Template talk:The Holocaust sidebar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Other extermination camps and sites

Because during our heated debate there has been agreement that we need new section. Now I have added this section. All added sites (-Jasenovac) are from Britannica 2002. With hope that nobody will protest bye--Rjecina (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• yes I am against removing Jasenovac and Sajmiste from the list of concentrations camps - they are the holocaust era camps - per Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.--I am Mario (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is agreement between Holocaust scholars about 6 (not 7 or 8) Holocaust extermination camps (bad definition but...). Because of that it is not possible to write camp number 7 (for example Maly Trostenets) to this list.

If there will be 7 camps last will be Maly Trostenets and not Jasenovac. Why ? Because 40,00-65,000 Jews is killed in Maly Trostenets and "only" 10,700 - 16,000 Jews in Jasenovac. For Balkan people it will be surprise (maybe) but WWII Holocaust is "Jewish" and not "Serbian" thing (sorry for this 2 words. maybe they are not enough civil ?)--Rjecina (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Between the "agreement" and the fact: Encyclopedia of the Holocaust International Editorial Board counts 24 world-class historians (among them Martin Broszat) and more than 100 contributors. All together 124+ scholars agreed to include in the ecyclopedia five entries:

Ante Pavelic, Independent State of Croatia, Ustashe, Jasenovac and Sajmiste. Now about the holocaust notion - Merriam Webster dictionary is clear - the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the b: a mass slaughter of people  ; especially : GENOCIDE All scholars - while writingt about the holocaust in this four volume encyclopedia, which is a reference book in libraries aroud the world - were dutifully and with full respect mentioning Poles, Serbs, Roma, and all others doomed to be annihilated by Nazis and their servants. Claiming 'but WWII Holocaust is "Jewish" and not "Serbian" thing' - is disgusting. Jasenovac and Sajmiste concentration camps: - in the holocaust context mentioned - my book/article search engine shows more than 2000 entries for Jasenovac and more than 700 - for Sajmiste and just 70 for Maly Trostenets. Book browser shows between 6 000 - 23 000 Jews died in Maly Trostenets. No problem to include this camp in the extermination camps because it was an extermination and a holocaust camp. Back to Jasenovac - at least 40 000 Jews entered that camp (25 00 from the Croatia proper, 7000 from Bosnia and 8000 from Slovenia). How many there died and how many were transfered into other camps - no one knows. Furher, 25 000 Roma and hundred thousands of Serbs perished there.
I've noticed that this fella (Rjecina) was eagerly removing quoted testimonies of the holocaust survivors from a number of the holocaust related articles under some frivolous excuses. Is there a way to curb this behavior inside Wikipedia or some anti-defamation actions shall be taken outside Wikipedia? I see that my previous warning about holocaust denial seen on this page - was removed by some administrator who even threatened to block me? --I am Mario (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's any more reverting on this issue, I'll have to protect again, or block the next reverter. Mario, please don't make threats to report people for "Holocaust denial." Everyone here is acting in good faith. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SV that this needs to stop. All of the camps are listed as extermination camps, and the classification as "other extermination camps and sites" does nothing to change that. Think of it as a reflection of camps outside of the brutal system set up in Poland and as a way to include places like Babi Yar that don't necessarily fit in with pogroms. Finally, I'd like to applaud both of you for this edit warring over a template. A TEMPLATE!?! One that isn't even attached to the articles on the two camps you're edit warring over. In fact, I am Mario you've never edited either article before.

I'm tempted to revert to the compromised version because I simply cannot understand why you're so upset IaM. I would like to know why the location of the camps in the template is such an issue. The word "other" doesn't nullify "Holocaust" or "extermination." You do realize that don't you. "Other" doesn't mean "not", in this context it is very clear that "other" means "other holocaust extermination camps and sites". AniMate 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As promised on his talk page, I've blocked I am Mario (for 48 hours) for repeating his Holocaust Denial accusations. I have no problems with any other admin adjusting that upwards if they think it's necessary. Rjecina, I do see a rough consensus on this talk page that the camps under dispute can be fairly described as extermination camps, although they may not fall under a strict definition of Holocaust camps. Therefore I think your additions to the template are supported. However, revert-warring to keep them there is disruptive and against the spirit of WP:3RR. I realise that you believe you are acting to maintain a consensus, but if your edits are supported by the other article contributors (who, I hope you don't mind me saying, seem to feel less strongly about it than you do), it's perhaps best to let them make any necessary reversions; that way it's less likely that you'll end up facing sanctions too. EyeSerene^talk 13:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me see:

On 1 side we are having sites: Holocaust survivors [1], Middle Tennessee state University[2], Teachers guide to Holocaust [3], United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [4] (I can add to this Yad Vashem and Jewish Virtual library) which are all making clear difference between 6 camps and Jasenovac (I will not even comment Sajmište)

On other side we are having Menachem Shelach which is speaking about Jasenovac, but he will latter say in interview published by Israeli weekly Hotam (December 30, 1994), that he deathly hates the Croats (in Hebrew: sin 'at mavet). Maybe because of my poor english maybe I do not understand good enough Wikipedia:Reliable sources, because when I read this rules he is not reliable source for Jasenovac or Sajmište ?

