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]

Template:Archive box collapsible Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

Blatant bias on this page

There can never be any reasoned analysis of the Holocaust because IT NEVER HAPPENED and it is MAKE-BELIEVE, and I'm Jewish.

this page is extemely biased. instead of going into details of why holocaust deniers/revionists believe what they believe, it instead discredits them. no matter what your personal beliefs on this subject is, they should have a fair say. its not like they are asking for another holocaust to occur, they are asking for a real, provable truth on this. which is understandable and respectable. 72.89.79.140 (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is riven with bias against holocaust denial. Wikipedia is a place to go for reasoned analysis of topical subjects. It confounds me that it was even nominated as a 'good article'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkerb (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

it's because these ideas are generaly frowned upon. i do agree that all article should be un-biased, no matter how distasteful the subject matter is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.226.101 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there should be a support for holocaust revisionism or denial as many editors insist on it being called in addition to criticism. Both a critcism and support page for these ideas should exist, with each side arguing against, debunking, or critically examining the arguments of the other to present a MORE COMPLETE picture of holocaust revisionism/denial. Of course third party sources as well as other wikirules should apply. I humbly submit that in certain historical contexts, it was once (and may still be) thought blasphemous, unfaithful, and downright evil to believe the world was round or that minorities deserved equal rights or that abortion should be a right of all women. Not that holocaust revisionism/denial is anything approaching 100% correct - but that if a notable debate exists, it should be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable sources do not negate the existance of the Holocaust and its occurance, so accordingly, Wikipedia has no obligation to appease the unreliable ones which do. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it the case that as soon as a scholar (self-professed or otherwise) or institution (like IHR) begins to question or undermine certain parameters like the the 5-6 million figure that they become ostracized and disreputable? If the flat-earth society majority discredits and ignores any dissent as unreliable, untrustworthy, unscientific, etc. does that mean that wikipedia should not have an entry about those institutions or persons' views (no matter how incorrect they may be) even if those views are published, numerous, noteworthy, and relevant to the article? For example look at the page on Intelligent Design in wikipedia - although "scientific consensus" appears to stand against "creation science" - and the article definatively and clearly expresses this point numerous times, there is also a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement that explores (in detail) the viewpoints and positions of the supporters. For example this passage - "Though not all intelligent design proponents are theistic or motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the principal intelligent design advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in their view the intelligent designer is clearly God. The response of intelligent design proponents to critics and media who discuss their religious motivations has been to cite it as proof of bias and part of a hostile agenda. The Discovery Institute provided the conservative Accuracy in Media a file of complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the media, especially by National Public Radio." Perhaps a Holocaust Revisionist/Denial page? Although I believe information in the parent to begin with is necessary about documenting the "movement/group/whathaveyou." Still I feel that a "Support for Holocaust Revisionism/Denial" section to this article would immediately be taken down - is this incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources of questionable verifiability should only be used as sources pertaining to them and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then, scantly. You may suggest both critical/analytical views of something, but only with reliable sources and it is for this reason that there is no Revisionism/Denial dichotomy of pages here, and will not be either. I do not seek to discuss the facts of the Holocaust on this talk page as its purpose is for discussing the article at hand only, but sources which negate things which would otherwise contradict them are hardly reliable - like individuals and institutions which ignore/fail to explain why approximately 6 million Jews in occupied Nazi territories disappeared, for instance. WilliamH (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do not restore that edit. As described below, there already is a reliable source that describes the contentions and claims of Holocaust denial and it has been established that the David Cole citation is both unreliable and superfluous. If you are interested in being a contributor to Wikipedia, consider registering for an account. WilliamH (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is simply unfair that this article on Holocaust denial assumes that all revisionists are anti-semitic

Here is a link to a one hour documentary by a young Jewish revisionist's trip to Auschwitz: vho.org/dl/ENG/DavidColeatAuschwitz.wmv Llichtveld (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• David Cole's 'scholarship' can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of actual reliable sources and he has since recanted his views on Holocaust denial anyway. If you wish to contribute, please use reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the denier claim of "no gas chambers" is already accounted for in the claims section, so Cole's reference isn't necessary. WilliamH (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

david cole's recant is very suspicious because it is a total turn around. nobody as articualte as him, who had done as much research as him and who had asked the kinds of real questions that totally debunk the holocaust could just change his mind and then accept the mainstream view. i believe he was threatened by zionists from the ADL. regardless of the things he says now there is still no official explanation for why there were doors that opened inward on these "gas chambers" and why there is no blue staining on the walls of the gas chambers, but there is on the walls of the delousing chambers. the holocaust is 99% propaganda and if it wasnt, there would be no need to lable people "deniers" and then put them in jail with rapists and murderers. Spoilermdc (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Since David Cole is not a reliable source, what he thinks is largely irrelevant. If you can find reliable sources making Cole's criticisms, please bring them forward, otherwise, please refrain from using talk pages as a soap box. WilliamH (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

