Talk:The Holocaust

'Hear-Say in subarticle 3.2.3'

In the subarticle 3.2.3 'South and East Slavs' there is hear-say statement of a former Nazi official which is taken as true, or at least trying to imply something for a fact.

Quote: Hitler's high plenipotentiary in South East Europe, Hermann Neubacher, later wrote: "When leading Ustaše state that one million Orthodox Serbs (including babies, children, women and old men) were slaughtered, this in my opinion is a boasting exaggeration. End quote:

The objective data is at the end of the subsection.

Quote: The USHMM reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp[73][74] However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac.[75]This is not the truth. You can see on Yad Vashem website in the article about Jasenovac (http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206358.pdf) that it is quote: many thousands were murdered, most of them Serbians" The person who wrote this section is a lyer End quote:

Instead of the quote from Neubacher I suggest putting a list of WW2 casualties in Yugoslavia of all nationalities not just one.

The following link contains one such list. It is an online version of the paper number 69 in the quote list. Table 5 of the paper has a column named 'victims in camps' which should indicate victims in concentration camps. http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p06.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mljk (talk • contribs) 23:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the image of emaciated corpses in the lead too graphic?

Considering that many people feel sick just by the talk of dead people, especially family members of holocaust victims, I think the image of the starved dead Jews might be a little too much for a Wikipedia article. Anyone interested in images of holocaust victims can always just search for them. A picture of a concentration camp would be more suitable. Powerchicken (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Why sanitize the reality of it? Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This topic has been discussed before, with WP:CONSENSUS to keep the picture. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

no, too many people don't know the reality off it. i have relatives who were killed, and believe it should be shown what and how things have happened (people should have trouble seeing these crimes, otherwise humanity doesn't learn) Markthemac (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

:::This doesn't seem to be an image of Jews, as they are not circumcised.Perhaps, unless we want to expand the Holocaust to include non Jews, we should just stick to pictures of Jews for this article?Die4Dixie (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC) per request. I have also read the rest of the article and not just the introduction.

Excuse me, but what is the point of your comment, unless you are trolling? (1) which people are not circumcized? (2) this article does as you must know include the suffering of non-Jews. Please explain. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your comments were not civil, were the opposite of WP:AGF, and were definately uncalled for and not appreciated. If you examine the genitalia carefully, it will be self evident the corpse to which I refer. The introduction makes reference to the exclusivity in certain circles to the term. If you aren´t interested in my input, it is a big project and plenty of communist propoganda for me to rectify elsewhere. I really don´t have much more time for attitude and maudlin sensibilities.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, your saying that victims of the Holocaust are not Jewish, and making a tendentious comment about circumcision, are not civil, and are the opposite of good faith. I am sorry you cannot appreciate it. Obviously you are not going to answer my question, about which individuals specifically are not circumcised, because you cannot. Proof enough of your bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. The dark corpse in the bottom half of the picture. Follow the white hand that is at approximately 6 o´clock along the darker cadaver that points towrds two o´clock. Follow it until you reach the external gentile genitalia. Use the larger picture that you can reach by clicking on the image See above.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a well known Holocaust photograph. Take your Holocaust denial somewhere else. Stellarkid (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We should take the opinion of a guy who stares at pictures of dead peoples' penises on the internet over the word of the photographs and archivists who've labeled the image? Are you really claiming to have such an incredible level of expertise at determining the state of dead people's penises on the internet that you can make that determination? Do you have any idea how what you're saying sounds? "I've been staring at dead flaccid cock for hours, and I'm pretty sure that's an anteater, a turtleneck, a y'know, ... christian... so, I'm sure this whole thing's a farce and there's no holocaust, so we shouldn't have this picture, which is obviously faked, up on this page.' That's how your comments above read. Seriously. ThuranX (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I can't stand this picture. 3rd graders are probably coming here to research their school reports. At the very least, the uppermost image on the page should be PG-13, not the most brutal Holocaust photo we can find. I understand the argument that the Holocaust really happened and Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, but I'm also concerned that people with a gag reflex might be so turned off by the picture that they won't be as likely to look at the rest of the page. Some of my ancestors died in the Holocaust, and in my opinion, the people who can stand the thought of the Holocaust the least should be the ones thinking about how to prevent another Holocaust the most. In this, I'm concerned that such an in-your-face picture is actually counterproductive. Perhaps the picture could be put into a collapsible box, so that people who don't want to see it don't have to? And regarding whether the people in the picture were Jews or Gentiles, the proportion of Jews to Gentiles who died in the Holocaust was around 50/50. Lack of circumcision is not hard evidence that someone is Gentile--not all Jews are observant and even Orthodox Judaism allows a few exceptions to the rule--and conversely, circumcision is not hard evidence that someone is Jewish. Plenty of non-Jews get their sons circumcised. So I think the Jew vs. Gentile question is a moot point and unless the people are individually identified or the photograph is known to come from a section of the concentration camp that was murdering a particular group, can never be resolved. --AFriedman (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust was brutal. Do you really expect us to 'sanitize' it? And your argument that teaching people about it will be counterproductive, and create more people who want to commit genocide, is absurd. If you don't want your kids to learn about death, dying, and the evil men do, then I suggest you monitor your own family in your house, and not impose your whitewashing of history on the rest of us. ThuranX (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, do you think this is WP:CIVIL? --AFriedman (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead image: arbitrary break 1

