Talk:The Holocaust#Simplified the introduction

• 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)
• :You may want to clarify your position as based on substantive arguments. Your comment is not simply tallied like a vote, and may be disregarded if you do not have an argument (see Wikipedia:VOTE and Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY). If you think others are wasting their time on trivial matters, then the best thing you can do is be grateful nobody is making you waste your own time here. — HTGS (talk) 03:51, 16 June 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)
• Support: Per WP:THE and above. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:50, 11 June 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)

:Add There is a belief that this title falls to the first case given in WP:THE. It is an example of where the is being used for disambiguation: {{tq|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}} - eg the article Crown (rendered in prose as crown) v the article The Crown (rendered in prose as the Crown). This article does not fall to this exception because we don't have separate articles for Holocaust (the subject of this article) and holocaust (as a different subject) - as no disambiguation is actually required, there is no justification to use the for disambiguation. Without the justification to resolve a need for actual disambiguation, retaining the falls foul of WP:TITLEDAB, WP:OVERPRECISION and consequently, WP:CONCISE.

:I see WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments, particularly in respect to The Troubles. OTHERCONTENT arguments lack strength when they simple pose that such other content exists. To have strength, they need to show not only a direct comparison but that the content represents best practice, which in turn means that it represents the correct application of the prevailing P&G. As noted, Troubles redirects to The Troubles, so there is also no actual need for disambiguation, just as here. There has been no debate (no RM) that The Troubles represents best practice and it is only a c-class article. Reference has also been made to articles in the general form of The Holocaust in Hungary. These titles are directly related to this article and, it is not surprising as a matter of WP:CONSISTENT, they are consistent with this article in using The Holocaust in the article title - ie the justification for The Holocaust in X is that this article uses The Holocaust. Using articles The Holocaust in X to justify retaining this article title is a circular argument of no inherent weight. There are a plethora of articles with titles that [almost] always take the definite article in prose but omit it in the article title such as Reformed Church in Hungary (see ngram [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+Reformed+Church+in+Hungary&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 here] - see other examples above). Omitting the in article titles with few exceptions (eg titles of works or place names such as The Hague) parallels common indexing practices and is the substantive reason given at WP:DEFINITE for this practice. The fact that a title phrase [almost] always preceded by the in prose is not by itself a substantive reason for including the in the article title. Article titles (per WP:DEFINITE at WP:AT) follow different conventions from prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Add Reference has been made to Wikt:holocaust and Wikt:Holocaust to oppose this move. I would note that just like WP this is not a source. However, upper and lower cases have different meanings but Wikt:Holocaust (withot the) is what we are discussing. Go figure? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. On Wiktionary, capitalization matters, but on Wikipedia, titles are automatically capitalized. Astrocond (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Add French Revolution also usually takes the definite article (see [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+French+Revolution%2C+*+Holocaust&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 here]), as does the United States of America ([https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+United+States+of+America&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 here]). Arguments herein have not differentiate why we should have The Holocaust as an article title but not The French Revolution or The United States (both redirects). Until there is a cogent (P&G based) argument that does, the article should be Holocaust. Copied in part from a reply/post below to make it explicitly part of my reasoning in support. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 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)
• :It doesn't matter, because blocks are not retroactive. Astrocond (talk) 00:20, 4 June 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. Compare Wikt:holocaust with the subject of this article. The community consensuses of the policy and the guideline should prevail as they have for many years. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC); edited 23:32, 3 June 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)
• :{{U|Paine Ellsworth}}, would you please mark your recent addition to your comment per WP:TALK#REVISE, with a timestamp for the amendment. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{complete2}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:35, 4 June 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 "thē Holocaust" (thē, not thuh) 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 "thē 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)

• Oppose per the rationale of Wh67890 and Meters above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Vote- As this discussion is not making enough sense to what should be choice on this matter, I would invite people to vote on the matter if this is only appropriate way for reaching consensus on what should be the next move. If you can please just leave only Yes/No. Thank you. you can leave your reason above this ^. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wh67890 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:also

:

:::I understand you're a new user. That's not how consensus is determined on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we do not cast votes. This RM will be closed shortly by an uninvolved and experienced user, upon they will evaluate the consensus {{em|not}} based on the number of raw votes, but by the strength of the arguments presented. Policy-based arguments are considered the strongest, whereas those based on personal preferences alone are summarily discarded. Please see WP:CONSENSUS, WP:XFDCLOSE, WP:RMCIDC, and WP:NHC to familiarize yourself with this process. I'm also not sure what's going on with your 3O (third-opinion) request, as it is not what that process is for; like I said, an uninvolved user will close this discussion momentarily, and {{em|if}} that doesn't happen after a reasonable amount of time, the appropriate venue is WP:CR, not 3O. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@InfiniteNexus I admire your grasp on the Wikipedia policies, but I just want you (request you) to stop tagging Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT because it would be better to respect what opposer provide is as evidence not raw opinions. Wh67890 (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This is the first time I've mentioned that shortcut in this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Wh67890: Wikipedia is not a vote! It is based on the strength and validity of arguments. Astrocond (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, Okay Okay. I just read two comments and I have to say that this was not a traditional voting ceremony. My main goal, though I had to be clear, was to make consensus little bit more clear since I have to say the problem is being escalated longer and longer. The hasty decision to added 3O was of course completely invalid, as per Wikipedia:Third opinion policy this one does not meet. There is no need to remind me of how Wikipedia works (as I have demonstrated by discussing in long why I oppose the move) and that's why I have already said {{Tq|1=leave your reason above}} just not to make it voting branch. My approach should have been Wikipedia:Requests for comment but I, as I said, was too hasty. Thankyou. Wh67890 (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, RfC is not the appropriate procedure either. Let the RM run its course. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support and long overdue. The current title contravenes several Wikipedia policies. Astrocond (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support after thinking it over for most of the day, which was probably too long given the arguments to oppose honestly didn't give me much to think about. Keeping it brief while trying not to simply parrot others' sentiments verbatim, I could not identify a clear argument as to why this article should be an exception to WP:THE, but any of Reformation, Renaissance, Big Bang, Holodomor shouldn't, those being the most directly analogous points of comparison I could think of, out of many more that are imperfect but still plausible.

:Though, there were points worth engaging with that don't directly dovetail with the core argument touched on above. I was given the most pause by @Mikewem's concern regarding the potential ill/awkward effects the move could have on other article titles, i.e. those of satellite and subarticles. However, I honestly struggled to find any examples where this was an actual problem resulting from articles lacking a definite article in their title. Many work just fine, e.g. Sun path. Moreover, it seems it's not even a potential problem if an article happens to be best suited to a phrasal title, one that then includes the definite article as a simple consequence of being grammatical, e.g. Position of the Sun. There's simply no problems I can see with either option that should theoretically affect our judgment here, even after surveying the relevant satellite articles. Remsense ‥ 论 04:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::The clear argument is that it’s the common name. Since Dec 2007, the first paragraph of Names of the Holocaust has included the Phrase:

