Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Worth mentioning?

Surely there should be extra emphasis placed on the factthat holocaust denial is one of the few things that is banned across much of the western world, despite the idea of freedom of speech/ does no one find it strange that even the general consensus cannot be challenged, perhaps indicating that there is something to hide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.80.218 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, "something to hide", you mean like some sort of Jewish conspiracy? Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Pedophilia is also banned across much of the western world, the "something to hide" is probably that the consensus viewpoint is that raping small children, and denying genocide, are pretty much frowned upon by society. Ronabop (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing to hide. People just don't know how conspiracy theories work. The more you stop people from believeing in conspiracy theories, the more people will believe in them, especially when there are no other explainations about the exceeding effort to stop people from believeing them. Some people just can't understand this problem. The more you describe Holocaust denial as evil and antisemitic, the more Holocaust deniers you will attract. The more Holocaust deniers you attract, the more you describe Holocaust denial as evil and antisemitic (this is why Holocaust denial is illegal in some countries while less popular denialing is not). This chain reaction loop has the potential to cause massive episodes of Holocaust denial, although luckly many people are smart enough to avoid it. Again, I say: THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, the only reason it looks like there is something to hide is because too many people are not smart enough to see the loop. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC) ...
Which of course does not include you, right? 62.226.7.113 (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Gröning quote

As pointed out elsewhere, the quote of Gröning is a falsification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.19.162 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean as claimed elsewhere, by you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. And? 62.226.5.175 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
All you do on the other page is quibble at length over two translations of the same quote that essentially say the same thing. Can you substantiate your claim that the quote is a "falsification"? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you had read and comprehended what I wrote, you would neither say that I only "quibble at length over two translations of the same quote", because this is simply not true, nor would you need to ask me to substantiate my claim, as I have given links to both the transcript and a video of the interview. Unless of course your intentions are not kosher... 62.226.17.204 (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what he's trying to say is that Groning did not actually say that he had seen "gas chambers", and that this phrase was added on in the translations of the interview.86.44.99.184 (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to say? That is exactly what I said! Gröning did not speak of "gas chambers" and this makes it a falsification, exactly one of those things that "Holocaust deniers" are accused of, though, contrary to my accusation, no supporting proof is given. And then, instead of dealing with the issue in a sane way, the game is continued and I am accused of "quibbling", while in fact "quibbling" is one of the things I was pointing out and trying to correct in "Criticism of Criticism of Holocaust Denial". I guess this is what someone once called the "Big Lie Technique" and I wonder how long it takes until this little "error" is corrected, not to speak of the others. I won't hold my breath... --62.226.7.113 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"See also: Criticism of Holocaust denial"

this link should appear below the article. its current position indicates hyper-defensiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.145.82 (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think he means that most people do not click links until they finish reading the article, and since most people finish at the bottom, they tend to click links there and since "Criticism of Holocaust denial" is at the top people will not click it. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)...
That doesn't seem to jibe with the phrase "hyper-defensiveness". Jayjg (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It is too unclear what he/she means, best ignore this and leave things as it is until clarification. Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what hyper-defensiveness means either, but I think that putting 'Critism of Holocaust denial' right at the top seems a bit PoV-ish. (As it states the moment it is mentioned that it is critised). Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be a section in the Holocaust article titled critique of the Holocaust hypothesis as well. Or isn't that allowed. --41.14.24.36 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The Holocaust is not a "hypothesis"; it's history. Any section like that would have to be referenced to reliable sources, which it couldn't be, since they don't exist. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
History is a science and as such does only deal with hypothesises and not with eternal truth or dogmas as you seem to suggest. And a hypothesis is not validated or invalidated by your preferences or that of your ilk, Mr. Anderson. 62.226.7.113 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and let's be clear here, shall we? The problem is not that a section as the one suggested can't be written because it would need to be referenced to a reliable source which does not exist, but that any source that can be used as a reference for such a section is deemed unreliable by the proponents of the "Holocaust" hypothesis, while at the same time nearly any source that supports the "Holocaust" hypothesis is automatically deemed reliable. Neat, isn't it? 62.226.7.113 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Back to the point. I'm not aware of any precedent for placing a link to a criticism sub-article before the lead. Imagine the controversy if, say, the article on George W. Bush began with a link to his (admittedly well-cited) criticism sub-article. The historical record speaks for itself--we don't have to beat the reader over the head. Deltabeignet (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Intimidation

See WP:NOTFORUM. Please comment on the article, not on editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems clear from the preceding discussion that certain users, including Jayjg, JESS, and Stephen J. Anderson, are trying to intimidate the anonymous user at IP 66.183.59.211. Statements like this are totally objectionable: "If that idea isn't appealing to you, then this isn't the project you should be working on." (JESS) - or this: "Yeah, good, IP. I think you're starting to catch on. So, tell me, if you understand the meaning of the sentence The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. tell me if you can understand this sentence. The consensus of the editors was that the "Antisemitism" sidebar should remain in the article." (Stephen J. Anderson)

I can well understand why IP 66.183.59.211 has chosen to remain anonymous given this climate of discussion. The above-named users are adopting a tone of mocking condescention and irrational self-assertion which does no credit to the point of view they are trying to defend.86.44.99.184 (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Some stories just don't have two sides. There is broad, deep, and thick international consensus that Holocaust denial is irrational, anti-semitic pseudo-historical hate speech. Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to pretend otherwise to prevent hurting antisemites' feelings, nor is it obligated to engage in endless circuitous pseudo-Socratic dialogue about whether or not it's truly true that what we truly know to be true is truly truly true, no matter how tediously the fringe gnaws the bone. RT-LAMP (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well said. Very intimidating. Though of course not for the inured "Holocaust denier" who knows how the game is played. This rhetoric only impresses the clueless newbie and I am pretty sure that this is were it is aimed at. And I am also sure that you realize that truth is not determined by majority vote, since I find it hard to believe that you are not aware that, for example, once there also was a "broad, deep, and thick international consensus" that the earth is the center of the universe. Besides, you certainly know that there also is an "international consensus" that "Holocaust denial" is in fact revisionism and neither irrational nor anti-semitic nor pseudo-historical nor hate speech, even though this fraction is admittedly not as "broad, deep, and thick", contains fewer Jews, and not all people belonging to it want to be identified as they would risk to go to jail, loose their job, getting harrassed, etc.
By the way, it's funny that, while the "Holocaust deniers" deal meticulously with "the other side", they are called deniers by those who constantly claim "There is no other side". How weird is that? 62.226.7.113 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Not everyone is suited for editing wikipedia. Some people just have different goals. For instance, someone who wishes to advertise for their company is browsing the wrong site. Similarly, WP has certain policies and values which we strive to uphold. One of the most important of those values is verifiability. We don't just choose what content to put in articles ad-hoc. We report what reliable sources say, and we do that exclusively. If these values are not shared by an editor, then they shouldn't be editing here. That isn't to say that they aren't welcome, but simply that our project isn't suited to their goals. There are other projects (including other wikis) which have different values they might find more appealing. Conservapedia is a prime example. For a user to monopolize a talk page arguing about the applicability of one of the prime values of WP is both against policy and a waste of time. Their efforts are simply better spent working on a project they do agree with. 21:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, then you surely are inconsolable that some of your reliable sources turn out to be not as reliable as you thought. Though, since you are such an upright bunch with values and all, I do not quite understand why you choose to ignore that instead of striving to uphold those values. And to avoid any confusions: No, I did not use sources that are deemed unreliable by you. 62.226.7.113 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
My reliable sources didn't turn out to be as reliable as I thought? Excuse me? You're quoting an article to which I never even contributed. I'm drawing a line in the sand here. It's been explained to you innumerable times that wikipedia runs on reliable sources. Your discussion of whether that is warranted is entirely out of place here, is disruptive, and against policy. If anywhere, it belongs in the relevant policy page, not on an article about history. Please comment on the content of the article, not on policy, motives of other editors, and so forth. Any further discussion outside the scope of improving the article may be reverted or ignored. Best of luck. 01:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious historians?

Is that a joke??? Who is the god here to determine who is a serious historian and who is not??? i'm speaking about a statement at beggining of the discussion page where one question says "Not all the historian have rejected the holocaust denial" and responds: Yes they do!!!! Here there are two exceptions Harry Elmer Barnes Rousas John Rushdoony and maybe many more. So why says there "yes they do"?. But the word "serious", according to me is the most worrying to wikipedia. There's not freedom of expression. Why a holocaust denier is antisemitic? From the point of view of the denier (even if what is he claiming is false) he cannot be an antisemitic because to him he's saying the truth and the antisemitics are not impartially in his opinions. --190.172.198.184 (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I posted on the Neo-Nazi page... Would you care to provide any reliable sources for your claim? Also, welcome to wikipedia. Please check out the five pillars and ask if you have any questions. Phrasing things less combatively might get you further. Best of luck. 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Would Fritjof Meyer be considered a serious historian? 159.105.80.122 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, and he doesn't claim to be. He's a political scientist and a journalist; in the particular case of his Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz, his numbers are based on speculation and selective interpretation of data. Here is a discussion of the various mistakes in Meyer's work, by a "serious historian". --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

From the opening section - For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Isn't this just speculation and should be removed in the opening title of this contested article? By including such a statement in the opening section, we spell out that this entire article is false and should be ignored, when that is an opinion of one group of people on a side of this discussion.

And Citations 8 and 9 are unnecessary duplicates of the wiki concept as they are also linked to existing wiki articles on those terms. Storpappa (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storpappa (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's not speculation. Holocaust denial is indeed an antisemitic conspiracy theory. That's what our reliable sources say, so that's what we say. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
"For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory." This sentence is absolutely not exagerated. A harder word as "generally" should be right and even righter. But generally is a moderate position. Why? Because all the collectiv massacres were be denied (and violence in general, for instance against the women). And why denied? In respect of the killed people? Of course, no.Heinrich Himmler was already a denier. It is easy to find the way he spoke about Auschwitz and other places. There is not but a statement where the nazis were saying : we want to make a genocide? It is the same in Turkey, Rwanda etc. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is indeed an antisemitic conspiracy theory. That's what our reliable sources say, so that's what we say. --jpgordon: Does this statement not show a type of bias?I realise that people are offended by even the thought of it but its undeniably something to be considered.There are jewish men and women who have spoken out against some of the details of the holocaust.The way the article and popular opion would charcterize this is as holocaust denial. By saying that holocaust denial is in all cases anti semetic means that there is a bias. This is an example of a bias shaping wiki and its article and needs to be changed.There is nothing wrong with a historical overview that is willing to at least present both sides fairly.Wikimakesmart (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Unless you can come up with a reliable source supporting your claims, your complaints are just meaningless noise. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Comment

UserVOBO made a change to some hidden text wrapped around the death tole number to make it more friendly, but his change was reverted by Petri Krohn. Petri's edit summary does little to illuminate for me any objections to the proposed change, but rather than reverting I'd like to bring the discussion here. Per WP:Please do not bite the newcomers and WP:AGF, the new proposal seems vastly superior, both in tone and in direction. Are there any legitimate objections to the new phrasing? Jesstalk|edits 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that no-doubt well-meaning (typically IP) editors see the number "five" of "at least five" and automatically change it to "six". The screaming capitals seem to make them pause and think about it for that crucial second. Before the note went all-capitals this was happening once a week; since then, it has stopped. Jayjg (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Irving

He has never said he denies the holocaust. This article says that he plead guilty to holocaust denial. By that POV, there should be referenced quote where he denies being a denier as well, as the view that Irving is a holocaust denier is not share by serious historians. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what Irving does is play a game of doublespeak common to many Holocaust deniers. He denies the Holocaust whilst denying that he denies the Holocaust. An example of his moral courage is to assure all and sundry that he accepts the fact that the Holocaust happened while he is being sentenced for it or seeking commutation or clemency. Then, as soon as he is on the loose, he visits the IHR or some neo-Nazi group to loudly reaffirm his denial of the Holocaust. That Irving is a holocaust denier certainly is shared by serious historians, particularly those who testified against him during Irving v. Lipstadt. More on this can be found at David Irving. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That conviction, that he assures all and sundry, is an opinion of yours. I don't deny that I disagree with him on political measures, indeed he has been quoted as saying he is a; moderate fascist and mild fascist, oxymoronic, if it is corect, but I don't pay my attentions to politics. The fact's are never has he confirmed he denies the holocaust, he has said that he "supports revision of the content", and this is not of entirely the same ilk as utter denialism. Irving isn't objectively a holocaust denier and I stress the text, or at least context, of this article ought to make this clear. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That he assures all and sundry is a fact not an opinion. He makes a public statement on the public record that all can hear. Then, when he is out of danger, he resumes denying the Holocaust. If you'll take a look at the article, you'll see that Holocaust (correction, Holocaust denial) encompasses rhetorical techniques beyond simply saying that no one died in the Holocaust. Irving is certainly a denier and the text, and context, of the article appropriately make this clear. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Which article?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Our opinions on the matter are irrelevant; Wikipedia only cares what reliable sources say on the subject. Considering that dozens of reliable sources describe Irving as a "Holocaust denier", and that both a British court and an Austrian court have found him guilty of Holocaust denial, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss here. Jayjg (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

David Irving and his supporters here [1] make up a significant third-party, reliable grouping, whether we like it or not. I consider myself ambivalent on politics, so I do not really indulge myself on the first-hand newspaper accounts of Irvings' politics, if I did, I would be less smart then I was. Moreover, third-parties are not universally correct in their balance, and added materials calling him a holocaust denier, whilst slightly more time on wikipedia is called for by them, since some of what irving has said appears to justify fascism, this does not precipitantly deny any squaring of Irving's groups and those others who support a translucency they percieve in him, such as Christopher Hitchens, who make reliable third-party references which inch away from the rhetorical question of Irving's politics being "fascist". With all due respect, we need to turn up equality under the reference in wikipedia, and not turn up the interpretations. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? On what basis could you possibly imagine that "Irving and his supporters" qualify as reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Cymbelmineer asks "Which article?" Answer: Holocaust denial, the article we're discussing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I took one of the two articles in your post as being the one you were reffering to. those journalists who support Irving, have written balanced third-party articles. No opinion is more transparent than the other one. Articles written by Hitchens and by Irving's friends, some of whom are qualified university trained historians, have written artilces about him which are relevant to this article, and some should be used.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Please provide what you consider to be a reliable source stating that he is not a Holocaust denier. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
As soon as I find it I will.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
See here for his present point of view.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefarright --Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not actually relevant to my request, but in any event, that was what he stated in 2006, after being convicted. The day after his release from prison and return to England he vowed "to repeat views denying the Holocaust that led to his conviction", saying he felt "no need any longer to show remorse" for his views on the Holocaust.[2] Again, please provide what you consider to be a reliable source stating that he is not a Holocaust denier. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
If Cymbelmineer was to provide an article supporting his claims about the views of David Irving, who would he have to present it to, in order to attempt deeming it a reliable source? You? How would he ever go about getting an article opposing other reliable sources' claims, as reliable? --Kotu Kubin (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're curious about process, the answer is, like most everything else on Wikipedia, these decisions are made by consensus. There are are a number of ways of achieving this. He could, as per WP:BRD boldly edit an article, see if anyone reverts him and then discuss the disputed source. If he thinks his edits are likely to be disputed, he could bring them to an article talk page for discussion in advance of editing. Also there is a reliable sources noticeboard where opinions on the reliability of sources can be sought. If you're curious, you can ask them about the source he linked to: http://www.fpp.co.uk/ . My prediction is that the editors at that board will be unanimous in saying that's not a reliable source. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, the verdict would most likely turn out like that, since a convinced holocaust denier isn't the best case for a reliable source. Though had this been the 1970s, the time when Irving was still a respected historian, I am convinced that not a single person would have disputed that all of his works indeed was as reliable a source as they came. I am sure that each and every one of you here would have said the same thing. Take the Albert Speer article, in which multiple references are made to Speer's personal memories, deeming this book a reliable source. In this book he personally thanks David Irving for his contributions. Having references to a non-reliable source in an indeed reliable source is not something I could imagine the board would accept, giving the previously assumed reactions we both just agreed upon, though the credit was made at a time where the now non-reliable source was indeed reliable. That makes the entire idea about contemporary reliable sources somewhat vague. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is Irving tried to weasel out of the denial charge in Austria, but fortunately someone had recorded both speeches he gave there. I can't believe there's an argument about this guy, of all people -- he's practically the poster boy for Holocaust denial. Even the deniers don't deny he's a denier! DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth mentioning that while Irving claims he doesn't deny a holocaust (small 'h'), his claim depends on a non-standard definition of what "Holocaust" (capital 'H') means. He redefines it in a way that enables him to deny it, which was why part of the Irving vs Lipstadt libel case was devoted to pinning down what reputable historians mean by "The Holocaust", and why the Judge found that he is, in fact, a Holocaust Denier. EyeSerenetalk 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

This article is now part of an ANI discussion. The editors of this article may, or may not, wish to comment at here---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't find that discussion -- could I trouble someone to point it out? DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the link, but it's a very brief mention. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we lock the page?

