This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issues with this page:

1. Highly POV term used as a synonym for Evacuation of East Prussia in a manner that does not allow WP users to understand the context of the puroported synonymy;
2. Very little used term, which I believe is used principally by German right-extremists as an analog of the somewhat more common German term to suggest a moral equivalence between the deaths in this ethnic cleansing and Jewish deaths in the Shoah;

I propose that this page be deleted, and it and its correctly capitalised version be blocked. Furthermore, the highly POV summary of Prussian holocaust at Holocaust (disambiguation) will need to be rewritten to accomodate its removal.

Point of order: this page was originally a redirect to Evacuation of East Prussia, which I edited to make clear was POV. Possibly this page should have been submitted to the Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion page with its slightly lengthier process, however I think that the issues raised are more appropriate to a VfD process, and the page used to be an article with an active talk page.

I would like to acknowledge User:Jesusfreund for bringing my attention to this redirect. --- Charles Stewart 20:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I added the formal message at the RfD page, a suggestion to discuss the issue here. Mikkalai 23:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I saw you changed back the syntax of the body of the page to redirect syntax, which, in the unlikely case the page survives this VfD, is what will happen. If it were to be a redirect, I'd prefer it to be to a page along the lines of List of political epithets. --- Charles Stewart 09:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No need to delete this redirect.  :) — Helpful Dave 10:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You've no issue with being a useful idiot of neo-nazis, I take it? --- Charles Stewart 13:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Charles Stewart said. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV forkish non encyclopedic topic. Possibly RD to Evacuation of East Prussia. Klonimus 02:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Holocaust as: • noun - destruction or slaughter on a mass scale. Is anyone arguing that what occured in Prussia was not destruction or slaughter on a mass scale? The Holocaust is defined as: the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime in World War II. If it was "The Holocaust" I would vote delete. But it isn't. People who are interested in this topic will likely refer to it as Prussian Holocaust. No vote as yet.--Chammy Koala 23:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you google for the exact term "P.H.", you will find that Wikipedia is on several of the first ten results; we already influence the rankings with the term.

First result offers a page where Users like Schlesier might get some of their informations from: [1] It does not appear to be a Nazi site, but an obscure royal-christian-backward-nationalist- antisemitic mixture I cannot identify easily. The writer offers literature (scroll down page 7) which should be investigated for its origins and backgrounds some time.

The "Young Prussian Landsmannschaft" (which I believe is one of Schlesiers favorites) was organizing the last big gathering of right extremists from all over Germany on February 13, 2005 in Dresden, marching and shouting with their parole "bombing Holocaust". Intention of use of "Prussian Holocaust" is the same, I think. (Greetings for Charles!) Jesusfreund 23:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you google the same term in German ("Preußischer Holocaust"), you find NO result at all for the exact combination. So much for the encyclopedic relevance. Jesusfreund 23:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse my arguing, but I suggest you look at the links of "Evacuation of East Prussia": one of them is "A Terrible Revenge" which I suggested for VfD also. The author of that book is known as Revisionist in Germany. Listing his book as a main scientific source for the article is highly POV I think.

Then, if you look at the Link Nemmersdorf on "A terrible revenge", you find an external weblink Nemmersdorf: New aspects of a crime One of the dark chapters by Thorsten Hinz (in German) leads you directly to the "Junge Freiheit", which is known as right extremist German publication, being watched by state officials. Don´t rely on such POV-sources, I suggest!! I don´t know your discussions and don´t want to interfere, but giving hints is not forbidden, is it? Jesusfreund 00:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jesusfreund: Not only are your hints helpful, but you are a bona-fide editor of en.wikipedia.org, with a past record of providing very useful information that other editors incorporated into Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Your opinion has weight here. --- Charles Stewart 18:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete! It is more then just POV, it is terminus of (German) revisionists and Right-wing extremists to relate the Shoa by saying that Germans are victims to. See (and delete!) also Holocaust_(disambiguation): The term Prussian Holocaust refers to the killing of 2 million German civilians near the end of World War II, by invading Soviet armies and air raids, and from the cold and starvation involved in fleeing such abuses. Many refugees were killed by Soviet bombers. Nemmersdorf is particularly associated with these war crimes. and compare it with Mayakovskoye, Kaliningrad! Krtek76 10:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) [Dont know, if I have enough edits to vote, I´m often to lazy to log myself in, but maybe counts ;-)) ]
• Delete, and move discussion of the term "prussian holocaust," and how to include it in Evacuation of East Prussia, to the talk page of that article. +sj + 07:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this VfD is more controversial than I anticipated. I'd like to suggest what I view to be credible alternatives:

1. What I initially proposed in this VfD;
2. A redirect to some page such as Politically tendentious terms for historical events, rather as Islamofascism is (currently) a redirect to List of political epithets;
3. An article discussing the current political controversy around this name. I doubt there is enough non-WP material at present to support a genuinely encyclopediac article along these lines, but in future there might be.

What I regard as unacceptable are either:

1. The situation before I filed this VfD, namely a redirect to Evacuation of East Prussia; or
2. The current situation, namely a link to that page with a little bit of boilerplate indicating the controversy;

Opinions welcome. Please don't vote keep until you have thought about these alternatives. A point of order: it is ambiguous which of the two unacceptable alternatives I summarised a keep vote actually prefers: if you do vote keep, please indicate which is preferable. --- Charles Stewart 18:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably keep as redirect to Evacuation of East Prussia (unacceptable choice #1), and add more information on naming controversy to the article. While the Prussian Holocaust name is infrequently used, it is used, and by acknowledging this Wikipedia does not endorse the idea that it's a good name.

If, however, there is a lot of information available about the naming controversy, then keep as article discussing controversy (option #3).

Nickptar 00:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Charles that the last two scenarios are unacceptable. +sj + 07:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the term is sometimes used is not an endorsement to an encyclopedia entry. nearly any two words may be put together side by side to mean something. Recently we deleted a very nice non-loaded "Second Family" term: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Second Family. No big deal. Mikkalai 03:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Charles; an inherently POV term that isn't much used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - These two words put together could mean nothing else. if you find the term itself objectionable, that is your own POV. I had a similar disagreement with Jayjg over My objections with "Cedar Revolution". This is only a re-direct, and as such, it should stay. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedias task is definitely not to promote POV-terms which nobody uses except Neonazis. No encyclopedic relevance whatsoever, no need to make such a big deal out of it either. Jesusfreund 07:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it keeps popping up, redirect to some page such as Politically tendentious terms for historical events. --Pjacobi 07:54, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Delete. What Jayjg said --Mrfixter 10:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What Irishpunktom said. The following is a list of some of the "holocaust" redirects on Wikipedia. Hindu Holocaust, Black Holocaust, Aboriginal Holocaust, Native American Holocaust, Kirisutan Holocaust, Armenian Holocaust, Hellenic Holocaust, Ukrainian Holocaust, Gay Holocaust, Jewish Holocaust, Chinese Holocaust and Asian Holocaust --Chammy Koala 18:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the redirect is misleading because the evacuation of prussia was no and is not called a holocaust except by Neonazis. Got it? Jesusfreund 22:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except that it's not just called Prussian Holocaust by neonazis and you have no proof of such. It is just your POV that it is. Got it? Probably not. --Chammy Koala 00:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) [2]

I refer to the google links I find. There are only two (!) besides Wikipedia or Wikipedia copies itself who use the term --> encyclopedic irrelevance. One an them is a right extremist page (see above), the other one a Forum with some obvious right wing participants.--> probable propaganda term. - Both sources do not refer to the evacuation but to the expellation (which they do not differ on purpose) --> misleading. That´s not a proof, but a good hint, isn´t it? Where´s your argument? Jesusfreund 01:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • You didn't look very hard. Here are just a few I found, I could find more. I don't think anyone would argue that any of these sites are Nazi POV.
• ipedia.com: Prussian Holocaust: Soviet rape and murder bands attacked East Prussia, raping and killing women and killing all men. Survivors trudged in great columns through the snow at -25°C, fleeing through the blizzards and shell fire. The German population of East Prussia was systematically eliminated.
• Serebella.com: The Prussian Holocaust: None of these (from list) resulted in war crimes prosecutions.
• llpoh.org/Reviewing_the_20th_century: Prussian Holocaust: Soviet rape and murder bands attacked East Prussia, raping and killing women and killing all men.
• encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com: "Some have claimed that it was a case of ethnic clensing, or even genocide, and they use the term "Prussian Holocaust" to describe these events."
• informationblast.com: "Prussian Holocaust: Soviet rape and murder bands attacked East Prussia."