:::"The Holocaust" is the name commonly applied in English

::Since the article was created in Dec 2005, the first paragraph contained the same statement, but without the quotations Mikewem (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Right, but only if you ignore the existence of WP:THE altogether, a guideline that represents the consensus and rationale for these specific cases. Narrowly considering WP:COMMONNAME produces the ideal result in the vast majority of cases really, but recall it's just a particular abstraction on top of the five criteria that should actually inform all of our article titling choices. WP:COMMONNAME represents one exegesis attempting to satisfy those criteria and WP:THE another, and to me it's pretty clear which is better to apply here. Remsense ‥ 论 20:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Mild (more than weak, less than strong) support. The common name of this is the "Holocaust". People regularly refer to it without the article "the" when it does not fit in the context of their statement. Others above have already made the arguments about removing the article "the" from the title, which I broadly agree with. I'll also pose that Holocaust currently redirects to this page. So there is literally nothing that will break from changing the name of this article to Holocaust. This is clearly the primary topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I’ve read the discussion and the most basic counterargument here seems to be entirely emotional: WP:THE says that ‘the’ should be in the title only if the meaning of the word is different without it or it is consistently capitalised in text, the event is primarily known as Holocaust even without the article (while it is true that the Holocaust can also mean the entirety of the murders committed by Nazi Germany, this is not what the article focuses on and that is not going to change), so the title should follow the rule-based conventions and there is no reason to ignore all rules here (for the record, the Troubles articles should also do the same).
  As to the emotional appeals that are currently present above, they make zero sense: if there is no trivialisation or denial of the tragedy of the Holocaust in the title like Holocaust denial (not formulated as ‘Denial of the Holocaust’ if it is so important), there is no issue with omitting the article in the title here. stjn 16:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This touches on a possible (widespread) misunderstanding of the use of adjectival nouns in English. Per Cambridge Grammar, if a proper noun starts with a definite article, you drop the article when using the proper noun in an adjectival or attributive sense. Per your example, “Holocaust denial”: this phrase communicates some kind of denial. What kind of denial? Denial of the Holocaust, aka Holocaust denial. In that example, “Holocaust” is being used attributively, as an adjectival noun. It is describing the denial, so you drop the “the”.

::You can read about it at Proper noun#Proper names and the definite article.

::Holocaust denial is more concise than Denial of the Holocaust. Mikewem (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. I'm a bit confused if this ties into your above opposition though. Remsense ‥ 论 20:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::In a way it does. Holocaust is very often used adjectivally (most prevalently I think in the name of the field “Holocaust studies”), so much so, that without the definite article, I think it’s fair to assume the adjectival sense of the word.

::::Genocides often get labeled as Holocausts. In WP, these are most prevalent as redirects, my opinion is that redirects should be considered in this discussion. There’s a whole long list of redirects in the form of “[insert ethnicity] Holocaust”. The field ‘Holocaust and genocide studies’ covers all genocides. There is one genocide that we do not refer to in the form [insert ethnicity] Holocaust. That is the Jewish Holocaust. Instead of saying Jewish Holocaust, decades of scholarship have produced the term “The Holocaust”. “The” is doing the work of “Jewish”, and that’s why it is necessary. Mikewem (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{btq|Genocides often get labeled as Holocausts.}}

:::::As far as I am aware, this usage always takes the form of epithet, and never challenges the recognizability of either the more common name for each corresponding incident, or that of {{xt|Holocaust}} itself. The concerns expressed here seem a bit detached from the reality that in ordinary contexts, an invocation of merely {{xt|Holocaust}} will certainly be taken as denoting the Jewish Holocaust. Remsense ‥ 论 20:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The why doesn’t Polish Holocaust redirect to The Holocaust in Poland?

