Jump to content

Talk:Holocaust denial: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not for posting your thoughts on the subject. See WP:NOFORUM.
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 22) (bot
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talkheader|archive_age=30|archive_units=days}}
{{Talk header}}
{{talk fringe|Holocaust denial}}
{{talk fringe|Holocaust denial}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Trolling}}
{{ArticleHistory|action1= FAC
{{ArticleHistory|action1= FAC
|action1date= 2004-6-6
|action1date= 2004-6-6
Line 35: Line 36:
|action5oldid=225573669
|action5oldid=225573669


|action6=GAR
|currentstatus= GA
|action6date=01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
|action6link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Holocaust denial/1
|action6result=Delisted
|action6oldid=974441173

|currentstatus= DGA
|topic=Socsci}}
|topic=Socsci}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Jewish history|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=GA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=GA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=GA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject European history|class=GA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=mid}}

}}
}}
{{TOC limit|2}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 18
|counter = 22
|minthreadsleft = 7
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Historical revisionism (negationism)#Politically motivated historical revisionism|Holocaust denial]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Politically motivated historical revisionism) [[Special:Diff/459514452|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"Politically motivated historical revisionism","appear":{"revid":12819523,"parentid":11662539,"timestamp":"2005-03-29T21:42:57Z","removed_section_titles":["Etymology","Historical revisionism","A second common usage of the phrase \"historical revisionism\""],"added_section_titles":["Politically motivated historical revisionism"]},"disappear":{"revid":459514452,"parentid":459353566,"timestamp":"2011-11-07T20:51:09Z","removed_section_titles":["Politically motivated historical revisionism"],"added_section_titles":["Reasons for Revisionism","Ideological Influence","Political Influence"]}} -->
== "By whom?" needed ==
}}
I don't know how to do this, but the FAQ section contains these words: "In any event, reputable historians did not use the 4 million figure in their calculations of the overall number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Rather, they used numbers of 1 to 1.5 million, figures which are still used today."
This part obviously needs a "By whom" tag, or it is just what this tag tries to combat. Unverifiable pseudo-facts with no source-checking possible. It would be in everybody's best interest to make 'reliable sources' out of this claim. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.216.27.93|84.216.27.93]] ([[User talk:84.216.27.93|talk]]) 12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Provocative statement==
"At this point, knowledge of the Holocaust was not widespread among the public.{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}"

I removed this, as its too profoundly provocative to remain unsourced. if its true, thats really sad, but i wasnt alive at the time, so i assume that it was known about, being only the biggest news story of the 20th century, after the atomic bomb.(mercurywoodrose)[[Special:Contributions/2602:304:CFD0:6350:F9A6:4510:3DA9:22E0|2602:304:CFD0:6350:F9A6:4510:3DA9:22E0]] ([[User talk:2602:304:CFD0:6350:F9A6:4510:3DA9:22E0|talk]]) 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|2602:304:CFD0:6350:F9A6:4510:3DA9:22E0}} You're not necessarily wrong to remove it if you find it provocative and unsourced, but there are intermediate steps before doing that of increasing urgency, starting with {{tl|citation needed}}, and leading all the way up to {{tl|disputed}}. In fact, your assumption that it was known about is mistaken, as I recall from watching the reaction to the Eichmann trial on television. However, personal experience is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. Before something counts as the biggest news story, it first has to appear in the news at all; merely being profoundly important, explosive, and a matter of great urgency is not enough.

:If it seems incomprehensible, or doubtful, consider the [[Catholic Church sexual abuse cases]]. I won't try to convince you here that Church sex abuse is an issue that goes back centuries, I'll just draw your attention to the [[Servants of the Paraclete]]. The Church itself knew that this was a problem of long standing, and finally established a facility to treat sexually abusive priests in the 1940s. Some people knew, of course, especially the many victims and their families, but knowledge of it was "not widespread among the public". It's a little hard to prove a negative, but there may be secondary sources out there that say something on the order of, "news articles of clergy sex abuse was first reported in the 1980s" or some such statement which could be taken as evidence that it was not widespread knowledge before that (even though it might not have been widespread after that, either).