I think I have been one of the strongest defenders of NOTCENSORED in a variety of contexts, political as well as sexual. I also tend to be rather inclusionist when it comes to the relevance of illustrations, including the appropriateness of unpleasant pictures in context--and this article is certainly an appropriate context for this picture. But the maintenance of such standards also requires their appropriate usage within the article, and one of the requirements for the exercise of an unrestricted liberty is some degree of discretion in using it. For example, we normally illustrate sexual activities by drawings, not photographs. As another example, we usually do keep particularly shocking photographs out of the lede section. True, it could be said that anyone coming to an article like this ought to know what to expect--but not everyone actually will--and people will click the link without necessarily realising. The solution is to move the image out of the first position and use one of the many somewhat less sidturbing ones there; this image would then go somewhere later down. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG, why not something like this picture for the lead, which doesn't pull any punches, but not so up close? The scale of the holocaust should be emphasized, not individual corpses. Pirate^Argh!!1! 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the function of the top of an article such as this, I think a pertinent question is whether or not such an image would be seen as appropriate for the cover of a book which plans on being very widely circulated. If you look at some of the current best selling books on the holocaust, you'll find that they manage to present powerful imagery on their covers without crossing over into 'shock' territory. One would think Wikipedia should be able to do the same. --Aryaman (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AFriedman and others to the extent that perhaps it should not be first. There is another well-known photo of starving Jews in their bunks that would not jump out so badly. I would put the dead body pile a bit further down. They are shocking, they shock, they tell the truth, and we don't need to soften it. What was done was horrible and God forbid such a thing ever happens again, to any group of innocent people. I will go try to find the picture now. Stellarkid (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is this famous photo on About history. They say "courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives." I know nothing about how to deal with copyright issues and such but I think this photo would be a better lead-in to start with, and move the bodies down a bit . Stellarkid (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the alternate photo that Pirate proposed, and his point that it emphasizes the scale of the Holocaust's destruction. Maybe the dead body pile could be put a bit farther down, possibly in a collapsible box, with a warning that it contains nudity. --AFriedman (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I take no position regarding the first suggestion (alternate photo), but I definitely disagree with the second suggestion (collapsible box with warning). Not only is that contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED, since when have we put up warnings in Wikipedia that a photo contains nudity? This article is about a genocide that involved industrialized mass killings. It will be graphic. Warnings are inappropriate for Wikipedia. 02:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would add that all articles link to Wikipedia's disclaimers, which includes Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. As per WP:NODISCLAIMERS, that should be enough. Singularity42 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about it some more and I now also agree that the photo proposed by Drunken Pirate should be moved to the lead. It still fairly depicts the horrific nature of the genocide and the scale of the death toll, and is graphic without being needlessly shocking. The original photo should stay, but moved further down the article - without a warning, etc. With all due respect to the photo suggested by Stellarkid, it just doesn't get across the full nature of the Holocaust. I agree that thee photo is quite famous and could be added to the article, but not as the lead. So to summarize: 1) this photo in the lead, 2) the original lead photo moved down with no disclaimers or warnings, and 3) if a free version of this photo exists, possibly add it later in the article. Singularity42 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty amazing picture. I agree with you that the bunk picture isn't sufficient. I was just thinking about those young kids seeing the naked body pile first and thought a slower lead-in might be better. But I like your version better if others do. Stellarkid (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Singularity42, I think this is coming down as the consensus. --AFriedman (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with singularity too, but, this picture I proposed was the best choice out of the pictures already on the page, someone is still more than welcome to search for a better lead pic.. Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your picture which is the picture that Singularity put up . I came to the party late, you must excuse me. Stellarkid (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The danger is in reducing the Holocaust to an abstraction. It is for this reason that the photo presently in the uppermost position of the article is the preferable one. The photos being suggested by some editors contain within them the shortcoming of distancing the viewer from the holocaust. There is nothing vulgar about the photograph presently in the uppermost position of the article, apart from the inherent vulgarity of the holocaust itself. The picture presently in the uppermost position of the article is photographed from a distance that is simply appropriate to the subject matter. It is not photographed from an especially close vantage point. Several bodies are contained within the total image, and some space remains for background. It is a photograph of real individuals. The real individuals are dead. That they are naked is secondary to their being dead. The visual representation of the situation should be appropriate, and not a depiction that takes the reader away from the death which was the aim of this particular event in human history. This is an inappropriate depiction relative to the picture that is in the article now (in the uppermost position) because it distances the viewer (the reader) from the most relevant facts of this event. This photograph would also be inappropriate for the uppermost position in the article. The implication of that photograph is that the event being written about was an internment camp with inhumane conditions. But that is not what the holocaust was. I don't think the holocaust was merely an internment camp with unbearable conditions. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For me the nudity is a non-issue, unimportant. But isn't there the possibility that body pile is just too shocking and people, especially young people, will turn away immediately without reading on? Stellarkid (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) (BTW - I don't think anyone anymore is saying the About.com picture should be used in the lead. At this point it is a question of moving the current one further down and using the concentration camp photo from the commons as the lead picture...)

Is this seriously going to come down to an argument over vantage points? How does the proposed new picture "distance" the reader from the most relevant facts of this event? It shows huge area full of hundreds of dead bodies. Let's break it down a bit:

• As I said before, the Holocaust was graphic and horrific. We're all agreed there.
• Any lead picture on the Holocaust should represent that it was graphic and horrific. We're all agreed there.
• Both photos depict a scene from the Holocaust that is graphic and horrific. That should be pretty obvious (despite arguments that the new photo has a different vantage point.

