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 and/or use the search form below, 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 / Biased article

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))

Wikipedia should reflect the sources on holocaust denial, not provide "equal" perspectives for and against the subject. If 90% of sources on holocaust denial express criticism, while 10% regard it positively (for example), then it would in fact be biased to have an article on the subject that proposes 50% either way. Latter Day Fare (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2009 (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)

But in most countries holocaust denial is perfectly legal so there should be plenty of reliable sources questioning the holocaust if it is a substantial theory. Aykantspel (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia. I don't know where to begin with a critique. However the main issues are that the so-called "holocaust deniers" are simply represented as benighted Jew-haters, who routinely falsify records. This is not usually the case. The reality is that the definition of holocaust denier is so wide that it catches just about any researcher on the holocaust, and makes debate or research nearly impossible. The concept of holocaust denial is fundamentally wrong. It is effectively one racial/religious group announcing that the world must accept their religious/historical doctrine, or else.... Imagine a Christian church announcing that the Sermon on the Mount is literal fact, and that any discussion on the subject which doesn't start with that presumption is a criminal offense. Think about it.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot redefine "holocaust denial" for you. Your sermon on the mount example fails, because the sermon on the mount was something that happened 2,000 years ago with no documented evidence of its existence outside religious records. The Holocaust happened less than a century ago and offers a plethora of documentary and photographic evidence of its existence. It's more like the Christian church announcing that gravity goes down. There's no "or else" here as far as I know. Again, I'll reiterate - Wikipedia cannot redefine things for you. If you have specific complaints about this article that can be addressed (i.e "sentence X says Y, I have a reliable source here that says it should say Z") then go for it, if you've got a generalised complaint about the definition of holocaust denial, or your argument goes"Sentence X says Y, there was this guy I was speaking to on Stormfront who heard from a mate of his that some guy in the pub said that..." we can't help you. Ironholds (talk) 07:32, 6 August 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)

Here's a really good book in PDF form U can read for free online by Jurgen Graf, who is also mentioned as a "Denier" in the article. I'd like to see this book added to the article under his name. I have never seen it refuted . . . his arguement seems pretty solid. I also hafta agree, I was stunned by the bias in this article . . . a person who wants to know what "Holocaust Denial" is won't find the answer here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A person who wants to know what Holocaust denial is should read the first sentence in the article:

"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship."

Seems pretty straightforward to me. - Eron^Talk 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also the logistics & forensics of the alleged murder weapon, cremating or disposing of the dead (up to 10,000/day at Auschwitz during the Hungarian evacuation), the necessary amount of fuel to cremate corpses (every crematory manufacturer says how many kilocalories their retort consumes/hour . . . where are the requisitions for this amount of fuel?), the necessary amount of time to cremate a body (is it 20 minutes, as alleged or an hour, which is more realistic), the type of gas allegedly used (Hydrogen Cyanide ZyklonB louse disinfestant at Auschwitz; diesel exhaust at Treblinka), the practicality or possibility of useing louse disinfestant or diesel exhaust (i.e., diesel exhaust does not have toxic amounts of carbon monoxide; some "witnesses" say the Zyklon was "swept out the doors" and dumped through holes in the ceiling), aerial reconnasiance photos, which contradict eyewitness testimony of smoke & flames belching from crematoria chimnies and shows no huge piles of coke necessary for mass cremation above those that died during typhus epidemics or other causes; tortured confessors, malicious and absurd "eyewitnesses" (the reliability of witnesses or confessions and hearsay); the reliability, translation and context of the evidence/documents; demographics (were 6,000,000 killed?), the practicality or possibility of cremating bodies in pits, the lack of evidence that any pits were dug (can't see 'em in the aerial reconnasiance photos) . . . etc. This is what H-denial is. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This article does not exist as a forum for Holocaust deniers to promulgate their lies. It exists to explain what Holocaust denial is, what its proponents claim, and how mainstream historians respond to their claims. It does that. If you are interested in the history of the Holocaust (and the ample, convincing, overwhelmingly accepted evidence for it) I suggest you start by reading Holocaust and going from there. If you are interested in using this talk page to deny the Holocaust - as your reply to me seems to indicate - then I suggest you save your breath. - Eron^Talk 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote does explain what H-denial is (better than the article), what it's proponents claim (which U call "lies") and, the book I cited by Jurgen Graf is a "denier's" response to a mainstream historian, Raul Hilberg. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the VHO, an extremist organization, is not a reliable source. WilliamH (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's Ur POV that it's an "extremist organization," WilliamH. (Aren't Zionists and fundamentalist Christians "extremists" too?) IMO, VHO critically examines the sources mainstream historians, like Hilberg use . . . I have read both Hilberg (the 19-pages & footnotes on the logistics & forensics of the alleged murder weapon and disposal of the dead, entitled, "Killing Center Operations," in his book, "The Destruction of the European Jews") & Graf, as well as many other primary sources (such as the International Military Tribunal documents and science behind asphyxiation by diesel exhaust), Shermer's, Lipstadt's, Evan's, Butz's books (mentioned in the article), etc. and consider myself an expert in H-denial. I'm willing to reference all of my statements to primary sources and to the "denier's" works -- many of which are available on-line in PDF-form for free and should be referenced and linked in the current article, under, "References: By Holocaust deniers". Have U or Eron read any of the denier's books? As it stands, this article, is redundant to the Criticism of Holocaust denial article and doesn't answer the question: What is Holocaust denial? Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship."

