Talk:Holocaust denial

Some discussions to note: Some topics have been discussed multiple times on this talk page. It is suggested that editors review these previous discussions before re-raising issues, so as to save time and cut down on repetition.

• If you want to argue that Holocaust Denial should be called Holocaust Revisionism, please read (not an exhaustive list): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
• If you want to argue about the Auschwitz Plaque, please read: [7], [8], [9], and the appropriate section in the Auschwitz article.
• If you want to argue that "most historians" or "almost all historians" do not reject Holocaust Denial, please read: [10], [11]

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

Biased

The article, in defining a Holocaust denier, includes in its definition: carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers. Does this mean, that anyone who makes any reference to Jews being murdered in their own homes, in the streets, or just being shot while trying to escape, are Holocaust Deniers?

And do we retain the freedom to question details of the murders of Gypsies, Homosexuals, the disabled, political prisoners and such without fear of having the label of Holocaust Denier painted to our front doors in yellow letters? Surfingus 21:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Very, very good article. It's one of the most comprehensive and detailed I've seen on Wikipedia. To ameliorate some of the concerns below (many of which, admittedly, are themselves biased) I suggest adding to the section stating the main claims of holocaust deniers. Specifically, put forth some of the arguments set out by deniers and cite to them, as opposed to just stating the main claims. Such an analysis would counterbalance the thorough section below it arguing against the theories. While the arguments of holocaust deniers have many flaws, they are out there and should be put in the article. 24.40.205.247 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is way too biased to a pro-Zionist POV. I am not a troll — don't call me that, but I, and any fool could tell this is a POV article. I as a Holocaust revisionist think that this article states clearly that the term "Holocaust revisionism" is an anti-Semitic term. It is not. This article is so in bed with Zionist lies. It needs to be desperately reworked. Idaltonrandtalk 21:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You can help to make this article little bit better, undoing revertions of my edits. I am trying to remove POV from here. But, of course while such guys like Jpgordon are admins here, there is little hope:)--Igor "the Otter" 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Which Zionist lies would these be? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  This is my dear friend Ionas68224 who is currently blocked for disrupting an RFC of which I am a subject. As such, let's leave this be, as his ideas have been skewed by the minds of the Wikipedia Review—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is waaaay too biased. For starters, trying to blanket label holocaust revisionists as "anti-semites"

• Can't they just show some of the "evidence" holocaust deniers use? I'm kinda curious as to what it it. And I'm sure the Zionist overlords who are watching this article would agree that since it's untrue most people would be able to read it without turning into Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.63.202 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to the references section and/or the external links section. There is plenty of the crap just one click away. --Stephan Schulz 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

2 anonimous user I think, your irony is absolutely justified. As for me, that I, like supporter of Revisionist ideas can consider this article as propagating revisionism, because it is so biased against Revisionists, that nobody can take it seriously. And, this way it plays in favor of the Revisionism. But Wikipedia is not good place for such a propaganda, IMHO.

2 Stefan Schultz If somebody asked you about the crap (like those of Lipstadt and Nizkor site)? This article indeed is filled with such a crap, but question was about the "evidence" holocaust deniers use. Right?--Igor "the Otter" 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Igor. I just removed a libelous statement, "Scholars tend to think that Holocaust denial is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory". Wikipedia is unbiased. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that fit the definition of libel on the scholars' part, and by WIkipedia citing these people with obvious bias, wikipedia is spreading libel? I am a Revisionist (who believes that Zionists are spreading propaganda and trying to get sympathy for their people [and an excuse for killing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians">innocents</a>] by raising the numbers of who died), I certainly have nothing against Jews, only against Zionists spreading lies and hate. Sure, Holocaust denial may be a little wacky, but imposing your point of view in a real encyclopedia is just wrong. And this is more serious than some "rules and guidelines", this requires lawsuits. World Arachny 06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that you retract that legal threat; such things are not taken lightly here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you seeing it from Igor's point of view? It is considered livel. Is that libel?, that is the question. Or is jpgordon just lying?World Arachny 06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting it, are you? I suggest that you read WP:LEGAL immediately and then retract the legal threat post-haste. You can talk all you want about libel but if you even hint at the possibility of a lawsuit, you will be blocked indefinitely until the threat is retracted. You have been warned multiple times. The leniency that has been granted you is running out. Retract now or be blocked. --Richard 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And, while we're at it, let me point out how silly your threat of a lawsuit is. Unless you are one of the authors in question, you are unlikely to have any legal standing for a libel lawsuit. So, you're just blowing hot air which is one of the reasons for the policy against legal threats. Retract now. You don't have a leg to stand on. --Richard 06:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The elements of libel are 1) proof that the statements were false (not likely here); and 2) that you suffered damage to your reputation as a result (you didn't). 24.40.205.247 01:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, mediation cabal? Please? World Arachny 23:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While it's possible that a member of the mediation cabal may be watching this page, it is by no means certain. You are welcome to ask for help from the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee after you have retracted the threat of a lawsuit and been unblocked.

Please note... we're not saying you're wrong. That's a different discussion. We're saying you can't threaten a lawsuit and continue editing here. Consult WP:LEGAL for confirmation of this policy.

--Richard 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the article was fair, (not taking a position, but expressing the general consensus of Holocaust Denial amongst scholars) yet I take issue with the list of Holocaust Deniers at the end of the page. In my opinion, it is absurd to even question the official story, but if one entertains (though does not adopt) Holocaust denial, it is probably not acccurate to call them a denier. Accordingly, I removed David Duke from the notable deniers list.

68.190.155.177 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How is anyone here threatening a lawsuit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.63.202 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: World Arachny has been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

David Duke should be on the list. Our artilce describes him as a "Holocaust denier" and he's called that in at least one source.[12] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what articles say, Duke himself has stated he takes "no official opinion," on the Holocaust and merely favors an "open discussion," on the matter. In my opinion, this is merely wrapping his Holocaust Denial in innocuous robes, but it would be biased to label him a denier merely for supporting the "free speech," of deniers. 68.190.155.177 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

I keep reading about comparisons between pre-war and post-war census data which supposedly proves that approximately 6 million Jews were killed, but the truth is the article/s don't state what Europe's Jewish population was prior to WWII. The reason I am asking is this: I've has the chance of reading some old NYT articles, from before WWII (like from the late 1930s,etc) which always mention some sort of perilious situation that same number of people find themselves in. Not wanting to be biased, we could assume 6 million was the number of Jews in the area, in Central Europe. That can't be right because there are still survivors today. Even if the writers saying 6 million lives were at stake meant the whole population, the Nazis would have killed all Jews in Europe, which didn't happen. So, why does the 6 million figure show up a decade before WWII? -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• We'd have to see your exact sources to really answer this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In particular, it is unlikely that the NYT in the 30s would include Polish, Russian, Norwegian, and Romanian Jews it its count. --Stephan Schulz 11:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to “Nazi Publicity Here Held Smoke Screen”, New York Times, June 25, 1940, which says that "Six million Jews in Europe are doomed to destruction, if the victory of Nazis should be final". I had one or two more from that time period, but I couldn't find them.