uh, if you want to know what david cole said, look at his interview on the phil donahue show back in the early 1990's. i am not using this as a soapbox. the fact that you dont like the truth doesnt mean that i am using this forum as a soapbox. Spoilermdc (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• The claim of no gassing based on Prussian blue disparities is the most heavily flogged dead horse in the denier stables, so please, stop using this as a soapbox on which to beat it. If you can find reliable sources on this matter, please put them forward. Otherwise, for the last time, please stop using talk pages inappropriately. WilliamH (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Spoilermdc, is there a specific change you wish to make to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

that is a great article. i still dont believe. and what about the chambers that had doors that opened inward and locked from the inside? if you are going to make a claim of homicidal gas chambers killing 6 million plus people, the burden of proof is on you and not the person who finds critical flaws with the story. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

you werent there, so there is no way you could actually KNOW what happened. that is why all angles must be analyzed. but if you do, you get labled a Nazi and a Denier. call me what you wany, but i am not going to shut up and eat a bogus story. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, there is a specific change. but if i made it i would be banned and labled a "denier" by the likes of William. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And that change is....? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I stand by Jayjg's question. I welcome any article improvement based upon reliable sources, and I don't have any prejudice against Spoilermdc to source the given criticism(s) from them, but if not, WP:SOAPBOX applies. I can't say fairer than that. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

-I wonder if there will be any problem if I remove the "Anti-semitism" column from here... I mean, History Revisionism is not anti-semitic. And I feel offended when I am called Anti-semitic just for denying the Holocaust as it has been told. Most of all when I'm semitic myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.33.206 (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• There won't be any problem. We'll just put it back. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

Koenraad Elst is pretty much the definition of fringiness. I spent some time hunting for the perfect quote to replace him; IIRC at the time there wasn't even a mention of Rousso in the article. I would suppose Derrida is good enough for anyone. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you expand on why you think he's "the definition of fringiness"? He seems to have published 15 English language books, and the quote itself is spot on the topic of the section. Derrida, while good, doesn't actually mention "Holocaust denial" - the Elst quote really pulls it all together. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where all the rather extensive discussions have gone. What I can say without trying to locate those discussions is that Elst is largely published by Voice of India, which is openly fringe; he himself has never published in any peer-reviewed journal or by any academic press except for one paper that was part of a collection Routledge India did of Indian historical revisionists; he is the major online supporter for dotty Out of India theories of pseudohistory; this particular reference was probably added first either by a SPAs that spammed various Voice of India quotes a few years ago, or by User:Hkelkar; and the only time mainstream historians or academics of any sort are likely to engage him is as a source for the rhetoric of Hindu nationalism in India. Not to mention his close ties with the Vlaams Blok would make him closer to the subject of the article than I would like. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The quote itself was particularly apt, I'd hate to lose it. Do reliable sources share your views of Elst? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You know how it is with fringe writers. Reliable sources hardly ever address them directly. Most of the statements at the Voice of India page can be taken to refer to Elst; he has been called "eccentric" and his work "selective archaeologies and fanciful speculations" Bhatt, Chetan (1997). Liberation and Purity: Race, New Religious Movements and the Ethics of. Routledge. p. 306.; Here is Irfan Habib on the sort of claim he specialises in; I don't have access to Pirbhai, M. Reza (2008). "Demons in Hindutva: Writing a Theology for Hindu Nationalism". Modern Intellectual History. 5 (01): 27–53. doi:10.1017/S1479244307001527. Retrieved 2008-05-09. at the moment, but I suspect, if you do, it will be relevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well, but hardly proves your claims, and the quote itself is highly relevant and apropos. I suggest getting wider consensus for its removal. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Scholars are undeniably among the ranks of Holocaust deniers.

How? Who? Which reliable sources do you have to back this up? There is a difference between writing discerningly, and just plain POV pushing. WilliamH (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason that David Irving or David Hoggan or Austin App or Richard Krege don't fit the definition of both "scholar" and "Holocaust denier?" --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for essentially the same reason that the article on Earth doesn't present the possibility that the planet might be a flat plane instead of an oblate spheroid. WilliamH (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps more directly: Irving and Hoggan share the propensity for falsifying data, and Irving's not a scholar in any sense of the word; App was a medieval English scholar, yes, but that doesn't really qualify as a scholar qualified to comment on Holocaust issues; and Krege's an engineer, not a scholar. (Appears to be a fraud, too.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  Are we speaking the same language? Holding a stupid opinion doesn't disqualify one from being a scholar, i.e., "a specialist in a given branch of knowledge." David Irving specializes in the study of World War II history. Is that not a given branch of knowledge? Does Irving not specialize in it? What am I missing? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See below. The relevant scholars are scholars of history, particularly Holocaust studies. What an astrophysicist or a specialist in Tungusic languages might call Holocaust deniers isn't particularly relevant. As for Irving, he was a popular writer who, according to the judgement in his libel case against Lipstadt, "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." That pretty much removes him from the realm of "scholars". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And these writers appear to have ignored the testimony of holocaust survivors.--Gazzster (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And the same can be said from Robert Faurisson, a French scholar working outside of his scope of expertise (i.e. French litterature) and falsifying data. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the weasel words, per the common sense and the consensus here on Talk. If any actual scholars of history show up preferring the term "Holocaust revisionist", let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

why are only the jews mentioned?

