire section on the Nazi period. Same Germany.... "Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany"..."Germany also reacquired control of the Saarland in 1935".... no use of the term "Nazi Germany" there.Narc (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fully agree with SoaringLL. Nazi Germany was a specific state; it does not refer to the Nazi Party controlling Germany. The modern German state that exists today (and that was formed 45 years after the end of WWII) did not perpetrate the Holocaust. Similar to how the French Third Republic is an entirely different political entity from modern-day France. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 19:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Assuming for the sake of argument that Nazi Germany is a subset of Germany, it's still better to use the more specific "Nazi Germany" than the vaguer "Germany". To go with your example, it was Nazi Germany that invaded Poland, not the German Empire or the FDR. Just saying "Germany" leaves that distinction unclear. Levivich harass/hound 14:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, doing so has two problems - (1) it whitewashes the truth a bit - it creates greater cultural distance between the perpetrators (the German people) and the actions. It was not the actions of the Nazis alone, it was the German nation. (2) It is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia; for instance, above user SoaringLL used the example of the French Republic - throughout the article on Napoleonic Wars the article frequently refers to "France" as opposed to "Napoleonic France" or "The French Empire". Similarly, the United States invaded Vietnam, not Democratic United States.Narc (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- This didn't have consensus when you raised it in 2012. It didn't have consensus when you raised it in 2017. Last time you tried to make this change in 2018, it didn't have consensus then, either. Still no consensus and now you're edit warring in 2021. Time to drop the stick. Levivich harass/hound 15:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- You still haven't justified why "Nazi Germany" makes sense here but "Imperial France" doesn't make sense by the Napoleonic Wars etc. I'm not talking about the linking, that doesn't bother me. It was the nation-state (yes, a social-construct) that committed the acts, not a subset of it. It was the official act of the state. Why would you want to minimize that? It doesn't make it clearer, it actual obfuscates it. You sound like you want to absolve Germany of the crimes. I'm sure that's not your intent, but that's how it comes across. "Germany invaded Poland" is much more forceful and to the point than "Nazi Germany invaded Poland". No, you say, it wasn't Germany, it was the aberration called Nazi Germany (which is not even an official name)??? Narc (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Using your own words:
"It was the official act of the state."
The "state" in question is Nazi Germany. Using the phrase "Nazi Germany" does not in any way obfuscate who the perpetrators were. Nazi Germany was not an aberration, it was a country that existed for twelve years that did indeed invade Poland. The German nation is not collectively responsible for the Shoah (nation being defined as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory"). The reason it just says "Germany" throughout the rest of the article is because repeating "Nazi Germany" over and over is repetitive and bad writing. Gwyneth Kate Paltrow's article introduces her as such, and the rest of the article just says "Paltrow" because it's easier to read. The same as literally every single page on this website. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 03:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Using your own words:
- You still haven't justified why "Nazi Germany" makes sense here but "Imperial France" doesn't make sense by the Napoleonic Wars etc. I'm not talking about the linking, that doesn't bother me. It was the nation-state (yes, a social-construct) that committed the acts, not a subset of it. It was the official act of the state. Why would you want to minimize that? It doesn't make it clearer, it actual obfuscates it. You sound like you want to absolve Germany of the crimes. I'm sure that's not your intent, but that's how it comes across. "Germany invaded Poland" is much more forceful and to the point than "Nazi Germany invaded Poland". No, you say, it wasn't Germany, it was the aberration called Nazi Germany (which is not even an official name)??? Narc (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- This didn't have consensus when you raised it in 2012. It didn't have consensus when you raised it in 2017. Last time you tried to make this change in 2018, it didn't have consensus then, either. Still no consensus and now you're edit warring in 2021. Time to drop the stick. Levivich harass/hound 15:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, doing so has two problems - (1) it whitewashes the truth a bit - it creates greater cultural distance between the perpetrators (the German people) and the actions. It was not the actions of the Nazis alone, it was the German nation. (2) It is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia; for instance, above user SoaringLL used the example of the French Republic - throughout the article on Napoleonic Wars the article frequently refers to "France" as opposed to "Napoleonic France" or "The French Empire". Similarly, the United States invaded Vietnam, not Democratic United States.Narc (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Nation" is a social construct. For better or worse, people don't get to choose where they are born. It is no more a German youth of today's responsibility than any other youth's.