Nevertheless, looking up the archives I found "JEWS INDIFFERENCE TO WAR AID REBUKED" from Jan. 14, 1915, which states that "there are about 13,000,000 Jews, of whom more than 6,000,000 are in the heart of the war zone".

Maybe it's an incorrect assumption, but why is this same number popping up everywhere?

Furthermore, how many Jews were there in the World in 1915, then 1920 and finally before WWII? Deniers or Revisionists or whatever you want to call them state that the World Almanac of 1920 states that there are 10 million Jews in Europe. Is this true? And what was the number of people in the "war zone"? Because the article talks about Russia and Poland, so I can't easily accept the facts would fit such a 'dramatic', to say the least, appeal. -- Ishikawa Minoru 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As our article states, there were about 8-10 million Jews in the areas under Nazi control. June 1940 would be after the start of WW2, with half of Poland already occupied, France about to fall, but the German-Soviet war more than a year off. Looking at The War Against the Jews, I see about 4.5-5 million Jews in countries at least partially occupied by the Axis in June 1940, and about 3 million more in the Soviet union and the Baltic states. There are also about half a million in allied countries in Europe. So depending on what you consider "final victory", you can come up with a large number of plausible numbers. Of course, this also depends on which definition of "Jew" you use. For the Nazis, one Jewish grandparent made you a half Jew, and two made you a Jew (not great at arithmetic they were, Yoda declared), while the traditional Jewish definition requires a Jewish mother. So again, there is plenty of wiggle room. --Stephan Schulz 17:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you make of this? How could he be so sure of the 6 million figure? -- Ishikawa Minoru 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the NYT author? We don't know how sure he was - we only have a headline. We would need to see the full article (and even then probably could not reconstruct his sources). But there are only so many round millions, so simple coincidence is an adequate (if unsatisfactory) explanation. --Stephan Schulz 17:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You can purchase the articles online. They're not very expensive. One annoying thing about said purchases is the fact, in recent times, you seem to have to wait a lenghty period of time before actually being able to read/download the full article... -- Ishikawa Minoru 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No strong desire (and transatlantic payments may be more complex, anyways). It's an open question I can well live with.--Stephan Schulz 20:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Wannsee protocol data. That estimates number of the Jews in the Europe as 11 millions. But This number includes 5 millions of Jews in Soviet Union only, and all Jews in non-occupied european countries (like England, Ireland, and so on)--Igor "the Otter" 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC) http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm

So there were about 11 millions of Jews in Europe , about 2-3 in America in 1942 and about 800,000 in Arab world (1948 year data,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands). Now there are about 13 millions of Jews in the world(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew). There was assimilation also. For this reason, Jewish losses during the Holocaust hardly seem to be more then 2-3 millions. --Igor "the Otter" 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Talking about reliable sources.... First, the definition of "Jew" in the various sources is almost certain to differ. Secondly, your "there was assimilation also" statement is rather unclear and completely unquantified. And thirdly, we are now 2-3 generations after the Holocaust. People have babies, you know. However, I think I'm with Squiddy now. --Stephan Schulz 08:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That sources talk about the same - about ethnic Jews. Surely, people have babies. But many people died also (from old age). I have no data about Jewish population growth rate, but I don't think it is extremely high. According to CIA Factbook , Israeli population growth rate was 1.154% (estimated for 2007), and mainly because of high arab fertility rate. So time didn't changed this number greatly. I think I'm with Squiddy now. I think, you were with him from the beginning. So what?--Igor "the Otter" 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is: The worldwide Jewish population is 13.3 million Jews. Jewish population growth worldwide is close to zero percent. From 2000 to 2001 it rose 0.3%.--Igor "the Otter" 13:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, link was dead:). I've fixed it. There are also interesting data about assimilation.--Igor "the Otter" 18:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, you accept the data in that article: In 1939, there were 17 million Jews in the world, and by 1945 only 11 million. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would rather say, there were about 14-15 in 1942 and about 12 in 1945 (population growth, pointed in the article for first years after war seems too high). I don't think that there were significant Jewish losses before 1942. "Final Solution" was made only in 1942.--Igor "the Otter" 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you accept their statistics when they agree with your position (current population, recent population growth) and reject them when they disagree (pre-war population, immediate post-war population growth). It is almost as though you are selectively interpreting data to reach a predetermined conclusion. - Eron ^Talk 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I pointed that page only to illustrate my sentenses about low Jewish population growth rate and assimilation. Sure, I don't accept everything they say as holy truth, withn't any criticism. Would I, that would be predetermined conclusion indeed. Pre-war population is not so important matter, the war begun in 1939, "The Final Solution" program have started only in 1942. They don't say anything about population in 1942. Even if accept their number of 11 millions in 1945, we can't get more then 4 millions. But this number (11) is not accepted by everybody as correct.--Igor "the Otter" 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Even if accept their number of 11 millions in 1945, we can't get more then 4 millions." Not true. The article provides population data for 1939 - 17 million - and for 1945 - 11 million. The difference between those two figures is more than 4 million. Q.E.D.. The population in 1942 is a red herring - unless you are suggesting that the global Jewish population dropped by two to three million, in the three years from 1939 to 1942, for reasons that had nothing to do with the Holocaust. You cannot pull numbers from that article to support your position, and then reject numbers from the same article when they are used to oppose it. It isn't reasonable - or intellectually honest - to select only the data that support your conclusion. - Eron ^Talk 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My data about 1942 weren't correct. USA Jewish population was 4,8, not 2-3. So there were approximately 16,8 millions of Jews in 1942. So an argument about 15-11=4 is no longer valid. But I never said that I accepted the number of 11 millions in 1945. There are different opinions at this matter. You cannot pull numbers from that article to support your position, and then reject numbers from the same article when they are used to oppose it. It isn't reasonable - or intellectually honest - to select only the data that support your conclusion. There are different articles on that site. I never "pulled" data from the article about 17 in 1939 and 11 in 1945, but from articles about birth rate and assimilation, so you are mistaken. It would be strange at least to expect that somebody will search for data opposing position he defends to advocate one's position.--Igor "the Otter" 21:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You linked to a single article, this one. Both your quoted current population and population growth figures, and the figures of 17 million in 1939 and 11 million in 1945, can be found in that one article. As to the differing opinions, denier web sites like the one you link to from the Institute for Historical Review are not reliable sources. I'd also note that it isn't strange in the least for someone to search for data opposing a position they held, if they are interested in learning the truth. A foundation of the scientific method is the attempt to disprove one's own hypotheses. - Eron ^Talk 21:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You know exelletly that I didn't quoted that data about 1939 and 1945, but Jpgordon did. You know also what did I quoted. A foundation of the scientific method is the attempt to disprove one's own hypotheses No, I believe I already have enough information to judge, who is speaking truth and who is not. I already heared the argumens defending official history version, which tried to disprove HR/HD ones. I compared them with those of the HR/HD. My opinion now is that HR/HD are right. And I am on their side now. So why don'n you disprove the number of 11 millions in 1945? Link I pointed does exactly that. denier web sites like the one you link to from the Institute for Historical Review are not reliable sources. I don't see, what is unreliable there. If you have nothing to answer to that link claims, just say that. An article about IHR also don't seems good enough to me. --Igor "the Otter" 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Squiddy, but this is too rich to let it sit. "I believe I already have enough information to judge, who is speaking truth and who is not." - are we still talking about predetermined conclusions? --Stephan Schulz 08:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We now talking about demographics:) If you mean that my opinion is too predetermined, then I'll answer that it is normal, to have an opinion. All opinions are predetermined in some sense. I don't think that my opinion is more predetermined then yours. --Igor "the Otter" 11:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"The editorial board of one of the leading historical journals, the Journal of American History, wrote, 'We all abhor, on both moral and scholarly grounds, the substantive arguments of the Institute for Historical Review. We reject their claims to be taken seriously as historians.' - Eron ^Talk 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If they abhor, they have right to express their opinion, but there are countries there historians (they are historians with diploma) don't abhor. Futhermore, they share revisionist positions. --Igor "the Otter" 11:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

