Talk:Holocaust/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger m (→Title) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:Apparently the previous question has been answered by the creation of the page "[[World War II, Holocaust]]" (at least temporarily, although discussion continues on that article's talk page). However, in the category of Religion, we may eventually have a page on the original meaning of "holocaust," attested by the OED as early as the 13th century, i.e., burnt offerings. So perhaps this page should be renamed something like "Holocaust (genocide)", with a new page entitled "Holocaust (offering)" or "Holocaust (religion)", and a disambig page for "Holocaust"? [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 12:51, 8 September 2008 (CDT) | :Apparently the previous question has been answered by the creation of the page "[[World War II, Holocaust]]" (at least temporarily, although discussion continues on that article's talk page). However, in the category of Religion, we may eventually have a page on the original meaning of "holocaust," attested by the OED as early as the 13th century, i.e., burnt offerings. So perhaps this page should be renamed something like "Holocaust (genocide)", with a new page entitled "Holocaust (offering)" or "Holocaust (religion)", and a disambig page for "Holocaust"? [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 12:51, 8 September 2008 (CDT) | ||
I think we should move [[World War II, Holocaust]] here, or possibly to [[The Holocaust]]. Whether we use the definite article (which ''might'' be OK in this sort of case) depends on whether, as Denis Cavanagh was saying [[Talk:World_War_II%2C_Holocaust|here]], there really have been other holocausts, ''which are so called,'' that necessitate a ''general'' article. I leave that issue of fact and usage to people who know more about history than me. The term is currently defined in this article in a way that makes it coextensive with "genocide." If that's a legit topic we might pursue under the general title "holocaust," we could develop the info at [[genocide]], perhaps. Er, discuss. :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | I think we should move [[World War II, Holocaust]] here, or possibly to [[The Holocaust]]. Whether we use the definite article (which ''might'' be OK in this sort of case) depends on whether, as Denis Cavanagh was saying [[Talk:World_War_II%2C_Holocaust|here]], there really have been other holocausts, ''which are so called,'' that necessitate a ''general'' article. I leave that issue of fact and usage to people who know more about history than me. The term is currently defined in this article in a way that makes it coextensive with "genocide." If that's a legit topic we might otherwise pursue under the general title "holocaust," we could develop the info at [[genocide]], perhaps. Er, discuss. :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:37, 9 November 2008
Title
Is it possible to have an article called The Holocaust to refer to the primary reference for this word? Or are definite articles dispreferred? John Stephenson 23:38, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
- Apparently the previous question has been answered by the creation of the page "World War II, Holocaust" (at least temporarily, although discussion continues on that article's talk page). However, in the category of Religion, we may eventually have a page on the original meaning of "holocaust," attested by the OED as early as the 13th century, i.e., burnt offerings. So perhaps this page should be renamed something like "Holocaust (genocide)", with a new page entitled "Holocaust (offering)" or "Holocaust (religion)", and a disambig page for "Holocaust"? Bruce M.Tindall 12:51, 8 September 2008 (CDT)
I think we should move World War II, Holocaust here, or possibly to The Holocaust. Whether we use the definite article (which might be OK in this sort of case) depends on whether, as Denis Cavanagh was saying here, there really have been other holocausts, which are so called, that necessitate a general article. I leave that issue of fact and usage to people who know more about history than me. The term is currently defined in this article in a way that makes it coextensive with "genocide." If that's a legit topic we might otherwise pursue under the general title "holocaust," we could develop the info at genocide, perhaps. Er, discuss. :-) --Larry Sanger 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)