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]
• If you want to argue that Holocaust denial is not antisemitic, please read: [12], [13]

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

Removing criticism of holocaust denial

The article begins "This article is about the history, development, and methods of Holocaust denial. For criticism of Holocaust denial, see Criticism of Holocaust denial."

Then, four paragraphs later, we read "For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[7] conspiracy theory.[8] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[9]"

I would like to edit the article to remove this criticism of holocaust denial, as it should appear in the Criticism of Holocaust Denial article.

I believe in the interest of fairness, the Holocaust Denial entry should present the arguments for holocaust denial. And since there is a separate topic for criticism of holocaust denial, criticism and counter arguments should be relegated to that page.

I'm not sure about the protocol for editing, so I'm introducing the topic here.

(FF1234 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

-- I had the exact same thought when I read the article -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.56.99.83 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:LEAD, which discusses mention of controversies in the lead, and WP:V and WPRS, which discuss reliable sources. Are you aware of any reliable sources that present the argument for Holocaust Denial? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to find reliable sources when questioning the holocaust is illegal in many countries. --Lingwitt (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article does not in any way present the arguments of Holocaust deniers, and really does nothing but chronicle how they are criticized. I can't even begin to imagine how it could be viewed as a "good article", since it has almost nothing to do with the subject at hand, but only with biographical notes on the people involved, coupled with examples of criticism of their ideas. A "reliable source" for the ideas of Holocaust Denial is anything written by a person engaging in it - the matter is not the accuracy of the claims, but the nature of the claims. How is this not obvious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.74.16 (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers are not reliable sources about anything, including "the nature of their claims", about which they are deliberately deceptive. This article relies on what reliable sources say on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So they are misleading regarding what they are actually saying? I suppose this means that they are not saying what they are saying - which is quite frankly nonsense. If what you mean is that they mean something OTHER than what they actually say, then this is a perfect topic for the "criticism of Holocaust denial" page. An article containing no information what-so-ever about the claims of Holocaust deniers (claims which should be possible to find quoted in your "reliable sources", no doubt) is hardly a "good article" about the subject itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.74.16 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 December 2008

Let's all try to be neutral for a second. Holocaust denial is, in-and-of-itself, criticism of the Holocaust. Instead of putting this article under the holocaust page, it's been moved to its own page. That is, I imagine, out of repect to Holocaust believers (it's a sensitive issue, to be sure). Why, then, is it ok to use this page to criticise non-believers? Where do non-believers get their fair say? And as far as reliable sources go: I would think this article would be for the presentation of arguments (like all criticism pages) not the irrefutable defense of a theory. At one point, Galileo Galilei was considered an unrealiable source for something he was correct about. This isn't about right or wrong, in an article like this, it's about opposing viewpoints. Don't censor them.Thadeuss (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's all try to be neutral for a second. Holocaust denial is not, in and of itself, criticism of anything. It's a dishonest attempt by a small group of bigots to falsify history in an effort to support their corrupt agenda of blaming Jews for all the ills of the world. Nothing is being done on this page "out of repect (sic) to Holocaust believers". The purpose of this page is to condense and digest the best information from the best reliable sources on the subject. There is no more reason to give holocaust denial a "fair say" than there is to take seriously the claims of those who insist that the Earth is flat or that the moon landings never happened. To the contrary, flat Earthers and moon-hoaxers seem to be mostly afflicted with foolishness rather than malevolence. Your analogy about Galileo having been considered an unreliable source about something he was correct about is no argument for accepting someone who is an unreliable source about something he's wrong about. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Steven, it appears you're incapable of neutrality on this issue, so you'll have to excuse me for disregarding your last statement. I come to Wikipedia for educated view points and I'm just not seeing them. Sorry. Thadeuss (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: User:Thadeuss asked: Where do non-believers get their fair say? - A good question, I will try to answer:

Answer: Most likely not on Wikipedia. I believe the argument goes something like this: WP:NPOV requires that all points-of-view be presented. Holocaust denial is however considered hate speech, a form of conscious communication of falsehood. It is thus not a point-of-view and does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

An erroneous point of view is a point of view. Many fallacies, error, stupid ideas, and lies (the latter are not POVs, but allegations which are falsely described as POVs) are described in WP. Whether they are, or are not, hate speech or love speech, is irrelevant. AFAIK there is no WP rule against description of lies, erroneous POVs, hate speech, or any-other-emotion-speech. Apokrif (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's how I always saw it. I mean, right or wrong, Wikipedia isn't taking a side, it's only presenting the factual presence of an argument. I personally think it's erroneous, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be presented with neutrality. On this particular issue, however, I don't think there will ever be a chance to discuss. Thadeuss (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Problems arise when what is wrong is inadvertently presented as right. This is why fringe theories such as Holocaust denial are considered wholly subordinate in encyclopedias. Ask yourself how "belief" is a determining factor in the 33 mass graves at Belzec, for instance. Does being a "non-believer" make the missing 434,500 people sent there reappear then? Exactly, of course not. Right and wrong has everything to do with this matter: that's why it's called denial. WilliamH (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is called denial by definition, not because it is right or wrong. Surely all that need happen here is for the concepts and the corresponding refutation to be stated. Some, not all, of the deniers start with "reasonable" intentions, i.e. to discover a truth. Yes, they may have sub-conscious issues around race, most people do. I'm talking here of bumblers like Fred Leuchter. Like most theorists they head along a path and soon discover contradictions, it is at this point that the good man divides from the bad. Many of the deniers (Irving included) seek to twist the evidence to suit the original concept. For instance Irving once stated (on camera) that a lack of evidence concerning Hitler's knowledge of The Holocaust did NOT mean he didn't know. Irrefutable logic. However on subsequent occasions Irving has gone further and implied that a lack of evidence is proof that Hitler did not know. This level of contradiction and bias can be found throughout his work. The same is true for other deniers. It seems to me that the holes are often so blatant as to merit refutation within the article itself, as perhaps one would contradict religious propaganda. I'd like to also point out that some of their arguments have been proved to be valid, and denial of these facts fuels their conspiracy theories. Credit where credit is due regardless of who should claim it. --Angryjames (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That does seem to be the point of the article. We present both sides (or should); what holocaust deniers say, and the refutations (is that even a word?) of their claim. "Holocaust denier says X. Sane world says Y". Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Refutation is in the OED. Not sure about the plural. No bias then "sane world" :) Actually some arguments on the denier side are rational, as indeed there are (albeit sadly) irrational arguments (even from eye witnesses) on the other side. I would prefer a structure in which the article states the claims and then states the counter argument. Both without bias. Wikipedians (I bet that's not a word in the OED) seem incapable of doing just that on most of the controversial subjects I've had the pleasure of reading. --Angryjames (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia will never be neutral thanks to people who refuse to take a neutral stand point. As you can see, they can't even respond to educated proposals without getting belligerent. In my opinion, if you're that passionate about the article, you don't have any place editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.140.239 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of any reliable sources that present the argument for Holocaust Denial?