only the jews are mentioned in the description of what the holocaust is. why is that? was it only jews that were killed? no, others died too. but only the jews are making bank on the claim of genocide. can you say "bias" and "propaganda"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.102 (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per Jayjg's comment above: "While more people than just Jews were killed in the Holocaust, Holocaust denial is about denying that Jews were killed." WilliamH (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

208.79.15.102, please suggest ways to improve this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP for that comment is in Baghdad. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

sourcing issues

Another Wiki user advises me that his views on sourcing have been "consistently upheld". As an WP:Arbitrator with Wikipedia:Revision hiding powers, that must be correct, but it is far from clear to me that WP:RS in fact upholds these views.

1. Apparently certain claims are so indisputable and unchallengeable that they disprove sources instead of the other way around. The reality of the Holocaust, for example, is apparently so indisputable that if, say, the world's most respected professional historian should suddenly shock the world by claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen, not only does he, as a source, not render the claim reliable, but the claim renders the source unreliable ("perpetuating falsehood is by definition unreliable" according to this user)! Where in Wikipedia can I find a list of these "super claims" which create WP:RS policy instead of being themselves created by WP:RS policy (like ordinary reliable claims)?

2. Apparently, "fruits of a poisonous tree are poisonous", such that, to continue with our hypothetical Denier above, not only is his article that denies the indisputable claim rejected as a reliable source, but anything else published by our Denier is rejected in advance as an unreliable source without even looking at it (a priori), never mind if the world's most prestigious professional journal should publish it. In a remarkable logical chain, your see, not only does the "super claim" render unreliable the source that denied it, but all other claims by the source on all other matters are rendered unreliable as well! After all, they are all fruits of the "poisonous tree". But isn't that reasoning in fact a classic example of the Poisoning the well logical fallacy?

3. Apparently, the same standards of reliability apply across everything that appears on any given server or website. So if some crank in a comment section of a New York Times article should deny an indisputable truth, then not only does that crank comment not meet WP:RS, but everything on the entire website fails as well, by the poison-cannot-be-contained-but-spreads-to-everything argument. In the alternative, if the New York Times is not, in fact, full of poison but full of sweetness and light, then the crank comment may be cited as a reliable source by the "fruits of the tree of sweetness and light are sweetness and light" reasoning.

I find it difficult to believe that tbese views on sourcing have, in fact, been "continually upheld". By whom?Bdell555 (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I find your rant hard to understand, despite having now seen 6 or 7 versions of it. I advise use of the preview button to avoid wasting other users' time. Assuming you talk about Kubek's paper in the "Journal of Historical Review": This is not a only not a real academic journal, its a crappy propaganda stunt by the Nazi-apologist fake "Institute for Historical Revisionism". If someone publishes in such an low-life venue, that does indeed cast a shadow on all his work - either they are incompetent, or they are consciously supporting blatant liars. Nothing on the IHR web page or in the JHR has any credibility. If it is true, it is so by accident only. Nothing published there is a WP:RS and nothing there should be used as a secondary source for any kind of statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I did use the preview button a number of times but wanted to do a save. It'd been 10 days since the last comment so it seems something of a coincidence we appear here during the same hour. My apologies, although I don't see how your time could have been wasted anyway since you don't address any of the arguments above regardless of how I phrased them. You just use the very argument the fallacy of which I pointed out above, namely "liar therefore unreliable source therefore everything by the source on all topics is unreliable", and employing the unstoppable "poison" argument to assert "nothing ... has any credibility". This while casually insinuating that the Chair of the Department of History and Political Science at the University of Dallas should be counted amongst the "blatant liars" and "low-lifes" (see Association fallacy). Can we agree to respect people who disagree with us? I'm highly averse to saying "if you don't understand" to a fellow user since it's usually rude, but since you say that it's unclear what I am saying let me say this, you have to universalize your rules. That means that a reliable source policy must be applied without discrimination across ALL Wikimedia areas. If you truly believe your arguments, then you'll get the situations I describe above. Do you find the outcomes I described absurd or not? Re the Kubek paper, name the claims in it which fail to satisfy WP:RS.Bdell555 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bdell, let us know when you are finished with your statement, so it can be responded to. Responding to something that keeps changing isn't fruitful. And changing something that's already been responded to isn't conducive to honest dialog. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz responded to it so it's done. I agree although I think spelling and grammar corrections after a response are OK because the "honesty" of the dialog is not compromised while later readers may find it easier to read.Bdell555 (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, regarding your reductio ad absurdum -- I'm trying to remember, what's the name of the logical fallacy that thinks that "A implies B" means "B implies A"? If the NYT publishes an occasional crank letter, or even a serially incorrect but apparently popular columnist, it detracts a little bit from the quality of the Times, but it does not say anything about the entire mission of the Times. On the other hand, if Holohoax.com publishes the time of day, it still can't be trusted, because holohoax.com is dedicated to perpetuating lies -- find the time elsewhere; information that's only worthy of being published by holohoax is not useful for Wikipedia purposes. One good piece of information at holohoax doesn't make holohoax.com usable as a source, any more than one bad piece of information at the Times renders the Times unusable. But I guess I'll let other people argue this with you; we had this discussion a long time ago and you clearly were dissatisfied with the results, and I don't have anything new to bring to the table. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) "what's the name of the logical fallacy"