user Cantankrus was interrupted (section break)

Not really about demographics anymore, but further discussion

I think the inference wasn't about one or two scholars opinions, but from the editorial board of a respected and peer-reviewed journal.

It's fortunate that historians really try to do research and understand a subject, rather then trying to support their political slant. And yes, that means dealing with material that would tend to not support their position.

Most scientists, even the social science kind, have opinions. But they don't let those opinions predetermine their conclusion. Opinions are generally used to form a hypothesis of how things work, and then they try to find evidence that supports their hypothesis. Discarding evidence that doesn't match isn't science. And it's certainly not history. Cantankrus 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum to that, I'd add that a good scholar should be looking just as hard for evidence that refutes his hypothesis, as he is for evidence that supports it. Failure to do this is a key feature of denialism. ornis (t) 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This aready relates to "Predetermined conclusion #" not to demographics. I think, it would be offtopic there. So I made a section break.

I never questioned that Holocaust Belief is mainstream in the Western World. So this article is too Western-culture-based. But it is not worldwide mainstream. If you pointed quotation of Iranian, Palestinian, Syrian historical journal... Or, may be, Ukrainian. All these countries are located on the same planet. ...Discarding evidence that doesn't match isn't science. So why official Western historians discard this evidense, as well as many other ones? 405222 were registered to enter Auschwitz. More than 1,000,000 are now considered as perished there (by official version). What the hell Nazis had need in such double book-keeping? Hoess "admitted" that he killed more than 3,000,000. Why Iranian historians were not allowed to enter Auschwitz? You know that I mean. As an addendum to that, I'd add that a good scholar should be looking just as hard for evidence that refutes his hypothesis, as he is for evidence that supports it. Failure to do this is a key feature of denialism. No, they don't fail to do it. They just consider other side's arguments not enough convincing.--Igor "the Otter" 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Igor, please do not add new section headings above other editor's comments. Cantankrus's statement above was a response to your statement immediately above it. If he had wanted to put it in a new section, he would have put in the section break himself - and he would probably have added the new section at the bottom of the page, as is the convention for Talk pages. If you want to add a new section, go ahead, but please don't put other people's comments into after the fact. - Eron ^Talk 20:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

this article is too Western-culture-base. Possibly too truth based, as well?

it is not worldwide mainstream. Casting aside politically motivated grandstanding, which historians are forming this "mainstream" opinion that is divergent with the accepted history of the Holocaust?

Your "ignored evidence" is quite cute. Disregarding that it's on the site of a well known (and court proven) manipulator and liar, I'm not sure what sense it makes for the Nazis to "register" people they were going to kill quite soon after their arrival at Auschwitz. Registration was reserved for those privledged enough to wind up slave laborers, so the SS could properly account and bill for their services.

Holocaust Belief well sums up the approach that most revisionists/deniers have to History. They substitue their "belief" that the Holocaust didn't happen for what they assume is "official historian" belief that it did. Ironically enough, Historians cull through massive amounts of all sorts of evidence to understand what events happened, when, and most importantly, why. And in general there isn't monolithic agreement between historians -- even in the case of the Holocaust. There doesn't seem to be a dispute that huge numbers of people, the bulk of them Jews, were murdered by the Nazis, though. Cantankrus 05:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

this article is too Western-culture-based(note that I wrote based not base as you cited). Possibly too truth based, as well? No, I don't think it is endangered by this. If you call Irving "well known (and court proven) manipulator and liar" because he failed to win libel suit with Lipstadt, I can say that it is not a buseness of judjes to explain historians, which way they have to think ("no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews"). Here is some interesting details about that suit. That is Fritjof Meyer article.

Registration was reserved for those privledged enough to wind up slave laborers, so the SS could properly account and bill for their services. No, Fritjof Meyer says: "By 1953, Gerald Reitlinger had already estimated the number of victims at Auschwitz at one million in total, of which up to 750,000 were murdered by gas, of them 550,000 to 600,000 were killed on arrival. According to Piper, 1,110,000 people died in the camp, of which 202,000 registered and 880,000 unregistered, among them 95,000 registered and 865,000 unregistered Jews." So sometimes they registered Jews (including children an old people, who were unfit to work), sometimes not. Some double book-keeping without any sense. Don't seems convincing enough to me. I suppose, official history just lies.

There doesn't seem to be a dispute that huge numbers of people, the bulk of them Jews, were murdered by the Nazis, though. Sure. Even revisionists don't dispute this. By the way, so were murdered about 300,000 of German civilians whom allies burned alive with napalm in Dresden.--Igor "the Otter" 07:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

because he failed to win libel suit -- Yes, certainly because of that. After all, it was he that initiated the suit in the UK, where the burden of proof is on the defence, and yet he still lost. Unless you are going to further claim that both the court and the historical team that reviewed his work were also a fraud.

Your own sources claim that approx. 80% of the Jews killed were not registered. With this assertion, I'm fuzzy as to how the plaque makes sense in the revisionist arguement.

so were murdered about 300,000 Other then being Offtopic to this article, it would be interesting to see you produce evidence which proves this, held to the same standard that you demand of Holocaust Historians. It ain't there, I guarantee it.

