Talk:The Holocaust#Scrapbookpages.com

Today, many people do not want to grant the Sinti and Roma the same status as the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Some voices claim that the Sinti and Roma were not persecuted for racial reasons. This view is also held by Professor Yehuda Bauer. The discussion primarily revolves around how to refer to the extermination of the Sinti and Roma: as Holocaust, genocide, or Porajmos? Many argue that the term “Holocaust” is reserved for the Jews, as it denotes the mass, racially motivated murder of that minority. The European Parliament officially recognized the Holocaust of the Sinti and Roma on April 15, 2015, and acknowledged these Nazi crimes as part of the Holocaust.

There are many different terms: genocide, mass murder. Porajmos is a term that was introduced by the minority itself. The word Holocaust comes from Greek and expresses what the Nazi crimes truly were: a process of annihilation that was systematic and planned, carried out on a bureaucratic basis throughout Europe – and it targeted both minorities. Yehuda Bauer was the director of the Yad Vashem Institute in Israel. It’s embarrassing when two victim groups argue about who received more attention from Hitler or Himmler. Our people back then would probably have preferred not to receive any attention at all. But if the term “Holocaust” expresses the obligation of the European and international community towards the Jews to combat every form of antisemitism—because antisemitism led to this catastrophe, which is incomparable to anything else—then this term must also apply to us. Sinti and Roma, like the Jews, were annihilated solely based on their biological existence, simply because they were Sinti or Roma, and this happened throughout the entire area under Nazi control. The Jews introduced the term Shoah, which is a Jewish term, and they are entitled to use it—there are no objections from us. But the term Holocaust is not reserved for the Jews. It expresses what was done to both Jews and Sinti and Roma. Our two minorities were siblings in the history of persecution in Europe. We always served as scapegoats for the authorities, and we make ourselves look ridiculous when we argue over who was wronged more by Hitler—there is nothing to argue about. Even among the Jews, there were exceptions: a half-Jew could sometimes be “Germanized.” Field Marshal Milch was Jewish, but Göring said: ‘I decide who is a Jew.’ The Nazis handled it completely arbitrarily. But fundamentally, one can say that both Jews and Sinti and Roma were slated for extermination. If the Jews want to use their own term, then they can use Shoah. We will stick with the term Holocaust. As for the term Porajmos, I don’t know whether President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, or the French or Polish presidents have ever heard of it. We do not need a term in our own language. We need a word that expresses the crimes of the Nazis against our minority, and that meaning is found in the word Holocaust. So we will use this term, and anyone else who addresses history honestly will do the same.* — Romani Rose, Interview from 2016, University of Krakow

Commentary and Summary: The interview with Romani Rose illustrates a complex and emotional debate surrounding the terminology used to describe the genocide of the Sinti and Roma during World War II. Rose argues that the term Holocaust should also be used to describe the crimes committed against the Sinti and Roma, as their persecution was likewise racially motivated and they were systematically exterminated throughout the Nazi sphere of influence. He emphasizes that the term Holocaust conveys the horrific reality of a systematic process of annihilation that affected both Jews and Sinti and Roma. However, the debate over terminology reflects deeper tensions. Some voices, including historian Yehuda Bauer, argue that the term Holocaust should be reserved for the Jewish experience, as their persecution was unique. Rose rejects this view, stressing that the biological existence of both groups—Jews and Sinti and Roma—was the basis for their extermination. He acknowledges that the Jewish community introduced the term Shoah for their own use and supports their right to do so. At the same time, he insists that Sinti and Roma must also be able to claim the term Holocaust. Rose does not see the Holocaust as an exclusive term but rather as a word that expresses the shared experience of persecution and annihilation of both minorities. He also rejects the use of the term Porajmos, which emerged from within the Romani community, arguing that it lacks international recognition. He fears that using Porajmos might undermine the visibility and acknowledgment of the crimes committed against the Sinti and Roma. Therefore, he advocates for using the internationally recognized term Holocaust to highlight the universal nature of the Nazi crimes. Ultimately, Rose calls for a shared culture of remembrance and emphasizes that it is futile to argue about which group suffered more under Hitler. Instead, the focus should be on acknowledging the crimes committed against both groups and learning the historical lessons that come with it. Ahasveros (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:We had an RFC on this where multiple editors came in a gave their input. See section above. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::A central argument for why Sinti and Roma must be named equally alongside Jews as victims of the Holocaust is:

::The Nazi policy of extermination against the Sinti and Roma was just as systematic, racially motivated, and state-organized as that against the Jewish population https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/en/newsroom/encyclopaedia-on-national-socialist-genocide-of-sinti-and-roma-in-europe Ahasveros (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok. Good to know. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is all covered in Romani Holocaust. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I strongly support explicitly recognizing the genocide of the Sinti and Roma as part of the Holocaust, rather than referring to it separately as the "Porajmos" or "Romani Holocaust." The Holocaust was a unified, ideologically driven, racially motivated extermination campaign by the Nazi regime that targeted both Jews and Roma. Using separate terms risks marginalizing Roma victims and distorting the historical reality of shared persecution and extermination. Moreover, the term Porajmos is controversial and not widely accepted within Romani communities. In contrast, the term Holocaust is used inclusively by leading institutions such as Yad Vashem and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. A unified terminology helps ensure equal recognition and visibility of all victim groups within the scope of Nazi genocide. Ahasveros (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Holocaust comes from Greek" Yes, but the Greek term was about a type of animal sacrifice in which the victims were reduced to ash. When used to refer to the 1940s genocide, it has two implications: 1) the victims were burned and reduced to ash 2) the victims served for human sacrifice. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated|Holocaust|protected=The Holocaust}}

:The Holocaust → {{no redirect|Holocaust}} – This has been discussed before, but it was a long time ago (13 years!) and consensus can change. There are several reasons why this article should be moved to Holocaust.

• Holocaust already redirects here as it is the primary topic.
• "The Holocaust" is not capitalized in running text (see MOS:THE)
• Many people say that the Holocaust was a unique event in history, but most events do not use "The" in the article title
• Some people say that "Holocaust" is a generic term. However, in modern usage, "Holocaust" almost always specifically refers to the genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany.

Mast303 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC) (edited 01:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC))