I am a little new to Wikipedia and I had a quick question to ask of Jayjg, who seems to be a more experienced member of both this forum and the site in general: what are the critera for a "reliable source" in relation to Holocaust revisionism? If anyone else can provide an answer, I would also be willing to listen and learn.Barbeerh (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are surely the blogs/websites/interviews of those individuals who subscribe to alternative views on The Holocaust, e.g. The IHR website. Please be warned though that revisionists rarely sing the same song, some are clearly pro-Nazi (Zundel), others not so clear (Irving) and yet more who are simply pedalling opinions.

On the opposite side of the problem is the fact that revisionists for obvious reasons have to change their story as irrefutable facts come to light. They are often attacked based on their original position and the fact that their views have changed. Neither attack of which is helpful. The mainstream view however does not appear to change its position regardless of new information, and even when it is forced to do so it speaks in a whisper.

There also appears to be a rather grey area involving mainstream historians (e.g. Hilberg, Heath) who are not considered deniers and yet do not subscribe to the original soviet figures. --Angryjames (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, "blogs/websites/interviews of those individuals who subscribe to alternative views on The Holocaust" are not typically reliable sources at all, as they are not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On the contrary, they are typically self-published and refuted over and over again. They may occasionally be usable per WP:SPS as primary sources about the opinion or statements of the groups themselves, but the use of primary sources is generally discouraged. We are not here to repeat claims by the deniers, but to summarize what reliable sources write about the phenomenon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You can say "No" all you like, but a reliable source (rationally, not perhaps what Wikipedian admins' think/feel) for what someone says/thinks/feels is always going to be the original source, e.g. the article/book THEY published, the interview THEY gave and was recorded. Not some newspapers biased misquotation or over simplification of a subject they know little about. Quote Hilberg directly, not some journalist's simple minded opinion. Newspapers are often forced through legal means to print retractions and to pay out large quantities of money because of the lies they print and yet it is being suggested that we trust them over the original spoken word and/or written word. This is not to mention the fact that they are in the business of selling, not maintaining and printing facts.

It is precisely this attitude that fuels their argument. If you misquote them and their interview/article was published, they can simply argue (as they do in the case of Holocaust Denial) that this is a case of conspiracy. Which in truth it actually is, if we discuss and conclude here that their own words are not an accurate reflection of their opinion and that we must rely on a 3rd party to tell us what they think and feel. If Irving says he is not a racist, quote him, if he then says he is, quote him again. No need for a 3rd party to convince me he is or is not. I apologise if this appears confrontational, it is not intended to be so. --Angryjames (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, James. In spite of the tendency for people to throw the wikipedia rule book at you, I'm glad to see some people have enough common sense to realise that a Harvard professor doesn't have to write a thesis on something for it to be accurate, reliable, and verifiable.168.158.220.3 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion regarding Irving's quote further down this page James. Your point of making sure quotes are accurate so that deniers don't play into them are certainly valid, but when the only party misrepresenting David Irving is....David Irving, it's not as straightforward as you maintain. WilliamH (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on your points below also. I agree Irving contradicts himself, twists the facts and lies. However, for the reasons you agree with me on, I feel it is important we a) make sure we show no bias and b) attempt as best as possible to give due consideration to their position. At least in that way we cannot be accused of plotting against them, nor used as fuel for their ideology. However I do think Irving is misrepresented in the press, mainly by reducing all his arguments to a purely semantic level, by ignoring the genuine work he has done and by refusing to engage him on the various questions he raises. The Nizkor project has done much to overcome this, unlike the mainstream media. --Angryjames (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is still a 'live' debate, but the article seems correctly balanced to me. There are lots of other occasions where the Wikipedia presents schools of thought which are now completely at odds with accepted wisdom in this fashion - the Earth being flat, say. Or perhaps to put it another way, surely if the Wikipedia, or the consensus that builds it, or indeed the references on which it draws actually considered Holocaust Denial a legitimate body of theory, then the correct place for it WOULD be in the Holocaust article, no matter who it offended.Cncoote (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say it's correctly balanced. Whilst it does read as "non-biased" it doesn't attempt to explain any of the rationale behind some of their claims. It cannot be denied that a great deal of the deniers work is geared towards proving their own theories, and ignoring anything that doesn't match. However some concerns that play into denial are not properly addressed. For instance the issue of soap manufactured from human fat (Nizkor offer a very good explanation of this), and the faux gas chamber built by the Russians, the seemingly made up initial figures etc. Even The Leuchter Report, which whilst flawed, did encourage doubt. What I'm talking about here is the evolution of the denial and why it may appear valid at various points in time. It would be like talking about the Black Panthers without mentioning the history of black America. For me it's an issue of context. In order for someone to understand the phenomenon they will need to be able to follow the path of logic. Even seemingly bizarre concepts such as the KKK have a rationale and a development that can be understood. --Angryjames (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article is terrible at presenting the subject at hand. I'm researching the holocaust, and after reading this page have no solid idea of what exactly the deniers are denying, and more importantly why. As a result I have to either assume they are racist/hate-mongerers, or I have to go to their websites to read what they have to say, and therefore this article is useless as it is. I would propose to you, that just because someone believes something that is scientifically invalid, does not mean it should not be presented in a fare way. For example, the page on Christianity does not criticize the various beliefs of Christians as being scientifically invalid (e.i. Creation, the Flood, etc.). While this subject is one that is no doubt offensive to the survivors, it is never-the-less a valid subject to describe in an Encyclopedia. And I must agree with James that while the sources my be self-contradicting, they are the sources. Back to the Christian analogy, many Christians have different views on Christianity, however, that does not mean their overall beliefs should be marginalized for their inconsistency If the views of the deniers are to be refuted on this page, which seems out of place to me (that's what the Criticism of Holocaust denial page is for), then at least have a paragraph describing the belief, before criticizing it, otherwise this page should be deleted from Wikipedia, as it does not serve a function.68.148.123.76 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

