Talk:Holocaust trivialization

Definition

What exactly does "the term used to describe the metaphorical (or otherwise comparative) use of the word "Holocaust"" mean?

To trivialise a subject is to either dismiss it or treat it disrespectfully - not to use the term in a metaphorical sense - whatever that means!

I suggest that before articles like this one are posted, someone really needs to think through what it is about. In this case, is it a topic at all, or shouldn't this be part of the holocaust denial article?JohnC (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Some uses are not at all trivializing and fairly literal. Nuclear holocaust refers to possibly the entire human race being wiped out in a sea of fire, which I do not at all think is "trivializing". Seems unneutral and unnecessarily accusatory. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I have creeping feeling, that use of term Holocaust exclusively or trying to keep it exclusive for persecuton of jews in nazi germany is itself trivialization of the term... I mean, it's not correct in aspect of literal meaning of 'holos+kaustos'. The word 'holocaust' was in use long before 20th century and so no one, even much-suffered peoples like jews and others persecuted by nazis and others, has copyright or patented use to this. Much preferable is correct term 'shoah', exclusively. This article should be included in main article 'Holocaust'. Mutatis mutandis. Logically, if there are any survivors, no massacre should be called holocaust, as kaustus then is not holos, complete. :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Happened on this by accident, I have restored the 'pov' tag and added an 'OR' tag. As several people point out above, it is the singular use of the term 'Holocaust' (to mean Shoah), which is the historical anachronism, the term is Greek, not Hebrew or English and was in use long before Nazism. The only distinguishing feature of the 'one' use, is the capitalisation of Holocaust. I don't think the term 'Holocaust trivialization' is sufficiently significant, studied, nor defined and the inclusion of (relatively) trivial examples simply acts to advertise the lack of definition and neutrality. Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Is "Holocaust Trivialization" really a Noteworthy?

I accidentally found this article while reading the Wikipedia Article "Holocaust Denial", and tbh I wonder if the topic is really "legit" and if it really merits a separate, standalone article on "trivialization". Are there any other articles, within the totality of Wikipedia, on the topic of genocide, or other heinous crimes, that have separate articles on them for trivializing the heinous crime, genocide, or whatever? Is there "Holodomor Trivialization"? etc... If the topic does merit it's own article, I think the Lede should (somehow) "self-establish" it's own significance, reason for existance immediately, i.e. "The reason why Holocaust trivialization is important is because ..." right up front and center where the Reader is immediately oriented to the subject and why they should care to read about it.

One finds a lot of memes online that trivialize the Holocaust, and I think that the Article would be improved by including at least one of them. Which, as I type this makes me wonder if the topic applies only to "literary" statements, for example when a politician or a journalist compares something that someone considers less important to the Holocaust, to the Holocaust. But does "Holocaust Trivialization" also include memes that mock the Holocaust, turning the worst crime humanity has ever seen into a joke? If so, the article should say this, and post an example or two, so that people who have seen these memes will know what they have been exposed to.2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to make an addendum to what I've previously posted because just yesterday, with the new awareness of "Holocaust Trivialization" in mind, I note that President Donald Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin has the political realm all abuzz with comparing Trump's meeting to "Pearl Harbor" and "Kristallnacht", and it occurred to me that comparing whatever political upheaval is taking place at the moment to some historical calamity, disaster, or crime, etc... is a commonly used literary technique, and it functions no differently than what could be described as "Holocaust Trivialization". Which then begs the question, "What is it about trivializing the Holocaust, that is so different, unique, or extreme (or whatever) that makes this narrow subsection of political discussion worthy of it's own, standalone article? The Holocaust wasn't the worst atrocity to take place in human history, and it's not even the most recent. I'd like someone to explain why this subject is so noteworthy that it merits it's own article, when other examples of the "inappropriate comparisons to less significant events" do not.2605:6000:6947:AB00:D16B:F4F4:1B1C:309E (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

NPOV concerns about article.

Here are my concerns about the article as it stands:

• It states "Many authors argue that a metaphorical (or otherwise comparative) use of the word Holocaust constitutes Holocaust trivialization, and many consider such uses offensive" without actually stating who these authors are, which is weasel words according to Wikipedia policy. I would change it to "A number of authors, such as..." with specific notable authors that have made this argument specifically mentioned by name.
• The central issue here is whether any other uses of the term holocaust, such as in American Holocaust, Armenian Holocaust, African Holocaust, environmental holocaust, nuclear holocaust, etc. are valid or do they attempt to make comparisons that are inappropriate and unjustified. A such there needs to more content in the article discussing this point of contention, especially from notable sources defending the use of the terms in other contexts. Does the fact the genocide of 6 million of Jews by the hands of the Nazi's during WWII was and is called "The Holocaust" give that event sole (or mostly sole) rights to the term holocaust? The debate over that question should be better fleshed out in the article. As it stands, we have a brief quote from just one critic and several from defenders of the concept of "Holocaust trivialization".
• The notable cases section only list two examples, both of which are Israeli-Palestinian conflict related. It would be good to search for and find other examples of claimed misuse the term holocaust with regard to other genocides (including alleged genocides). Surely, those two incidents are not the only cases for such misuse is alleged.

--2600:1700:56A0:4680:F537:E917:3525:50A0 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)