This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shalom11111 is removing the link to List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus under See also. I don't understand why. It could be useful for the readers to read about a similar topic. There is a link to this topic in the article about the 1948 Palestinian exodus and there has been made a pretty good case to why it include it there (many Jewish refugees took over Palestinian homes) so why not link it here too? Leave the politics aside and explain why we shouldn't include it and do you then also think we should the link there to here or is it just that you doesn't want too se what happened to Arabs? I am interesting of knowing your postion. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1- Do not tell me that I am "reverting just for the sake of that" [1]. That's the first accusation you got wrong here.

2- You added a link to this article, saying "Adding link to See also. That link also links here so why not use on here too", and then you moved the "see also" section up, above the "References" one. [2] Does that seem like neutral editing to anyone?

3- There are hundreds of articles that could be "useful for the readers", and that's why this article only has the most relevant ones, which the article "List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus" is not. According to you, we should also add the article Kurdish villages depopulated by Turkey to the "see also" section. You have to understand that two wrongs don't make a right - so if that article has a link to here and you think it should be deleted from there, do so.

4- "you doesn't want too se ... I am interesting of knowing" is terribly poor English, please improve your grammar before making other similar confusing entries on this encyclopedia, as this is just one of many examples. Thanks.

Shalom11111 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English wasn't good, as I wrote fast as I was on my way out and I just came home and I usally reword then forget to change the rest, but it's not what we are discussing and you shouldn't say something when you for some weeks ago tried to defend yourself at the noticeboard by pointing to your language skills.

So why didn't you give a reason to why it shouldn't be included except for that you think I'm "promoting the article"? You are not familiar with the guidelines. It doesn't have "to be the most relevant ones", the policy says "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". There are many links in the article about the Palestinian exodus but this article (about Jewish localities depopulated during the Holocaust) was included because, as I've explained to you here and you ignored, it was relevant and is connected to the topic because many of the Jewish refugees went to Palestine, which was helped by what happened to the Palestinians. So yes, the linking makes sense.

Lastly, the section "See also" comes before "References". It seems typical of you to throw out accusations after confusing things up and imagine things, which was last seen for some hours ago in our other discussion, and it wasn't long ago you vandalized my talk page and made unwarranted threats and then refused to apologize. I don't expect an apology now either but please stop with your unfounded accusations. Thanks. I am not "promoting the article" and not moving things to a specific place just because I want that specific thing come first. So silly and embarrasing. I have other things to use my time on. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've demonstrated, and you seem to have accept because you have stopped to reply though you are active in other areas, the linking is acceptable. Therefore, I have now reverted you. I hope you also understood why "See also" is located where it is. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising, this gets removed again, now by another one. Now for it's a "false analogy". It's not an analogy, it's just a link to a similiar and connected topic. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I stopped responding here is because so many of your arguments do not have a serious answer for or are irrelevant, which is why no other editor has stopped by to reply either against or in support of you. You have not proved to me anything and I still disagree with what I see as POV-attempts and no my opinion hasn't changed much.

You're telling me to stop with some imaginary bad behaviors while you make personal attacks against me on various pages simultaneously. I can't stand this hypocrisy. Also, it's no wonder you're not surprised that another editors reverted you. Not only do you never accept any opinion other than yours, it seems you don't even respect different views and automatically ignore them. As soon as you understand that often times there are disputes on Wikipedia, you need to learn how to go about them. Because if, like in this case, 3 or editors disagree with you and revert you, then this will have to be, until decided otherwise on the talk page with consensus. -Shalom11111 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to claim such things, much easier than to discuss and explain. Your claims above about me is untrue. The fact that you simultaneously claim that I have "imagined" about your bad behaviour shows that you haven't learned after all. Or you do you really think your attacks were not bad?

I've pointed out the guidelines. The fact that you see it as "POV attempt" is not enough. The same with that it's a "false analogy". Who says it must be an analogy and who claim it is? It doesn't have to be directly related but it's relevant and connected to the topic. I will go forward with this. I don't understand the reasons for the removal and if we are going to apply this standard, we must be consistent. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of repeating my explanations and refuting fabricated attacks which you claim happened. It doesn't matter how you or I see it because in this case 3 editors disagree with you and the misrepresented guidelines you've pointed out. And what exactly did you mean when you wrote "I will go forward with this. I don't understand the reasons for the removal and if we are going to apply this standard, we must be consistent" ? -Shalom11111 (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of these three editors. I of course mean that I will take this to a noticeboard. It does not matter if three editors does not agree with me if their reasons is not consistent with the guideline. That is why I will bring this up and see what others say. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think this article should link to that one. Nor should that article link to this one (which it does). Two links or none are the only options logic allows, and I vote for none. These links, both of them, look like political statements rather than mere information. Shalom11111, will you support none too? Zero^talk 07:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, finally a logical solution. I think we all agree with Zero0000, so I removed this article from the "See also" section in that one. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of villages and towns depopulated of Jews during the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303074135/http://jewishwebindex.com/ukrainian%20shtetls.htm to http://jewishwebindex.com/ukrainian%20shtetls.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does this term mean, in context? Because in the case of recent additions about Romania, it’s not clear. Take, for example, Sighet. It’s true that the majority of its Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, but survivors returned after the war, and there were over 2000 Jews there in 1947. The majority left for Israel a few years later. Even today, the city has around a dozen Jews.

So clearly, the Holocaust drastically affected the Jews of Sighet, but it did not depopulate them, if the definition is “zero remaining or returned Jews” — which actually happened in other places. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, I think the solution to this issue is actually requiring sources which state that the place was depopulated of Jews. Currently the list has hardly any sources. Unsourced content, especially if its factual accuracy is in doubt, can be removed by any editor for failing the core content policy WP:V. (t · c) buidhe 22:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe is correct about the need for sources to meet the Verifiabilty requirement, but this does not mean that all content should immediately be deleted, since it does appear reasonably verifiable and there are alternatives to deleting currently unsourced, or under-sourced information, notably, adding sources (and this article does indicate that those sources exist in the References and Further Reading sections; or tagging the sections to indicate that it needs references, for example, {{refimprove}}. I would suggest that adding sources and or tagging for reference improvement is the approach to take, since the overall veracity of these lists is not in doubt by anyone who is not a Holocaust denier, and for sure, it would be best to have a reference for each place listed rather than deleting them wholesale. --Chefallen (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Depopulate" doesn't necessary mean reduced to zero. Several print and online dictionaries give the meaning as severely reducing the population, for example:

"to reduce greatly the population of" (Merrriam-Webster in the US) [3]

"to cause an area to have far fewer people living in it than before" (Macmillan in the UK) [4]. --Chefallen (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to accurately determine whether the population of town, etc., had been severely reduced due the Holocaust, the comparison of population figures needs to be from as soon before and after the Holocaust as possible. With regards to Sighet, for example, there were more than 10,000 Jews in the town until 1941, and thousands were deported from the Sighet ghetto to the extermination camps in 1944. Since there were 2,000 Jews in the town in 1947 (some of whom were refugees from other towns), to say that the Jewish community of Sighet had been depopulated would be supported by the definition of the word depopulated. --Chefallen (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]