I'll note that you've failed to produce any actual historian, forget the majority of historians that would be needed to formulate a mainstream claim that you started with. So, maybe the article is more truth based then you are willing to admit? Cantankrus 02:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't "failed", I'll answer rest of your questions (despite it is boring and offtopic) if you answer first, why Nazis registered in Auschwitz children and old people, who were unfit to work. So, maybe the article is more truth based then you are willing to admit? I hardly can understand people who ask already answered question (look at my post above). --Igor "the Otter" 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The source you quoted from never claims that the unfit to work were registered; that was your own conclusion. I don't have any specific insight into the Nazi mindset, but it seems probable to me that many if not all of the registered deaths were of those who were deemed fit to work but later were maimed, fell ill, or otherwise became unfit. Other deaths may have resulted from the despicable living conditions or may have been suicide. Finally, some of the victims were used for medical experiments, which frequently involved killing and dissecting them; the people intended for this purpose probably would also have been registered. - 63.227.24.53 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I quoted it not from never, but from here. Finally, some of the victims were used for medical experiments, which frequently involved killing and dissecting them; the people intended for this purpose probably would also have been registered. Much easier is to conlude that Nazis just registered everybody who entered the camp then conclude that all children and old people registered there were sent to Auschwitz for use in experiments. --Igor "the Otter" 17:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

About my section break

I don't know such a rule in Wikipedia. My comments were broken by somebody. Anyway, is it OK now?--Igor "the Otter" 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Talk page guidelines. And no, I don't really think it is okay now - again, you added a line above someone else's statement that changed the context of their statement. Cantankarus made a direct response to something you said in the Demographics discussion. You then added a note above it saying that what he said wasn't really a part of that discussion. That isn't your decision to make. It may seem like a minor point, but the effect of your action was to distort the context of his statement. If this has been done to your comments in the past, all I can say is that it should not have been. Read the Talk page guidelines for more information. - Eron ^Talk 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think if it is OK to do that with my edits, it is equally OK then I do it. Rules allow this. You speak from the name of Cantankrus like he is your alter ego. Sometimes I can't even differ you from each other because you editing styles look as similar as Siamese twins. Why don't you let him talk himself? May be he agrees with that section break, OK? And, please, stop deleting my comments.--Igor "the Otter" 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that another editor may have done something that violates talk page guidelines does not justify you doing it. As to deleting your comments, I have done no such thing. I deleted the section break that you added, in order to restore the correct context to the discussion. Your comments were untouched. However, as you seem so attached to that heading, I have not deleted it this time; I have moved it to a point above your own comment. This will make it clear that you are the editor who added it. (I'd also like to point out the irony in your asking me not to delete your comments, given this edit.

I am trying to have a reasonable discussion of the page content with you here. But if you continue to distort the talk page record, to delete other's comments, and to make spurious accusations of sock-puppetry, I will report you for it. I respectfully suggest that you read the talk page guidelines and do your best to follow them - as should we all. - Eron ^Talk 16:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I did't deleted your comment. Here isthe link May be you, or Cantankrus know, who did that break? But if you continue to distort the talk page record, to delete other's comments...you did it not me. That was comment not heading. and to make spurious accusations of sock-puppetry These are not spurious accusations. Unlike admins, I can't check your IP and charge you in sockpuppetry if there are reasons. But facts that you often appear in the same topic and that you talk from the name of Cantankrus can be considered as the reasons to suspect you in sockpuppetry. If you don't want to be suspected in sockpuppetry, then talk for yourself. --Igor "the Otter" 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like I indeed deleted your comment. Strange enough. That was probably some kind of edit conflict, because I don't need to delete that I can easily answer. As I did later.--Igor "the Otter" 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Some kind of edit conflict." Right. Whatever. - Eron ^Talk 19:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it wasn't intentional. --Igor "the Otter" 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

2 Jpgordon That wasn't me who started the edit war you are talking about. I explained myself. Squiddy did not.--Igor "the Otter" 15:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

2 Jpgordon Can you explain, please, what was wrong with 172.167.122.120's edit? I reverted to his version.--Igor "the Otter" 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Predetermined conclusion 3

I changed the intro based on the following insight... the references do not say that the "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy" is a "predetermined conclusion". The one reference that mentions "predetermined conclusion" mentions "revisionism" which presumably refers to Holocaust denial. Thus, it is Holocaust denial which is the "predetermined conclusion", NOT the "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy". Now, some of you will argue that "most Holocaust deniers imply or openly state that Holocaust denial is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy" and thus if Holocaust denial is a "predetermined conclusion" then, so too, is the hoax also a "predetermined conclusion". This may be true. I certainly believe it. However, since our current references don't say it that way, linking characterizing the "hoax" as a "predetermined conclusion" is possibly a "synthesis of published material" which borders on being OR unless someone can find a source that makes this linkage explicitly.

I know this may seem like splitting hairs. Nonetheless, I think my rewrite is more precise and does not create the difficulty that the previous text did.

--Richard 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being dense here, but I don't see the distinction. Holocaust denial is the phenomenon of denying the holocaust... the 'predetermined conclusion' (or "preconceived result" as the reference has it) is that the holocaust never happened, ie it was a hoax. "Holocaust denial" is just a noun. Having said that, I wouldn't argue with your edit ;) EyeSerene^TALK 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to deny the Holocaust without claiming that the denial is a "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy". One could argue that the statistics are simply inflated because of the destruction of German records and that the postwar animus against the Nazis made it easy to blame them for everything bad that happened even when the Soviets were really responsible.

Now, I will accept that "most Holocaust deniers imply or directly state" that the Holocaust is a "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy". All I'm saying is that the quotes don't support the assertion that the "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy" is a "predetermined conclusion".

Perhaps we could find a reliable source that says this more explicitly. What we're looking for is someone who will say that Holocaust deniers have predetermined the conclusion that the Holocaust did not happen BECAUSE they believe that there is a "deliberate Jewish conspiracy". As I've said, I believe the assertion. It's just not supported by the sources quoted in the article.

--Richard 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, with you now. The 'predetermined conclusion' could be any of a number of different, unspecified conclusions (which we can't cite because the source in non-specific). As you have it in the text, it relates more to denial methodology than any single claim. I read your earlier comment as saying that HD was itself the predetermined conclusion, and was confused about the logic of that. Thanks for the clarification! EyeSerene^TALK 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The way Richard changed the head section it seems much better, but not good enough still. The phrase "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary" must be moved to the section about criticizm. The phrase "Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from legitimate historical revisionists who use established historical methodologies." must be changed also for this is open POV. Only western (and assotiated with them) mainstream scholars think so. This seems too fixed at western culture IMHO. Any suggestions?--Igor "the Otter" 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're the one saying there's a problem (without actually using a source to show why it's a problem), shouldn't you also be the one to offer a solution? 64.95.27.5 21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)sean

OK, I'll try. I moved one phrase into criticism section and deleted another one ("Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from legitimate historical revisionists who use established historical methodologies") because the entire term "denial" is misleading and that phrase infers also that revisionists ("deniers") are not scholars themselves. In any case there is already the section about terminology. In my opinion, this article must be renamed Into "Holocaust revisionism (denial by it's opponents)". I explained my position in the section "Predetermined conclusion (AEB)".--Igor "the Otter" 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