A number of editors have expressed concern that the current photo is needlessly shocking when compared to the proposed new photo (and no, not just because of the nudity - the nudity isn't really the issue, it is just a very graphic scene). The full message still comes across in the proposed new photo. And the proposal is only to move the current lead photo down the article a bit, with the proposed new photo taking it's place in the lead. In this way, the horrific nature of the Holocaust is still demonstrated while also allowing us to build up the reader to the more shocking photo, rather than throwing it in their face right away. Singularity42 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have arrived here out of the blue. Even though I have two young children who use Wikipedia, I do not object to the very shocking image at the top. However, I think the picture pointed out by Pirate better illustrates the whole concept and so Singularity's suggestion is a good one. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to find a single image which represents all aspects of the Holocaust. But one aspect which has not been considered here is that, though millions died, there were survivors, some of whom are still alive today. A picture of the dead can give the impression that the Holocaust is "over", when for some, it is still a living memory of personal experience. I doubt that will be enough to get people off the "dead body" kick, but it is something to consider. --Aryaman (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't think the dead body photos imply that everyone was killed or that the Holocaust is not a living memory of personal experience. Many of the dead people in these photos were someone else's parents, children, spouses, brothers and sisters, dear friends, etc. etc. And regardless of whether some people survived, the photo Pirate suggested does hint at the massive, institutionalized destruction and loss of life. I think that putting the picture of the bunk farther down, license permitting, would make the survivor point you suggested. Heck, one of the people in that photo is even a notable survivor. --AFriedman (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Who?Stellarkid (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what is meant is that even one of them would constitute a notable life. Not in the Wikipedia sense of notable. But rather in the sense of a valuable life. I hope AFriedman will correct me if I'm wrong. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel is one of the men in the bunk picture. Barnabypage (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bus stop, it looks like both of us learned something today!  :) Stellarkid (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in the bunk picture. My mistake. I thought what was being referred to was the picture that is presently in the article. Yes, I now see, reference is made to the "picture of the bunk." Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, this is correct. I meant that Elie Wiesel is in the picture of the bunk. I believe that we do have the license to use this picture, given that it's already used in his biography on WP. --AFriedman (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a good image. But it would be a poor choice to be the topmost image in this article. The powerful image that is there now is far more appropriate, because it begins to convey the depravity that is the holocaust. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead image: arbitrary break 2

(unindent) We weren't talking about the image with Wiesel being in the lede, just about that image being added lower down in the article. There appears to be a consensus that the image with Wiesel in it does not capture that the Holocaust was a mass killing. I believe you are the only one here who objects to making the image Pirate proposed (panoramic view of dead bodies on the ground in front of ruined buildings) into the lede? --AFriedman (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that this image does a better job at presenting multiple aspects of the Holocaust. Though there's not much to "like" about any of these pictures, I think this one presents the viewer with some necessary context and scale without misusing the dead for their "shock" value. The only thing that might need to be noted in reference to this image (see Bozrat, 1970) is that it shows inmates of Nordhausen who likely died as a result of the Allied bombing raid on the camp (hence the badly burned and partially destroyed surrounding buildings). --Aryaman (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you have raised another issue, and that would be that if these people were likely killed as a result of an Allied bombing raid, as you say, then it would barely be representative of the Holocaust at all.  ? Stellarkid (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

True, I looked through a half-dozen foreign language Wikipedias and this was the most appropriate. Although I'm sure there are people better suited to the task than me. It has the caption "Nazi physician Fritz Klein stands inside a mass grave in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after it's liberation in April 1945". Since non of the pictures are really high quality, and too up close is distasteful, someone could propose multiple images, like how they do it at the beginning on the WWII article.Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with changing the top picture- an image that graphic shouldn't be at the top of the page. Any of the other pictures linked here would suffice. I also have no problem with the original picture being used elsewhere- preferably with a warning. Vivouk (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)vivouk

My only issue with the picture is that there is no information - where was it taken, when, by whom? All the other pictures have at least a location, but this one just says "Victims of the Holocaust". We really ought to say where it was taken. It's apparently from Yad Vashem. Lfh (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I see that it was captioned as Auschwitz until September 14, and this edit. To repeat my question, does anybody know for certain where it was taken? If not, then "Unknown location" may be better than simply not mentioning it at all. Lfh (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have tapered off without any action having been taken, but it seems like there is a rough consensus (though obviously not unanimous agreement) that the image should be moved elsewhere in the article (I've seen some requests for a content warning, but I don't think that's a good idea; it's either in or it's not). It seems like this image, has the most support. Is there another one that anyone thinks is more appropriate? -- Vary | (Talk) 04:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Lager Nordhausen graphic is, as Stellarkid pointed out, that the dead people in the picture were killed by Allied bombing rather than the Nazi extermination program. The caption for the Lager Nordhausen picture says that the dead people were most likely killed by starvation or shot by the Gestapo, which were common ways to have died in the Holocaust. So, I'm not sure Aryaman and Stellarkid were correct to bring up the issue of how they died. Even so, I'm going through pages about the extermination camps and I've found the following additional possibilities:

• - I like this one because it shows the survivors as well as the casualties
• 
• - do we want Allied soldiers in these pictures? Are these dead also killed by the Allied bombing-I'm not sure?

I still haven't looked at most of the articles about camps that weren't listed as extermination camps, and most of the articles in other languages' Wikipedias--I would expect the concentration camp articles in German, Polish and Hebrew to be especially comprehensive. --AFriedman (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are aesthetic considerations. Though the subject matter is gruesome, the images nevertheless have formal visual qualities. The image presently at the beginning of the article is a compelling composition. This can be seen on an abstract level, and on the level of the recognizability of the human form — torsos, limbs, hands, feet, rib cages, pelvic bones. These are also abstract compositional elements. None of the other suggested replacement images exploits the possibilities inherent in the admittedly gruesome subject matter of human corpses as this one photograph does. I also think that gratuitous evidence of violence is fairly low-keyed in this one. There is not found a focus on wounds or blood for instance. There is an aesthetic quality that exploits the human body, however gruesome the conditions required to make this photograph possible may have been. Bus stop (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bones of anti-Nazi German women can be seen in the crematoria in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany. Photo taken by the 3rd U.S. Army, 14th April 1945

