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.
To view an item, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
1: Holocaust denial is not necessarily antisemitic.
Response: One item that has been raised here several times is the contention that Holocaust denial is not inherently antisemitic, and/or that Wikipedia should not conclude that everyone who is a Holocaust denier harbours antisemitic feelings.
Wikipedia is not here to conclude that, and its editors' opinion on the matter - whatever those opinions are and regardless of who they belong to - are irrelevant. Wikipedia is here to present what reliable sources say. In this case, there is a preponderance of reliable material stating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic, therefore, this is why the article notes that Holocaust denial is considered to be antisemitic, and why the antisemitism template is legitimately included.
Response: Yes, they do. As is already stated in the article, according to the oldest and largest American association of historians and history teachers, "no serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place", and that Holocaust denial is a form of "academic fraud". Wikipedia must avoid using vague or unspecific terms, and words which do not accuractely reflect what reliable sources say.
Response: One issue relates to the death toll plaque at Auschwitz, which was amended following the collapse of the Soviet Union to read 1.5 million Jewish deaths, instead of 4 million victims of no specified ethnicity or background.
The Soviet authorities estimated the death toll not via historical methodology, but by working out how many people could have been cremated during the entire existence of the camp, taking 20% off to account for crematoria down-time, and using that number: around 4 million. They did not, for example, examine how many people were sent to the camp versus how many did not return, but used the 4 million variant to purposely overstate non-Jewish deaths, and diminish the fact that 90% of those that disappeared following their deportation to Auschwitz were Jewish. Once the Iron Curtain fell, communist pressure to keep the original Soviet estimate ceased and the more accurate estimate replaced it.
In any event, reputable historians did not use the 4 million figure in their calculations of the overall number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Rather, they used numbers of 1 to 1.5 million, figures which are still used today.
Related archived discussion/items: , ,  and the appropriate section in the Auschwitz article.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
I edited the section which begins with "Holocaust deniers differ from established fact.." because that is not neutral language. That asserts a dogma more than it assumes a history, which the study of the Holocaust certainly is. Holocaust revisionism (which is a more accurate and less perjorative term than denialism) has objections which have never been sufficiently attended to by mainstream proponents of the Holocaust story. The rest of my edits were clarifiers and one attempt to find more neutral language for otherwise perjorative terms. I'm not going to comb through the rest of the nonsense that has been written here, in the sense that there is loaded language and disengenuous phrasing in spades here, but I would prefer that the edits that I did make stand. Holocaust story proponents should not also "own" the "denial" page. That reeks of an attempt at whitewashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostc (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Could you point to sources that back up your claims, please? We're citing Mathis, Shermer & Grobman, Vashem, the anti-defamation league and jpr, according to the inline refs for that sentence. We have a lot more throughout the article. — Jess· Δ♥ 05:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this is worth my time actually. You don't sound like someone who understands what the difference between neutral and perjorative language is. I would just like to make my objection to the content and the tone of this article known. It is poorly researched, written, and provides little to no explanatory power for why Holocaust revisionism exists. Anything I write will be reverted by fools, it's not worth it.
Since discussion of Holocaust Revisionism is banned on this page, it is impossible to establish validity for any sources I put forth. It is impossible to challenge the opinions of fools here. That's my more important objection. Good luck with whatever you think you're accomplishing here. Gnostc
Yes, it's sadly impossible to establish validity for the sources you put forth if you don't put forth any sources. Bishonen | talk 07:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC).
What are you asking me to source? That "established fact" is not an accurate statement, and that my revision was more neutral, since it attempted to paint revisionism as valid (on its own wiki page no less), while simultaneously not denigrating the other side? I didn't make some specific claim and then failed to source it. My complaint is that the entire tone of the article is biased and disingenuous while pretending to be neutral. It's like you don't even know what you're saying when you say it. Here's some links though. I expect them to be removed. Don't complain about the irrelevance of the information since you don't even know what you want sourced in the first place. My complaint was a matter of language and bias, not information.
www.nazigassings.com - a significant source of revisionist information, but not the only one.