• Support per explaination above. While most sources write the event as "the Holocaust" for certain cases, they're never capitalized "THE". Additionally, there are many events known by scholars as "Holocaust" such as "African Holocaust" (Maafa), they're never known officially as such. I also see the move request is a reversion of 2013 reverse move. 2404:8000:1037:587:E14A:11AF:A54A:CBEB (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems a good example of an answer in search of a problem. I personally don't see any issue from the perspective of WP:THE. The current redirect solves any possible ambiguity. There doesn't seem any good reason for change. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. It was discussed seven years ago, not 13, and I think nothing changed since the last discussion. FromCzech (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@FromCzech: Your argument is not supported by policy (see WP:THE); also, consensus can change Mast303 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom and usage. "The" almost always proceeds Holocaust but this is simply a feature of our language. The same is true of the French Revolution, the Renaissance, and the Republican Party. In running text, "the" is almost always lowercase. See Ngrams.[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Holocaust%2CThe+Holocaust&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3][https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+Holocaust&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3] "the Holocaust" is consistent with usage by [https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust Britannica], [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust Merriam-Webster], [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust Holocaust Encyclopedia (US Holocaust Memorial Museum)], [https://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/en/memorials/memorial-to-the-murdered-jews-of-europe/ Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe], [https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/short-history-holocaust-denial-united-states ADL], and [https://mhm.org.au Melbourne Holocaust Museum], among many others, as the Ngrams showed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Support per nom. When I type holocaust on the search wikipedia, it just says "Holocuast" and goes to this article. Though I will note that the Holocaust (disambiguation) page makes me a bit hesitant since Holociast is used to refer to quite a few other things. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Holocaust already points here, as a primary redirect, and there is no doubt this is the primary topic for both Holocaust and The Holocaust by [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2025-04&pages=The_Holocaust%7CHolocaust_(sacrifice)%7CHolocaust_(band)%7CHolocaust_(Marvel_Comics)%7CHolocaust_(miniseries)%7CThe_Holocaust_(album) pageviews] and obvious long-term significance. If this change is made, The Holocaust should be a primary redirect to this article and The Holocaust (album) should remain parenthetically disambiguated. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - per MOS:THETITLE, consistency with other pages that discuss a historical event, such as Cultural Revolution, French Revolution, that are referred to with a definite article in prose Psychastes (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support: the event is titled "Holocaust" in every encyclopedia I have so far seen. Wikipedia is the odd one out in this regard. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose this would create many problems across pages and would solve none. I recommend starting by reading the section in this article The Holocaust#Terminology and scope. Other genocides committed by Nazi Germany have articles with names like Romani Holocaust, Aktion T4, Nazi war crimes in occupied Poland during World War II. We can’t rename this page “Jewish Holocaust”, because there is overwhelming evidence that is not the common name of the event. Many notable online sources, encyclopedias, databases title their page for the event “The Holocaust”. Mikewem (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The page that covers all German atrocities is Victims of Nazi Germany. If any page would be renamed “Holocaust”, it would be that one. But that page will not be renamed Holocaust, because it would be ridiculous to have a “The Holocaust” and a “Holocaust” Mikewem (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :No one is suggesting we retitle this Jewish Holocaust and other encyclopedias actually call this Holocaust, as is being proposed here. The "the" is a grammatical artifact, as with "the Titanic" and "the Cold War". --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I can't think of any comparable encyclopedia except Britannica (now that they're online-only) which has the full title "Holocaust (European history)" on their website. Other articles include "The Holocaust: Facts and Figures", "Timeline of the Holocaust". So not only is their titling inconsistent, but the proper title of their main article has a disambig. Print encyclopedias are nearly irrelevant to discuss because they have to alphabetize their entries, thus they're greatly incentivized to call it 'Holocaust'; Wikipedia has no such restriction. Lastly, I think the idea that "other X do it" is a poor argument for doing anything on Wikipedia; we already tried "other X do it", and it gave us Nupedia. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::The Brittanica article isn’t even analogous to this one. Brittanica Holocaust covers all German atrocities (which is not good practice. That article reduces the weight given to non-Jewish victims. That is a bad thing that we will not be doing here). Here, we have one main page that overviews all atrocities, and then each ethnic or minority group gets their own article. The article for the atrocities committed against Jews is this one, and its title is "The Holocaust". The Brittanica article proves that "The Holocaust" is qualitatively different to "Holocaust". Per WP:THE Convention bullet point 1, 'the' should be included in the title of this article.
• :::I implore the closer of this request not to be swayed by the widespread misrepresentation of sources demonstrated here. Mikewem (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:THE Kowal2701 (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support: As other have said, this article is an odd one out when talking about events. This seems to be more a consistency thing to me, as I don't see a WP:COMMONNAME argument. Most sources use "The Holocaust" because that's just how English syntax works. Fore example, the page Russian Revolution does not have the in its title, even though most people and sources refer to it as "The Russian Revolution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garsh2 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Because "the Holocaust" refers to a specific, singular historical event—the systematic genocide carried out by Nazi Germany during World War II. Using "the" emphasizes its uniqueness and gravity as a proper noun. Without "the," it sounds like a general or abstract term, which weakens its historical specificity. This is why historians, educators, and official sources always include "the" when referring to it.Wh67890 (talk)
• :@Wh67890: Many other historical events (such as the Black Death and the Korean War) are called "the". Calling the Holocaust "the Holocaust" is just a feature of the English language. Also, "Holocaust" already redirects to this article. Also, see my detailed nomination summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast303 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• @nousermane, It might be that but as much as I know about English language through academics and readings, I think the feature is more than just a feature- "The" is sometimes used to distinct a special thing from criteria of a crowd, like saying "The Holocaust" separates it from other similar titled genocides. I think it might be even irrelevant to change it at all, that is "Why do we even need to change the title of article?" Even When both "Holocaust" and "The Holocaust" redirects here. Also Wouldn't it be much better to give main title of a distinguished article respect. Redirecting "Holocaust" is more of quick help to those who don't have much better understanding of English and that does not mean Wikipedia should use slang, it is still a mature encyclopedia.

:Somebody also said Britannica or other encyclopedia does not uses "The", but Wikipedia was never one of the other encyclopedia. I still *Strongly Oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wh67890 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|"The" is sometimes used to distinct a special thing from criteria of a crowd, like saying "The Holocaust" separates it from other similar titled genocides.}} This is true but "the" does not become part of the proper name and is not capitalized in running text. For example "the Cold War" as distinct from cold wars generally. No one is suggesting we downgrade the status of the Holocaust. Rather, the proposed title will bring this in line with other Wikipedia titles and other reliable sources. It's true we have our own standards that sometimes differ from Britannica and other encyclopedias but we often do look to establish proper usage.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, “the” is typically lowercase in running prose, but Wikipedia article titles are not bound by that same rule when a definite article is part of the conventional name of a singular, historic event. For instance, we title the article "The Troubles", not "Troubles", even though in running text we might say "the Troubles were..."