:In fact, knowledge doesn't become "widespread" about something ''even'' when it is first published, especially if it's on an inside page, and doesn't have immediate, repetitive followup. Many people think the sex abuse scandal started in the 2000s in Boston with the revelations by the Boston Globe Spotlight team in 2004, due to the drumbeat of articles and the huge, page 1 headlines. But in fact, the New York Times had already covered the case of [http://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/20/us/sex-charges-against-priest-embroil-louisiana-parents.html Gilbert Gauthe in Louisiana] 20 years earlier. There it was, in black and white, in the "newspaper of record" but it just didn't make a splash; maybe a small ripple. It's absolutely the case that "knowledge of clergy sexual abuse was not widespread in the 1980s" after the NYT report, but I don't expect that the WaPo followed up with an article, "Knowledge of Clergy Sex Abuse Still Not Making Waves" the following year. It's just not the way the news works. People first became publicly aware in the mid-1990s with a series of documentaries, but it only became "widespread" after 2004 with the explosive Boston Globe reports. So I hope this example of a huge news story being totally unknown by the public for decades until it finally pierced the public's awareness, makes you doubt your original stated assumption.

:There was a similar situation with regard to the Holocaust. Remember that before the Eichmann trial in 1961, there was no [[Schindler's List]], or any of the movies or documentaries we are now so familiar with. Television was still in its infancy, small, grainy, and black and white. There were no live news broadcasts from abroad yet, the technology didn't exist. People kinda knew "something bad" happened to the Jews in Europe in WWII, because there were a lot of Jewish immigrants around and occasional stories of atrocities. People knew or heard that they were interned in "concentration" camps (like POW camps or something? they didn't know), or put on death marches, that they were beaten or starved or mistreated, or something. Happens in every war. Nothing to take it out of "Fog of War" territory. Not yet. Public knowledge about the Nazis pictured them as the evil enemy who had marched through Europe invading one country after another, occupying France, bombing London, and finally succumbing to the victorious Allies after the heroic D-Day landing. (We learned nothing about the battles of [[Battle of Stalingrad|Stalingrad]], or [[Battle of Kursk|Kursk]], or the Soviets taking Berlin.)

:The [[Eichmann trial]] changed public awareness of the Holocaust for two reasons. First, everybody knew about the Nazis, and in 1960 there was a news story about Israel kidnapping a top Nazi out of Argentina, and taking him to Israel for trial. That already created a bit of buzz, but still, not everybody read about that. The second reason, was the day-by-day television broadcast of the trial. This was a technological innovation for television, and caused a sensation. It was not possible to do it live, but videotape was taken to the airport after each day's session, and flown to the U.S. where it was shown on network television the next day. This was the very first televised trial of any kind, and millions watched.

:In fact if you go look at the Eichmann trial, the chief prosecutor wasn't merely trying to find Eichmann guilty, he was trying to establish a comprehensive record of the Holocaust for posterity, and so people would hear what happened and know about it, especially the younger generation, who simply didn't know the extent of it, even in Israel. So in sum, yes your assumption is wrong, and no, knowledge of the Holocaust was not widespread before the Eichmann trial. The trial had a profound effect, in the U.S., Israel, and Germany, and in time, everywhere. Doesn't mean the sentence should go in without a source ref, but I hope this background info will point the way to finding some of them. Cheers, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 00:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

== [[Template:Holocaust denial]] ==

A template that may be of interest to editors of this article has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_8#Template:Holocaust_denial here]. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 16:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

== How is this "Racism"? ==
{{collapsetop|Best not to feed the trolls [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC) }}
The article states:

"Holocaust denial, they contend, is 'the worst form of racism and its most respectable version because it pretends to be a research'"

How is denying the holocaust delusion in any way "racism"???[[Special:Contributions/73.220.34.167|73.220.34.167]] ([[User talk:73.220.34.167|talk]]) 02:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
*At the risk of feeding the trolls, you could ask that question of the author of the reference that accompanies the quote in the article. Footnote 195. As for one personal opinion, like mine or yours, this is not a forum, but a place to discuss article improvement.. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
:Oh dear. "How is denying the holocaust delusion (sic) in any way "racism"???". Now where shall we start? Care to improve the article with some mainstream sources backing that? Why am I even bothering? [[User:Irondome|Irondome]] ([[User talk:Irondome|talk]]) 02:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
::You are begging the question. You are basically using a loaded question that apparently answers itself. This is a logical fallacy. It's like asking someone, "Why do you enjoy beating your husband" when the person is in reality a non-violent pacifist who loves his husband. If you have mainstream sources that have been vetted through a peer review process and acknowledged as reliable research then please by all means add inclusions to the article. [[User:MarianStern|MarianStern]] ([[User talk:MarianStern|talk]]) 20:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}

== Content fork to [[holocaust revisionism]] ==
I keep adding reliably sources showing changes in view of historical fact ( so far.death count in one camp down in 90s, overall death count and ghetto count up in 2013) but it keels getting shut down without consensus and just bounced back hear.

