Template talk:The Holocaust sidebar

Place

Shouldn't we move Racial policy of Nazi Germany outside of the "Jews" Category into maybe another place... It didn't apply only to Jews... --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My changes

Good idea on the template. I did a fairly large overhaul of this, suggestions or comments appreciated. Goodoldpolonius2 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks Great. :) --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

1) Why not use WP:Infobox, as other templates do? and 2) don't you think Righteous Among the Nations and Yad Vashem are missing? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

1) I didn't use the infobox format because I have never used it for other templates, and I modified the template started by Toya. You are welcome to change formats. 2) I don't think Yad Vashem belongs, currently, as the template concentrates on tying together the articles about events of the Holocaust, rather than aftermath and discussion -- for example, I didn't want to address things like denial and victim counts, since they are covered in the main article. As for Righteous Among the Nations, we can use either that or the List of people who helped Jews during the Holocaust, both are redundant. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Problems with width

The alternating white and blue rows is nice, but the template is too wide, due (apparently) to trying to fit whole categories per row. I noticed this wasnt consistent, at least for the first line, so Ive inserted breaks for the longest lines. I also added Gleichshaltung|German dissidents under the Other Victims line. Heres the diff-St|eve 02:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for the effort. I am not sure now that this is the best display method, but it is certainly less wide. I made some changes to fill up the space a bit better, to make formats consistant, and to restore the collaborators section. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sherit HaPletah

Following correspondence with other people who are interested in the topic of DP camps, I have decided to restructure this topic by emphasizing the emerging Jewish community (Sherit haPletah) within the context of the Holocaust, rather than the DP camps themselves. I also believe we need to clean up the articles related to "illegal" immigration from Europe to the British Mandate; there seems to be some overlap there. But I'll get to that later. --Leifern 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

First, let me state that I am not a holocaust denier myself. But in the interest of fairness, shouldn't we put a link on the bottom of the template for Holocaust denial? --Kitch 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggested change

I think the template should not use middots in some places and commas in others. If you decide to keep line breaks, perhaps they should be changed to <br/>. What do you think about this:

The Holocaust (Phases)
Early elements
Racial policy, Euthanasia, Concentration camps (List)
Jews
Nazi Germany, 1933 to 1939
Pogroms: Kristallnacht, Iaşi pogrom, Jedwabne pogrom, Lviv pogrom…
Ghettos: Warsaw, Lodz, Lviv, Krakow, Theresienstadt…
Einsatzgruppen: Babi Yar, Rumbula, Paneriai, Odessa Massacre
“Final Solution”: Wannsee Conference, Aktion Reinhard
Death camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Majdanek, Treblinka, Auschwitz
Resistance: ZOB, ZZW, ghetto uprisings (Warsaw uprising)
End of war: Death marches, Berihah, Sh'erit ha-Pletah
Other victims
Slavs. and Poles, Romany, German dissidents, communists, gay men, Jehovah's Witnesses
Responsible parties
Nazi Germany: Hitler, Heydrich, Eichmann, Himmler, SS, Gestapo
Collaborators: Romania, I. S. Croatia, Hungary, Vichy France, Slovakia, Italy, Ukrainian/Latvian/Lithuanian units
Functionalism vs. intentionalism, Nuremberg Trials, other trials
Survivors, victims, and rescuers
Famous survivors, famous victims, rescuers

Instead of having the articles on the leading political figures of Italy and Hungary appear under the label of “Italy” and “Hungary”, perhaps these should be included:

• History of Italy as a monarchy and in the World Wars#The Fascist regime (1922-1939), #Italian occupation of Albania (April 1939) and #Italy and the Second World War (1940-1945) (which seem not to mention the holocaust as of 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)).
• Fascism#Italian Fascism
• History of Hungary#World War II

Wikipeditor 02:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support these changes. Not to diminish the suffering of any other group but political disidents were also sent off to die. --Vultureneck 23:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet partisans

Perhaps that article needs expansion or we need a new one titled Jewish partisans. There is plenty of info about thousands of Jewish partisans, particularly in Belorussian forests. Here are some links [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and I have more materials. True, some partisans and their peasant supporters were antisemitic, but it is also true that thousands of partisans from Italy to Russia were Jews. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I created Jewish partisans, a stub for now. It will grow into a full article soon. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Width

Anyone else feel this template is now a little too wide for its use on the right-hand side of articles and perhaps contains too much unused space...?  Regards, David Kernow 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Have fixed width to 220 pixels and made formatting more flexible for future inclusions. Hope this okay. Regards, David Kernow 01:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jasenovac