It's called Affirming the consequent. However, I am saying NOT B. I'm saying that when you say A, that implies B, and B is absurd. Therefore not A. See Modus_tollens.

"it detracts a little bit"

So one bad apple of holocaust denial (in, say, the form of a "crank letter") doesn't necessarily spoil the whole bunch.

"the entire mission of the Times"

I'll certainly grant that if "the entire mission" of the source I cited is to compete with the Weekly World News, the mission is relevant. Show me a Weekly World News article, in fact, that cites the Interim Report of the Committee on Government Operations and 35 or more additional footnotes like that source I used does and I'll immediately concede the argument!

If "the entire mission of the Times" includes providing news and analysis from something of a left wing perspective, however, that is not relevant to reliability. Does the fact the Wall Street Journal publishes from a more right wing perspective make it that much less reliable, and the fact the "holocaust denial" organizations are generally yet further out on the spectrum that much more unreliable in turn? There's no necessary connection between having an identifiable perspective on politics, society, history, etc and reliability. If the world's most respected scholar publishes in the Nation, which describes itself as the "flagship of the left", it is just as reliable as if he publishes in the "conservative" National Review. It follows from WP:NPOV that neither us can reject reliable sources just because we think the websites on which we find their work happen to be controlled by organizations that are on a "mission" to advance a perspective we don't like. Neither can we give sources that we like any kind of a free pass on meeting reliability standards.

"holohoax.com is dedicated to perpetuating lies"

1) You can go ahead and show that A does not imply C, but that does nothing to refute my contention that A implies B. You did not revert an edit where I cited holohoax.com. You reverted an edit where I cited Anthony Kubek.

2) You're begging the question again: "lies" therefore "can't be trusted". Why not just assert your assumption instead of circling right back to it and calling it a conclusion? Is it because if you just assert your assumption, it'd be too obvious that you'd have to justify it and that means actually investigating it to see if it's true? And we can't have that because what you want is to reject the source I cite without any investigation?

"I don't have anything new to bring to the table"

If you don't the time to use the Talk pages then I assume you don't have the time to revert me. If, on the other hand, you have the time but have just run out of argument, are you going to revert me without providing any further justification and while my own justification remains out there unchallenged?

"Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject."

You quote this excerpt from WP:RS on your userpage and say it is equivalent to an absolute prohibition on "holocaust denial" websites apart from "articles about that site". To begin with, it says nothing about sites. It says "organizations and individuals". Anthony Kubek is an individual, and it remains to be proven whether this Chair of the History Dept at Dallas U is "fringe". Even if he is, see the "or". I didn't see any "or" in your account of permissible use. Furthermore, and most importantly, look at the context. The immediately prior sentence says "Articles should not be based primarily on such sources" and the immediately following sentence begins "Use of these sources must not obfuscate the description of the mainstream view...". This whole section is applicable to users who are trying to give voice to a "minority view" of some sort. As such, its application is restricted to those situations and does not apply to users providing the "time of day", as you would have it. There's no support in WP:RS for the breadth of the prohibition you claim. With respect to what this section does apply to, I'll certainly grant that holocaust denial is a "minority view". Now please show me where in that source I cited is the holocaust denied.

Like I've suggested before, if you believe that there is a prohibition on the use of "holocaust denial" websites then put it in WP:RS explicitly so the community can consider it. Wikimedia is a collaborative project. You'd then have a basis for your claim that your view has been "upheld". I might add, though, that since your objective seems to be deletion of sources without any investigation, you ought to say "revisionist" instead lest an investigation have to be required every time into whether a given site is engaged in "denial" or "revisionism".Bdell555 (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, if anyone should be interested in an example of how a different standard of sourcing appears to apply to different Wiki articles instead of being applied uniformly, see Alger Hiss which is chock full of citations to fringe sources, the fringiness of those sources made clear by my June 28 post to that article's Talk page. I linked most of the sources I cited to their Wiki bios so readers can assess their reliability. If WP:RS were applied universally and without discrimination then what is advocated by left wing extremists would be subject to the same standards of sourcing as what is advocated by right wing extremists.Bdell555 (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