How about provenance? My opinion is that more important than aesthetics is that we can confidently tell the reader wherre the pricture is from, when it was taken, and exactly what it depicts. I read somewhere that only 1/5 of the prisoners of the camps in Germany proper were Jewish, (although according to the article on Dachau Jews there comprised as many as 1/3). The picture used now might actually be of Russian or Polish victims, or even German political prisoners killed in a typhus epidemic. I realize that most available pictures come from the camps in Germany that the Americans liberated and not from the death camps in the east that the soviet's liberated, but surely there must be some pictures that can be used with authenticated provenance from a death camp such as the one in Oświęcim? Otherwise we might as well use this picture from Buchenwald with its original caption: --Stor stark7 ^Speak 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick note to AFriedman : What I said was "Now you have raised another issue, and that would be that if these people were likely killed as a result of an Allied bombing raid, as you say, then it would barely be representative of the Holocaust at all." If it were not so, then it would be appropriate. The Allies did not bomb the concentration camps, an omission that not all Jews and friends of Jews thought was the best policy. Thus...

There are plenty of photos to choose from and I personally don't like any of them. The more I think of it the more I think that the lead photo should not be the most graphic one. I am remembering from my own childhood and even young adulthood. My parents made me look at the pictures as a child, so that I would know the truth of what man can do to man. They still give me the horrors. The idea of this article is not to shock, but to teach - to get to a place of understanding, so that we do develop a horror as we work to understand what in ourselves as human beings could lead to such a thing. This is important knowledge which we have clearly not learned yet, or their would have been no genocides since. We should use a lead photo for a serious article, not the National Enquirer Holocaust article. Ease our way into the house of horrors. Stellarkid (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to trust the information on the Nordhausen image provided by the National Archives. Is there any further objection to that photo? Is there any particular support for any of the other alternatives that have been raised? -- Vary | (Talk) 05:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I object to removing the photo that is in place. I think it is a good image. It is aesthetically emblematic of the subject of the article. It brings the Holocaust down to a human level. There is no gratuitous gore in it. It is simply an appropriate image for the subject matter, in that it depicts the human dimension. The naked bodies, facing up, backs arched is exemplary of the suffering and death that the Holocaust was about. Its power is in its pathos, not in any graphic details. Bus stop (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you object, but many good arguments have been made for placing a less intense image in the lede and the majority opinion in the thread seems to be that the image is too graphic for its current position, so I think consensus is in favor of a change. The 'graphic details' may not be the images strongest point, but they're still there, aren't they? -- Vary | (Talk) 15:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vary that the information from the Nordhausen image should be reliable and there is no further objection from me. Again not adverse to the body pile, just move it on down a bit, please. Stellarkid (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Graphic" is not the issue. Any illustration of the Holocaust is going to be graphic due to the underlying violence. The question is really one of beauty. Needless to say I hesitate to use the word. But given the choice between an "ugly" image and a "poetic" image, I choose the poetic image. Again — don't fault me for using a word like poetic. I am far from a Nazi sympathizer. But incongruity is a fact in many things. There can be humor amidst tragedy. It happens. I am not saying I see humor anywhere. But I think it can be said that beauty and poetry can be found in images — even of the Holocaust. And furthermore beauty is a relative thing. Why pick an ugly picture to replace a beautiful picture? Again — I am not saying that a pile of murdered people is "beautiful." But the skin stretched over the bones has a terrible beauty. Those are human beings. Note the rib cages. Note the pelvic bones. Is the human body too ugly to be seen? The fact of the matter is that the bodies are as "backwards" as they could be. The most prominent figures have their feet in the background and their heads in the foreground. They are on their backs; not on their more "protective" stomachs. And their backs are deeply arched upwards. This is a metaphorical interpretation of the holocaust itself. Yes, it is jarring. But isn't the Holocaust "jarring?" This has nothing to do with impact. This has to do with beauty and poetry. Due to the many layers high that the bodies are stacked there is an incredible beauty — you could call it choreography — that results from the complex layers of limbs, torsos, heads. Yes, it is sad — but what is the article about? It should be illustrated appropriately — with beauty. No photograph that anybody is considering has near the character and complexity of this illustration. At Wikipedia we are expected to be WP:BOLD, not timid. The replacement photos you are considering contain ordinary graphics. This photograph is no more graphic. It is just powerful by dint of aesthetics. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a mainstream, wide-circulation book about the Holocaust with that image on its cover, then I'll change my mind. Otherwise, with all due respect to your interest in the image, it should be moved down and replaced with something more suitable. --Aryaman (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

While remaining fairly agnostic on the merits or otherwise of the photo, I think it's worth pointing out that the parallel with a book's cover doesn't quite stand up. The photo, if used on the cover of a book, would likely be seen by "passers-by" in bookshops and libraries. By contrast, the Wikipedia article will only be seen by people actively seeking information on the Holocaust (and the vast majority of them will already know that it involved large-scale killing). Barnabypage (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead image: arbitrary break 3

Wikipedia is of course not a book and additionally not censored. As far as suitability is concerned it is suitable to the event that the Holocaust was — the torturing and killing of six million innocent Jews, not to mention additional millions of innocent non-Jewish people tortured and killed. Your issue is apparently with the forcefulness of this image:

File:Holocaust123.JPG

I think many Wikipedians would agree that our article should not be whitewashed by removing the most appropriate image thus far brought to our attention from the beginning of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that. The Holocaust was about the killing of innocent men women and children — not war combatants. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a book. Nonetheless, the lead image of an article serves an entirely analogical purpose. While editors of mainstream presses might very well include this image in a book on the Holocaust, very few, if any, would put it on the cover. This has nothing to do with "whitewashing" or "censoring" anything. No one is denying that the image is topically relevant and that it should remain in the article, so pursuing that line of defence amounts to fighting a straw man. As I said in my last edit summary, this is not about image quality or relevance, it is about suitability. There are better ways to graphically introduce the Holocaust than by using the image you are advocating, and hundreds of respectable publications on the Holocaust amply demonstrate that fact.

