Talk:nuclear holocaust

Google Search

 * Google Search: Results 1 - 100 of about 404,000 for "nuclear holocaust". (0.43 seconds)


 * Google Scholar Search: Results 1 - 100 of about 10,600. (0.23 sec)

WritersCramp 12:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January–February 2018
Rfv-sense: The possibility of complete annihilation of human civilization by nuclear war.

Tagged but not listed. It does not look very different from the first definition to me. Perhaps they should just be merged. Kiwima (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "the possibility" is not correct (that would be "the possibility of a nuclear holocaust"). Equinox ◑ 22:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is this not nuclear + holocaust. Perhaps holocaust alone refers to both a result and its potential or the process/events leading up to it. For some commonly used nouns we tease out multiple definitions for different phases or aspects of something, but this seems easily carried too far. What enables this second sense to seem distinctly meaningful is that we wouldn't want to be denied the use of the dramatic collocation "nuclear holocaust" merely by the fact that it has not yet happened. An author or speaker would much rather write or say nuclear holocaust than "risk (or "possibility) of a nuclear holocaust." DCDuring (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Send to RFD as SoP, I think. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It already is at RFD. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I think the discussion here can safely be concluded. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed the RFVed sense, which was not distinct from the other sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–February 2018
Looks sum of parts to me. Kiwima (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * holocaust is a weird word. It's a pretty rare historical word, that became common by being linked to one event. Our second definition "The annihilation or near-annihilation of a group of animals or people, whether by natural or deliberate agency." seems to miss a large part of the meaning; it's not the normal English word for that, and its usage seems so dominated by its primary meaning. The citations available are also heavily dominated by the Holocaust, so it's hard to get a hold of a representative sample of its non-Nazi caused usage. I feel that Donskis says it well "we have to be fair and sympathetic to the Holocaust survivors, who fear, and rightly so, that a simplistic and relativistic approach to the Shoah as, supposedly, one of many Holocausts in Europe becomes a sort of obfuscation and trivialization of the tragedy." To which the nuclear holocaust names a specific unique event, even if that event was in the future of the speaker.
 * I guess what it comes down to is that I don't think we have a good enough basis in holocaust for me to feel comfortable declaring nuclear holocaust a sum of parts. It is, at the very least, a common collocation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. You seem confused by the distinction between and . —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. I do find it irritating that holocaust has different senses, annihilation vs. mass murder of an ethnic group, but that does not save the nominated term from SoP, I think. Lemmings principle does not save the entry: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP. - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)