- Leaving that point aside, linking to Germany is simply less helpful to the reader. Nazi Germany covers the period in which the Holocaust was perpetrated so it is more contextually relevant. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- What's at stake here is not the linking; that's fine, keep the links to Nazi Germany. The issue here is the language throughout the article, regardless of the links. Is the perpetrator of the Holocaust the nation of Germany or merely the aberrant limited political entity of Nazi Germany?Narc (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- You tell me!? Was Friedrich Ebert a perpetrator, was Gustav Stresemann? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not following your logic. Was the bombing of Vietnam perpetrated by its domestic opponents?? Yet it's called "U.S. bombings", not "Democratic US bombings" (but they were ordered by the Democratic regime in the White House!)...Narc (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is called "US Bombings" because the United States of America is the country (political entity) that perpetrated the bombings. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 03:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- The United States that invaded Vietnam then is the same one today. That is the difference. Nazi Germany doesn’t exist today but is the predecessor to Germany today. No one is trying to erase Germany’s vulgar past history. Of course not. But they aren’t the same states. We should be factually not deciding how to interpret I think. Germany takes you to today’s modern country as apposed to the state that existed in the 40s which is what the read would want to read about regarding in connection to the Holocaust there. OyMosby (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is called "US Bombings" because the United States of America is the country (political entity) that perpetrated the bombings. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 03:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not following your logic. Was the bombing of Vietnam perpetrated by its domestic opponents?? Yet it's called "U.S. bombings", not "Democratic US bombings" (but they were ordered by the Democratic regime in the White House!)...Narc (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- You tell me!? Was Friedrich Ebert a perpetrator, was Gustav Stresemann? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- What's at stake here is not the linking; that's fine, keep the links to Nazi Germany. The issue here is the language throughout the article, regardless of the links. Is the perpetrator of the Holocaust the nation of Germany or merely the aberrant limited political entity of Nazi Germany?Narc (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Yugoslavia
The info about Milan Nedic, the puppet regime he was put in charge of and Zbor seem very much relevant and should be stripped for trimming the section. It’s a sentence. Readers wouldn’t even know about them nor that they assisted the Germans in the Holocaust if this sentence wasn’t there. Otherwise why not state all puppet regimes or entities as just “local”? Seems like a small sentence to specifically remove. And there are ample sources showing it to be relevant and notable. They definitely didn’t have the autonomy nor built there own camps like the Ustase but that doesn’t make Them irrelevant enough to not be worth mentioning their role. OyMosby (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, just cleaned that section with verifiable sourced references Aeengath ([[User talk:|talk]]) 10:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay… but then why remove it if you agree? It was mentioned in the part talking about the partition of Yugoslavia but you removed it in your c/e edit. Not sure if you realized. OyMosby (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Already existing refs...
This edit inserted "such as the puppet Government of National Salvation headed by Milan Nedić’s." right before the ref {{sfn|McKale|2002|pp=192–193}}. I then moved the McKale ref to the information it DID support with this edit, so that it McKale was no longer appearing to say things he didn't say. I didn't have any real doubts that the information inserted was correct - it just wasn't supported by McKale. I spent a great deal of effort a while back going through this article ... sentence by sentence and source by source making sure that all the information was actually sourced to the sources attached to them, and I do not want to see the article slip back into the sloppy sourcing pracitces. Please make sure that if information is inserted, it is either supported by any sources already there or that you insert sources that support the information added. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I see now. I was confused before but as you said you moved it ahead to remedy the citing. I should have, as I told the other editor, double checked the sourcing and info I carried over from the Holocaust in German Occupied Serbia article. My lazy error. Sorry about that. I don’t mean to mess up the article. OyMosby (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not a crisis. Just... that was a hell of a lot of work checking this thing ... and I really don't want to see it degenerate again. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The Holocaust in Yugoslavia
@OyMosby, I am surprised that you have deleted the content I added by reverting, this is quite unconstructive... all the quote referenced in my version are sourced and can be verified with one click, you may notice that I have also used most of yours. Why removing all that information related to The Holocaust in Serbia? as I said before I am really not interested in Edit warring so I think it’s best to ask if other editors have concerns or maybe experienced editors like @Diannaa: and @Buidhe: what version is best suited. All my best.
