Talk:Holocaust denial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Important: In order to save editors from repeatedly answering questions which have already been asked, as well saving you the time from asking them, it is strongly recommended that you view the following FAQ section, which contains responses that represent editorial consensus on the following issues which have frequently arisen on the Holocaust denial talk page. In addition, the links given to related archived discussions are not necessarily exhaustive, and it is recommended that you use the search tool as well.

Information.svg To view an item, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Good article Holocaust denial has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

How is this "Racism"?[edit]

Best not to feed the trolls Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The article states:

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

How is denying the holocaust delusion in any way "racism"???73.220.34.167 (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Fred A. Leuchter[edit]

I fixed the broken link for the video documentary: Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. is a 1999 documentary film by Errol Morris about execution technician Fred A. Leuchter. it's currently pending review. The broken link goes to YouTube [14] and the corrected link goes to [15] The Internet Archive. MarianStern (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

requires attention and investigation - I am dead serious[edit]

Holocaust-denial in today's Germany is (even-though a dark figure) extremely high and flares up more and more also amongst younger generations. A reveal-figure of how many Germans join the Holocaust-denial bandwagon would be shockingly high. At least I am shocked because I happen to live in Germany and know how Germans talk outside the mainstream media. On second note, Israel's diplomatic relations with Germany should be reconsidered (but that's not up for debate here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rosenberger (talkcontribs)

What specific changes are you suggesting? Do you have nay articles that discuss Holocaust denial in modern Germany? Epson Salts (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think of changing the article fundamentally, but perhaps mention that the holocaust-denial is going through a renaissance. This phenomenon isn't only in Germany, and with that premise, younger Germans from an uneducated background are more prone to respond from the outside world as it is more appealing to them dealing with rise in unemployment and social difficulties. This is based on my observations in Germany. It is alarming, as history repeats itself because of denial. At the moment I can't offer an unbiased solution, but will try to get a study with some figures. State Departments in Germany do love bureaucracy, so I don't expect a swift answer. I will do my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rosenberger (talkcontribs) 16:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
If you can provide a source that says that holocaust-denial is going through a renaissance, we can add it to the article.Epson Salts (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Perhaps the word renaissance is romanticizing and inappropriate. I was trying the offices today to get some accurate data but they are not interested to talk as they hung up. My apologies for providing this info in form of web data but gives some idea that Germany hasn't learned from its past. I'm shocked.

reference https://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/1021326.freibrief-fuer-holocaust-leugner.html reference http://www.welt.de/regionales/nrw/article157894733/Neuer-Prozess-gegen-87-jaehrige-Holocaust-Leugnerin.html reference http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2016/07/02/eklat-um-afd-mann-gedeon-holocaust-leugner-sollte-offenbar-gutachten-schreiben_n_10786722.html reference (old) http://www.dw.com/de/h%C3%B6chststrafe-f%C3%BCr-holocaust-leugner/a-2352189 reference http://www.dw.com/de/viel-mehr-beschwerden-%C3%BCber-braunes-web/a-19066272 reference (denial and Anti Semitic) http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2016-06/antisemitismus-vorwuerfe-afd-baden-wuerttemberg-fraktion-wolfgang-gedeon

One has to keep in mind that Holocaust Denial is an offense in Germany which will be punished with imprisonment, therefore the voices of such people are loudest when in closed up parties inaccessible to the public. Proving it with statistics from the state departments is hard and one only can assume the reality is, they don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rosenberger (talkcontribs) 23:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC) ]

Unfortunately i don't read German, and don't trust Google translate to do a good enough job. If you can pull out a sentence or two from those sources that you feel should be added to the article, present them here and I'll take a look. Epson Salts (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been active in retrieving stats for the matter of the German FBI (Bundeskriminalamt BKA) which reads

Holocaust Denial is correlating with PMK-Straftaten translated to Politically Motivated Crimes for the following years as

2010 66 crimes, 2011 114 crimes, 2012 54 crimes, 2013 54 crimes, 2014 94 crimes and for 2015 180 crimes.

These crimes relate to Swastikas painted on grave stones, statues, physical attacks against institutions such as throwing stones or Molotov-Cocktails in windows or setting fire, physical abuse of German Jews, hate mail, death threats.