2 EyeSerene Reverted to revision 150347499 by Richardshusr; you have no consensus for this edit - please stop removing this sentence. using TW OK, let us try to make consensus. But strange enough, why you don't say it on the talk page? What do you propose? If you will ignore this talk page, I'll have no choise but just to restore my version.--Igor "the Otter" 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

At which point you will be in immediate risk of being blocked for edit warring. I suggest you refrain from doing so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Interesting enough, why that is me, who will be blocked? Why don't you block those who reverted my edits? I'm understand, you don't like things I say about Holocaust Revisionism (Denial if you like), but if you have nothing to answer, then let my version remain. Or try to make consensus, like I do.--Igor "the Otter" 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, it will be better if you restore my version youself. How do you think?--Igor "the Otter" 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I'll block you; it would be improper, as I am involved in this discussion. One of the other thousand or so admins will do so. Since you know you lack consensus for your change, to make the change is edit warring. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait for an answer. If I don't get it, I'll understand the silence as an admission that I'm right. What is wrong?--Igor "the Otter" 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest for User:Igor "the Otter" to stop the disruption. Take this as a warning. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean as "disruption"?--Igor "the Otter" 12:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How about edit warring over changes you've been singularly unsuccessful in gaining any traction for. A cursory glance at the page history shows at least half a dozen editors ( not counting myself ) disagree with your changes and yet you persist anyway, that's disruptive. ornis (t) 12:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference between us is that I've explained change I made, which I made after being asked to do it. Surely, I'll restore my version then is is reverted with no reason. But how about you? Can't explain yourself?--Igor "the Otter" 13:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the difference between us, is that I'm only an arsehole on special occasions. ornis (t) 13:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the difference between us, is that I'm only an arsehole on special occasions. Hm, understood, an arsehole. But thing I can't understand is why do you reverted my edit? Please, go revert some other edit.--Igor "the Otter" 13:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

clearly talking to you is useless. The point is no one supports your edit. No one. Don't make it again, or you'll end up blocked. Clear? ornis (t) 14:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Today nobody, tomorrow one and so on. I'm sure that somebody will appear anyway. Clear?--Igor "the Otter" 14:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore my edit right away since anybody agrees with me.--Igor "the Otter" 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, nobody does. Will you please stop using these stupid ultimatums ("If no-one objects in the next 5 minutes, I'm right and everybody agrees with me, so I will re-insert my nonsense"). Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 05:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let us see first, will, or not. It needs time. I can wait, no problem with it. And, please, stop to misquote me. It is stupid and can become bad habit. Best regards.--Igor "the Otter" 06:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a quote, but a satirically exaggerated paraphrase. I'm fairly certain nearly every reader gets that. --Stephan Schulz 11:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it is even more stupid.--Igor "the Otter" 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, that was my point. I'm surprised and, indeed, elated, that you seem to agree now. --Stephan Schulz 12:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm agree with that things you speak are stupid. What did surprised you?--Igor "the Otter" 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected page to stop edit-warring

I protected the page to stop edit-warring. Please try to come to a consensus on this page. --Richard 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to be a third opinion for this matter? Because it is little bit difficult to make consensus with those who unwilling to speak.--Igor "the Otter" 13:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A better way to deal with never-ending disruptions would be to block User:Igor "the Otter" either from this article or from WP altogether. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I hesitated to block Igor because he had not been warned and there was no explicit consensus on this page against Igor's edits.

However, on reviewing the edit history, it really is clear that Igor is not editing within consensus but rather against it and that this is disruptive.

Igor, I'm going to lift the protection on this page. You asked if I would be a "third opinion". I'm sorry to say that, for the most part, I agree with the other editors of this page. Your edits are against consensus and disruptive. I urge you to edit within consenus. I recommend that you adopt the WP:BRD model. Do not revert to restore an edit that someone else has reverted. Further disruption will lead you to being blocked.

--Richard 05:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. I imagine the 'lack of specific consensus' comes from the fact that many of us see little point in discussing anything with someone who can't engage in rational discussion. Personally I dislike reverting edits without an explanation, but I don't intend to up the ratings of the Igor Show either. Cheers! EyeSerene^TALK 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for consensus to be expressed in things like a straw poll which says something like - Which of the following statements should be inserted in the article: "1) X is true", "2) X is true but should be considered in the context of Y" or "3) X is false" followed by a !vote. I understand that voting is evil but it helps to determine whether we are talking about 6 vs. 1 or 6 vs. 5. If one person is edit-warring in a 6 vs. 1 situation, that person is disruptive and blocking may be the best solution. If it's 6 vs. 4, then everybody is disruptive and page protection is the better solution. Page protection is less insulting than blocking and should be tried first in the absence of a clear, explicit consensus. --Richard 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can consider my edits as disruptive, but I had no such intentions. In my opinion, HR/HD is wrongly presented in this article. I tried to change it to accord facts. Such intentions are not disruptive. If nobody like this show, OK then, it is over. I am not a troll and don't enjoy such "victories". But nobody can say frankly that I was not provoked. I offer peace to everybody whom I called trolls (they called me troll too). Remove your picture, and I remove mine. I also propose to look more seriously at the change I proposed in "Predetermined Conclusion 3". There is indeed the criticism in the head section not in Criticism section. The section about scholars is also questionable - the senior Palestinian historian shares HR/HD position, and not only Palestinian one. So may be "majority of scholars" but not just "scholars". These are serious objections, so I propose to take them seriously.--Igor "the Otter" 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Igor, this is a difficult and passion-provoking topic. I am sure that Ahmedinejad and other HD conference participants believe that their side has serious scholarly merit. We should find a way to present both sets of views.

Others may object to the presentation of the Ahmedinejad views in an NPOV way (i.e. as if they had any possibility of being valid). However, according to NPOV policy, they should be presented. Thus, what we need to do is find a way to do so in a way that is acceptable to all.

Try presenting these views not as "X is true" but as "according to source A, X is true". For example, "according to source A who presented at the Holocaust conference, X is true". This will allow others to add challenging views.

Let's discuss the proposed text here first so as to avoid edit warring.