::::::(Probably my final comment here, because I don’t appreciate the ‘detached from reality’ line) Mikewem (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The actual comparison in my mind is between Polish Holocaust and Holocaust in Poland, which correspond to articles in the expected way. Remsense ‥ 论 20:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::What you're describing here is the concept of a primary topic, which on Wikipedia is consistently treated without "the" in article titles. There were many "renaissances", but {{em|the}} Renaissance is the primary topic; there were many "reformations", but {{em|the}} Reformation is the primary topic; Russia has invaded Ukraine on numerous occasions, but {{em|the}} Russian invasion of Ukraine is the primary topic; other attacks have occured on the date September 11, but {{em|the}} September 11 attacks are the primary topic; Mexico and many other countries are also named "United ... States", but {{em|the}} United States is the primary topic. Here, the Jewish Holocaust is the primary topic of the term "The Holocaust", and is {{em|also}} the primary topic of the term "Holocaust". The latter is more WP:CONCISE than the former and consistent with other policies and guidelines, and I don't see any other way this can be challenged besides emotional appeals that are irrelevant. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don’t appreciate the characterization of opposing views as emotional either. Mikewem (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't think they were talking about you, but rather those where that characterization is much more clearly the case. Remsense ‥ 论 21:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That’s entirely my point, however. If it is fine to drop the article in certain places and still be respectful, it is perfectly fine to drop it in the name of this page. ‘Holocaust’ is the common primary name of one specific event in English (Nazi genocide of Jewish people), not of multiple different events, and there is zero difference if there is an article or not. I’d also clarify that I wasn’t referencing your comments in saying that the argument is mostly emotional, just the seeming overall sentiment that this is why ‘the’ absolutely needs to be kept even though that changes nothing both to the prose or to the respectability of it. stjn 13:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment --First of all, regarding use of adjectival nouns in English, that rule applies to the very example given in WP:THE, the Crown. We say Crown property and Crown copyright, etc. Nonetheless, our WP:THE guideline approves of The Crown as the article title. Also WP:CONCISE does not demand the shortest possible article title that is a primary topic. It deals with very long official names, like "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" vs "Rhode Island." And there are plenty of examples of primary topics that are not the article name, Nixon vs Richard Nixon. Nor is there anything wrong with considering the emotional impact of arbitrarily changing the near universally accepted (with many reliable sources) name of one of the greatest crimes in history, just to achieve some meaningless consistency.--agr (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree, yes, "the" Supporters in this move request have ignored the important parts of the WP:THE guideline, as well as WP:PRECISION, which is a counter balance to the policy's CONCISE requirement. This title, "The Holocaust", is the correct name for this subject. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I am trying to understand what meaningful precision problems could actually exist here. The crown{{\}}The Crown example is potentially a more apt comparison in other instances but clearly rather imperfect here. The issue there arises because two closely interrelated senses do meaningfully have to share the same term. Again, what other event can be referred to as merely the "Holocaust"? If the answer is none, then there is no potential for ambiguity or conflation, and thus no loss of precision. While {{xt|holocaust}} is sometimes used as a common noun, it sees use almost exclusively as epithet—that is, the meaning of the common {{xt|holocaust}} seems to stem exclusively from invoking the concept of the {{xt|Holocaust}} proper. That is to say it is not really its own term that would have its own encyclopedia article, while both senses of {{xt|crown}} clearly require their own articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :(Apologies in advance for the WP:WALLOFTEXT, but I must refute two parts of AGR's comment.){{pb}}I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion by replying to every comment, but such gross misreadings of policy must be corrected lest they appear valid. WP:CONCISE {{em|does}} call for article titles to generally be as short as possible; perhaps this is more expressly articulated in the WP:CRITERIA section, which states: {{tqq|The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.}} It also certainly does not deal {{em|exclusively}} with {{tqq|very long official names}}, as discussed elsewhere on that page. It's funny that WP:PRECISION is being cited in support of retaining "the" when it clearly does the opposite: {{tqq|Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.}} (emphasis added); "unambiguous" does not necessarily mean there is no other possible use of a term, only that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nixon is a red herring as personal names are explicitly exempted by WP:NCP, as said so at WP:CONCISE; other exceptions exist that call for unnecessary disambiguation (as permitted by WP:PRECISION), such as WP:USPLACE, WP:NCUKPARL, and WP:PFILM. However, no such exception exists for historical events, nor for topics that could be preceded with "the" besides titles of works and band/company names (the only two categories specifically carved out by WP:THE), nor for {{tqq|the greatest crimes in history}}. Opposers are free to propose a new exception at WP:NEVENT, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion and I would oppose such a proposal as well because it is wholly unnecessary and creates the problems described by WP:THE. WP:TITLEDAB further states: {{tqq|If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies.}} As WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT explains, this practice is generally followed unless overridden by another PAG, which I've explained isn't the case.{{pb}}I continue not to buy the argument that we should give an exception because of the Holocaust's cultural or historical significance. As I said, we don't give special consideration to purely emotional concerns, the same way we don't use MOS:EUPHEMISMS. Should we move Jesus to Jesus Christ as a gesture of respect, or move illegal immigration to undocumented immigration to be politically correct? Or, to go even further, should we take the lead of the article for [insert the person you hate the most] and call them [insert the worst insults you can think of] and justify "ignoring the rules" because they [insert their most heinous offenses]? We apply the rules fairly, objectively, and consistently to everyone, aiming for the title that best aligns with our best practices as described at WP:AT. See also WP:NTITLE, which states neutrality is {{em|not}} required in article titles. We apply these PAGs for even the most sensitive subjects: we recently moved Israel–Hamas war to Gaza war, and although that is bound to upset some people, that is what was found to be the name that most aligns with WP:AT. We use Murder of George Floyd but Killing of Trayvon Martin because the suspects in the latter were acquitted, regardless of how "unjust" we may subjectively think. Regrettably, editors balked at calling the January 6 United States Capitol attack as what it was, but I suspect it will eventually be RM'ed again and moved to its rightful title. But really, this RM shouldn't be controversial at all, as I don't understand how removing "the" could be seen as offensive or disrespectful — if "the" were truly a sacred part of the name, I would think organizations such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum would go out of their way to call themselves the "United States Memorial Museum for the Holocaust" or something that works with the rules of grammar. If opposers continue to make purely emotional appeals, they should be aware that it isn't strengthening their argument, and the more egregious ones will simply be tossed out.{{pb}}InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I don't find any of the title examples you give as likely to offend, on the other hand we are scrupulous in respecting the name and pronoun preferences of individuals per MOS:DEADNAME. According to WP:COMMONNAME Wikipedia … “generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)." We have cited many reliable sources, including some of the most respected English dictionaries, that say the definite article is normally used with the meaning here. How is this euphemistic or censorship? Many supporters of the move claim the WW II events are now the only meaning of holocaust, but that seems to be their opinion, which reliable sources contradict. And article titles are not just the shortest possible database, even beside surnames. Some examples:
• ::*JFK, John F. Kennedy
• ::*FDR, Franklin D. Roosevelt
• ::*Covid, COVID-19
• ::*Bird flu, Avian influenza
• ::*NYC, New York City
• ::*WWW, World Wide Web
• ::As for things like Holocaust Museum, it has been explained above that this is normal English usage, with the example given in WP:THE the Crown following the same pattern e.g. Crown copyright, yet WP:THE endorses the name The Crown.
• ::We are following usage in reliable sources, not opinions, We are following the explicit advice in WP.THE. We are a whole series of articles of the form "The Holocaust in xxx" and 21 years of precedent. I do not understand the vehemence for a move.--agr (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I'm going to ask that you kindly stop presenting misleading examples, intentionally or otherwise, that {{em|appear}} to contradict CONCISE when they in fact do not. Acronyms are exempted by MOS:ACROTITLE and medical terms are exempted by WP:NCMED (which also overrides COMMONNAME). You will find it difficult to identify an article that is longer than necessary {{em|and}} not exempted by a subject-specific naming convention, and near-impossible to find one about a historical event (besides the Troubles, which as others have noted should also be moved); in any case, two wrongs do not make a right. "Holocaust" is shorter than "The Holocaust" and is therefore preferable, and there's obviously nothing here that violates COMMONNAME. I invite opposers to re-read WP:CRITERIA and explain how exactly "Holocaust" fails any of them (don't say PRECISE, this is literally the primary topic; if not, please retarget the ambiguous redirect) — "The Holocaust" certainly fails the last three. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Lets start with MOS:ACROTITLE, which is filled with exceptions and contradictions, "(e.g. NASA; in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications)." Then there is the first item in WP:CRITERIA: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Several supporters have expressed their personal opinion the 'holocaust' only refers to the 1933-45 atrocities, without any supporting evidence. Opposers cite reliable sources that say otherwise, including the most respected dictionaries of the English language. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, not opinions. (Wh67890 gave Nuclear holocaust as a common expression referring to something quite different.)Similarly with Concision: "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." And what is obvious is that the COMMONNAME for the 1933-45 atrocities is The Holocaust, again based on reliable sources.
• ::::Thank you for the example of The Troubles, which like it or not is the current name. Here are a bunch of additional titles, all about historical events. None of them would be acceptable without the definite article:
• ::::.....The Holocaust in Italy
• ::::.....The Holocaust in Poland
• ::::.....The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia
• ::::.....The Holocaust in Hungary
• ::::.....The Holocaust in Slovakia
• ::::.....The Holocaust in the arts and popular culture
• ::::.....The Holocaust in Norway
• ::::.....The Holocaust in Latvia
• ::::.....The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia
• ::::.....The Holocaust in Belgium
• ::::And then there is the plain language of WP:THE, item 1., which supports both this title and The Troubles. I know you have your own interpretation but it is not in the text, which is clear.--agr (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Cinderella157 has addressed most of your arguments above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regardless of WP:THE - which is a Wikipedia naming convention only - in my opinion the policies of WP:IAR & WP:COMMONNAME hold precedence here. - Shearonink (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :No. WP:COMMONNAME does not support the current title. Astrocond (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :WP:IAR doesn't "hold preference" over anything, because it is merely a maxim that there can be reasons to contravene policy. Those reasons have to actually exist themslves, and as stated above WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. Remsense ‥ 论 23:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Comment. (Off-topic) I intensely dislike posting in support/oppose threads like this and rarely do it anymore. My opinion is my opinion, just like anyone else who posts a support or an oppose. I personally feel no need to respond to others' opinions/citing of guidelines & policies/etc., that doesn't seem to be the point of a proposed move/RfC or the like. The closer will decide, based on the validity of the thoughts posted here if the present title will stay or if it will go. And that is fine with me...I might disagree or agree with the final decision but consensus is the rule of the day so to speak. Why some of my fellow editors seem to think that they must somehow try to demolish others' honest opinions is beyond me. - Shearonink (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Genuine apologies, especially if you felt bludgeoned; I wouldn't've replied if I didn't think there was a chance you'd get something constructive out of it. Remsense 🌈 论 04:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:CRITERIA (naturalness) and WP:CONCISE, people will search for "Holocaust". Per WP:CONSISTENT, see Armenian Genocide as an example of an article title without "The" but that has a "The" in the opening sentence of the lede.

:TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::You missed the point. "Armenian" already distinguishes it from any other genocide. If we said "Jewish Holocaust" no "the" would be needed in the title, but we don't. Zaslav (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::How many non-Jewish holocausts are there? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 03:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• 15px Strong Support per others especially Remsense.Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 08:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Your assertion that "in modern usage, "Holocaust" almost always specifically refers to the genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany" is wrong. I never see "holocaust" without "the" in this meaning. It always comes with "the", and often capitalized. It is a unique event in the minds of people, not just a particular example of holocausts. By the way, I don't necessarily agree with calling the extermination of European Jewry a holocaust much less "the Holocaust", but it is the usage. Zaslav (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Again, this is also the case with Sun, Reformation, etc. WP:THE, the primary policy cited throughout this discussion, exists to detail how these cases are generally dealt with. Remsense ‥ 论 21:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The "Reformation" title seems a bit strange. "Sun" is due to the general agreement that there is a particular "sun". Nevertheless, the name of this event is "The Holocaust". No one calls it "Holocaust". (See the OED for example.) Zaslav (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Again, see the above discussion, where examples of prior art have also been discussed. Remsense ‥ 论 21:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Again, see the above discussion, where it is explained that the plain language of WP:THE supports the current title.--agr (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I disagree with the rename. "holocaust" could technically refer to multiple things (such as an event of mass death), but even ignoring that fact, 'The Holocaust' is far more accurate to what it is: an event. TheEpicestCow (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support without using "the" per WP:COMMMONNAME. Absolutiva (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as not any common name but specific instance. YBSOne (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support. Look at Reformation. Could it be a generic term? Sure. But the specific event is the primary topic. Similarly for "Holocaust", the genocide during WW2 is by far the most common meaning.

:Per WP:THE, it would require strong evidence in order to add "the" to a title. Holocaust already redirects to "The Holocaust" anyway.

:Note to closing admin: Most of the oppose votes openly contradict established policy and precedent. I Love the Earth Now 2 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC) — I Love the Earth Now 2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{#if:|A sockpuppet investigation is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{spi}}}.{{sp}}|}}