PS: If you think the "innocent women and children" are worth stressing, then why not advocate an alternate image which shows women and children inmates of a KZ? --Aryaman (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"…hundreds of respectable publications on the Holocaust amply demonstrate that fact"? Actually you've cited none.

No, I didn't say anything about "innocent women and children" being "worth stressing." I spoke about "innocent men women and children" and I did so in reference to the Holocaust. I didn't mention this in reference to an image.

There may be an "analogy" between a "book" and a "Wikipedia article" but they are different. Wikipedia is Wikipedia and a book is a book. How do you know a book doesn't exist with the above image on its cover?

Should I look at the thousands of books to find out if Wikipedia has precedent in a traditionally published book on the Holocaust bearing that particular image on its cover or might I just think for myself, exercising my own judgement? Wikipedia is not censored and we Wikipedians are exhorted to think boldly.

You have conceded that the image is "topically relevant" (your words) but you are objecting to it on the grounds of "suitability" (your word). Can you please tell me what criteria you bring to bear in distinguishing between an image that is suitable and an image that is not suitable? Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The question was whether the initial picture was too graphic. I think in general we agree that the lead picture should not be overly "bold" or as some might term it, overly "graphic." An educational article on the Holocaust, which is what this is purporting to be, does not need to start with bold, graphic horror pictures, no matter how pleasing one might find them aesthetically. I can't believe I am actually saying this!? Stellarkid (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we are not talking about "pleasing…aesthetically" in the usual sense. But what sort of photos are being considered as replacements? The replacements under consideration are not only images of human carnage but additionally are ordinary images. My contention is that the present image is extraordinary. Compare the forms in that image to the sculptures of Henry Moore. I think the sculptures of Henry Moore, some of them, are reminiscent of skin stretched over bone. I am not trying to objectivize the victims of the Holocaust. Clearly the victims are not sculptures, or works of art. But I think the emaciated bodies contain elements not unlike those found in certain abstract sculptures. Does this not contain similar qualities to some of the interior spaces in the pile of corpses? The image presently at the top of the article is unusual due to its complexity. Unfortunately it is composed entirely of human bodies. They were mistreated after death just as the Nazis mistreated them prior to death. That is why they are found heaped high. I don't think terms like "graphic" or "bold" are serving our purposes in talking about most of these images. A dead body is pretty "graphic."

I would hazard a guess that it is the terrible "beauty" of the heap of bodies that presently graces the top of our article that some people object to, in comparison to other considered images. The power of it is that it rivets our attention. We find it hard to dismiss. There is a grace even in death that makes one linger over such an image. One can't help but connect the corpses to their former living selves. This is important because the Holocaust should never be reduced to mere abstract numbers. A historical recounting of the Holocaust should not distance one from the innocent lives of men women and children, who were in fact noncombatants, who were systematically worked to death, tortured in some cases, and eventually killed or allowed to die.

The aim of the first photo in the article should serve to establish a connection between the reader and these sorts of real lives claimed by the Nazis. The replacement photos by comparison allow one to view the Holocaust at a distance, as a mere abstraction. That is precisely what should be avoided in a recounting of the Holocaust. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ec--Bus stop, I do understand what you are saying, and you are right except for the one or two points. Besides the idea that it is too shocking for a lead picture, possibly turning people away from the article, another issue has to do with the dignity of human beings who are still alive today, whose parents or loved ones might actually be in that human pile. Also, it is apparently distracting from the purpose of the article, as illustrated by your own notice (I think it was you?) of details (eg circumcision) that we really don't want people getting hung up on in the first moments of looking at this article. Stellarkid (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And we've fizzled once again. Bus stop, I'm sorry but consensus seems to be against using an image this graphic in the intro. I'm swapping photos around now. Does anyone have more details about the image that was in the intro, particularly where it was taken? The current caption worked in the lede but seems a little too vague in the body of the article, and unless I'm overlooking something the image's page only lists the organization that owns the copyright on the image. -- Vary | (Talk) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, please don't act on your own. You don't have "consensus." We are using the Talk page at this stage to discuss this. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, as I said, I believe we do have consensus. This discussion has dragged on for more than a month with a clear majority agreeing with concerns raised that the image is too intense or otherwise inappropriate for the lede. At the time of my post there had been no activity in this discussion for 24 hours, the last being Stellarkid's succinct summary of said concerns just above me. "Consensus" does not require 100% agreement - if it did, very little would ever actually get done around here. And please be careful about how you use 'undo'; it's often considered rude, especially in a discussion like this one, to use a generic edit summary like the one generated by automated or semi-automated reversion methods. -- Vary | (Talk) 19:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, there need not be discussion for 24 hours. This editor, while not supporting the placement of the present image, is not posting to support its removal. The point of Barnabypage's post is to counter an argument which you would consider in support of "consensus." There are more points to be touched upon. It is a very much active discussion. Sorry about using 'undo.' Offense was not intended. It just seems you are rushing things. Barely did I have a chance to read your intentions made known on the Talk page than you had altered the placement of the images. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take the book cover analogy into account, actually, as I don't think it's terribly apt, but it's just that: an analogy, an illustration of a point, not the point itself. But the fact is that, in my experience at least, we don't hang on to the status quo indefinitely simply because not everyone agrees on a proposed change. And it was my intention for the edits to come very close together, as I felt that the discussion had gone on long enough (since November 18) with no evidence that the outcome was likely to change with further discussion. What points do you feel still need to be covered? -- Vary | (Talk) 19:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, no one has spoken of an indefinite time frame for discussions; I certainly haven't. We are in the midst of a discussion. Please allow that discussion to proceed apace. I was contemplating a reply to Stellarkid. Whether it has been more or less than 24 hours since Stellarkid has posted should not matter all that much. There has certainly been support for the picture presently at the beginning of this article, both in this thread and in the most proximal archive, above.