- OyMosby version
Yugoslavia, home to 80,000 Jews, was dismembered; regions in the north were annexed by Germany and Hungary, regions along the coast were made part of Italy, Kosovo and western Macedonia were given to Albania, while Bulgaria received eastern Macedonia. The rest of the country was divided into the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), an Italian-German puppet state whose territory comprised Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, with the Croatian fascist Ustaše party placed in power; and German occupied Serbia, governed by German military and police administrators[1] who appointed the Serbian collaborationist puppet government, Government of National Salvation, headed by Milan Nedić.[2][3][4] In August 1942 Serbia was declared free of Jews,[5] after the Wehrmacht and German police, assisted by collaborators of the Nedić government and others such as Zbor, a pro-Nazi and pan-Serbian fascist party, had murdered nearly the entire population of 17,000 Jews.[6][7][8]
- Aeengath version
Yugoslavia, home to 80,000 Jews, was dismembered; regions in the north were annexed by Germany and Hungary, regions along the coast were made part of Italy, Kosovo and western Macedonia were given to Albania, while Bulgaria received eastern Macedonia. In the Bulgarian annexed zones of Macedonia and Thrace, upon demand of the German authorities, the Bulgarians handed over the entire Jewish population, about 12,000 Jews to the military authorities, all were deported and murdered.[9] In the region of Bačka, which was under Hungarian rule, more than 1,500 Jews were killed in the winter of 1941 by Hungarian forces.[10] The rest of the country was divided into the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), an Italian-German puppet state, ruled by the Croatian fascist Ustaše, whose territory comprised Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; and German-Occupied Serbia, the only former province of Yugoslavia placed under direct military occupation.[11] In Serbia the Nazis appointed a puppet government under former Serbian general Milan Nedić.[12] The German police and the Volksdeutsche directed antisemitic policy and the introduction of the Nuremberg Laws, large-scale roundups followed with the help of Serbian collaborationists like the pro-Nazi Zbor and the Belgrade Special Police.[12] Between July and November 1941, as part of "retaliatory executions” (Geiselmordpolitik) following the uprisings in Serbia, almost all of the Jewish male population was executed by the Wehrmacht.[10] In mid-March 1942, all the remaining Jews, mostly women and children, held in the Sajmište concentration camp, were murdered by the Nazis in a mobile gas van dispatched from Berlin.[13] In August 1942, Serbia was declared judenrein (free of Jews) by the head of Einsatzgruppe Serbia, after the entire population of 17,000 Jews had been murdered.[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeengath (talk • contribs) 12:26, June 18, 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ McKale 2002, pp. 192–193.
- ^ Skutsch, Carl (2005). Encyclopedia of the world's minorities, Volume 3. Routledge. p. 1083.
- ^ Megargee, Geoffrey P. (2018). The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, Volume III. Indiana University Press. p. 839.
- ^ Newman, John (2015). Yugoslavia in the Shadow of War: Veterans and the Limits of State Building, 1903–1945. Cambridge University Press. p. 248.
- ^ Black 2016, p. 134.
- ^ Skutsch, Carl (2005). Encyclopedia of the world's minorities, Volume 3. Routledge. p. 1083.
- ^ Megargee, Geoffrey P. (2018). The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, Volume III. Indiana University Press. p. 839.
- ^ Newman, John (2015). Yugoslavia in the Shadow of War: Veterans and the Limits of State Building, 1903–1945. Cambridge University Press. p. 248.
- ^ Gilbert 2012, p. 102.
- ^ a b Sabrina P. Ramet 2011, p. 114.
- ^ Alexander Prusin 2017, p. 27.
- ^ a b John Paul Newman 2015, p. 246.
- ^ Sabrina P. Ramet 2011, p. 121.
- ^ McKale 2002, pp. 222.