:::Similarly, we have "The Great Depression", not simply "Great Depression".

:::Why? Because in both cases, the definite article functions as a lexical marker of historical uniqueness, not as a grammatical filler. The Holocaust belongs in this same category.

:::In my opinion i still do not find a reason that it would appropriate for readers to change the title. It is my opinion but I think those that are not opposing the nomination are also in some way convincing. Wh67890 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Also if you will search "The Holo" you will find more than 7 article starting with "The Holocaust". Wh67890 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Those should also be moved. Mast303 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support. WP:THE. While there are holocausts other than the Holocaust, that's not a sufficient reason to keep "The" in the title, because this Holocaust is the primary topic of "holocaust". Similarly, for instance, Cold War is not titled The Cold War, even though it's "the Cold War" in the middle of a sentence and even though there are other cold wars (Cold war (term)). Adumbrativus (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Why cold war is not The cold war? The link you gave is about cold war definition not the particular cold war you are taking about, India-China or US-Soviet, which The cold war you are talking about? Cold War is a term that describes a general type of conflict — indirect hostilities between states — and only becomes specific with context (e.g., "the Cold War between the U.S. and USSR"). In contrast, The Holocaust does not function as a generic term in modern usage. It unambiguously refers to the systematic, state-sponsored genocide of six million Jews by Nazi Germany, and therefore demands the definite article to signify its unique singularity.
• :Similarly, for example, "The war" is different than war because "war" simplifies the definition of fight and violence while The War is about any specific type of war which is historically distinguished among people. This is not a point that there is no title with The cold war because many cold war uses nations name as to signify political tensions not The cold war because it would not make any proper sense.
• :While both "Holocaust" and "The Holocaust" redirect to the article, we must ask: what message does the main title convey? As a major event in modern world history — taught in schools, commemorated globally, and memorialized in museums — The Holocaust deserves its definitive form Wh67890 (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know why we'd treat this article differently. Almost all singular events do not have The in the name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{ec}} Support per WP:THE and per consistency with other articles, like the Renaissance. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Seriously? Yet another Wikipedia solution in search of a problem. Intothatdarkness 20:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above, mainly WP:THE, and as per nom. It is mainly not capitalised so not regarded as part of the proper name, nor is "Holocaust" a general term that would primarily refer to something other than this event (as clearly this is the primary for the term). This move is not removing "the" in running text like we use before United States, the first sentence will still have it, just not in bold or in the title. Nor would the current title, redirect elsewhere. Arguments against largely go towards "it deserves/emphasises it" or "why now", so not really anything. DankJae 22:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support – Obvious violation of WP:THE, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That pretty much trumps any possible counterarguments; opposers have not made any valid policy-based arguments. This RM is long overdue. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't mind ignoring all rules in this case for two reasons. One, it is a singularly horrifying event that uses a word whose meaning changes with the article/being capitalized. We may have decided that the Holocaust is the primary topic for the article title without "the", but the word's ambiguity is such that keeping "the" in our title does not pose wider non-style concerns. Two, and reiterating that these words are in the spirit of IAR, I'd point out that it's a [https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/20/tech/wikipedia-adl-report-antisemitism-bias particularly bad time] for it to appear—however incorrectly—like Wikipedia is devaluing the Holocaust. Overall, removing this definite article isn't a net positive. (Arrived via [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Military_history&diff=1291851906&oldid=1291789956 a message] at WT:MILHIST) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :All the more reason to give the Holocaust the highest quality WP treatment and not a sloppy, amateurish title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Wikipedia recognizes that the Holocaust is a delicate subject that is of special significance to many people. However, we do not give special treatment to idealistic/emotional considerations. We are not an advocacy group or memorial. Removing "the" is not a sign of disrespect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Even though we can predict where is this discussion is going, I want to give my last voice on this matter. Since this will affect whole of Wikipedia not just us or our views, and this topic carries a grave seriousness and urgency here are my points on why it should not be mere Holocaust.
• :1. "The" is not a stylistic choice—it is a semantic necessity