I would appreciate a lock being placed on the page as it is open to vandalism by particular groups of people. Thoughts, anyone.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The amount of vandalism and POV-pushing on this page isn't particularly high at the moment. There's a strong tradition on WP of only protecting pages when it's really necessary, not as a general precaution. You can have a look at the types of protection available here, and request protection (if necessary) here, but pages only get protection if there is current disruptive editing, edit warring, or vandalism. None of those conditions are met for this page today, so I don't think an admin will protect (I'm not one, but it doesn't seem to need it ATM). HTH, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

huh?? Even the title of the "article" is POV!. Trentc (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the term academics and other reliable sources use. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Opionions don't make it a fact Trentc (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
What policy-related point are you trying to make? Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Too Long - A Proposal

As a first step toward a sorely-need consolidation of this long-winded article, I've added a paragraph on the Lipstadt-Irving litigation in the "Reactions" section, in the hope I can get a bit of consensus to eliminate the entire section devoted to that lawsuit further on. Since there is an entire separate article on that lawsuit, and an entire separate article on Irving, AND an entire separate article on Lipstadt's book, one concise, descriptive paragraph, with links to those articles, is quite sufficient. If most interested editors find that acceptable, I will propose similar consolidations, with the eventual aim of making this article an objective summary of the key points of the subject, rather than the rambling, repetitive, unencyclopedic quasi-political diatribe it is now. Does that sound reasonable? DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

5 Million Jews

Based on all the hidden "DON'T CHANGE THIS NUMBER" stuff, I'm guessing there has been considerable debate about the 5-million-vs.-6-million-vs.-whatever figure in the past. And I have no desire to open a can of worms here; but the fact remains that there were other victims as well. In addition to Jews, there were roughly 5 million Poles, a million Russians (most of them POWs), half a million gypsies, and an estimated 1 million "miscellaneous others", comprising handicapped unfortunates, homosexuals, people of conscience and courage who sheltered Jews or spoke out against the Reich, and (although it is seldom mentioned) about 100,000 non-Jewish Germans who just "disappeared" for various reasons ranging from trying to start a competing political party, to beating up a Gestapo guy 20 years earlier in high school. Again, I'm not trying to muddy the waters -- but the deniers deny all these other victims too; should we at least mention the larger scope of the atrocity? DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the reason the article reads the way it does is because it's about Holocaust denial not the Holocaust. Deniers seem to be exclusively interested in denying the genocide of the Jews and don't seem to typically pay much attention to the other massive atrocities committed by the Third Reich. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That, I guess, is what I'm really trying to say -- that Holocaust denial is, essentially, anti-Semitism -- nobody says the Holocaust was a Polish conspiracy, or a gypsy or homosexual conspiracy, only a Jewish conspiracy -- nonsense that makes even less sense when you point out that more Gentiles were murdered than Jews. I'm trying to find a way to make this article more focused, and less rambling, and that might be the way -- starting with moving the "Holocaust denial and antisemitism" section up toward the beginning of the article, and building the rest of the article around that theme. Any objections to my doing that? Do most accept the premise that Holocaust denial essentially equals anti-Semitism? DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason for "DON'T CHANGE THIS NUMBER" comment was because well-meaning individuals often didn't see that "at least" before the "5 million", and changed it to "6 million". Modern academic sources, on the other hand, give a death toll of somewhere between 5.1 million and just over 6 million. Regarding the larger scope of the Holocaust, it's true that the term "the Holocaust" is sometimes used in a narrower sense to refer to the Jewish victims (who were its primary focus), and other times used in a larger sense to refer to all the non-Jewish victims as well (whose numbers in raw numbers may have equaled or even exceeded the Jewish victims). However, Holocaust denial itself is an activity directed solely at Jews, and at denying the Jewish victims - as you point out, no-one says it was a Polish conspiracy etc. The section on Holocaust denial and antisemitism is analysis, rather than description, so I think it probably makes more sense at the end of the article - first describe what it is, then discuss it. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
But what it is, I think we're all agreeing, is anti-Semitism -- the anti-Semitic vandalism reverted just today makes it more obvious than ever -- which is why I think we ought to call a spade a spade, and describe it as such from the get-go. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

--If an individual acknowledges that the Holocaust was an attempt by the Nazis to kill virtually every person of Jewish heritage that they could lie their hands on, then I think it is totally inappropriate to label such a person a “Holocaust denier” for merely questioning whether the commonly cited figure of six million murdered might not be significantly inflated. Such an assertion does not deny the historical motivation or fact but merely questions how successful the mass murderers were in accomplishing their criminal goals.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell us where someone who takes that position has been so labeled? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

--This is a very emotional issue and for understandable reasons. If the actual figure of ethnically Jewish people judicially murdered in the Holocaust was five million, then I would judge holding it was six million to be a statistically significant inflation; most certainly from a human standpoint. Any decent person who is thinking straight would want the lower figure to be correct. We are dealing with human beings here and not mere statistics. However, the six million figure, first established at Nuremberg, has become so enshrined within the canon of the Holocaust that many negatively react reflexively to any attempt to argue for a lesser figure, even if that lesser figure is itself too horrible to bear contemplating.

I think many people (especially those of Jewish heritage) fear that any downgrading of the number of victims is the first step in an incremental (“slippery slope”) attempt to arrive at an out-and-out revisionist history of Holocaust denial. Thus, they react hostilely to any attempt to ”denigrate” the iconic six million figure.

Although I don’t know if he was accused of actually being a Holocaust denier, Professor Raul Hilberg (himself of Jewish heritage) was much maligned both for pegging the figure significantly lower (5.1 million Jewish deaths from all causes during the event) and for challenging the conventional wisdom as to how events developed that led to the great tragedy. His doctorial dissertation was even rejected by one judge as being “anti-Semitic."

I’ve encountered people on various forums who have used the “Holocaust denier” epithet for any who argue for a significantly lower figure (even five million), and I noted the discussion here about using “at least five million” versus “six million” in describing the number of victims. I was afraid such could happen here.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

--Perhaps even a short section entitled “Holocaust denialism vs. legitimate debate.” In the section one can address legitimate debates concerning estimates of the number of victims and differences between the intentionlist and functionalist interpretations of how the tragedy occurred and how such debates contrast to denialism which positions demonstrably disingenuous "arguments" in support of a political agenda.HistoryBuff14.

HistoryBuff, this article doesn't call Hilberg a Holocaust denier. To the contrary. It mentions him as a witness for the prosecution at the Zundel trial. No one here cares what you've "encountered" on "various forums" and discussing that is not what this talk page is for. Since you've never made a single, constructive contribution to Wikipedia, I feel compelled to ask; Do you intend to troll this talk page with endless, pointless, useless posts like you have every other talk page you've touched on Wikipedia? If so, I suggest you alter your plan, since no one here has patience for it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

--Mr. Anderson, since your last response came on the heels of mine, I shall afford you the benefit of the doubt that you had not read it. It is a suggestion as to how to improve the article per the request of another poster. You might not agree with the suggestion, but a legitimate suggestion it is.

As to your untoward remarks concerning my Wiki posts, I shall take the liberty of quoting someone here as follows:

“You are way out of line with this, fella. I made a perfectly appropriate and on-topic post on that talk page. If you think you're going to intimidate me off that talk page with a remark like this, you're in for some news.”

Touché’? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Pas de touché; this isn't a fencing match; it's a collaborative effort to create an encyclopedia. Regarding your suggestion of perhaps even a short section entitled “Holocaust denialism vs. legitimate debate. -- do you have some reliable sources to draw upon to create such a section? --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

--I rarely touch an article and in the cases where I have, I always pay others the courtesy of discussing it on the talk page first. Since this article is already lengthy, my intention was to insert a short section. Therefore, I shall write it and post it here on the talk page for comments and then it can be added if the consensus feels as though it is warranted and we can discuss sources then. As this is the busy season at my business, and because I have a couple of other projects ahead of it, it might be a few weeks to a month before I am able to report back for your inspection.

In regard to another suggestion, since apparently (as indicated by the note on the top of the page) some feel as though the article is too long and perhaps unwieldy, in my travels within the Wikipedia universe I encountered a gentleman who seems to be on an (apparently) self-appointed mission to condense articles. He never seems to discuss beforehand even major changes that he makes on the articles’ talk pages which has resulted in some rather heated comments on his talk page. (I say “comments” rather than “exchanges” because he rarely deigns to respond.) Nevertheless, I must admit he does a superlative job in rendering articles not only more concise but more coherent as well. If people here who have been involved with this article had any inclination to do so, you could invite him to look at the article and render his services:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Treybien

One word of caution before doing so: Although he has very good writing skills and excellent editing ones (indeed, he might consider submitting his resume to Reader’s Digest, which would seem most appropriate for his skills), he doesn’t appear to be as knowledgeable about specific topics as one would like before such major edits are made. If you would like him to bring his literary buzz saw to this article, it would be wise to read the article over carefully afterwards to assess whether any collateral damage has been done in regard to factual issues. All in all, however, he does an admirable job in rendering articles more readable.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

With all respect, in reviewing that editor's contributions, I'd do the condensing myself rather than let him do it. But like you, I'm busy, so it'll be awhile before I could get to it. Meanwhile, this thread has strayed significantly from my original proposition, which is that since Holocaust denial is at its root anti-Semitism (and everyone appears to agree on that), I think the article should make that point early on, rather than alluding to it with great temerity near its conclusion. And if no one objects, that's what I will do, once I find the time. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Himmler quote

Hey all, I recently tried to put an explanation used by holocaust deniers for Himmler's quote in the article, (located in the "Attempts at concealment by perpetrators" section) but I only cited it with a holocaust denial website. I was not aware that using holocaust denial sites as references was against the rules, but Jayjg corrected me. So I put the edit back, this time citing with an article from the LA Times, but Jayjg reverted it again... I'm sure he meant well, but isn't this article a little too biased for Wikipedia if it only contains arguments from people who believe the Holocaust happened, while the counterarguments that deniers have used are removed? I mean, this is the holocaust denial article, shouldn't it contain a reason why deniers discount such a seemingly conclusive quote? For the record, I personally am undecided on the issue of whether or not the Holocaust happened as it is traditionally said to have happened; I've heard decent arguments for both sides. N3philim (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That just means your mind is open but not fully operational. You first cite was from the Holocaust denial site codoh.org, and can't be used at all, in any way shape or form, except as an example of what Holocaust denial sites claim (as opposed to your presentation, which attempts to insert the assertion as fact.) The Associated Press article appears to be quoting the codoh article; don't know why. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Jp, its the other way around, codoh is quoting the AP, but more importantly:
N3phelim, you didn't quite do what you say you did. What you actually did was twice claim as a fact that Wolfe said certain things about the Posen speech and used codoh.com as a reference for that fact. That's not acceptable because codoh.com is not a reliable source for facts, only for its own views.
In your second edit, after this was pointed out to you, you reverted to the same text with the same invalid reference, but included a reference to an AP story printed in the LA Times. The problem with this is that the AP story does not support your false claim that Wolfe said "extirpation" is a "more accurate" translation of "ausrottung". What he actually said was that "extirpation" is "more precise." In this case, however, this precision ignores idiom and context and give a less accurate impression of the contextual meaning of the word. Similarly, if I were to say, in a discussion of, for instance, an American Civil War battle, that an army was "decimated," the precise meaning of that word is that their commander ordered one in ten of them to be executed, a meaning that would be absurd in context. Clearly, what I would mean in such a context is the idiomatic sense of the word "decimated", that it suffered heavy losses. Thus precision can destroy accuracy.
Furthermore, your edit is a WP:BLP violation, as it gives the impression that Wolfe supports codoh.com's view of the matter, which he patently does not.
For the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, I personally am decided on whether the holocaust happened (not "as it is traditionally said to," but as it is clearly and abundantly recorded in history) and have heard decent arguments on only one side. If you think you've heard "decent arguments" on the other side, you may want to give more thought to what you consider a decent argument. You'd do well to understand that most of the regular editors of this page are well aware that claims of being "undecided" or "just trying to get to the bottom of this controversy" are a favored dodge of holocaust deniers. It's nice to have an open mind, but not so open that one's brain falls out.
Lastly (and least importantly), you misspelled ausrottung. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. How about if I change my edit to "However, holocaust deniers have claimed that the above quote was mistranslated" and cite the codoh article. Would that be alright? N3philim (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
No. The codoh is not a reliable source, therefore you pretty much can't use it for anything on Wikipedia. If you find a reliable source making that argument, then you can use it. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You might be interested to know that two days after making the speech you're referring to, Himmler basically repeated it to a different audience of Nazi seniority, except where he uses "ausrotten", he defines it with "umbringen". To conclude: this is the man second only to Hitler describing the on-going making of Jews "disappearing from the earth" ("von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen") with a word that has absolutely no meaning in the German language other than "to kill". WilliamH (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
its really sad to see that this article is extremely biased. and your comment about open mindedness was uncalled for. it clearly states articles must remain unbiased. i think it should be open to both sides of information. not just what you deem is acceptable. this isn't your call its meant to be edited freely by everyone with credible references. what wiki deems credible and YOU are completely different. so holocaust denier or not you are wrong. i recommend this article be revised if i don't do it myself. "Truth or not, History is written by the victors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.41.217 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
All "credible references" are included. Please review WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Holocaust Denial actually real?