This article describes in general terms what Holocaust deniers claim, outlines mainstream historical response, and describes the development of Holocaust denial from WWII to the present.

You seem to be suggesting that this article should detail the specific claims of Holocaust deniers - that it should lay out their case for claiming the Holocaust did not take place. That is not going to happen. The claims of Holocaust deniers do not meet Wikipedia criteria for verifiability and the use of reliable sources. Holocaust denial is academically dishonest and disreputable pseudo-history. Wikipedia should not be used to put forward its thoroughly discredited claims.

As to bias, this article is biased against Holocaust deniers in the same way that the article Earth is biased against the Flat Earth Society - and appropriately so. - Eron^Talk 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"As to bias, this article is biased against Holocaust deniers in the same way that the article Earth is biased against the Flat Earth Society - and appropriately so."

This parallel you draw is just plain illogical. Be this an article on Holocaust, there would be no problem. But, this is not an article on Holocaust, but on the Holocaust Denial. Therefore, it is just biased in its own way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerinci (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the 2004 report by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, the Verfassungsschutzbericht, VHO is indeed an extremist organization.

Incidentally, I did read Butz's book about what he maintains is the hoax of the 20th century, though I must have missed the bit where he explains how the alleged hoaxers and forgers managed to forge the entire workings of the German government for around 4 - 5 years, to quote The Holocaust History Project, who also point the myriad of non-existant individuals one of VHO's closest assosciates Germar Rudolf uses. To say the least, that falls far short of WP:RS, and Wikipedia will not present fringe theories as fact. WilliamH (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Citing a German government document stating that VHO is "extremist" is like stating that the US Government's conclusion that 9/11 was NOT a controlled demolition after the airplanes struck or the Warren Report that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. This discussion is a classic case of how brainwashing, Thought Control & propaganda works! Raquel Baranow (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove the biased introduction from the article. The article should present a neutral discussion of the controversy stating the arguments and counter-arguments and citing appropriate sources. With statements like "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary" is judgemental and not appropriate for a encylopedia. I am changing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.45.129 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The purpose of this article is to explain what Holocaust denial is. It does that. This article is not here to present "arguments and counter-arguments" in favour of whether or not the Holocaust occurred. Holocaust denial is a fringe theory that is rejected by all mainstream historians. It is a referenced and verifiable fact that "the methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary." That is one of the fundamental criticisms of Holocaust denial - that it starts from the premise that the Holocaust did not occur, and then seeks out evidence to support that premise. Evidence that does not support the premise is rejected, ignored, or distorted. It's just bad historical practice. - Eron^Talk 04:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ppl that come to this article wanna know what the H-deniers believe. I did NOT study this with a predetermined conclusion. H-deniers points of view should be presented here and the counter-arguements should be on the Criticism of Holocaust denial page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

People who read this article will learn that "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II... did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship." They will learn that Holocasut deniers believe that the Nazi government did not have a policy of targeting Jews for extermination; that between five and seven million Jews were not systematically killed; and that genocide was not carried out at extermination camps. They will learn this in the first two paragraphs. That is the point of view of Holocaust deniers, and it is presented here.