--Richard 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, my peace offer wasn't even rejected, it was just ignored.--Igor "the Otter" 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I offer peace to everybody whom I called trolls This no longer relates to Squiddy. I will revert all his undoings of my edits. He is a troll.--Igor "the Otter" 23:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2 Jpgordon You'll need to gain consensus for these pro-Holocaust-denial edits on the talk page. OK, let us try. What is wrong with my edits you reverted? I am not alone anymore. Others support me. Number doesn't matter. If you have something reasonable in objection, why don't you say that? By the way, I can see something new here. Which relation have HD/HR to the Judaism? Did Holocaust belief offically became a part of Judaism?--Igor "the Otter" 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits that were reverted deleted three sentences which were referenced; moved one sentence away from its reference to another place in the article; added content to a referenced sentence which changed its meaning; and rendered one sentence less clear and less grammatically correct. I can't see how deleting content that has valid references improves the article. - Eron ^Talk 00:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Being referenced doesn't mean be correct, the sentece I moved, I moved to it's proper place, do you agree? If I made something less clear and less grammatically correct, then I beg pardon. What is that? --Igor "the Otter" 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of quotation

In the spirit of complete disclosure: I have reverted the edit "'Among the untruths routinely promoted are the claims that no [homocidal] gas chambers existed at Auschwitz...'" to remove the insertion [homocidal] (sic). The reason I did this is that the section editied is a direct quotation, and the insertion changes the meaning of that quotation. This is against Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:NOR); we can speculate that the quote's author may have meant "homicidal gas chambers", but unless we have a source proving that's the case, it shouldn't be added to the article. EyeSerene^TALK 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed--Igor "the Otter" 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

However, I propose to discuss at last, what is wrong in the changes I propose for the head section.--Igor "the Otter" 18:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Igor, your proposals have been discussed ad nauseum. Not everyone joined in the discussion, but speaking for myself this was because I did not support your proposals, and the arguments against them were perfectly well presented by other editors. There are some fundamental problems with the logic behind your arguments, which have already been pointed out (by Stephan Shulz, Squiddy, Tom Harrison, Jayjg, jpgordon and others). I am perfectly prepared to believe that you are expressing genuine concerns, and the fact that you are now refraining from making anti-consensus edits is to your credit. However, unless you have something new to propose, is there really any point in rehashing the entire argument? EyeSerene^TALK 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean discussion in "Brief Protection" section, then I don't see, which fundamental problems with my logic can show such "arguments" like "go away" and so on:) Personal attacks hardly seem to be arguments. There are only formal answers like "only sources we like are reliable, sources we dislike are not". No further explanations and no any wish to discuss it. I already made different proposal - it is in the section "Predetermined conclusion 3".There is still critisism in the head section, as I told already - no answer. "Scholars..." - not all scholars - no answer. --Igor "the Otter" 18:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A little respite

This article and this talk page page seem to have been inundated for months now by one disruptive user. Please see WP:ANI#User:Igor "the Otter" and Holocaust denial. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How nice to meet you again. Can you explain, whos editing right did I abused? It seems like I was blocked for violating non-existing rule, right?--Igor "the Otter" 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can anwer at any charge in that topic (they are all laughtable), but I can't find that section now to cite them correcly. It is probably archived.--Igor "the Otter" 18:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, doesn't anyone here recognise that most of the article's quotes and the claims that Holocaust Revisionists are all anti-semites are nothing more than Ad Hominem attacks. That's where the blatant bias comes in. Wikipedia should be politically neutral if you really want it to be taken seriously.

Where does it say that all of you are anti-semites? -jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

With that big, really noticeable label on the sidebar titled ANTISEMITISM. There are also Ad Homimen attacks used throughout the article. Examples "deniers seek evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts" (So all Holocaust Revisionists do this, do they? Where's the proof?), another example of Ad Hominem by implying "A very different process unfolds when someone proceeds from the premise that a major element of human history is simply inaccurate, and ignores or routinely minimizes evidence that conflicts with that premise. History done in this way is not revisionism, but denial" (Again, there's no evidence that every Holocaust Revisionist starts with a preconcieved premise). The article is filled with Ad Hominem attacks attempting to imply that just because someone disagrees with the current mainstream that they are therefore an antisemite, unscholarly, incompetent bunch of liars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.70.4.172 (talk) 20:46, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for us all, there's thirty to forty years' worth of newsletters, newsgroup postings, poorly-researched books, ad hominem attacks, slander, libel, and blatherings that demonstrate that a large number of the denier crowd are indeed an anti-Semitic, unscholarly, incompetent bunch of liars. This article does a good job referencing that. --Modemac 22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Great - more of the same Ad Hominem attacks. This is why this article is so blatantly biased when you spout nonsense like that. Placing that great big ANTISEMITISM label in the sidebar is effectively an Ad Hominem attack claiming that ALL holocaust revisionists are anti-semites, a claim which is simply unsupportable. I doubt even the vast majority are. It's just a label used as a derogatory term of insult. The article may reference others who say the same insults as you, but that is not the same as what they say or what you say as being true. I could easily go out and find poorly-researched books, ad hominem attacks, slander, libel, and blatherings about ANY CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT to claim the same thing about either side. I could easily find quotes full of Ad Hominem attacks, insults, and claims of bias about any famous person too, but again that does not make those claims of theirs true. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia which sticks "mostly" to the facts - but Ad Hominem arguments are not required to do that. Nor should they be in a respectable article of alleged quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.4.172 (talk • contribs)

This is not only such Wikipedian Holocaust-related article. Article about IHR, for example has similar problems. --Igor "the Otter" 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

This article has recently seen a surge of vandalism and edit-warring by anonymous users. This approximately coincides with the blocking of one of the editors here, suggesting that one or more of the IPs may be a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Accordingly I have semi-protected the article for two weeks. Raymond Arritt 18:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they are'nt my sockpuppets (suggesting that one or more of the IPs may be a sockpuppet of a blocked user). Anybody who make such claims have to either prove this, or shut down up and be more careful in making such claims in future. Others support me, as you can see now. So you have shown little respect to Wikipedian rule about assuming good faith. This is normal in this page, but still against Wikipedian rules. --Igor "the Otter" 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think the anon is a sock of Igor. The use of English is halfway competent. He must be some other random intenet conspiracy theorist. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote shut down, indeed. Sure, shut up not shut down:) By the way, that semi-protection doesn't great matter, because anyway nobody but some admins are allowed to make significant change in this article.--Igor "the Otter" 04:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What a rude thing to say, Squiddy. The day you can contribute anything to wikipedia in a language other than your own is the day you should talk.--172.165.151.188 00:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfair implication of perpatrators

In the section regarding laws against holocaust denial there is a sentence that says something "Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, a number (Austria, Germany and Romania) were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust" I think this unfairly implies that the own governments of the 3 countries were perpetrators, when in fact it was because they were occupied by the Nazis. Does anyone else agree? If so i think a better wording should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.116.73 (talk) 20:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Umm - Germany was occupied by the Nazis? Romania was occupied by the Nazis? And the Austrian Anschluss was supported by large parts of the population - Austria was certainly not an occupied country in any traditional sense. --Stephan Schulz 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