• :2. "Holocaust" without 'the' is a common noun historically used to describe any large-scale destruction or mass death, even metaphorically (e.g., "a nuclear holocaust").
• :3. Giving title respect in form of maturity is not a memorial service, I think it is that not at all. It should be Wikipedia duty. But removing The is not a disrespect to The Holocaust but to the grammar eventually.
• :4. Removing “The” for the sake of a rule undermines the epistemic function of language: to point to a specific, non-generic referent.
• :5. “Holocaust” as a common noun existed before WWIIIt originally meant a burnt offering or any great destruction.Using “Holocaust” without “The” risks semantic contamination with other tragedies or metaphorical usesIf Wikipedia wants to revise this, it should revise its naming conventions, not diminish the weight of The Holocaust to fit a template.Exception exists for a reason—especially when the exception is a moral necessity, not a stylistic indulgence.
• :If Wikipedia wants to revise this, it should revise its naming conventions, not diminish the weight of The Holocaust to fit a template. Exception exists for a reason—especially when the exception is a moral necessity, not a stylistic indulgence.If we even want to understand this through WK guidelines.
• :1. according to WP:MOS Wikipedia does encourage omitting "The" in historical article titles for general events. BUT it also explicitly allows exceptions when the definite article is part of the commonly recognized name.
• :2. Precedent of Exception in Wikipedia Titles, Wikipedia already makes exceptions in titles where the article is part of the recognized proper noun. Examples:The Troubles (Northern Ireland conflict) The Great Famine (Ireland) The Beatles The Gambia
• :3. Use in Reliable Sources (another core Wikipedia policy), Wikipedia emphasizes using what reliable sources say. In the vast majority ofAcademic journals Government documents Holocaust memorials School textbooks International declarations —the phrase "The Holocaust" is used exclusively.
• :Also many people agreed that it will just create more issue than yet. And to make best of Wikipedia I personally think we must understand this from every POV. Wh67890 (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Holocaust is not a common noun in modern usage. Even if it is, 99% of the time the Holocaust is the genocide of Jews and nothing else. Mast303 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support - Per WP:THE Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. No real reason for an exception here. older ≠ wiser 11:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Wh67890. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Per Wh. It is a semantic necessity; 'holocaust' without the 'the' is a genericized term for all variety of things not referable to the genocide of European Jews by Nazi Germany, unlike say the Armenian genocide where 'the' can be excluded – nobody, for example, would exclaim that the world in 1962 was on the brink of a 'nuclear Armenian genocide'. The argument that the 't' is not capitalized is nonsensical and completely irrelevant. The 'b' in 'bicycle' isn't capitalized, yet by technical necessity of how MediaWiki works, the article is titled 'Bicycle'. Should we therefore remove the 'b'? But now it's 'Icycle', so by induction, we'll need to keep removing all those non-capitals. Thankfully, is a perfect title that now conforms to the ad hoc nonsense suggested by this discussion. "The default'' rule" (emphasis mine) at WP:THE does not apply here, and Wikipedia's conventions and guidelines are not rigid for this exact reason. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The Holocaust is by far the WP:PTOPIC for the term "Holocaust". Mast303 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Weak and reluctant support, on grounds of consistency, having checked Big Bang.   Maproom (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom Marcelus (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Wh67890. Also "The Holocaust" per https://www.oed.com/dictionary/holocaust_n?tab=meaning_and_use#1470785 "historical. Usually with capital initial and with the" - other online dictionaries seem to say the same. So perWP:COMMONNAME. (Hohum ^@) 21:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Note OED does not say "with The". --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Because my friend Wikipedia does allow to write *The* but not *the* if it's title, even if you write apple (Apple). I hope that rings any bell. Wh67890 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I concede that the capitalization of "the" is not the only salient issue here. I agree with the discussion here that it is a misinterpretation of the other criterion at WP:THE to conclude that this article must or even should include "the". --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• I'm seeing people argue that this article should be at "The Holocaust" because there are many little-'h' holocausts, and thus, this is a natural disambiguation for this title. But since Holocaust redirects to The Holocaust, it's pretty clear that the Holocaust is still the WP:PTOPIC for "holocaust", so that ambiguity doesn't apply. The other arguments don't make enough sense to me for me to rebut them, so I'll just leave my support at that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• OP comment: In this discussion, many people who support this move have made robust arguments grounded in policy and precedent, such as WP:THE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PTOPIC and Black Death. On the other hand, most opposers claim that "The Holocaust" is distinct from "Holocaust", but they don't actually provide any evidence (in fact, there is evidence to the contrary). Mast303 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Evidence provided by opposers:
• :https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust that page includes "and others" Mikewem (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Here is the evidence that you are asking for:
• :1. BBC, BBC uses The in his title.
• :2. [https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/what-was-the-holocaust/ What was the Holocaust?]
• :3. Imperial war meuseum even uses it "The" in running text. [https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-was-the-holocaust What was The Holocaust?]
• :4. The Holocaust Encyclopedia, 44
• :5. [https://museeholocauste.ca/en/history-holocaust/ History of the Holocaust]
• :6. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust Holocaust encyclopedia], not brittanica.
• :I don't know but if you titled it just "Holocaust" just for some Wikipedia guidelines, that means you are outweighing the whole of universe rules and knowledge?
• :Read https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/what-is-the-holocaust/ this work, it shows that "Holocaust" is a term, lets say somebody tomorrow prefer to create a separate article explaining what is Holocaust in itself, what would you do then? Go ahead create it "Holocaust" but you are just going to make Wikipedia life harder. I do not if people who support this really care about semantic necessity. You CANNOT just name it Holocaust because Holocaust is NOT The Holocaust (and we need to cancel the redirection of Holocaust in The Holocaust because that is the reason of whole reason, people think that Holocaust and The Holocaust are same things) and that is why its not changed because it would destroy whole of the title sense, and what for? WP:THE, I do not see any point made by the WP:THE apply here. This is my last and firm reason but if you still prefer please go ahead. Wh67890 (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::There are two reasons for this: one, the generic term is unequivocally not the primary topic; and two, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is no other holocaust that is simply known as "Holocaust", meaning this is the only complete title match; in any case, this particular holocaust is obviously the most notable. WP:THE exists for a reason: because ignoring it would {{tqq|cause problems with the length of the name, the quick search function, and sorting}} and {{tqq|only serv[e] as noise words}}. Your argument that "the" is a {{tqq|semantic necessity}} is questionable because without "the", "Holocaust" would still be referring to this particular event {{em|if capitalized}}. Only if it is written as lowercase (i.e. "holocaust"), preceded with an indefinite article (i.e. "a holocaust"), or appended with a qualifier (i.e. "nuclear holocaust") would it be referring to the generic term. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :What would you say is the difference between Polish Holocaust and The Holocaust in Poland? Mikewem (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Where opponents of the move do provide evidence, they consistently misinterpret or misrepresent the evidence of misapply it to WP policies and guidelines. They show that "the Holocaust" is a singular event as evidenced by use of "the" in speech and running set and capital {{angbr|H}} but identify no consistent use of "The Holocaust" in running text in reliable sources. Article titles styled [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust Introduction to the Holocaust] (styled in all caps on the page but presented as I have done [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/search?query=Holocaust&languages%5B%5D=en here] on the search page) and [https://museeholocauste.ca/en/history-holocaust/ History of the Holocaust] are phrases, not single-name titles, and lowercase "the" shows it is not part of the proper name and should not be capitalized in running text nor included in the title of the WP article. A handful of examples like The Troubles claim to argue for consistency, but a broader view including many other examples shared here shows that these are outliers, and at least one editor has argued that those examples should also be changed. Several opponents make slippery slope arguments that this will lead to downgrading the singular significance of {{em|the}} Holocaust as one among many and require additional disambiguation like Jewish holocaust. Supporters have repeatedly refuted this and shown we would vigorously oppose any such attempt as clearly against usage and WP policies. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:THE. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 23:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - The title of this page doesn't really make sense to me. Why does this event have "The" in the name and basically nothing else? Why shouldn't every article about a battle have "The" in front of its name? "The" is used to talk about literally every proper noun in the English language, so unless we want to add it to every article with a proper noun in the title there is 0 reason for this. I've seen some people say this will create disambiguation, but I strongly disagree. Basically everyone knows what you're talking about when you say "Holocaust". Sure, there are other things that have "Holocaust" in the name, but they are all named after this event. And how does having "The" make it any less ambiguous? User:ZKevinTheCat (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:DEFINITE and WP:THE. WP:THE sets a high threshold for including the in the title when this is not part of the name of a work (eg book). It is not used for disambiguation such as The Beatles (lowercase in prose) or The Citadel (cf Citadel). It is not a formal name (or contraction of