What you seem to want is an article that uncritically lays out the case for Holocaust denial. That will not happen. See guidelines on dealing with fringe theories for some information as to why. - Eron^Talk 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore the article contains no less than six links to denialist websites. Which is more than enough for any person who wants to know what deniers believe to do so. There is therefore no need to make this article becoming one more platform for denialist garbage. --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"There is therefore no need to make this article becoming one more platform for denialist garbage."

There's just as little need for this article to become a platform for propaganda or an attempt to spread one's own beliefs on others (who are just not interested in one's beliefs, but who came here to learn about what the Holocaust Denial is from the objective and neutural point of view).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerinci (talk • contribs)(UTC)

Where is the evidence in the citation to support the overreaching claim "Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies." Where are the percentages of all scholars worldwide to support this claim? I assume when you say "Scholars" there is at least a 50% consensus. You need to back it up or lose it. When you make this overreaching claim that "Scholars" support this or that it automatically adds officiality to a side of the argument without providing the necessary detail of the consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 March 2009

There are copious references supporting this statement. No reputable historian accepts Holocaust denial as a legitimate form of historical revisionism. - Eron^Talk 05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I can find more than 8 Iranian scholars which disagree. Are they disreputable by default? You need stats if you're going to make such bold controversial claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement that scholars prefer to call Holocaust deniers Holocaust deniers is neither bold nor controversial. I don't need stats to support it. What I need are reliable sources. Which this article has. The statement is supported by the references and it will stay in the article. - Eron^Talk 05:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement does not make it apparent that the citation only supports the 8 authors cited and does not make a broad claim over the proportion of scholars that believe the holocaust story. In the United States the belief of the holocaust is fairly universal, in other parts of the world it is not. You need to either disambiguate that citation, or cite an article with some statistics that support the view that most scholars worldwide support that view. Otherwise the statement, like much of the rest of this article, reads like propaganda -- Yes, it can still be propaganda even if the holocaust deniers are wrong. Please ensure the integrity of Wikipedia instead of preserving the integrity of your own personal bias. Here's a good rule of thumb for determining whether or not the article is propaganda: If I can easily tell what the author believes on a controversial topic it's propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again: reliable sources support the sentence. The references do not just state their own opinion; they speak to the broad consensus of historians. As to bias, I am rather proud of my own personal bias towards the truth. - Eron^Talk 06:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about the truth; It's about presenting the controversy from an unbiased point of view. Apparently you miss that very important fact. Now which one of those sources specifically provides the statistics that supports the consensus statement that you are claiming so I may backcheck the validity of your statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 06:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "controversy". The Holocaust is an accepted historical event. Holocaust denial is a fringe theory with no mainstream support. The references support that statement. Your demand for one particular kind of support is a red herring.

Can I suggest that you follow some of the archive links at the top of the page to review previous discussions on this topic? The "it's not denial, it's revisionism" debate has happened again and again, with the same result. - Eron^Talk 06:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen most of the archives and I can rest assured that none of those valid points were really addressed properly. You said those citations support that statement and I looked and didn't see any to suppor the claim, and then when I ask you to tell me exactly where it is you say it's a "red herring." Good job working the propaganda machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This Eron fellow is a stubborn propagandist that contually reverts valid changes which attempt to make the article appear more neutral. Someone else needs to step in.Malv (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Discuss the content of the article, not the contributors. - Eron^Talk 07:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I did state my gripes and you did not adequately address them. My attempts to make the article more neutral and to make the statements more reflective of their citations were reversed. You sir, are a propagandist and I take issue with that. You've already affirmed your bias and I feel that those small edits designed to neutralize the article are in stark contradiction to your own strongly held personal beliefs and personal biases. Please explain to me why those minor edits were reversed. This is an article that is not neutral one bit, as all the comments on this talk page reflect this observation and such an important article needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts? According to your contribution history, as at this time you have only made one edit to this article, here. I did indeed revert that as it changed a referenced statement to say something other than what the references said. I also reverted these three edits from an IP editor: here, here, and here. These edits also made changes to referenced content. Were those your edits? If they were, I recommend you read policy on sock puppets once you've finished reading up about personal attacks.

I am not here to "adequately address" your "gripes". I am working to make this encyclopedia a good resource with verifiable information from reliable sources. The content I restored meets that standard, and I will restore it again if need be. Continued attempts to change verifiable information from reliable sources may be treated as vandalism.

