Talk:Nuclear holocaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] Capitalization

This came up as a result of a move discussion at List of nuclear holocaust fiction. I'd like to reword the article slightly, as "nuclear holocaust" is incorrectly capitalized ("Nuclear Holocaust") in the body text and the article title. Common usage is to spell it as "nuclear holocaust" (lower case), as demonstrated by a Google search on the term. (The upper-case spellings tend to occur only in headline text, where most words are capitalized; the term is in lower case in body text.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, the American Heritage Dictionary defines holocaust as follows:

"Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire."

"Holocaust: The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II"

The definition is accompanied by a usage note that says:

"When capitalized Holocaust refers specifically to the destruction of Jews and other Europeans by the Nazis and may also encompass the Nazi persecution of Jews that preceded the outbreak of the war."

The usage note also references the term nuclear holocaust using the lower-case form. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the appropriate thing to do here is, but the closest thing to a relevant style guide is this: WP:MILHIST#NAME. There's currently no explicit mention of particular major events/conflicts/conflagrations in the Manual of Style for capitalization.]] It seems as though the caps for this article and the associated list might be best determined by whether we define "Nuclear Holocaust" as a single, particular event like The Holocaust or a class of events. In the former case, it should likely remain capitalized, like World War III. If not, should drop the case of holocaust. Suggestions? Ideas?

Noted this discussion in Requested Moves MrZaius^talk 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust was not a single event, it was a set of events in which Nazis attempted to obliterate Jews, Romani, and some other people. Imprisonment in ghettos was a set of events, Kristallnacht was another set of events, the taking of Jews by train to the camps was essentially an event for each trip so taken, and so on and so forth. Each gassing also counts as an event. So we're talking potentially hundreds of thousands, or millions, of events, that make up the Holocaust. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article may need a reworking in respect to the "Holocaust" reference - some descriptions of the term attribute it to the "fire" definition ("holocaust") as opposed to a connection with, or comparison to, the World War II atrocity ("The Holocaust"). --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lowercase is appropriate. Unlike the Holocaust, "nuclear holocaust" is a concept, not a proper name. Croctotheface 12:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

above comment is correct. When one happens, then we can use capitals when referring to it. Untill then lowercase. 88.107.171.217 (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page, per the request at WP:RM and the above discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki missing

Hi. Unfortunately I don't know how to insert the link myself. The German article about nuclear holocaust can be found here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuklearer_Holocaust 86.59.64.78

I can understand the significance of the ending of "A Canticle for Leibowitz" within the context of this article, but is it really necessary to spoil the end of the book to make a small point? I mean, seriously, I was considering reading that book sometime. LAME, to say the least, so I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.250.103 (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)