While there was support among the Austrian people for Anschluss, one cannot speak of a responsible Austria after 1938. It was not a nation allied with Germany, as Romania, but a province of Germany. Was it an occupied country? Debatable. Anschluss was ratified after bullying tactics and an invasion. --Gazzster 05:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Keltik31 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)== Holocaust Denial vs Holocaust Revisionist == There is a difernece. Someone who think the current story of the holocaust is revisionist isn't alwaysa denier or a criminal or a nazi. This should probably noted somehow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.210.130 (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article explains the distinction between historical revision and Holocaust denial. It also details the manner in which many deniers try to cloak their activities as legitimate revisionism. See, in particular, this note. - Eron ^Talk 00:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The article as it is currently written distorts the border between the two in an attempt to falsely portray the majority of Holocaust Revisionists as being anti-semitic. It's seriously biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.54.123 (talk • contribs)

can anyone point to any news stories printed from 1939 to 1945 by a credible news source that reported the mass extermination by gassing of jews at the camps? is there one story from one credible news source during that time? Keltik31 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you been banned yet, you Nazi-apologist wierdo? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, but its a nazi conspiracy to get to the truth. so i will ask again, just like i asked two holocaust museums and was ignored: can anyone point to any news stories printed from 1939 to 1945 by a credible news source that reported the mass extermination by gassing of jews at the camps? is there one story from one credible news source during that time? i am waiting to hear from all of those who believe in the myth.

There might be some problems in the paragraph "Laws against Holocaust denial"

Hy, I happened to take a look at the article: Laws against Holocaust denial and IMHO some of the laws listed there do not explicity refer to the Holocaust at all (one can argue that they rather vague, or that they are more general than that). Many of the laws listed there rather seem to be against discrimination upon racial, ethnic, or religious grounds (or something similar) in general.

Per my dictonary the adjective explicit means: "clearly and fully expressed or stated, leaving nothing to be imagined as an explicit statement; to be quite explicit about a matter (i.e. leave no room for misunderstanding).

This creates a problem with the phrase: "Holocaust denial is explicitly illegal in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Switzerland." especially with the beginning of the phrase. There might be such laws in these countries but not those shown in "Laws against Holocaust denial" Flamarande 21:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC) PS: I am willing to improve this particular point.

• Which ones are not explicit? Perhaps it should say "explicitly or implicitly" if there are some that are vague about it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it per Jpgordons suggestion (thanks Jp ) Daniel Weintraub : Albion moonlight 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, could you all please a look at the "Lithuanian-entry" inside of Laws against Holocaust denial? I mean the link which is provided just passingly refers to the Holocaust and isn't any law at all. It is a proposal to create a law concerning the crimes of Communist regime. This article ("here") is about Holocaust denail. IMHO we should check all the entries carefully and delete those which don't refer clearly to Holocaust denial. When that is finished the entry "here" should be corrected. Flamarande 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the entries under Portugal, Spain and Switzerland should be carefully looked over. I feel that they probably are as general as the laws of the USA and of the UK. (In other words Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland should probably not be listed here at all as their laws don't refer clearly to Holcaust denail). I might be mistaken though. Flamarande 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sales Job

Looking at only the structure of the article it seems **undeniable** that there is some skewing of POV. 90% of it is spent denying the deniers and hawking the victim stance of anti-semitism, without explicitly establishing the connection between holocaust denial and anti-semitism. If it is so obvious it should be super easy to lay out on the page. Remember what they used to say in math class ... Show your work! Every step. But this would mean actually explaining the holocaust revionist facts with some particularity, which the admins apparently are unwilling to do. (Note they shut down the article once they squeezed it down to saying what they want it to. Only the Soviet Union practiced censorship, of course.) Perhaps there is some element of fear involved, fear that the ordinary putative numbskull visitor, who clearly is too stupid to think critically, but is smart enough -- just barely -- to pay taxes and vote, will read it and believe it.

Sign me unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.72.207 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Many have been saying this for ages, and yet been ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.54.123 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting dispute between "did not occur to manner and extent" and "did not occur at all"...could we reach an agreement here?

Hi. I am not a Holocaust "revisionist", do not know any and have no respect for them. However, I have noticed something in the intro that's up for debate...the article claims that Holocaust deniers believe that the Holocaust "did not occur to the manner and to the extent described by scholars", when, in fact, from what I've heard, most Holocaust deniers believe this tragic period of human history did not occur at all. The majority of them to not believe that there is a Holocaust to deny that it occured to a certain degree...so perhaps the article should mention this? I could be wrong, I'm a new user so to any experienced editors, feel free to correct any mistakes I make. Maybe there's a difference between the theory and practice, [so again I could be wrong], but if there is, then the article should mention that. Does anyone dispute this? Thanks! FitzCommunist 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Holocaust denial should refer to those who believe the Holocaust had never happened at all. Those that question the facts concerning numbers and the modi operandi of what happened during this time period should not be labeled under denial, since they are in fact acknowleding that a Holocaust, to some extent, did happen. Nathraq 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly delineates the difference between Holocaust denial and legitimate historical revisionism. Given the difficulty of completely denying the Holocaust, in the face of the available evidence that it took place, many Holocaust deniers seek to whittle away at the edges, questioning the scope, the manner of killing, the extent to which the killing occurred as a matter of Nazi policy, and the extent to which the killing was directed by those in positions of authority. While it is possible to study these questions using evidence and established historical methodology, Holocaust deniers typically approach them using the methods of negationism. Their aim is to call into question the major defining characteristics of the Holocaust. This is still a form of denial; it is characterized as much by the methods and arguments used as by the specific facts which are being denied. - Eron^Talk 16:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to whittle away at the edges of what? The holocaust is now monolithic and inviolable, like a god? (Or a representation of a god.) Any question of the veracity of a part threatens the integrity of the whole? No one alive today is allowed to ask him or herself about even the smallest feature of this historical event? Sounds brittle. Sounds like mind control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a straw man. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. On both sides of the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I always enjoy these little discussions; almost invariably, the Holocaust deniers who take part manage to illustrate far better than I could the deceptive techniques typical of the movement. For example, selecting one small element out of a much larger whole, then misrepresenting it, then refuting the misrepresentation, and then generalizing that refutation back to the whole. As you have. You ignored my statements that "it is possible to study [questions surrounding the Holocaust] using evidence and established historical methodology" and that deniers seek to "call into question the major defining characteristics of the Holocaust". You misrepresented my statement about the way many deniers "whittle away at the edges." You then somehow drew from that that I suggested no questioning of any aspect of the Holocaust is possible - a direct contradiction of part of what I said. You then capped it off by claiming that this attitude (which I don't even hold) somehow means the whole story of the Holocaust is the product of "mind control." Well done sir, and thank you for demonstrating the intellectual and logical vacancy of Holocaust denial.

Now then, if you have nothing constructive to add about improving this article, kindly run along. - Eron^Talk 08:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"kindly run along" Don't attempt to claim superiority over me by trite rhetorical devices. It should be beneath you and it is certainly beneath contempt.

