Talk:The Holocaust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Former good articleThe 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 19, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 5, 2006Good article reassessmentKept
November 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 3, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 3, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Deaths: around 6 million Jews[edit]

I've just Googled 'when did the Holocaust begin' and in the information panel that Google displays alongside search results was the phrase "Deaths: around 6 million Jews", which came from this Wikipedia article.

Two things struck me: 1. "around 6 million Jews" could be worded better I think. It is not encyclopaedic language and the word "around" has a "more or less" ring to it. That's fine if you're talking about what time you usually eat dinner ('around 6pm') or the price of a cup of coffee ('around 2 dollars'). This is talking about people's lives and I think "approximately 6 million Jewish people" or "estimated 6 million Jewish people" would be vastly preferable. 2. While Jewish people were the principal focus of the Nazi Holocaust, they were not the sole focus. Therefore "6 million Jewish people" should be edited (by someone more knowledgeable on the topic than me) to acknowledge that other groups were also targeted (either by being less specific or being more specific). 2A01:4C8:140A:C751:B501:B769:D156:601E (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. I wouldn't really care if someone changed "around" to "approximately". The number we're talking about is probably between 5 and 6 million, which is arguably more like "around" 6 million than "approximately" 6 million, but that's splitting hairs probably.
2. As this article explains, "The Holocaust" as a term is usually limited in scope to the genocide of Jewish people. Endwise (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2023[edit]

In the section on Romania the word "Transnistria" should link to "Transnistria Governorate". 93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the point of extended-confirming this article when it is tainted with undetectable bias[edit]

https://www.jta.org/2023/02/28/global/wikipedias-supreme-court-tackles-alleged-conspiracy-to-distort-articles-on-holocaust

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-14/ty-article-magazine/.premium/new-research-documents-how-wikipedia-distorts-the-holocaust/00000186-4f0f-d02c-af9e-cfffa9900000

Academic sources have exposed that Wikipedia is purposely tainting the truth of the Holocaust. You guys are minimizing the Jewish losses and genocide against the Jewish people. The way I see it extended-confirming this article is pointless in protecting sockpuppetry as the most high-level people know how to avoid it, making them blend in with top-editors. Can you please explain why the holocaust is purposely being distorted to push an agenda on ethnic Poles being the victims while the truth is Jews of Poland were the primary target and not the ethnic Poles. 71.95.53.132 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you might read the article to see if it's distorting anything. I'll note that the academic paper that those articles are based on did NOT say that there was problems with this specific article. It's extended-confirmed protected in part to avoid drive-by-editing that almost exclusively does try to distort/minimize/deny the Holocaust. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without protection this article would attract Holocaust deniers in droves. Acroterion (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think they mean that the protection level creates an ecosystem for socks to thrive as it thwarts any discussion because they are viewed as the truth. Raver3993 (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This talkpage is not protected. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]