How do we know that the people who commit "Holocaust Denial" actually believe it? According to the documentary Nazi America: A Secret History, George Lincoln Rockwell made up Holocaust denial only as an easy way to recruit followers. Also, why would Nazi groups actually believe Holocaust denial when they intend to do the exact same thing if (when, since most people don't care at all) they take power. Holocaust denial is probably just made up by Nazi leaders and not believed by any of them.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should write a "Holocaust denial denial" page, Anonymiss. :-)
I don't think anything in the current page would be invalidated by your scenario. However, your perspective would be an interesting addition if you can document it through references to scholarly sources. Keep in mind, though, that this is a contentious topic; your sources would have to be solid. It's not enough to reference other people's speculation. NillaGoon (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph move to Talk:

I've moved this recently inserted paragraph here for further discussion:

Many persons do not deny the Holocaust, but point out that the Jews were not the only victims of genocide before and during the Second World War. For example, millions of Ukrainians died during the Holodomor of 1932-1933 on account of the collectivization policies of Josef Stalin, but the plight of these Ukrainians was ignored and covered up by Walter Duranty of the New York Times, as part of his effort to curry favor with the Soviet Union[citation needed]. For writing stories which the New York Times now acknowledges were false,[citation needed] Duranty was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

To begin with, it's completely unsourced. Next, I have no idea why this was inserted in the "Terminology and etymology" section, when it appears to have nothing do with with terminology or etymology. Third, what does it have to do with Holocaust denial at all? It's about the Holodomor. And finally, why insert material with "citation needed" tags in it? Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty clearly like a combination of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK. I support its removal. Spaceclerk (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I can see that it's a (very) vaguely-related subject, but we already link from this article to Denial of the Holodomor, which is all that the vague relationship justifies. Barnabypage (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

firstly every refrence and edit on this page is one sided. the jewish side. if this artile and the wiki itself is to remain unbiased we should include refrences from the revisionist side. it seems only fair. why should someone whos born naturally bias to a subject be allowed to strangle it? i move for a partial rewrite balancing this article for both sides not just the political correct side so we may have a better understanding of the issue not just POV. 24.113.49.10 (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality does not require giving equal coverage to fringe views. See WP:Undue. We do not give hollow earth theories coverage on a par with the geological reality. We do have an article on Hollow Earth theories but deniers of geological reality do not get to write half of it. That is precisely analogous to the situation here. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no "Jewish" or "politically correct" side to this; there is historical reality, and antisemitic religio-fantasy. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As given this paragraph is simply not relevant. It might make sense to have a well-sourced section comparing holocaust denial to other denials of genocide, but this doesn't do that. I don't see what this paragraph is intended to do. Yes, other actions of genocide have occurred. That's true and utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the person offering up the paragraph is trying to put the holocaust in context. In that the Jews were not the only victims of WW2 atrocities, though it would seem that is the way the holocaust has since been marketed (Ref: The Holocaust Industry). Brings up a point. Why are the deaths of so many different peoples in labor camps, at the hands of the Nazis, not all covered by the term "holocaust"? I am glad to see the article specifically mention that disagreeing with the "established facts" can lead to arrest and jail time in a growing number of countries. Article seems much better than when I last read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.4.37 (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is about Holocaust denial, not the Holocaust. Do you have any suggested changes (based on reliable sources) to this article? Jayjg (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

questions

Which of these facts statements, assumptions are wrong and where have they featured in Holocaust revisionism / denial ?

approx 1.5 million Jews emigrated to the USA, to South America, Australia, etc. after 1945. Where did they come from if the USSR and Europe had been so surgically ethnically cleansed? How many Jews moved from Europe to Palestine from say 1920-1945? Where do they fit into the 6 million figure if 1,5 mill. died in A-B, 1,5 mill at other camps(highly dubious effectiveness compared to A-B, the largest camp) and the claim that 1 million + died at the eastern front. Are there really absolutely no reasonably accurate figures for USSR survivors? Professor Michael Parenti seems to claim 3 million jews saved by soviet forces in his talk "Reflections" (youtube) . Anyone know his sources? Nunamiut (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you reviewed WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you add people to the list at the end of the article? I can think of a few to add off hand, Felderer for instance. He doesn't have an article but there is stuff to look up about him on the web. Several others could be named along with some researchers, etc that though not deniers did add to the denial literature ( often by accident). Frithof Meyer and van Pelt come to mind quickly in this vein. Meyer published a memo that van Pelt found, not realizing what the memo implied. The list of deniers looks pitifully small and selected by nondeniers - picked the easiest targets boys, let's put forth some better ones. Where are the instructions to add to the list - I hate html, etc but may have to learn.159.105.81.31 (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The list is actually a pretty weak part of the article, and in any event only includes individuals who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Which van Pelt did you mean? Can you list the full names of those you wish to add so we can look at their Wikipedia articles? Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The van Pelt referred to is Robert Jan van Pelt, I think.
What Vermont libraries guy needs to learn most is not HTML, IMHO. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I also thought he might mean Robert Jan van Pelt, but felt it was equally likely that he meant Lucy van Pelt or Linus van Pelt. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


I checked it out - it is Robert. Squiddy,jayjg,et al can add Linus and Lucy if they wish, please include reliable sources however. Dietlieb Felderer is a good candidate. Robert van Pelt wrote the defense brief for Lipstat that had the footnote that Frithof Meyer wrote an article about. Van Pelt showed that Holocaust believers, even at their most scholarly efforts, it is getting hard to avoid suportting Holocaust denial - even footnotes can unravel a good story. I know there are many others - browse the list of people you have erased over the years for a starter - good job for Squiddy and other scholars with access to reliable sources - Nizkor has some good lists ( although some pretty slanted info - but a good place for young encyclopedia users to jump off for some of their own studies.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Raul Hilberg - no orders from Hitler,Yehuda Bauer - forget Wanssee,Arno Mayer - most deaths from disease( never found the gas chamber), Nuremberg judges - Gerstein Report too shady even for them, JDL would have an exhaustive list, Nizkor - not bad for a mechanic but maybe not reliable.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Which notable individuals do you wish to add, based on what reliable secondary sources? Please name the individuals and provide explicit citations to the reliable secondary sources that designate them as such. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dietlieb Felderer - relilable source - HDOT from Emory University is a great starting point for anyone who wants to learn about Felderer. After reading the trial transcripts ( there and locateable elsewhere ), Lipstat's footnote are a tresure trove for the unlazy research. Yehuda Bauer - wikipedia gives a great start for a term paper. Reliable info I hope, that will lead to much ,much more. Lists from JDL and Nizkor - after reading the calm well-balanced views there will likely result in a web search that will give a wilder eyed look - just printing these reliable sources lists would start the ball rolling. I can actually get a large list of names of unknowns - back in awhile, thanks for the sugesstion, these two are just off the top.159.105.80.220 (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Human Soap, Lamp Shades, etc

There were claims about soap made from Jewish human bodies, and lamp shades made from their skins, as well as examples. These claims were not just at the level of "urban legends" among the populace, but were perpetuated and even used in court trials. These are serious issues, and should be discussed here. I am appalled at the lack of this information on an encyclopedia that claims impartiality. You may not just swipe history under the rug. People were tried and punished for these alleged "crimes". I hope Wikipedia can show true impartiality. Stating, studying, comparing and deliberating ALL facts is at the heart of the scientific method which is inherently impartial and just, and brushing this off with scornful terms such "antisemitic" is clearly not. This applies to both sides. Both sides need to look at all the facts, and not just what they want to see. If you read what I wrote, and still can only see "Jew loving", or "antisemitic", then I wasted my time.--99.246.101.166 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Yes there were stories about lamp shades made from human skin, and other similar tales. And yes many (though not all) of these stories turned out to be false. So what? Few events in human history have been as rigourously and scrupulously analysed as the Holocaust, and there is absolutely no room whatsoever to deny its existence. Those who do so fall into one of two groups: the accidentally ignorant of history, or the willfully ignorant of history. There is no third group. Nobody is swiping history under the rug, except those deniers who hope to keep people from seeing reality. And by the way, nobody was ever tried and punished for 'making lampshades of human skin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Terminology and etymology section

I've had a go at rewriting this section - there were a few grammatical errors I originally meant to correct and the edit turned into a bit more than I originally intended :) Thanks to an edit conflict the edit summary got lost, hence this note. Best, EyeSerenetalk 10:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. I had to clean up some edits by other editors, who inserted opinion not supported by reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I notice you also trimmed the first paragraph - I tend to write less didactically than your preferred text when I'm basing stuff on opinion, but that's because most of my work is with "Battle of..." articles where half the sources disagree with the other half. I guess that's not the case here so no problems with your copyedit :)
The other point that occurred to me is that despite being named "Terminology and etymology" we don't really go into the origin of the term "Holocaust denier". I believe Deborah Lipstadt coined (or at least popularised) the term, but the only reference I could find was in the Irving vs Lipstadt trial transcripts where Irving states "The phrase 'Holocaust denier'", which the Second Defendant boasts of having invented..." ([3]), which isn't really satisfactory. It's kind of implied in Deborah Lipstadt's article but the ref there isn't strong enough to make the claim either. Do you know of anything? EyeSerenetalk 10:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

only Jews?

The Nazi's targeted peoples other than the Jews and millions of non Jews were also murdered in the Holocaust (if one accepts that it happened), yet this article seems to be about the rejection of the deaths of Jews. Does that imply Deniers/Revisionists agree that other peoples were killed, or does it imply that only Jews were killed in thr Holocaust (itself a revision) or does it imply this article is badly written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers only deny the deaths of Jews; they don't care about other people killed. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, deniers say there were far fewer deaths, and for different reasons, in all the "death camps". Disease not gas, deportations not extermination..... There were probably far more nonJews who died from typhus at the end of the war than Jews for the simple reason that there were far more nonJews than Jews. As far as overall deaths in WW2, Russia, particularly the Russian army and Russian peasants made up the vast bulk of the victims. Next would be the Germans. Deniers claim that there is no evidence for mass deaths, other than disease( at the end of the war starvation...were other reasons), but nowhere near the millions of intentional deaths attested to by no means other than eyewitness accounts that don't stand up well to even a cursory examination. I am sorry that for a causual reader of wikipedia it is hard to tell what Holocaust denial is. The article has a hard time explaining what Holocaust denial is due to the eagerness to refute the theory in each and every sentence.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: List of deniers - I found a list under DELETED ARTICLES. The list of deniers was once its own article - very large list. This list could be pasted onto the list given - not all are as well known but many are interesting, neither list is exhaustive I assume.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Source to be added

Am moving to add http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/ on the internet sources which respond to and criticize Holocaust denial. The blog is maintained by academic historians, sociologists, professors, and lawyers. The blog responds to writings of revisionists, and posts analyses and revelations of the denial movement. The blog has been cited by HDOT.org, which is listed in the Wikipedia article, and has connections to the Holocaust History Project, which also is listed in the article.

Objections? Eric H, on the meds (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Being a blog, it cannot be used as a reference, and you would need to provide some compelling rationale for why it needs to be included as an external link over other choices. --Ckatzchatspy 07:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Alleged"

In the first place, Irving is not the only person mentioned -- if you've read the book, you know that Lipstadt (who is not a historian) cast a very wide net, accusing a lot of people (including Jimmy Carter) of a lot of things, and offering very little in the way of scholarly evidence to back up her accusations. That's why Irving thought he had a shot at winning a libel suit; she failed to prove her case against him in the book. As it turned out, everything she said was accurate, but it took a professional historian 2 years of digging to come up with the evidence necessary to win the litigation. So we can't be careless with our own accusations here, especially since this is supposed to be a neutral venue.

All of that said, I've proposed a compromise in the article. If you don't agree with it, please make your case. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

overly limiting?

In the lead we state, "that more than five million Jews were systematically killed". Really, would a historian arguing that it was more like 4.7M really be a Holocaust denier? Wouldn't it be better to state that "millions of Jews were systematically killed"? Or are there really anti-Semites out there who say, nah, it wasn't so bad, it was only 4 million dead?

