Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:29, 13 December 2012

Military history Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Holocaust sidebar template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Holocaust sidebar template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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)

Remembrance

Just "edited boldly" and changed the Remembrance section as follows, using two links:

• Days of remembrance
• Memorials and museums

This change answers the question I raised in the previous section plus concerns of Milhist74.

Hope it looks good to others! NearTheZoo (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mohammed Amin al-Husseini

He had great influence to the holocaust. Pls read Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and youtube video ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No he didn't. I've never seen him mentioned by reliable sources as a major influence on the Nazis or as an important figure in the Holocaust. Please STOP adding your own original research all over the place. You must read and understand the policy on original research before you can contribute usefully. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

With other words: just because you never heard of him means that he and his influence never existed? Lets make this easy. Here is a picture:

The right person is Adolf Hitler, the left person is Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. He was the Leader of a lot of Moslems, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Leader of the Palestinains and he spent world war 2 at Hitlers side. There are several books in existence which name Mohammed Amin Al-Husseini as a comitter. Youtube Video: ] and ] This is no propaganda, these are conclusions of historicans and universities. --Santiago84 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) There's no need to 'make this easy', I've studied history to PhD level. Adopting a patronizing attitude is uncivil.

(2) He didn't spend WWII at Hitler's side. They met after the decision on genocide had been taken. He wasn't an important figure in the Holocaust, he wasn't an important influence on the Nazis or European anti-semitism. The sources YOU CITED ABOVE demonstrate this.

(3) Various people have been reverting your edits, because they are in breach of the original research policy. STOP EDIT WARRING. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, it is not my original research nor uncivil. It is an historical fact. And lot more references. Again, this is not a theory i developed. These are historical facts. I cantrealize why you dont understand this. Even on the Misplaced Pages article of him these facts and many more information are mentioned. Various people also tried to add informations here. --Santiago84 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Mufti was a Nazi wannabe, but he had no role in the Holocaust. There's absolutely no reason for him to be in the template. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He signed contracts about the extermination of Jews in europe and the arab world. How can you say that he had no role or wasnt responsible for the holocaust? Again, just because it opposes your personal believe doesnt give you permission to delete valid additions based on references. --Santiago84 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I explained at Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust#Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and islam, your sources (with one possible exception) either don't qualify as reliable sources or don't say what you claim they say. How about a mainstream historian who says that the Mufti was responsible for the Holocaust? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Inside the references of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni page are a lot of historicans named. Read them!. --Santiago84 (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Joint Declaration

This template should contain a link to the Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations, the first Allied acknowledgement of the Holocaust, but I don't see any relevant section in this template. Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Aftermath? Jayjg 20:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that it happened in 1942, well before the worst atrocities, that seems very odd placement. Raul654 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've given it some thought. I think it might be worthwhile to add a section "Allied response" or perhaps "Western response". It would have links to Joint Declaration by Members of the United Nations and Auschwitz bombing debate (neither of which are included on this template but probably should be) and Nuremberg Trials (currently in the "Aftermath" section). I'm sure there are other articles out there that should also be included. Raul654 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think "Allied response" is good, and those articles are good choices. Germany and Italy were also Western countries. Jayjg 19:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to the template

I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I have introduced changes to this template. One reason for changing the templates is to improve accessibility for visually impaired users using a screen reader. Whenever a screen reader encounters a dot, it calls out the word "dot". The material presents as a lot of tiny disjointed paragraphs rather than a list. With the new mark-up, the screen reader will announce that a list is coming, and then will proceed to read out the items on the list. Application of the hlist and plainlist class is about presenting the material as actual lists, which helps not just people with vision issues, but those viewing the site using phones and other non-traditional devices. Search engines also will read lists better.