first line of the article

mentions only the jewish victims. if more than just jewish victims died, then isnt denying the Holocaust also a denial of the non-Jewish victims? Statesboropow (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've not seen much indication that Holocaust deniers really care about anything other than the Jews. Have you? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

no. and i havent seen anything that would lead me to believe that anyone who talks about the holocaust cares to share the misery with anyone other than the jewish victims. i have heard over and over again "six million jews". yes, the jews suffered, but so did a lot of others, and right along side of the Jewish souls too. it may be seen as a silly example, but watch "Dead Man Walking" with Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and there is only mention of the Jews. i know that innocent jews died and suffered greatly as a people. but i am angered when only their suffering is mentioned. sorry if that offends you. Statesboropow (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for you to go away. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous comment Jpgordon. We who consider ourselves as the "right minded" should never degrade to comments of that kind. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The holocaust refers specifically to Jewish people killed for being such in concentration camps by Hitler and his Nazis, so of course this article is about the modern denial of that. Hitler was also responsible for the deaths of many other people but these deaths are not considered part of the holocaust, so there is no argument here. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

well jpgordon, who are you to tell me to go away? why dont you go away? the holocaust wasnt a uniquely jewish experience and i think people resent that. i know i do. maybe the article can be revised to be a little more fair? Statesboropow (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is about Jews, though. Perhaps you can get Holocaust deniers "to be a little more fair", and focus on other peoples for a change. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

holocaust "denial", if there is such a thing, cant be about the Jews when they only make up 55% of the victims. 72.45.61.254 Statesboropow (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the deniers; for some reason they only focus on the Jewish victims. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's useful to look at this slightly differently. There have been quite a few debates on wether the term "Holocaust" describes only the Nazi mass murder of Jews, or if it is more encompassing and refers to all Nazi victims of systematic mass murder. My reading of these debates is that both senses exist, but that the one restricted to Jewish victims is somewhat more prevalent. But even of one uses the more expansive definition, the term "Holocaust denial" has a meaning related to, but independent of its constituent words. It describes a certain social phenomenon, and, as -jpgordon and Jayjg have pointed out, that phenomenon is only the denial of the Nazi mass murder of Jews. See e.g. Did Six Million Really Die? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting point. Deniers (for want of a better term) put forward precisely this argument. It is undeniable that the term "Holocaust" carries considerable weight and that no equivalent term that includes all casualties (or other casualties) exists. It is also the cause of much resentment which fuels the denier argument. The fact remains that for whatever reasons (and there are many good reasons) the term "Holocaust" exists and means what it does. What is perhaps more interesting for the denier argument is that the term is, as I understand it, a fairly modern concoction. I don't believe the Wiki entry for it states the origins of the word, nor the time period in which it was first introduced. --Angryjames (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you see Holocaust#Definition it has some info. "Holocaust" just generally means "disaster"; indeed, it was used to refer to the Armenian Genoicde as well. However, the modern usage (1940-something onwards) is to refer specifically to the events in World War 2. I'm with Jpgordon here; while strictly speaking "holocaust" in the WW2 context refers to the mass murders as a whole, holocaust deniers and indeed most of the world seem to perceive the mass murders as either 1) being entirely to do with jews or 2) other social/racial groups being involved, but overwhelmingly to do with the jews. Of course holocaust deniers don't believe that; can't have different social groups in a massacre when you believe said massacre never happened. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This article though refers to The Holocaust (capital T capital H), which dates to around the 70's (I'm searching for evidence of this, but probably best to write to the OED or some such reference company). You are not correct here. Holocaust deniers are labelled as such for not accepting mainstream views on the events that took place. For instance if you are unsure about the figures the Soviets provided to the Nuremberg courts you would have been a denier. Questioning buildings claimed to be Gas Chambers, that were in fact recontructions... etc. Of course the deniers are much worse than this, they have an agenda, and it is that which needs to be dealt with. But you cannot deal with this by trying to argue with bias or by denying everything they say. It merely fuels their argument.

These days the rational (if you can call them that) deniers broadly speaking deny genocide, that is a direct order to commit genocide. They claim that victims (jews and non-jews) were treated with barbaric cruelty by factions of the regime, and that vast numbers (millions) were starved or murdered. This is a deliberate move on their part, because it is difficult to prove otherwise. A lack of evidence (obviously, since the Nazis covered it up), and even the references we have like the famous Goebbels diary entry about liquidation... does not directly imply genocide. However, as we all know, if you put those people in those conditions, in those hands you do so for a reason, you are responsible and indeed guilty. --Angryjames (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• James: the documents buried around crematoria II and III written by the Sonderkommando which were unearthed after the war. All of them read along the lines of "the Nazis are using the basements of these buildings to kill vast numbers of people with gas, and we have to burn the bodies". Does this satisfy your apparently stringent criteria of "directly implying genocide"? WilliamH (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what I wrote was unclear. The Sonderkommando testified to these atrocities, we need no documents to prove that fact. The OED definition of genocide: "the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation." By definition it is clear that genocide took place against the jews at the hands of the Nazis. No question.