(I often get this impression from mainstream coverage of the Holocaust, that there's something special about the number 6M, implying that if half that number had been killed it wouldn't have been a big deal. That always bothered me.) — kwami (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we should give the number with the highest degree of accuracy we can, which is between 5 and 6 million. We should also point out that a consistent feature of Holocaust denial is to lowball the figure as much as possible. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
But by "lowballing" are we still talking in the millions? In Tatvan (Turkey) there is a genocide museum, but it says the bodies in the photos are Turks killed by Armenians, and that only a few thousand Armenians were killed, with the rest leaving because they no longer wished to live in Turkey. I can understand saying the Holocaust is a hoax, or that there were only a few thousand killed (casualties in the resistance of the poor oppressed Nazis, presumably), with the rest gross exaggeration, but how can you give a lowball figure in the millions as part of denial? That's the stupidest argument I can imagine: it wasn't really a crime, because "only" 4 million were killed? That's like denying the Moon landings by saying that we never made it to the far side. Okay, I'm not familiar with Holocaust denial, but I would think that there are legitimate outliers beyond the 5–6M range. (I know I've seen 7M.) It seems bad form to define denial as anyone coming up with a figure under 5M, when historians have very real difficulties in estimating the scale of genocide. I mean, we presumably are not going to say that anyone who gets a figure over the 6M figure is guilty of fabricating the Holocaust, so how is coming in under 5M denying the Holocaust?
Oh, and of course we should give the 5.1–6.2M figure as the consensual estimate, I'm just uncomfortable with the suggestion that any historian who arrives at a figure outside that range may be evil. Is that range based on a 1σ distribution of RSs, so that a third of RSs fall outside?
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the other "key elements" strike me as common-sensical, while this one seems unprofessional. — kwami (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You do make a good point, but it's really a matter of phrasing. The sources don't seem to say "a rejection of any of the following"; the first one says "all three". I think we need to reword to correspond to the clearest of the sources: holocaust deniers tend to deny all of these. Further, the sources refer to a very large discrepancy; they do not label as a holocaust denier a historian who determines that the proper number is (say) 4.5 million. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
So, back to my initial suggestion, would it be wrong to say that they deny that "millions of Jews were systematically killed"? Certainly any reasonable estimate would be well into the millions, and I can't imagine a Holocaust denier admitting a figure in the millions, though maybe I'm being naive. The "very large discrepancy" is missing and IMO essential to an adequate description. — kwami (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be extrapolating from the supplied sources -- in other words, original research. The sources provide a clearer definition than we do, and we should use it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
They say "an order of magnitude" less than 5.1M, we say anything less, so that claiming only 5M were killed is a key aspect of Holocaust denial. An order of magnitude less would be half a million, not five million. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you seem to be responding to the revert of my change I should explain my reasoning in more detail. When you look at the Hofle Telegram there is a figure given for Belzec suggesting that around 430,000 people were killed there. Yet estimates have generally been around 600,000 with even Raul Hilberg giving about 550,000. So taking into consideration that discrepancy alone Raul Hilberg's figure should reasonably be adjusted down to just under 5 million. There are other discrepancies when looking at documentation that allow for the figure to be revised even lower. When I was saying this to a person on a political forum he cited this line specifically in order to label me a Holocaust denier. It should not happen that when new evidence comes along the people who adjust data based on it can go to this article to justify attacks on legitimate revisions. Perhaps my wording could have been better, but as it stands the present wording is ripe for abuse and, more importantly, has no real basis. Does any definition of Holocaust denial outside this page define it as estimating deaths at less than 5 million?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You can't use figures from various sources to "reasonably adjust down" the stated estimates of reliable sources. Hilberg estimated 5.1 million. Please review WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of your edit. But as jp said, lowballing estimates is just one tactic of Holocaust deniers, so a historian coming in with a reasonable figure under 5M should not be considered a denier for that reason. But by giving a precise number to what is Holocaust denial, we are IMO seriously misrepresenting the case. And pace jp, IMO this would be the OR: AFAIK our sources talk about a substantial or even gross difference in number, that is, a misrepresentation of the number killed, not just a statistical outlier. (There are always going to be statistical outliers, whether it is 4M or 7M, among honest scholars with no hidden agenda. That's just the nature of the business.)
Holocaust denial is a serious issue, and IMO we should not be muddying the waters with historians who lie somewhat outside the common wisdom. That would have the perverse effect of making the deniers look reasonable. It's a bit like that stupid survey on rape, which counted having sex when you were not in the mood but your lover said 'please' as "rape". People will think, if that's the only reason so many women are said to have been raped, then maybe rape isn't a serious problem after all. I think the body of this article is responsibly written, and it clarifies what we mean, but we need to be very careful with the lede because that's often all people will take away from it. — kwami (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this a real issue? Which legitimate modern historians actually suggest a number lower than 5 million? By the way, the cited source says "more than 5 million", so we have to stick with the sources. Jayjg (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kwami, I understand you have a dispute with the way the article reads, but please don't make a change like that again unless you're sure you have a consensus for it. BTW, just who are these "legitimate historians" who advocate a figure slightly under 5 million? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
We're not "sticking with the sources", we're promoting one source over the others.
I don't know that there are any such historians, but do you know of any denier who concedes that 5 million were killed? We're speaking of statistics, and whenever you have statistics, there are outliers. Do figures of 7M (which I've seen) make those people Holocaust fabricators? I think it's irresponsible of us to suggest that that a statistical outlier would be Holocaust denial. Also, ONE source "defines" it as 5M or less. IMO anyone who creates bureaucratic definitions of opinions rather than summarizing them is not worth taking seriously as a scholar, but we don't even need to consider that: Our other sources say there's an order of magnitude of difference. One says denial figs are ~600k, another 300k to 1.5M. Thus by choosing to define it as 5M we are not correctly summarizing our sources, we're choosing one over the others. That is OR and undue weight: why should that one figure be correct, while the figs given by several sources are wrong? Do we have evidence of any denier postulating a figure in the range of 2–5M? Without that, and without our sources agreeing, how can we present a hypothetical figure of 2–5M as being, by definition, part of denial?
There's another problem besides us violating OR and WEIGHT: we're giving deniers credibility. I'm sure that's not the intention, but if we say that claiming that 5.0M Jews were killed is a key aspect of denial, then we make denial look reasonable. After all, the data is incomplete, the standard deviation in estimates is significant, and it would seem quite reasonable to come up with a figure of 5.0 rather than 5.1. That could easily be legitimate revisionism. Even if no reputable scholar cites 5M now (I wouldn't know), one could easily do so in the future, at which point the deniers could say, See! Even establishment historians fit the definition of a "denier"! Niewyk may make that IMO irresponsible claim, but Mathis, Shermer & Grobman, Yad Vashem, the Anti-Defamation League, and JPR do not. Why do we follow only Niewyk in the lede, and ignore the majority of our sources? — kwami (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This is too important to muck around with. AFAIK, no denier admits a figure in the millions, so IMO "millions" is reasonable wording. We could also say that a key aspect of denial is claiming that the number killed was an order of magnitude less than the generally accepted figure of 5–6 million; the only problem I have with that is that I don't know how many of our readers will have the slightest idea what an 'order of magnitude' is. (I suppose we could say 'on the order of ten times less'.) — kwami (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
"What if I said 4.9 million, would that make me a denier? How about 4.8 million, then? 4.7 million?" is just a game deniers play, and we don't have to appease them or participate in their games. The fact is, the lowest estimate of any actual historian is 5.1 million. In any event, what do the most reliable sources say about Holocaust denial and the numbers? I don't want to lose the generally accepted figures of 5-7 million, but why don't you bring the relevant quotes here, and we'll see if better wording can be found? Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've said a couple of times, the number here isn't the problem; this phrase is the problem: Key elements of these claims are the rejection of any of the following. Only one of our sources seems to assert this. The first source says all of those. The second says the three are the foundation of HD. The third says its these or a denial the Holocaust happened at all. The fourth puts them "among" the claims of deniers. We need to change this. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe wording along the lines of the wording in the "key claims" section, but more brief? Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed the wording of that to Key elements of these claims are a rejection that (a, b, c) and was not reverted by Jay, but was by Stephen. — kwami (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, but please don't try aggressive tactics here as a means of getting your way. Discussion is on-going, I'm sure we'll achieve a compromise, and tags aren't meant to be used as a defacing weapon in a battle, they're meant to draw attention to a perceived issue. Your concerns have plenty of attention, as is obvious, and you've advertised it (and made your case) on relevant boards. So now, instead of defacing, let's discuss a reasonable wording. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Jay, if deniers are playing a numbers game, then we're just giving them fodder for their game. We have one source which invents a "definition" of a figure of 5 million dead being denial. The problem is that 5.0 million could be an entirely reasonable number, given that 5.1 is mainstream. We don't need to be playing into that game, so I don't understand why we are. None of our other sources support it, either: why don't we simply summarize our sources, rather than arbitrarily picking the one outlier among them?
It would be very easy to write an apologia for denial quoting the WP definition as proof of a conspiracy to silence legitimate historians. IMO splitting hairs in such a situation is a bad idea. The majority of our sources say there is a major difference in estimates, not a minimal one. These are not two legitimate estimates with minor differences, as we unwittingly imply, but a legitimate estimate which itself contains significant debate vs. a falsified estimate. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Basically, according to our current wording (now that my other correction has been reverted), a holocaust denier would be s.o. who admits that the Nazis targeted the Jews for extermination and used death camps and gas chambers to accomplish that goal, but only succeeded in killing 5.0 million. The same opinion with a figure of 5.1 million would make you a mainstream historian. Thus the difference between the mainstream and the groups denigrated as "deniers" is minuscule, obviously part of a conspiracy to silence anyone who does not kowtow to the Zionist plot to blah blah blah. Either that, or the more vanilla interpretation that there is no significant difference between the historical consensus and the self-proclaimed "revisionists". Or that the Anti-Defamation League for all intents and purposes agrees with HD. I don't think that's the intention of anyone here, but that's a clear consequence of the current wording: We're providing comfort to Holocaust deniers! — kwami (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, let's start by looking at what the article actually says (I reverted to the last edit before yours, Kwami) and what it doesn't say. Here's a quote: "Key elements of these claims are the rejection of any of the following: . . . that more than five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies . . ." Notice, the article does NOT say that anyone who supports a slightly lower estimate, even one death less than five million, is automatically a denier. A rough analogy (very rough) is the article on multiple sclerosis, which tells us that ataxia is one of its many symptoms. This does NOT mean that anyone who has ever stumbled or staggered in his life can be definitively diagnosed with MS. It's an indicator, not a test. How reliable an indicator it is depends on degree, along with the presence and degree of other factors. Just how low a number is the (suspected) denier advocating? Does he also say there were no death camps. Does he also claim that the Nazis did not have a policy of exterminating the Jews of Europe? The answers to these questions will give you a strong indication of whether a given person is a Holocaust denier.
"We're not 'sticking with the sources', we're promoting one source over the others." No, really? Who are these "others" who dispute this? The one thing all the sources seem to agree on is that deniers routinely lowball the number of Jews murdered. By how much? It varies. (Note: 1.5 M is much less than an "order of magnitude" too low.) You say that "it would seem quite reasonable to come up with a figure of 5.0 rather than 5.1. That could easily be legitimate revisionism." How do you know? Has any legitimate historian ever advocated a figure below 5.1 M? If none has, how can you be sure that would be legitimate revisionism? Granted, outliers are inevitable, but perhaps all the outliers are already covered in the 5.1 to 6.2M estimate. That's a pretty wide range. You say "we're choosing one over the others." That's utterly wrong. Note that:
If source A says deniers claim a figure below 5M,
and source B says deniers claim a figure below 1.5M,
and source C says deniers claim a figure below 500,000
and, if we say deniers claim a figure below 5M,
then we are making a statement that is consistent with and inclusive of all the figures from all the sources. Remember that the article never says that a slightly low claim defines anyone as a denier.
You say "we're giving deniers credibility." Seriously, don't worry about it. First, if we ever see a serious historian making a claim of a lower figure, we can always change the article. Second, deniers are endlessly creative at manufacturing specious and dishonest arguments to obfuscate their fundamental dishonesty. There's really no way of writing an article that a propagandist can't twist to mean the precise opposite of what it says. We have to give our readers some credit for intelligence or there's no point writing at all. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: "Basically, according to our current wording (now that my other correction has been reverted), a holocaust denier would be s.o. who admits that the Nazis targeted the Jews for extermination and used death camps and gas chambers to accomplish that goal, but only succeeded in killing 5.0 million." Nonsense. The article as it currently reads says nothing of the sort. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Steven makes some good points: first, that there's no point in trying to come up with perfect wording that deniers can't twist to suit their own ends, because that's really all deniers do, regardless of the facts or wording. Second, the current wording in no way says or implies anything Kwamikagani has claimed.
Kwamikagami, the fact is, no reliable historian since the early 1960s has suggested a number below 5.1 million, and that includes the most recent studies, so 5 million is a pretty safe number to accommodate any "outliers". Now, I think the wording can be improved, but we need to keep the standard historical numbers in there (5-6 million), so people understand what reliable sources actually say. Also, remember that this is a highly sensitive article, and a lot of thought has gone into the existing wording, which has lasted for years, so there's no need to immediately completely overturn it. People who have put a lot of effort and time into this whole article, including spending many, many hours finding sources, writing prose, etc. Now you show up and really only seem interested in edit-warring your own personal view into a couple of sentences in the lede, without, for example, even producing one new source. There is no emergency here, and continued aggressive tactics will only set other editors against you. No more unilateral changes please, no more "defacing with tags as a weapon". Instead propose changes, and work with others. Please propose a new wording here, and we'll work something up together that I'm sure will satisfy everyone. We're all on the same side. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
First, I don't have a problem with the article. The article is fine. It's the lede that doesn't adequately summarize the article. That's why I'm fixated on the lede. Second, true, deniers will twist whatever they have to, but we should at least not make it easy for them. We also shouldn't make the deniers look credible in the eyes of someone who comes across denialist lit and wonders if it could be true.
Third, the wording certainly suggests that a hypothetical run-of-the-mill historical account that used a figure of 5.0M might qualify as denial. There's no reason to do that! It just makes us look unreasonable.
Fourth, true, I haven't brought any new sources. That makes it even worse! I'm looking at the sources we already have, and the lede misrepresents them, unless we read the footnotes. And how many people are going to bother with the footnotes? The lede should be a quick, comprehensive, and accurate summary of the article. It is not.
Quote: No, really? Who are these "others" who dispute this? —All of our other sources, that's who! One says 5.0 million is consistent with denial. All the other sources say that it's an order-of-magnitude difference.
Quote: perhaps all the outliers are already covered in the 5.1 to 6.2M estimate —Perhaps, but doubtful. That's what makes them outliers. Ranges are typically given as a standard deviation from the mean, which means that 1 data point out of 3 will fall outside the range. I don't know how this range was arrived at, but I've seen figures beyond the high end (at 7M), so it could easily be that there are figures beyond the low end as well. But regardless, denialist accounts don't range that high, so why sow confusion? It's not that we have legitimate estimates down to a specific number and denialist accounts immediately below that; there's a huge gap between legitimate and denialist figures. That gap is completely obscured by the current wording, making the denialists look more reasonable.
Quote: 1.5 M is much less than an "order of magnitude" too low. —No offense, but 1.5M *is* an order of magnitude too low. Assuming a mean estimate of 5.65M, an order of magnitude less would range from 180,000 to 1.8 million (5.65/101±0.5), just as when I say that the population of a country is 64 million I don't mean exactly 64,000,000, so that if a baby's born we need to revise the figure, but rather somewhere between 63.5M and 64.5M. Similarly, 'an order of magnitude' does not mean exactly 10.0000 times, but rather millimeter scale rather than centimeter scale, or spans of decades rather than ceturies. Our sources give typical denialist figures as 300,000 to 1.5M, all within an order of magnitude less than accepted estimates (that is, closer to one order of magnitude less than to two orders less or to within the same order of magnitude).
Quote: The answers to these questions will give you a strong indication of whether a given person is a Holocaust denier. —Exactly. Which is why we should say that, and remove "any one" from the wording. All three are characteristic, but with my wording I didn't say there had to be all three, nor that exactly one would necessarily qualify. Seriously, I think we should be vague enough to allow some common sense, or expect the reader to continue with the article, rather than trying to force a definitive answer in the lede. (That is, after all, why we have an article to expand on the points in the lede.)
Quote: the article never says that a slightly low claim defines anyone as a denier. —Yes it does: Footnote 1: "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II." Thus 5.0 million Jews would not meet the definition of the Holocaust. Thus if you were to say 5.0 million Jews were murdered, you'd be denying the Holocaust. This isn't a matter of it being impossible to come up with the perfect wording a denialist couldn't twist, but rather of coming up with adequate wording that does not misrepresent the majority of our sources. Our other sources do not agree with this statement.
Quote: we need to keep the standard historical numbers in there (5-6 million), so people understand what reliable sources actually say. —Certainly we do. I've never said otherwise.
— kwami (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I haven't got much more to say. You're simply claiming the article says something it patently does not say in any version of the English language that I've ever read, spoken, or written. Consequently, I (and I presume others) will likely oppose any attempts to rectify this non-existent problem. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The article as a whole doesn't say that, the lede does. Honestly, I don't see how I can make it any clearer. First, you are misrepresenting the sources used for the lede itself: they say that all of these things are key, and they speak of an order of magnitude difference in the numbers. Second, you are minimizing the differences between legitimate scholarship and HD. This is a serious issue. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but it's a serious issue regardless. I will fight to get the changes made: I will not stand for Holocaust denial in our articles, even if it's corrected later on in the footnotes and body, and even if it's unwitting. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

There are two points in the lede where we misrepresent the majority of our sources, and give the reader a false impression.

First,

  • Key elements of these claims are the rejection of any of the following: that the ...

No, according to our sources, denialists reject all three. I can't be sure the always do, so how about the following?

→ Key elements of these claims are a rejection that the ...

IMO that summarizes our sources, and our article, succinctly without wording that if taken literally would contradict our sources and article. Jayjg apparently found this wording an improvement.

Second,

  • that more than five million Jews were systematically killed ...

That definition is found in one of our sources, but is contradicted by the others (Mathis, Shermer & Grobman, Yad Vashem, the Anti-Defamation League, JPR). It means that saying five million were killed would be consistent with HD. It is not: denialist figures do not even approach that figure. This wording obscures the huge gap that exists between legitimate scholars and denialists, and in so doing minimizes the difference, making the denialists look reasonable. How about,

→ that millions of Jews were systematically killed (legitimate sources estimate a number in the range of 5.1 to 6.2 million)

or

→ that on the order / in the range of 5–6 million Jews were systematically killed

I'm sure we could come up with lots of wordings that would not minimize the discrepancy and remain true to our sources. — kwami (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I think the whole thing should be re-worded to match what's in the rest of the article. Specifically, we should start with this wording:

The key claims of Holocaust deniers are: The Nazis had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews; Nazis did not use gas chambers to mass murder Jews; and the actual number of Jews killed is an order of magnitude lower than the historically accepted figure of 5.1 to 6.2 million.

Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Perfect. I was trying for minimal change, but this is better. — kwami (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC) [added in with the links and footnotes of the original]
Oh, one question. The Holocaust is typically portrayed as the extermination of Jews, but the Gypsies were also targeted, and were exterminated in similar numbers. Is any mention of them warranted here? Or don't deniers bother with them? — kwami (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Holocaust denial is about Jew-hatred, not history. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, one final point: "Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory" seems to be awfully weasely. Can't we be a bit more straightforward? Is there any doubt that deniers are either antisemitic or conspiracy theorists? — kwami (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure. At least some of them are dupes, contrarians, or mental and moral idiots, or some combination of the above. We're talking in that sentence about the denial, not about deniers. This phrasing denies the denial wiggle room. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It's excruciatingly NPOV, but it does "deny the denial wiggle room" - see also the Holocaust denial#Holocaust denial and antisemitism in the article. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this is good wording, though I do have some style issues with it. The change is presented as a list, but the first word is capitalized and it uses complete sentences. If it were complete sentences each one should be capitalized at the beginning, but if it were a list only proper nouns should be capitalized.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record and to document the consensus, I have no objection to the new wording. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've simplified it a little bit, based on http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/faq.asp, which gives the typical range as 5 to 6 million. In my view that's close enough. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

statistics

does anyone know of any polls/surveys on the prevalence of holocaust denial around the world/in different countries? 114.76.41.165 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question, something that I've wondered myself. I would find it rather ironic if denial is prevalent in Palestine, given that the Palestinian movement is modeled after and has taken much of its inspiration from Zionism. — kwami (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition

Holocaust Denial used to refer to the fringe elements who claimed that there was no holocaust. These people were deluded or nazi sympathisers, or both.

But now the definition has been extended to catch anyone who wishes to even discuss any details or element of the holocaust. It has stopped debate and analysis. People are afraid of being labelled as a "Holocaust Denier". For an academic that would result in an automatic sentence of professional death.

Consider the definition given in this article : "consists of claims that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized"

Firstly this artificially limits the Holocaust to Jews, but secondly effectly bans consideration of "the manner or the extent historically recognised".

There are no other topics of historical interest where further research, debate, consideration, and yes - revision - is banned.

Is holocaust denial a form of consorship, rather than a description of a fringe neo-nazi viewpoint? If so, should the definition not be substantially changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 February 2011

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Are there any changes you wish to make to this article, based on reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
My take on your two points: First, "Holocaust" is a Jewish term, and (see my question above) denialists don't bother with the Gypsies. (Frankly, I find it grotesque that genocide against the Gypsies is so commonly ignored when discussing the Holocaust, especially considering the discrimination they still experience across Europe, but that needs to be covered in the Holocaust article; AFAIK jpgordon is correct when he says Holocaust denial has nothing to do with them. Likewise for the non-ethnic groups that were targeted.) (2) If all we said was that denial is claiming that the Holocaust "did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized", then yes, that would be a mockery. But we immediately follow with an illustration of exactly what we mean. Nonetheless, given how even well-meaning people like to quote short definitions out of context, perhaps it would be a good idea to reword that statement to make it clear that we mean critical differences, not just debates over which factory forged the steel for the rails that brought the prisoners to Auschwitz, so that that critical first sentence can stand on its own.
Now that I think of it, that does seem important. And your first point too: perhaps a footnote, if we can reference one, that denialists are only concerned with Jews, not with absolving the Nazis per se. (Maybe they've never heard of the Gypsies being murdered, or maybe they think that killing gays, Communists, and the handicapped is not a crime that requires a defense, so that they are absolving the Nazis. God knows.) Maybe Jayjg can think of something for both? I like how he reworded my objections.
As for your broader point, I don't think that it has "stopped debate and analysis." There's all kinds of debate, but there's a clear difference between legitimate debate and purposefully trying to minimize the crimes that were committed. ("Minimizing the crime" is IMO a good characterization, but perhaps it would be too difficult to prove such a motivation for that to be a practical definition for the lede.) Think of rape: one could say that a woman wasn't really raped, that she made it all up, or one could concede that she was raped, but that she deserved it, or one could claim that it wasn't really rape, it was "date rape" or something else that wasn't as bad as she claims. That's very different from a forensic investigation into how or why she was raped, where the investigators might legitimately disagree with each other without making excuses for the rapist or placing the blame on the victim. That's the kind of difference we're dealing with here. — kwami (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You're trying to use logic on someone who refers to the "holocaust industry". The use of that phrase immediately categorizes the speaker; so you're wasting keystrokes. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
What jpgordon said. Also, "Holocaust Denial is not about the Holocaust, but about Jews". Kenneth Stern. Antisemitism Today, American Jewish Committee, 2006, ISBN 9780874951400, p. 79. Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Nonetheless, he has a point. The first sentence, which defines "Holocaust denial" with "did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized", cannot stand on its own, as it does not differentiate HD from some legitimate historian who disagrees with the consensus on some detail of the Holocaust. It therefore cannot be quoted as a definition of HD, and is therefore a bad opening line. In most articles it wouldn't matter, but we do need to take care here. S.t. along the lines of "minimizes the nature or extent of the crime(s)" would IMO be a much more accurate take, and actually address the point. Also, your quote "Holocaust Denial is not about the Holocaust, but about Jews" would IMO be an excellent addition to the lede, perhaps as a footnote. That idea is not conveyed by the present wording. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but I just made that up; I've never seen it expressed like that before. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's out then, but it would still be wise to have a first sentence that's capable of standing on its own.
Are there any objections to or improvements for the following wording?
Holocaust denial is a claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—did not occur at all, or that minimizes the nature or extent of the crime/Holocaust.
— kwami (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ending reads a little clumsily. How about: Holocaust denial is a claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—did not occur at all, or that minimizes its nature or extent. Barnabypage (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)'
Any wording should emphasize the fact that it minimizes its nature or extent, rather than "did not occur at all". Very few (if any) deniers say that no Jews died; rather, they say it was 300,000 that died, that they died of disease or war or privation (not as part of a deliberate plan of genocide), etc. The other thing they sometimes do is insist that they Holocaust did happen, but redefine what the the term "Holocaust" means - see Holocaust denial#Institute for Historical Review in this article. Jayjg (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Is that support for Barnaby's wording? It looks good to me. [been a couple days; that seems to be tacit approval. 06:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)]
I just found the FAQ. Is our ref that HD is "academic fraud" strong enough to permit that wording in the lede? Not in the definition, but in the first paragraph.
I'm still bothered by our wording that it is "considered" to be anti-semitic. It seems we have adequate sources to say that it "is" anti-semitic. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how weasel wording avoids wiggle room. Rather, I think it invites the question, Considered by who?, which IMO adds a lot of wiggle room. — kwami (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a point to address JohnC's original post in this section. It always amuses me when non-academics decide to tell everyone about the state of debate inside an academic discipline. As it happens almost everything JohnC said is quite false. As a professional academic with a doctorate in this field, allow me to reassure you that debate and investigation about the holocaust is lively, healthy and doing fine, thank you. It is in no way 'restricted' by the fear of being labeled holocaust denial, nor does it have any problem expressing a multiplicity of opinions and ideas about the topic. The number of books that have come out about aspects of the holocaust just in the last two years should easily evidence that. The specter of holocaust denial has not in any way stopped debate or analysis, nor has debate, research and discussion on the field been 'banned'. To assert that simply demonstrates that you have absolutely no actual knowledge about the massive, international community of scholars who are constantly debating and researching and discussing the holocaust.

All the issue of 'holocaust denial' has done is enshrine facts that every historian is well aware of, and that are not deniable simply based on the overwhelming preponderance of documentary and primary evidence. It reinforces the boundaries of the debate, boundaries set BY historians to keep the bigots and the deliberately uneducated from making false claims and being believed simply because the average layperson does not understand the magnitude and volume of evidence proving these bigots wrong.

Every debate has boundaries established by the facts. Solar Physicists have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sun is not made of cheesecake, and ‘denying’ that truth makes you an idiot. That does not stop scientific study into the remainder of the field. The ONLY difference is that there is not a well organized bunch of bigots and anti-Semites trying to make people believe that the sun IS made of cheesecake, through lies, dishonesty and fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2011

Thank you for that eloquent and clear explanation of the relevant facts. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be being overly fussy here, but I think a quick reading of the lede might confuse readers on what exactly is being denied. It seems to me that a natural response to the current wording (yes, including the changes I recently added) "Holocaust denial consists of claims that ... did not occur at all, or that minimizes its nature or extent" would be, "Why call it denial if they are not denying it occurred, but only minimizing it?" That is, it does sound like revisionism if you don't read closely. The answer, of course, is that they are not denying the events in general, but rather that these constituted genocide. I think that a simpler, more straightforward lede might be better in this regard:

Holocaust denial consists of claims that there was no genocide of Jews, usually referred to as the Holocaust, during World War II.

Then we might explain,

It may involve outright denial that the events took place at all, or it may minimize the nature or extent of the crimes in order to deny that they constituted genocide.

or

It generally does this by minimizing the nature or extent of the crimes in order to deny that they constituted genocide.

(Jay or Barnaby can probably come up with better wording!) That lays out explicitly how "minimizing" equates to "denial", attacking a key defense of deniers. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your first two sentences work pretty well. I'm not sure about the word crimes, though - it reads a bit like Holocaust deniers go around minimising individuals' crimes ("Officer X only killed five people not 5000..."). How about: Holocaust denial consists of claims that there was no genocide of Jews, usually referred to as the Holocaust, during World War II. It may involve outright denial that the events took place at all, or it may minimize their nature or extent in order to deny that they constituted genocide. Barnabypage (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not crazy about the 'their' (I think because of the lack of animacy; I keep wanting to read it as referring to people), but can't think of anything that sounds better. — kwami (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Since we just got a grammar fix w the comment that that sentence is "bloody awful", I've put in the new wording, w the 2nd sentence tweaked to It may involve outright denial that the events took place at all, or it may minimize the nature or the extent of the Holocaust in order to deny that it constituted genocide. — kwami (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've simplified and sharpened it. The key here is minimizing the nature and extent of the Holocaust; outright denial that it happened is a subset of that. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I wasn't sure enough to do that on my own. But do I think we need to retain the connection between 'minimizing' and 'denial': otherwise one can quite reasonably argue that minimizing s.t. is not the same as denying it, that we're saying "HD does not actually deny the Holocaust, but says it wasn't as bad as most historians maintain". HD is the claim that there was no genocide; minimizing the events is merely the means used to deny it. Again, by suggesting that the deniers don't deny the Holocaust, we make them look reasonable.
The current wording,
Holocaust denial is the act of minimizing the nature or the extent of the genocide of Jews in World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—in order to deny that it constituted genocide.
(I added the last bit) is not all that straightforward. What about,
Holocaust denial is the claim that there was no genocide of Jews, usually referred to as the Holocaust, during World War II. It minimizes the nature and extent of the Holocaust in order to deny that it constituted genocide.
— kwami (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I've simplified that to Holocaust denial is the act of minimizing or denying the nature or the extent of the genocide of Jews in World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust. It is done for many reasons, and we can't just claim it is done "in order to deny that it constituted genocide". Let's start by saying what it is, not why it is done. Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No, you are not "simplifying" it. You are misrepresenting it. "Minimizing" is not "denial". If they don't deny anything, they are not deniers. Therefore their objection that they are being misrepresented appears justified. That makes them sympathetic. An article on HD should not apologize for HD. — kwami (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I am "again, apologizing for Holocaust deniers"? I suggest you strike that statement. Jayjg (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Why? It's getting quite tiresome having to repeat that a difference in opinion over the Holocaust is not Holocaust denial, denial of the Holocaust is Holocaust denial. We're not talking about historical revisionism, but erasing history and calling it revisionism. Rewording the lede so that HD sounds like revisionism rather than denial, even if unwitting, is not acceptable.
In case you think I'm accusing you of doing this on purpose, I'm not. I assume that this is all so obvious to you that you can't see how it reads to someone for whom it is not obvious. Claiming that someone is denying something, and then noting (admitting?) that they're just minimizing it immediately sends up a red flag: If we're playing that fast & loose w the facts in the lede, how reliable can the rest of the article be? Again and again HDers say that they don't deny the Holocaust at all, they merely show that it wasn't the genocide that the Zionist Conspiracy makes it out to be. We need to be very clear that they are, in fact, denying genocide, whether by minimizing the Holocaust, redefining it, or whatever. — kwami (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize. My wording was way too harsh. I just read about that little dalit girl who was thrown on a bonfire because she walked on a brahmin road, and the excuses that were made for it—I get really pissed off sometimes and don't necessarily think before I speak. — kwami (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I think the latest wording is fine; it's shorter, which is almost always good, and it actually focuses on the point that it's denial of the genocide of Jews. That helps sidestep any of the usual Holocaust denial quibbling about "what about if someone says it was only 4 million killed" or "what about if someone says there were no gas chambers"? It also helps focus on the fact that Holocaust deniers don't actually care about denying that anyone else was killed by the Nazis. All Holocaust denial boils down to denying that there was a genocide of Jews, which is the core; the second sentence also clearly helps define the primary claims made to support that denial. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
What do you think about adding, after 'the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews', a parenthetical comment to the effect that, as the UN puts it, genocide is 'committed with intent to destroy'? Maybe, '(an essential element of genocide)' or s.t. like that. A naive reader might pass over our wording without connecting how a lack of 'official policy or intention' would mean that there was no actual genocide. — kwami (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Aside from being unsourced, it's gilding the lily. Also, we have to be as parsimonious as possible with words here; everything added creates opportunity for multiple confusing interpretations, weaseling, etc. What we have already is good. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Huh? The UN is not a source?
But if you feel it's good as is, that's fine. — kwami (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

actual numbers

when Auschwitz lowered the death toll from 4 million to less than 2 million, why was there no lowering of the Jewish death toll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.92 (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please review the FAQ above, which directly addresses this myth. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

was the death toll of Jews prior to 1985 the fictional 6,000,000 or not? if it was, then why was it not reduced when Auschwitz revised the numbers? What a bunch of liars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.92 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please review the FAQ above, which directly addresses this myth. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I read it. It's nonsense. And you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.92 (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not nonsense, it is absolute fact. If you have new historical research or previously undiscovered archival sources you would like to present in order to challenge that fact, then feel free to do so. If on the other hand you are just completely unaware of the scholarship, and dont care to know or learn anything that disagrees with your personal opinion, then that really is your problem, and not Wikipedia's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed list of books by holocaust deniers

I changed the list of books to a more updated version. Some of the already inserted books I moved up in the 22 books list (Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century; Rudolf (Gauss), Dissecting the Holocaust; Leuchter et al, The Leuchter Reports; Rudolf, The Rudolf Report).

This was immediately reverted by CKatz, so I wrote on his talk page. No answer so far. If he objects to the link then he could remove the link or move it to another section. If there are no objections I will put the updated list back in later. 78.16.201.24 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

These links aren't helpful. Please review WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Objectivity?