All in all we are having 4 reliable wiki sources which are saying white (example) and 1 non reliable source which is saying black. In the end wikipedia is writing black ????

Now about consensus:

There has been agreement between Animate and Ricky that there is 6 Holocaust camps and that we are needing another section for Jasenovac [5]. I have accepted this position in beginning of November with creation of this section [6]. User:Don Luca Brazzi has protested deleting of Jasenovac from this list, but he has not writen against creation of new section.

In the end we are having 3 users for subsection and 1 neutral. For me this is consensus !

If this is not good enough (sources + consensus) I will try to avoid future edit wars with adding of other extermination camps to template and deleting of subsection. EyeSerene, Animate, Ricky and SlimVirgin can you please write your thinking about this proposition ?--Rjecina (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the camps back to the "other" section, and again don't understand what is controversial about this. As to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust being a valid source, it unquestionably is. Menachem Shelach's comments about Croats do not outweigh the entire editorial board or Yad Veshem, who sponsored the encyclopedia. In addition, I'm not sure your understanding of WP:RS is correct. We do not disqualify a source simply because an author has said something controversial. We look at the source, in this case the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, and determine if it is a reputable publication. If we must look at the author, we judge his work not the man himself. Shelach has been published in the Oxford Journals. He's seems more than qualified to me as a reliable source. Rather than attack the man, perhaps a better tact would be to find other reliable sources that refute his writings. If there are sources out there that say the opposite of his writings, I'd like to see them. He's said something repugnant about Croats. I get that. Find me some legitimate scholarship that contradicts him and we can go from there. AniMate 10:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added 2 reasons why we must have subsection. We are having agreement about minimal 1 thing (maybe both), and in this situation I do not see reason for discussion about Menachem Shelach on this template talk page--Rjecina (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I will suggest that others review User:I am Mario's comment here at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Ignoring the possible WP:NLT violation for someone else, he seems to add some more details (why he doesn't mention it here is beyond me). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yad Vashem is established by Israel parliament for commemorating the 6 milion Jews killed in Holocaust. In Yad Vashem Hall of Rememberence we are having names of 22 largest extermination camps [7], but even Yad Vashem is making clear difference between 6 greatest and others. This is possible to see on Yad Vashem FAQ about Holocaust [8] which is speaking only about 6 greatest camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz. Similar situation is with USHMM [9]

Against this and all scholars (I can add more sources) which are making clear difference between this 6 camps and 16 other we are having user which is screaming: "There is 8 great camps (6 original + 2 Croatian)". It is interesting that 1 (Sajmište concentration camp) of this 2 camps on Croatian territory is not even between 22 largest camps on Yad Vashem list (see article. This data has never been disputed, but only sources which I can find are on croato-serbian language).

In my thinking it will be better if we find Yad Vashem complete list of camps, so that we can add all this other 16 camps in subsection. After that I or someboy else can ask never ending full protection of this template, because this is our only solution to end this --Rjecina (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning. Rjecina keeps falsely referencing Yad Vashem when saying It is interesting that 1 (Sajmište concentration camp) of this 2 camps on Croatian territory is not even between 22 largest camps on Yad Vashem list - see for detalis [[10]] where it is given almost identical map of the concentration camps as the one seen in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust on page 308, Vol 1. The most authoritative source about Holocaust - Encyclopedia of the Holocaust does not differentiate any six concentartin camps against other camps - as it was suggested by this person. --I am Mario (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On this map we are having 4 x 14 = 56 camps and sites. Maybe I am mistaking but 56 is greater number of 22 ? --Rjecina (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Classification of camps

Nazi camp divide into several categories. These includes: POV detention camps, camps for re-education of poles, hostage internment camps, transit and collection camps, labor camps, general concentration camps and extermination camps. None of these definintions is complete and many camps are of diverse nature, E.g. most concentration camps are labor camps as well. Extermination camps are the most important subject, they are specific camps that were not erected in other to intern inmates, who would labor, and be killed or parish due to circumstances, but be taken to systematic slaughter upon arrival. This definition too is incomplete: all concentration camps are, to some extent, extermination camps, yet only few are indeed reconed as such.

• Central extermination camps: are big camps, planned for systematic destruction of people in the firm of genocide. Inmates are brought into such camps from afar, even of other camps, and most of them are usually taken to liquidation. Of these, three were established in the "Reinhardt aktion": These were extermination camps that were not concentration camps, and all incoming new-arrivals were killed. In others, a small part was kept alive to do labor, these were concentration and extermination camps althoughter. These camps are: Treblinka, Belzec, Sobbibor (Reinhardt aktion) and Auschwitz, Lublin-"Majdanek" and Jasenovac. Chelmno/Kulmhof also falls into that category.
• Minor extermination camps: camps and sites where transit of small labor units were stationed, and in which systematic extermination took part for a while due to needs and interests of administration. These are Sajmiste, Maly-Trostenets, Janowska and several other small camps.
• Concentration camps: camps where systematic extermination did not take place in a way consistent enough to be tagged "extermination camps".