I have removed Jasenovac from the template. It was not established by the Nazis but rather the Ustaša (Ustasha) regime. Indeed, it may have met the qualifications of a "death camp", but rarely is it actually cited as such. Most sources recognize merely the other six listed.Michael 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands of people died at Jasenovac, and the guards held competition in throat slitting, for example. It was run by a puppet Nazi regime, the Ustashe, whose leader was incidentally known as the Poglavnik (Fuehrer). If this isn't a death camp, then I'd hate to think what is. --estavisti 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet POWs

Except looks like they don't have their own article (yet). --HanzoHattori 12:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if the murder of POWs, i.e. captured combatants, considered part of the Holocaust...?  David Kernow (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Controvery Section

I had added a "Controversy" section, partly on the suggestion made by a user above many months ago. This controversy section included a link to "Holocaust Revisionism and Denial" (which redirected to Holocaust Denial) and "Auschwitz Bombing Debate." It was reverted by User:SlimVirgin for the reason that he didn't think it was "appropriate." I'd like to discuss this revert.

Basically, I wanted to provide a section that other templates have. For example, the Scientology series template includes a controversy section. Because the two articles I linked to are considered controversial, and are associated with the Holocaust, I see no reason not to add them. I even took great care to use -both- terms (revisionist and denial) so that both sides are satisfied (because revisionist is favored by some and denial by others, including both makes it so that no group is excluded.)

So I am not quite clear why this revert occurred. I feel that saying it's not appropriate to have a controversy section in the Holocaust template is kind of confusing (after all, why is it appropriate in the Scientology section, among other sections, but not in the Holocaust?) Certainly Holocaust Denial and the Auschwitz Bombing Debate are controversial holocaust topics... so why not put them in? .V. 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

V, could you discuss this on one page, please, and not on article and user talk? Posting my previous reply below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the controversy section in the Holocaust template, there is no controversy regarding the Holocaust; those who engage in Holocaust denial are a tiny minority with no credibility. Please see WP:NPOV about "undue weight." Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If the holocaust deniers are a tiny minority, why is there an article on it, and why is that article a good article nominee? Tiny minority opinions are, by Wikipedia policy, supposed to be kept to a section within a currently existing article. So if it -was- a tiny minority opinion, then it wouldn't be as it is above.

Additionally, because there was that huge Holocaust Revisionism conference in Iran recently, I think it's a bit more than a tiny minority. So therefore, the "undue weight" wouldn't apply.

Do you still really think it's a tiny minority? If so, you should probably AfD the article. .V. 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the policy. Tiny minority views belong in their own article, so long as there are third-party sources. If you're going to try to argue that Holocaust denial is not a tiny minority, disreputable opinion, note that you'll get zero support from good editors, so you're wasting your time; unless, of course, you can produce a reliable source in support of your views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The "huge" conference in Iran consisted of 67 attendees, none of them known Holocaust scholars. One of them was a computer science teacher at an adult education college. That was about the caliber of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library alleges that [| holocaust denial is one of the most notable anti-Semetic propaganda movements.] If they're claiming this, I think that's notable enough. .V. 02:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also [[6]] this book here, which claims that "Holocaust-deniers, once dismissed as a lunatic fringe, have been growing in numbers and influence during the past 20 years." and this was published almost 10 years ago. .V. 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

V, I'm not going to continue this discussion. Holocaust denial is regarded as unreliable nonsense on Wikipedia. If you want to change that perception, you'll have to find good sources suggesting they should be taken seriously and that their material should be included in articles as though it might be true, which is what the word "controversy" suggests. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They are a tiny-minority opinion when it comes to history. Wikipedia doesn't base "majority" and "minority" opinions on thumb-in-the-air polls of what we imagine the "man-in-the-street" believes. "Majority" and "minority" refers to the consensus of experts in the field. And no experts in the field of history give any weight whatsoever to the views of Holocaust deniers. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What would you consider a "good source"? I gave you a source from a Jewish organization -and- a book regarding the subject. Perhaps this [[7]] Would be good? It's a 30 page selected bibliography on Holocaust denial topics. I mean, honestly... this should be more than enough. So please tell me what would be a good source so I can provide it. .V. 02:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A good source would be an acknowledged Holocaust scholar saying the position of the deniers is worth taking seriously — not their existence (as disreputable pests), but their position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"worth taking seriously" is not our consideration. Keep in mind WP:NPOV. Whether something is worth taking seriously is a POV judgment. As NPOV states, "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views." It's not an "extreme minority view"... we've got tons of books written about it, we've got a Jewish organization saying it's one of the most notable anti-Semetic ideologies, and we've got a 30 page bibliography citing articles on this opinion... so it's certainly not an "extreme minority." Having to say "worth taking seriously" undermines NPOV. Obviously some people take it seriously, and some don't. If we take a side, we're not being neutral. .V. 03:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

