Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 10

Biased
The point of view in this article is very strong. It makes many more references to deniers of "Holocaust Denial". Is that appropriate? Shouldn't it stress the P.O.V. of the people it's about? It's entirely based in Western beliefs, and fails to reverently address the concerns of the Muslim world over the Holocaust Propaganda. To say that it didn't happen isn't the full view. Most muslims are aware Jews died, as a minority along side the much larger number of battlefield casualties. Many muslims were victims of WWII as well. Another aspect missing from this article, and the primary focus of "revisionists" is indeed the propoganda and hypocracy in the occupied state of Palestine. Are Jews still the victims of the Holocaust? I think the current victims are the Palestinians. I would love to see a fair article. There is enough jewish propoganda throughout Wikipedia.--67.160.239.65 (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I also found this article did not exactly follow a neutral POV, though I understand this is a very sensitive subject, and there are vastly different viewpoints which can clash and cause problems, to the point where it truly tests the community to produce a quality article. Immediately when the page loads, the reader sees an antisemitism bar on the right. Is it conceivable for someone to deny the holocaust without being labeled antisemitic? Are there people that might take offense to being labeled by wikipedia "antisemitic" because they deny the holocaust? I know this might be a poor example, but if I denied that Christ was crucified, does that make me anti-Christian (in the sense that I have prejudice or hostility toward believers of Christ)? Perhaps the article should establish that 'to deny the holocaust is to be antisemitic'. Otherwise, to make that implication just seems a bit prejudicial- from a neutral POV. 68.79.97.96 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The article, in defining a Holocaust denier, includes in its definition: carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers. Does this mean, that anyone who makes any reference to Jews being murdered in their own homes, in the streets, or just being shot while trying to escape, are Holocaust Deniers?

And do we retain the freedom to question details of the murders of Gypsies, Homosexuals, the disabled, political prisoners and such without fear of having the label of Holocaust Denier painted to our front doors in yellow letters? Surfingus 21:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is an example of violating WP:NPOV in order to push a political agenda. Holocaust revisionism may seem like denial to some, and it may be cited by anti-semites, but it is exactly revisionism: the critical reexamination of historical facts. One cannot help it if their opinion is shared by idiots and bigots. The consensus on the holocaust has changed many times over the years, but it seems that some have tried to protect it from further criticisms by any means necessary. Clearsight (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very, very good article. It's one of the most comprehensive and detailed I've seen on Wikipedia. To ameliorate some of the concerns below (many of which, admittedly, are themselves biased) I suggest adding to the section stating the main claims of holocaust deniers. Specifically, put forth some of the arguments set out by deniers and cite to them, as opposed to just stating the main claims. Such an analysis would counterbalance the thorough section below it arguing against the theories. While the arguments of holocaust deniers have many flaws, they are out there and should be put in the article. 24.40.205.247 01:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is way too biased to a pro-Zionist POV. I am not a troll &mdash; don't call me that, but I, and any fool could tell this is a POV article. I as a Holocaust revisionist think that this article states clearly that the term "Holocaust revisionism" is an anti-Semitic term. It is not. This article is so in bed with Zionist lies. It needs to be desperately reworked. Idaltonrand talk  21:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can help to make this article little bit better, undoing revertions of my edits. I am trying to remove POV from here. But, of course while such guys like Jpgordon are admins here, there is little hope:)--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which Zionist lies would these be? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is my dear friend Ionas68224 who is currently blocked for disrupting an RFC of which I am a subject. As such, let's leave this be, as his ideas have been skewed by the minds of the Wikipedia Review— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is waaaay too biased. For starters, trying to blanket label holocaust revisionists as "anti-semites"


 * Can't they just show some of the "evidence" holocaust deniers use? I'm kinda curious as to what it it.  And I'm sure the Zionist overlords who are watching this article would agree that since it's untrue most people would be able to read it without turning into Nazis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.63.202 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to the references section and/or the external links section. There is plenty of the crap just one click away. --Stephan Schulz 02:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 2 anonimous user I think, your irony is absolutely justified. As for me, that I, like supporter of Revisionist ideas can consider this article as propagating revisionism, because it is so biased against Revisionists, that nobody can take it seriously. And, this way it plays in favor of the Revisionism. But Wikipedia is not good place for such a propaganda, IMHO.
 * 2 Stefan Schultz If somebody asked you about the crap (like those of Lipstadt and Nizkor site)? This article indeed is filled with such a crap, but question was about the "evidence" holocaust deniers use. Right?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Igor. I just removed a libelous statement, "Scholars tend to think that Holocaust denial is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory". Wikipedia is unbiased. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that fit the definition of libel on the scholars' part, and by WIkipedia citing these people with obvious bias, wikipedia is spreading libel? I am a Revisionist (who believes that Zionists are spreading propaganda and trying to get sympathy for their people [and an excuse for killing innocents] by raising the numbers of who died), I certainly have nothing against Jews, only against Zionists spreading lies and hate. Sure, Holocaust denial may be a little wacky, but imposing your point of view in a real encyclopedia is just wrong. And this is more serious than some "rules and guidelines", this requires lawsuits.  Wo rld Arac hn y  06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you retract that legal threat; such things are not taken lightly here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you seeing it from Igor's point of view? It is considered livel. Is that libel?, that is the question. Or is jpgordon just lying? Wo rld Ar ac hn y  06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not getting it, are you? I suggest that you read WP:LEGAL immediately and then retract the legal threat post-haste.  You can talk all you want about libel but if you even hint at the possibility of a lawsuit, you will be blocked indefinitely until the threat is retracted.  You have been warned multiple times.  The leniency that has been granted you is running out.  Retract now or be blocked.  --Richard 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And, while we're at it, let me point out how silly your threat of a lawsuit is. Unless you are one of the authors in question, you are unlikely to have any legal standing for a libel lawsuit.  So, you're just blowing hot air which is one of the reasons for the policy against legal threats.  Retract now.  You don't have a leg to stand on.  --Richard 06:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The elements of libel are 1) proof that the statements were false (not likely here); and 2) that you suffered damage to your reputation as a result (you didn't). 24.40.205.247 01:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, mediation cabal? Please?  Wo rld Ar ac hn y  23:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While it's possible that a member of the mediation cabal may be watching this page, it is by no means certain. You are welcome to ask for help from the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee after you have retracted the threat of a lawsuit and been unblocked.


 * Please note... we're not saying you're wrong. That's a different discussion.  We're saying you can't threaten a lawsuit and continue editing here.  Consult WP:LEGAL for confirmation of this policy.
 * --Richard 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that the article was fair, (not taking a position, but expressing the general consensus of Holocaust Denial amongst scholars) yet I take issue with the list of Holocaust Deniers at the end of the page. In my opinion, it is absurd to even question the official story, but if one entertains (though does not adopt) Holocaust denial, it is probably not acccurate to call them a denier. Accordingly, I removed David Duke from the notable deniers list.

68.190.155.177 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How is anyone here threatening a lawsuit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.63.202 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: World Arachny has been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * David Duke should be on the list. Our artilce describes him as a "Holocaust denier" and he's called that in at least one source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what articles say, Duke himself has stated he takes "no official opinion," on the Holocaust and merely favors an "open discussion," on the matter. In my opinion, this is merely wrapping his Holocaust Denial in innocuous robes, but it would be biased to label him a denier merely for supporting the "free speech," of deniers. 68.190.155.177 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article seems very skewed. It confuses the positions of revisionism and denial in the first sentence. Denialists claim that NO genocide occured. Yes, most would accept that many jews died due to several causes, but their overarching theme seems to be that no mass genocide took place. This would be a simple correction. 69.73.114.56 (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to some groups that are "denialist" versus groups that are "revisionist"? Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the problem. "Holocaust denial" is a fictional concept. While some may attempt to claim that no concept is more or less fictional than another, I offer this example: 'Keyboard monkey pooper appreciationism' is a fictional concept VS 'environmentalism', which has a supporting base. A fictional concept in this sense is one that has no basis of support in reality.


 * Yet this wikipeda article takes a fictional concept and paints it onto a different idea in an attempt to discredit it through any means possible. Infact this fictional concept is presented as the MAIN topic of this article, with the idea ACTUALLY SUPPORTED by thinking people a side note(and in this article its claims are not only marred by association with a rediculous idea, but actually confused with this fictional idea).




 * There is a group of people who believe that there might be life on some other planet in the universe. They refer to this idea as the concept of "Extraterrestrial life". Some people think this idea is rediculous. In the wiki article, these people decide to direct "Extraterrestrial life" to "Alien abduction" and in the first paragraph confuse the idea that other life might exist somewhere in the universe to the idea that Aliens regularly visit the planet and engage in rectal probing of humans.


 * Perhaps they are even more bold and redirect "Extraterrestrial life" to "Consensus Reality Denial". Sure, many people may see a connection between the two, but I assure you there is a difference.


 * Also, there is a reason "Green people" redirects to "Extraterrestrial life" and not the other way arround. The idea that there are green people flying around in spacecraft is a subset of the idea of Extraterrestrial Life, just as "Holocaust denial" (if the idea does in fact have any support at all), would be a subset of the broader scope of "Holocaust revisionism" (hence revisionism as the main article title).


 * Please read and consider this carefully before offering a response. You have to see where I'm coming from...

69.73.114.56 (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the least bit fictional about someone who denies that the Holocaust took place. Real people have made such denials in both public and private forums. These people are not a fictional concept and to insist that they are is a form of trolling. Please stop.

Danny W. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I refer you to the second half of my argument, beginning with


 * "Even if you argue that 'Holocaust Denial' is not a fictional concept in the sense I have described, the whole situation is equivalent to the following scenario:" (Which I have layed out above in the references to Extraterrestrial life)


 * You don't even read the whole argument and you're already calling me a troll? Great job. The first part of the argument was dedicated to Jayjg's claim that since you cannot find a group claiming support of the term "Holocaust Denial" it must be the same thing as "Holocaust Revisionism", which actually has support. Your flaw is in forgeting that the "Holocaust Denial" meme is perpetuated only by opponents of revisionism (straw man), and otherwise has no real support.


 * I argue that "Holocaust Denial" is at most a strange, extremist subset of "Holocaust revisionism", and has no backing by any significant group. The whole idea of "Holocaust Denial" is in fact a straw man, used to discredit any potential revision of the Holocaust story.