This is an essentially subjective decision. There is not a "right" and "wrong" about the outcome of this discussion. That is why discussion is even more important in this than in more "cut and dried" points of contention. While Stellarkid still stands in opposition to my preference in this matter, I did not fail to notice that Stellarkid did say, "…I do understand what you are saying, and you are right except…" I consider that a hopeful sign. Please allow these discussions to run their course. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not as though I archived the discussion, I just carried out the discussion's current consensus. You were still free to continue to debate the matter, and to revert me if and when you gained more support for you position than there is for the alternatives. The status quo is not king; once there is such solid consensus for a change, the change should be made whether or not there is anyone still willing to debate the matter. If the consensus changes through further discussion, the page can be changed again. 'Consensus' does not mean 'everyone is convinced,' nor does it mean 'everyone has lost interest.' Would you be willing to allow the image that does currently seem to have a broader acceptance than your preferred image to stay at the top of the article until you achieve a consensus to remove it? Vary | (Talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, we are discussing this now. Concerned parties are not making that change probably because they understand that there is an ongoing discussion. The ongoing discussion in and of itself represents a loosening of the status quo. Needless to say I don't think the discussion is over. Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted at the following User's Talk pages asking if they would care to weigh in on this discussion: 4wajzkd02, Markthemac, ThuranX, Lfh and Jpgordon. Bus stop (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All of whom have previously expressed support on this talk page for your preferred version. This is canvasing, pure and simple, and I know you've been here long enough to know better. -- Vary | (Talk) 14:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, are you really neutral on this? You claim on your Talk page that you have no "preferences" concerning the issue under discussion. If you are aware of so many people supporting the present placement of the image then why are you claiming consensus and editing to remove that image?

I've notified these people to weigh in again because their comments in some cases were made about a month ago. But I don't think consensus considerations should be overlooking something expressed one month ago.

Any other editor can make these changes. Other editors, who presumably do have "preferences," are refraining from doing so. My presumption is that they are content for the moment using the Talk page to reach better editorial agreement. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't cast aspersions. It's true that your position had early support, but consensus, as we all know, can change, and in this discussion it very clearly did. I saw a discussion that had tapered off after a month without any action taken and attempted to move it towards some kind of a resolution. [1] That comment reignited discussion briefly, but then it tapered off again without any change in the apparent consensus, so I carried that consensus out. It's not unusual in a discussion where accusations have been lobbed about of 'whitewashing' and 'sanitizing' for participants to be reluctant to be the ones to carry out the consensus once it has been reached.

It's irrelevant why you chose to notify the editors you did; the important matter is that the people you selected all represent one side of the issue - your side. Whether that was intentional or not, the effect is the same. Why didn't you notify any of the other editors who had contributed to the discussion in the past six weeks but had not participated recently? And will you do so now? They include [User:Slrubenstein]], User:AFriedman, User:DGG, User:Drunken Pirate, User:Thincat, User:Varoon Arya, and User:Stor stark7. -- Vary | (Talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, are you aware of anyone who is "reluctant" to alter the placement of images? Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Why do you assume that, because other editors have stated their opinion without taken action, no action needed to be taken? And again, will you notify the rest of editors the editors who've participated in the discussion that it has resumed? -- Vary | (Talk) 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, you were editing the article to reflect the view of the people that you are now asking me to notify. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to paint me as some POV warrior. I have explained my reasons for making the change that I did. You may choose to reject those reason and instead think of me as the opposition, I can't help that, but the fact is that right now I am trying to help you to avoid the appearance of canvassing. -- Vary | (Talk) 21:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, OK. I've notified the 6 additional people that you suggested I notify. Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, do family members of victims of the Nazis want the enormity of that crime sanitized, or do they want the true facts whatever they might be to come to light? I have actually attended a couple of conferences that were addressed by aging Holocaust survivors. The impression I got was that there was no detail too intimate to be exposed.

You don't know that the present "lead picture" will turn people away from the article. You are surmising that. As was pointed out above, by Barnabypage, anyone coming to the article Holocaust already knows that this is not exactly an article on The Summer of love. (Barnabypage didn't actually, literally say that.)

I don't know if you are actually literally thinking that someone may find a look-alike of a relative lost in the Holocaust in that photo, but that is unlikely; there is not enough photographic clarity for that. I think most victims and families of victims want the truth to be known. Do you know of instances in which concerned parties would rather the reality of the suffering not come to light, based on what "embarrassment" it might bring on individuals?