- This is an overview article - we are covering the entirety of the Holocaust here - for the sorts of details such as the "only former province of Yugoslavia placed under direct military occupation" or the fact that a gas van was dispatched from Berlin or who declared Serbia free of Jews are unneeded details in this level of article. There's more that could be trimmed - to be bruatally frank - the former Yugoslav territories were not the main area of the Holocaust, but yet the sections on them are getting about three times the space that the invasion of France is getting - which had 300,000 Jews in it, as opposed to the Yugoslav territories 77,000. We don't need to be tied completely to some sort of "so-many-Jews died so we give so much space" ratio - but it is also something we need to keep in mind - that WP:UNDUE does mean we cover in this article things in rough proportion to how they would be covered in an overview of the Holocaust (something like Longerich or similar). Ealdgyth (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I totally understand thank you for clarifying it makes total sense, I did not realised this was an overview article, I will bring it back to the way I found it and use that content in the appropriate article instead. All my best Aeengath (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- The articles listed in the "further" template at the top of the section would probably be a good start for this information (and I'm not saying it's not useful...or important .. either, just that it's very hard to balance the upper level articles sometimes. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Aeengath What is unconstructive is accusing me of something I didn’t due as you didn’t look at my edit. Your edit removed content I added. So I undid your edit. Actually. As I mentioned in my dif. In fact the one new bit of i fo you added that I undid is hardly comprable to you removing Nedic and his government. Even though you said before you agree with it being there….. You have now remived a lot of relevant info unnecessarily. You removed over 3,000 characters of info. I don’t see how WP POINT is helpful. As Ealdgyth said. This is a summary. There is a middle ground between removing 3,000 characters and adding every detail. OyMosby (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Editor @Ealdgyth: already combed through the section. Why now wipe it as if all for nothing??? Why does this even need to be an issue??? All was good up to this morning…. I don’t think they asked you to return it to as you “found it” as there were various versions. Editor @Peacemaker67: being that you have experience with WWII Balkan article editing perhaps you could chime in? I agree that it could be more streamlined but the “original” seems too bare bones… I think. OyMosby (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps we can first discuss massive changes here before going forth with such edits tot avoid inadvertent edit wars or disruptions to the page. Will make it easier to keep track of edit ideas too… OyMosby (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Editor @Ealdgyth: already combed through the section. Why now wipe it as if all for nothing??? Why does this even need to be an issue??? All was good up to this morning…. I don’t think they asked you to return it to as you “found it” as there were various versions. Editor @Peacemaker67: being that you have experience with WWII Balkan article editing perhaps you could chime in? I agree that it could be more streamlined but the “original” seems too bare bones… I think. OyMosby (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Aeengath What is unconstructive is accusing me of something I didn’t due as you didn’t look at my edit. Your edit removed content I added. So I undid your edit. Actually. As I mentioned in my dif. In fact the one new bit of i fo you added that I undid is hardly comprable to you removing Nedic and his government. Even though you said before you agree with it being there….. You have now remived a lot of relevant info unnecessarily. You removed over 3,000 characters of info. I don’t see how WP POINT is helpful. As Ealdgyth said. This is a summary. There is a middle ground between removing 3,000 characters and adding every detail. OyMosby (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- The articles listed in the "further" template at the top of the section would probably be a good start for this information (and I'm not saying it's not useful...or important .. either, just that it's very hard to balance the upper level articles sometimes. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I totally understand thank you for clarifying it makes total sense, I did not realised this was an overview article, I will bring it back to the way I found it and use that content in the appropriate article instead. All my best Aeengath (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Aeengath:, above you said:
all the quote referenced in my version are sourced and can be verified with one click... Why removing all that information related to The Holocaust in Serbia?
- By your comment, I believe you are saying that since all of your material is sourced and cited, therefore it is okay to add it to the article. But reliable sourcing and citations are not sufficient to add your material. Your are missing the core principle of WP:DUE WEIGHT.[a] I'm not sure of OyMosby's motivation in removing the material, but I agree with the removal, for reasons of WP:DUE WEIGHT. I've addressed this issue in more detail in the the next section.