 * "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."


 * Care to explain how the argument you present is anything more than a strawman Jayjg? 69.73.114.56 (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial is the denial of the fact that the Holocaust took place. It is not a straw man or comparable to alien visitation, If you are looking to get blocked from editing you may have to wait for a while, Most of us are quite tolerant of those who deny the Holocaust and or defend the deniers or the revisionists. We want to be positive that we are not silencing a reasonable human being. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

who is that "nazis"??? you must write "germans" ... -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.178.70 (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that there were tons and tons of discussions about POV here. Although I am a writer in certain business articles, I am only a curious reader in this one. This article feels to me (= one of the intended audiences) not neutral at all. I feel like reading a very well documented legal opinion, in which one side hired the best available lawyer and the other did not. The tone is very tense, and unfortunately did not contribute to my knowledge. I really feel like I am reading one of the sides only! Rodrigoleite (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the tone of this article either. The very first sentence, "Holocaust denial is the claim that...," (rather than "Holocaust denial is the belief that..." is indicative of a biased author. The ((Holocaust)) article does not describe the so-called genocide of jews as a "claim" made by jews. TroubleWithin (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The term that we use for ourselves are Revisionists. That should be upheld. Otherwise, I suggest moving the article Native Americans to Indians (American). I am honestly appalled to see this type of Jewish manipulation in Wikipedia. It is supposed to be a free encyclopedia that has all of the facts, not just politically correct opinions. We NEED a vote on this now, otherwise, I plan to change all instances of "Holocaust denial" to "Holocaust revision" and "deniers" to "revisionists". Wikipedia encourages us to be bold about editing and moving, and I plan to. Billy Bishop (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographics
I keep reading about comparisons between pre-war and post-war census data which supposedly proves that approximately 6 million Jews were killed, but the truth is the article/s don't state what Europe's Jewish population was prior to WWII. The reason I am asking is this: I've has the chance of reading some old NYT articles, from before WWII (like from the late 1930s,etc) which always mention some sort of perilious situation that same number of people find themselves in. Not wanting to be biased, we could assume 6 million was the number of Jews in the area, in Central Europe. That can't be right because there are still survivors today. Even if the writers saying 6 million lives were at stake meant the whole population, the Nazis would have killed all Jews in Europe, which didn't happen. So, why does the 6 million figure show up a decade before WWII? -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC) I was referring to “Nazi Publicity Here Held Smoke Screen”, New York Times, June 25, 1940, which says that "Six million Jews in Europe are doomed to destruction, if the victory of Nazis should be final". I had one or two more from that time period, but I couldn't find them.
 * We'd have to see your exact sources to really answer this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In particular, it is unlikely that the NYT in the 30s would include Polish, Russian, Norwegian, and Romanian Jews it its count. --Stephan Schulz 11:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, looking up the archives I found "JEWS INDIFFERENCE TO WAR AID REBUKED" from Jan. 14, 1915, which states that "there are about 13,000,000 Jews, of whom more than 6,000,000 are in the heart of the war zone".

Maybe it's an incorrect assumption, but why is this same number popping up everywhere?

Furthermore, how many Jews were there in the World in 1915, then 1920 and finally before WWII? Deniers or Revisionists or whatever you want to call them state that the World Almanac of 1920 states that there are 10 million Jews in Europe. Is this true? And what was the number of people in the "war zone"? Because the article talks about Russia and Poland, so I can't easily accept the facts would fit such a 'dramatic', to say the least, appeal. -- Ishikawa Minoru 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As our article states, there were about 8-10 million Jews in the areas under Nazi control. June 1940 would be after the start of WW2, with half of Poland already occupied, France about to fall, but the German-Soviet war more than a year off. Looking at The War Against the Jews, I see about 4.5-5 million Jews in countries at least partially occupied by the Axis in June 1940, and about 3 million more in the Soviet union and the Baltic states. There are also about half a million in allied countries in Europe. So depending on what you consider "final victory", you can come up with a large number of plausible numbers. Of course, this also depends on which definition of "Jew" you use. For the Nazis, one Jewish grandparent made you a half Jew, and two made you a Jew (not great at arithmetic they were, Yoda declared), while the traditional Jewish definition requires a Jewish mother. So again, there is plenty of wiggle room. --Stephan Schulz 17:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what do you make of this? How could he be so sure of the 6 million figure? -- Ishikawa Minoru 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the NYT author? We don't know how sure he was - we only have a headline. We would need to see the full article (and even then probably could not reconstruct his sources). But there are only so many round millions, so simple coincidence is an adequate (if unsatisfactory) explanation. --Stephan Schulz 17:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can purchase the articles online. They're not very expensive. One annoying thing about said purchases is the fact, in recent times, you seem to have to wait a lenghty period of time before actually being able to read/download the full article... -- Ishikawa Minoru 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No strong desire (and transatlantic payments may be more complex, anyways). It's an open question I can well live with.--Stephan Schulz 20:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the Wannsee protocol data. That estimates number of the Jews in the Europe as 11 millions. But This number includes 5 millions of Jews in Soviet Union only, and all Jews in non-occupied european countries (like England, Ireland, and so on)--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC) http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm
 * So there were about 11 millions of Jews in Europe, about 2-3 in America in 1942 and about 800,000 in Arab world (1948 year data,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands). Now there are about 13 millions of Jews in the world(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew). There was assimilation also. For this reason, Jewish losses during the Holocaust hardly seem to be more then 2-3 millions. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Talking about reliable sources.... First, the definition of "Jew" in the various sources is almost certain to differ. Secondly,  your "there was assimilation also" statement is rather unclear and completely unquantified. And thirdly, we are now 2-3 generations after the Holocaust. People have babies, you know. However, I think I'm with Squiddy now. --Stephan Schulz 08:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That sources talk about the same - about ethnic Jews. Surely, people have babies. But many people died also (from old age). I have no data about Jewish population growth rate, but I don't think it is extremely high. According to CIA Factbook, Israeli population growth rate was 1.154% (estimated for 2007), and mainly because of high arab fertility rate. So time didn't changed this number greatly. I think I'm with Squiddy now. I think, you were with him from the beginning. So what?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is: The worldwide Jewish population is 13.3 million Jews. Jewish population growth worldwide is close to zero percent. From 2000 to 2001 it rose 0.3%.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 13:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, link was dead:). I've fixed it. There are also interesting data about assimilation.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, basically, you accept the data in that article: In 1939, there were 17 million Jews in the world, and by 1945 only 11 million. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather say, there were about 14-15 in 1942 and about 12 in 1945 (population growth, pointed in the article for first years after war seems too high). I don't think that there were significant Jewish losses before 1942. "Final Solution" was made only in 1942.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you accept their statistics when they agree with your position (current population, recent population growth) and reject them when they disagree (pre-war population, immediate post-war population growth). It is almost as though you are selectively interpreting data to reach a predetermined conclusion. - Eron Talk 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I pointed that page only to illustrate my sentenses about low Jewish population growth rate and assimilation. Sure, I don't accept everything they say as holy truth, withn't any criticism. Would I, that would be predetermined conclusion indeed. Pre-war population is not so important matter, the war begun in 1939, "The Final Solution" program have started only in 1942. They don't say anything about population in 1942. Even if accept their number of 11 millions in 1945, we can't get more then 4 millions. But this number (11) is not accepted by everybody as correct.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Even if accept their number of 11 millions in 1945, we can't get more then 4 millions." Not true. The article provides population data for 1939 - 17 million - and for 1945 - 11 million. The difference between those two figures is more than 4 million. Q.E.D.. The population in 1942 is a red herring - unless you are suggesting that the global Jewish population dropped by two to three million, in the three years from 1939 to 1942, for reasons that had nothing to do with the Holocaust. You cannot pull numbers from that article to support your position, and then reject numbers from the same article when they are used to oppose it. It isn't reasonable - or intellectually honest - to select only the data that support your conclusion. - Eron Talk 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My data about 1942 weren't correct. USA Jewish population was 4,8, not 2-3. So there were approximately 16,8 millions of Jews in 1942. So an argument about 15-11=4 is no longer valid. But I never said that I accepted the number of 11 millions in 1945. There are different opinions at this matter. You cannot pull numbers from that article to support your position, and then reject numbers from the same article when they are used to oppose it. It isn't reasonable - or intellectually honest - to select only the data that support your conclusion. There are different articles on that site. I never "pulled" data from the article about 17 in 1939 and 11 in 1945, but from articles about birth rate and assimilation, so you are mistaken. It would be strange at least to expect that somebody will search for data opposing position he defends to advocate one's position.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 21:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You linked to a single article, this one. Both your quoted current population and population growth figures, and the figures of 17 million in 1939 and 11 million in 1945, can be found in that one article. As to the differing opinions, denier web sites like the one you link to from the Institute for Historical Review are not reliable sources. I'd also note that it isn't strange in the least for someone to search for data opposing a position they held, if they are interested in learning the truth. A foundation of the scientific method is the attempt to disprove one's own hypotheses. - Eron Talk 21:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You know exelletly that I didn't quoted that data about 1939 and 1945, but Jpgordon did. You know also what did I quoted. A foundation of the scientific method is the attempt to disprove one's own hypotheses No, I believe I already have enough information to judge, who is speaking truth and who is not. I already heared the argumens defending official history version, which tried to disprove HR/HD ones. I compared them with those of the HR/HD. My opinion now is that HR/HD are right. And I am on their side now. So why don'n you disprove the number of 11 millions in 1945? Link I pointed does exactly that. denier web sites like the one you link to from the Institute for Historical Review are not reliable sources. I don't see, what is unreliable there. If you have nothing to answer to that link claims, just say that. An article about IHR also don't seems good enough to me. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Squiddy, but this is too rich to let it sit. "I believe I already have enough information to judge, who is speaking truth and who is not." - are we still talking about predetermined conclusions? --Stephan Schulz 08:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We now talking about demographics:) If you mean that my opinion is too predetermined, then I'll answer that it is normal, to have an opinion. All opinions are predetermined in some sense. I don't think that my opinion is more predetermined then yours. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 11:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "The editorial board of one of the leading historical journals, the Journal of American History, wrote, 'We all abhor, on both moral and scholarly grounds, the substantive arguments of the Institute for Historical Review. We reject their claims to be taken seriously as historians.' - Eron Talk 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If they abhor, they have right to express their opinion, but there are countries there historians (they are historians with diploma) don't abhor. Futhermore, they share revisionist positions. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 11:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

user Cantankrus was interrupted (section break)

Not really about demographics anymore, but further discussion
I think the inference wasn't about one or two scholars opinions, but from the editorial board of a respected and peer-reviewed journal.