The genocide extended to many other minorities and peoples than only the Jews. While, doubtless, the Jews were most dramatically effected, some Holocaust deniers deny that homosexuals, for example, were executed. Does this deserve mentioning? Demosthenes, blog 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that deniers argue that Hitler never ordered the genocide, and therefore many of the Nazis did not know of the actions being carried out in the camps. It's difficult to prove this point. We have the Himmler/Heydrich evidence but it isn't concrete. It amounts to hearsay. Albeit compelling hearsay. Did Hitler order the building of the gas chambers? Did he pass on his genocidal plans to all his sub-ordinates and thus make it Nazi policy? Is it not possible that Hitler couldn't care less, or did not want to accept responsibility and therefore passed it over to Himmler/Heydrich?!? There is evidence of his sloppy command style elsewhere. Whatever the position, why argue it? Why not simply present the facts as we know them? I'm not saying give up the search for the truth, I'm asking why persist in adding fuel to the denier conspiracy? Moreover why show bias at all.

As for my position... If Hitler himself gave that direct order, or if Himmler twisted his ideas (as Irving will wish to prove with his new book) what does it matter? Does it mean the Nazis who carried it out were just following orders? Are they less monstrous? Is it not one extra monster to add to the pile we already know about. By playing around with these arguments we detract from the reality. Individuals carried out these atrocities and many did so without remorse. They were people, not Nazis, not Hitler's robots. People. --Angryjames (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

David Irving and the backseat of Kennedy's car

this is a misquote. what david irving said is that more people died on the backseat of Ted Kennedy's care that went into the river at Chappaquiddick than died in "that" gas chamber, referring to the gas chamber at Auschwitz which was reconstructed after the war. "that" gas chamber didnt kill anyone. here is the video that clarifies Irving's remarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n8FlkiWLKA

this quote needs to be reworded. any suggestions? Statesboropow (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No. In fact, this part of the article concerns much less what Irving said than the fact that he was defended by Hochhuth. And, by the way, the later never invoked the fact that Irving was talking about the gaz chamber that had been rebuild. Finally, and certainly on touchy topics like this one, youtube must be regarded as one of the less reliable sources. There enough written documents on this subject without having to rely on youtube documents that have been posted there for whatsoever reason and that can have been altered or falsified for very obvious reasons. --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

what better source than david irving himself being interviewed and the words straight from the mans mouth? Statesboropow (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is never a reliable source on Wikipedia, as Lebob-BE just explained. (And Irving, as a habitual liar, is not a reliable source for anything, not even his own opinions.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

that has got to be the dumbest thing i have ever heard. now you tell david irving what he thinks? i think he is a very smart, articulate man. and if he is so crazy, they wouldnt put him in jail. 72.45.61.254 (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would I want to tell David Irving anything? Hopefully I'll never engage in conversation with him. However, Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing and verifiability are quite precise, and that's the sole measure I'm using here. Who said he was crazy? I said he was a liar. Plenty of sane liars in the world, I guess. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

i'd be willing to bet that it couldnt be shown that david irving has ever lied about anything he has written about. he has over 30 books to his credit and anyone who has seen him talk can ttell that he is very well educated on the story of Nazi Germany. and at the end of the day, all he is doing is giving his opinion on an historical event. and for that he has been jailed, threatened and god knows what else. if Wikipedia was forced by law to profess a certain opinion i am sure you'd be in an uproar about it. Statesboropow (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, luckily for me and Wikipedia, we're ruled by laws that provide for freedom of speech, so stupid things like putting people in jail for holocaust denial won't happen here. Doesn't change anything about Irving's veracity, or lack thereof. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

i cant believ that you and i agree that jailing people for holocaust "denial" is stupid. i am done on this issue. just thought it could be improved. Statesboropow (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm an American. Freedom of speech is one of the core tenets of our civic religion, to which I am a proud adherant. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion got out of hand at the very first response. This must be a new record. I don't see why a service for delivering footage should not be a reliable source for delivering footage, but if that is the Wikipedia standard then so be it, regardless, it is utterly unacceptable for Wikipedia authors to so openly reject footage clarifying exactly what David Irving meant with his statement elaborated upon by David Irving himself! It is completely irrelevant what he may or may not lie about, this article is about holocaust deniers and David Irving is (whether he likes it or not) a notable mention in this article. Therefore he should be quoted accordingly and not just blatantly having his very own statements rejected. Have you all forgot one of the main rules regarding how to handle holocaust deniers? Quote correctly for everybody to see or do not quote at all! --Kotu Kubin (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Back in the 1980s, following the accident at Three Mile Island, American politician Lyndon LaRouche's followers had the pro-nuclear energy slogan, "More people have been killed in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than in a nuclear accident."[14] I guess the back seat of Ted Kenedy's car is a common standard for mortality. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I to assume from what I'm reading here that there exists Wikipedia rules that effectively implies certain newspapers' articles take precedent over video footage of the same event? If so, then who decided which newspapers (and hence ALL of its articles and journalists past, present and future) are considered reliable, and on what detailed analysis did they base this on? --Angryjames (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You might try perusing WP:RS for an answer to that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremist and fringe sources: "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities". That would seem to allow the quote by Irving from that source. Also, as I mentioned below, the quote in the German article is actually almost the same as that given by Irving in the video clip. Meowy 01:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the quote, changing it to the words spoken in the interview cited in the opening post (it occurs at 6.20 approx.). They are the actual words of Irving, so I don't understand Lebob-BE objection against using it. The original version of the quote was also not accurate when compared against the cited German source (the article by Karl Pfeifer) - the quote in that source is almost word-for-word the same as that given in Irving's interview. Quotations have to be accurate, if they are not then they shouldn't be presented as quotations. Meowy 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Meowy and the edit. Of course I was being facetious in my rhetoric. However it is that media trust which grants them carte blanche to print as they will, and they do so with extreme bias. In the UK the owner of The Times, Rupert Murdoch made it clear that he supported Tony Blair (our previous Prime Minster here in the UK), and his media empire did likewise (and during a general election). It is not so much a case of concern over direct bias (which we find in the rantings of certain Holocaust Deniers), but moreover the insidious subtle bias one finds in the mainstream media. The simple use of specific words and phrases, often skipped over but always intended. This can then be quoted (often with some relish I might add) in the likes of Wikipedia as fact, rather than the spin it surely was. Authors and Journalists are in the business of making money, NOT making sure facts are communicated and alternative views given due attention. I like to call this "The Myth of Citation" --Angryjames (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would have addressed this earlier but I have been simply too busy lately. Firstly, I underline the sentiment above that it is fundamental that quotes are handled accurately verbatim and in the correct context. Unfortunately, that's an ability which Irving can't even extend to himself. The quote in question is from a speech Irving made in Ontario in October 1991. Here is the relevant passage:

Ridicule alone isn’t enough, you’ve got to be tasteless about it. You’ve got to say things like more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Now you think that’s tasteless, what about this? I’m forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it’s called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can’t get more tasteless than that, but you’ve got to be tasteless because these people deserve our contempt

In that gas chamber does not serve for Irving's speech as he would state, nor in Karl Pfeifer's article incidentally Meowy, as "in den Gaskammern" is dative plural. Crematorium I in the Auschwitz main camp clearly has nothing remotely to do with the quote's original context (nor does he accurately describe it). In a nutshell, Irving uses an untruth to cover up his untruth. WilliamH (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of Irving's ability to alter his position, lie even, Wikipedia should as you say accurately quote Irving. If he says two differing quotes, quote both. Even point out the difference if necessary and especially state the dates. Irving's position has changed considerably over the years. His views on gas chambers went from complete agreement with mainstream historians, to no gas chambers (except for delicing), to many deaths, to more deaths than even the Polish historians now accept. He can do this, most people do this.

An attempt to make sense of his views would also help, however no one can be cited on this. Even Christopher Hitches, whilst supporting him (somewhat) gives no mention of the reasons why. I have a pretty good understanding of why, as do many individuals moderately interested in this bizarre sub-culture, but since I don't work for The Times or some such organ of the press I have no voice here. I recently set about trying to interview Irving, and possibly garner an incite into this seemingly strange man. I stopped short of doing so when all the furore over the recent documentary An Independent Mind came to light. We are left with a bias for Irving and a bias against him. The interesting analysis is never explored because it wouldn't sell books or newspapers. QED... Wikipedia will only detail bias in this area. --Angryjames (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank's WilliamH for locating the actual quote and using it - though I don't see a substantive difference between it and the one Irving gave in the you-tube clip (in it Irving just stresses the word "that" and uses "people" rather than "women"). Meowy 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, the "that" is key, because Irving is referring to the gas chamber replica the Russians built in '48. Although in the previous quotation Irving is clearly denying the existence of genocide gas chambers at Auschwitz. That is extremely significant, do you not agree? --Angryjames (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the issue in depth, but I was presuming he was referring to some claim that the gas chambers are not actually gas chambers. So maybe some context for the quote needs to be given. The more I look closely at this article, the more serious are the problems I see within it – it may not be much of an overstatement to describe some parts of it as a work of propaganda.

That blatant falsification of the Irving quote has been dealt with, but why did it take a month for it to be done after the error was pointed out? The same false quote and associated text is still being repeated in other articles, such as Rolf Hochhuth. I have just removed another falsification, the claim that Irving had been jailed in Britain "for denying the Holocaust". There also seems to be substantial distortion involved in the content dealing with Rolf Hochhuth, both in this article and in the one about him. The cited source contains none of the phrases this article uses, and the context and subject of the interview is distorted and taken out of context. There seems to be a lack of seriousness about the content of this article and in the responses to those pointing out its errors. The attitude seems to be one of mostly ignore the actual subject but use the article to attack named individuals, and ignore the normal rules of accuracy for those attacks on the grounds that they are all total bastards so whatever we say about them is OK. Meowy 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said Meowy. I've been somewhat disgusted with various articles on Wikipedia which do exactly what you say. But putting this into context, this isn't dissimilar from mainstream media (incl. books and reference works). People demonize those who are deemed enemies of the system, sometimes in quite subtle ways.

I'm a back-seat driver really. I only dip into Wikipedia from time to time. For the most part I'm hugely impressed with the sterling effort being carried out by Wikipedians, heroes all. However there was a rather wonderful Clive Anderson radio show exploring Wikipedia and revealing some of its darker side. They gave accurate examples of known facts that had been distorted by the "reliable" press and hence cited within Wikipedia. Modifications to make the articles accurate were removed in favour of biased press articles, sometimes at the expense of public figures. Scary stuff. Who watches the watchers? --Angryjames (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've corrected the Rolf Hochhuth quote, both here and on the article dedicated to him. I've also removed the Hochhuth/Irving photo inserted into this article. It is off-topic here given that it dates from a period long before Irving published anything that could be considered Holocaust denial. It does have a valid place in the Rolf Hochhuth article because it illustrates their long connection (a connection that is mentioned and explained in that article). Meowy 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Added Pseudo Scientist / Holocaust Denier

Please allow the addition of Bradley Smith to the notable pseudo scientist, pseudo historian and Holocaust Denier section.

Abbas as a denier

All I need is a quote showing that he has personally dedicated to any of the numbers (below 5 mil) he cites, and I will stop removing him from the list. forestPIG^(grunt) 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked his thesis was not available in English. I guess he now finds it an embarassment, but the title is a strong indicator as to the content and various people quote its content. There are a lot of russian speakers in Israel so Israeli information is likely to be accurate.

Telaviv1 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Check the fourth paragraph from the bottom here. Also check the quote on his Wikipedia page, the interview with Haaretz. Finally, according to her blog here, anyone with Lipstadt's book History on Trial might be able to shed more light on this. WilliamH (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Lipstadt is right that the list is very Euro-centric. It probably should include more non-Europeans... I guess Abbas is more of a former denier than a present one. But he is important.