By the way I didn't have any input to that discussion of circumcision. There is not enough camera resolution to discern such things. Also, a Jew can still be a Jew and not circumcised. Unusual but certainly not unheard of. Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, I need to clarify when I said earlier you are right, but... what I meant was you were right in an "aesthetic" sense, though that is not the main issue here. If we were talking simple aesthetics over an artistic presentation of photographs, perhaps. Your first question is based the premise that the use of another photo in the lede sanitizes the article, and I don't agree with that. No one has argued against putting that picture somewhere on the page, and the article as it stands is informative and doesn't attempt to sanitize the Holocaust in any way. While I surmise that your choice of picture will turn people away; you surmise that it will not. I believe people need to "mature into" the picture as they read the article, not be confronted with it right away. The second point was not one of embarrassment but one of simple human dignity, of which there is not much in that photo. I agree with you that we all want the truth to be known. It is just a matter of how we go about doing it. Stellarkid (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead image: arbitrary break 4

Bus stop asked me to take a look at this. Forgive me if I repeat any arguments; it's a long read, so, well, I didn't. This is an interesting issue, certainly, and not one for which there is a right or wrong answer (other than "consensus rules", but that's a given here.) The most important question is, "does the image best represent the subject of the article". Aren't there some photographs taken by Nazis of mass murder being committed? I seem to recall some with pictures of Nazis next to trenches of bodies, for example. Those would show both the victims and the perpetrators. The story of the Holocaust is not that people died; the story is that they were killed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all of text in the sections above. In my view, the picture needs to show not only that people were killed, but the way they were killed. By "way", I do not mean the specific technique. The advantage of the current picture is that it clearly illustrates that it was mass murder, it illustrates that the victims were starving, and it illustrates that the corpses were treated without any respect. I would tend to agree, however, that a picture that would be less graphic would be better for the top section of the article, but such a picture still would need to show characteristics of the Holocaust that differentiate it from pictures that would typically illustrate a war crime.  Cs32en  03:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What do others think of this image?

File:Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif

Perhaps it could serve as the lead photo? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all clear to someone who doesn't know the context that the civilians in the picture are being persecuted by the soldiers (I assume they are, in fact, Warsaw Jews being taken off to the camps?). Looking at the image in isolation, the soldiers might just as well be protecting them. Barnabypage (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's better as a graphic introduction to the Holocaust. The German soldiers, the men, women and children, the burning of the ghetto in the background - an apt introduction, in all. (Also, if you look, you can see that at least three of the individuals have their hands raised, so I don't see any confusion with the soldiers protecting them; it's clear they're being herded off.) It also introduces the victims as ordinary people with whom the reader can identify rather than a pile of emaciated corpses - which can, depending upon your sensibilities, heighten the impact of the pictures of the dead later on in the article. Can we get the copyright issue straightened out? --Aryaman (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think their hands are raised because they're carrying bags or boxes, aren't they? As another alternative approach, what about a picture of one of the camps - without people? The barbed wire, the rows of barracks etc. are evocative and tell some of the story, at least giving the impression of the Holocaust's vast industrial scale (which is another thing that this picture doesn't, IMHO, achieve). There are some good images at Auschwitz, for example. Apologies if this idea has been suggested before - I've dipped in and out of this discussion a bit. Barnabypage (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the approach to the selected pictures should involve a narrative. From rounding up of civilians in ordinary street dress. To inmates in settings indicating that. To executions. To bodies. That has impact, is logical, and stresses the reader least, dealing with this subject matter. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that picture has any particular obvious meaning. As said, it could just be a generic evacuation; it's not particularly emblematic. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that few pictures have any obvious meaning if no further information is being given. My view is that we should ask "Does the image illustrate salient characteristics of the Holocaust or not?" Both images have strengths and weaknesses in that respect.  Cs32en  17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We exchange a picture of dead Jews for one of Germany's upper class rich people being escorted out of a war zone with an honor guard? Absolutely OPPOSE. The Current Image, the pile of the dead, is suitable for this article, not this proposed lie. I have NO clue why Bus Stop thought to CANVAS me, and he did violate CANVAS and should be sanctioned, for an opinion to support a pathetic revisionist whitewash spin on the Holocaust. The Shoah was about murdering people, and thus a pile of the murdered bodies is far more suitable for this article than one showing what great kind people the Nazis were. If you use this image, it is the wedge by which other revisionists will turn the entire Holocaust article into a mess. Soon the caption will read 'German soldiers escorting civilians to safety and protection during unlawful American aggressions', and other nonsensical shit. The Image of the dead should stay, and Bus Stop, don't CANVAS me anymore. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? He asked several people, whose response certainly could not be predicted, to express their opinions. We're doing exactly that. The question wasn't about this one picture; in fact, this picture hadn't even been put up for consideration when he cast about for more input. But thanks for your reasoned and careful addition to this conversation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just his bad luck that I arrived in time for this, then, eh? And he CANVASsed because he knew I supported the original image's continued inclusion and placement. The question is most certainly about that one image, all the other chatter is just other proposals from the anti-Holocaust crowd on how to get rid of all the evidence, so they can start all over again. Die4Dixie was a bigoted flat out holocaust denier, and yet here we are, two months on, entertaining him with hours of debate on whether or not to give him what he wants, and with how much whipped cream? Leave the image alone, shutter this entire sad sack of apologist debate, fuck all of these 'Think of The Children' emotional appeals, and get on with better things. ThuranX (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I found the sister-image to the one posted by Bus stop, the two having been taken within minutes of one another.