It's fortunate that historians really try to do research and understand a subject, rather then trying to support their political slant. And yes, that means dealing with material that would tend to not support their position.

Most scientists, even the social science kind, have opinions. But they don't let those opinions predetermine their conclusion. Opinions are generally used to form a hypothesis of how things work, and then they try to find evidence that supports their hypothesis. Discarding evidence that doesn't match isn't science. And it's certainly not history. Cantankrus 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As an addendum to that, I'd add that a good scholar should be looking just as hard for evidence that refutes his hypothesis, as he is for evidence that supports it. Failure to do this is a key feature of denialism. ornis ( t ) 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This aready relates to "Predetermined conclusion #" not to demographics. I think, it would be offtopic there. So I made a section break.


 * I never questioned that Holocaust Belief is mainstream in the Western World. So this article is too Western-culture-based. But it is not worldwide mainstream. If you pointed quotation of Iranian, Palestinian, Syrian historical journal... Or, may be, Ukrainian. All these countries are located on the same planet. ...Discarding evidence that doesn't match isn't science. So why official Western historians discard this evidense, as well as many other ones? 405222 were registered to enter Auschwitz. More than 1,000,000 are now considered as perished there (by official version). What the hell Nazis had need in such double book-keeping? Hoess "admitted" that he killed more than 3,000,000. Why Iranian historians were not allowed to enter Auschwitz? You know that I mean. As an addendum to that, I'd add that a good scholar should be looking just as hard for evidence that refutes his hypothesis, as he is for evidence that supports it. Failure to do this is a key feature of denialism. No, they don't fail to do it. They just consider other side's arguments not enough convincing.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Igor, please do not add new section headings above other editor's comments. Cantankrus's statement above was a response to your statement immediately above it. If he had wanted to put it in a new section, he would have put in the section break himself - and he would probably have added the new section at the bottom of the page, as is the convention for Talk pages. If you want to add a new section, go ahead, but please don't put other people's comments into after the fact. - Eron Talk 20:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * this article is too Western-culture-base. Possibly too truth based, as well?
 * it is not worldwide mainstream. Casting aside politically motivated grandstanding, which historians are forming this "mainstream" opinion that is divergent with the accepted history of the Holocaust?
 * Your "ignored evidence" is quite cute. Disregarding that it's on the site of a well known (and court proven) manipulator and liar, I'm not sure what sense it makes for the Nazis to "register" people they were going to kill quite soon after their arrival at Auschwitz. Registration was reserved for those privledged enough to wind up slave laborers, so the SS could properly account and bill for their services.
 * Holocaust Belief well sums up the approach that most revisionists/deniers have to History. They substitue their "belief" that the Holocaust didn't happen for what they assume is "official historian" belief that it did. Ironically enough, Historians cull through massive amounts of all sorts of evidence to understand what events happened, when, and most importantly, why. And in general there isn't monolithic agreement between historians -- even in the case of the Holocaust. There doesn't seem to be a dispute that huge numbers of people, the bulk of them Jews, were murdered by the Nazis, though. Cantankrus 05:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * this article is too Western-culture-based(note that I wrote based not base as you cited). Possibly too truth based, as well? No, I don't think it is endangered by this. If you call Irving "well known (and court proven) manipulator and liar" because he failed to win libel suit with Lipstadt, I can say that it is not a buseness of judjes to explain historians, which way they have to think ("no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews"). Here is some interesting details about that suit. That is Fritjof Meyer article.
 * Registration was reserved for those privledged enough to wind up slave laborers, so the SS could properly account and bill for their services. No, Fritjof Meyer says: "By 1953, Gerald Reitlinger had already estimated the number of victims at Auschwitz at one million in total, of which up to 750,000 were murdered by gas, of them 550,000 to 600,000 were killed on arrival. According to Piper, 1,110,000 people died in the camp, of which 202,000 registered and 880,000 unregistered, among them 95,000 registered and 865,000 unregistered Jews." So sometimes they registered Jews (including children an old people, who were unfit to work), sometimes not. Some double book-keeping without any sense. Don't seems convincing enough to me. I suppose, official history just lies.
 * There doesn't seem to be a dispute that huge numbers of people, the bulk of them Jews, were murdered by the Nazis, though. Sure. Even revisionists don't dispute this. By the way, so were murdered about 300,000 of German civilians whom allies burned alive with napalm in Dresden.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 07:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * because he failed to win libel suit -- Yes, certainly because of that. After all, it was he that initiated the suit in the UK, where the burden of proof is on the defence, and yet he still lost. Unless you are going to further claim that both the court and the historical team that reviewed his work were also a fraud.
 * Your own sources claim that approx. 80% of the Jews killed were not registered. With this assertion, I'm fuzzy as to how the plaque makes sense in the revisionist arguement.
 * so were murdered about 300,000 Other then being Offtopic to this article, it would be interesting to see you produce evidence which proves this, held to the same standard that you demand of Holocaust Historians. It ain't there, I guarantee it.
 * I'll note that you've failed to produce any actual historian, forget the majority of historians that would be needed to formulate a mainstream claim that you started with. So, maybe the article is more truth based then you are willing to admit? Cantankrus 02:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't "failed", I'll answer rest of your questions (despite it is boring and offtopic) if you answer first, why Nazis registered in Auschwitz children and old people, who were unfit to work. So, maybe the article is more truth based then you are willing to admit? I hardly can understand people who ask already answered question (look at my post above). --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The source you quoted from never claims that the unfit to work were registered; that was your own conclusion. I don't have any specific insight into the Nazi mindset, but it seems probable to me that many if not all of the registered deaths were of those who were deemed fit to work but later were maimed, fell ill, or otherwise became unfit.  Other deaths may have resulted from the despicable living conditions or may have been suicide.  Finally, some of the victims were used for medical experiments, which frequently involved killing and dissecting them; the people intended for this purpose probably would also have been registered. - 63.227.24.53 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I quoted it not from never, but from here. Finally, some of the victims were used for medical experiments, which frequently involved killing and dissecting them; the people intended for this purpose probably would also have been registered. Much easier is to conlude that Nazis just registered everybody who entered the camp then conclude that all children and old people registered there were sent to Auschwitz for use in experiments. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

About my section break
I don't know such a rule in Wikipedia. My comments were broken by somebody. Anyway, is it OK now?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the Talk page guidelines. And no, I don't really think it is okay now - again, you added a line above someone else's statement that changed the context of their statement. Cantankarus made a direct response to something you said in the Demographics discussion. You then added a note above it saying that what he said wasn't really a part of that discussion. That isn't your decision to make. It may seem like a minor point, but the effect of your action was to distort the context of his statement. If this has been done to your comments in the past, all I can say is that it should not have been. Read the Talk page guidelines for more information. - Eron Talk 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think if it is OK to do that with my edits, it is equally OK then I do it. Rules allow this. You speak from the name of Cantankrus like he is your alter ego. Sometimes I can't even differ you from each other because you editing styles look as similar as Siamese twins. Why don't you let him talk himself? May be he agrees with that section break, OK? And, please, stop deleting my comments.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that another editor may have done something that violates talk page guidelines does not justify you doing it. As to deleting your comments, I have done no such thing. I deleted the section break that you added, in order to restore the correct context to the discussion. Your comments were untouched. However, as you seem so attached to that heading, I have not deleted it this time; I have moved it to a point above your own comment. This will make it clear that you are the editor who added it. (I'd also like to point out the irony in your asking me not to delete your comments, given this edit.
 * I am trying to have a reasonable discussion of the page content with you here. But if you continue to distort the talk page record, to delete other's comments, and to make spurious accusations of sock-puppetry, I will report you for it. I respectfully suggest that you read the talk page guidelines and do your best to follow them - as should we all. - Eron Talk 16:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did't deleted your comment . Here isthe link May be you, or Cantankrus know, who did that break? But if you continue to distort the talk page record, to delete other's comments...you did it not me. That was comment not heading. and to make spurious accusations of sock-puppetry These are not spurious accusations. Unlike admins, I can't check your IP and charge you in sockpuppetry if there are reasons. But facts that you often appear in the same topic and that you talk from the name of Cantankrus can be considered as the reasons to suspect you in sockpuppetry. If you don't want to be suspected in sockpuppetry, then talk for yourself. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like I indeed deleted your comment. Strange enough. That was probably some kind of edit conflict, because I don't need to delete that I can easily answer. As I did later.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Some kind of edit conflict." Right. Whatever. - Eron Talk 19:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it wasn't intentional. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war
2 Jpgordon That wasn't me who started the edit war you are talking about. I explained myself. Squiddy did not.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 15:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

2 Jpgordon Can you explain, please, what was wrong with 172.167.122.120's edit? I reverted to his version.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Predetermined conclusion 3
I changed the intro based on the following insight... the references do not say that the "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy" is a "predetermined conclusion". The one reference that mentions "predetermined conclusion" mentions "revisionism" which presumably refers to Holocaust denial. Thus, it is Holocaust denial which is the "predetermined conclusion", NOT the "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy". Now, some of you will argue that "most Holocaust deniers imply or openly state that Holocaust denial is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy" and thus if Holocaust denial is a "predetermined conclusion" then, so too, is the hoax also a "predetermined conclusion". This may be true. I certainly believe it. However, since our current references don't say it that way, linking characterizing the "hoax" as a "predetermined conclusion" is possibly a "synthesis of published material" which borders on being OR unless someone can find a source that makes this linkage explicitly.

I know this may seem like splitting hairs. Nonetheless, I think my rewrite is more precise and does not create the difficulty that the previous text did.