The attempt at [[Talk:Holocaust revisionism]] to progress does not bode well as I think people like to throw OR around blandly for basic recognition of synonym interchangeability. Just as "the holocaust did not happen" is clearly denialism without using the word denial, alleging any change like "twice as many people died" is obviously revising even if the source does not use the word revise so long a there is an obvious before/after comparison in the source.

The redirect here is.extra absurd since this article.has a paragraph acknowledging the difference:
:in The Holocaust: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, Donald L. Niewyk gives some examples of how legitimate historical revisionism—the re-examination of accepted history and its updating with newly discovered, more accurate, or less-biased information—may be applied to the study of the Holocaust as new facts emerge to change the historical understanding of it

On a wide scale have [[historical revisionism]] for legit vs [[historical revisionism (negationism)]] for illegitimate.

So "holocaust revisionism" should be restricted to discussing legitimate revisions while if there must be a redirect here it should follow the pattern and.be [[Holocaust revisionism (negationism)]].

Revisionism exists in all historical fields so we should actually cover it instead of relegating the phrase solely as masquerade to illegitimate research. It should be used to cover legitimate research with a footnote that illegitimate research also calls itself that.

The main article of science should be about covering science, not pseudoscience and a section about how pseudo scientists do not call themselves pseudo scientists. --[[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze|talk]]) 08:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

:That sounds like a duplication of [[The Holocaust]] article and its family of articles which should reflect the most up-to-date research and disagreements between the findings of legitimate researchers. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 09:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Nick-D}} while I agree that present consensus is what the TH article should present, that is not what a revisionism article should present since the whole point would be to illustrate how consensus changed over time. Kind of like "history of science" or something. The verb revise is primarily more than a euphemism for the verb deny and so we ought to illustrate legitimate accepted revisions to historical facts over time so there is an example of property research to contrast with denialist pseudo-research. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze|talk]]) 05:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Outside statistics there is also revisionism about the Holocaust regarding culpability, see [[Hitler's Willing Executioners#revisionism]] for a good example of non-denialist revisionism regarding the Holocaust which is not denialist. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze|talk]]) 07:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

:I really don't see why a separate article is needed for such a topic. Are there any examples you can give of where material tracing the evolution of views hasn't fitted into an article when its been added, leading to a consensus to move it elsewhere? Otherwise, the fork seems totally unnecessary as it would be better to improve the existing articles than set up a difficult-to-maintain article with a rather unclear scope which would be a magnet to deniers and cranks. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 07:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
:Ranze, despite the fact that multiple reliable sources both use and describe "Holocaust revisionism" as merely a euphemism for "Holocaust denial", you appear to be arguing that there is a specific subject "Holocaust revisionism" that is somehow both distinct from [[Holocaust denial]] <u>and</u> distinct from the usual kinds of [[historical revisionism]] that go on in any legitimate area of historical study. If such a topic actually existed, then where would be [[WP:SECONDARY|reliable secondary sources]] that named and described it as unique and different activity/subject. Where are these sources? Please bring them here and quote them. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

== Enigma Decrypts ==


__TOC__
The Enigma Decrypts (of which the film "Imitation Game" refers) did not contain references to the genocide of any people or the effects thereof. This is interesting, considering they do contain periodic death-toll counts and their causes - of which the numbers are commensurate to a labor camp, but certainly not a genocidal execution machine ("1 Prisoner shot during escape attempt," for example). They also contain repeated orders to shore up the Typhus epidemic, improve worker conditions, health, and so forth. Regardless of one's beliefs regarding the holocaust, this is an explicit part of the denier's argument. If there is an adequate refutation of the charge, then it should be included in the article as well. As it stands, the article's lacking this point constitutes either ignorance of holocaust denial or a failure to maintain NPOV. Editors, please address. Thank you! <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.167.102.227|108.167.102.227]] ([[User talk:108.167.102.227|talk]]) 16:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024 ==


{{Edit extended-protected|Holocaust denial|answered=yes}}
I would like to add that I came to this site hoping to find a refutation of the charge as the result of having been in a debate with a denier. The denier proved to have some very strong arguments and I assumed that this would be the ideal place to fact check. I am somewhat astounded that there doesn't appear to me much "there" there, in this article. We need better scholarship regarding denier charges and their refutations here, and less POV and attempts to discredit denier psychology (whether stated or inferred). Such things do not help those like me who come here in good faith looking for cogent counter-arguments. Failure to provide them only lends credibility to deniers's own arguments. After all, the majority of internet debate does not take place in the Edit pages of Wikipedia. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.167.102.227|108.167.102.227]] ([[User talk:108.167.102.227|talk]]) 16:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
kindly change the picture under "Laws against Holocaust denial" from File:Holocaust_Denial_Laws_2023.png to the correct File:Holocaust_Denial_Laws_2022.svg, since it shows both Palestine and Israel borders under international law, while File:Holocaust_Denial_Laws_2023.png only shows only Israel [[User:Prosnu|Prosnu]] ([[User talk:Prosnu|talk]]) 14:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