If you are concerned that this article is biased or that my conduct as an editor is inappropriate, feel free to take it up with one of the many Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms. Perhaps the NPOV noticeboard, or maybe a request for comments. - Eron^Talk 08:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with Wikipedia. Not worth an ounce more of my time trying to wrestle with the idiot propagandists that control these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.45.129 (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally, something productive has been accomplished in this discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a mechanism to review this article as biased, redundant (of the Criticism of Holocaust denial article) & NOT answering the question: What is Holocaust denial?

Should I start a topic 4 conensus: This Article is Bias, Rendundant and Doesn't Answer the Question: "What is Holocaust denial?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of dispute resolution systems available in Wikipedia. For this sort of content dispute, there are a few options you could use. One suggestion is to take it up at a subject-specific WikiProject talk page. This page is within the scope of both WikiProject Jewish history and WikiProject Alternative Views so you could raise it there. Another option is to take it to the Neutrality noticeboard. You could start a request for comments, though that is usually used for editor conduct rather than article issues.

Before you do any of that, I strongly urge you to review the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There are pointers to various of them in the above discussion, but I'll point out the key ones here: Reliable sources, Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Fringe theories. - Eron^Talk 04:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx Eron, I'll think about it . . . I'm kinda new to Wiki, don't know html very well or the Rules & procedures . . . very interesting Talk pages (archive too) . . . I read about half the archive so far. Anyone studying Wiki as a project or process -- to write a book about it -- should study this article . . . it's articles like this that give Wiki a bad name. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As an independent, this article does seem quite political. There is a definite political bias on wikipedia whether the regular editors notice it or not (quite liberal, even if I am one myself - honest!) and how people have said 'we won't use this page to propagate their arguments' it's almost like we are choosing what knowledge / ideas / concepts is acceptable and what it not. Wikipedia need not attach a positive or negative spin to the arguments and can easily refute them in the same sentence if there is the necessary scientific evidence, but all the same if there is a significant number of holocaust deniers then it is notable and as such should be included. Anyway, I expect to be ignored, just as I have been on other pages (I don't edit anymore, because my edits get reverted by people who insist on inserting their bias) for example on another page instead of calling people Germans they were called Nazis. This made the article more sympathetic to Israeli foreign policy. Hope you all have fun resolving this, but I think there are some issues that wikipedia is unable to deal with because the editors lack the required detatchment to just write about the subject. I mean even these days there are wikipedia editors trying to get encyclopaedia dramatica removed from wikipedia for the sole reason of not liking a spoof website! Fundamentally flawed. :( (87.194.144.173 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Just the frequent use of "indisputable," "clearly," "obvious," "claim," etc. shows how biased this article is. In fact, throughout the years I used and adored Wikipedia, I never got so disappointed. I never thought of denying Holocause, but seeing the clear difference between this article and the rest of Wikipedia, I'm really beginning to believe there is something fishy going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.225.30.101 (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to throw my opinion in here on the subject of the article. I looked it up because I read a passing reference on a blog to th subject, and I figured this would be a good place to look to find a concise list of arguments against the holocaust. What I read was a blatant criticism of holocause denial. This article is highly POV, poorly written, and grossly uninformative. There really does need to be a rewrite of the article, and I would agree with the sentiment that if you have a strong opinion on the subject, then you should abstain from editing the article. This is not the place to refute denials of the holocaust. 32.174.21.172 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be pov if it didn't. Wikipedia is, like it or not, an encyclopedia reflecting main stream sources. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As Dougweller states, Wikipedia is a resource designed to reflect the mainstream sources on holocaust denial, not provide "equal" perspectives for and against a subject. If 90% of sources on holocaust denial express criticism, for example, while 10% regard it positively (these are imagined percentages plucked out of thin air), then it would in fact be biased to have an article that places equal emphasis on sources either side of the argument. Latter Day Fare (talk) 12:54, 20 August 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.

New section

I really don't understand the discussion above. Isn't the official Holocaust version actually and undeniable hate speach agains the people accused of committing it, the German people, even the unborn ones? Germans have been blamed as a whole for more than half a Century, and if someone wants to deny this statement, first have in mind that a German person born in 1970, for example, TODAY is forced to pay extra taxes that are for Holocaust reparations.