- It is crucial for you to understand the principle of WP:DUE WEIGHT, which will likely govern the outcome of any dispute with respect to how much content you can add to that section, or indeed, whether it should be cut back significantly. On the other hand, WP:DUE WEIGHT would certainly permit the addition of all of your material to the articles The Holocaust in Greece, The Holocaust in Serbia, and The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia, because that is what they are about. But here, your opportunity for expansion will be severely limited, and it's not clear how much, if any, of your recent added content can remain in this article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Aeengath, as you are a fr-wiki user, here's a point for you to consider: Souvent, les principes dans les wikipédias français et anglais ne sont pas les memes; par contre, dans cette situation, le principe est expliqué quasiment pareil sur le wiki-fr, voici : fr:WP:UNDUE. C'est primordial que vous compreniez ce point.
- I agree. I undid their edit as they removed material in the first place in that very edit about the Government of national Salvation and Milan Nedic being placed in power by the Germans after partitioning of Yugoslavia commenced. Which seems more relevant I would think from a weight standpoint. So the point of me removing sourced content seems ironic here. I did not disagree about the citation validity but with removing a more substantial fact and puting in a less substantial one instead. This isn’t cutting down the section. They removed content directly about the Holocaust in Serbia not I. I had added it. This was a concern to me. OyMosby (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Understood; thanks. I didn't want to mind-read your motivations, because I realized there might be other reasons, as seems to be the case here. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- @OyMosby: Can you explain why my opening phrase "In Serbia the Nazis appointed a puppet government under former Serbian general Milan Nedić.[1]". is less substantial than: "German occupied Serbia, governed by German military and police administrators[2] who appointed the Serbian collaborationist puppet government, Government of National Salvation, headed by Milan Nedić"? on why I removed content see my answer below... Ps: I go with he/his ;)
- Hi @Mathglot:, no this is not what I meant, I said that I was using verifiable sourced references because the previous editor had first used a citation that did not match its source here and then added a statement that was unsourced here which he admitted came from another article and wasn’t verified. (He gracefully acknowledged his mistakes here errare humanum est...). I understand about WP:DUE WEIGHT and I'll keep that in mind, I think it would be good to also insist sometimes a bit more on WP:VERIFY especially when it comes down to contested issues in historiography like this one. En tout cas merci pour ces quelques mots au passage. Aeengath (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- @OyMosby: I removed the content that said that the Germans murdered 17,000 Jews "with the assistance of the Nedić government and others such as Zbor." because I could not find it in the sources that you provided, I found mentions of roundups which I added as well as mention of collaborators like the Belgrade Police which I added as well. One of the reference provided (USHMM No preview available on googlebooks but I do have that book) is about “Zbor and the Institute for Compulsory Youth Education”[3] Second reference from Yugoslavia in the Shadow of War (I also happen to have that book) has more material but nothing about directly assisting in the murder of 17,000 Jews the closest quote is: "the pro-Nazi Zbor, was far too marginal and thinly supported to play anything more than an auxiliary role in the collaborationist set-up this despite Zbor’s full-fledged ideological adherence to Nazism… Ljotić’s party militia, the ‘Serbian Volunteer Guard’, took part in the Nazi occupation regime’s anti-Partisan reprisals the targets of Zbor’s violence were often, however, Serbian and Jewish civilians”[4]
- I also added details about the Holocaust in other parts of Yugoslavia like Bačka since the Holocaust is the topic of this article and I was actually planning to develop also the French section (not any more!) that’s why I could not understand the removal of that content as well "In the region of Bačka, which was under Hungarian rule, more than 1,500 Jews were killed in the winter of 1941 by Hungarian forces.[5]" it's not "an accusation" just a comment. Since collaboration with the occupiers is still one of the most contested issues in Yugoslav historiography I assumed it was important more than ever to be precise and go by the source... that’s all! All my Best Aeengath (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. I undid their edit as they removed material in the first place in that very edit about the Government of national Salvation and Milan Nedic being placed in power by the Germans after partitioning of Yugoslavia commenced. Which seems more relevant I would think from a weight standpoint. So the point of me removing sourced content seems ironic here. I did not disagree about the citation validity but with removing a more substantial fact and puting in a less substantial one instead. This isn’t cutting down the section. They removed content directly about the Holocaust in Serbia not I. I had added it. This was a concern to me. OyMosby (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ John Paul Newman 2015, p. 246.