79.179.252.228 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• My advice is to accept the classification given in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. See this note on Jimbo Wales page given by I am Mario user [11]: Concentration camps entry is on pages 308-316, Vol. 1: The camps were subdivided into labor camps (Arbetslager), transit camps(durhgangslager), prisoner of war camps (Kriegsfangenlager) and extermination camps (Vermachtungslager). This is a good start - there is no minor or major extermination/concentration camps as you have suggested. Also, bear in mind that the same camp can be seen as concentration and extermination camp.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is good to see that we are having agreement between Washington IP (user I am Mario) and Washington IP (user 72.75.20.29) :)

We are having nice link given to us by Washington IP on 23 November which is clearly making difference between 6 extermination camps and all others[12] .

It is possible to see that on this page we are having links to all camps and extermination sites and if we look all this articles we will come to this list of minor camps which have been from beginning or have became latter extermination camps:

Bogdanovka [13]

Janowska [14]

Kaiserwald [15]

Maly Trostines [16]

Mauthausen [17]

Sachsenhausen [18] (Extermination camp for soviet prisoners)

+Jasenovac and Sajmište.--Rjecina (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• This person (Rjecina) keeps falsely interpreting references: map says one thing but the text contradicts the map explicitly: Jasenovac was Croatia’s largest concentration and extermination camp. See [19]. Also, no 'minor camp' classification by Yad Vashem visible. Far more accurate classification of the concentration camps is given by Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. --72.75.20.29 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the definition of minot extermination camps is very good. Maly-Trostenets is generally considered as an extermination camp, though it cannot be listed with the large ones. The same definition appears in regard of Janowska and Sajmiste in "the encyclopedia of the holocaust" and in latest Yad-Va-Shem asseys. My determinations also lay upon the information given to me by specialists Menachem Granitza and Abraham Kuperman. Also, Jasenovac should be considered a central extermination camp, with Auschwitz and Majdanek. 79.179.252.228 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I do not see any definition of the 'minor' extermination camp in Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. (Sajmiste - where At least 40 000 Serbian and 7–8 000 Jewish victims perished in it. is a 'minor' extermination camp???) Please, quote the definition in full and give the page where the definition is given.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • We are having problem because it is clear that Yad Vashem, USHMM Middle Tennessee University [20], Florida Center for Instructional Tehnology [21], This Holocaust Teacher Resource Center (Holocaust chronology with all camps), Holocaustsurvivors.org [22] are making clear difference between 6 camps and all others. Because I am person which is always accepting other side arguments supported by sources my proposition for you 2 is to write emails to Yad Vashem and USHMM with demand that they add Jasenovac to this 6. If only 1 of this organization accept your evidence then we will add Jasenovac to this 6. If not we can't add Jasenovac because of our rule Wikipedia:No original research
  • Sorry Washington IP but we can't believe your book "sources" because in other article we are having evidence that Washington IP is writing false and misleading statements using book like sources.--Rjecina (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Serious incident

Rjecina keeps falsely interpreting and referencing the internet sources and falsely calling upon editorial rules. The Holocaust idea is not limited to the list of extermination camps listed here - nor any reference supports that selection. Moreover, far more people died in other types of concentration camps - labor camps most notably.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• What this anonymous user wrote about Rjecina - is yet another proof of a primitive and tenacious attempt to revise the very idea of the Holocaust: as per Rjecina et all - Holocaust did happen mainly in six extermination camps and some people died on some other places. I've already warned mr Wales about this dirty activity here - got only deaf ear response. I am collecting evidence about this defamation activity and writing article/letter which shall be sent to the Anti-Defamation League, New York Times and Washington Post.--I am Mario (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Restored less cluttered version

I went ahead and restored the less cluttered version of the template. My reasoning is that firstly, templates are designed to make accessibility to certain information easier, and the presentation of the subdivisions list did not aid in that respect. Secondly, the subdivision list was misleading. I'm certainly not saying it was not truthful, but saying there are subdivisions and not actually classifying the camps by subdivisions is frankly lazy and sloppy. The way the list was presented made it appear that the camps were arranged by those classifications, when in fact it was just a list of all the camps that had been on the template. Finally, the subdivision list seemed like more of a definition of the different types of camps and that isn't the purpose of a template. Templates are a navigational tool and not actually an article. --AniMate 19:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Definition of the Holocaust does not know anything about 'the less cluttered version' nor it can be narrowed to some selection of the extermination camps and 'other' camps.--72.75.20.29 (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This difference is created by Holocaust scholars and not by us. For me your proposition is OK, but for wiki rules it is not OK.
  • My advice to 72.75.20.29 is to ask administrator thinking if your version can be used. If they say yes, then it will be OK !--Rjecina (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Extermination camps

Would it be useful to change the template to have a separate classification for extermination camps? In fact Treblinka was not really a "concentration" camp as hardly any Jews were held there for an extended period, and Wikipedia draws a distinction between concentration and extermination camps in its classifications. Vidor (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking we need to have clear difference between 6 camps and all others, but if you look history of article you will see problems--Rjecina (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for ghettos

