|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Holocaust relativism
Delete[edit]
If I may indulge in argumentum by Google hit, "Holocaust relativism" is a term that some troll pulled out of his ass--435 hits. Delete. TheoryOfPractice 13:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I presume it's not a coincidence you posted this just as I was editing it? You may have a point, but the phenomenon described is quite common on blogs, newspaper site comment pages, etc., even if the term is not that widely used.Qwertyuiop 13:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I disagree with deletion. Better to describe it as what it is - a trick to try to say the Holocaust was not so bad.--BobNot Jim 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's a section in the Holocaust denial article that tries to do that. Better to beef that up than to have an article on a term that nobody uses. TheoryOfPractice 14:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've edited it to reflect a bit more reality. But if people want to delete I won't oppose.--BobNot Jim 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of keeping it. Even if the term is not used much, it's an important part of the argument. If it is deleted, then the ideas should be incorporated into the other article, and have this redirect to that section. Researcher 14:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've edited it to reflect a bit more reality. But if people want to delete I won't oppose.--BobNot Jim 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's a section in the Holocaust denial article that tries to do that. Better to beef that up than to have an article on a term that nobody uses. TheoryOfPractice 14:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I disagree with deletion. Better to describe it as what it is - a trick to try to say the Holocaust was not so bad.--BobNot Jim 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I see no point in having an article for a term that nobody uses. Really think it should be merged into the HD article. TheoryOfPractice 14:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with some of Bob's edits. For example: "Yet again the attempt is to somehow "justify" the holocaust" poses a motivation that may or may not be true. The phrase "holocaust relativism" appears to be used by those who wish to assert the uniqueness of the Jewish holocaust. But the accusation could be reversed to suggest that proponents of "uniqueness" wish to diminish the other horrific events. I don't think we should go down either of these judgemental avenues. I will agree Bob's insertions if they are attributed. Not if they are baldly posed as fact.Qwertyuiop 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Re the last paragraph, Bob, we should avoid confusion between the different types of camp. In my understanding, which I accept is limited, the concentration camps were not the death camps, and were different again from labour camps. No one compares the British camps in South Africa with the death camps. Also I don't think anyone suggests the American internment camps were as bad as the German concentration camps. The argument is more usually to justify the principle of internment.Qwertyuiop 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as we clearly aren't dealing with a "drive-by" poster, this could find some salvage in the essay space. Just as Godwin's Law is about losing sense of proportion, this is about adding a sense of proportion, so to speak. It brings up some good points that would be suitable as an essay but as it's not so much a real term that's suitable for an article.
sshole 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as we clearly aren't dealing with a "drive-by" poster, this could find some salvage in the essay space. Just as Godwin's Law is about losing sense of proportion, this is about adding a sense of proportion, so to speak. It brings up some good points that would be suitable as an essay but as it's not so much a real term that's suitable for an article.
- Also I would remove "Although it is utterly irrelevant to the Holocaust" as POV. The relevance, arguably, is that the holocaust is cited as a justification for the establishment of Israel and all that followed from it.
- But I'll give my vote for deletion, even though I contributed to it. On the grounds that so few Google hits raise doubts as to its relevance. Qwertyuiop 17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Re the last paragraph, Bob, we should avoid confusion between the different types of camp. In my understanding, which I accept is limited, the concentration camps were not the death camps, and were different again from labour camps. No one compares the British camps in South Africa with the death camps. Also I don't think anyone suggests the American internment camps were as bad as the German concentration camps. The argument is more usually to justify the principle of internment.Qwertyuiop 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with deletion (or move to essay if you must). These points are all covered in the holocaust denial article, & I don't much like the implication here that people who contextualise the holocaust against other atrocities are necessarily trivilising it. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I share that view, which is why I didn't like Bob's edits, See my comment several paras above. Delete or make clear it's a loaded expression. Qwertyuiop 09:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
Retain - This phrase has been in the media since 1999 Emperors New Clothes. It provides some interesting diversion when not simply applied to the Holocaust. I would like to see further development prior to deletion. Citizen Deux (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)