V, I'm afraid it's becoming increasingly difficult to AGF. All I can add is that you should review our content policies before editing any further: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very difficult to discuss this if you're not going to tell me exactly where I'm going astray. The issue you raised was that the holocaust revisionism/denial is not notable. I have shown, through quite a few sources, that it is. Whether it's "worth taking seriously" is a POV judgment. Wikipedia is not concerned about the absurdity of an idea. If it's notable, it goes in. That's why there's a Holocaust denial article in the first place. So I don't really see why we should keep excluding it, and a general reply saying I should go read policies really doesn't help at all. .V. 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust deniers are in that fringe minority that WP:NPOV#Undue weight talks about. It is perfectly fine to have an article about them, but since they do not constitute a notable group among historians, they do not belong in the template. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In that article, Jimbo says: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." We can name prominent adherents, just like this policy says. The undue weight policy is all about keeping tiny fringe groups from looking notable, or in some cases, true. I hardly think adding a link to Holocaust Denial to the Holocaust Template is giving them any credibility at all. Holocaust denial is notable... the holocaust denial article exists... it's relating to the holocaust... so put it in the Holocaust Template. .V. 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be holding the opinion that the deniers are a "significant minority", please show what makes them significant. Did they make significant contributions to the subject? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The significance of Holocaust Denial has several aspects. The first is the fact that the Jewish Virtual Library considers Holocaust Denial one of the most notable Anti-semitic threats [[8]]. The ADL believes it to be a significant problem. Those two alone establish that they are significant, if only for negative reasons. If you want to go by the Undue Weight policy, if we can name prominent adherents (David Duke, and so forth... this includes those who are genuinely interested in holocaust revisionism) it's a significant minority. Since no further definition is provided in that policy, I guess that's what we'll have to go with. This combined seems to result in significant minority. I can't see any further requirement for that title. If you have some, I'd like to hear of it. .V. 04:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that both sources consider it important for antisemitism, and not for the Holocaust research. Even though we do not necessarily follow the narrative JVL or ADL, our {{antisemitism}} template does indeed contain link to Holocaust denial. Oh, and not deniers are not a significant minority (what makes them significant?), they are a radical fringe. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We do link to Holocaust denial on the antisemitism template, because it is indeed an important aspect of antisemitism. No scholar says it's an important aspect of the Holocaust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But the controversy is part of the Holocaust. Because the controversy is there, it should be included. .V. 05:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says it is "part of the Holocaust"? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, it's a part of the information available on the Holocaust. .V. 06:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, what are you talking about? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

People who are Holocaust Deniers/Revisionists make up a significant minority. You claim it's only for antisemitism, but even so, that anti-semitism comes out through commentary on the Holocaust. Whether this commentary is valid or not, that's still the vehicle of choice. Because it's a significant minority that's associated with the Holocaust and discussion of the Holocaust, it should be in the template. .V. 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They make up a significant minority of what? Not of scholars, not of Holocaust experts. They're not even a tiny minority of Holocaust experts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind weasel words. It's very weasely to be focusing on whether we consider them to be scholars or not, instead of focusing on notability. .V. 07:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review our content policies. Notability isn't the issue. Saddam Hussein is notable but he's not a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he's not. Hence the section title... controversy. Which means it's disputed. .V. 07:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my last comment on this issue. The basic facts of the Holocaust are not disputed. There is no controversy. The only people who believe there is controversy have zero credibility with reliable sources. Therefore, we will not be mentioning them on this template. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't rank ideas by whether they're right or wrong. You're passing a POV judgment. Keep in mind WP:NPOV... "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There is some dispute here. Whether you think that it's not credible or if they don't have enough proof is immaterial to this. There are quite a few people out there disputing it, and thus, there is controversy. .V. 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. We are an encyclopedia and it is our responsibility to represent factual information. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's our duty to represent factual information, but it's also our duty to represent viewpoints. Should we just delete the article about God because there's nothing to say it's definitively true? .V. 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We should not give WP:NPOV#Undue weight to radical fringe.