These statistics don't cover Antisemitic incidents though they are closely related, Antisemitic issues are skyrocketing higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rosenberger (talkcontribs) 09:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Don Rosenberger: Sorry, but this is nonsense. I am German and I think your assumption may be a misunderstanding because of the language barrier. First: The statistics quoted above refer to right extremism, meaning idiots who are antisemitic, xenophobic, antisocialist etc. and are committing the above mentioned crimes in context of contemporary life (And who sometimes even celebrate the Holocaust). Second: There are some notorious deniers, like Ursula Haverbeck, who are repeating this rubbish against better knowledge and get a lot of public attention because of the resulting trials. Third: If there is a statistical rise of Holocaust denials, it means that more people reimburse criminal charges, probably because they are more sensitive about right wing tendencies, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there are really more people who think the Holocaust didn't take place.
On the other hand, there a really quite a lot of young people who, in regard to the various genozides in the last decades, especially the atrocities committed by IS, tend to deny the singularity of the Holocaust, like "There are genozides all over the world just now and nobody is trying to stop them, so why are we still talking about a crime that has taken place seventy years ago?", but not the fact itself. By the way, "Neues Deutschland is the newspaper of the party "Die Linke" and not exactly neutral.
For future reference: If you want to get information about criminal statistics, look at the various Landeskriminalamt websites (for example: https://www.polizei.nrw.de/lka/artikel__9255.html). Ringing up and just wanting statistical informations doesn't work. But since you are claiming in your post "...they are not interested to talk as they hung up. My apologies for providing this info in form of web data but gives some idea that Germany hasn't learned from its past. I'm shocked." in hindsight I get the impression that you are not at all interested in the topic but just using it as a pretext to slander Germans. 2003:DF:3BC6:5500:941A:350A:3CDB:57C8 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Holocaust denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism tag[edit]

Although I recognise that holocaust denial can be a symptom of antisemitism, it is not the only cause, and therefore the correlation is inappropriate - as would be linking the subject of chair to the wood article. Not all chairs are wood, and not all wood is used for chairs, similarly not all antisemitism leads to holocaust denial, and not all holocaust denial is a result of antisemitism. They are related subjects, but this does not warrant such a prominent advert. Perhaps the "see also" sections would be a more suitable location. --Rebroad (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that antisemitism is related to Holocaust denial is a good and sufficient reason for including the sidebar. That at least some Holocaust denial might arguably not be the consequence of antisemitism is totally irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not. Otherwise we would have prominent related subjects as side-bars on other subjects. For "related" subjects, the "see also" section is the correct place. Wikipedia is not here to advertise personal agendas. --Rebroad (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Wikipedia does not have a rule that an article cannot have a sidebar on a related topic, and I don't see it adopting one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rebroad: there's a bluelink for this, WP:SIDEBAR, which is a guideline. Let's check the five criteria:
  • Articles relate to the subject? Yes, definitely related.
  • Subject of template mentioned in article? Check.
  • Articles refer to each other? Very much so.
  • Article exists? Yup.
  • Template is useful for navigation? I sure think so.
Seems to pass. As a result, I think the template should remain. VQuakr (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
What he said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is a key element of modern antisemitism, so the sidebar is clearly relevant. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D, how do you know? There is a correlation perhaps, but how do you determine it to be intrinsic? I would argue that someone can be an antisemite without denying the holocaust, and therefore it is not a key element. I am also concerned about the chilling effect this correlation may have to people genuinely wanting to explore how factual the holocaust is without being labelled an antisemite. For example, the antisemite label is often used in this way, for example, for anyone speaking out against the decisions of the state of Israel, so there are certainly examples of this correlation being used to silence debate. For this reason, I strongly advise avoiding this correlation until it is proven to be intrinsic, as you are implying. I'm not yet even sure if it can be proven. --Rebroad (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To give an example, think of a controversial label, e.g. "racist", and then apply this to any situation where race is present, e.g. The OJ Simpson trial, or any case of discernment unrelated to race. This is how to muddy the waters of what is factual in a case and take away attention with rhetoric. --Rebroad (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Rebroad, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia is not a debating site. I think this discussion should perhaps be archived. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a debate to determine how to edit the article. This is what talk pages are for. To quote WP:NOTFORUM would be to argue that no discssions should take place, which is clearly not true as this is what the talk pages are for. Please, stop trying to game the system - this is against policy. --Rebroad (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the reasons I am stating that the antisemitism side-bar should be removed is that it strongly implies that holocaust denial IS antisemitic. It does not imply that it is a related subject, but rather that this subject is a SUBSET of antisemitism. To imply this is both not NPOV, and also is a personal attack on anyone who is a holocaust denier. Both of which are against Wikipedia policy. --Rebroad (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You are in effect encouraging other editors to debate the meaning of anti-semitism and the nature of Holocaust denial with you, under the guise of dicussing how to improve the article. The longer you continue doing that, the more likely that someone will shut down the discussion entirely, and even be justified in doing so. (WP:NPA means that one Wikipedia editor cannot make personal attacks against another; it does not mean that a Wikipedia article cannot call Holocaust denial anti-semitic. How unfortunate that this need even be said). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am inviting people to refine/clarify the meaning of anti-semitism, perhaps, although indirectly since this is not my main intention. My main intent is to improve the article, so I do not know why you use the word "guise" - what is the hidden intend you imagine? --Rebroad (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a subsection in the article that deals directly with this subject: "Holocaust denial and antisemitism." The first sentence of that section states, "Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic." The section contains references to support that view. Also, the FAQ at the top of this Talk page discusses the previously made assertion here that, "Holocaust denial is not necessarily antisemitic." The answer given by the FAQ is that, "there is a preponderance of reliable material stating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic..." If user:Rebroad wants to remove the Sidebar, he will need to adduce sufficient reliably-sourced evidence to overturn the current sourced consensus as presented in the article. Opinions and arguments personally held by user:Rebroad on this topic are not relevant to the content of the article, just as the personal opinions of any Wikipedian on any topic are not germane to articles. Article content is based on reliable sources, not user opinions. DonFB (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DonFB, I have just found the FAQ section in the talk page thanks to someone else pointing it out to me. I can now see that this issue has been raised previously, and that consensus needs to be achieved before the sidebar can be removed. --Rebroad (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rebroad: in your reasoning for wanting to remove the sidebar, you are attempting apply a criterion that you invented to this article. I linked and paraphrased the actual criteria for a sidebar above, and you have since posted in this section repeating your same inapplicable criterion while ignoring the applicable guideline. As it happens, your synthetic criterion is also met in this case, but that is moot. This is not a forum for you to promote your personal definition of antisemitism. VQuakr (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not promoting my "own definition" of antisemitism. I am promoting the dictionary definition, and the definition given by Google [16]. I would encourage other editors to do the same. --Rebroad (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? What does that have to do with the inclusion of the sidebar? VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue beyond denial[edit]