it) like The Bahamas. Holocaust is near always capped to refer to the Nazi genocide (the topic of this article) even though holocaust is a descriptive term. For other descriptive names of events that are near always capped, they are also consistently preceded by the definite article (the) in prose. See for example American Civil War [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=American+Civil+War&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true here] and [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+American+Civil+War&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false here], and French Revolution [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=French+Revolution&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true here] and [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+French+Revolution&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false here]. Specificity of referent is always a result of using the definite article. It is not a substantive reason for retaining the here. This title is quite unlike The Hague in which The Hague is commonly used in prose - see [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Hague&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true here]. Capitalised The is a clear majority. Lowercase the is associated with name phrases like the Hague Convention (see [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+Hague+*%2CThe+Hague&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false here]). I won't attempt to explain the semantics but it is clearly different from the Holocaust (see [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=The+Holocaust&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 here] and google scholar search [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=%22The+Holocaust%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 here] for cross-reference and confirmation). This article title is much more akin to American Civil War or French Revolution - for which we do not include the in the article title. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Unfortunately the person who proposed this "nonsense" move has been blocked indefinitely so I don't see point of this discussion unless anyone else wants to keep up the discussion and also since there is no consensus that can make sense. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wh67890 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I hate to break it to you, but that's not how consensus works. Furthermore, there is no valid policy-based argument for retaining "the", and no compelling reason to ignore the rules. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The difference between "the Holocaust" and "Holocaust" is clearly and unambiguously spelled out in the lead and in the about note of this article. There is also a third term that has added confusion in this discussion, “holocaust”. Per RS, these are three separate terms with three separate usages.
• ::I invite you to compare Polish Holocaust to The Holocaust in Poland. Mikewem (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Phew! Hopefully that means we don’t have to revisit this for another 7 years Mikewem (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm generally in favour of this proposal; it follows WP:THE, there is no article on holocausts in a generic sense from which it would be necessary to disambiguate with the definite article (although holocausts redirects to Holocaust (sacrifice), whether it should or not), and even if there were this would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. There are also contexts in which the term is used in this sense without the definite article as a modifier, e.g., in the term Holocaust denial. {{pb}} However, I must admit that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=The+Holocaust+in+&namespace=0&hideredirects=1 43 article titles] which begin "The Holocaust in..." (excluding three which are titles of books, e.g., The Holocaust in American Life) would read a little more strangely to me if they were changed to "Holocaust in...", which might have to be done as a consequence of renaming this article. Perhaps there isn't a problem with article titles such as Holocaust in Poland, Holocaust in the Soviet Union and Holocaust in the arts and popular culture; I'm not sure. Looking at some of the other examples from the discussion, I see that we have Great Depression in the United States, Cold War in Asia, Renaissance in the Low Countries and Armenian genocide in culture, all without an initial definite article. For the Troubles it's necessarily The Troubles in Portadown and so on, but "Holocaust" does have a more obvious primary referent than "Troubles" without a definite article. Ham II (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment – I haven't seen this brought up yet, but the Reformation is an excellent example to compare with. Although reformation (lowercase) is a dictionary word and other Reformations exist, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and {{em|the}} Reformation is the primary topic of "Reformation". There is no need to qualify the term with "The Reformation", or even "Protestant Reformation" as it is sometimes called, and doing so would be in violation of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. I see no difference here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – "Holocaust" is a generic word that is used in many contexts. "The Holocaust" without modifiers universally refers to the mass arrests and murders of millions that took place under the direction of the Nazi's reign in Germany and other parts of Europe from 1933 to 1945. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd edition. defines Holocaust as follows:

::

n. 1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire. 2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering. 3. (usually cap.) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually prec. by the). 4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.

:Emphasis added. This is a reliable source. It should not be hard to find more. Wikipedia guidelines are not intended to introduce ambiguity where a clear, widely acepted title is available.--agr (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment–what WP:THE actually says supports current title – Many people have cited WP:THE, but here is what it actually says:

:

In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a" or "an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article only if at least one of the following conditions is met:

1. If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article.
2. : For example, "crown" means the headgear worn by a monarch or other high dignitaries, while "the Crown" is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy.

:There is a second condition having to do with whether the "definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text." but only one condition is required by the guideline, not both. The first condition fits perfectly for "the Holocaust," so the running text issue is completely irrelevant.Our guideline WP:THE fully supports the current title.--agr (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Logical fallacy. WP:THE says {{tqq|only if}}, not {{tqq|if}} — there's a difference. Those are the {{em|prerequisites}} for the use of "the", but there is no requirement to use "the" simply because one of those conditions are met. In other words, those conditions are necessary but not sufficient for the use of "the". WP:CONCISE, WP:TITLEDAB, and WP:CONSISTENT are policy and take precedence. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Is this a disagreement of which definition of 'should' is used in "should be included"?

:::Based on context of the sentence, it appears to be #2 from Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency"

:::Does that meet the threshold for communicating something like a requirement? Mikewem (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"Should be included only if" is equivalent to "should only be included if", but they are not equivalent to "should be included if". The phrase "only if" denotes a necessary condition, whereas the latter denotes a sufficient condition. In order to run for President of the United States, you must be at least 35 years old; however, just because you are at least 35 years old does not mean you must run for President. In order to buy a car, you must have money; however, just because you have money does not mean you must buy a car. This can be phrased as "you should buy a car only if you have money", or "you should only buy a car if you have money", which are not the same as "you should buy a car if you have money". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree. WP:THE goes on to list other cases where the should not be used and includes examples that have been discussed here as being similar to the Holocaust. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is is a place for WP:IAR and call the article Shoah, and let Holocaust just say "For the destruction of European Jewry under Nazi Germany, see Shoah." Every issue other than WP:COMMONNAME goes away. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Holocaust just feels general and The Holocaust is much better. TheSwagger13 (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::@TheSwagger13 and that's a reason enough. Wh67890 (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. If WP:THE is the rule that is being used against this title (and I find that to be insupportable due to point #1 in the lead of that guideline), then WP:IAR should be invoked. "The Holocaust" has a different meaning from "holocaust", and if an article could be written about the generic that would not sound like a dictionary definition, then that would be okay. Since just after WWII there has been a tradition to call the subject of this article "the Holocaust", and WP is not in the habit of breaking with traditional WP:COMMONNAMEs. This article is not about "a" holocaust, it is about "the" holocaust, so the word "the" should be kept in this article's title. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :WP:THE is not the only relevant PAG being applied, it's also WP:CONCISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC — how do you square with that? Plenty of topics on Wikipedia could arguably mean something else when used generically, and that's where PRIMARYTOPIC comes in. We have consistently applied these PAGs across thousands of articles, and there is no reason to give an exception here when there is demonstrably no difference between this and every other topic. Guess where Friends and Nineteen Eighty-Four point to? Now have a look at where Cold war (lowercase), Catholic, and kung fu redirect to — every one of these have genericized terms with standalone articles that are {{em|not}} the primary topic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is essentially a WP:STRAWMAN argument since it compares The Holocaust as an article title with holocaust as if it were the proposed title. In prose, the article uses the Holocaust except at the start of a sentence. It is also used in the capitalised form but without the definite article at many places - eg {{tq|the majority of Holocaust victims}} and {{tq|few Holocaust perpetrators faced}}. In respect to point 1 at WP:THE, the difference in meaning is attributable to capitalisation (H v h) rather than use of the. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. There is no need to argue, so I refuse to do so. In spite of the inapplicable strawman stuff above and the applicable good points above that, I've given my opinion and it still stands. We all should know what "a holocaust" is as can be found in any dictionary. That's not what this article is about. And we all should remember what "the Holocaust" is so that hopefully we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. That is what this article is about. "The" should stay in this article's title. It's all in the story, isn't it? When I die it will be "an end" to a relatively uninteresting story, one of many. When millions and millions of people are murdered, it is "the end" of a story we must always remember. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I appreciate the acknowledgement of the pertinent points I raised above, but respectfully, if you and other opposers are unable to answer the question of "How do you square with CONCISE and PRIMARYTOPIC?", then there is little grounds for keeping "the" in the title. IAR is not to be invoked unless a situation is so extraordinary that our PAGs never thought to account for it — is that the case here when there are numerous other articles under comparable circumstances? Aside from the solemnity of the topic (which, again, is irrelevant to article naming decisions, see WP:NTITLE), what makes this article so special that it is imperative to flout the rules? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The only rule that is being flouted here is WP:THE, which is the primary guideline on the topic and which directly address our situation, with an example, crown vs the Crown, that is spot on. I can find nothing in CONCISE or PRIMARYTOPIC that directly applies. Indeed, WP:NATURAL specifically endorses "using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources." And yes, this is an article of extreme sensitivity that deserves the utmost care in following usage in reliable sources.--agr (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. While I will not vote on this, I want to note the portion of WP:THE that says that "the" is allowed in cases of "prevailing common usage". This subject may hit that threshold. I will not say if it does or not, but it may. Ladtrack (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Item 1. of WP:THE is clear that it is acceptable to use the article in an article title when using or not using the article changes the meaning. That's what we have here: without the article it means any generic mass destruction, but with "The" it means the specific Second World War genocide. And it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Meters (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose - as per Meters above Cinaroot (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)