I read the FAQ. It doesn't address the criticism of this page's objectivity. It may be illegal to question the Holocaust in other countries, but this is Wiki Country! It doesn't matter if Holocaust denial is anti-semetic (which in my opinion it almost always is). "Anti-semetic" is subjective name calling. And this page is structured in such a way of falsifying the denier's claims. In legal advocacy, for example, we sum up the other side's opinion in one sentence and then spend the rest of the paragraph tearing that opinion down. People don't like being lied to, and this kind of blatant subjectivity makes people immediately suspect of the wiki project who's editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.103.161 (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What changes, based on reliable sources, do you propose making to the article? Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the sources are bad. I just take issue with how this article is structured. It just doesn't look like a Wiki page. People should come away from this article feeling bad for how stupid their friend is for actually giving Holocaust denial legitimate consideration. But right now, this article reads like Holocaust denial is a bad thing, when--objectively speaking--it's just a stupid thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.103.161 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2011
With all respect, I disagree completely. Holocaust deniers are not stupid; they have a specific agenda. Typically, they are fascists trying to promote fascism -- more specifically, trying to win over new fans -- which becomes very difficult when the subject of mass murder inevitably comes up. It is very hard to persuade anybody who is not an abject psychopath that your philosophical position is moral and just, when its most famous proponent systematically murdered 12 or 13 million Jews, Poles, Russians, Gypsies, homosexuals, and (something seldom mentioned) non-Jewish German citizens who had the temerity to disagree with him. There is no way to justify the Holocaust intelligently, so their only viable option is to simply deny that it ever happened. That's the kind of evil we're dealing with here. Personally, I think the article does a decent job of explaining and discussing it -- but if you have specific suggestions for improving it, we're all ears! DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if everything you said was true, it is also completely irrelevant to my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.103.161 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm -- then you had best clarify your point. You started out questioning the article's objectivity, and when pressed for specifics, you expressed the opinion that Holocaust denial is "not a bad thing, just a stupid thing." And I said it's dangerous, IMHO, to write off Holocaust deniers as merely a bunch of morons; they are very smart, bad people. (And yes, everything I said is true.) So once again: What, exactly, is your point, and what, exactly, would you like to see changed in the article? (And please, sign your notes with 4 tildes.) DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

MY POINT --> This article is written from the perspective of somebody criticizing the theory of Holocaust Denial when there's already a Wiki page for that. I say either put down their actual theory (i.e. that Jews made up the whole thing to fulfill their dream of statehood and that anybody who doubts the interpretation will be thrown in jail or assassinated by the Massad) and explain why it's nonsense, or else don't even have it as a separate page.

"WHY DO I CARE?"--> People who hear this decades-old theory (granted it is an unbelievably offensive and antisemetic theory) are going to look it up on Wiki and think that because the article isn't written objectively that maybe there really is something about the Holocaust that's being kept from them.

"RECOMMENDED ACTION" --> Give the theory it's best shot. Learn what the deniers are actually saying and address it fairly. Or, alternatively, if you think the debate is too offensive, which is certainly understandable, then just delete the page. 98.236.103.161 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't what you're asking for already there? The basic arguments of the prominent deniers are listed, followed by refutations of their arguments. There's also documentation of history, and motive, and IMO it's about as objective as one can be on a subject this visceral. And what evidence do we have that readers conclude that the article's authors have something to hide? It seems all laid out there, to me. But if you see things that need changing, by all means, have at it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Reactions to Holocaust denial

Since "Criticism of Holocaust denial" already has an entire separate article devoted to it, shouldn't the 'reactions' section be cut down a bit (with a link placed to the criticism article)? Specifically, the bit about "Former SS members" has four entire sentences that are repeated verbatim in the other article. The quote attributed to Oskar Gröning appears in both articles sourced from Laurence Rees' book is wrong. The actual interview where that quote is taken from can be seen - here. As you can see, Rees adds an entire sentence that neither Gröning nor the translator says in the interview. From the actual interview again which you can see for yourself here:

I see it as my task, now at my age, to face up to the things I experienced and to oppose the Holocaust deniers that claim that Auschwitz never happend. That's why I am here now today. Because I want to tell those deniers: I have seen the crematoria, I've seen the burning pits - and I want you to believe me that these atrocities happend. I was there

Modified by Rees in his book:

I see it as my task, now at my age, to face up to these things that I experienced and to oppose the Holocaust deniers who claim that Auschwitz never happened. And that's why I am here today. Because I want to tell those deniers: I have seen the gas chambers, I have seen the crematoria, I have seen the burning pits - and I want you to believe me that these atrocities happened. I was there

Nowhere in the interview are gas chambers mentioned, Rees ADDED this afterwards. Since the alleged lack of gas chambers are usually at the core of most denier (or revisionist) arguments, this doesn't exactly help their critics. Because of this, I doubt it was an innocent mistake on Rees's part either which makes me skeptical of anything else he has written but obviously this is just my opinion. Anyways, I recommend condensing the reaction section and removing the quote entirely (at least from this page). Ryal-oh (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The video you link to appears to be a snippet from Auschwitz: The Nazis and the 'Final Solution', a six-part documentary film produced for the BBC by Laurence Rees. The quotation you dispute is from a companion book by the same title authored by the same Mr. Rees. Your argument that Rees added the sentence about gas chambers seems to be based entirely on the fact that there is one sentence present in the book that is absent in the video. You are apparently claiming for yourself some kind of psychic ability to discern which version better reflects the original interview. Since Mr. Gröning's voice, speaking in German, can barely be heard in the video, it's not possible for you to know this. Since it's not possible for a voice-over in a video to insert ellipses (. . .) to indicate omitted material, a far more parsimonious and likely explanation is that this basically redundant sentence was edited out due to the well-known time constraints that go along with video editing. This is likely a large part of the reason for producing a companion book, to carefully and fully document everything that went into making the film, salvaging details that may have hit the cutting room floor. In short:
You are simply lying not being truthful when you say that "(n)owhere in the interview are gas chambers mentioned" unless you have access to the original, untranslated, German version of the interview and can verify this, and;
You are simply lying not being truthful when you say that "Rees ADDED this afterwards" unless you have some way of verifying that Gröning gave a statement different to the one that Rees recounts in his book.
The simple fact is that Rees is a reliable source and we have every right to quote from his book in this article. Your original research by way of hamfisted sleuthing, on the other hand, does not enjoy that status.
Furthermore, I've noticed that the 14 edits you've made to Wikipedia so far consist entirely of tendentious posts to talk pages of articles on controversial subjects of the sort that typically arouse people's emotions. This is the sort of thing that's commonly referred to as trolling. Since the issue you inquire about here has already been discussed and settled on this talk page, I'm curious to know whether you've ever had another account on Wikipedia. Have you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not what "lying" means. Lying is telling untruths with intent to deceive. I see no indication Ryal-oh is intentionally stating a falsehood. — kwami (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you're being unrealistically generous with your assumptions of good faith, but I take your point and have altered my comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am the creator and author of the Oskar Gröning article, and owner of the book in question. The words in question were indeed recorded, they just weren't included in the final cut. WilliamH (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Holocaust deniers

Is it fair to assume that the inclusion on the list of "Notable Holocaust deniers" her follows the same criterion as Category:Holocaust deniers? (It says on the categpry page, "This category is reserved for articles on people who have actively promoted Holocaust denial. It is not to be used for individuals who may have at some point indicated support for such views, but have not actively promoted them.") I ask because there is a discussion going on as to whether Rousas John Rushdoony fits into that category. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Order of magnitude

I changed the 'order of magnitude' lower to 'much lower' - 'order of magnitude lower' according to the linked wiki article would mean 10 times lower so that any holding a figure of 1,000,000 dead wouldn't qualify as a 'denier'. I can't imagine this is what the editor intended. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

"An order of magnitude" is an approximate figure, and is correct per our sources. If I were to say s.t. happened "a century ago", I wouldn't mean it happened 3,155,673,600 seconds ago, but that it was closer to one century ago than two, or none. Likewise, a figure of 6.2 million dead doesn't mean exactly 6,200,000, but a number closer to 6.2 million than to 6.1 or 6.3. — kwami (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The link says that the difference in an order of magnitude is of 1 : 10. From this I'd think that many people who are currently listed as deniers, e.g. David Irvine, would not by this definition qualify as deniers. The analogy between 1 century and 0 or 2 and 6.2 million as opposed to 6.0 and 6.2 is not apt, in the first you are allowing for a 50% margin of tolerance in the second for less than 1%. I personally don't think 'holocaust denial' is a particularly useful term, but if you wish to be clear you should give a minimum figure of dead, to the nearest 100k, where belief in a lower number qualifies one as a 'holocaust denier', rather than something open to misinterpretation. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

We could perhaps add a footnote for those who aren't comfortable with numbers. The problem with your approach is that it makes HDers look reasonable: "we only differ by a few %; that's within the range of normal scholarship". The difference is an order of magnitude (that is, around a thousand %), as several of our sources state, and we shouldn't misrepresent that just because some people won't know what it means. As for your 'margin of tolerance' objection, that's how numbers work. You might want to read significant figures. Or read the "order-of-magnitude estimate" and "order-of-magnitude difference" sections at order of magnitude. — kwami (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the current wording with 'order of magnitude' in it. We can't "give a minimum figure of dead, to the nearest 100k" as a criterion of Denial because there isn't a reliable source that does this (that I'm aware of, anyway). It isn't the way that writers on the subject approach it, saying (eg) 'above 4.6 m is scholarly debate, below that figure is denial' so I don't imaging that finding an RS that does this would be easy.
The point is that deniers are reluctant to concede that the figure is higher than the hundreds of thousands range, whereas the actual figure is in the millions. That's the point that the lead para is trying to get across, and I think it's OK as is. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I quote from the lead of the linked article 'order of magnitude' >(therefore, to be an order of magnitude greater is to be 10 times as large).< from which it must surely follow that if anyone thinking that the figure excedes 600,000 may not be a denier, and that within the hundreds of thousands range, at the upper end, may be acceptable. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

I quote from the linked article order of magnitude "Orders of magnitude are generally used to make very approximate comparisons, but reflect deceptively large differences. If two numbers differ by one order of magnitude, one is about ten times larger than the other (italics mine). Order of magnitude is an approximation. It is therefore wrong to say that 600,001 is of the same order of magnitude as 6 million. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think that 3.1 million, the arithmetic mean of 6.2 million and 600k, might be considered as being of the same order of magnitude as 6.2 mill. I think you would need some other mean, which would be lower, to separate orders of magnitude, is it the logarithmic mean? I believe 3.1 million has put forward by by David Irving 'Half a caust' and would come within most parameters of denial. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Ok, now I see your point, I'm going to make a trial edit to see if it clears things up. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What a bizarre dialogue. Mean?, magnitude?, is 600,001 in the same magnitude as 6,000,000????? Saying the figure is 3,000,000 would be classed as 'denial?? What utter tosh!! There is no doubt that a lot of people lost their lives. In the words of SS General Kurt Meyer in his book 'Grenadiere', 'It is irrelevant to discuss the number of victims, the facts themselves are incriminating enough'. He does have a point. If the figure were 50,000, it would be terrible enough. Magnitude? Surely any figure in the thousands, let alone millions can be refered to in terms of 'magnitude'!! But as far as discussing history and searching for the truth, one is surely quite entitled to have an opinion. If that opinion, on the basis of an individuals research, happens to come to a figure of 2,630,000, to label him a 'Holocaust denier' is absolute nonsense. To be labelled as such in this day and age, especially publicly, is nearly to be labelled a murderer or paedophile. We have here a case in history where to question anything other than the 'norm' and 'accepted' figures and story, you are labelled as an anti-Semite or 'Denier'. Somebody please name another episode in history where to question or to doubt the accepted story, they would be humiliated and denounced in such a manner. This situation is neither to understand or to learn history. It's called to conform and tow the line. So when a David Irving or anybody questions 'the facts'. That alone does not make them anti Semetic or a 'Nazi sympathiser' or a 'Denier'. Even the Russian prosecutor at Nurnberg quoted a figure of 4,000,000. Was that 'denying the facts'? When people are forbidden to question and search deeper, then surely we have become very similar to the very state and system we are condemning. I remember a story from my mother in Nazi Germany, when my Grandfather criticised a speech made by Goebbels on the radio. My Grandmother told my mother to close the windows and scolded my Grandfather in case someone were to walk by, hear him and report him. Here we are in a society which now deems it illegal to question the story of 6,000,000. I suppose it would be possible if someone were to overhear me or anyone, whilst walking passed their window, speaking only of 2,000,000 for example, to report them as a 'denier' and an 'anti-Semite'. How ironic we have created a law which resembles a law familiar in Nazi Germany. It's called discussion, as we are doing here. Many people, including historians have no wish to 'deny' but merely to question figures. That you can't without being labeled, cannot be right for a democratic country and it certainly isn't right if you ever want to understand history and get to the bottom of what exactly the true figure really was. 4,250,000? 2,320,000? 1,000,000? 5,850.000? To be honest, whatever the figure, they're all horrendous. 14th April 2011 UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.154.159 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:TALK; do you have any changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism Categorisation

This discussion is going nowhere, and per WP:TALK, it's now ended.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is quite illogical and unnecessary. I fail to see how Holocaust Denial is a subcategory of Anti-Semitism. Sure, they can overlap, and in the majority of cases a Holocaust Denier may well be an Anti-Semite, but the act in itself is not one of anti-semitism. Thus, I suggest the removal of this category, it's quite misleading and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.102.251 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not. As demonstrated by numerous sources, Holocaust Denial in itself is a form of antisemitism. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the unsigned comment here and can't see how Jpgordon's assertion engages with it in any way. Hardicanute (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute.

You mean, aside from common sense and logic, you can't see why Holocaust denial is a form of antisemitism? Well, Wikipedia relies on the views of reliable sources. Large numbers of reliable sources say Holocaust denial is a form of antisemitism. Therefore Wikipedia does too. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the inappropriate nature of the term 'anti-semitism' - Arabs are a semitic people - are those Arabs who question the Holocaust 'anti-semitic'? - it seems to me that if you could find a source that said that 'Holocaust Denial' is not 'anti-semitic' it would be classified as 'unreliable' for saying so. There may in fact be a number of reliable sources which do not state that questioning certain aspects of the 'officially approved' account of the Holocaust is 'anti-semitic'. I think you may find that many of those whom you would class as 'Holocaust Deniers' consider that Wikipedia articles on the Holocaust are so obviously partisan that, rather than causing they cause readers to believe 'approved' accounts of the Holocaust, they have quite the opposite effect to that intendedHardicanute (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute.