- ^ McKale 2002, pp. 192–193.
- ^ Megargee, Geoffrey P. (2018). The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, Volume III. Indiana University Press. p. 839.
- ^ Newman, John (2015). Yugoslavia in the Shadow of War: Veterans and the Limits of State Building, 1903–1945. Cambridge University Press. p. 248.
- ^ Sabrina P. Ramet 2011, p. 114.
Yugoslavia and Greece section is out of proportion
While I admire the passion and effort of recent editors in adding well-sourced content to the article, notably users OyMosby and Aeengath, there is a problem with the amount of content in this section of the article. While no one (I think, I'm just ramping up on this) is complaining about unsourced or poorly sourced material in the additions, the problem is that the length of the section is WP:UNDUE and will likely need to be cut back. It sounds like Ealdgyth has been trying to make this point before, repeating that this article is about "the entire Holocaust", the point being, there's a WP:DUE WEIGHT problem here. It's simply untenable, in my opinion, that the section #Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece should be nearly double the size of #Invasion of France and the Low Countries. My off-the-cuff guess, is that it should be the other way round. (Expand the "Section sizes" gadget in the Talk page header above to get an idea how these sections compare now.)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Reading_room_of_the_Wiener_Library.jpg/190px-Reading_room_of_the_Wiener_Library.jpg)
There is a very large number of sources about the Holocaust; entire libraries cover that topic. A minor library you may never have heard of, like the Tauber Holocaust Library, has 12,000 volumes in its collection; larger ones like the Wiener have 70,000. Clearly, it would be possible to add impeccably referenced and sourced content into the article, from books solely about the Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece until that one section became 90% of the article, and nobody could complain that a word of it was unsourced.
But reliable sourcing is not the only policy that applies here. Just as important, is the policy of WP:DUE WEIGHT. In order to comply with this policy, we need to adjust the amount of content on various subtopics in an article so that they are in rough proportion to the amount of reliable sourcing on the topic. Clearly, given the huge quantity of written material on the Holocaust, this cannot be done by enumerating every source, and counting up what proportion of them deal with the invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia. (If you *could* do that, that would be an excellent way to determine roughly what proportion of the article should be about this subtopic.)
So, if we can't do that, what do we do? In a case like this, one of the best ways is to turn to WP:TERTIARY sources and compare their coverage on subtopics. You can check numerous trusted tertiary sources like encyclopedias, look for the article on the Main topic, and take a measure (column inches, paragraphs, words, whatever makes sense) of how much material there is on various subtopics, and use that as a guide to proportion. Try a range of tertiary sources, not just one. (And, if using Encyclopedia Britannica, please use the printed version; there are various problems with using the online version, which I can explain later if interested.)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Anonymous_-_Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg/240px-Anonymous_-_Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg)
I've participated in this exercise of checking TERTIARY sources in order to solve a DUE WEIGHT question a couple of times before. If you want to see what it looks like in practice, the French Revolution is another case like this one, where there is so much source material available that it's impossible to check it all, and so when a question of DUE WEIGHT came up at that article, we checked TERTIARY sources to gain some confidence about how to proceed. The question was a dispute about how much to say about the influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution. One side thought the influence was profound, and central; and so we should devote significant coverage about American influence in the article. The other side thought that there was some influence, but it was nowhere close to the top ten causes or influences, and so minor it should be covered as a brief mention. The French Revolution has so many sources, that it is possible to find endless reliable sources about American influence on the French Revolution if you specifically search for it, but how much coverage is there about it, in proportion to the entirety of scholarship on the French Revolution? That is the crucial question. We relied on tertiary sources to discover the answer. You can find that exercise here, if interested.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-179-1575-19%2C_Ioannina%2C_Deportation_von_Juden.jpg/240px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-179-1575-19%2C_Ioannina%2C_Deportation_von_Juden.jpg)
In the case of how much space to devote to Yugoslavia and Greece in a general article on the Holocaust, we can do a comparison to see how this has changed over time. On November 14, 2020, for example, the section #Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece was 1 paragraph, 217 words, and 1319 bytes. This was longer than #Invasion of Norway and Denmark by about half (1p, 141w, 812b), and one half the size of #Invasion of France and the Low Countries (5 p, 421 words, 2508 bytes). Off the top of my head, this feels like approximately the right proportion to me.