"... questioning the scope, the manner of killing, the extent to which the killing occurred as a matter of Nazi policy, and the extent to which the killing was directed by those in positions of authority."

"For example, selecting one small element out of a much larger whole, then misrepresenting it, then refuting the misrepresentation, and then generalizing that refutation back to the whole..."

"it is possible to study [questions surrounding the Holocaust] using evidence and established historical methodology" and that deniers seek to "call into question the major defining characteristics of the Holocaust".

You haven't exactly demonstrated the difference between holocaust denial/revision and historical methodology except, perhaps, by implying that holocaust denial is thesis-driven and outcome-oriented, which it may be. However, questioning the scope, manner, and extent of events seems like the lifeblood of historical analysis. Selecting one small detail is exactly what you do in a linear text. All language is essentially linear, and therefore requires serial or episodic treatment of subject matter. Otherwise you'd be stuck making broad, generalized, unsubstantiate statements all the time. Nor have you demonstrated any investigation of the Holocaust: 1. that calls any aspect into question, and 2. which you find credible. Ergo, no historical revision concerning the Holocaust exists for the purposes of this discussion. Or would you be good enough show me some?

As for misrepresentations and false refutations, those are always possible. This part of your argument is one of those "big" statements that are difficult to say much about. Too generalized.

As for "suggestions" for improving the article, they are irrelevant. Hundreds of suggestions have already been made and eliminated. The path to improving the article is via the underlying disjuncture between the factions. Unlike normal civil discourse, though, the power is all in the hands of one side of the argument, here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As the article makes clear, with several references, the difference between Holocaust denial and legitimate historical revisionism is the fact that deniers start from the conclusion - that the Holocaust as generally understood did not happen - and then cut the facts and skew the analysis to fit. I haven't shown any examples of a legitimate historical revisionism approach to the Holocaust because I haven't gone looking for one; maybe it is being done, maybe not, but that is beside the point of this article. The subject of this article, again, is Holocaust denial. If someone is doing legitimate historical research that questions certain aspects of the Holocaust using accepted methods and maintaining an open mind about the results, they would not be covered in this article because what they are doing is not Holocaust denial. Questioning an aspect of the Holocaust - for example, saying that no one was killed by mass gassing - using the methods of denial (see, for example, Fred Leuchter) is Holocaust denial, even if the claim made is smaller in scope than "it never happened at all." - Eron^Talk 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And there isn't an "argument"; there are the historical facts, and there are the few but vociferous people who for whatever reasons (mostly dislike of Jooz) prefer to deny those facts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not accuse anyone of racism without evidence. If you are accusing me of racism I suggest you report yourself to whatever board you answer to. I'm not accepting the title you seem to want to through around with such apparent force.

Please provide a workable definition of historical "fact" and, if you would, provide it here rather than shunting me off to some WP article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who hears alarm bells going off whenever someone refers to Jews as a race? That must be how you feel, since you somehow inferred Jpgordon to be calling you a racist (I'm not sure how you could have gleamed from his rational (if heated) comment. Maybe take a step back, relax, and then reevaluate your approach to wikipedia. Newtman (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, small well-meaning word of advice. If you really want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, instead of being suspected of being a troll making inflammatory comments (there's a lot of them out there!), you might want to create a user account. It helps people to see where you're coming from and helps to establish a positive reputation for yourself on Wikipedia. Cheers. Newtman (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. I don't care if people think we're a race, a religion, a people, or a granfaloon. I do think Jew-hatred is exactly the same thing as racism -- both are the same sort of bigotry, even if the general nature of the targets may be different. But I wasn't accusing the anonymous poster of anything; I was just describing Holocaust denial as mostly driven by anti-Semitism, as the sources in the article make quite clear. I don't know if the poster is a Holocaust denier; he might just be someone who likes to argue for the sake of argument; he might be confused; he might be actually asking for education. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jpgordon. Yes, sometimes I do like to argue, and learn. As far as racism, the Semites were a race or a large ethnic group, not a religion, as far as I know. I daresay anti-semitism is not anti-religionism in the minds of anti-semites. By the way, what do you call prejudice between Jews and Arabs, inter-anti-semitism, intra-anti-semitism, anti-inter-semitism, anti-intra-semitism, infra-anti-semitism, supra-anti-semitism, or perhaps even super-anti-semitism ... or none of the above ;-) I may set up an account, thanks for the invitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good. It is nice to know you were not intentionally trolling. I mostly just watch this particular article but I would like to take this time to say welcome aboard and Howdy Doody. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet God in heaven, how did this turn into a religous debate when all I was doing was questioning a possible innacuracy in the article? And why did I recieve such a snippy response from Eron? It was just a suggestion. FitzCommunist (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think my initial response was "snippy". Direct, perhaps, but no snippiness was intended. And I was primarily responding to the statement after yours, which asserted "those that question the facts concerning numbers and the modi operandi of what happened during this time period should not be labeled under denial." This is plainly incorrect.

This quote from the article sums things up nicely:

"The question [of whether the IHR denies the Holocaust] appears to turn on IHR's Humpty-Dumpty word game with the word Holocaust. According to Mark Weber, associate editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review [now Director of the IHR], "If by the 'Holocaust' you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the 'Holocaust' means the systematic extermination of six to eight millions Jews in concentration camps, that's what we think there's not evidence for." That is, IHR doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened; they just deny that the word 'Holocaust' means what people customarily use it for."

- Eron^Talk 04:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that quote ("those that question the facts concerning numbers and the modi operandi of what happened during this time period should not be labeled under denial") is not one of mine; it was actually from another user that agreed with me. Secondly, "scattered killings" could mean anything...does Mr. Weber give an example of the number...? Is his estimate in the thousands? Hundreds? Tens? Third, it's actually the intro that doesn't define the difference between the two, and at the very start of the article THAT SHOULD BE MENTIONED. Got it? I would cite all sorts of Wiki-sources advising Sources and etc, but I can't be bothered. And finally, although that quote sums up the difference between the two ideologies, it does not provide a clear distinction between what links them...and quite frankly, that's all I'm interesting in adding. Now, bearing in mind all these points, tell me why I'm wrong and why the links between the two theories should not be added, or insert the info. Either way, I'll be happy. FitzCommunist (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Why not just make the edit and see if it gets reverted or changed ? : Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily, that would have been a helpful notion. Problem is, we have to reach a consensus, and there will be no chance of that if the only thing people are debating is whether or not - and I quote - Jewish people are "a race, a religion, a people, or a granfaloon." I thought this page was meant to be about how to improve the article, not debate the general subject matter...well, if we're going down that road, I think Judaism is a "religion". How about using this page for what it's meant to be used for, someday soon...? Anyway, as far as the "see if it gets reverted" thing goes, it'll be reverted in the course of about 5 minutes because a consensus has not been reached...nevertheless, I thank you for your input. FitzCommunist (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)