IHR is known as a pure propaganda outfit without any credibility. Comparing it to the NYT is completely fallacious. Yes, there is a spectrum of reliable and semi-reliable newspapers, and reliability is only loosely coupled with political perspective. But the IHR and the so-called JHR are not part of that spectrum. They are, quite simply, an organized bunch of racist liars, and well-known as such. If someone consciously chooses to publish with that bunch, he certainly loses credibility. And, looking at Google Scholar, I fail to see much work by Kubek: [12]. Of course, Google Scholar is very incomplete for such old publications, but that result is certainly not evidence for much respect. Compare e.g. Noam Chomsky (born 8 years after Kubek, search restricted to the same subfields): [13] or Raul Hilberg (born 1926): [14]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, and someone else says the gang at the so-and-so radical-left Institute are Stalin atrocity deniers or at least apologists for Stalin and furthermore the fact Chomsky published with them means Chomsky "certainly loses credibility". This is not to try and diminish the Holocaust by suggesting some sort of moral equivalency but rather to suggest that you'd be more effective at undermining your opponents by picking apart their arguments and scholarship instead of calling people names and foaming at the mouth. If I should happen to publish a paper at IHR, you evidently would have no reservations about immediately calling me a racist and a liar. Would you call that respect for my free speech or for freedom of inquiry generally?

re Google Scholar, it's not just the quantity of output that matters but how often it's cited or referred to. When I search for "Anthony Kubek" I get more hits (which, by the way, includes "Inst for Historical Review", something I'm sure you'll agree really puts the "Scholar" into Google Scholar, right? ;)

Whatever Google Scholar should happen to say or not say, fact is the first time I ran across Kubek was when John_Wheeler-Bennett cited him in his book Semblance of Peace. Go get Wheeler-Bennett's book, look at his extended quote of Kubek and note that "Never before in American history..." is word for word what appears on that IHR web page. So the Historical Adviser for the Royal Archives and George VI's official biographer can cite Kubek yet, according to you, Wikipedia cannot?

Re your userpage question "Do you have an accessible source that shows this claim in some context?", I would note on the IHR web page that Kubek refers to "... the Morgenthau Diaries, which I had the privilege of examining and which were published by the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate in 1967," but of course you would just dismiss that as a lie considering its source, right? Fact is, Kubek was indeed the editor of a two volume report published by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. In the website you found, see section 13.103 for a description. The "editor" mentioned in that section is Kubek.

re your claim that "being printed by the Government Printing Office implies no credibility", again, why don't you go edit WP:RS to indicate that the United_States_Government_Printing_Office is an example of an unreliable source and see what the community thinks? In the mean time, you are just making unsupported assertions about you think is a reliable source and what isn't. And, no, referring to "extraordinary rendition" does not challenge the credibility of the GPO, it rather suggests that this is just about politics for you (As far as I'm concerned, either Obama or McCain could win in November and my conviction that it's ridiculous the GPO's reliability should even be debatable wouldn't change one iota).

Re your man Chomsky, I don't pretend for a minute that Kubek is a celebrity scholar of Chomsky's calibre. The issue is not whether Kubek is the ideal source, it's whether he's good enough. I'll repeat what I said earlier about the need to apply reliable source standards universally and without discrimination. If Kubek is not a reliable source, then apply that same standard and revert every other Wiki edit out there that is sourced to a History Dept Chair at an institution comparable to Kubek's Dallas U.

Bdell555 (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

TBL break

To take this one point at a time:

• Your Google Scholar search searches for any mentioning of the name, not for stuff written by Kubek. Being cited is usually good, being "referred to" is irrelevant. Stalin has more hits than Kubek [15]. That does not make him a reliable scholar. According to Google Scholar, Kubek's few available publications are cited extremely rarely. In fact, even there Stalin beats him out... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If Stalin was only really known for being a scholar and that was his day job I'd suggest that being referred to a lot by other scholars probably does mean something. There are citations that are not appearing in Google Scholar such as Wheeler-Bennett's citation which I saw first hand in hard copy, yet you seem convinced Google Scholar is determinative. If Google Scholar is so good at identifying good scholarship, what is IHR doing in its system???Bdell555 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you that you brought up Google Scholar as evidence that Kubek is a reliable source? "This author has numerous citations at scholar.google" (from User_talk:Jpgordon#WP:RS). Google Scholar, just like Google, aims for completeness, not for high quality of the covered material. It is a very useful tool, but not the final arbiter. But my main point is that regardless of what you think about Google Scholar, Kubek's poor showing does not support your claim. And "being referred to" in a sentence like "Schulz has frequently forwarded unjustified claims" indeed does mean something, but it does not mean that I'm a WP:RS (although I think I am, at least in some fields [16]).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if it is the model of "completeness" then why doesn't it have the Wheeler citation? The years he spent archiving for the Senate aren't in there either, as I recall. The difference in our use of Google Scholar is that you are using it to argue from ignorance. And how is it that looking into the article itself is original research but looking into the articles that refer to the article is not? If Kubek doesn't have enough cites, fine, I'm prepared to concede he's unreliable so long as you agree to apply that universally, so that every other Dept Chair in the same situation regarding citation count is treated similarly. In any case, when I previously assumed that that stuff was relevant in your eyes, you said I was committing a "logical fallacy", since your key argument was, in effect, that the guy could have 8 million citations but that would ultimately count for zero in the end: your mind closed the second his work appeared on IHR. I think observers should keep in mind this belief of yours that 8 million citations should count for nil when considering your opinion on whether any deniers or revisionists may be considered scholars or not.Bdell555 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not claiming the Government Printing Office is an unreliable source. It is no more a source than my laser printer is. It prints whatever it is told to print by certain parts of the US government, in this part apparently a senate subcommittee. Senate subcommittees are political, not scholarly sources, and they are often extremely partisan.