Abbas is 'important' because what? it paints a Palestenian leader as what anti-semitic? Fact is he does not deny the holocaust. He questions whether the facts around it are used for poltical purposes related to Israel - the editing of this article is good example of that. The Iranian leader falls in the same boat but I wouldnt attempt to argue about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.232.135 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes too long

Tried to edit a simple typo and could not find it amid the blizzard of notes.Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me. Maybe those who regularly edit this article know their way around the maze, but for the rest of us it is almost impossible. Meowy 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick request for improvement

This whole article is so heavily tied up that it will never achieve being truly neutral, but one can hope.

While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, or less-biased information, deniers seek evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.

(Do I have to explain why that is... problematic? It's well-sourced, but it claims what is ultimately a value judgement as fact, and is a broad generalization of a group.)

I don't dare change it, lest I be spat upon from both sides of the gallery.

All I ask is that someone who lurks around here takes a look at this and really thinks about it, especially considering the intrinsic value of the words, and tone. 24.205.50.170 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

the "gas chamber" at auschwitz

the gas chamber in question is a reconstruction. there is no trace of gas in the walls, and it was built after the war. no person actually died in it. so the "gas chamber" wasnt actually used to kill anyone. and more people died in Kennedy's car than in that recronstruted building that hasnt been shown to kill anyone. Statesboropow (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire case of what is reconstructions and what is historically incorrect about Auschwitz is much more complicated than what you and your David Irwing quote states here. I am not the type who just blindly accept what I am told anywhere in the field of History, but I do neither have the capability to personally study the entire spectrum of this case well enough to edit the article accordingly, but I would much encourage you to do so. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Article is heavily biased

The entire article needs a revision as it is incredibly biased against Holocaust Denialists, for instance, and this is just one example, "Other acts of genocide have met similar attempts to deny and minimize, most notably the Armenian Genocide and the Pontic Greek Genocide, which is denied by the Turkish Government, but also the Rwanda genocide, Srebrenica massacre, and the Ukrainian famine. " this line implies that the holocaust did infact occur thus redering holocaust denial illigitimate which can not be proven either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.194 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This article takes a strongly POV stance, sufficient to color its credibility as an encyclopedic source. (Writing as one who believes the Nazis deliberately murdered as many Jews as they could get their hands on; but having to take the word of witnesses as to how many people were actually slain in death camps.)

First, who defines what a holocaust denier is? If someone believes the Nazis deliberately killed as many Jews as possible in concentration camps, but that the total number killed in the camps was less than "establishment scholars" estimate, how is that a denial of the Holocaust? According to Wikipedia's Holocaust Article, the death toll estimates are based on census records, not body counts or records from the death camps. Furthermore, according to the source cited in this article, to be labeled as a holocaust denier one must ascribe to all three points, not just one of them

Key elements of Holocaust denial:

• "Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term "Holocaust denial." Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project, July 2, 2004. Retrieved December 18, 2006.</ref>.

Second, this article makes many condemning statements from "consensus", or using misleading statements like "Scholars believe x". There are scholars on all sides of this issue. This article would have far more credibility if it argued from specific scholars by name rather than "scholars" as some imaginary monolith of anonymous truth - as if all literate people automatically agree on this subject.Cadwallader (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Revisions

I took a crack at simplifying and cleaning up this article. There's still a long way to go. There are many statements are that not well supported by the sources, and there was a lot of material which was tangential to the overall article. One of the biggest problems is that the overall structure of the article is that hideous amounts of text are submerged in footnotes. Much is simply redundant -- it is unnecessary to quote verbatim from every source. Also, the extensive source quotes actually obsure the article sources, because they are submerged in the textual quotations. Large amounts of material could be moved to other articles, and for David Irving I did so. There were also a number of statements like "so and so, Holocaust denier, claimed Holocaust did not happen". I changed a lot of those to just "so and so said Holocaust did not happened." I think that sufficient given the overall completely irrefutable prove of the Holocaust.Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not talking about the nazi-KKK photo ... the whole article must be canceled and rewritten, it's so disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetox (talk • contribs) 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of first three sections

I rewrote the first three sections, that is, I left the text intact, joined up a paragraph or two. Mainly I cut out all the quotations from the sources and reworked the citation format so the can be more readily identified by future editors. I also combined a large number of duplicative citations, many of which had duplicate quotations as well. I printed out this article before this edit and it was 30 pages long, far too much of which was consumed by the footnote quotations.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the consensus lede so that it complies with WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Please don't attempt to modify it again without gaining significant consensus on this rather touchy subject. Also,

1. Please don't change the way citations are given, and in particular please don't insert lengthy and unhelpful citation templates.
2. When multiple sources are used to support a point, they are generally combined into one footnote, as this is visually more appealing and makes verification easier. Please don't separate combined citations, unless the specific sources are used individually elsewhere.
3. Never remove quotations from a citation, and in particular not from this article. The quotations serve to verify that the material is supported by the source used.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