--Richard 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm being dense here, but I don't see the distinction. Holocaust denial is the phenomenon of denying the holocaust... the 'predetermined conclusion' (or "preconceived result" as the reference has it) is that the holocaust never happened, ie it was a hoax. "Holocaust denial" is just a noun. Having said that, I wouldn't argue with your edit ;) EyeSereneTALK 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is possible to deny the Holocaust without claiming that the denial is a "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy". One could argue that the statistics are simply inflated because of the destruction of German records and that the postwar animus against the Nazis made it easy to blame them for everything bad that happened even when the Soviets were really responsible.
 * Now, I will accept that "most Holocaust deniers imply or directly state" that the Holocaust is a "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy". All I'm saying is that the quotes don't support the assertion that the "hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy" is a "predetermined conclusion".
 * Perhaps we could find a reliable source that says this more explicitly. What we're looking for is someone who will say that Holocaust deniers have predetermined the conclusion that the Holocaust did not happen BECAUSE they believe that there is a "deliberate Jewish conspiracy".  As I've said, I believe the assertion.  It's just not supported by the sources quoted in the article.
 * --Richard 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, with you now. The 'predetermined conclusion' could be any of a number of different, unspecified conclusions (which we can't cite because the source in non-specific). As you have it in the text, it relates more to denial methodology than any single claim. I read your earlier comment as saying that HD was itself the predetermined conclusion, and was confused about the logic of that. Thanks for the clarification! EyeSereneTALK 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The way Richard changed the head section it seems much better, but not good enough still. The phrase "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary" must be moved to the section about criticizm. The phrase "Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from legitimate historical revisionists who use established historical methodologies." must be changed also for this is open POV. Only western (and assotiated with them) mainstream scholars think so. This seems too fixed at western culture IMHO. Any suggestions?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're the one saying there's a problem (without actually using a source to show why it's a problem), shouldn't you also be the one to offer a solution? 64.95.27.5 21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)sean


 * OK, I'll try. I moved one phrase into criticism section and deleted another one ("Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from legitimate historical revisionists who use established historical methodologies") because the entire term "denial" is misleading and that phrase infers also that revisionists ("deniers") are not scholars themselves. In any case there is already the section about terminology. In my opinion, this article must be renamed Into "Holocaust revisionism (denial by it's opponents)". I explained my position in the section "Predetermined conclusion (AEB)".--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 2 EyeSerene Reverted to revision 150347499 by Richardshusr; you have no consensus for this edit - please stop removing this sentence. using TW OK, let us try to make consensus. But strange enough, why you don't say it on the talk page? What do you propose? If you will ignore this talk page, I'll have no choise but just to restore my version.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At which point you will be in immediate risk of being blocked for edit warring. I suggest you refrain from doing so. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm. Interesting enough, why that is me, who will be blocked? Why don't you block those who reverted my edits? I'm understand, you don't like things I say about Holocaust Revisionism (Denial if you like), but if you have nothing to answer, then let my version remain. Or try to make consensus, like I do.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, it will be better if you restore my version youself. How do you think?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I'll block you; it would be improper, as I am involved in this discussion. One of the other thousand or so admins will do so. Since you know you lack consensus for your change, to make the change is edit warring. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for an answer. If I don't get it, I'll understand the silence as an admission that I'm right. What is wrong?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest for User:Igor "the Otter" to stop the disruption. Take this as a warning. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean as "disruption"?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 12:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about edit warring over changes you've been singularly unsuccessful in gaining any traction for. A cursory glance at the page history shows at least half a dozen editors ( not counting myself ) disagree with your changes and yet you persist anyway, that's disruptive. ornis ( t ) 12:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference between us is that I've explained change I made, which I made after being asked to do it. Surely, I'll restore my version then is is reverted with no reason. But how about you? Can't explain yourself?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 13:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the difference between us, is that I'm only an arsehole on special occasions. ornis ( t ) 13:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the difference between us, is that I'm only an arsehole on special occasions. Hm, understood, an arsehole. But thing I can't understand is why do you reverted my edit? Please, go revert some other edit.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 13:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * clearly talking to you is useless. The point is no one supports your edit. No one. Don't make it again, or you'll end up blocked. Clear? ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 14:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Today nobody, tomorrow one and so on. I'm sure that somebody will appear anyway. Clear?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 14:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll restore my edit right away since anybody agrees with me.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, nobody does. Will you please stop using these stupid ultimatums ("If no-one objects in the next 5 minutes, I'm right and everybody agrees with me, so I will re-insert my nonsense"). Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 05:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let us see first, will, or not. It needs time. I can wait, no problem with it. And, please, stop to misquote me. It is stupid and can become bad habit. Best regards.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 06:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a quote, but a satirically exaggerated paraphrase. I'm fairly certain nearly every reader gets that. --Stephan Schulz 11:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it is even more stupid.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 12:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, that was my point. I'm surprised and, indeed, elated, that you seem to agree now. --Stephan Schulz 12:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm agree with that things you speak are stupid. What did surprised you?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected page to stop edit-warring
I protected the page to stop edit-warring. Please try to come to a consensus on this page. --Richard 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you like to be a third opinion for this matter? Because it is little bit difficult to make consensus with those who unwilling to speak.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 13:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A better way to deal with never-ending disruptions would be to block User:Igor "the Otter" either from this article or from WP altogether. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I hesitated to block Igor because he had not been warned and there was no explicit consensus on this page against Igor's edits.
 * However, on reviewing the edit history, it really is clear that Igor is not editing within consensus but rather against it and that this is disruptive.


 * Igor, I'm going to lift the protection on this page. You asked if I would be a "third opinion".  I'm sorry to say that, for the most part, I agree with the other editors of this page.  Your edits are against consensus and disruptive.  I urge you to edit within consenus.  I recommend that you adopt the WP:BRD model.  Do not revert to restore an edit that someone else has reverted.  Further disruption will lead you to being blocked.


 * --Richard 05:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Richard. I imagine the 'lack of specific consensus' comes from the fact that many of us see little point in discussing anything with someone who can't engage in rational discussion. Personally I dislike reverting edits without an explanation, but I don't intend to up the ratings of the Igor Show either. Cheers! EyeSereneTALK 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for consensus to be expressed in things like a straw poll which says something like - Which of the following statements should be inserted in the article: "1) X is true", "2) X is true but should be considered in the context of Y" or "3) X is false" followed by a !vote. I understand that voting is evil but it helps to determine whether we are talking about 6 vs. 1 or 6 vs. 5.  If one person is edit-warring in a 6 vs. 1 situation, that person is disruptive and blocking may be the best solution.  If it's 6 vs. 4, then everybody is disruptive and page protection is the better solution.  Page protection is less insulting than blocking and should be tried first in the absence of a clear, explicit consensus.  --Richard 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can consider my edits as disruptive, but I had no such intentions. In my opinion, HR/HD is wrongly presented in this article. I tried to change it to accord facts. Such intentions are not disruptive. If nobody like this show, OK then, it is over. I am not a troll and don't enjoy such "victories". But nobody can say frankly that I was not provoked. I offer peace to everybody whom I called trolls (they called me troll too). Remove your picture, and I remove mine. I also propose to look more seriously at the change I proposed in "Predetermined Conclusion 3". There is indeed the criticism in the head section not in Criticism section. The section about scholars is also questionable - the senior Palestinian historian shares HR/HD position, and not only Palestinian one. So may be "majority of scholars" but not just "scholars". These are serious objections, so I propose to take them seriously.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Igor, this is a difficult and passion-provoking topic. I am sure that Ahmedinejad and other HD conference participants believe that their side has serious scholarly merit. We should find a way to present both sets of views.

Others may object to the presentation of the Ahmedinejad views in an NPOV way (i.e. as if they had any possibility of being valid). However, according to NPOV policy, they should be presented. Thus, what we need to do is find a way to do so in a way that is acceptable to all.

Try presenting these views not as "X is true" but as "according to source A, X is true". For example, "according to source A who presented at the Holocaust conference, X is true". This will allow others to add challenging views.

Let's discuss the proposed text here first so as to avoid edit warring.

--Richard 18:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see, my peace offer wasn't even rejected, it was just ignored.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I offer peace to everybody whom I called trolls This no longer relates to Squiddy. I will revert all his undoings of my edits. He is a troll.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 23:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2 Jpgordon You'll need to gain consensus for these pro-Holocaust-denial edits on the talk page. OK, let us try. What is wrong with my edits you reverted? I am not alone anymore. Others support me. Number doesn't matter. If you have something reasonable in objection, why don't you say that? By the way, I can see something new here. Which relation have HD/HR to the Judaism? Did Holocaust belief offically became a part of Judaism?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits that were reverted deleted three sentences which were referenced; moved one sentence away from its reference to another place in the article; added content to a referenced sentence which changed its meaning; and rendered one sentence less clear and less grammatically correct. I can't see how deleting content that has valid references improves the article. - Eron Talk 00:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Being referenced doesn't mean be correct, the sentece I moved, I moved to it's proper place, do you agree? If I made something less clear and less grammatically correct, then I beg pardon. What is that? --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of quotation
In the spirit of complete disclosure: I have reverted the edit "'Among the untruths routinely promoted are the claims that no [homocidal] gas chambers existed at Auschwitz...'" to remove the insertion [homocidal] (sic). The reason I did this is that the section editied is a direct quotation, and the insertion changes the meaning of that quotation. This is against Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:NOR); we can speculate that the quote's author may have meant "homicidal gas chambers", but unless we have a source proving that's the case, it shouldn't be added to the article. EyeSereneTALK 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * However, I propose to discuss at last, what is wrong in the changes I propose for the head section.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Igor, your proposals have been discussed ad nauseum. Not everyone joined in the discussion, but speaking for myself this was because I did not support your proposals, and the arguments against them were perfectly well presented by other editors. There are some fundamental problems with the logic behind your arguments, which have already been pointed out (by Stephan Shulz, Squiddy, Tom Harrison, Jayjg, jpgordon and others). I am perfectly prepared to believe that you are expressing genuine concerns, and the fact that you are now refraining from making anti-consensus edits is to your credit. However, unless you have something new to propose, is there really any point in rehashing the entire argument? EyeSereneTALK 14:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean discussion in "Brief Protection" section, then I don't see, which fundamental problems with my logic can show such "arguments" like "go away" and so on:) Personal attacks hardly seem to be arguments. There are only formal answers like "only sources we like are reliable, sources we dislike are not". No further explanations and no any wish to discuss it. I already made different proposal - it is in the section "Predetermined conclusion 3".There is still critisism in the head section, as I told already - no answer. "Scholars..." - not all scholars - no answer. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A little respite
This article and this talk page page seem to have been inundated for months now by one disruptive user. Please see WP:ANI. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How nice to meet you again. Can you explain, whos editing right did I abused? It seems like I was blocked for violating non-existing rule, right?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can anwer at any charge in that topic (they are all laughtable), but I can't find that section now to cite them correcly. It is probably archived.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, doesn't anyone here recognise that most of the article's quotes and the claims that Holocaust Revisionists are all anti-semites are nothing more than Ad Hominem attacks. That's where the blatant bias comes in. Wikipedia should be politically neutral if you really want it to be taken seriously.