We're not here to redefine words. If you have these reliable sources, please present them. WilliamH (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake in my wording which I have corrected. I think that those who use the term 'Holocaust denial' will tend to say it is anti-semitic, whereas those who use the term 'Holocaust revisionist' will not necessarily claim it to be anti-semitic. There may well be sources which do not claim that questioning the 'approved account' of the Holocaust is 'anti-semitic' as distinct from those which state that it is not 'anti-semitic' but how do you cite a source for not saying something? - you have to cite the whole source not any specific part. I will certainly let you know if I come across such sources but I suspect they would be immediately re-categorised as 'unreliable'. Hardicanute (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Hardicanute—you say, "Arabs are a semitic people". But the term "antisemitic" does is not generally defined as meaning "opposed to Semites."
See the second paragraph of the intro to the Antisemitism article. It reads:
"While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"), and that has been its normal use since then."
There are citations for the above at that article. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hardicanute, there is no 'approved account' of the Holocaust; that's just another canard invented by Holocaust deniers. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Chambers English Dictionary 1988 defines Anti-Semitism as 'A hater of Semites, esp. Jews, or of their influence' So while 'Jew-hatred' may be the most common meaning it is not the only meaning. By this dfinition Jews who hate Arabs are also anti-Semitic, if not as much as Arabs who hate Jews. Hardicanute (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Nope. Chambers is incorrect if their definition says that. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Even if they're correct, hasn't "antisemitism" just become, over time, another word for "anti-Jewish people?" Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It started as another word for anti-Jewish. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the polite response. I mean, I know Arabs are Semites, but I'm sure you're right. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Not to give a linguistics lecture, but words evolve over time. Anti-semitic original terminology might have been anti-Arabs as well as Jews, but it has evolved to where most current dictionaries state, "hostility to or prejudice against Jews." Not to get into a horrific argument as to whether Jews are a "religion" or an "ethnicity", it's clear that the word now means anti-Jew (religion or ethnicity). Aside from this discussion, I think we spend too much time on what words are "supposed" to mean, rather than their current usage. If you read a document from 1780 (oh, say the US Constitution), the words mostly (but not completely) are understandable, but the context and 250 year old meanings of the words are lost (except to scholars, I suppose). I know what anti-semitic means, because it's like a duck...if it quacks, looks like, and walks like, it's got to be a duck. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You're saying almost exactly what I said. I agree that "antisemitic" means "anti-Jewish." I also used the word "if," which means Jpgordon corrected a mistake I didn't make. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
My comments weren't meant for you, it was sort of a general comment because this comes up all the time. And of course, you should pipe in whenever you want. You were asking a reasonable question. If you read back through the archives, however, you'll see a lot of lame, unreasonable, bigoted questions. And if you check my contributions, you would see how I treat those idiots. You got really civil replies, meaning no one is criticizing you. But if I were to criticize, don't have a thin skin around these type of articles. You won't last long. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I should thank Gordon, because before you said anything, he got grouchy and indicated the need for a thick skin. Trust me, I don't care. I have no issue with you at all. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
"Grouchy"? You haven't seen me grouchy. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's back up here a bit. I think this discussion has diverted from the relevancy to this article. It seems to me, the issue is "Should Holocaust denial be included in the Antisemitism category?" If editors have issue with the definition of antisemitism as anti-Jewish, and believe the community consensus - as definied at Talk:Antisemitism - is wrong, raise it at the relevant talk page. (Although, as an aside, words are not defined by breaking them down into smaller words whose defintions are knowns. "Antisemitism" cannot be defined by breaking it down as "anti" and "semetism". The current communty consensus, based on relevant sources is that "antisemitism" in the English language means anti-Judaism. But as I said, this should not be that discussion. The question for this talk page is whether this article should be included in the antisemitism cateogry (as currently defined by the current community consensus).

In this case, the original poster's own post comes very close to answering their own question. The original poster notes that there is an overlap between antisemitism and holocaust denial. According to the sources referenced in the article itself, there is a reason for that: generally speaking, holocaust denial has been used as a form of antisemitism. Even if there are holocaust deniers who are not antisemites (which is definitely possible), holocaust denial has been used as a tool of antisemitism, as per the reliable sources. Therefore, it makes sense that it is included in this category. Singularity42 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Department of State has this to say: "For the purposes of this report, anti-Semitism is considered to be hatred toward Jews individually and as a group that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity."
The above only mentions Jews and does not mention Semitic people in general. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
As do most current scholarly dictionaries and, specifically, usage dictionaries. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
And just to clarify, antisemitism has always meant "Jew-hatred". It invented as a more "scientific-sounding" term for judenhass, "Jew-hatred". Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course holocuast denial is rooted in antisemitism. For any who doubt that, ask any holocaust denier how they explain the personal testemony of hundreds of thousands of jewish survivors and witnesses. Then listen to them try and answer without using the phrase 'jewish conspiracy'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a pretty good summary. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
So once again, what looks and sounds and quacks like a duck is demonstrated to be a duck. That's one more for the search button. WilliamH (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I hate to beat this dead horse, but I also agree that the article on Holocaust Denial, should not definitively conclude that holocaust denial is antisemitic, I do still believe that its worth mentioning that some holocaust deniers might be anti semitic, but this definitive conclusion that it is antisemitic seems to be a dubious, and very presumptuous conclusion, which Wikipedia should not make on behalf of the reader. I read through most of the arguments of this debate. And the main argument for classifying holocaust denial as anti semitic, seems to be that, that is a fair representative of the popular view on holocaust denial. I must admit I find this argument to be very flawed. As I have found this argument to breach numerous guidelines of Wikipedia. Notably that(quote) "Wikipedia is not '...' a vehicle for propaganda"(from the 'what wikipedia is not' article) and (quote) "Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship. However it does not mean that Wikipedia content is based on a popularity contest. In many debates, the most popular view is different fro".'...'. Thus, what is considered "mainstream" for Wikipedia may be the minority view in society."(from the 'wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia' article) I think this view of holocaust denial being anti semitic is simply spawned out of popularity, I think it can be justified that this article is changed so as to not definitively conclude that holocaust denial is anti semitic. Averagejoedev (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. If you check the multitude of sources given for the antisemitic nature of Holocaust denial, you will find that many of them are scholarly books published by university presses, or scholarly journal articles. This relationship is indeed "the scholarly or scientific view", not just a popular view. If you want to argue otherwise, please find and present similarly high-quality sources that support your claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You are making a logical fallacy by assuming that the burden of proof is on my side. Au Contraire, the burden of proof is on the side that wants to establish that holocaust denial is in fact definitively anti-semitic. Also you claim that 'many' of the sources represent a scientific view is straight out wrong, the great majority of the sources are political sources: The first source is the report from EUMC. It is very clear from their report on anti semitism that they are a political source and not a scientific source. Even further; EUMC has been criticized thoroughly for having an ideological bias in their reports(http://europeanlifenetwork.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=1). Their reports are formulated by politicians who might have ulterior motives with the reports. I believe EUMC cannot be considered a reliable(unbiased) source on this subject. The third source is taken from "the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights" a book which was funded by the Israeli state, which yet again means that this is a political source and thus can hardly be considered a neutral or unbiased source on the matter. This book is followed by a source article, written for Le Monde Diplomatique; a newspaper with strong leftist ties, yet again a political source, that fact dequalifies it from being considered a reliable source. I am for free speech, free thought, and to call people who question historic events by pejorative terms, seems to undermine many important principles of democracy and society. Wikipedia should not indulge in this sort of dubious stigmatisation of a subject. It should always strive to remain neutral.Averagejoedev (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I like this guy, can we keep him? un☯mi 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't resist pointing out that of the accounts saying holocaust denial isn't anti-Semitism, the latest has only one edit (here), the originator has 2 edits, and one is new this month with 36 edits, the fourth has 57 edits. A bit odd. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the OED defines it this way, covering at least the years 1881–1941: anti-Semitism: Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews. "Semitic" is not so limited. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, the issue raised by the initial poster was whether this article should be in the antisemitism category. Both myself and others have pretty much said "absolutely" (as per the reliable sources and, well, because duh). The issue of what is the definition of antisemitism has been argued ad nauseum at Talk:Antisemitism and the consensus is what everyone (but one or two editors here) are saying. Since this has turned into a discussion that is not related to this article's content, I suggest we consider the issue resolved. If anyone objects to the Wikipedia consensus on the definition of antisemitism, that can be done at Talk:Antisemitism. Thanks Singularity42 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that using ‘Anti-Semitism’ as opposed to ‘Anti-Jewish’ is an unfortunate term because it turns what may be a matter of culture into one of race. Anti-Jewish feeling may be racist as in Nazi Germany but that may be exception rather than rule. In many societies Jews excluded from the mainstream have been able to obtain full civil rights by conversion/renouncing their religion. I don’t think anyone would suggest that Anti-American or Anti-British sentiments are necessarily racist, why should this be so with Anti-Jewish sentiment?

I think there are many legitimate reasons to question ‘mainstream’ accounts of the Holocaust - it is surely much better if a person believes in the Holocaust as a result of having studied the evidence for themself rather than because it is what they have always been told. The Antisemitism label suggests that anyone asking perfectly legitimate questions about what they’ve been told on the subject is racist and so over the longer term may engender precisely those anti-Jewish sentiments of which the editors disapprove. Hardicanute (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Reply to your two seperate points:
  1. Definition of antisemitism. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. This page is not the discussion page for the consensus on the definition of antisemitism. Go to Talk:Antisemitism instead.
  2. Holocaust denial as antisemitism. The issue is whether this article should be included in the category of articles dealing with the topic of antisemitism. That is not the same as labeling all holocaust deniers as antisemites (although most are). Do the reliable sources say it used by antisemites as a tool of antisemitism? Yes. Do reliable sources say that antisemitism is the main motive behind most holocaust denials? Yes. Do both those reasons support this article being included in the category of articles that deal with antisemitism? Yes. Are there holocaust deniers who are not antisemites? Maybe. Does that mean that holocaust denial has nothing to do with antisemitism? No. Case closed. The above discussion shows that there is a clear consensus on this matter. You are free to disagree with the consensus, but we are all just repeating ourselves now. Let's move on. Singularity42 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In your first point you talk as though you see this page as your private fiefdom and you can command me. That does not seem to be at all appropriate. I have made a clear relation of the definition of 'anti-semitism' to its use here, so I think it's relevant. If you accept that there may be 'holocaust deniers' who are not anti-semites then I suggest that is a good reason for removing the anti-semitism label - do you want to offend such people by appearing to suggest they are anti-semitic and by implication racist when you yourself accept that this may not be the case. As for 'let's move on' you are not a captive audience if you don't want to follow or particpate in this discussion nobody is forcing you, there may be others who do are interested and we have the right to talk here. Surely that's what Talk pages are for. Hardicanute (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

  1. I am not claiming WP:OWN on this or any other page. I am simply trying to apply the relevant policies. I am not commanding. I am suggesting that the WP:CONSENSUS has been established here. I do not see what is to gain by just repeating the same arguments over and over again.
  2. As per WP:TALK, the discussion on this talk page should focus on this article. Discussions over what the Wikipedia consensus is on the definition of antisemitism has been traditionally done at Talk:Antisemitism. Keeping discussions in the most relevant locations is important so that we do not end up with conflicting definitions. The discussions that have taken place at Talk:Antisemitism over the last few years is what we are relying on here. As I said, the correct forum to dispute that is where that discussion has traditionally been.
  3. A category is not a label. An article belongs to the category if it meets that category's definition, as defined in that category (WP:CATEGORY). According to the definition of Category:Antisemitism, it is for articles relating to antisemitism (my emphasis added). No one in this discussion is disputing that holocaust denial is related to antisemitism. It has historically been used as a tool for antisemitism. If reliable sources say that holocaust denial has been used as a type of antisemitism, then it belongs in the category of articles related ot antisemitism. That's just logic.
  4. You are wrong on your last point. Talk pages are not for general discussions, as per WP:TALK. They are used to discuss ways to improve the related article, and we do so first by working with WP:CONSENSUS. The next step would be a request for comment, if you think it is appropriate. But for now, there is a clear consensus among the contributers to this discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All my talk is relevant to this article. If reliable sources say that ant-semitism is directed towards Jews then to be consistent you should put all articles about Jews in the anti-semitism category! I'm not sure you agree about consensus, there seem to be anough dissenters expressing themselves on this page, which is doubtless why you feel you are repeating the same arguments over and over again.Hardicanute (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

No, Hardicanute, "pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. And as for the "dissent", there is you, and a few other ostensibly single purpose accounts, suspiciously keen to state that they agree with one another. That's all. Note that Averagejoedev said: "I hate to beat this dead horse" - we are giving you ample invitation to stop. WilliamH (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of pages don't seem to be placed into any category at all so far as I can see, so there is no need to place this into any category. I don't see how you can say mine is 'a single person account', I've made edits on Shakespeare, Aeschylus and the battle of Smolensk. Your wording 'we are giving you ample invitation to stop' sounds like a threat, who are 'we'? and if you are threatening me with something please state specifically what it is. Your choice of wording sounds sinister and if you don't rectify it I suggest that you should be banned for making threats. My position is that by placing this into article into an 'AntiSemitism' category editors may actually engender 'AntiSemitism' - surely if I believe this surely I would be 'AntiSemitic' if I failed to raise this issue. Hardicanute (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

As far as I understand, your position is that the people that might be considered as Holocaust deniers would consider this article so "partisan" that they might refuse to believe the "approved" account of the Holocaust, to use your wording. If that is the case, then that is their own problem. The fact of the matter is that there is a multitude of reliable sources that describe the negation of the factuality of the destruction of millions of Jews by the Nazi government of Germany as antisemitic, and that it is one of the most obvious and vitriolic forms of antisemitism imaginable. It is not a threat I made - you and User:Averagejoedev are in such mutual agreement with each other (which I find rather suspect for an account around 20 minutes old to make a beeline straight to this article), and that agreement is limited to just you, then given one of you realises you are flogging a dead horse, perhaps it's time to drop the stick. WilliamH (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Just wanna jump in and say that I do not know who Hardicanute is, and we are not, as you very much seem to suggest, the same person. Feel free to contact an admin to check the IP logs if you truly believe this. That said, hardicanute is right, in that I created my account to specifically argue this case. I have visited wikipedia for many years, but I was shocked to see wikipedia tie holocaust denial definitively to antisemitism in its opening paragraph.Averagejoedev (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. Holocaust Denial is a form of antisemitism. Lets leave the categorisation as it currently stands to reflect that close relationship. Put down the stick and move away from the horse. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Averagejoedev felt so strongly on this matter that he created an account so he could contribute - I've better things to do with my life than create sockpuppets. My position is that people who might have questions about the orthodox account of the Holocaust would object to the suggestion that they are racist for having such questions and may start to consider there is a Jewish conspiracy to enforce belief in the Holocaust by smearing those who question it as racist. I presume that those who use the label 'AntiSemitism' here think it is something to be discouraged, but you seem to suggest it is merely 'their own problem'. Hardicanute (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

But there is actually a Jewish conspiracy and all those who disagree with you on this page - including me - are members of said conspiracy. Now that you have the confirmation of what you obviously already knew, please move on and let us keep that page as it is and go check by yourself whether the "official story" (as you say) relatign to the holocaust is true or not. --Lebob (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No they're not, I'm not Jewish. But how hilarious to see this vindicated entirely. WilliamH (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
An early Wikipedian coming to the realisation that dead horses can't be made to go anywhere.
Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record whilst I am happ to keep an open mind about the Holocaust, as with every other 'belief' I might have about historical events, I do very strongly believe the mainstream account. I simply object to the suggestion that if I or anyone else question it we are necessarily being racist. (or pseudoscientific or pseudohistorians) Sorry I forgot to sign Hardicanute (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Your objection is noted. Holocaust denial is a form of Jew-hatred, according to all of the reliable sources we have available. Our opinions in that regard, as well as our feelings about the categorization, are not relevant to Wikipedia. It's certainly the case that there are some small number of people denying the Holocaust who are not themselves Jew-haters; this does not invalidate the generalization about the practice as a whole. We're not characterizing the practitioners, we're characterizing the practice. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You, JPGordon, were quite happy to say that a reliable source ie Chambers Dictionary was wrong in its definition of 'AntiSemitism'. (I'm not going to bother trying to cite that on the Anti-Semitism page because I know it would inevitably be removed.) Whatever your reliable sources may say nobody is forcing you to put this article into an AntiSemitism category, that is your choice. And of course Wikipaedia editors' feelings and opinions come into play all the time in choosing which 'reliable sources' to cite, and, I rather suspect, in choosing which sources to define as reliable. Hardicanute (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