Regarding this: [23]. What makes a ghetto important enough to include on our template? There were a lot of ghettos and we cannot squeeze them all. I think that only the largest ghettos should be included. Lakhva / Łachwa ghetto can boast a claim to be the first place an uprising has occurred (however, not all sources agree on this, some state it was one of the first places...). Other then that, it was one of the smaller ghettos, in a town that has few other claims to fame. I do believe that the ghetto itself is notable (this is another issue debated right now at Talk:Lakhva Ghetto, but I don't think it ranks inclusion alongside the Warsaw, Łódź or the Minsk Ghettos in our templates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the inclusion of the Łachwa ghetto will give rise to a need to "squeeze" all the ghettos into the template. Given its claim to being the first ghetto uprising, it is easily distinguishable from the other smaller ghettos, and therefore does not create a precedent for inclusion. As for the suggestion that only the largest ghettos should be included, size is by no means the only criterion of significance. In fact, I would suggest that if the template is to fulfill its function of presenting an overview of the topic, then there needs to be some acknowledgment that the ghettos were not restricted to the large cities and there should be at least example of a ghetto in a smaller centre. Given that the Simon Wiesenthal Center estimates that there were over 800 ghettos in Eastern Europe, including a handful of only the larger cities would unnecessarily narrow the focus and ignore an entire facet of the Holocaust. Finally, I am not sure that the town's "other claims to fame", or lack thereof, have any relevance. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason for this is that the template should list only the best known ghettos. For future reference:"Łachwa Ghetto": 500 ghits, "Ghetto Litzmannstadt" 20,000, "Lemberg Ghetto" 500/"Lviv Ghetto" 1,000/"Lwow Ghetto" 4,000, "Kraków Ghetto" 20,000, "Budapest Ghetto" 15,000, "Kaunas Ghetto" 6,000/"Kovno Ghetto" 40,000, "Vilna Ghetto" 40,000/"Wilno Ghetto" 1,000/"Vilnius Ghetto" 10,000, "Minsk Ghetto" 6,500, "Warsaw Ghetto" 500,000. Looking at this we can easily see that Łachwa Ghetto is the least known, and that, by an order of magnitude. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Significance is not determined by google searches. This is not a popularity contest. Moreover, relying solely on google searches as a test of inclusion would ignore any the additional criteria mentioned above. As the first uprising, maybe this is better listed as such, rather than a ghetto? Or perhaps the solution I mention below. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So what do you think significance should be based upon? ILIKEIT is not a solution. It is a fact that some ghetto's are much more known and discussed in the literature. I propose we use Google Book search instead of google. If you can prove that in printed works the popularity of ghetto's is different and Łachwa is among the most popular, you can re-add it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained above in some detail what I felt would be additional criteria and considerations. If my comments are not clear, please feel free to say so, but it's neither fair nor helpful to mischaracterize them as "ILIKEIT". As for Google Book, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. As I have said, this is not a popularity contest and google hits should not be the sole critereon (although it can be helpful) - Google search results are a very crude measure of importance and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive. If we are not going to agree that google results are the be and end all, then perhaps you could give some thought to the other proposals I have made. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, your argument above is that this ghetto is "distinguishable" from others, that's a rather fuzzy criterium - if I misunderstood you, please explain it to me again. Google Books provides a reliable and quantifiable way to determine popularity of issues (we could also try Google Trends but I am pretty sure most ghetto's would not rank high enough to yield a viable statistic here - ex. [24]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was making the point about it being distinguishable in response to your fear about precedent. I indicated that Lakhva's claim to be the first ghetto uprising, along with the need for the template to include a representative overview, are two other equally valid criteria. As for Google searches, we clearly don't agree -- they are a rough indicator, but they are certainly not a reliable indicator of importance or significance, and content decisions on Wikipedia should not be based solely on the basis of google searches. And I am not sure why "popularity" (can a ghetto be popular?) is relevant. Rather than harping on google searches, perhaps you could give some thought to the alternative ideas I have put forward. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What alternate ideas? And do note that the other editor who commented below noted that this template is/was too big and needs shortening. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be delighted to work out a solution with you that we can both accept. In fact, I am trying really hard to do so. However, it is difficult to have a dialogue when you seem disinclined to read any of my comments. Today on this talk page I suggested: (a) that if Lakhva's significance is tied to being the first uprising, then perhaps we should list it among the uprisings and delete it from the ghettos, thus addressing your view that the ghettos list should be limited to the largest ghettos; (b) perhaps we eliminate all lists on the template, and simply refer to the general articles on ghettos, uprisings, etc. so as to avoid these types of debates and trim the template; or (c) convert this template to a navbox, which typically allow for a greater scope of inclusion than a side bar and can be made collapsible. Some of these comments were made in response to the comment about shortening. I think any of these ideas are worth considering, and I'd be happy to hear any ideas that you have. Let me know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I ought not to have suggested you were disinclined - sorry, it wasn't necessary to make that suggestion, and I know that you have the best interests of the template in mind. I imagine that we can figure out some solution between the two of us. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the idea to move Łachwa from ghettos to uprising has merits, as it is indeed notable for the uprising. I think we should keep this template, but if you'd like to create a more comprehensive navbox, that may be a worthwhile project. If you're to do so, we could indeed cut specific examples from the existing template, leaving just the links to the general and list of... articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I'll make note of it down below, under the trimming the template section, and see what people think. In the meantime, I will move the Lachwa reference as discussed, and then we'll see where the trimming discussion takes us. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Personally, I think this template is way over the board. Its size discourages the reader from taking a closer look at it. Some items are there by accident, like the list of victims of Nazism which includes those whose deaths were not a part of the Holocaust (as the article explains). I have no idea how some links are justified, like the link to History of the Jews in Germany#Jews_under_the_Nazis_(1933–1939), which is a mere subsec. This template should be reduced by 40-50% for readability. For now, it act almost as a Wikipedia list, defying its own purpose. A number of groupings could be safely edited out, since the links are already there within the corresponding articles. For example: "Early elements" (Concentration camps are already listed below; there’s no need to repeat them twice...), "Pogroms" (especially the ones predating the Holocaust). The "Responsible parties" which really boils down to Nazi Germany (with its own list within a list within a template) and so on. Please express you opinion in this matter. As far as the ghettos are concerned, only those with major concentration of Jews should be kept. --Poeticbent talk 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would significance be based only on numbers? Perhaps the solution is to simply link to a general ghetto article, remove all links to individual ghettos, and thus avoid these fundamental debates over what it means to be significant (where we start to veer into WP:OR territory). Perhaps we could do the same with respect to a number of topics (e.g. uprisings), and thus trim the template. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Trimming the template