• Oppose. "Holocaust" is generic; "The Holocaust" is specific. The net effect of the proposed change will be even more people wanting to fill up the Holocaust article with all the other genocidal disasters and metaphorical usages. Sheer practicality suggests keeping the Shoah distinct; it's a singular event. It's a good example of why WP:THE exists, and an even better example of why WP:IAR exists. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :What other Holocausts do you know of? Pretty sure that equating any other event with the Holocaust is considered downplaying Nazi crimes at best and Holocaust denialism at worst. There is no generic Holocaust, there is only one. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Clearly, you haven't been following the discussions on this very talk page for the last 20 years. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::No, I haven't. Can you tell me how that is relevant to my question?This might also be a native vs. non-native English speaker issue. Native English speakers need th TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::It's relevant because if you'd participated on this page at all, or had it on your watchlist, you'd know that it frequently is a target for people wanting to downplay Nazi crimes and Holocaust deniers; and of course it has a legitimate use other than Shoah. See, for example, nuclear holocaust, Armenian holocaust, Cambodian holocaust, and African holocaust. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Which of those are commonly known as simply "Holocaust"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::{{tq|See, for example, nuclear holocaust, Armenian holocaust, Cambodian holocaust, and African holocaust.}}
• :::::First is a hypothesised event, the other three are redirects for Armenian genocide, Killing fields and Maafa, respectively. None of them are actually called "holocaust".
• :::::{{tq|you'd know that it frequently is a target for people wanting to downplay Nazi crimes}}
• :::::Can you cite legal precedent where removing a definite article from the name of a crime absolved the perpetrator of guilt?
• :::::{{tq|and Holocaust deniers}}
• :::::Do you mean The Holocaust? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It's been well-established that when "holocaust", as it pertains to the WWII holocaust, is used as an adjective, then the word "the" is unnecessary, as in "holocaust denier". When it is a noun, then it is commonly called "the Holocaust". Titles of articles are nouns for the most part, not adjectives. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::If "Holocaust" were ambiguous and could refer to other holocausts, then "Holocaust denier" would have to be disambiguated because it could refer to other holocausts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::1) "holocaust" is a general term, so there are no mass genocides that are commonly referred to as just "holocaust". If we write or talk about the WWII genocide, we call it "the Holocaust". Any other huge mass genocide always has an identifier with it to be sure the listener or reader knows its not about the WWII Holocaust. And 2) the only time I've read about or watched a documentary about "Holocaust deniers" it was in reference to thē Holocaust of WWII. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there were also deniers for any and every massive genocide in the history of the world. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::{{tq|Any other huge mass genocide}}
• :::::::::None of them are called holocaust. Instead of arguing semantics, why not just list a few examples of other holocausts? Should be easy enough since you are so certain. Even one would suffice. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::I'm not arguing semantics, I'm arguing COMMONNAME, which for this article title is "Thē Holocaust". You've already been given examples that are important enough to at least be redirects, yet you "deny" that they could be searched for with the term holocaust? Does that make you a holocaust denier? Are you also a "Thē Holocaust" denier? No worries, those are just rhetorical questions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::{{tq|You've already been given examples that are important enough to at least be redirects}}
• :::::::::::Moving the goalposts. There is no other event in Human history that is officially named/called Holocaust. Feel free to prove that wrong any time.
• :::::::::::{{tq|yet you "deny" that they could be searched for with the term holocaust?}}
• :::::::::::I never mentioned "searching". I said there is no other event called "Holocaust".
• :::::::::::I don't appreciate your "rhetorical questions". If the only argument you have is an ad hominem, then you're out of arguments. Thanks for playing and good effort. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::First of all, I'm going a little overbored mainly because my foot has been hurting a lot today. Secondly, you are correct about the arguments because there is no need for anymore of them outside the first point in WP:THE, which none of the supporters here seem to "get", and WP:COMMONNAME, where "Thē Holocaust" fits right in. I'm very sorry for kidding you a bit. I sometimes forget that all we ever really have is the written word, which is to say that we cannot see any associated body language that would be a less jagged accompaniment. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::{{tq|there is no need for anymore of them outside the first point in WP:THE}}
• :::::::::::::The first point doesn't apply, because "The Holocaust" and "Holocaust" refer to the same thing and nobody would ever think they refer to two different things.
• :::::::::::::{{tq|I'm very sorry for kidding you a bit.}}
• :::::::::::::Perhaps my reaction was a bit strong, but an editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust#c-Jpgordon-20250603170400-TurboSuperA+-20250603072500 said] that removing the definite article has been attempted by Nazis and Holocaust deniers in the past. I thought it best to nip that tangent in the bud.
• :::::::::::::It might be the grammar argument that convinces me in the end, it seems the definite article is dropped when it is used as an adjective ("Holocaust survivor", "Holocaust denier", "Holocaust revisionism", etc.) Searching the web for "holocaust" brings up a lot of "the Holocaust" results from the BBC, NYT, USHMM, and so on. Not every language has (or needs) definite articles, so it also might sound more natural to native English speakers, and since it is the English Wikipedia... I might have to rethink my !vote. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::I didn't say "removing the definite article has been attempted by Nazis and Holocaust deniers in the past". I said "it frequently is a target for people wanting to downplay Nazi crimes and Holocaust deniers." Those people likely don't care about the "The", but if we put the generic rather than the specific title on the article, this will happen a lot more. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::You and others here may be assured that the first point in WP:THE does apply. Compare Wikt:holocaust with the subject of this article. Two different things, one a generic term and one a most specific term. The title of this article should remain just as it is. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::What about Wikt:Holocaust? That page lists how the word is used in other languages and only English adds a definite article. Those arguing for status quo shouls focus on the usage in English, because that is the most convincing argument.
• :::::::::::::::{{tq|the first point in WP:THE does apply.}}
• :::::::::::::::No, because "Holocaust" and "the Holocaust" refer to the same thing. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::They would be referred to as [insert adjective] Holcaust deniers. Example: African Holocaust deniers aka denier of the African Holocaust. But English can be funny with sentence diagraming, so for clarity, we would say Maafa deniers. Someone who specifically denies the Holocaust aka the Jewish Holocaust would be a Jewish Holocaust denier aka Shoah denier. But neither Jewish Holocaust nor Shoah are the common name, and you drop the article for adjectival nouns, so it just becomes Holocaust denier aka denier of the Holocaust.
• :::::::::I hope someone out there is enjoying all this grammar triviality. Mikewem (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{tq|as it pertains to the WWII holocaust}}
• :::::::What other holocausts are there? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::The word holocaust has been used for other mass killings as is stated more than once in the article. I've read that "tens of thousands" of murders would be a genocide worthy of the term holocaust. There is probably no firm footing on that, though. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::{{tq|The word holocaust has been used for other mass killings}}
• :::::::::Colloquially, not officially. Kind of like how people say "literally" when they don't actually mean literally.
• :::::::::{{tq|I've read that "tens of thousands" of murders would be a genocide worthy of the term holocaust.}}
• :::::::::I don't think so. Not because I don't believe you, but because it is such a ridiculous suggestion that I don't think anyone would make it in earnest. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I sure wish it was considered appropriate to hat !responses to my !vote. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Additional note: In fact, "Holocaust" is used without "the" in the phrase Holocaust denial (among others) so "the" is not an integral part of the name. Astrocond (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :That is just how English works. "The Beatles" is allowed per WP:THE, but you wouldn't call denial of their existence "The Beatles denial". (Hohum ^@) 00:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Hohum: "The Holocaust" is not allowed per WP:THE. While historically "Holocaust" might have been a common noun, but this is very rare. When holocaust is used in another sense, it is simply an allusion, comparison, or metaphor to the real Holocaust. Also, see Renaissance. It could be a generic term, but "Renaissance" alone means the event in the 14th-16th century. Even though we say "the Renaissance", the title is just "Renaissance". Astrocond (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Not correct. As has been pointed out several times, WP:THE does not prevent us from using the article in this case. In fact, per item 1. (quoted more than once in this thread) the article should be used. Meters (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Not correct. As has been pointed out several times, WP:THE does not say it {{em|should}} be used, only that it {{em|can}} be used ("if" vs. "only if"). Forgive me for the sassy attitude, but logically fallacious arguments, especially those that blatantly misread policy, will be summarily discarded per WP:NHC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Not correct. As has been pointed out several times, and quoted several times
• :::::{{block quote|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.}} *:{{od}}As you say, those that blatantly misread policy will be ignored. Meters (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I already dived into an in-depth English lesson about this above, so I am not going to repeat it. If opposers are unable — or, rather, {{em|unwilling}} — to tell the difference between "should ... if" and "should ... {{em|only}} if", then that is textbook WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. You can keep quoting WP:THE, but it doesn't change what it says. While we're on the topic, who's being in denial here? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Add: I think my explanation and analogies above (and our own wiki article that I keep linking to) are already sufficiently clear to most editors with a basic understanding of English and simple logic, but in case anyone still has difficulty grasping the difference, here are a bunch of visual aids that perhaps do a better job than me: [https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/lsat-prep/xdf35b2883be7178a:lsat-prep-lessons/xdf35b2883be7178a:lsat-prep-logic-toolbox/a/logic-toolbox--if-and-only-if] [https://www.math3ma.com/blog/necessary-versus-sufficient] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHq5u6v1RKg] [https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/confusion-of-necessary.html] [https://www.ncl.ac.uk/webtemplate/ask-assets/external/maths-resources/economics/sets-and-logic/necessity-and-sufficiency.html] [https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/conditions1.htm]. I'm trying very hard to AGF, but this is increasingly looking like covfefe/MS-13 tattoo–style denialism, especially since the fallacious reading has been repeatedly refuted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::I think the use of “should” blows up the traditional Logic 101 truth table model for “only if”. “A only if B” gets rewritten as “If A, then B”. “If an article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article, then at least one of the following conditions is met” is not a logically sound statement to make. That means we can safely assume the author of this guideline did not consult truth tables when writing it, and can safely defer to the plain text meaning of the words. Mikewem (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{tqq|“If an article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article, then at least one of the following conditions is met” is not a logically sound statement to make.}} – Yes, it is. If an article includes "the" at the beginning of its title, then it must the be the case that it meets one of the two conditions. If it does not meet one of the two conditions, then an article cannot include "the" at the beginning of its title. However, just because it meets one of the two conditions does not mean it must include "the" at the beginning of its title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You deleted the word “should” from your explanation. Interesting. Mikewem (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::If this is a genuine concern and not just a snarky remark, I'm going to need you to clarify what you're referring to. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Can you please explain the sentence in a cogent way that includes the word "should" in your rewrite.
• :::::::I tried, but I am not able to come up with anything coherent that includes "should".
• :::::::Or, can you provide a ref that explicitly examines the actual form in question: "should A, only if B".
• :::::::I'm concerned that you used original research to change "If an article should be included at the beginning of the title" into "If an article includes 'the' at the beginning of the title". Mikewem (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::OK, I think I see where you became confused. When we rewrite the statement "A should be true only if B is true", we {{em|do}} drop the word "should", and the statement becomes "If B is true, A must be true". This is because the original form is describing the condition, whereas the rewritten form is describing the result. At this point, I'm tired of coming up with examples, but I'll give another one here for your convenience:
• :::::::::Rule: Something should be called a dog only if it is a mammal.
• :::::::::*{{xt|If something is {{em|not}} a mammal, it should {{em|not}} be called a dog.}} For example, a tree is not a mammal, so it is not a dog.
• :::::::::*{{xt|If something {{em|is}} a mammal, then it {{em|could}} be a dog, but not necessarily.}} For example, a bulldog is a mammal, and it is indeed a dog; however, although I am a mammal, I am not a dog.
• :::::::::Now, we can rewrite the above rule.
• :::::::::*{{xt|If something {{em|is}} a dog, then it {{em|must}} be a mammal.}} This is correct. If a golden retriever is a dog, then it must be a mammal.
• :::::::::*{{xt|If something "{{em|should be}}" a dog, then it {{em|must}} be a mammal?}} That doesn't even make sense grammatically. In any case, it wouldn't help your case because even if we rewrote it with "should", it does not imply something should be a dog if it is a mammal — see the second bullet point above. "If an article should include the, then it must meet one of the conditions." Was this what you wanted? If so, I'll give it to you, but (1) it makes no sense and (2) does not change the crux of the matter.
• :::::::::The purpose of rewriting the rule is to explain why the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent is false.
• :::::::::*{{xt|If something is a dog, then it must be a mammal. Something is a mammal. Therefore, it must be a dog?}} This is what some opposers are claiming. If an article subject includes "the", then it must meet one of the conditions. That is true. Now, let's say that an article subject does meet one of the conditions; therefore, it must include "the"? Hopefully, you see that the answer is no.
• :::::::::We can also see that:
• :::::::::*{{xt|If something is {{em|not}} a dog, it could still be a mammal.}} A dolphin is not a dog, but it is still a mammal; a shark is not a dog, and it is not a mammal either. In our context, if an article does not include "the", it could still meet one of the conditions.
• :::::::::Finally, let me show why the word "should" is insignificant as it can actually be changed to a number of other verbs without changing the meaning:
• :::::::::*{{xt|Something {{em|should}} be a dog {{em|only if}} it is a mammal}} or {{xt|Something {{em|should only}} be a dog {{em|if}} it is a mammal}} is equivalent to
• :::::::::*{{xt|Something {{em|can}} be a dog {{em|only if}} it is a mammal}} or {{xt|Something {{em|can only}} be a dog {{em|if}} it is a mammal}}, which are also equivalent to
• :::::::::*{{xt|Something {{em|may}} be a dog {{em|only if}} it is a mammal}} or {{xt|Something {{em|may only}} be a dog {{em|if}} it is a mammal}}, which are also equivalent to
• :::::::::*{{xt|Something {{em|must}} be a dog {{em|only if}} it is a mammal}} or {{xt|Something {{em|must only}} be a dog {{em|if}} it is a mammal}}, which are also equivalent to
• :::::::::*{{xt|Something {{em|is}} a dog {{em|only if}} it is a mammal}} or {{xt|Something {{em|is only}} be a dog {{em|if}} it is a mammal}}, but are not equivalent to
• :::::::::*{{xt|Something {{em|should/can/may/must/is}} a dog {{em|if}} it is a mammal}}
• ::::::::InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I think you've done a great job at demonstrating how the use of 'should' breaks down the traditional truth table model, though this is all original research. It also appears to me per your given example that you are opting to use definition 4 of should
• ::::::::::(—used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected)
• :::::::::instead of definiton 2
• ::::::::::(—used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency)
• :::::::::per [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should merriam webster]. Please provide a ref to support the application of definition 4 in the context of its use in the sentence in WP:THE and please provide a ref for your claim that "we do drop the word 'should'".
• :::::::::Thank you for establishing that we have achieved firm agreement that "If an article should include the, then it must meet one of the conditions." makes no sense. Mikewem (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::we also need a ref to support your claim that "Something should A only if B" is equivalent to "Something should only A if B" Mikewem (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::{{tqq|Please provide a ref}} — I have. The articles I previously linked basically answer all your questions — heck, the first one already addresses most of them. It's not "original research". And no, I am not "using" any particular definition of should, because it doesn't matter: as I have stated and illustrated, the verb choice is irrelevant because it doesn't affect the meaning. Example:{{pb}}Do you mean to suggest that "you should buy a car only if you have money" is {{em|not}} the same as "you may buy a car only if you have money"? Because they are both a recommendation/suggestion to buy a car only if you have money, and not to do so if you do not have money, but they are {{em|not}} a command to buy a car if you have money — that would be "you should buy a car if you have money", which (1) cannot be replaced with a word other than "should" because it would change the meaning, (2) can be rearranged as "if you have money, you should buy a car", (3) can be simplified as "if you have money, buy a car", and (4) does not say anything about what to do if you do {{em|not}} have money, so it would make no sense to have that in WP:THE.{{pb}}Whether you are genuinely unable to understand these rules of logic (if acting in good faith) or deliberately wasting my time by taking me in circles (if acting in bad faith), it is unproductive to continue if you are simply unwilling to retract your misreading. I implore you to read the articles I linked, including our own article about the fallacy — ask ChatGPT if you're genuinely stuck: Is "should ... if" the same as "should ... only if"? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::Thank you for illustrating your outright refusal to acknowledge the definition of should that includes "obligation", or maybe you just didn't hear me. I agree that the "obligation" definition is very inconvenient for support of your pov. If you think ChatGPT is a good source for these kinds of questions, well, have a good day and happy editing. Mikewem (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Pot calling the kettle black? ... Yep, clearly CIR or IDHT, possibly both. No point in continuing to entertain this merry-go-round unless you have a legitimate argument. (For the record, I {{em|did}} address all of your points.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::{{tq|If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article,}} "Holocaust" and "the Holocaust" have exactly the same meaning. How does point 1 apply? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• @TurboSuperA+|: Your claim that "holocaust" and "the Holocaust" have exactly the same meaning is central to the move argument and it is utterly and demonstrably false. To begin with, the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language give multiple meanings for holocaust, of which the 1933-1945 atrocities are only one, and not even the first. Unless you have more authoritative sources, game over.