 * Where does it say that all of you are anti-semites? -jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With that big, really noticeable label on the sidebar titled ANTISEMITISM. There are also Ad Homimen attacks used throughout the article. Examples "deniers seek evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts" (So all Holocaust Revisionists do this, do they? Where's the proof?), another example of Ad Hominem by implying "A very different process unfolds when someone proceeds from the premise that a major element of human history is simply inaccurate, and ignores or routinely minimizes evidence that conflicts with that premise. History done in this way is not revisionism, but denial" (Again, there's no evidence that every Holocaust Revisionist starts with a preconcieved premise). The article is filled with Ad Hominem attacks attempting to imply that just because someone disagrees with the current mainstream that they are therefore an antisemite, unscholarly, incompetent bunch of liars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Fortunately for us all, there's thirty to forty years' worth of newsletters, newsgroup postings, poorly-researched books, ad hominem attacks, slander, libel, and blatherings that demonstrate that a large number of the denier crowd are indeed an anti-Semitic, unscholarly, incompetent bunch of liars. This article does a good job referencing that.  --Modemac 22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great - more of the same Ad Hominem attacks. This is why this article is so blatantly biased when you spout nonsense like that. Placing that great big ANTISEMITISM label in the sidebar is effectively an Ad Hominem attack claiming that ALL holocaust revisionists are anti-semites, a claim which is simply unsupportable. I doubt even the vast majority are. It's just a label used as a derogatory term of insult. The article may reference others who say the same insults as you, but that is not the same as what they say or what you say as being true. I could easily go out and find poorly-researched books, ad hominem attacks, slander, libel, and blatherings about ANY CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT to claim the same thing about either side. I could easily find quotes full of Ad Hominem attacks, insults, and claims of bias about any famous person too, but again that does not make those claims of theirs true. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia which sticks "mostly" to the facts - but Ad Hominem arguments are not required to do that. Nor should they be in a respectable article of alleged quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.4.172 (talk)


 * This is not only such Wikipedian Holocaust-related article. Article about IHR, for example has similar problems. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected
This article has recently seen a surge of vandalism and edit-warring by anonymous users. This approximately coincides with the blocking of one of the editors here, suggesting that one or more of the IPs may be a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Accordingly I have semi-protected the article for two weeks. Raymond Arritt 18:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they are'nt my sockpuppets (suggesting that one or more of the IPs may be a sockpuppet of a blocked user). Anybody who make such claims have to either prove this, or shut down up and be more careful in making such claims in future. Others support me, as you can see now. So you have shown little respect to Wikipedian rule about assuming good faith. This is normal in this page, but still against Wikipedian rules. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't think the anon is a sock of Igor. The use of English is halfway competent. He must be some other random intenet conspiracy theorist. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote shut down, indeed. Sure, shut up not shut down:) By the way, that semi-protection doesn't great matter, because anyway nobody but some admins are allowed to make significant change in this article.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 04:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What a rude thing to say, Squiddy. The day you can contribute anything to wikipedia in a language other than your own is the day you should talk.--172.165.151.188 00:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfair implication of perpatrators
In the section regarding laws against holocaust denial there is a sentence that says something "Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, a number (Austria, Germany and Romania) were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust" I think this unfairly implies that the own governments of the 3 countries were perpetrators, when in fact it was because they were occupied by the Nazis. Does anyone else agree? If so i think a better wording should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.116.73 (talk) 20:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm - Germany was occupied by the Nazis? Romania was occupied by the Nazis? And the Austrian Anschluss was supported by large parts of the population - Austria was certainly not an occupied country in any traditional sense. --Stephan Schulz 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

While there was support among the Austrian people for Anschluss, one cannot speak of a responsible Austria after 1938. It was not a nation allied with Germany, as Romania, but a province of Germany. Was it an occupied country? Debatable. Anschluss was ratified after bullying tactics and an invasion. --Gazzster 05:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Keltik31 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)== Holocaust Denial vs Holocaust Revisionist == There is a difernece. Someone who think the current story of the holocaust is revisionist isn't alwaysa denier or a criminal or a nazi. This should probably noted somehow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.210.130 (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article explains the distinction between historical revision and Holocaust denial. It also details the manner in which many deniers try to cloak their activities as legitimate revisionism. See, in particular, this note. - Eron Talk 00:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The article as it is currently written distorts the border between the two in an attempt to falsely portray the majority of Holocaust Revisionists as being anti-semitic. It's seriously biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.54.123 (talk • contribs)

can anyone point to any news stories printed from 1939 to 1945 by a credible news source that reported the mass extermination by gassing of jews at the camps? is there one story from one credible news source during that time? Keltik31 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Haven't you been banned yet, you Nazi-apologist wierdo? Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  01:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, but its a nazi conspiracy to get to the truth. '''so i will ask again, just like i asked two holocaust museums and was ignored: can anyone point to any news stories printed from 1939 to 1945 by a credible news source that reported the mass extermination by gassing of jews at the camps? is there one story from one credible news source during that time'''? i am waiting to hear from all of those who believe in the myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.19.127 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There might be some problems in the paragraph "Laws against Holocaust denial"
Hy, I happened to take a look at the article: Laws against Holocaust denial and IMHO some of the laws listed there do not explicity refer to the Holocaust at all (one can argue that they rather vague, or that they are more general than that). Many of the laws listed there rather seem to be against discrimination upon racial, ethnic, or religious grounds (or something similar) in general.

Per my dictonary the adjective explicit means: "clearly and fully expressed or stated, leaving nothing to be imagined as an explicit statement; to be quite explicit about a matter (i.e. leave no room for misunderstanding).

This creates a problem with the phrase: "Holocaust denial is explicitly illegal in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Switzerland." especially with the beginning of the phrase. There might be such laws in these countries but not those shown in "Laws against Holocaust denial" Flamarande 21:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC) PS: I am willing to improve this particular point.
 * Which ones are not explicit? Perhaps it should say "explicitly or implicitly" if there are some that are vague about it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it per Jpgordons suggestion (thanks Jp ) '''Daniel Weintraub : Albion moonlight 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC) '''

Hmm, could you all please a look at the "Lithuanian-entry" inside of Laws against Holocaust denial? I mean the link which is provided just passingly refers to the Holocaust and isn't any law at all. It is a proposal to create a law concerning the crimes of Communist regime. This article ("here") is about Holocaust denail. IMHO we should check all the entries carefully and delete those which don't refer clearly to Holocaust denial. When that is finished the entry "here" should be corrected. Flamarande 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the entries under Portugal, Spain and Switzerland should be carefully looked over. I feel that they probably are as general as the laws of the USA and of the UK. (In other words Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland should probably not be listed here at all as their laws don't refer clearly to Holcaust denail). I might be mistaken though. Flamarande 18:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sales Job
Looking at only the structure of the article it seems **undeniable** that there is some skewing of POV. 90% of it is spent denying the deniers and hawking the victim stance of anti-semitism, without explicitly establishing the connection between holocaust denial and anti-semitism. If it is so obvious it should be super easy to lay out on the page. Remember what they used to say in math class ... Show your work! Every step. But this would mean actually explaining the holocaust revionist facts with some particularity, which the admins apparently are unwilling to do. (Note they shut down the article once they squeezed it down to saying what they want it to. Only the Soviet Union practiced censorship, of course.) Perhaps there is some element of fear involved, fear that the ordinary putative numbskull visitor, who clearly is too stupid to think critically, but is smart enough -- just barely -- to pay taxes and vote, will read it and believe it.

Sign me unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.72.207 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Many have been saying this for ages, and yet been ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.54.123 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting dispute between "did not occur to manner and extent" and "did not occur at all"...could we reach an agreement here?
Hi. I am not a Holocaust "revisionist", do not know any and have no respect for them. However, I have noticed something in the intro that's up for debate...the article claims that Holocaust deniers believe that the Holocaust "did not occur to the manner and to the extent described by scholars", when, in fact, from what I've heard, most Holocaust deniers believe this tragic period of human history did not occur at all. The majority of them to not believe that there is a Holocaust to deny that it occured to a certain degree...so perhaps the article should mention this? I could be wrong, I'm a new user so to any experienced editors, feel free to correct any mistakes I make. Maybe there's a difference between the theory and practice, [so again I could be wrong], but if there is, then the article should mention that. Does anyone dispute this? Thanks! FitzCommunist 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Holocaust denial should refer to those who believe the Holocaust had never happened at all. Those that question the facts concerning numbers and the modi operandi of what happened during this time period should not be labeled under denial, since they are in fact acknowleding that a Holocaust, to some extent, did happen. Nathraq 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article clearly delineates the difference between Holocaust denial and legitimate historical revisionism. Given the difficulty of completely denying the Holocaust, in the face of the available evidence that it took place, many Holocaust deniers seek to whittle away at the edges, questioning the scope, the manner of killing, the extent to which the killing occurred as a matter of Nazi policy, and the extent to which the killing was directed by those in positions of authority. While it is possible to study these questions using evidence and established historical methodology, Holocaust deniers typically approach them using the methods of negationism. Their aim is to call into question the major defining characteristics of the Holocaust. This is still a form of denial; it is characterized as much by the methods and arguments used as by the specific facts which are being denied. - EronTalk 16:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Trying to whittle away at the edges of what? The holocaust is now monolithic and inviolable, like a god? (Or a representation of a god.) Any question of the veracity of a part threatens the integrity of the whole? No one alive today is allowed to ask him or herself about even the smallest feature of this historical event? Sounds brittle. Sounds like mind control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a straw man. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No doubt. On both sides of the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I always enjoy these little discussions; almost invariably, the Holocaust deniers who take part manage to illustrate far better than I could the deceptive techniques typical of the movement. For example, selecting one small element out of a much larger whole, then misrepresenting it, then refuting the misrepresentation, and then generalizing that refutation back to the whole. As you have. You ignored my statements that "it is possible to study [questions surrounding the Holocaust] using evidence and established historical methodology" and that deniers seek to "call into question the major defining characteristics of the Holocaust". You misrepresented my statement about the way many deniers "whittle away at the edges." You then somehow drew from that that I suggested no questioning of any aspect of the Holocaust is possible - a direct contradiction of part of what I said. You then capped it off by claiming that this attitude (which I don't even hold) somehow means the whole story of the Holocaust is the product of "mind control." Well done sir, and thank you for demonstrating the intellectual and logical vacancy of Holocaust denial.
 * Now then, if you have nothing constructive to add about improving this article, kindly run along. - EronTalk 08:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "kindly run along" Don't attempt to claim superiority over me by trite rhetorical devices. It should be beneath you and it is certainly beneath contempt.