The image's page identifies two of the people in the foreground as Avraham and Yehudit Neyer. There's no copyright issue here, so seeing as the two images are nearly identical, I wouldn't see a problem using this one instead. --Aryaman (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think the Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif image would be better suited for an article about the ghettoes of Nazi Germany rather than the Holocaust itself. Sensitive eyes may not want to be greeted with emaciated corpses at the beginning of an article, but I think most people who read Wikipedia know what to expect when they load the Holocaust article. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this an idea? A collapsible window. I think the image should be by default in the open position. But someone choosing to read the text without the image could close it. I am referring to the image of stacked corpses presently at the beginning of the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

using it as a lead image but hidden seems totally contradictory to the basic idea of having a lead image in the first place. The lead image of an article is meant to be seen conspicuously. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, thanks for the post on my Talk page. While I believe the picture of the corpses is too graphic, the pictures of the people with the soldiers, in my opinion, are not graphic enough. As per Barnabypage, it's not clear what the soldiers are doing to the nervous looking people. However, the pictures of the soldiers with the people do make a very important point--that these were ordinary people leading very stable lives who were driven to their deaths by a crazy regime. Perhaps the lead could have a panel of multiple images, one of which is this, another might be the picture of the bunk or one of people in forced labor, and another might be a reduced size version of the original image? If there's consensus that a single picture can't capture all the horrors of the Holocaust, multiple pictures might do a better job. --AFriedman (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG, its silly to have a hidden photo in the lead. I think the main focus for the lead photo should be to demonstrate what the holocaust was...namely a planned mass murder of a group of people. I think the current lead photo File:Holocaust123.JPG illustrates that well and should be kept. I find the arguments relating to the image being too graphic as nonsensical, and the only problem I can see with the lead photo is that its IQ is poor.File:Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill the yard of Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo concentration camp.jpg is good in that shows alot of people, but its hard to distinguish them in the photo. The current lead though you can at least distinguish the people, which I think makes it superior to the alternative suggestions so far.Chhe (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest a hidden photo. I suggested a hide-able photo with the default position open. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. But, still I think its a silly suggestion. Wouldn't it take someone just as long to scroll down to remove the image from view as to click the hide button? And the whole idea of having a hide button itself seems to suggest that looking at a picture one thinks to be grotesque is worse if done for a longer time. Why is that? Why is looking at such a picture for 5 seconds any worse than looking at it for 10 seconds, or a minute? The whole up in arms over this photo being "graphic" seems very babyish to me. The whole holocaust was graphic its unavoidable.Chhe (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The image provides 0% context. No narrative context, no informative context. It's a pile of naked, emaciated corpses, and having it in the lead is the graphic equivalent of writing "The Holocaust was an event which resulted in big stacks of dead people". Not exactly the level of quality I've come to expect from key articles in Wikipedia. --Aryaman (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Aryaman — The image is suggestive of great loss — loss not only before death, but also after death. Even in death there is the possibility of respect. Does the photo indicate that the dead were handled with respect? Obviously not. Bus stop (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chhe — I completely agree with you. I think that the image presently at the beginning of the article is consistent with the subject matter of the article and should not be moved from its present place. Nor do I even think there is any reader who could not read the article without closing a collapsible window to that photo. I don't really understand the arguments against it. I am just trying to accommodate those arguments. The function of closing a picture would accommodate such arguments, I think. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a collapsible window is right out, for all sorts of reasons. It's quite appropriate that people react with horror at horrible things. My only quibble is the particular choice of horrible thing to lead the article with, and I'd like a picture that indicates the cause as well as the effect. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what people think of having a panel of multiple images in the lede. --AFriedman (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

this too I think contradicts the idea of having a single picture in the lead. We should be able to find one that is enough to make the point without being actually visually horrifying. It would be good to have one that makes it explicit visually without the caption that this is the Holocaust, not one of the many other massacres. I suppose one with a Nazi flag would do it best, but perhaps Nazi uniforms would do. They remain instantly recognizable for what the were. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoefle telegram

I hope I don't ignite anything by this, but there seems to be an inconsistency here. The caption given to the Hoefle telegram in this article states that it reports that 1.2m Jews had been killed in the Reinhard camps by the end of 1942. But the article about the telegram itself describes it as being about arrivals in the camp, and indeed the German word 'Zugang' means 'intake'. While undoubtedly the arrivals in these camps would have met the same fate as any other inmates, and thus 'arrival', barring miracles, equated with 'death', the telegram itself is clearly discussing their 'delivery' (yuk) -- the caption should be made more clear. Or am I missing something? -RagnarokCommando (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How can 5-6 million figure be trusted?

I am asking this respectfully, because I am doing a research essay. As far as I could learn, the figure comes from Jewish sources, for example, Raul Hilberg and it is based on demographic and other "estimates" but not hard facts. Basically, what Yavshem (museum) people told me is that there is no specific "hard" number as to how many Jews died in the Holocaust. Basically, it's all about estimates. But, could these estimates be wrong? Does every massacre and killing of Jews in World War II qualify as genocide? The Courts have ruled that only 1 massacre in Bosnia qualified as genocide, for example. So, learning from their judgment, it is not plausible to accept that each and every Jewish person that died in the Holocaust qualifies as a victim of genocide. Anyways, what is your position on this. I am not interested in Holocaust denial arguments and responses; all I need is short academic (factual) response. Thanks. Bosniak (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the right place. Talk pages are for discussing improving the article. They are not general forums for the article's topic. A good place to start, though, would be the the FAQ at Yad Vashem. Also, in regards to the second point, the Holocaust is not made up of individual events or massacres. It describes a systemetic effort by the Nazis to eliminate the Jewish people. Singularity42 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead image: Please provide suggestions posted inline

NO ONE FREAK OUT. All the arguments have been made a couple times already. Post suggested photos, or create a collage and put it in this section so we can reach some kind of consensus on a particular picture. There is a better lead picture than the current one ( hopefully with context that can be put in a caption ). I wasn't able to find one myself and didn't think changing the picture just for the sake of changing it was worth it. Here is what is generally agreed upon

• A picture that is representative of the scale of the holocaust
• A picture with context ( victims at X camp during X year)
• A picture that is not censored ( no "spoiler" tag )

Pirate^Argh!!1! 17:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

add critism part

I suggest you add the critism branch cataining critism from all sides for example the number are jus estimated and can not just be true as it is to large --76.68.25.174 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ovens

Holocaust ovens

So, terrible to know this actually happened... :( --ConfusedPerson (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)