:You also argue that no historical even compares with the Holocaust. I agree, thank goodness, and that is why the definite article is always included when used as a noun. That fact does not preclude using the word holocaust for possible future catastrophes, like Nuclear holocaust or [https://www.amazon.com/Avoiding-Climate-Holocaust-Rich-Bailey/dp/1099014654 Avoiding Climate Holocaust]; or past ones [https://www.amazon.com/American-Indian-Holocaust-Survival-Civilization/dp/0806120746. American Indian Holocaust], or many others. (We may redirect Armenian holocaust, but that doesn't mean the word holocaust can't be used in that context.) And it still perfectly understandable in its old meaning: "The forests staggered, rocked, exploded and then shriveled under the holocaust".[https://www.history.com/articles/great-fire-1910-wildfire-suppression]. You are entitled to your opinion, which you often mark as such (thanks), but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. --agr (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{Tq|"Your claim that "holocaust" and "the Holocaust" have exactly the same meaning is central to the move argument and it is utterly and demonstrably false."}} But that isn't my claim, my claim is that "Holocaust" and "the Holocaust" are the same thing. {{tq|"Wikipedia is based on reliable sources"}} [https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust Britannica] calls it "Holocaust", so the use of it without the definite article is not unheard of. I will grant you that sources overwhelmingly use "the Holocaust" to refer to it in prose. There are also examples where the title is "Holocaust" and in the prose its referred to as "the Holocaust", like at [https://www.theguardian.com/world/holocaust The Guardian].