 * "... questioning the scope, the manner of killing, the extent to which the killing occurred as a matter of Nazi policy, and the extent to which the killing was directed by those in positions of authority."


 * "For example, selecting one small element out of a much larger whole, then misrepresenting it, then refuting the misrepresentation, and then generalizing that refutation back to the whole..."


 * "it is possible to study [questions surrounding the Holocaust] using evidence and established historical methodology" and that deniers seek to "call into question the major defining characteristics of the Holocaust".


 * You haven't exactly demonstrated the difference between holocaust denial/revision and historical methodology except, perhaps, by implying that holocaust denial is thesis-driven and outcome-oriented, which it may be. However, questioning the scope, manner, and extent of events seems like the lifeblood of historical analysis. Selecting one small detail is exactly what you do in a linear text. All language is essentially linear, and therefore requires serial or episodic treatment of subject matter. Otherwise you'd be stuck making broad, generalized, unsubstantiate statements all the time. Nor have you demonstrated any investigation of the Holocaust: 1. that calls any aspect into question, and 2. which you find credible. Ergo, no historical revision concerning the Holocaust exists for the purposes of this discussion. Or would you be good enough show me some?


 * As for misrepresentations and false refutations, those are always possible. This part of your argument is one of those "big" statements that are difficult to say much about. Too generalized.


 * As for "suggestions" for improving the article, they are irrelevant. Hundreds of suggestions have already been made and eliminated. The path to improving the article is via the underlying disjuncture between the factions. Unlike normal civil discourse, though, the power is all in the hands of one side of the argument, here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As the article makes clear, with several references, the difference between Holocaust denial and legitimate historical revisionism is the fact that deniers start from the conclusion - that the Holocaust as generally understood did not happen - and then cut the facts and skew the analysis to fit. I haven't shown any examples of a legitimate historical revisionism approach to the Holocaust because I haven't gone looking for one; maybe it is being done, maybe not, but that is beside the point of this article. The subject of this article, again, is Holocaust denial. If someone is doing legitimate historical research that questions certain aspects of the Holocaust using accepted methods and maintaining an open mind about the results, they would not be covered in this article because what they are doing is not Holocaust denial. Questioning an aspect of the Holocaust - for example, saying that no one was killed by mass gassing - using the methods of denial (see, for example, Fred Leuchter) is Holocaust denial, even if the claim made is smaller in scope than "it never happened at all." - EronTalk 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And there isn't an "argument"; there are the historical facts, and there are the few but vociferous people who for whatever reasons (mostly dislike of Jooz) prefer to deny those facts. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not accuse anyone of racism without evidence. If you are accusing me of racism I suggest you report yourself to whatever board you answer to. I'm not accepting the title you seem to want to through around with such apparent force.


 * Please provide a workable definition of historical "fact" and, if you would, provide it here rather than shunting me off to some WP article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who hears alarm bells going off whenever someone refers to Jews as a race? That must be how you feel, since you somehow inferred Jpgordon to be calling you a racist (I'm not sure how you could have gleamed from his rational (if heated) comment. Maybe take a step back, relax, and then reevaluate your approach to wikipedia. Newtman (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, small well-meaning word of advice. If you really want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia, instead of being suspected of being a troll making inflammatory comments (there's a lot of them out there!), you might want to create a user account.  It helps people to see where you're coming from and helps to establish a positive reputation for yourself on Wikipedia. Cheers. Newtman (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shrug. I don't care if people think we're a race, a religion, a people, or a granfaloon. I do think Jew-hatred is exactly the same thing as racism -- both are the same sort of bigotry, even if the general nature of the targets may be different. But I wasn't accusing the anonymous poster of anything; I was just describing Holocaust denial as mostly driven by anti-Semitism, as the sources in the article make quite clear. I don't know if the poster is a Holocaust denier; he might just be someone who likes to argue for the sake of argument; he might be confused; he might be actually asking for education. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jpgordon. Yes, sometimes I do like to argue, and learn. As far as racism, the Semites were a race or a large ethnic group, not a religion, as far as I know. I daresay anti-semitism is not anti-religionism in the minds of anti-semites. By the way, what do you call prejudice between Jews and Arabs, inter-anti-semitism, intra-anti-semitism, anti-inter-semitism, anti-intra-semitism, infra-anti-semitism, supra-anti-semitism, or perhaps even super-anti-semitism ... or none of the above ;-) I may set up an account, thanks for the invitation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.76.29 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good. It is nice to know you were not intentionally trolling. I mostly just watch this particular article but I would like to take this time to say welcome aboard and Howdy Doody. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet God in heaven, how did this turn into a religous debate when all I was doing was questioning a possible innacuracy in the article? And why did I recieve such a snippy response from Eron? It was just a suggestion. FitzCommunist (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't think my initial response was "snippy". Direct, perhaps, but no snippiness was intended. And I was primarily responding to the statement after yours, which asserted "those that question the facts concerning numbers and the modi operandi of what happened during this time period should not be labeled under denial." This is plainly incorrect.
 * This quote from the article sums things up nicely:
 * "The question [of whether the IHR denies the Holocaust] appears to turn on IHR's Humpty-Dumpty word game with the word Holocaust. According to Mark Weber, associate editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review [now Director of the IHR], "If by the 'Holocaust' you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the 'Holocaust' means the systematic extermination of six to eight millions Jews in concentration camps, that's what we think there's not evidence for." That is, IHR doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened; they just deny that the word 'Holocaust' means what people customarily use it for."
 * - EronTalk 04:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that quote ("those that question the facts concerning numbers and the modi operandi of what happened during this time period should not be labeled under denial") is not one of mine; it was actually from another user that agreed with me. Secondly, "scattered killings" could mean anything...does Mr. Weber give an example of the number...? Is his estimate in the thousands? Hundreds? Tens? Third, it's actually the intro that doesn't define the difference between the two, and at the very start of the article I believe that should be mentioned. I would cite all sorts of Wiki-sources advising Sources and etc, but I can't be bothered. And finally, although that quote sums up the difference between the two ideologies, it does not provide a clear distinction between what links them...and quite frankly, that's all I'm interesting in adding. Now, bearing in mind all these points, tell me why I'm wrong and why the links between the two theories should not be added, or insert the info. Either way, I'll be happy. FitzCommunist (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Why not just make the edit and see if it gets reverted or changed ? : Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily, that would have been a helpful notion. Problem is, we have to reach a consensus, and there will be no chance of that if the only thing people are debating is whether or not - and I quote - Jewish people are "a race, a religion, a people, or a granfaloon." I thought this page was meant to be about how to improve the article, not debate the general subject matter...well, if we're going down that road, I think Judaism is a "religion". How about using this page for what it's meant to be used for, someday soon...? Anyway, as far as the "see if it gets reverted" thing goes, it'll be reverted in the course of about 5 minutes because a consensus has not been reached...nevertheless, I thank you for your input. FitzCommunist (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually consensus was reached some time ago but unfortunately people such as yourself are unwilling to accept it. But with that said I think you may find that you will be ignored if you persist with the attitude that you have been recently expressing. It is not incumbent upon anyone to answer your questions. So please don't yell and please be civil. That would be very helpful. Otherwise you will likely be ignored until you make an edit that will likely be deleted. Let consensus decide what should be added and except it even when it goes against you, : Albion moonlight (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your efforts to build consensus rather than pitching straight in with a controversial edit are welcome and show good faith. As Albion moonlight has suggested, it might be helpful to take the combative tone down a notch or two ;) Regarding your suggestion for the article, I'm slightly confused as to what you are aiming for. Am I right in thinking that you feel the article doesn't make it clear enough that 'Holocaust denial' does not only apply to people who deny it ever took place at all?
 * On a (minor) style point, the first paragraphs of an article are not intended to be an introduction to that article, but a summary of it. The relevant guidelines are here, but basically nothing should go in the lead that is not already mentioned (and sourced) in the main body of the article.
 * Regards, EyeSerene TALK 11:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input...both of you. I will respond to both of your suggestions, in order.

1. Albion first. I'm going to put this in the most polite terms I can...What do you mean? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to suggest. What do you mean a "consensus was reached a long time ago?" When? Seriously, with all due respect, I did not find any hint of a consensus in this section. Would you kindly quote the relevant "consensus" which was reached? Second, when was I not civil? I mean, come on, I said "I thank you for your input" and called the idea of yours a "helpful notion..." Here's a quote of yours: "Actually consensus was reached some time ago but unfortunately people such as yourself are unwilling to accept it. But with that said I think you may find that you will be ignored if you persist with the attitude that you have been recently expressing." Again, could you please tell me what "consensus" has been reached? You didn't do that when you responded. On that note, here's something else you said: "Let consensus decide what should be added and except it even when it goes against you..." Er...consensus didn't go against me, because, as I am continously stressing, one has not been reached. So what, then? Am I not allowed to question something innacurate in the article just because you (yes, you...not everyone else as you'd have us believe) don't agree with it? If you disagree with it, then contest it...I would not advise hiding behind a fictional "consensus" to stress your points...and as far as I'm concerned, all that the section was being used for was debating the cause of Judaism...correct me if I'm wrong, but is this page not meant to be about discussing improvements to the article? Because that's not the Wikipedia I know. Also, could you please be a little more civil yourself? I don't like having insults thrown at me by someone who's lecturing me as to why I should "stop yelling and be civil." Are you telling me to "sit down and shut up" as well as "be civil?" Please respond to all these comments so that I'll know exactly what you meant, and try to approach these things on better terms, as I am trying my hardest to, but will be struggling on if this carries on the way it is...