Nope. The official holocaust version only "accuses" those people responsible for the war crimes themselves, most of whom were put on trial and executed. It does not put any blame on the Germans, and especially not unborn Germans. As pointed out by somebody else below, there are no two sides to the argument of whether the holocaust happened and whether the Nazis committed those terrible crimes, any more than there is a valid and sustainable argument, in the face of overwhelming scientific and historical evidence, that the world is flat. Latter Day Fare (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If WP doesn't allow hate speach, it shouldn't allow to even talk about any war, because a war involves two or more sides killing each other and usually commiting excesses and war crimes. Exposing those actions for sure is hate speach, because it generates hate against one or even both of the sides in a conflict. So really, what the Holocaust issue is about, is if it is correct to generate hate against certain people and not againt other people. What generates more hate: 1) Saying the Germans killed defensless people, even kids, in a horrible manner? 2) Saying the Jewish people invented or exagerated what happened to receive cash reparations and a genocide excuse to claim their right of a State of their own?

The latter is more offensive, given the suffering that many of them faced in the concentration camps and with the loss of their own people in the death camps. Nobody is placing blame on the German people, but historically, factually, several countries cooperated with the Nazis by deporting their Jews during this time. Latter Day Fare (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Censoring, persecuting, harassing and jailing people for talking about Jewish conspiracies, just makes the conspiracy theory stronger. If I deny that Cristians where killed in the Roman Colliseum, no one dares to call me a racist or a lier nor a hate speaker against Cristians. My point of view would start a fair, polite discussion with anyone that doesn't agree. Why then this hysteria when we come to the Holocaust. Jews worth more than other people? (Sorry about my spelling, English is not my mother tongue).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.157.168 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The holocaust was unique in our history and its events must not be repeated. The most respectful point of view is to acknowledge the events of the holocaust and pass them on so that they never happen again. To open up debate with people who deny them with the logic you suggest is nothing short of absurd. Latter Day Fare (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is concerned with collecting knowledge, not with passing judgement. One of its fundamental principles is that of maintaining a neutral point of view, meaning that where there is more than one interpretation of history, Wikipedia reports that multiple opinions exist and attempts to present a balanced survey. Wikipedia doesn't allow hate speech, but it certainly allows the existence of hate speech to be reported, provided that it is notable and verifiable. That answers your first point; I'm afraid that the rest of what you wrote has no direct bearing on improving the content of the article and is more appropriate to a forum elsewhere than to an encylopedia. Regards -- Timberframe (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Timberframe, I am the author of the above text. Sorry I don't agree with the passing judgement statement. There is a discussion, one side say one thing, the other side say another thing. The official side tries to discredit the other side calling them "deniers" and Wikipedia titles the article "Holocuast DENIAL", so WP have already made a judgment an passes it since the title. Even though, the "denial" word in itself says a lot about the issue, since a "denier" is a terms more appropriate for a religion discussion based in faith, than for historical, cientifical fact based study. Are official historians unknowingly telling us that Holocaust must be "believed" just as Jesus resurrection? My name is Gustavo (don't like to be anonymous :-P ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.137.85.200 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no more two equal sides to the Holocaust than there are about the flatness or roundness of the Earth. Everybody has a right to an opinion, but not the right to be taken serious in the face of overwhelming historical evidence. See WP:UNDUE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gustavo! What inferences you read into "denial" depends on your own context as well as the context in which the term was coined. Wikipedia's policy on naming articles favours the use of the term which a would-be reader is most likely to enter into a search field. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorses, say, "Holocaust denial" rather than "opposition to Holocaust history". On the contrary, if Wikipedia were to consider the suitability of the title in terms of who coined it and for what possible reasons, Wikipedia would be entering into the emotional issues instead of reporting on them from a neutral standpoint. The fact is that "Holocaust denial" has entered into the vernacular language as the usual term to descibe the subject and Wikipedia neutrally reports on it. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point the original poster makes; how a Jewish life has become more important than a Gentile life. How the Jewish heterodoxy is absolutely unquestionable. To question this, even slightly, has become ensconced in the psyche as almost being on a par with being a child molester. Just reading what people wrote in the above discussions, it is quite shocking the hatred that spills out of people on this subject. People should be able to discuss, question or deny ANYTHING. Isn't the USA foundered on the Principle of Free Speech ? Nikos Kazantzakis can write Last Temptation of Christ, Salman Rushdie can write Satanic Verses, but an author/scholar/anyone is fucked for all eternity and his family stigmatized if he/she ever even +slightly+ questions the Jewish heterodoxy. Even by using the word 'Jewish' I am going to get labeled anti-semitic. Why ? It's so weird. We should all be able to question and criticize ANY religious heterodoxy without fear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.35.171.73 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 August 2009

Why is Holocaust Denial labeled as part of Antisemitism?