::This discussion is about the article title, not how we should refer to it in general. I see no issue with having the title as Holocaust and then continuing to use as "the Holocaust" in the article body, this would make it consistent with articles such as Armenian genocide or Circassian genocide. {{tq|That fact does not preclude using the word holocaust for possible future catastrophes, like Nuclear holocaust}} Besides the WP:CRYSTALBALL issue, a nuclear holocaust would still not compare to the Holocaust (even if there were more casualties). What makes the Holocaust different to other genocides is the industrial and systemic nature of the attempt to wipe out a people. A nuclear holocaust is more of an indiscriminate killing type situation. I don't think (I hope) that such a thing will never be repeated. I don't think we should leave the "the" in the title just in case humans decide to do something like that in the future. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::The word Reformation has ‘the act of reforming : the state of being reformed’ as the dictionary definition in Merriam Webster (and similar dictionaries). That does not mean that the article should be called with ‘the’ according to policy, because the specific event is primary topic. The claim isn’t that ‘holocaust’ and ‘the Holocaust’ have the same meaning, the claim is that ‘Holocaust’ and ‘the Holocaust’ do. Which is already true as far as Wikipedia is concerned, since holocaust isn’t the place for holocaust (sacrifice) or an article on the word ‘holocaust’. stjn 23:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you have a reliable source that says that ‘Holocaust’ and ‘the Holocaust’ have the same meaning? Because major dictionaries say that the meaning referring to the 1933-45 atrocities is distinguished by adding "the." There is also the mechanical problem that almost all Wikipedia titles begin with a capital letter, so someone landing on the page couldn't tell what article is about from the title. So someone clicking on holocaust (sacrifice) will get to the article titled "Holocaust (sacrifice)." How do they know from the title which meaning of Holocaust is intended if capitalization is the only distinguisher? The disambiguation term "sacrifice" could well apply to the 1933-45 atrocities. Then there is the example given in WP:THE: crown vs the Crown. By your logic, Crown and the Crown would have the same meaning. And just like the Holocaust, the Crown used as a modifier drops the definite article, e.g. Crown jewels, Crown copyright, etc. Nonetheless, our guideline WP:THE says the article should be titled The Crown. The whole English-speaking world uses "the Holocaust" to mean the 1933-1944 horrors. Why is so much effort being devoted to making Wikipedia an exception? How does it help our readers?--agr (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The whole point seems to be to argue pedantically over capitalization. Leaving it "The Holocaust" harms no one, and recognizes the significance of the term. But gods forbid we violate the sacred protocols... Intothatdarkness 11:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It {{em|is}} harmful; that's why WP:THE was created: {{tqq|When used inappropriately, they violate common usage, only serving as noise words. More importantly, this can cause problems with the length of the name, the quick search function, and sorting.}} Additional harm caused by inconcision, overprecision, and inconsistency are described at WP:AT. Regarding the capitalization debate, I agree it's silly because it's irrelevant: the Holocaust is the primary topic of "The Holocaust" {{em|and}} "Holocaust" {{em|and}} "holocaust", so by definition, it is not considered ambiguous in Wikipedia terms. WP:THE gives the example of "crown" vs. "The Crown", because the Crown is {{em|not}} the primary topic of "crown" nor "Crown", but it {{em|is}} the primary topic of "The Crown". If {{-r|Holocaust}} is ambiguous, then please retarget the redirect (and break 7,820 incoming links). Examining whether the Holocaust fits the technical wording of WP:THE while ignoring its intent (to avoid needless disambiguation and avoid "the" in most cases) is WP:WIKILAWYERING at its finest. {{em|Furthermore}}, as explained in great detail above, even if point 1 of WP:THE were satisfied, WP:THE does not compel us to use "the"; it only clears the bar to permit its usage, and whether to actually do so should be deferred to WP:AT. I don't want to rehash this, but I just noticed that point 1 of WP:THE literally says {{tqq|can be used}}, not "must be used" or "should be used", reinforcing the fact that it is a necessary but not sufficient condition. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that the language on WP:THE is permissive, but it's suggestive and WP:AT defers to it for this issue.--agr (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for providing an illustration of the point I was making. You'll also notice I said leaving it capitalized harms no one. It causes no harm or injury to any living being. While it may give the almighty protocols gastric distress, it does no physical harm or injury. Intothatdarkness 21:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::This article is one of the oldest on Wikipedia. It was created, with the current title, on November 15, 2001, over 23 years ago. The first Wikipedia edit was on January 15 that year. If our title was causing any damage, it should have surfaced by now. --agr (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{collapse top|ECR discussion}} Per WP:ARBECR, non-EC (Extended Confirmed) editors can only use contentious topics talk pages to make uncontroversial edit requests that do not require discussion. Comments here made by editors who have not yet reached 500 edits have been struck through Mikewem (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• :You have (again) misinterpreted policy, though in this case, the net result happens to be the same. WP:ECR (extended-confirmed restriction) is a distinct concept from WP:CTOP (contentious topics); the latter does not imply the former, and the Holocaust is not designated as a contentious topic (list). {{em|However}}, it does fall under the WP:APL (antisemitism in Poland) general sanction (list), so ECR does end up applying per WP:APLECP. My question, though, is why wasn't this caught earlier and enforced from the get-go? Articles with ECR sanctions usually place large notices at the top of the talk page, yet this doesn't appear to be the case here. Have we even been properly enforcing ECR on articles under APL? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I meant to say “certain” contentious topics. My bad. Mikewem (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Thank you for the clarification. Though like I said, not all contentious topics fall under ECR; only a few of them do. The place to find a central list of these sanctions is {{slink|WP:GS|Active sanctions}}, not the contentious topics template. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I agree with InfiniteNexus here. Bringing this up so late in the discussion is unhelpful. We are having a civil disagreement about article titles that was probably ready for a closer to act. IMHO, strike throughs just act like yellow highlighting, attracting the readers attention. I would suggest removing the strikethroughs and placing this ECR discussion in a collapsed section, so we can move forward.--agr (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Ok Mikewem (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