Currently (rev. 1029230756 of 17:33, June 18), section #Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece is (7 paragraphs, 494 words, 3027 bytes), #Norway and Denmark is (1p, 141w, 812b), and #France + LC is (3p, 293w, 1745b). In my opinion, this proportion is untenable, and will need to be cut back significantly. But I could be wrong, and we will have to see how the evidence shakes out when we look at tertiary sources. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Mathglot. Having worked with Ealdgyth with added content to the section and fixing the sourcing to make sure it matches the content, it seems it started to get to expansive with details of types of gas vans used to a government or territory bejng deamed “the only one during the war under direction rule” which doesn’t focus enough on the Holocaust itself which I agreed. In response to that it seems the the other user then removed 3,000 characters but it appears they didn’t exactly understand what Ealdyth was aaying. I think there would be a logical middle ground between removing 3,000 contents about the killing of Jews and who the purps were vs adding facts about a territory being the onky one directly ruled by the Germans. Or types of Gas used. These definitely aren’t in the same league. I was fine with Ealdyth’s c/e final edits. Couple days later here we are with a new issue…. I thought all was done really. I appreciate all your input Mathglot and share your views on this. Quite frankly it is starting to feel like we all may have spent too much time on this section… OyMosby (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- @OyMosby:, hi, and thanks for the comment; this helps fill in more of the backstory, while I come back up to speed on what's been going on at the article recently . Would be good to hear the opinions of other regulars here as well. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for taking the time to give more insight on the matter. End of the day we all just eant to make things better really, I think. I pinged an admin familiar with WWII Balkan matters and I see the ofher editor also pinged some editors who have experience who could perhaps help shed some more views. The more eyes the better I think. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- @OyMosby:, hi, and thanks for the comment; this helps fill in more of the backstory, while I come back up to speed on what's been going on at the article recently . Would be good to hear the opinions of other regulars here as well. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Mathglot, this is very interesting especially reading the talk about the French Revolution, I hope something like this could work for the Balkans. Aeengath (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Was pinged by OM. I would say, that based on the state of the rest of the article and taking into account due weight, the Yugoslavia and Greece section should be two middling-sized paras, one small para and one largish para. The two key Holocaust aspects in occupied Yugoslavia that need to have a para are 1. the activities of the Ustashas, and 2. the Germans and their collaborators in occupied Serbia. They are where the vast majority of Jews were killed. The small para should wrap up the rest of occupied Yugoslavia, including a sentence on the Bulgarians in annexed Macedonia, one on the fate of the Slovene Jews, and one on Jews in the Yugoslav Partisans. I am not all that familiar with Greece, but expect that a largish para would do for that. For a high-level summary article of this sort, that is the level of detail needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. I think other collaborators should be named as well beaides the already mentioned Ustashe who collaborated with the Germans agreeing to the racial laws imposed for Jewish civilians. Not sure to what extent Germans had impact in the occupied territories of Bosnia and Croatia (NDH ruped by the Ustashe). This was lacking before. Of course not all were equal in their complicity or eagerness. What do you think of the current version? OyMosby (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Ken, any thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Distinctive features... Collaboration?