This makes no sense. Holocaust Denial doesn't necessarily mean Antisemitism; it simply means you disagree with the "official" view of the Holocaust. 24.171.52.43 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Documentary Video

I searched the archives and have seen nothing on this mentioned. I think the film, The Alternative Tour of Auschwitz: An Independent Investigation of the Holocaust [14] does a good job of presenting evidence that suggests that the holocaust did not exist, including showing a document that states:

Allied Military Police HQ. Vienna 1.10.1948 MEMO NR: 31/48

The Allied Committiee of inquiry has to date proven that no posion gas was ever used to kill prisoners in the following concentration camps Berger-Belisen, Buchenwald, Dachau Flossenburg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and satellite camps Natzweiler, Neuengamme Niederhagen (Wewelsburg), Ravensbruck, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Theresienstandt.

In all cases where gassings were alleged, it could be proven that torture had been used to extract confessions and witnesses have lied. Any former inmate who, during their debriefing continues to allege that poison gas was used to murder people (in particular Jews), are to be reported to this office and if they insist on lying further, they are to be charged with perjury.

signed Major Miller Commanding Officer Allied Military Police Vienna:

witnessed by Lieutenant Lachout MP

How about including some of these since most of the article seems to be biased against those who say that the holocaust did not exist? Trentc (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is for the discussion of holocaust denial as a phenomenon, not the examination of the validity of denialist claims. Gerald Fredrick Töben has a DPhil and a decade's experience as a secondary school teacher, which doesn't qualify him to be considered a reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "This article is about the history, development, and methods of Holocaust denial." The very first sentences seems to contradict your claim. Inclusion of such thing I have mentioned would fall under all three of the above. Trentc (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom recently came to the conclusion that the scientologist should be banned from Wikipedia. I wonder whether the same decision should not once be taken with respect to the Holocust denialists. By the way you (unreferrenced) citation very convenently forget the death camp of Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Maidanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau where poison gas was used to kill people. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

People shouldn't be banned for their beliefs, and ArbCom didn't ban scientologists - they blocked IP addresses resolving to Scientology buildings, because nothing came out but POV dross. That isn't the same as banning scientologists, and certainly can't be applied here. Ironholds (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am still waiting for the first positive contribution of an Holocaust denialist on Wikipedia. This being said, as far they only post on the talkpages, this is not too disturbing, provided to the discussion pages do not become a forum. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that like saying you are still waiting for someone you completely disagree with to say something you completely agree on? --Kotu Kubin (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe holocaust denial is as much a myth as the holocaust supposedly is to these so-called holocaust deniers? Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC related to this article

For an RfC, that is obviously related to this subject, see: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#RfC: Should Holocaust denial be replaced by Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. -- Rico 03:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

antisemitism?

I'm removing this from the antisemitism section unless someone has a good reason for it being there. Jwh335 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is a good reason for it being there: a multitude of reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a lot more helpful if you would show me. Jwh335 (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I assumed that you had actually checked the sources given - apparently not. They are under citation 7; there are 17 of them. WilliamH (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see how you can conclude that everyone who is a holocaust denier holds antisemitic feelings, from these sources. Jwh335 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• We're not here to conclude that. If reliable sources say XYZ, Wikipedia is entitled to say XYZ. WilliamH (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You're correct. I did not think about that and I was at fault. However, I also assume that this means Wikipedia does not take sides, in regard to conflicting opinions from reliable sources. I've cited the source of a prominent Jewish Holocaust scholar, who would be considered a denier. I believe this creates validity in removing the antisemitism category. Your opinion, please. Jwh335 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I would like to mention that Wikipedia is concluding by putting the category up. Jwh335 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• The Institute for Historical Review is not a reliable source. See also Wikipedia:Weasel words. WilliamH (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Jwh335, Institute for Historial Review leaflets, as you linked to in this edit, are not reliable sources. Also, you can't insert your own arguments and opinions into articles, as you also did in that edit. Which "prominent Jewish Holocaust scholar" are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Raul Hilberg. Jwh335 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Looking at the sources, it doesn't seem like any of them mention that all holocaust deniers are antisemitic. I believe these are also grounds to remove the category. It seems like Wikipedia is concluding something from something else. Jwh335 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)