.V., we have policies for assuming good faith and against biting newcomers. By now, you have exhausted both with me. I suggest you reread the last message by SlimVirgin. Good bye. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Throughout this discussion, you've constantly fallen back on the "radical fringe" part in NPOV. But if you look at how that article describes significant majority, it fits. You've ignored that every time I posted it. I think it's time for you to stop being evasive and make even the smallest attempt at neutrality. .V. 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers are neither experts in the field of Holocaust studies, nor reliable sources regarding them. Thus, they are not given much weight, per WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It may not have much weight, but it's not "radical fringe." There's a clear distinction here. .V. 23:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Holocaust deniers are not a "radical fringe"? Which mainstream, non-radical historians deny the Holocaust? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky can be described as a Holocaust revisionist (let's not forget that Holocaust Revisionism is included in the denial article.) Keep in mind that the "radical fringe" listed in that article is for things like "flat earth" believers-- where it's demonstrably false. Additionally, all that matters here is that a substantial amount of people believe in it, and thus it generates controversy. And we can tell that quite a few groups do. .V. 23:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Which reliable sources describe Chomsky as a Holocaust Denier? As for Holocaust denial, it is demonstrably false, just like "flat earth". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust -revisionist-. He believes that the Holocaust is manipulated by Israel, and therefore, he's in favor of a revision. They are two seperate things. .V. 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please bring a reliable source which backs up your assertion. Thanks. Also, sophistry is not the same as argumentation; if you revise the meaning of Holocaust denial to whatever you want, then your argument is meaningless. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This article talks about how Holocaust Denial is a part of Holocaust Revisionism. You should probably read it... it even gives a very clear distinction between denial and revision. Perhaps I'll just quote it here: "While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, "deniers" have been criticized for seeking evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts. Broadly, historical revisionism is the approach that history as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate and should hence be revised accordingly." Anyway, it's in Chomsky's book "Israel, the Holocaust, and Anti-Semitism". It talks about how Israel allegedly manipulates the Holocaust for its own benefit. Removing that manipulation restores historical accuracy, and as such, he is a revisionist, just as it says in that quote above. .V. 23:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the article specifically states the opposite, that Holocaust denial is not Historical revisionism. You should probably read it. Which reliable source has described Chomsky (who, by the way, is a linguist and political polemicist, not a historian), as a "Holocaust denier" or "Holocaust revisionist"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, well, if you read my post, you'd see that I was referencing Chomsky's own book. .V. 18:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky called himself a "Holocaust revisionist" in his book? I find that very hard to believe; can you provide a quote and a page number? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I'm saying the philosophies match up. .V. 02:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying the Holocaust is being used for nefarious purposes is not the same as denying the Holocaust; please stick to reliable sources, not your own original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I keep saying "revision", but for some reason, the word used in your posts seem to be "denial." Why is this? They're two different things in this case. .V. 20:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

V, again you are falling into the same trap: the alleged abuse of the Holocaust is not relevant to the Holocaust itself. The denial link is already included in {{antisemitism}}. BTW, Chomsky is a linguist/polemicist and not a historian. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then what about the other link that was included in my controversy section, Auschwitz bombing debate? .V. 00:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not ready for inclusion; needs a lot of work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Such as? It seems well-sourced and well-written to me. What work do you refer to? .V. 03:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To abide by the Wikipedia "non-biased" policy, shouldn't the Holocaust page be run by an unbiased non-Jew? It is evident that this page includes a lot of myth, such as Wannsee and the 6-million figure. I'm sure this comment will be erased soon by the Jews that run Wikipedia!

Placement of template

Whats the policy on the placement of this template? Which articles should it be placed in? Perpetrators, victims, concentration camps, labor camps? Articles to avoid (related to holocaust that is)? Is there a guideline on whether it must always be at the top of the article or can a photo be placed above it? I placed a box in Josef Kramer , Bergen-Belsen concentration camp (moved a photo down) and Warsaw concentration camp (also moved a photo down to make way for the box). --Eqdoktor 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Template Title Change

Someone changed the title of this Infobox to "The Holohoax". I've changed this back to the correct heading. --Threatis 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding Blacks to Other Victims

Was hoping that you all would agree to add the article History of Blacks in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust to the template under other victims. I added it the other day, but it was deleted. If someone could please chime in here that would be excellent. --USHMMwestheim 13:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Under: "Responsible parties"

I would like to add Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany under "Responsible parties". As the template is now: there is no article listed there which is in the [[Category:Holocaust charities and reparations]] category. As the above article is rather central in that area I suggest we add that. Regards, Huldra 16:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jasenovac