==Soft Holocaust Denial should be added?==
:Interesting. Please see [[Ultra#Holocaust intelligence]] for some clarification of this. This may help in any further discussions with these types. Also please mention the [[Posen speeches]], with specific reference to [[Posen speeches#Holocaust denial]]. It blows such denialist garbage out of the water. It is inconceivable that such explosive information would have been sent by routine enigma traffic, because enigma usage was routine down to sub-unit level, it's supposed security notwithstanding. An absence of such material in intercepted traffic as an argument against the Holocaust is ignorant and inane. Such material was usually transmitted face to face or in highly confidential written material, which was unsurprisingly almost completely destroyed at the war's end by the perpetrators. The issue with the intercepts appears to have been primarily misinterpretation of the material intercepted, and an inability to grasp the sheer scale of events. Or even what these scattered pieces of material mounted up to as a badly fragmented picture of an event of unimaginable precedent. A cognitive denial if you will. Finally I would recommend you read the complete transcripts of the Irving v Lipstadt libel trial. It is a long read, but it provides expert historical refutation of both the specific case and the denialist methodology in general {{cite web|url=http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/transcripts|title=Irving v. Lipstadt : Transcripts|work=Holocaust Denial on Trial|publisher=Emory University|pages=|accessdate=26 June 2009}} Regards [[User:Irondome|Irondome]] ([[User talk:Irondome|talk]]) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
https://www.thetower.org/article/the-rise-of-soft-holocaust-denial/
The matter with JK Rowling because the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany
points here, but this article doesn't mention Rromani, LGBT, who were part of the Holocaust, even though they were not the most public.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/deborah-lipstadt-historian-donald-trump-advisers-soft-holocaust-denial
There are plenty of articles to support it. There are examples that can be pulled too. Addressing the arguments that it's more prevalent v. hard denial should also be addressed and added.
--[[User:KimYunmi|KimYunmi]] ([[User talk:KimYunmi|talk]]) 14:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


==Fred A. Leuchter==
== Verb tense ==


"{{tq|Zündel '''had''' a website, web-mastered by his wife Ingrid, which '''publicizes''' his viewpoints.}}" (Emphasis added.) Presumably the verbs should either both be past tense or both be present tense. Also, I think the commas could be removed from "{{tq|The key claims, which cause Holocaust denial to differ from established fact, are:}}". [[User:&#45;sche|&#45;sche]] ([[User talk:&#45;sche|talk]]) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I fixed the broken link for the video documentary: [https://archive.org/details/Mr.Death.The.Rise.and.Fall.of.Fred.A.Leuchter.Jr.DVDRip ''Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. is a 1999 documentary film by Errol Morris about execution technician Fred A. Leuchter.''] it's currently pending review. The broken link goes to YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A1NMFtvWUw] and the corrected link goes to [https://archive.org/details/Mr.Death.The.Rise.and.Fall.of.Fred.A.Leuchter.Jr.DVDRip] The Internet Archive. [[User:MarianStern|MarianStern]] ([[User talk:MarianStern|talk]]) 20:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
:Done. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:24, 15 May 2024

Former good articleHolocaust denial was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 11, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 5, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
July 15, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 6, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024[edit]

kindly change the picture under "Laws against Holocaust denial" from File:Holocaust_Denial_Laws_2023.png to the correct File:Holocaust_Denial_Laws_2022.svg, since it shows both Palestine and Israel borders under international law, while File:Holocaust_Denial_Laws_2023.png only shows only Israel Prosnu (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Holocaust Denial should be added?[edit]

https://www.thetower.org/article/the-rise-of-soft-holocaust-denial/ The matter with JK Rowling because the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany points here, but this article doesn't mention Rromani, LGBT, who were part of the Holocaust, even though they were not the most public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/deborah-lipstadt-historian-donald-trump-advisers-soft-holocaust-denial There are plenty of articles to support it. There are examples that can be pulled too. Addressing the arguments that it's more prevalent v. hard denial should also be addressed and added. --KimYunmi (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verb tense[edit]

"Zündel had a website, web-mastered by his wife Ingrid, which publicizes his viewpoints." (Emphasis added.) Presumably the verbs should either both be past tense or both be present tense. Also, I think the commas could be removed from "The key claims, which cause Holocaust denial to differ from established fact, are:". -sche (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&oldid=1223961551"