2. EyeSerene: Thanks for your suggestions. Just for the record, I was not trying to say that "the article doesn't make it clear enough that 'Holocaust denial' does not only apply to people who deny it ever took place at all..." Just to clear things up, I'll specifiy what I'm asking for: I want a clearer distinction between the two...because, although most "Holocaust Revisionists" do, as Eron correctly described, "whittle away at the edges" of historical evidence, the vast majority do not believe it ever happened at all...and I think there should either be a clearer distinction between the two...OR...remember when you said that "the first paragraphs of an article are not intended to be an introduction to that article, but a summary of it." Well, I agree...I wasn't trying to dispute that, but the intro only says that the deniers believe it "did not occur to the manner and extent described by scholars..." would it hurt to sneak in a little "or believe it did not happen at all", or something similar in there? Because, as Eron points out, plenty of sources can be cited for such a thing.

Thanks! Both of you. FitzCommunist


 * When you embolden your words on a talk page you are perceived to be shouting.
 * I do not want you to shut up and or go away. I thought at first you were merely trolling. Please do feel free to contribute as you will but please make a concerted effort to keep the atmosphere as stress free as you can and I will reciprocate as well as I can. The wiki definition of consensus is cryptic at best. In my opinion we have one pursuant to this article but that does not mean that I am right. Your suggestions are welcome. I am going to wait for some of the others to respond to your latest suggestion because I do not have a strong opinion one way or the other. So keep your suggestions coming and welcome to the article. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC) : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When I stated that those who question the numbers, modus operandi, etc should not fall under the blanket categorization of deniers, I was trying to look at the subject objectively and rationally. If the IHR and other organizations want to study the subject, they should be more than free to do so, as any historical research group should be for any time period or subject, and they should be able to do so without having a label attached to them as "deniers", as deniers = racists = anti-semites in the post WW2 era. There are certain organizations in the world that make sure that any question of the Holocaust, or Jewish policies in the Middle East in modern times, are looked at "favorably" upon them. To question anything that has happened, past or present, concerning the plight of Jewry, will not only inflame the wrath of the ADL, it will also cause the aforementioned "questioner" to receive the permanent label of "anti-semite'. This is an immediate, career killing label in the media and academia. Not one legitimate news source will cover a story of any findings that a research group, such as the IHR will find, if it contradicts the "official" accepted story of what happened. It is no wonder that extremists and legitimate "deniers" grasp at the straws of the Holocaust as a beacon for their twisted world views.

All aspects of history should be able to be researched, debated, argued, and revised as needed, as more proofs and disproofs are uncovered. It should be objective, rational, and non-political. The history of the Holocaust is so interwined with political and social agendas, there will never be a chance for anyone to fully investigate it thoroughly. This goes for both the revisionists and deniers, and the popular, accepted beliefs of what is being taught in schools worldwide. The Holocaust has become a "religion" unto itself, and god help the "infidel" who questions any aspect of it. Peace Nathraq 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Nathraq puts it in better terms than I ever could. Having read more widely on the subject, I now know that everything the article makes unclear all boils down to one point: it ignores the fact that the deniers are not revisionists, and the revisionists are not deniers. I believe the summary should mention that, without, as Nathraq states, referring to even those who simply question the killing scope, methods etc. as "anti-semitic"...sure, the full-on deniers definetely fall into this category but are you sure the same can be said about those who only question certain aspects? The "IHR" quote, to me, only strengthens the point...what he's saying is that he believes, perhaps, a few hundreds - maybe thousands died in concentration camps [I'm not defending his choice of words, just hear me out], trouble is, what he's saying is that he does not believe around 11 million people where murdered, but he is prepared to admit that many people were...and because this article is intended to touch on the already sensitive subject about full-on, "it never happened" Holocaust Denial, he should not immediately be put under the lable of "Anti-semite"...you can't seriously be telling me that's fair? Quote: "It is no wonder that extremists and legitimate "deniers" grasp at the straws of the Holocaust as a beacon for their twisted world views." Says it all, doesn't it? That's what this article needs to recognise. You can't just call questioners deniers...things are never black and white like that.

Oh, and, to Albion Moonlight...thank you for clearing that up...I will try to see what everyone thinks of these points and, if consensus does indeed go against me - that is to say plenty of sources can be cited to prove me wrong - I'll be more than happy to accept it. Just for the record, I wasn't aware that I was perceived to be shouting...thanks for telling me, as I'll learn from this in future.

Regards, note the changed username :D, Fitzy&#39;s Claw 10:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Please take note that an article on the Institute for Historical Review exists here at wikipedia. I think this is going to be like pulling teeth at times but if we all stay as calm as possible perhaps we can all learn from each other. I do not have a lot of time to devote to this article but I will add in my 2 cents worth from time to time.: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 11:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. So the IHR really are anti-semitic...well, I was only using that quote as an example, just so everyone knows :). Agreed, let's all be civil and see how far we can get with this controversial issue. Fitzy&#39;s Claw 12:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading some of the statements by the IHR, I also agree that they may have an ulterior motive instead of legitimate research. peace. Nathraq 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I can respond to Fitzy's concern that "the article makes unclear... the fact that the deniers are not revisionists, and the revisionists are not deniers." I believe this distinction is introduced in the lead and reinforced in the first section of the article. I believe that any lack of clarity on this point comes from the appropriation of the term "revisionist" by deniers like the IHR, which then causes legitimate revision of Holocaust history to have to call itself something else. The article states:


 * "Many Holocaust deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holocaust revisionism instead. Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies."
 * ''"Historical revisionism is an academic approach that holds that a given slice of history, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate, and should hence be revised accordingly. Historical revisionism in this sense is a well-accepted and mainstream part of history studies, and it is applied to the study of the Holocaust as new facts emerge and change our understanding of it. A very different process unfolds when someone proceeds from the premise that a major element of human history is simply inaccurate, and ignores or routinely minimizes evidence that conflicts with that premise. History done in this way is not revisionism, but denial."
 * "Because the term "revisionist" has become associated with Holocaust deniers, Holocaust historians today generally avoid using it to describe themselves, though they continue to study and revise opinions on aspects of the Holocaust."
 * The distinction between Holocaust denial and legitimate historical revisionism applied to the study of the Holocaust is not that the former denies any and all facts of the Holocaust; it is to do with the methodology. Holocaust denial, even under the cloak of revisionism, proceeds from the assumption that that Holocaust as generally understood by mainstream historians did not happen. It then interprets the historical record with the aim of proving that assumption. In this process, certain undeniable facts of the Holocaust - e.g. photographs of stacks of emaciated corpses - may be accepted, but are given explanations that tend to minimalize their significance - e.g. those aren't Jews, they are cholera-stricken prisoners of war. Done carefully, the results may look legitimate.
 * These deniers sometimes take great pains to say that they aren't actually denying that certain unfortunate things happened to some European Jews during the Second World War - they are just reinterpreting the events. This is a necessary part of their program of denial. In the end, the best way to distinguish between denial and legitimate revisionism is not their claims, but their methods.
 * (And as aside, I would note that to date no legitimate revisionist historian has denied the essential facts of the Holocaust. This suggests that any legitimate historical enquiry into the Holocaust will probably conclude that the event, as it is generally understood, did happen. Anyone who claims to be a legitimate historian who denies any of the essential facts of the Holocaust has a fairly serious burden of proof to overcome.) - EronTalk 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Eron, Thanks for response. Many of your comments were formed and written well. Although I can certainly respect your point of view on the issue, I did not agree with some of your statements. For example, this:

"Anyone who claims to be a legitimate historian who denies any of the essential facts of the Holocaust has a fairly serious burden of proof to overcome."

That does make sense for the most part, however, what if a historian claims, for example, that the majority where not gassed to death...they where shot instead. If they conclude that a mainstream near "essential" fact of the Holocaust was not true, however, with good evidence, inserts another one to take it's place to explain all the deaths, is he/she a "denier"? Your belief in this certainly seems to be backed up by a preceding analagy -

"It then interprets the historical record with the aim of proving that assumption. In this process, certain undeniable facts of the Holocaust - e.g. photographs of stacks of emaciated corpses - may be accepted, but are given explanations that tend to minimalize their significance - e.g. those aren't Jews, they are cholera-stricken prisoners of war. Done carefully, the results may look legitimate."

While there is a lot of truth in that, does the same apply to killing methods, numbers of concentration camps, numbers of concentration camps, conditions within, etc.? Because if there's solid evidence to back it up [apart from deceiving the reader by deliberately misinterpreting other evidence to prove the allegation wrong], would that count as merely one of the "given explanations that tend to minimalize their significance", deliberately intended to mislead? I would look forward to a response to this.

And on a [slightly more minor] point, I take issue with the opening sentence -

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 and to the extent described by current scholarship.

A lot more where murdered than Jews. Couldn't we have "Jews, Non-Jewish Poles, Jehova's Witnesses, Homosexuals, Black people" [and any others I may have inadvertently missed out], or even just "Jews and a variety of other ethnic groups"? Seems a lot more fair. Thanks! Fitzy&#39;s Claw 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the belated response, Fitzy. To answer your previous post, I think that "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II...did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship" covers those who do not believe it took place all, but I don't see that it would hurt to state this explicitly if it would make the definition clearer.
 * Regarding this current discussion, whilst it is interesting I'm not sure how it pertains directly to improving the article ;) However, to take your last point first: you won't find much disagreement with your facts, but the term Holocaust has evolved to be understood as referring only to the Jewish genocide. Wikipedia does not ignore the other persecuted groups though, and has articles on their treatment (eg Action T4, Porajmos etc). The Holocaust article makes this distinction clearer.
 * Per your other points (and I'm not trying to answer for Eron here, this is only my take on things!), as others have said it's the methods and motives more than the results that seem to distinguish deniers from legitimate historians. I don't really think your example would fit the 'denial' modus operandi, as it's not on the face of it seeking to minimise the deaths - just to examine how they occurred. With that example though, developing it further in certain directions (which is what a few deniers have done) would make it HD. To clarify, some deniers have found it hard to refute the mass-shootings of Jews that took place on the Eastern Front during the invasion of Russia due to the amount of documentary evidence for them. Instead they attribute the killings to over-zealous junior officers exceeding their orders etc, thus minimising the official nature of the killing... thus absolving the Nazi Party (and Hitler specifically) of responsibility. Where the evidence can't be ignored, it can always be reinterpreted! EyeSerene TALK 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And thank you for your response, EyeSerene! I believe a clarification is in order here, so lets go right ahead...