Holocaust is accepting "only" 6 extermination camps. This are Auschwitz · Bełżec · Chełmno · Majdanek · Sobibór and Treblinka US Holocaust museum . I am interested to know how many times there will be need to delete Jasenovac from this list. If somebody else is sure that Jasenovac need to be only list he need only to say that so we will go to Arbitration Committee for decision.-- Rjecina 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Era in Croatia: Jasenovac 1941 - 1945, from the very US Holocaust Museum website. And considering that it was (today there are opened questions, but mostly because of the 1990s nationalism) considered the 3rd largest Nazi camp, of course it should be there. --PaxEquilibrium 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)r

1 thing is Holocaust era in Croatia, another thing is Holocaust extermination camp and only 3rd thing is number of victims (3rd largest Nazi camp ????) My question is if you accept that we put this question to Arbitration Committee for decision.-- Rjecina 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want. On my part I cannot understand how can one deny that Jasenovac was an extermination camp. --PaxEquilibrium 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Extermination camp - educate yourself first. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Could you, Rjecina, state a specific reason why not to include it? --PaxEquilibrium 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You will tell me that this fact:

"Holocaust is accepting "only" 6 Holocaust extermination camps"

is not clear enough ??

For now your thinking that Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camp is original thinking and because of that it is against rules of wikipedia. Only when Holocaust museums accept like truth statement of serbian minister of foreign affairs Vuk Drašković:

"Serbs are the thirteenth, lost and the most ill-fated tribe of Israel"

this thinking will not be original any more.

We are now having discussion if Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camp and until now nobody has supported this original thinking.

-- Rjecina 07:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite still getting it... ;) --PaxEquilibrium 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In Europe during Hitler reign of terror there has been maybe 50 extermination camps and you want to put in template 6 historical Holocaust extermination camps + Jasenovac. Why not other 49 ?

My position is very clear and very neutral. We must put in Holocaust template only historical Holocaust extermination camps (6) or all extermination camps from period 1933 -1945. Writing 6 + 1 is POV thinking. Name of camp number 7 is not important.

After end of discussion I will revert every time when somebody write that Jasenovac is Holocaust extermination camp and if that POV editor insist he will recieve wikipedia vaccation. -- Rjecina 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean, that only extermination camps specifically for Jews should be there? --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not her to think but to edit using rules of wikipedia !!! Rules of wikipedia are very clear and they are against original research. For me is surprise that user with is having so many edits on wikipedia support original research. You really need to read again Wikipedia:No original research !

If you thinking that only Jasenovac need to be added on Holocaust extermination camps list you need to read this rule of wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view !

It is possible to add Jasenovac and other extermination camps to original 6 Holocaust extermination camps only if we create template extermination camps during WWII. I will stop hear our discussion because I do not see point in future talk about this-- Rjecina 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• The Holocaust Era in Croatia: Jasenovac 1941-1945 by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
• I suggest you check out the Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: Analyses and Testimonies book from Barry M. Lituchy.
• Apparently, there was a Jasenovac Holocaust Museum in Croatia until Franjo Tudjman in 1991 for his own ideological aims turned it into a bird sanctuary.
• By many accords, the Jasenovac concentration camp was the third larges in Europe
• The Jasenovac Research Institute considers that which occurred in Jasenovac a part of the Holocaust
• The recent denial of the genocide that has occurred, initiated by Franjo Tudjman, is called Holocaust Denial in Croatia by everyone
• The Jewish Virtual Library considers Jasenovac a part of the Holocaust.
• The Yad Vashem's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust considers Jasenovac a part of the Holocaust
• Nebojsa Malic from Antiwar considers that which occurred in Jasenovac a part of the Holocaust
• The Holocaust Learning Center considers it too.

How can you say it's OR? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

By posting a link to "Emperor's Clothes" and "Antiwar" websites of supporters of Milosevic, you discredited yourself, so I'll just ignore you but redirect again to extermination camp article per defintion. (Also, I wonder if you noticed irony in writing yourself "By many accords, the Jasenovac concentration camp was", Yoda-style.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I got that just from 20 secs of Google. Also, I don't think this is a funny subject. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Concentration camps Banjica and Sajmište and Holocaust

What about Banjica concentration camp and Sajmište concentration camp?
I'm talking about Nedić's Serbia and its proud declaring of being Judenfrei?
Where are they in this template? Kubura (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On this page someone spelled RECIEVE wrong its RECEIVE :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.69.87 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Template style

The narrow box becomes little crowded - I suggest creating proper template to be placet at the end of articles (so called classic style like e.g. Template:Linux.--Kozuch (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A picture

Recently a Template:Expulsion of Germans has been included. The template contains a (more or less) emotional picture and uses strong green color. I have several times protested against such form. I believe that templates should be "proportional", that a template describing less important matter should not be more visible than one describing a more important matter. Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)