you're welcomeMtsmallwood (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your efforts to improve the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored this paragraph: Much of the controversy surrounding the claims of Holocaust deniers centers on the methods used to present arguments that the Holocaust allegedly never happened as commonly accepted. Numerous accounts have been given by Holocaust deniers (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed "facts" and "evidence"; however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, or even deliberately falsified evidence. Opponents of Holocaust denial have compiled detailed accounts of numerous instances where this evidence has been altered or manufactured (see Nizkor Project and David Irving). According to Pierre Vidal-Naquet, the Holocaust denial is an attempt at extermination on the paper which transmits the actual extermination. (Pierre Vidal-Naquet, French une tentative d'extermination sur le papier qui relaie l'extermination réelle in "Les assassins de la mémoire", Un Eichman de papier, Postface de Gisèle Sapiro, Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée, La Découverte, Paris, 2005, ISBN 2-7071-4545-9.). In my view the Pierre Vidal Naquet's citation is very important. And also the words biased statements. Deniers are writing huge books with many actual facts (errors of some witnesses, some things in Auschwitz reconstructed, the Anne Frank's diary published in contradiction wit some drafts and so on), or they use the methods of History and that is "biased statements"... Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed this section because the first three sentences were (a) redundant and (b) unsourced. The fourth sentence, from Pierre Vidal may be important, but the version here, "attempt at extermination on the paper which transmits the actual extermination" is a bad translation from French and incomprehensible in English.Mtsmallwood (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of a large part of Pierre Vidal-Naquet's book is (in French) Un Eichman de papier . That means: Faurisson is the same as Eichman because he says the Holocaust doesn't exist but only in writing the denial. The nazis were denying the Holocaust in making the holocaut. There is a translation of the title in English [15] and it is A Paper Eichman. I am French speaking but this translation seems to me the best. So, the sentence should be translated by something as :Paper extermination [i.e . the Holocaust denial] is the relay of the actual extermination or Paper extermination is the baton of the actual extermination. In French relais means also the relay in sport. Thank you Mtsmallwood. Paul Barlow translated he French sentence but he is perhaps wrong. For me-and someone as René Girard for instance -all violent people are denying they are violent. See you later,sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this the quote from Vidal-Naquet: , « dans notre société de représentation et de spectacle, une tentative d'extermination sur le papier qui relaie l'extermination réelle. »? If so, would translate that as: "In our society of image and spectacle, extermination on paper leads to extermination in reality." Non? Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the quote, as given in the article, is incomprehensible, and that your translation is better. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes OK. Good idea to quote also dans notre société etc." but to lead is stronger than relaie and "may lead would be weaker. "Relaie" is midden the two verbs. Is it possible to say in English (for instance): "extermination on paper is a link to extermination in reality" or extermination is a link (a relay? a thing? a way of doing? an attitude? an act? ) leading to extermination in reality? Relaie has an abstract meaning in French. If all the translations I propose are not right we may temporarily write the translation of Mtsmallwood. Thanks to him. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NO!!!!! THE RIGHT TRANSLATION IS ON THE WEB: On voit peut-être mieux ce que signifie cetteméthode historique: elle dans notre société de représentation et de spectacle, une tentative d'extermination sur le papier qui relaie l'extermination réelle and the translation of the translater in English [16] (the paragraph On the revisionist method at the end of it after point 8) It will perhaps now be better perceived what such a historical method signifies: in our spectacle-oriented society, it is an attempt at extermination on paper that pursues in another register the actual work of extermination. José Fontaine (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Laws against Holocaust denial: not in order to dictate the truth in History

I don't agree with the last change of User:195.43.57.106 (line 101 on 29/1/2009): the laws against Holocaust denial are no laws which dictate the truth in History. These laws are against racism and antisemitism. Because the genocide in itself was also denied by the nazis (from the beginning). It is the opinion, among othermany authors, of Pierre Vidal-Naquet. The Holocaust denial is the genocide in itself and also the denial of all the massacres in the History. I propose to erase the sentences of 195.43.57.106. I know that there are different views about that in EU, in USA (and so on). But the States which are in favour of laws against Holocaust denial are democratic and liberal States and they don't want to dictate the truth but to punish racism (I have only grounds for the decision from Belgian Courts). Holocaust denial is not really an opinion about history but racism. When the nazis were killing the Jews they said that they were killing stucks" (things). You find this way of speaking in all the genocides,for instance in Rwanda : the Tutsis were named in French cancrelats (cockroach). It is possible to have an important section about the differences between the laws in different States. And it is necssary to give the different opinions about that. But the change of 195.43.57.106 is not relevant. José Fontaine (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The laws make no sense, they stand outside of any ideology. Effectively they stand to protect some form of political flag. The phrase "These laws are against racism and antisemitism." is itself racist. Denial of the genocide by the Nazis can be considered political, and certainly denial has a political and rational bent. No democratic process was followed to produce laws on Holocaust Denial, in fact no democratic process was followed before during or after WWII, both by allied or axis states. This is too often used as an excuse for bad behaviour. We bomb Iraq but hey we are a democratic state so that makes it okay, we killed hundreds of thousands of children with sanctions but again we are a democratic state so that's okay. I'm not saying these actions must not be carried out, but I am saying using our current form of faux democracy as a banner for truth is dishonest.

The point about using other words to describe the people you wish to kill makes perfect political sense. If they were looked upon as people the actions would have been far harder to carry out. Same is true with all modern warfare. We demonise those we intend to kill, we mark them as unpeople. --Angryjames (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I spoke about democracy was only the following: some democratic States have laws against the Holocaust denial, other democratic States not. I read Pierre Vidal-Naquet who is against these laws. Perhaps he is right? I don't know. I am only saying these laws are not dictating the truth. I think the laws make sense, as e.g. the laws against the murder. And the Holocaust denial is a kind of murder.Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an advocate of free speech, and I would prefer laws that force someone to prove what they say. However looking at the various cases of David Irving it would appear that the approach is heavy handed at times. Also the definition of denial taken literally means that I am a denier because I would say I do not accept (without proof) ANY government figures which would include The Holocaust as well. For instance the UK government figures for the number killed and/or wounded in Iraq does not tally with several other agencies including The Red Cross. Effectively one has to lie by saying they do accept the figures even though we know they are dubious, in order to avoid being labelled and in some countries jailed. This is barbarism. --Angryjames (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a gentle reminder might be appropriate that this page is intended for discussing changes to the article itself rather than debating semantics. Some off-topic conversation may be inevitable with such a controversial subject, but as far as possible please try to confine discussion to specific suggestions relating to article improvement. A quick read over WP:TALK might be helpful; further off-topic comments may be removed. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course they do not dictate the truth in history, unfortunately they PERPETUATE the lies, otherwise they have nonsense, racism includes antisemitism and all democratic countries have laws to prevent racism. I am so proud of living in a free country where I can deny all those lies. It's so curious to see how zionists lack respect for all non jewish victims of WWII... so sad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetox (talk • contribs) 00:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think Holocast denial is a form of murder - thats like saying communism is a form of democracy, but I do think its viciously antisemitic and slanderous against the whole of the jewish community, as such it also seems like a new "warrant for genocide". So I am ahppy for it to be illegal. I don't thik the right of free speech gives you the right to lie about or to slander people in this way Telaviv1 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Williamson (bishop) - recent lifting of excommunication and reiterating his denial