--Chammy Koala 09:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These all appear to be syndicates of Wikipedia. You're rather making the case for the delete vote. --- Charles Stewart 10:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't show that they are syndicates, particularly since the article in WP is called Evacuation of East Prussia, and the wording used in the article is not the same as the wording used in the sites I found by googling. The point is, that people do use the term, you have no real evidence to suggest the term isn't suitable, other than the fact that you feel it's a nazi term and you hate nazis. I'm Australian and I've never heard the term Aboriginal Holocaust (and we all study the history in school), but I wouldn't vote to delete that redirect which is used on WP. Book on Prussia --Chammy Koala 11:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as legitimate term and redirect to Evacuation of East Prussia. Does being a neonazi term somehow invalidate it from encyclopedic purview? Denni☯ 22:58, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Yes? Or to be handled in NPOV way like Zionist Occupied Government. --Pjacobi 23:34, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

• Zionist Occupied Government is it's own article, no-one wants this to be it's own article. Prussian Holocaust should be a redirect, as it is. --195.7.55.146 13:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Denni: If it is a propaganda term and uncommon and plain wrong in it´s worded meaning of course it´s not valid for an encyclopedia. What do you think the NPOV is meant for if not for such cases? Jesusfreund 01:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Propaganda" and "wrong" are POV reasons to delete - NPOV means Wikipedia should document all encyclopedically notable terms and views, regardless of their validity or those who use them. However, I now doubt the encyclopedic notability of this term. Changing from keep to no vote. Nickptar 14:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - political views shouldnt influence VFD decitions. If we would delete this, we would have to delete e.g. mentionings of WW2 as Great Patriotic War as it was known in Russia as it is a communist propaganda etc. This is a term used to describe thing mentioned and therefore should stay.DeirYassin 13:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "Point of Order". The Great Patriotic War shows the weakness of the communists in Russia. Like the re-opening of the Orthodox Churches during WWII when the chips were down the communists appealed to Rodina not Lenin. The Great Patriotic War was named after the Patriotic War of 1812 when Napoleon invaded Russia. Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is the German expression for "Prussian Holocaust"? As fas as I see, the English expression is of hardly notable usage. Most google links seem from wikipedia&mirrors amd a couple of hate speeches. "Preussisch Holokaust" and "Preussisch Verhichtung" (or with "Preußisch") give zero hits. Mikkalai 15:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The exact term in German would be "Preußischer Holocaust"; as I pointed out earlier, there you find literally NO links at all. No serious historian uses that term, no published books either, only some right extremists. The links you find in English are indeed only Wikipedia copies, all of them: scroll down any of the sites Chammy provided and you find Wikipedia as the source; doesn´t matter if they have earlier versions, they remain to be copies. So there are no substantial reasons to keep it. Wrong comparisons don´t change that, because other terms are in use somewhere: This one isn´t. Political views shouldn´t influence VFD decisions: exactly! The term is only a redirect here because the editor had a political view on it. So vote for Keep is no political view? This is definitely against Wikipedia rules not to build up new theories. Jesusfreund 21:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or turn into a stub explaining that it's neo-Nazi nonsense. Noel (talk) 01:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The terms looks invented here for its emotional load. (Taking look on Evacuation of East Prussia - one may like to see more facts than what whose propaganda said.) Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete whenever the link is used in other Wikipedia articles it is used for neo-Nazi purposes. Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.