The use of the dots is now deprecated, and have been since August. Each dot requires the application of a template, and templates are expensive, as they increase server load. There are limits as to how many templates can be placed on a page. Application of the latest method, using plainlist to create the lists, results in a reduction in post-expand include size of 22% and a reduction in template argument size of 24% on this template. This is a substantial improvement that will lead to quicker load times for pages and a better experience for our viewing audience.

The transition has not been trouble free; some kinks have had to be ironed out, and there may still be a ways to go. However, we have the templates displaying adequately in the two latest versions of the problematic Internet Explorer (IE8 and IE9), and we can't hold back development of Misplaced Pages for older, buggy browsers. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, -- Dianna (talk)

Inclusion of Serbs in template

Can anyone explain to me why Serbs are included as victims in this template? They were, of course, subject to genocidal policies implemented by the Ustase which resulted in about 200,000deaths, but this was not the work of Nazi Germany, it was the work of the Ustase. Do we include any ethnic group that were killed by their collaborationist government during WWII, or are we defining it as per the Holocaust article as those killed by Nazi Germany? Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there respected sources that consider the genocidal acts of the Ustase to be part of the Holocaust? Were any such sources provided when this entry was added to this template? Absent such sources, it shouldn't be up to us to widen the definition of the Holocaust.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I fulsomely agree. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do put some time and effort into looking at what the following 3 sources have to say about the Serbian victims of the Holocaust:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ , http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/jasenovac// , http://www.yadvashem.org/

It would be insensible for us to exclude ethnic Serbs from this list of Holocaust victims. Until you can actually prove that ethnic Serbs were – in fact – NOT Holocaust victims, then we really should include them under this list. I really can’t see why we should exclude them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipsword (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see where on the USHMM website you are asserting that it says that Serbs are considered to be victims of "The Holocaust". Serbs were subjected to genocidal policies in the NDH, but they clearly do not fall within the definition of "The Holocaust" on the website of the USHMM here , Which clearly says "Jews". I suggest that including Serbs as victims of the Holocaust on WP when they are clearly not included by the USHMM would be contrary to WP policy. Please provide scholarly sources that explicitly state that Serbs are included. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tulipsword, the onus is on those wanting to include Serbs in the template to show that Serbs are considered to be Holocaust victims. The onus is not, as you suggest, on others to show "that ethnic Serbs were – in fact – NOT Holocaust victims". I recommend providing the information that Peacemaker67 has requested. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, the USHMM – a reputable and unbiased source – has dedicated an entire website to just the Jasenovac death camp – the hallmark of the Holocaust in Yugoslavia, and whose primary victims were ethnic Serbs. Just because the USHMM’s Holocaust Encyclopedia has not EXPLICITLY stated that ethnic Serbs are, in fact, victims of “the Holocaust” – despite that the United States HOLOCAUST Memorial has dedicated itself to researching and informing us of, what you referred to as, the genocide against the Serbs in WWII Croatia – does not constitute as a reason for us to arrive at the conclusion that “No, the systematic murder of ethnic Serbs alongside Jews and Romani in places like Jasenovac is not part of the Holocaust, but part of some other similar genocide that just happened to take place at the same time and at the same place”. Because of the sensitivity associated with this topic, I do insist that we take another approach here. For the sake of the truth, please provide a REPUTALBE and UNBIASED source – like the USHM – that explicitly states the bold conclusion you – Peacemaker and Skeezix1000 – are purporting. Until then, I do insist that we include ethnic Serbs as one of the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, along with ethnic Poles, Romani, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipsword (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tulipsword, I haven't "purported" anything. I have no strong opinion either way, and haven't suggested otherwise above. My only concern is adherence with WP:V and WP:RS.

As for you "insisting", nobody insists anything on Misplaced Pages. This is a collaborative project, and we operate solely by consensus. I ask that you review WP:CON. If the template is changed to include Serbs, it will be because we have achieved consensus, not because anyone has insisted on it.