Some time ago I suggested that the list of ghettos should be trimmed up only to major ones; Poeticbent above suggests an even more wider series of cutting down the excess fat from this template - and I agree with his sentiments. Still, since this template talk is highly used and yet is apparently not cared for (as my original suggestion went uncommented upon for months), I think a wider RfC is in order. Comments appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

better idea would be to use the Holocaust navbox which doesn't crowd the page and is more flexible in terms of content.Mtsmallwood (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should consider reinventing this template. Deciding what to "trim" might be a difficult debate, and it could be hard to get consensus. Alternative solutions, such as conversion to a navbox or a different structure, might be the way to go. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotr up above suggested that we trim a lot of the content out of the sidebox, and then create a complimentary navbox for the bottom of article pages that could contain more content. Any comments? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust side bar - Error

I don't know how it can be edited but the side bar for the Holocaust - has a glaring mistake:

Concentration camps were not death camps and death camps were not Arbeitslager. However the side bar makes no distinction....

Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Majdanek (initially founded as a concentration camp but a death camp for most of its operation) should have their own section: Extermination Camps (or Centers)

Likewise Mittelbau-Dora and Ebensee concentration camp should be included but noted as work camps.

I think it would remove the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.106.133 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lublin reservation

Should the Lublin reservation be included into either the ghetto or concentration camp section? Or is it a "too early" stage to be considered a significant part of the Holocaust? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How important and know was it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A total of 95,000 Jews were deported there, and of the associated Burggraben camps, Belzec was later turned into the first Nazi extermination camp. AFAIK it was the only Jewish reservation ever set up by the Nazis. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Vel' d'Hiv

I believe that the Rafle du Vélodrome d'Hiver in Paris, July 1942, must be included in this template. It is often simply called Vel' d'Hiv or Vel d'Hiv, which would make an appropriate short name for the template. -- In two short days, 13,152 (75% women and children, unlike many other pogroms) were arrested and rounded-up at the velodrome and in Drancy. Very shortly thereafter, they were crammed into boxcar transports. Most victims did not survive the trip to Auschwitz, dying en route due to suffocation, and lack of food or water. I realize there a numerous atrocities that could be included in this list, but this is certainly among the most famous ones in western Europe and France. And by magnitude, the number of victims is larger than a couple of the pogrom in Romania and other places that are included in this template. This atrocity is the centerpiece of exhibitions at the Mémorial de la Shoah research center in Paris. --- I could add this myself, but would prefer someone less connected to this than myself make the change. Respectfully, Charvex (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, if it's practicable, there should be a separate section for Transit Camps and collection points such as the Vélodrome d'Hiver; perhaps Theresienstadt (Terezin) would fit there, too. If a couple of camps could be moved to a new section, it might be easier to pick out specific names from a shorter list of Concentration/Extermination Camps. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. Perhaps you are confused by two articles with similar names. It is true that (1) Vélodrome d'Hiver («« this links an article about the cycle track and holding point) is the name of an internment site. The places where Jews were rounded-up like Terezin, Drancy, and the Vélodrome are of tertiary importance and do not belong in this template because there is enough in it already. - - - - - However, it is the Nazi action, « Operation Spring Breeze », called the (2) Rafle du Vélodrome d'Hiver or simply (2) Vel' d'Hiv («« which is the article about Operation Spring Breeze) to which I am referring that I believe should be included in the template. (Use of the term (2) "Vel' d'Hiv" to identify the event, the action is no different that use of the term "Kristallnacht".) The article about the raid and round-up of more than 13,000 people in a day-and-a-half who died in transit to Auschwitz is what I believe you should include in the template. - - - Doesn't the article about this event belong here? Respectfully, Charvex (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been heavily involved in editing this subject or this template, or the history behind the choices that have been made, but a first glance, most of the actions, as opposed to camps, seem to fall under pogroms, e.g. Kristallnacht, or Einsatzgruppen, e.g. Babi Yar or Autumn Harvest. But the Einsatzgruppen weren't involved in the Rafle du Vel d'Hiv', although the SS were. So what would be a good place to fit the Vel d'Hiv' in ? —— Shakescene (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, I must believe that the Einsatzgruppen and the SS-Verfügungstruppe made the plans for Operation Spring Breeze (Vel' d'Hiv). Who else would order the extermination Jews in Occupied France? Germans certainly held all major positions of authority in Occupied France since they directly controlled it. (Paris was not in Vichy France, after all.) Let me quote from that Einsatzgruppen article:

