Talk:Holocaust denial

"MPAC Rebukes Iranian President" reference

The link to the relevant MPAC website is outdated (i.e. broken). I found the link here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080617083103/http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=231 but I do not know how to edit references in this article. So, Wikipedia junkies, have at it! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.214.70 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Y Done, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Question concerning definition

"Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust." Could someone clarify the way 'Holocaust denial' is defined? It seems it'd make more sense to include 'some or all parts' (or something similar) in the introduction, because many of the Holocaust deniers don't dispute the actual genocide of Jews and others in the camps. While it's certainty disturbing what some refuse to believe, the sentence reads as if Holocaust deniers deny Jews and other groups died at all. I may not be as exposed to some of the literature out there as others, but I've never heard such a claim made by anyone. I would have changed it myself, but this is a sensitive issue and I'd like to hear what people think about the definition as it stands. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, killing a group of people, some of whom happened to be Jewish, would not be genocide. Genocide is the mass extermination of an ethnic group. To deny that Jews were killed en masse is to deny "the genocide of Jews during World War II". Whether holocaust deniers admit that some Jews were killed is irrelevant to the question of genocide.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, to deny that Jews were killed en masse would be to deny the genocide of Jews. But what I've read from David Irving, and to a lesser extent David Duke, neither deny that Jews were killed en masse. Both admit that Jews were (deliberately) killed in large numbers. What both are denying are the exact number of Jews killed and the means with which they were killed. This seems to be a common thread amongst deniers. The numbers that the they throw around are still considered sufficient to constitute the term 'genocide' in any case. What they will admit is relevant, in this case, if what they admit still constitutes genocide. But let me reiterate the original reason for posting, which is the definition in the introduction. It still implies that Holocaust deniers deny mass killings of Jews took place, which as I mentioned above, is not correct. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lede explains that "The key claims of Holocaust denial are: the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews, Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews, and the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million". That is how reliable sources define it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Genocide is still genocide whether there was an official policy or not. I think the issue with the extermination camps is one of semantics, because clearly the camps were where the killings took place. Deniers generally refer to them as concentration or internment camps and try to equate them with the concentration/internment camps in the US that held Japanese/Japanese-Americans. The problem I'm seeing with the definition still stands, as the major deniers don't deny Jews were killed en masse, don't deny the existence of camps (however they're terming them), and even the lowest numbers I've seen thrown out (ABSURDLY low) still easily meet the definition of genocide. I'm really not trying to split hairs, it's just the first sentence doesn't reflect this. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to post again right after myself, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial The introduction uses the exact same source as the introduction to this article, but the Criticism of H.D. article has a much clearer and more accurate definition of Holocaust denial. "Criticism of Holocaust denial criticizes claims to the effect that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust[1]—did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship." The phrases 'did not occur in the manner' and 'to the extent' are a much more accurate description/definition of Holocaust denial than 'denying the genocide of Jews' which is what this article currently opens up with in the introduction. Clarity is important. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what it used to say here too - it was copied from this article. However, someone objected and changed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Further looking into sources, I mistakenly thought Citation 1 was where the definition came from; my mistake, it appears that it is citing the definition of the Holocaust. But Citation 3, where the 'key elements' in the introduction come from, says: "First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." So this says that Holocaust deniers generally believe mass murder of Jews occurred, there were no homicidal gas chambers, as as a 'general rule' throw out numbers between 300,000 and 1.5 million. This means that Citation 3's definition allows for mass murders, albeit without gas chambers, and even the lowest number, 300,000, would still constitute genocide. My problem now is that the definition in the introduction of the article contradicts not only the key elements that follow immediately after it, but contradicts the source that actually defines Holocaust denial. This should be fixed. Either the sources, or the way this is being defined in the first sentence. EDIT. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability "Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." As it stands, the first definition of Holocaust denial does not have a source, because the citation following the definition lists the definition of Holocaust, rather than the definition of Holocaust denial. Citation 3 does, however, define Holocaust denial. It just doesn't match up with the current first-sentence definition in this article. 65.0.151.65 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the def in Criticism of holocaust denial. Do we know why that was changed? Are there any objections to changing it to something like this:

Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust, or the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship.

I'd welcome anyone to clean the wording up (I'm short on time myself), but I don't see any neutrality problems with that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The only issue I have with that wording is that it essentially keeps the current definition. I didn't bring it up because of neutrality issues or anything, I brought it up because Holocaust denial isn't defined as denial of the genocide of Jews, nor is there a source in this article that says it is. The citation that actually has the definition says what the other article (Crit. of Holocaust denial) says, and what the 'key elements' part of this article says, which is also what the second part of the new proposed definition says. Neutrality wasn't a particular issue for me, because immediately following the current definition, the key elements get it right. The first definition doesn't. 65.0.151.65 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Holocaust denial constitutes a couple different things, so our definition is going to have to cover each of those possibilities. You're right that we shouldn't only say that it's about denying a genocide, but we also shouldn't only say it's about denying the gas chambers, or only denying the raw numbers. I think my proposal above (rephrased from the criticism article) covers each of the three possibilities well (I'm obviously happy for input/criticism on it too). Anecdotally, I've heard, seen and read people denying the Holocaust happened at all, and if our sources don't cover that possibility, I would suspect it's our sources which are lacking rather than the text. Next week I may have some time to look into it. If we really do have no sources at all which say Holocaust denial includes denying a genocide altogether, then we can change the wording to "is the act of denying the manner or extent of the genocide..." instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's cited and includes something along the lines of what you've suggested, that sounds great. I just don't want undue weight on the denial of the Holocaust as a whole, because as far as I can tell from the major deniers (listed in this article), this is not the case. In any event, what you're saying sounds fine to me. 65.0.151.65 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

CAIR

I recently added CAIR's condemnation of Ahmedinejad's Holocaust denial conference, but it was removed because it gave "too much detail". I don't feel that way. The section includes individual views of individuals and groups, including some author named "Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani".

I think its also appropriate to know that the Islamic Republic's statements on the Holocaust have been condemned by Muslim groups.VR _talk 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a whole article about the topic, and this is supposed to be just a summary; it's not clear to me why the views of one specific group would be more interesting or valuable than any other, and in any event the CAIR is an American group, not Iranian (an Iranian group might be more relevant). If there is other stuff in the summary that doesn't belong, the solution is to remove that stuff as well, not add even more inappropriate material. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've added criticism by an Iranian leader.VR _talk 19:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)