Thirdly, and I am repeating myself here, the onus to include the Serbs in the template is on those wanting to include Serbs in the template. Please review WP:ONUS. It isn't up to anyone else to provide sources proving a negative. Please stop insisting that other people provide sources - I do not need to provide sources simply because I want this template to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS. Your time and efforts would be much better spent providing the necessary sources (and links thereto) and showing how they support your proposition, rather than making inappropriate and unnecessary demands on others. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe Serbs should be removed until consensus is achieved. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I will try to help with this issue.

Here is work which explicitly says: "some 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Iews and 26,000 Gypsies—men, women and children—perished in a gigantic holocaust"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But not "The Holocaust". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker, removing ethnic Serbs from the list would amount to excluding them. Clearly, we have not reached a consensus, yet.

What I propose is that we make some adjustments to the template so that it is more consistent with what is being stated in the Misplaced Pages article titled “The Holocaust”, which the template in question is directly associated with. The following is taken from the introduction of the article titled “The Holocaust”:

“The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt") also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory. Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed. Over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.

Some scholars argue that the mass murder of the Romani and people with disabilities should be included in the definition , and some use the common noun "holocaust" to describe other Nazi mass murders, including those of Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, and homosexuals. Recent estimates based on figures obtained since the fall of the Soviet Union indicates some ten to 11 million civilians and prisoners of war were intentionally murdered by the Nazi regime.“

The title of the list in question is “victims”. “Victims” of what, though? “The Holocaust” against European Jewry (and, depending on which definition of “the Holocaust” you accept, Romani and disabled people)? If so, then Poles, homosexuals, Serbs, Soviet civilians, Jehovah’s witnesses, et cetera should not be included. If we are talking about the broader spectrum of “victims” who also suffered “a holocaust” alongside Jews, though, then we should absolutely – for the sake of decency, knowledge, and righteousness – include Poles, homosexuals, Soviet civilians, Serbs, Jehovah’s Witnesses, et cetera.

What I really do believe we should do is indicate by way of a footnote that what we mean here by “victims” is the broader spectrum of victims. And under this broad list of victims should be ethnic Serbs because there is no doubt that “a holocaust” was perpetrated against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulipsword (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. "a holocaust" is not "The Holocaust" as I pointed out to AD above. There is a perfectly sound article on "a holocaust" perpetrated against the Roma at Porajmos. There is an article World War II persecution of Serbs which is probably poorly named but is the basis for an appropriate article on what happened to the Serbs of the NDH. Let me make it clear that in no way do I seek to minimise the genocide against the Serbs perpetrated by the Ustase. I've written new articles on two of the earliest massacres. However, the inclusion of Serbs in "The Holocaust" is controversial. I do not believe that they should be included in this template until consensus has been achieved to include them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Tulipsword, I have removed your addition to the template for now. We use a cycle of be bold-revert-discuss, not be bold-revert-revert. There's rules about edit warring as well. Edit warring is persistently re-adding content in spite of the objections of others, and doing it can get you blocked. As to my opinion that the Serbs should be included, I think not, as The Holocaust refers to a specific set of events, and does not include all massacres, not even all the massacres that occurred in WWII. In order to be included on this template, you will have to show that reliable sources are declaring that the Serbs of which you speak are considered by historians to be victims of the Holocaust. And by the way, referencing our article The Holocaust for anything is not a good idea at present as it is not in very good shape. It's due for a total overhaul. And Misplaced Pages is not considered a reliable source because it is a wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

1. http://www.biblediscovered.com/palestinian-facts/mohammad-amin-al-husayni-fuhrer-of-the-arab-world/
2. Buchergruppe (2010). Täter des Holocausts. Germany: Books LIc. p. 1008. ISBN 1158868545.
3. http://newstopics.jpost.com/topic/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
4. http://europenews.dk/de/node/28132
5. http://www.welt.de/die-welt/kultur/literatur/article5282583/Die-Muslime-und-der-Holocaust-Die-Muslime-und-der-Holocaust.html

• Template-Class military history pages