Shouldn't this article also mention those who would justify and/or glorify such an event (for any reason whatsoever)? All forms of genocide denial are linked to genocide justification as well as genocide glorification. It's a serious subject that must be addressed. Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Arguing that the Holocaust was a good thing would be reprehensible, but I don't see that it fits within the scope of this article as defined in the lead. VQuakr (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a subject for another article? Any ideas? Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You could start by reviewing what we have already in existing particles, perhaps pogrom or antisemitism. Coverage could be expanded there, and if warranted a stand-alone article could be split off. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust denial - denial of any pertinent fact around the Holocaust?[edit]

Is it Original research, or, alternatively, an inescapable logic, that any aspect of denial of the Holocaust should be included in 'Holocaust denial?' And indeed, similarly, denial of any key/crucial historical fact around the Holocaust? By the first definition, we would arguably have to include the current world legal system in 'Holocaust denial,' because, to this day, it excludes the extermination of political groups in its definition of 'genocide.' And by the second, we would have to include prizewinning Holocaust scholar Philippe Sands, who has denied the role of the World Jewish Congress in excluding political groups in the legal definition of genocide.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. We try to follow the mainstream of Holocaust historiography, so no, not any aspect will do. El_C 17:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but in 'following the mainstream of Holocaust historiography,' we see the emergence of Holocaust denial, usually as a denial of the historicity of some aspect of the Holocaust (e.g., scale) rather than the whole historical event or series of events. Given that you offer no clear, definitive guidelines as to which specific aspects of the Holocaust must be denied for it to constitute Holocaust denial, if follows that the denial of any aspect of the Holocaust could be so construed, does it not?--188.39.71.98 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it does. It depends on which aspect is contested and how firmly the historiography is about its validity, or its supposed dimensions, etc. Myself, I really would rather deal with specifics than generalized hypothetics. El_C 18:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a definition from the Holocaust Encyclopedia (Laqueur, Walter (2001)) is helpful "Holocaust Denial: Holocaust denial is a phenomenon at whose core lies the rejection of the historical fact that close to 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis during World War II. Alongside explicit repudiation of the Holocaust, denial includes the minimization, banalization, and relativization of the relevant facts and events, in order to cast doubt on the uniqueness or authenticity of what happened during the Shoah"p. 293. Professor Richard Evans gives a minimum number of beliefs to identify a denier with respect to the Irving trial (Evans 2002) p. 110 Joel Mc (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It would have been helpful had it not become apparent that Holocaust denial is not necessarily a purely antisemitic phenomenon; that it can apply to non-Jewish groups; and that distinguished Holocaust scholars and Jewish organisations are among the offenders.--81.174.135.199 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)