• Support WP:THE. It is true that "the" could be used as a disambiguator, if there were not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "holocaust." But no disambuation is necessary, since holocaust already redirects to The Holocaust. --JFHutson (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :The first exception in WP:THE is not about disambiguation; in fact, the word disambiguation never occurs. It is about situations where the definite article changes a word’s meaning. In the example given there, the Crown, disambiguation could be accomplished by using a title such as "Crown (headgear)", or as in our case, "Crown (disambiguation)". None of those solutions would make "Crown" by itself an acceptable title for that article. The definite article is an essential part of the title The Crown in its British political meaning. Nor is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC relevant here. It does not control what an article title should be, it just says that a term's primary topic, if there is one, is "the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article." [emphasis added].--agr (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :While the first point does not explicitly use the word "disambiguation", it is reasonably clear from the text, the example and the explanation regarding the example that the spirit of the first point is about using the to disambiguate two topics the Crown and the headdress, Crown (capitalised as an article title). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::We should not go against impeccable, reliable sources, like the OED, based on how some editors interpret the "sprit" of a guideline, even though the guideline text is permissive. And it cannot be true that the Crown title may retain the definite article only because it affords a disambiguation opportunity. Under no imaginable circumstances could Crown be an acceptable title for the British political term.--agr (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tq|And it cannot be true that the Crown title may retain the definite article only because it affords a disambiguation opportunity. Under no imaginable circumstances could Crown be an acceptable title for the British political term.}} This is an argument by assertion and not a substantive argument. There is clearly a matter of disambiguation between Crown (headdress) and The Crown. If the Crown were the primary topic, then it is quite conceivable that it might occupy the name space Crown and we would have Crown (headdress) for disambiguation. Yes, the OED is an impeccable source but it is addressing usage in prose and not the question of the definite article in the context of an article title. It also states: {{tq|Usually with capital initial and with the}} Usually does not mean always. There are many article titles that usually take the definite article when used in prose (eg the French Revolution) but the article title excludes the. The OED is not useful in resolving the question. Hovever, we do see instances such as Holocaust Museum in Curitiba, where the might be used but isn't. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::The print copy of the OED that I consulted at my local library, the 2nd edition, volume 7, p. 315, does not say "usually." Definition "d" reads "the Holocaust The mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis in the war of 1939-1945." Some other dictionaries do say "usually preceded by the", but that just supports our current title as the COMMONNAME. Do you have a source for your claim that dictionaries may not be used for titles? And it has been explained many times above that "the Holocaust" is a noun, when Holocaust is used as an adjective the article is dropped, in normal English usage. The example given in WP:THE, "the Crown", demonstrates this. We encounter Crown copyright, Crown corporation, Crown mint, Crown courts, etc., but the noun form is still The Crown. I will let others contemplate the idea that "Crown" by itself could ever be the title of an article about the British concept of "The Crown." --agr (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::The print copy 2nd edition is 1989. The electronic version post dates this. To {{tq|"usually preceded by the", but that just supports our current title as the COMMONNAME}}, French Revolution also usually takes the definite article (see [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+French+Revolution%2C+*+Holocaust&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 here]), as does the United States of America ([https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+United+States+of+America&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 here]). Arguments herein have not differentiate why we should have The Holocaust as an article title but not The French Revolution or The United States (both redirects). Until there is a cogent (P&G based) argument that does, the article should be Holocaust. To, {{tq|Do you have a source for your claim that dictionaries may not be used for titles?}} I have clarified my comment. Please note that in prose it is the Crown. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Everyone calls it “the Holocaust.” Museums, schoolbooks, newspapers, scholarly monographs, pick any and you’ll see the article attached. Drop it and you slip from a unique event into a generic word for any mass catastrophe, exactly the ambiguity WP:THE tells us to avoid. 40+ pages titled The Holocaust in X would need messy rewrites, yet search works fine as is. Renaming gains nothing, risks confusion, and feels tone-deaf at a moment when denial is on the rise. Let’s leave the title alone and spend the time improving the article instead. Davisonio (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• :The meaning of "holocaust" is not ambiguous; that's why holocaust redirects to this page. The Holocaust is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word holocaust. Even though renaissance is a generic term for a cultural revival (see Renaissance (disambiguation), the Renaissance in 15th and 16th century Europe is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for renaissance, and we don't put a definite article on that article title. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::The fact that holocaust redirects to this page does not prove it is unambiguous, it just means the word is most likely "the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." In particular, it doesn't mean "Holocaust" is the title they expect to see when they get here. "The Holocaust" is the name to use when the meaning intended is the World War II atrocities, per several WP:reliable sources, including the Oxford English Dictionary, the most respected English reference on the planet. Our own article Names of the Holocaust, says the same.--agr (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::The OED is a dictionary. The Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry at [https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust Holocaust] for this event, and has no entry for the generic term. The "title they expect to see when they get here" is not among the WP:CRITERIA we use for article titles. -- JFHutson (talk 16:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The “title they expect to see when they get here” would fall under Naturalness, in my opinion. But in this specific case, that policy is less useful than WP:THE… in my opinion. — HTGS (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::The full Britannica title is "Holocaust, European history". They do not use Holocaust by itself. The idea that readers should encounter a “title they expect to see when they get here” i.e. when they land on a page, is common sense, but it’s also supported by every single one of the criteria in WP:CRITERIA, e.g. "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." I'd be glad to go down the list. Even Consistency references WP:THE, whose plain meaning allows our current title. WP:CRITERIA goes on to say regarding the criteria: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice." That simple and obvious title is The Holocaust.--agr (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::If it’s simple and obvious, why does the Britannica do it this way? It’s not obvious to me why we should include the definite article, it’s superfluous. Even if the subtitle at the Britannica article should be equated with our article title (I think not) it doesn’t support the idea that the definite article belongs here. The fact that everyone is familiar with the title is not the same as it being expected to be the article title. What they expect is subjective and unknowable, and I submit it’s as likely to include the definite article as not, but that’s not the criteria anyway. — JFHutson (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no doubt that "the Holocaust" is the common name and not just "Holocaust." Wikipedia should title such articles "The Holocaust," "The Reformation," "The Enlightenment," etc., to distinguish from "holocaust," "reformation," "enlightenment," etc. Putting "The" in the title is the most concise way to achieve the necessary precision, and it's also natural and recognizable. That's four out of five WP:CRITERIA. The fifth criteria, consistency, isn't met because Wikipedia isn't consistent about these kinds of "The" article titles. That should be fixed by changing the other article titles to add "The". Levivich (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above, mainly WP:THE, and as per nom. Rap no Davinci (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Note: WikiProject Death, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Jewish history, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject European history, and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. '​'​'[​[User:CanonNi]​]'​'​' (💬 • ✍️) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The above two opposes state much of the rational for opposing a change including there is no doubt that ""the Holocaust" is the common name and not just "Holocaust."' The supports to change the title to just holocaust changes the title to a general term with more general application, not to just this singular event. IMO, these supporters misunderstand the meaning of the "the" guidance. Donner60 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per “the Renaissance”, “the Cold War”, “the White House” and “the Holodomor”. The primary answer to the question of whether an article includes the the should be whether the The is commonly or consistently capitalised mid-sentence ({{tq|“they went to The Hague”}} or {{tq|“I listened to The Beatles”}}). This is the best way to confirm whether the the is part of the name, rather than merely a consistent element of English grammar. Edge cases should compare to this question (as I think “The Crown” does), but largely should not extend it, because a {{em|lot}} of article subjects have the same grammatical requirements as “the Holocaust” (see examples in my first sentence). — HTGS (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :WP:THE has two criteria for including "the" in an article title. Being "capitalised mid-sentence" is only one of them, the second. The first supports the current title.--agr (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Those two “criteria” are actually described as “conventions” on WP:THE. And as Renaissance and Cold War prove, the first rule is not as conventional as that page would have you believe. In fact, the example of The Crown is more of an exception than a rule. — HTGS (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Other article names don't "prove" anything. One could just as easily argue that those articles should be at "The Cold War" and "The Renaissance" per WP:AT and WP:THE for the same reasons one could argue that this article should stay at "The Holocaust." Levivich (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::If that is where we end up, I’m fine with that. My primary concern here is actually just an internal consistency across Wikipedia. As an extreme example, we could decide to add articles before most nouns (eg, A lemon, An option (finance) and The Mississippi River, but Britney Spears) and that would be fine and simple, and I would apply the rule. But 1) I do not see a majority of people who believe something like: {{tq | “all proper nouns that are referred to with a definite article and which are derived from non-proper nouns of the same form (eg, a holocaust but not a holodomor) which have a useful, definable meaning (eg, a renaissance, but not a white house) should use the article at the start of their page title.”}} And 2) honestly at that point I would prefer to just use the leading the more liberally, so readers don’t have to ask “why is it The Renaissance, but not The White House?”
• ::::To me, the reader comes first and what amounts to a preemptive natural disambiguation to break a grammatical or indexical standard is not decipherable to the reader. — HTGS (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::If all this drama is only about “internal consistency,” why not just drop it? As you point out, exceptions to the convention of not starting a title with “a,” “an,” or “the,” e.g. The Crown and The Troubles, are rare. The Holocaust has been such an exception for over 23 years. The more common case Reformation, Renaissance, White House, Mississippi River, etc. haven’t been dislodged. I agree that the reader comes first, but they are best served by the current title, per WP:Natural disambiguation. And I have no idea what the rest of your final sentence means.—agr (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. The definition of holocaust is a burnt offering. "Holocaust" redirects here as a matter of anticipatory convenience for the user, as the average person is most likely familiar with the term only within this context and unaware of the original definition commonly used within the fields of archaeology and religious studies from which it is derived.

:It is both logically inconsistent and in my opinion bad practice to have an article page for a derived term under the name of the term from which it is derived. The arguments in support of doing so based on the examples of "Big Bang", "Cold War", etc. are fallacious as those are phrases and not single terms/words. Eulersidentity (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever seen a clearer "no consensus" in all my time here. It's been a month; it's time to shut this down. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)