This is a current issue, happenning at the end of Jan 2009, and seems like this man should be included? --Fremte (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eisenhower section

I added this section because it seemed important to me in the early history of this topic. I also added images of Eisenhower and Congressman Izac inspecting Buchenwald and Ohrdruf, as these relate specifically to Eisenhower's efforts to get the evidence before credible witnesses as quickly as possible. I broke up the opening section into one involving concealment efforts (and Allied refutation) by the perpetrators themselves, and then started a new section with the original start of the history of Holocaust denial following World War II.Mtsmallwood (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

"Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples." That isn't accurate. Nobody or almost nobody into the denyal movement assert that there was a conspiracy but war propaganda (inconsistent statements that shares only public known information doesn't require a conspiracy). When checking references on this quotation one find that everything points out to jewish sponsored projects against denyal or jewish historians so that's not a denyal claim. This sentence should show where this opinion comes from. Please show me a revisionist document about the conspiracy and explain me why many revisionist (i.e. Faurisson) contends that there was no conspiracy.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the article, that phrasing struck me as odd as well. This should be sourced, and probably softened, at the very least to say "Holocaust denial claims often imply..." or some such language. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't either come across conspiracy claims in my study of deniers, yet. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This theory is clearly put forward by the two most prominent French denialists, i.e. Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy. This has been repeated again by Faurisson during the denialist conference that took place in Teheran in December 2006[17]. One would need to make further researches but I guess it would not bee too difficult to find other denialists sharing the same point of view. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me where in that document he talked about the "conspiracy". Faurisson do not support a "jewish conspiracy" to invent the holocaust. I recommend to watch this video.

“ I never said that the jews invented the story of the gass chamber to make money, I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THERE WAS A PLOT OR A CONSPIRACY. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A PLOT OR CONSPIRACY, I do not believe, myself, in plot or conspiracy, because you need people courageous and discretion. You don't have those two qualities among many people. So, I don't believe in that... ”

He don't believe in plot or conspiracy, thus I repeat: where did he talk about "a conspiracy" to invent the Holocaust? I'm not asking about lies but "a conspiracy". Anyways when you find the document that supports the conspiracy please aware Nizkor, cause he was seaching for this document along years.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any material from reliable sources you would like to insert into the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are confused, who need sources is the one who want to include assertions on the article. The "conspiracy" as a denier claim has no reliable (or even not relieve) source, it has no souce of any kind.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be noted that Holocaust Deniers have failed to explain why such a massive fallacy exists. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In the document you linked to above Faurisson says its a massive plot to swindle the Germans and Palestinians. Surely that means he believes its a conspiracy?

Telaviv1 (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "plot" is not present on the document, and the verb swindle does not imply necessarily a conspiracy. In any case, your guess is an opinion, but it's not a "denial claim" as Wikipedia state. I respectfully suggest to amend this sentence.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"a gigantic financial and political swindle" swindle means a fraud, that is a deliberate deception. If its deliberate then whoever has done it is part of a conspiracy and it certainly implies that they have plotted their deception even if it does not say it outright. Put simply its the logical conclusion.

Telaviv1 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A conspiracy implies a plan, to keep a secret, two or more persons working together. If one person cheats 10M Dolar from a bank by means internet, that's "a gigantic financial swindle", or even one person could cheat thousands of people.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As said Faurisson himself, "which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism". what Faurisson says is cristal clear: the State of israel and the international sionism have comploted for politcal and financial reason. The sole difference with the protocols of the Elder of Zion(another complt theory) is Israel that did not exist in the 19th century. You do not need to use the word consipacy for developping such a theory. --Lebob-BE (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Faurisson said that some jews used the Holocaust afterwards. That's different to invent the Holocaust with the idea of make money later. Wikipedia says: "Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples."--85.144.120.49 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Faurisson denies the reality of the holocaust and says that no Jew has been killed in a gas chamber and even that gas chambers did not exist and that this is a hoax invented by the sionists. He has been sentenced several times in France for this. Here is the exact quote of what Faurisson said in Teheran and for which he is again under scrutiny by a French court: "The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety". Faurisson position couldn't be clearer and clearly show he belives in a conspiracy theory. According to him (and by the by to Garaudy as well, the holocaust is a lie spread by comploting sionists. --Lebob-BE (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Focus yourself on the issue that we are discussing here and read the quotation above. In this case it's not necessary you guess whether Faurisson believe in conspiracies or not, since he explicitly says what he believe or not.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

so do you think that all Zionists and/or all Israelis are part of this plot? do you think its linked to the plot described in the protocols?Telaviv1 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that question addressed to me? --Lebob-BE (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

to both of you. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think tht all Zionists and/or all Israelis are part of this plot. In fact I do not even believe there is a plot. There are enough books writen by scholars that clearly show that the holocaust occured. --Lebob-BE (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not a forum. Please let's focus on the issue instead of discuss our personal belief.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Having seen that you managed to post this on another discussion page I think your remark above is completely meaningless. And this closes the discussion. It is widely acknowledge that many holocaust deniers consider that the holocaust has been invented by the sionist as part of a conspiracy. --Lebob-BE (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat over and over again, focus your comment on the issue and avoid personal attacks. Now it's clear that the article must be revised as other users had admitted above. That's my proposal: "Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples." would be replaced for "Holocaust denial claims that the Holocaust was a war propaganda, an historical lie subsequently used by the Jews to advance their interest at the expense of other peoples.". It would improve the article since that's what "holocaust denial" actually claims in its own words. However if you want to include your criticism or misrepresent it, at least don't talk in behalf of the "holocaust denial".--85.144.120.49 (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

IHR cite

I have removed the URL in question regarding the IHR's definition of Holocaust denial because it is redundant to the following paragraph that goes into greater detail, and of course, the IHR's definition boils down to "we deny it because it didn't happen" - clearly at odds with reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)