« Western Europe: Following the German invasion of the Netherlands, Belgium and France in May 1940, the Einsatzgruppen once again travelled in the wake of the Wehrmacht, but unlike their operations in Poland, the Einsatzgruppen operations in Western Europe in 1940 were within the original mandate of securing government offices and papers. »

But, perhaps you know facts that lead you to make your statement: « But the Einsatzgruppen weren't involved in the Rafle du Vel d'Hiv' ... ». So, I have a couple of questions for you: 1.) I would very much appreciate a source for your own statement above. 2.) Did the Einsatzgruppen disband or cease to exist by July 1942? (Personally, I do not know.) 3.) Is it important to this Wikipédia template whether the SS-Verfügungstruppe or the Einsatzgruppen gave the orders for Vel' d'Hiv raid/round-up ("Operation Spring Breeze")? (Personally, I think not.) --- Lastly, to answer the question you posed to me: I believe Vel' d'Hiv belongs in the template under the heading: Pogroms, because fundamentally, it is no different than the Iaşi pogrom or other actions listed there, whether or not this action was an order by the German Einsatzgruppen or the German SS-Verfügungstruppe. Most respectfully, Charvex (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there appear to be no major objections, I will add this to the template. Charvex (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

VT, TV and Waffen-SS

On a related topic, is there a reason why the « independent » VT : SS-Verfügungstruppe, TV : SS-Totenkopfverbände, and Waffen-SS are not included on this template under « Responsible Parties » ? Thank you, Charvex (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think, again, that that's just a part of the sometimes-confused logic of this template, caused by the diversity of topics covered. I'd just as soon see Einsatzgruppen moved to "Responsible Parties" which already includes the SS, SA and Gestapo, and to which the Verfügungstruppe, Totenkopfverbände and Waffen-SS could be added. I think all of these were under at least the nominal control of the SS. Should the RSHA (Reich Security HQ), RuSHA (SS Race & Settlement Office) and Ordnungspolizei (which was involved in the Raflement du Vel' d'Hiv and several East European actions) be added? The counter-argument, as always, is that we don't want to make the template too long to be usable or readable.

And, given the constraints on reasonable length, is "Collaborators" a sufficient link for all of the local forces allied with or recruited to the persecution and massacres? Or were a few so prominent, or so likely to be sought after by someone using this template, that they rate a special mention, e.g. Baltic, Byelorussian, Ukrainian and Yugoslave police/militia formations, the Milice, the Ustashe, the Hlinka Guard, the Arrow Cross Party or the Iron Guard? (I'm throwing these groups out abstractly; I haven't closely studied the relative involvements of each of these in the Holocaust).

If we moved the Einsatzgruppen down, what would be a suitable alternative title for the set of actions listed under their name now (Babi Yar, Rumbula, Ponary, Odessa, Erntefest & Ninth Fort), or should they be combined with the other pogroms? —— Shakescene (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Collapsible version