So the Senate just invites any guy off the street to research archives on its behalf and has him write the intro to one of their reports? See also my earlier remarks about the relevancy of political perspective to source reliability.Bdell555 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not the Senate but at best one of its subcommittees. Yes, Senate subcommittees occasionally do push weird views and unscholarly opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Chomsky is not "my man", although he certainly has an impressive mind. He is one example of how a notable academic of roughly Kubek's generation shows up in Google Scholar.

I totally agree, although he struck me as either an odd or telling choice for being the ideal who puts Kubek most to shame with respect to indisputable scholarship, since there are plenty of other prolific and distinguished academics out there who couldn't possibly be labelled radical or on the political fringe like a few might allege about Chomsky.Bdell555 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky, while certainly controversial, is nearly universally respected for some of his work. Some of his opinions are fairly unorthodox, but much of his science is widely acknowledged. Anyways, I was blindly grasping for someone around Kubek's age. Take Alan Turing, if you prefer. He is much older than Kubek, and stopped publishing much earlier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Your argument is a logical fallacy. I do not reject Kubek as a source because he is a history chair. I reject this particular source because it has been published by an inherently propagandist and dishonest fake institute. I have my doubts about Kubek because as a decent Scholar he should have known what he did when he published there. And yes, I will consistently reject any paper published (with the consent of the author) by the IHR or in the JHR, no matter who wrote it and what position he or she holds.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're right back where you started. The article appeared on IHR hence no further investigation is required, in your view. I suppose that's why you haven't been the least bit interested at looking at the article itself for accuracy and footnoting. You know its all lies already! If Chomsky published on IHR you'd evidently call Chomsky a liar and a racist before you'd rethink your blind hatred for IHR. My question is why did you bother with this business of alleging that Senate publications are unreliable etc etc when none of that matters to you in the end anyway?

And you will "consistently reject" will you? Even though WP:RS explicitly allows for my citation? I refer you to WP:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources: "The material taken from such sources should not ...unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.". Even if IHR is "extremist and fringe" the entirety of the material I am taking happens to be published word for word by John_Wheeler-Bennett in Semblance of Peace AS WELL AS the Senate publication. Since you've already attacked the US Senate, are you now going to go after John Wheeler-Bennett, or are you going to let this one go?Bdell555 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Checking the article myself is original research. I'm frankly not qualified to do that in a reasonable time frame, and I suspect neither are you. Even if you are, Wikipedia has no way of verifying your qualification and instead demands reliable sources. In fact, I don't even know what you try to source to Kubek. I do know that the IHR is not a reliable source. To make a productive suggestion: If the information you want included is all sourced to reliable sources in Kubek's paper, why don't you use the original references instead of trying to argue the absurd case that the IHR is reliable?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So looking at the source to see if it is richly footnoted or not constitutes original research, but exploring the real or imagined political biases of Senate subcommittees is not? Are you going to universalize your theories and revert Wiki cites to Senate reports, or just revert selectively? I conceded Jpgordan's argument re "mission" insofar as if the article reads like a Weekly World News piece and says FDR ate an alien baby, that would certainly suggest unreliability, but that means actually looking at some content.

"argue the absurd case that IHR is reliable" is a straw man. I am making a skeptic's challenge to a positive conclusion, the supporting argument for which has "the IHR is not reliable" as a critical assumption. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't prove anything. When I claim, for example, that proving the IHR has an agenda doesn't necessarily prove it is not reliable, that's not a positive claim that it is reliable. I'll acknowledge that I am making a positive claim that the particular material from Kubek that I am using is reliable.

