Talk:United States Holocaust Memorial Museum/Archive 1

Archive 1

File:Day119sholocaustf.JPG

This picture was taken within the permanent exhibit at the museum, where photography is strictly prohibited. It is therefore inappropriate to include it within this article and should probably be removed immediately. Cumulus Clouds 05:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Chensiyuan 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK!!!

http://www.ushmm.org/visit/

No FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY

The picture should be removed immediately and if it isn't I'm nominating it as an IFD. Cumulus Clouds 17:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I will just not contribute any more pictures. Chensiyuan 03:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of your behavior over this picture, that's probably fine. Cumulus Clouds 05:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Another fantastic liability to WP. Chensiyuan 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In light of Cumulus Clouds' wonderful and immense "contributions" to WP, we're all very fine without his great input. Very very fine! Manderiko 15:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian involvement in the Holocaust

You should provide the proper formatting for the reference, or at least better explain the deletion.[It is factual. Not neutral because you don't agree with it?]~~68.244.157.66~~

• Well, I'm considering deleting most of that section because it has next to no verifiable references and what little citations it does have are incredibly biased and are completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. This article is not a soapbox to advance the inflammatory and highly controversial opinion that Palestinians had anything to do with the Holocaust. If I don't hear any opposition to it, I'll just take it out completely. Cumulus Clouds 15:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The action of 'Cumulus', whoever he is, is egregious and astounding in his ignorance. First, the article said nothing about 'palestinians' - he introduced that as a straw man. He discounts a respected congressman as an inappropriate source, as he does an established newspaper. What he discounts as controversial is established fact. That was the basis of the criticism of the museum that he removed -- for example its refusal to display the documentation that exists, such as a picture of the mufti and Hitler together. The lack of participation allows him to get a way with this.

Could I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia:Verifiability; the burden of proof always rests on editors wanting to include material. In this instance, the sources you provided were considered to be inadequate. Is there any coverage of this criticism in mainstream media, for example CNN or the New York Times? Addhoc 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced info

In the "See Also" section, I added a {{fact}} template to
"On the first floor of the museum, a model of what the ghettos may have looked like are present. The presented ghetto model is life size." First of all, there's plenty of historical evidence as far as what each of the ghettoes look like. Secondly, I've never seen such a model, and I was there today. --Micahbrwn 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think they were referring to the main lobby of the museum, with the brick facades on the wall being made to represent the ghettos. I don't want to speak for him, but that's just what it looks like to me. Cumulus Clouds 21:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Provided you have reliable sources to back your claim, the content may remain in the article. At this point, my suggestion would be for you to request a third opinion on the subject matter. Cheers, Aarktica 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aarktica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.245.73.30 (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand the following

Don't understand the following

The exhibition is broken \Second World War, ending with the invasion of Poland by Germany

Can I suggest it is reworded? Jniech (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shooting incident

CNN indicates only two victims; no mention of a third. Should this be removed from the article? --69.143.169.19 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding at this point is that a security guard was gravely wounded by a bullet from the wannabe terrorist, that the wannabe himself was wounded by a gunshot, and that a 3rd person was treated on the scene for lascerations from broken glass from a source unknown, but presumably from a glass case that was shattered near the person, as part of the altercation that ensued when security moved to control the wannabe. That terminology, of course, was never used in any of the statements I've heard made to the press. :-p Tomer^talk 19:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not one mention of the gas chambers

in this article there is not one mention of the gas chambers. that was supposed to have been the method by which millions were murdered and not one mention in this article. it should also be mention that there are no photos of the gas chambers on the webpage for the museum. strange isnt it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.102 (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

i had to create an account just for this talk page alone. i found it very odd that there was no mention of the gas chambers in this article. the museum is dedicated to the Holocaust. and it is claimed that gas chambers were the preferred method of killing the alleged six million jews. but no mention of it in this artice? i think that very odd too. Notonekilled (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

the Wikipedia article on Auschwitz mentions the gas chambers over 20 times. Notonekilled (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of museum

I'm wondering about the unsourced sentence in this section of the article saying, "The museum has also been criticized for its sole focus on Jews." I've been to the museum and distincly remember that other victims of the nazis are included - e.g., people with disabilities and russian POWS. Also, looking at the website for the museum, there is inclusion of other victims of the nazis. I have removed this language from the article. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading the Hass article, I've edited to better reflect what the article says. It doesn't really criticize the US museum, but rather discusses the concept of universal memory and how this cannot be applied to the holocaust, and how therefore the museums on the holocaust reflect a society's memory of an event and can result in the exploitation of an event. 165.189.169.190 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know there's some issue about the museum's recognition of Roma/Romani victims before the 1980s, and I think that that's important. I just don't know enough about the problem to write anything. 174.20.56.210 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

why isnt this added?

why is there no mention of the gas chambers in this article? and why hasn't someone added it? is there no mention of the gas chambers in the actual museum? are there no exhibits? no replicas, no photographs? i haven't been there so that is why i am asking. Notonekilled (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the article isn't protected. Add it in if you want. Second, if I see anything in your response that indicates even a hint of where I think you're going, I'm blocking you indefinitely. If you have a serious point, make it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

ricky81682 banned me because he is a coward. Notonekilled, as in "not one killed in a gas chamber". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.151.155.100 (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

my serious point is that the entire crux of the Holocaust is that there was a gas chamber program in which millions of human beings were ushered into and gassed with poison gas. and yet the article about the museum dedicated to this program of Nazi murder doesnt have one mention of them. to me its like an article here on Wikipedia about the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and it not having any mention of the planes that are featured.

there is no open discussion for revision on the holocaust. one side is revered while the other side is marginalized, fined, deported and imprisoned. that is what the Holocaust has come to? dissent must not be heard? and that, along with many other reasons, is why i believe the holocaust is nothing more than Zionist wartime propaganda. nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.151.155.100 (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a museum with information on the Holocaust, not about the Holocaust itself. If there were an extensive exhibit with a certain amount of notoriety regarding methods of mass murder, that could be justified as worth mentioning, maybe. However, the actual history of the Holocaust is appropriately discussed on that article and the ones pertaining to the actual sites where the deaths occurred. Furthermore, it should go without saying that a Holocaust museum would have an exhibit about the gas chambers, don't be dense.65.197.138.113 (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on hexagonal not octagonal Hall of Remembrance

Hi. I wanted to congratulate Wikigi on a good catch here, and note that this revision really is correct, and that the article has been wrong since, gulp, 18 November 2009 when it was "corrected" by an non-prolific IP editor. Of course this inaccuracy does not actually set the Thames on fire or affect the basic rate of income tax but it's nice to get things right. I felt, on checking, that perhaps the rather good picture might actually have helped mislead a little here, and I've made a note on the image's Talk page which I hope might help clarify the issue for others in the future. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)