Template:The Holocaust is way to long for most articles. It creates gaps in layout and pushes everything else on the right side down to the bottom. I offer you an alternative with collapsible subsections and a captivating image. Please don't get alarmed by the revisions made before the consensus could be reached in talk, because the only way to assess the new version is by testing it. Feedback is much appreciated. Try not to shut our discussion down by reverting me without first drawing attention of the community to the proposed new layout. -- Milhist74 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• The current version is collapsible, and in its collapsed state is not unwieldy. Figureofnine (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What you meant to say perhaps is that in your own browser the template works as collapsible. However, the actual formatting without proper parameters does not automatically make is collapsible in every browser. It doesn't collapse on my screen. -- Milhist74 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried Internet Explorer and Firefox. No problem in either. Figureofnine (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be talking about different versions of the Template. The previous version does not show a hide (collapse) option on Google Chrome 5.0.375 for Windows Vista, which does show hide/show options for other templates. Long sidebars can be a huge problem, especially, say, if a topic merits its own infobox, the holocaust template and a "History of [---]" template, so in this case (unlike my views at Template talk:Ahnentafel top/Requested Comments 1), I think the default should be collapse with a visible Show option. However, I think more subtopics (e.g. Einsatzgruppen, Pogroms) without all the details (Babi Yar, Poznan), plus a few major individual items (Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled), should be visible. And if we're saving length, perhaps a shorter image or logo. ¶ You might also be interested in an earlier parallel discussion and examples at Template talk:Internet. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the new collapsible template. However, I very much dislike what is grouped under section title « Jews in WWII ». It is just too much for me. I strongly suggest that you consider grouping general articles about Jewish victimisation separate from the articles about extermination atrocities, i.e. under « Jews in WWII », only include: Jews in German, Jews in Europe, Ghettos, and Resistance; ----- Or, perhaps put these same items under your current section called « Victims ». (Are the Jews not the primary victims, after all?) ----- And, under a separate heading, perhaps called « Extermination » (... or something else appropriate. My English is not perfect; choose a better title if it strikes you) include: Pogroms, Einsatzgruppen, Final Solution, and End of World War II. I think it is very much needed. Thank you for considering this and making the appropriate modification. Charvex (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Charvex that all articles about the Extermination could be grouped together and split away from different parts of the Holocaust history perhaps in some sort of chronological order similar to other WWII templates. I also agree with Shakescene that just a few additional sections could be made visible as well. Below is the complete list of titles both visible and hidden. Please make your own proposed new sections with a roughly balanced number of selected titles in all of them if you want. The large number of varied articles without a given timeline or the sequence of events, makes it too hard for me. I did the initial formatting only. -- Milhist74 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Part of: Jewish history
Early elements [show]
Racial policy Haavara Agreement Nuremberg Laws Nazi eugenics Action T4
Jews in WWII [show]
Jews in Germany Jews in Europe Pogroms Kristallnacht · Bucharest Dorohoi · Iaşi · Jedwabne Kaunas · Lviv (Lvov) Vel' d'Hiv · Wąsosz Ghettos List of ghettos Budapest · Lublin Lviv (Lvov) · Łódź Kraków · Kovno · Minsk Warsaw · Vilnius Einsatzgruppen Babi Yar · Rumbula Ponary · Odessa Erntefest · Ninth Fort "Final Solution" Madagascar Plan Wannsee Conference Operation Reinhard Holocaust trains Extermination camps Resistance Jewish partisans Ghetto uprisings (Warsaw · Białystok Łachwa) End of World War II Death marches · Berihah "Surviving Remnant" (Sh'erit ha-Pletah)
The victims [show]
Romani people (Gypsies) Homosexuals People with disabilities Slavs in Eastern Europe Poles · Soviet POWs Jehovah's Witnesses
The camps [show]
Nazi concentration camps Nazi extermination camps Auschwitz-Birkenau · Bełżec Bergen-Belsen · Bogdanovka Buchenwald · Chełmno Dachau · Gross-Rosen Herzogenbusch Janowska · Jasenovac Kaiserwald · Majdanek Maly Trostenets Mauthausen-Gusen Neuengamme · Ravensbrück Sachsenhausen · Sajmište Salaspils · Sobibór Stutthof · Theresienstadt Treblinka · Uckermark Warsaw List of Nazi concentration camps

Responsibility [show]
Nazi Germany People Adolf Hitler Heinrich Himmler Ernst Kaltenbrunner Theodor Eicke Reinhard Heydrich Adolf Eichmann Rudolf HössOrganizations Nazi Party Schutzstaffel (SS) Gestapo Sturmabteilung (SA) Collaborators during World War II Nazi ideologues
Aftermath [show]
Nuremberg Trials Denazification Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany
Lists [show]
Survivors · Victims Rescuers
Resources [show]
The Destruction of the European Jews Functionalism versus intentionalism
v • d • e

• I will offer this suggested arrangement. (I have moved some articles with categories, and underlined a few heading changes only to highlight them):

Comments and suggestions welcome. Regards, Charvex (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Part of: Jewish history

Responsibility [show]
Nazi Germany People Adolf Hitler Heinrich Himmler Ernst Kaltenbrunner Theodor Eicke Reinhard Heydrich Adolf Eichmann Rudolf HössOrganizations Nazi Party Schutzstaffel (SS) Gestapo Sturmabteilung (SA) Collaborators during World War II Nazi ideologues

Early Policies [show]
Racial policy Haavara Agreement Nuremberg Laws Nazi eugenics Action T4 Madagascar Plan Wannsee Conference

The victims [show]
Jews in Germany Jews in Europe Romani people (Gypsies) Homosexuals People with disabilities Slavs in Eastern Europe Poles · Soviet POWs Jehovah's Witnesses Ghettos List of ghettos Budapest · Lublin Lviv (Lvov) · Łódź Kraków · Kovno · Minsk Warsaw · Vilnius

Atrocities [show]
Pogroms Kristallnacht · Bucharest Dorohoi · Iaşi · Jedwabne Kaunas · Lviv (Lvov) Vel' d'Hiv · Wąsosz Einsatzgruppen Babi Yar · Rumbula Ponary · Odessa Erntefest · Ninth Fort "Final Solution" Operation Reinhard Holocaust trains Extermination camps End of World War II Death marches · Berihah

The camps [show]
Nazi concentration camps Nazi extermination camps Auschwitz-Birkenau · Bełżec Bergen-Belsen · Bogdanovka Buchenwald · Chełmno Dachau · Gross-Rosen Herzogenbusch Janowska · Jasenovac Kaiserwald · Majdanek Maly Trostenets Mauthausen-Gusen Neuengamme · Ravensbrück Sachsenhausen · Sajmište Salaspils · Sobibór Stutthof · Theresienstadt Treblinka · Uckermark Warsaw List of Nazi concentration camps

Resistance [show]
Resistance Jewish partisans Ghetto uprisings (Warsaw · Białystok Łachwa)