I'm providing a weblink to Kubek as a supplement to citing the Senate report. Here is the edit at the bottom of all this. It gives the reader the opportunity to assess the context of the excerpted material (the IHR link is the only online source available) and informs the reader of a fact that may be revealing, namely, that he has also been published on IHR. With no sense of irony, Jpgordon reverts as if this information were utterly irrelevant (his rationale presuming the exact opposite with respect to reliability). Indeed, the disdain for a need for inquiry or examination and the general enthusiasm for censorship and argument Ad hominem of some self-styled anti-Denial crusaders often ends up producing the exact opposite of the discrediting effect they intend (War on Terror, anyone?).Bdell555 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

IHR is not a reputable reliable source. Among the vast majority of scholars in the field of genocide research, it is considered unreliable and biased. The issue is not whether or not anyone published by IHR can be considered reliable. You can pour soup in a toilet bowel, but no sensible person would eat it.--Cberlet (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you apply the Poisoning_the_well fallacy so far that not only is the "well" made relevant, its entirely determinative, precluding any need for further inquiry. Are there any left-radical extremist or fringe "toilet bowls", Cberlet, or are they all right wing?Bdell555 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable information can be found across the political spectrum--and should be avoided as a source. The only issue here however, is that IHR is a poisoned well, and no amount of information--no matter how trivial--should be drawn from it. It is not a fallacy of logic, it is a reality of research. IHR poisons its own well with unreliable information. Therefore IHR is not a reliable published source. Nor is it scholarly. If text from a scholar can only be found in an IHR publication, then it is time to flush the toilet.--Cberlet (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fallacy. And empirical research only supports an empirical conclusion, not a logically necessary conclusion. You are in effect claiming that you can engage in empirical research until time X, stop, and then draw a conclusion that cannot be challenged empirically for the rest of time. If someone comes along and questions your conclusion by asking you to consider their empirical research and asking you to present yours, you say you can reject that a priori. But your conclusion was reached on a posteriori basis. You have no warrant to close the inquiry.

To use an analogy, you've gone into the field and noted that all observed birds are white. You've then concluded that all birds are white. If someone comes along and shows you a black bird, you can't say it's white because all birds are white. You have to believe the same eyes you believed the first time.Bdell555 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem arises when that someone coming along also consents to an organisation presenting his black birds for the sake of green ones, and thus we cannot possibly form a basis for an enquiry for him doing so when none of us are in a position to discern his judgement in the first place. WilliamH (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:

1. "Evidence presented by Holocaust deniers has consistently failed to stand up to scrutiny in courts of law (see Fred A. Leuchter), further calling into question its veracity." This has been tagged since June 2007.

   "Evidence presented by..." The Fred Leuchter article does not include any mention of his theories being tested in court; rather, his theories were dismissed because he was not an expert. Further, "consistently" would require other cases. I've removed the sentence completely. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

2. "In 1978 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was founded by Willis Carto as an organization dedicated to publicly challenging the "myth of the Holocaust.""

   See below. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   "In 1978 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was founded by Willis Carto as an organization dedicated to publicly challenging the commonly accepted history of the Holocaust" ref: Chip Berlet & Matthew J. Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, New York: Guilford Press, 2000, p. 189. --Cberlet (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3. "He is the former media director of the Institute for Historical Review."

   "Former media director..." Is [17] an acceptable source? (The actual book, of course.) It actually looks to me like he's quoting Wikipedia, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   I'd recommend a different source, and if one can't be found but all other issues are addressed, I'd recommend just removing it from the article until a source can be found. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Ah, found a better one. [18] will do, I think. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

4. "In 1985, he was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for "disseminating and publishing material denying the Holocaust.""

   "1985, tried and convicted..." The cite at the end of the paragraph is comprehensive; it includes the Canadian Supreme Court decision which lays out all the facts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   I added another citation directly after from the current source just in case. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

5. "McVay received a number of death threats, and the Nizkor Project soon became the number-one online foe of many Holocaust deniers." This has been tagged since June 2007.

   "McVay...death threats..." Tightened up, cite found. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

6. "Although he has since called the Holocaust, "a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation"..."

   ""Although he has since called the Holocaust, "a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation"..." See previous paragraph; it's in a pull quote, and repeated; we should clean that a bit, but another citation isn't necessary. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

7. "They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves...(The West) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophets."

   "They have fabricated a legend..." citation is further in the same (or next) paragraph. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   The source states: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets...The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets. (It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet." Either another source needs to be found that specifically matches the current quote in the article, or the quote needs to be updated to the one in this source. It looks like it may be a matter of interpretation between languages though. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Found a good source on Al Jazeera. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

8. "On April 24, 2006, Ahmadinejad demanded a free evaluation of the real extent of the Holocaust "in order to find the ultimate truth.""

   "On April 24, 2006..." I'm having trouble with this one. I can't find an actual source for this, and the "ultimate truth" line seems to come from David Duke at the Iran conference, not necessarily from Ahmahoweverhespellsit. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

   If a source can't be found, consider rewording it for now without the current quote and then readd it later if a source is found. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

   Found a good source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

9. "Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Ireland also have rejected Holocaust denial legislation." This has been tagged since April 2008.

   "Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Ireland..." I've found a source for Denmark and Sweden. The only sources I could find for Norway and Ireland were holocaust denier sites. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Other issues:

1. The lead needs to better summarize the article. Try to touch on all of the various sections within the article, while keeping the lead between three to four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.