Those links cover all of the claims purported in the criticism section to be unfounded. I just want to change the language of the article, not necessarily to add these sites as sources at this point in time. Gnostc (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Those are not reliable sources for our purposes. You should read WP:WEIGHT. We are obligated to present ideas with respect to their prominence in reliable sources. The relevant academic community is what matters, and nazigassings.com and blogspot cannot demonstrate anything about the mainstream academic view, so they cannot influence the weight given to Holocaust denial on wikipedia. — Jess· Δ♥ 08:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok then this entire article is unreliable, and will be so until mainstream academia stops giving credence to sensational propaganda. Mainstream academia cannot be trusted with an issue as political as the Holocaust for now. I should be surprised that the editors here haven't realized this, but I'm not. And editors here don't accept the IHR or David Irving or any other source that has an ounce of credibility and originality if they so much as disagree with them on the issue. You aren't impressing me, because I know how much the revisionists have behind them, and how unable the other side is to address their material arguments (about historical events, no one can lay claim to an event). And no one here seems to understand how important propaganda (particularly concerning wartime atrocities) has to do with what we know and don't know about the Holocaust. I could go on, but I know I am falling on deaf ears. I just wanted to say this to anyone actually concerned with finding out what they can of what happened, and they find this article and wonder why it is so terrible. The reason is because many are fooled by propaganda and by the power behind media to tell them what to think and what to feel. Think (and feel) for yourself, if you can. Gnostc (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sure, everyone but the racists and other Holocaust deniers are wrong. You might be happier at Metapedia. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that Gnostc might be right, this article seems biased. More than a "Holocauts denial" article it looks like an "Holocaust denial denial", and most of the article seems to consist in claims against the Holocaust denial, which should be listed in the "Criticism" section. As an example, we've got the "Examination of claims": A list of the principals claims, that's it. Oh, and then a list of why it is considered wrong, with an explanation of every reason. Shouldn't the claims of Holocaust deniers be explained as well? I'd bet something that they have a theory answering the fifth criticism (if six million Jews were not killed, what happened to them?) which would be interesting to know: Where's the counterargument backed on, sources, which consensus has been reached...
We shouldn't be supporting all that criticism with a biased language (nor should we support the denial). Neutrality goes first; and until proven otherwise, when it comes to write any article in wikipedia, both opinions should be deemed as "wrong". Six billion died? It's a lie. No one died? It's a lie, too. Everybody died? The nazis were jews genociding aryans? Aliens built the pyramids? All lies. The only thing that matters it what are these lies based on.220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, sources? All the sources we have point one direction. — Jess· Δ♥ 23:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
"All the sources we have point one direction." Including the original sources from the Wehrmacht. The consensous of academia is that The Holocaust happened and that denialism is racist axe-grinding. Until such time as there are reliable sources change this article should treat the subject as racist carping from pseudo-historical hacks, because that IS the neutral point of view.--Adam in MOTalk 14:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Gnostc, There is no controversy here. Holocaust deniers/revisionists are a fringe group, and their opinions mean next to nothing considering the incredible amount of evidence there is about the Holocaust. There are no reputable sceptics of the Holocaust, and one does not balance or neutralize historical fact with lies. Maybe the Nizkor Project's Responses to the IHR page would answer some of your questions. -Yambaram (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Nick-D: Undid revision 596264469 by JankoNilovic (talk) Holocaust denial is the standard term used by academics, historians, judges, journalists etc. Presenting it as abusive is POV: pls discuss.
Well, sure it is a standard term. However, that does not hinder it still being an insult. Words like criminal or pedophile are also standard terms used by academics, historians, judges, journalists etc. and nevertheless derogatory. Someone labeled with one of those words is branded as a social outcast. JankoNilovic (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Holocaust denier is the standard term which is applied by dispassionate experts and writers, and presenting it as an insult rather than as its current usage as you propose is silly. We don't need to give much weight to the views of a handful of people who regard the term as being an attack on themselves given the frequency and nature of this usage, and their preferred terminology is noted in Holocaust denial#Terminology and etymology anyway. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Dispassionate experts and writers also use the term "criminal" or "pedophile" etc. All these terms still remain to be insults. To pretend otherwise is rather silly. Additionally, there is no clear distinction between "deniers" and "non-deniers". Anyone writing about the subject could be called "Holocaust denier" by anyone else writing about that subject. There is no clear black-white but a rather big grey area. For instance, previously it was universally accepted that e.g. Bergen-Belsen or Buchenwald had a homicidal gas chamber while nowadays it is universally accepted that they did not have that. Same with the issue of "soap from Jewish fat" - today universally regarded as false. In earlier decades someone disputing those statements would have been labeled Holocaust denier while today this is regarded as scholarly opinion. JankoNilovic (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This depends on the context where the term is used. If I call you "pedophile" and I have nothing to back it up this will clearly be an insult. On the contrary, if I say Marc Dutroux is a pedophile it is merely a fact. Maybe Marc Dutroux might feel insulted if I call him pedophile but this will not change in itself the fact that he is actually a pedophile. By the way the issue about the "soap from Jewish fat" has always be considered with much reluctance by the holocaust scholars although quite widely spread by the media. --Lebob (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I would rather say those terms are always an insult regardless if applied correctly or not. Consider for instance that Norman Finkelstein has been called a holocaust denier, sometimes with the attribute "soft" before Holocaust denier. JankoNilovic (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)