Aftermath [show]
Nuremberg Trials Denazification "Surviving Remnant" (Sh'erit ha-Pletah) Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany
Lists [show]
Survivors · Victims Rescuers

Resources [show]
The Destruction of the European Jews Functionalism versus intentionalism
v • d • e

• Thanks, Charvex. Your proposed revisions make a lot of sense. I like them. I assume that the lack of additional comments and suggestions from the community means their basic agreement with what you did. Therefore I'm implementing your changes with just a few touch-ups of my own. I put the Nazi extermination camps together at the beginning of the Camps, and, the link to the List of Nazi concentration camps at the bottom of the same subsec. I also made the Ghettos visible inspired by Shakescene and added one more ghetto to the list. I highlighted the List of ghettos at the end of that subsec. And finally, I put the Jews in Europe ahead of the Jews in Germany. Please, feel free to make further changes yourself if you want. Thanks. --- Milhist74 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't commented further because I haven't had time to absorb and compare all the details, and then to compare them with what I might have chosen. That doesn't mean I disapprove or approve; I just don't know. But of course the template can (and will) be tweaked (or, for that matter, radically changed) in the future. The reason no one else has commented is in almost all cases not positive assent but just because they don't follow or know about this template. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Milhist74, nice work, all in all! After seeing them, I am not sure about English capitalization for second words in heading titles, such as « Early Policies » and « The Ghettos », but you surely know best. (Wikipédia's capitalization rules are its own, and a bit confusing to me.) -- Regards, Charvex (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

link of the Collaborators during World War II

Milhist74 changed Responsibility for the Holocaust to Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II and linked with Collaborators during World War II without careful consideration.[25] It's wrong. Jew were genocided by Europeans because they were Asiantic, Asian Axis saved Jew despite of German alliance.[26] Do not put the blame on Asians.--Bukubku (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve neutrality and order

"Responsibility" -> "Creators"

"Early policies" -> "Policies"

"Atrocities" -> "Operations and events"

The headers should then be put in the following order:

The Holocaust
Part of: Jewish history

• Creators
• Policies
• Operations and events
• The ghettos
• The camps
• The victims
• Resistance
• Aftermath
• Lists
• Resources

This seems more logical to me. First the subject's name, then its creators, then its policies, and then its manifestations.

Cheers, theFace 19:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The word Creators sounds a bit strange. One can say "the creators of the Holocaust Museum" or "the creators of the Holocaust narrative," but the creators of the Holocaust? Please improve. — Milhist74 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, 'to create' basically means to bring something in existence. It was the most neutral term I could think of. The word 'responsibility' is often associated with blame and guilt. It implies that the Holocaust was something negative, which is a POV. It's the majority's opinion, but still an opinion. Same goes for the word 'atrocities'. Hmm... how about 'architects'? Or 'designers'? Cheers, theFace 11:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

POV -- are you kidding? It is hard not to be POV (read: negative) about genocide. However, in historical terms, "architects" may come closest, although even that term lends a degree of legitimacy to immoral bureaucrats whose agenda was mass murder. W. B. Wilson (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A Nazi might disagree with that. He or she may find that the Holocaust was an unpleasant thing to do, but that it was necessary to secure the nation. If I would live in a wooden house, and I'm visited by a termite colony, I would call pest control to exterminate them. An unpleasant thing to do, but necessary to secure the building. It depends on how you look at it, so they say.
Anyways, my point is that Wikipedia is about info, not about judging. On a sensitive topic like this, it is more important than ever to not be guided by feelings, because they influence what you perceive. When feeling frustration, remember that only complete freaks would approve of the Holocaust. Every sane person knows that it is among mankind's most terrible crimes, so in this case it's not even necessary to judge. Cheers, theFace 20:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like where this is going. — Milhist74 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

¶ How about "Architects"; it's a slightly-overworn cliché, but that's because it seemed like an appropriate term. Or else "Originators" or "Designers" or "Planners" or "Preparers" (no offence, of course, intended to the planning, design or architectural professions, although some of their German members literally designed and created the physical plant of camps like Auschwitz). —— Shakescene (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to replace either "Responsibility" or "Atrocities". Millions were killed - I don't think it violates WP:NPOV to say that this is considered atrocious, and I don't think WP:NPOV requires us to be sensitive to the viewpoint of nazi ideology. More specifically, "responsibility", in my opinion, carries with it no more POV that either creators or architects. I do, however, agree that "creators" is awkward in this context. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Additions and question

I just added a section to the template named "Remembrance," where I list some of the U.S. and international remembrance days, such as the Yom HaShoa, Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, and International Holocaust Remembrance Day. I hope others will agree this is an appropriate addition. I also wonder if it would be good to separate this section into two parts: Remembrance (Days) and Remembrance (Memorials and Museums). If so, I would be happy to make the second section, and try to start the list of memorials and museums. I also have another question, though. At the beginning of the template there is the statement that this is part of "Jewish History." I think it should be expanded to something like "This is part of Jewish History and World History (or even more). I think the Holocaust is most definitely a part of Jewish history, but I think that the success in terms of remembrance -- by the U.S., the EU, the UN, and others -- is based on the idea that it is part of a larger history/story as well. What do others think? NearTheZoo (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)