   The lead has been expanded, but would benefit with a little more expansion, covering more of the individual sections. Just a few words or a sentence is all that is need on most individual sections. Doing so would greatly improve the lead. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

2. The fair use rationale for Image:Denying the holocaust.jpg should be expanded.

   • I've provided a fair use rationale for Image:Denying the holocaust.jpg. WilliamH (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3. "Some people who do not deny that the Holocaust occurred nevertheless oppose such restrictions of free speech, including, despite her legal battle with David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt." This sentence needs to be rewritten as it currently doesn't make sense.

   "Some people who do not deny that the Holocaust occurred nevertheless oppose such restrictions of free speech, including, despite her legal battle with David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt." The sentence does make sense, but I'm not sure it's helpful as it stands. I've removed it, and just included Lipstadt in the list of historians in the next sentence. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   I finally got it after reading it out loud. I guess it was late at night when I read it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:15 29 June, 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the changes and listed some comments above for some of the issues that still need to be addressed. Overall, good job on getting the majority of the issues fixed. I'll leave the article on hold for another week for the issues that weren't struck to be addressed, but if you finish earlier, please contact me on my talk page and I'll re-review it as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Specific complaint

In what sense is the entire article encyclopaedic? Any one desirous of learning about the corpus of Holocaust denial/revisionism is met with a bank of criticism of said subject. Shouldn't this be reserved for the "Criticism of Holocaust denial" article? what's the point of two articles if they both have the same purpose? If the goal of WP is to inform, this article falls far short of it. It does not allow the reader to examine the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.55.154 (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you suggesting should be done? WilliamH (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be logical that if the article is about Holocaust revisionism/denial then it should cover the subject thoroughly without editorializing. Or, it should be about the PHENOMENON of Holocaust denial, which is clearly delusional, and should be labeled as such. Or, the majority of the article should be played "straight," from the viewpoint of the proponents, with a smaller section on criticism. The Bigfoot article, for example, spends more time dispensing with the notion of a Sasquatch than it does describing one. Of course, there is virtually no evidence available to discuss on Bigfoot/Sasquatch. However, concerning the Holocaust there is a vast body of evidence. This article needs to make clear at the outset that its purpose is absolutely to condemn Holocaust denial and that it sees no compelling need to treat the subject the slightest bit seriously, since it is inherently and inalterably false. Then it wouldn't be POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.55.154 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We have the Criticism of Holocaust denial article to deal with actual criticism - this is largely reliably sourced commentary on the notion of Holocaust denial. If I may quote Michael Berenbaum, "Nonsense is nonsense, yet the study of nonsense can be significant scholarship." WilliamH (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So under that rubric the name of the article should be "Holocaust denial phenomenon" or "Study of Holocaust denial." For example, the article on Portland cement is about its use, technology, application, etc., not about whether people disagree with Portland cement. I'd say that is more the model that should be used for a good WP article. For example, the WP article on witchcraft is largely about witchcraft, pure and simple, even though the majority of the world doesn't believe in it or even condemns it. That might be another model for this article, because as it stands now it is basically POV, which you haven't even bothered to dispute. I don't have much more to say to you or anyone who posts terse, dismissive responses. Please put mre effort into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.55.154 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your view on how this isn't NPOV. If this article's purpose was to actively condemn something, then that would be soapboxing, which isn't allowed. It only rejects Holocaust denial by virtue of the myriad of reliable sources that do too. As far as I understand, what it culminates in makes it reasonably clear that denying the Holocaust isn't a legitimate field of rational enquiry; for starters the article is in the "Pseudohistory" category. If you think you can improve the article, please do so, but do not misconstrue my terse responses as discourteousness, because it isn't. WilliamH (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It would seem that pre-deciding that it's pseudohistory is itself POV, but, as you point out, virtually all legitimate scholars have one point of view. I should point out that they are "legitimate" because largely they are on the government payroll in various countries and wouldn't have a job if they engaged in major revisions, such as re-examination of the often conflicting and at times impossible testimonial evidence. More importantly, why doesn't this article discuss the legitimate revisions that have already taken place since the Nuremberg trials? The Auschwitz museum has reduced the number of dead estimate from 4 million to 1.5. Dachau no longer claims that the gas chamber was used for killing. Unfortunately, now I have to leave off for several days as I am going camping. I'll check back.

The reason I don't make any additions to the article is that I have done so in the past and they have been swiftly reversed. It might help if the category of Pseudohistory were clearly demarcated near the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.55.154 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the revision of the Auschwitz plaque has nothing to do with what Holocaust deniers have done: western historians put forward estimates of about 1 - 1.5 million as early as the 1950s based on records of deportees and have never used the communist purported claim as their basis for inquiry - see the given links at the top of the page, as this has been discussed ad nauseum and no further comment on it will be of merit.

This is an encyclopedia. It is a foundation for material published by reliable sources, not a blank slate for unreliable ones. We are here to present the truth objectively and neutrally, not put forward an abstract dichotomy. As I have said before, it's the same reason that the article on Earth doesn't present the possibility that the planet might be a flat plane instead of an oblate spheroid. Do not confuse objectivity with POV. WilliamH (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)