But it is wrong. Words are defined by their usage, not their etymology. I just had a quick poke around Google.
  • United Nations: "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism" [4]
  • Dr. Christina Schori Liang, Europe for the Europeans: the foreign and security policy of the populist radical right, p. 24: "Holocaust denial has become one of the most common modern forms of anti-Semitism" Ashgate Publishing
  • Prof. Rodolfo Stavenhagen, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Ethnic conflicts and the nation-state, p. 238: "One of the most insidious forms of contemporary anti-Semitism, which the Liberty Lovvy and other similar organizations around the world are promoting, is so-called 'Holocaust revisionism' or 'Holocaust denial' Under the guise of historical scholarship, Holocaust denial argues that the Holocaust never took place, and that the extermination of the European Jews was not the policy objective of Nazi Germany." Palgrave Macmillan Publishing

There's loads more similar stuff, but I simply can't be bothered to type it all out. The fact of the matter is that there is loads of material out there from reputable academic institutions and publishers stating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. If reliable sources report XYZ, then Wikipedia is allowed to report XYZ. That's how it works. You have been invited numerous times to present reliable sources to support your position, but aside from an outmoded dictionary definition and your own extrapolation, you haven't offered anything. WilliamH (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources funded by political movements can hardly be considered neutral or reliable. I mean how would you react if I used a neo-nazi movement as a source? Stick to the scientific sources, and don't include the political sources, please remember that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political propaganda, but a source for neutral and unbiased information.Averagejoedev (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Why are "sources funded by political movements" inherently unreliable or biased? Is there any source that is not in some way funded by a political movement? Most academics work for universities, most universities receive at least some public funding, and the public purse is controlled by (political) parliaments. Does that disqualify them? If yes, are there any concrete examples of sources you accept? If not, what's wrong with Schori Liang, above, or Lipstadt, Schweitzer & Perry, Reed, Wettstein, Errera, Powell, and Said, all from the references on the main page? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. Furthermore, those institutions are not just one country's output, but multinational organisations with an array of international academics working in collaboration. WilliamH (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
How would we react if you used a neo-nazi movement as a source? We'd say you're using an unreliable source, unlike the sources that are being used on this article. Take a look at WP:RS if you're having trouble understanding the difference. You're not seriously putting neo-Nazis in the same category as the UN, are you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a link to what Chambers now says the word means. Looks like we can add that to the consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The difference is; a scientific source places truth above ideology, whereas a political source places ideology above truth. Thats the clear difference between the detached work of using the scientific method to reach conclusions(that would be a scientific source), and work thats created to promote or spread(in this specific case; to stigmatize) some ideological view or belief(that would be a political source). All, I repeat: ALL, the sources you mention that reach the conclusion that holocaust denial is inherently anti semitic, do not do so out of a strong empirical conclusion provided by the scientific method, but rather make the claim to promote and spread some ideological belief. And regarding your source; Europe for the Europeans: the foreign and security policy of the populist radical right I must ask you; do you honestly consider this source to be a reliable and neutral source on this subject? I must admit, that I found the use of that source, as valid as using Mein Kampf as a source. But from your argumentation, I can perhaps assume that you would also consider Mein Kampf to be a reliable source on this matter? I must repeat myself; Don't use political sources.(http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view)Averagejoedev (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It is only out of sheer morbid curiosity that I ask, but how do you propose antisemitism in relation to Holocaust denial is quantified? WilliamH (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Europe for the Europeans is a scholarly collection with contributions from 14 academics from a number of high-profile research institutions and universities in Europe, all with at least a PhD in a relevant subject. It's published by an academic publisher. Mein Kampf was written by a megalomaniac prisoner whose main academic qualification was to have failed two secondary schools and not having been accepted at an art academy. The book was published by the NSDAP press. Can you see why we consider one to meet WP:RS and the other not to do so? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Stephan my critic of your source was clearly aimed at Europe for the Europeans: the foreign and security policy of the populist radical right the chapter that mentions antisemitism and holocaust denial, written by Christina Schori Lang, and not the entire book which deals with a large string of topics that are largely irrelevant to this discussion, it also worth mentiong that the book has each chapter written by a different person. My critic stands valid. Christina Schori Lang, is not a professor, not a historian, not a scientist, not by any strech of the imagination an authority on this subject. Christina's only qualification is that fact that she has a BA in Political Science. Her statement is not out of a meticulous knowledge on this historical subject. She is clearly talking outside of her field of knowledge. And I will even go as far to claim that Mrs. Christina Schori Liang, is more interested in making cheap political statements rather than promoting any form of empirical truth that could be relevant to this debate.Averagejoedev (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong. Dr. Christina Schori Lang also holds relevant Master's and PhD degrees. She works as a research fellow for an international institute founded by the Swiss ministries of defence and foreign affairs, and teaches at two universities on two different continents. Do you have anything that's not just your own, personal, and plainly unqualified opinion? A source, maybe? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Stephan you are the one who is trying to establish a definitive correlation between antisemitism and holocaust denial, thus the burden of proof is on your side, not mine. To illustrate; I won't find a source saying the Cambodian genocide is not anti-indian, if the Cambodian genocide genuinely isn't anti-indian, by the use of the logic in your closing paragraph, you could now claim the cambodian genocide was anti-indian and I would not be able to find a source saying it is not anti-indian, does that mean the Cambodian genocide was anti indian then? I think you get the point... And about Christina; I find it incredibly amusing that you off the bat claim that she holds other university degrees without mentioning which particular degrees we are talking about. Surely if she holds, as you blatantly claim, 'a relevant degree' then please do tell us which this relevant degree is. Otherwise I am gonna assume that much like the rest of your argumentation this holds no validity.Averagejoedev (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The burden of proof has been met, by a multitude of scholarly reliable sources, and without the presence of even a single dissenting source so far. We understand that you don't like the sources. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an acceptable argument. WP:RS is. Your example is broken beyond reason. It omits the (hypothetical) presence of a multitude of reliable sources for the claim that the "cambodian genocide was anti-indian". If these sources would exist, and you could not present reliable sources to the contrary, then, by verifiability, not truth, we would indeed accept the claim. As for the degrees of Schori Lang, you might want to learn to do your own legwork. It might save you from publicly making obviously wrong claims. Her Masters degree is in International History and Politics her PhD in International Relations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry you didnt like the example I can use another more simple one to illustrate the point; You say the moon is made of cheese, you find a dubious political source to back up your claim. And I find no source to challenge that the moon is NOT made of cheese, does this mean the moon is made of cheese? This logic is the one you are promoting in your the paragraph of you previous reply. I also find it largely irrelevant to bring in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I stand by my critic of Christina Schori Liang, along with the rest of your sources, let me requote my original critic:"the sources you mention that reach the conclusion that holocaust denial is inherently anti semitic, do not do so out of a strong empirical conclusion provided by the scientific method, but rather make the claim to promote and spread some ideological belief." Please answer me this, do you consider the book a scientific or a political source? Is Christina's conclusion on holocaust denial reached through sufficient evidence, or slinged out without any justification? And if its the latter of the two; how is this a reliable source then?Averagejoedev (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Composition of the moon. It is easily possible to provide reliable sources refuting the claim that the moon is made of cheese. If the claim that Holocaust denial is not antisemitic holds any water, it should be similarly easy to bring sources to that effect. You have failed to do so. Also, of course, we have not "a dubious political source", but a whole range of sources, written by scholars of different bents and levels of seniority, and published by some of the most respected academic publishers. As for your quest for empiricism, do you really doubt that an empirical study would find a strong correlation between Holocaust denial and antisemitism? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
My 'Cheese' scenario was strictly a hypothetical allegory of our current debate. It was not an actual attempt at starting a new debate regarding the composition of the moon. The scenario clearly differs in that the moon is a physical object and thus is subject empirical study, which could support that the moon is not made of cheese. In our debate there is no empirical evidence for either side, hence the reason why we should not definitively conclude that holocaust denial is antisemitic. I would still very much appreciate some answers to the last question of my previous reply, I feel that those answers might shed some light on this debate. And to answer you question; I agree that such a study might find some correlation. I also believe a such study would find that holocaust denial is not definitively and strictly a form of antisemitism.Averagejoedev (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Averagejoe, do you intend to ever do anything constructive on Wikipedia, or did you come here for the sole purpose of griefing this talk page? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Steven, I find your short remark to be a bit ironic while containing a fallacy[[Ad hominem, but to answer you rhetorical question, no I did not come here to 'grief'. I came here to hopefully see Wikipedia change an article for the better.Averagejoedev (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
More to the point, since it's clear that scholarly consensus as well as Wikipedia consensus are going to maintain the characterization of holocaust denial as Jew-hatred, there's nothing more to discuss here; policy issues regarding the acceptability -- or lack thereof -- of sources such as "Europe for the Europeans" may be had elsewhere. In the meantime, this thread has run its course (and well past it.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Claiming that scholarly consensus has been reached is completely ignoring my unanswered critic near the top of this section of these so-called 'scholars'.Averagejoedev (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
"Claiming that scholarly consensus has been reached" is probably the best summary of the question one can do right now. Your critics have been addressed and clearly answered. If you disagree with the answer, then provide us with reliable sources that clearly show that there is a consensus among scholars to conclude that holocaust denial is not antisemitic at all or has no relation at all with antisemitism. If this is so obvious you should have not problem to provide us with reliable sources that mke it clear. If not, you should leave this discussion as you have no point and you are wasting the time of several conributors. --Lebob (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned in my last message; my critic stands unanswered and thus it has not, as you suggest, been "addressed and clearly answered". And you are making a logical fallacy by assuming that the burden of proof is on my side. The burden is on the side that is trying to establish a definitive correlation between Antisemitism and Holocaust denial, a correlation I have critiqued thoroughly in this section. If you feel you are wasting your time here, then I suggest you leave the discussion.Averagejoedev (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There are over 20 reliable secondary sources in the article stating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. I'm not exactly sure what your "unanswered critic" is, but if it's the argument you made above about the EUMC being unreliable because it's "a political source" and the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights being unreliable because it "was funded by the Israeli state", then it was "ignored" because it's irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Please review WP:RS and WP:NOR and WP:NOTAFORUM. If you think a source is unreliable, then bring it to WP:RS/N for review. If you have any reliable secondary sources that state that Holocaust denial is not antisemitism, then bring them here. Failing that, please do not waste any more of our time. Jayjg (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You description of the 20 sources is to inaccurate to fit as a valid description for all of the sources, allow me to clarify; there are 20 sources that state that some holocaust deniers are also anti-semitic. As most of the sources only mention that a select and specific anti semitic group also believes in Holocaust Denial. Thus most of the sources does not match your description of them, that the sources are;"Stating that Holocaust denial IS antisemitic" the sources only support that there is a correlation between the two for some. Also I want to challenge your conclusion that my critic was 'irrelevant' to Wikipedia policy, I believe that if the sources are political(as I suggested above) that breaks with WP:NPOV To quote NPOV:"Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.", furthermore it can be questioned where the use of such political sources makes wikipedia a vehicle for propaganda, which would go against several of the guidelines from WP:WWIN. Thus I believe it can very much be concluded that my critique is relevant to Wikipedia policy. Again I must also point out that the burden of proof is not on my side, but rather on the side that wants to establish that holocaust denial is a form of antisemitism.Averagejoedev (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1 Steven, The 1988 Chambers definition I offered was in response to "the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"), and that has been its normal use since then." and so is relevant as I am talking about its historical usage. It may have narrowed in meaning since 1988. 2 If a U.N official is quoted on a U.N. webiste as saying "Holocaust Denial is Anti-Semitic" then I probably wouldn't object to this article being put in the Anti-Semitism category but I think it would be very helpful is this were put in the lead, and you might find there are fewer objecvtions to it being categorised in this way. I don't think anyone would say that 'Holocaust Denial is anti-semitic' is as objective a statement as say 'Hitler was born in 1889' or 'Male robins have red breasts' 'Holocaust Denial' and 'Anti-Semitism' are human-made defintions/categories which individuals may or may not be useful. However placing the article in a category because the U.N. has defined it as such seems very reasonable. Those who approve the description should be happy because it carries the authority of the U.N. those who disapprove it may be happy because it shows that this is a human-made categorisation. If we extended the principle and instead of saying HD is 'pseudoscientific' or 'pseudohistorical' says "described by X and others as 'pseudoscientific' or pseudohistorical'" this would be equally helpful. It is effectively naming the 'reliable source' in the text in addition to notes. If the principle were extended to other Wikipedia article on the Holocaust it might remove some of the rancour from talk pages. It seems to be that there are a number of users who feel it is legitimate to question 'consensus views' on the Holocaust and who find the tone of many articles unfortunate and indeed alienating. That may just be an unintended consequence of Wikipedia editorial convention. Hardicanute (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

1. The historical usage of the term "anti-semitism" is well documented; I don't know why the Chambers dictionary might contain inaccuracies, but it indeed was coined in the 19th century by a Jew-hater, to mean Jew-hatred, and has consistently meant that.
2. Most of us couldn't care less what Holocaust deniers feel about much of anything, least of all the tone of a Wikipedia article. People who are dedicated to perpetuating falsehood at the expense of the millions of innocent victims should indeed find reality alienating and unfortunate. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

JP Gordon should beware the consequences of such sentiments because Hitler would have found reality 'alienating and unfortunate' in 1918. Thank God for Ken McVay and Nizkor. Hardicanute (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Your logic fails me. What does Ken McVay have to do with what jpg said?OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See the main article section - "Ken McVay and alt.revisionism" McVay is a Holocaust Affirmer who is prepared to enter discussion with those who wish to describe themselves as 'revisionists' and is even prepared to refer to them as by the name they prefer to use, ie as revisionists. I find this approach in marked contrast to much of the tone of the article and sentiments such as those expressed by JPGordon and hope that it will be an example to other editors. Hardicanute (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

It is antisemitic to deny the Holocaust because there is so little to support the denial of the Holocaust and volumes of material to support its factual reality. That is antisemitic because is hurtful of those already the victim of the Holocaust even if only children, grandchildren, and great-grand-children of direct victims of the Holocaust. Those who are victims of the Holocaust—even if removed by generations—know the reality of it not only from history books and such—but by family lore. The "hurt" is generated by the denial of that which is known to be true. That is the mechanism by which Holocaust denial is ineluctably antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to people who question it as well as those who deny that it took place? Surely it is also relevant whether the questioner/denier intends to cause hurt or how far they go to avoid causing hurt. It's not desirable to have a situation where people may feel that legitimate historical enquiry is being stifled by emotional blackmail. Also this creates a situation where people can claim to be survivors and create all sorts of outlandish stories and others are afraid to question them Hardicanute (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

  • And there lies the inherent problem with your position, and why it's moot. We do not have a situation where the legitimate historical enquiry conducted by "questioners/deniers" is being stifled by emotional blackmail because they are not pursuing legitimate historical enquiry. WilliamH (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Some days ago an editor here said "we are giving you ample invitation to stop". I responded that this sounded like a threat. I didn't accept the invitation. Now I find that I have a recent changes reviewer changing many of my edits, without proper justication. I find another editor from this page joining in with the recent changes reviewer in articles where I haven't seen him previously interested. Is this is what was implied in 'ample invitation to stop'? I have raised this matter with a very senior wiki administrator who previously sided with me against a whole group of editors, including one prominent on this page, on a closely-related issue. I do feel as though I am now being pursued by a hate mob for stating that discussions regarding the Holocaust be conducted in a reasonable way without ad hominem attack. Please don't 'roll up' this comment, I think it very important that it be seen by all visitors to this page. Hardicanute (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)}}

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_16&oldid=1088457323"