Was collaboration a unique feature of the Holocaust? In general, collaboration in any conflict is rather a common occurrence. The section presents a legitimate point of view, however it is not the only one on this subject matter, yet this one view and an opinion of one historian is presented as the single authoritative statement on the issue. Also, what I find most troubling is the gross oversimplification used to describe the issue. After all, there are different definitions of collaboration (by some standards certain acts would not be classified as collaboration). For example, there is a big difference between the Slovak Republic paying Nazi Germany to send its Jews to concentrations camps, versus Polish railway workers or policemen being forced to participate in the deportations under the threat of the death penalty or being sent to a slave labor camp. This is a major, major article on Wikipedia, yet some of the text resembles a grade C article. --E-960 (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Additional point, the entire Distinctive Features sections is very problematic, it acts as a pseudo summary (on top of the intro paragraph) and it only severs to highlight a particular POV, citing just one historian's opinion and presenting it as definitive on a particular issue. --E-960 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with this edit. The features of a genocidal state, collaboration, and medical experiments are important to understanding the Holocaust.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I also disagree with teh removal of this cited and pertient information. It should be restored. If the problem is with the paragraph on "distinctive features" .. that can be discussed, but we don't remove the information on collaboration and medical experiments also just because they might not be utterly distinctive features - they still happened in the Holocaust and removing the paragraphs on them is akin to whitewashing them as if they didn't happen. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed edit request
Please change the name of "Pogroms in occupied Poland" subsection[1] to "Pogroms in Poland" as the subsection doesn't solely talk about the pogroms during the occupation of Poland, but also about the pogroms before the war. Thank you, CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mentioned pre-war pogroms were prior to the Holocaust and should be probably removed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think a straight-up removal is the answer, the pre-war pogroms still carry relevance, especially in the the context they are presented. Though perhaps other editors should chip in as well, the more heads the better, as they say. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- CPCEnjoyer, Do we have sources that explicitly connect them to the Holocaust? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps next time you and your friend should read the sources before you remove them? Or did you skip over
Gilbert, M., 2002. The Routledge atlas of the Holocaust. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-28145-8.
? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC) - Martin Gilbert, The Routledge atlas of the Holocaust, 2002, gives this as background on the state of Jewish communities at the eve of the war. He also mentions Poland in The Holocaust: The Human Tragedy (2014), along with Ukraine (and more broadly the area "from the Baltic to the Black Sea"), as part of background on historical antisemitism in EE. He later mentions it in a chapter on the effects of the Nuremberg laws outside Germany ("in four years, the German government had turned Jews into less than second-class citizens. Now other governments, and other peoples, especially those in Eastern Europe, looked with envy at the Nazi achievements, and allowed their own anti-Jewish prejudices to flourish"); he mentions other countries there as well, but I think it would be fair to say that he gives more emphasis to Poland.
- David Cesarani, Final Solution, 2015: also as background, and I think a necessary background :"the Jewish population was heavily Polonized at all social levels, especially the middle and upper classes. A generation of brilliantly gifted Jewish writers, poets, novelists and essayists dazzled Polish readers. This did not stop anti-Semitism, though. On the contrary, since the late nineteenth century the development of a Christian Polish middle class caused increasing friction with the Jewish communities. The rebirth of independent Poland in 1918–19 was accompanied by vicious pogroms. Throughout the interwar years nationalist parties campaigned for Polonization of the economy and encouraged a boycott of Jewish businesses. On the eve of the German assault, Polish Jewry was socially stratified, politically divided, economically stretched, and at odds with the Christian majority."
- Apologies for the lack of pp., I'm using an EPUB. François Robere (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps next time you and your friend should read the sources before you remove them? Or did you skip over
- CPCEnjoyer, Do we have sources that explicitly connect them to the Holocaust? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think a straight-up removal is the answer, the pre-war pogroms still carry relevance, especially in the the context they are presented. Though perhaps other editors should chip in as well, the more heads the better, as they say. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Recent edits...
I see we're getting a spate of edits - including importing from other articles (without actually making the effort to put in the sources used ...examples - Gordon 1984, Piotrowski 2007, etc) and massively expanding certain sections which is causing the article to get a problem with WP:UNDUE. The article is quite large as it is, and we don't need to be expanding it endlessly nor do we need to be expanding it without trying to keep the fact that this is a summary article on the entire subject in sight. Let's not return to the bad days when this article was wildly out of balance and went into unnecessary detail in places while in others totally neglecting vital aspects of the Holocaust. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, removals such as this by E-960 and this by Volunteer Marek combined with the addition by MyMoloboaccount add up to presenting alternative facts on the Holocaust, not the way it is usually developed.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree. I suggest restoration to lgv. Levivich 17:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Levivich, This seems fine, the other stuff does merit more discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Per Levivich. François Robere (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I also agree. I suggest restoration to lgv. Levivich 17:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)