 * 1. "...the term Holocaust has evolved to be understood as referring only to the Jewish genocide. Wikipedia does not ignore the other persecuted groups though, and has articles on their treatment (eg Action T4, Porajmos etc). The Holocaust article makes this distinction clearer."


 * Frankly, I think it should be mentioned regardless...you are correct that "Wikipedia does not ignore the other persecuted groups", however the point I'm trying to make is this; if the other articles don't omit information on the other victims of the Holocaust, I'm not sure why this one should. A brief mention in the intro, or "summary" ;), is all that's needed. Nothing too radical.


 * 2. "Regarding this current discussion, whilst it is interesting I'm not sure how it pertains directly to improving the article ;)."


 * Personally I think it is linked to a debate on Wiki - improvements to this article because what's being discussed is whether or not such edits should be made, with both sides of the argument coming in with various ideas for improvements. Not too sound too egomaniacal, lol, but I'm quoting myself as an example -


 * "While there is a lot of truth in that, does the same apply to killing methods, numbers of concentration camps, numbers of concentration camps, conditions within, etc.? Because if there's solid evidence to back it up [apart from deceiving the reader by deliberately misinterpreting other evidence to prove the allegation wrong], would that count as merely one of the "given explanations that tend to minimalize their significance", deliberately intended to mislead? I would look forward to a response to this."


 * Perhaps I didn't give enough information as to how this partains to editing, but what I mean by it is, should such discoveries be dubbed deliberately misleading if there's solid evidence to back it up in the article?


 * 3. "Per your other points (and I'm not trying to answer for Eron here, this is only my take on things!), as others have said it's the methods and motives more than the results that seem to distinguish deniers from legitimate historians. I don't really think your example would fit the 'denial' modus operandi, as it's not on the face of it seeking to minimise the deaths - just to examine how they occurred."


 * Well first of all, can anyone tell me what "modus operandi" means before using it any further? ;) Besides that, my personal belief is that we have to be more sensitive about how the term "Holocaust Denial" is used. Trouble is, the author's "methods and motives" are all - too - quickly brought into question as soon as they debate the authenticity of a major Holocaust fact...if it strays from the mainstream and accepted Holocaust definition, then the author of the claim is bigoted, hateful and anti-semitic, as well as a "Holocaust denier". Case closed. As Nathraq stated;


 * "All aspects of history should be able to be researched, debated, argued, and revised as needed, as more proofs and disproofs are uncovered."


 * Recognising this is, to me, more than essential to the article. And as far as the whole "examining how the deaths occured" thing is concerned, unfortunately, as I said, anyone who strays from the "accepted" and "factually indisputable" definition of the Holocaust is a denier - frankly, such references to them are made all too often in this article.


 * 4. "With that example though, developing it further in certain directions (which is what a few deniers have done) would make it HD. To clarify, some deniers have found it hard to refute the mass-shootings of Jews that took place on the Eastern Front during the invasion of Russia due to the amount of documentary evidence for them. Instead they attribute the killings to over-zealous junior officers exceeding their orders etc, thus minimising the official nature of the killing...thus absolving the Nazi Party (and Hitler specifically) of responsibility. Where the evidence can't be ignored, it can always be reinterpreted!"


 * Absolutely correct. However, that is an example of legit rightist extremists taking the example too far...not a well - meaning historian just wanting to contest prior historical evidence as to methods and etc. For example, some new historians are coming round and saying Emperor Nero was not nearly as tyrannical as he was made out to be...would they be "Christian - Persecution - during - the - Roman Empire - deniers?" Frankly no. They're just contesting historical evidence and straying away from what is typically expected. Not that I'm praising any kind of denial of any human rights atrocity, all I'm saying is that, to quote Nathraq again, "It should be objective, rational, and non-political. The history of the Holocaust is so interwined with political and social agendas, there will never be a chance for anyone to fully investigate it thoroughly. This goes for both the revisionists and deniers, and the popular, accepted beliefs of what is being taught in schools worldwide."


 * And finally...


 * 5. "To answer your previous post, I think that "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II...did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship" covers those who do not believe it took place all, but I don't see that it would hurt to state this explicitly if it would make the definition clearer."


 * Precisely. I personally am not sure how this covers the two of them, but apart from that, I do think the definition should be clearer.


 * Anyway, sorry for rambling on like this, and I look forward to how the debate progresses! Thanks again, Fitzy&#39;s Claw 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UT

The skeptics dictionary has this to offer. It pretty well sums up my own thought on the matter.: Danny W : Albion moonlight 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to analyse this debate in a neutral manner and consider it without the obvious emotional baggage many people carry on the issue, consider the following scenario:

My brother and I jointly run an apple orchard. We run it on a tight ship and track many relevant numbers on its status. One of these statistics is the number of apples that have fallen from the trees before they were ripe. After looking over that data my brother collected for the season, I see numbers that are well beyond what I would expect. After questioning him on his methods for reaching such a conclusion and presenting evidence that the totals might actually be lower than recorded, he labels me a "premature apple falling denier". Since apples obviously regularly fall prematurely for many reasons, he labels my concerns irrational and refuses to continue dscussion of the matter.

I feel the label is in error because I in no way feel that "premature apple falling" did not occur, merely that his accounting methods may have been in error and that fewer apples were involved in the process than he alledged. He is claiming that I deny something which I have clearly explained I do not.

How could his actions be seen as anything but entirely irrational?

69.73.114.56 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the purpose of Talk: page is to propose article changes, not to debate the veracity of the Holocaust. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You entirely missed the point. This has nothing to do with debating the veracity of the holocaust, but with labeling people who question some of the specific assertations, such as the number of dead, as "holocaust deniers" as opposed to revisionists. (specifically in this article by confusing the positions of the two ideas)


 * Were people who questioned the validity of stories relating to the making of soap out of holocaust victims considered deniers? We now no that these soap factories did not exist. That would be a revision, as despite the lack of Jew soap, the holocaust still exists as a historical event.


 * 69.73.114.56 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the purpose of Talk: page is to propose article changes, not to debate the veracity of the Holocaust. Are there any specific article changes you think should be made? Please describe them, and the sources which support them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The existence and nature of the Holocaust was well-documented by the extremely bureaucratic German government itself
I would like to dispute this statement. The main question is not how much documentation there is from the time relating to the Holocaust, but how much documentation contradicts the arguments of Holocaust revisionism. Holocaust revisionists will admit, for example, that Jews were sent away in trains to the east to internment camps, that there were executions by shooting of camp prisoners, and that there were orders for Zyklon-B to the camps (claiming that this was solely for the purpose of de-lousing). Thus, for example, the records of train timetables, execution of prisoners by shooting, or orders for Zyklon-B do not count as evidence against the position of Holocaust deniers. There may be mountains of documentation about similar matters, but that in itself is not enough.

As far as I can tell the only evidence that Holocaust deniers are denying is that of the eyewitness testimony and post-war confessions, and that's what the article should say. If someone read this article, and went off looking for this claimed documentation by the "extremely buereaucratic German government", then they would't find it. Count Truthstein (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note the statement is footnoted to work by leading Holocaust historian Christopher R. Browning. I know that because I added the footnote. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference claims only that their actions were beaurocratic and well-documented in general, while on topics specific to genocide and Holocaust (such as the use of gas chambers approved for murder), there is a severe lack of documentation (evidenced by reliance on witness testimony). The theory that a cover-up was initiated stems from this lack of documentation. 69.73.114.56 (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The topic of the book and the article are the Holocaust and the genocide - did you notice the word "Genocide" in the title? Regarding the rest, do you have any reliable sources which back up your claims? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I urge you to recognize context. "German beaurocrats collective actions are relatively well documented".. Despite the title's reference to genocide, this excerpt has no such reference. They seem to have been well documented in all areas but the one you are interested.Redpointist (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read the chapter it came from? And what area am I interested in? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Redpoinist and the anon IP editor when they made the point that it is documentation specific to claims such as the existence of gas chambers that matters. I shall continue to look for a source that confirms what I have said about the available evidence. I remember reading something that suggested there was a system of code words and euphemisms (like "special treatment" and "evacuation") with the result that surviving documentation of that time has little evidence of what might have gone on. Does anyone remember reading anything like this? Count Truthstein (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence does not make the claim that any specific item is well documented, but rather that their collective actions are well documented, as amply supported by the source provided. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If elements that are essential to what we think of today of the existence and nature of the Holocaust were not documented, then it is erroneous to claim that the nature of the actions taken collectively were well-documented. I need to think of an example to illustrate what I'm driving at. Someone runs a shop, and as part of this accumulates many records, such as those of stock purchase and of how much they have sold. The shop is accused by the police of selling illegal products. No records are found to confirm this, maybe because they were destroyed, but they are found guilty anyway because of other evidence. Were the collective actions of the shop-owners voluminously documented? Yes, but the nature of their actions, that was established by other means in the courtroom, was not. You have well-documented actions, and assign to these actions a criminal nature, but the actual criminality of the actions was not well-documented.


 * If we remember that the existence of homicidal gas chambers used in an extermination programme (for example) are not at all well-documented, then we can hardly say that the nature of the Holocaust is well-documented, because these are an essential part of what we think of as the Holocaust. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The source for the statement in the article is Christopher R. Browning. I have now added a second source. What is the source for your statements? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to see these German documents exposing the camps as guilty of carrying out systematic genocide. I can find evidence of malnutrition and disease in the concentration camps but not systematic and intentional killings. Any help? 69.73.114.56 (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the purpose of Talk: page is to propose article changes, not to debate the veracity of the Holocaust. Are you proposing any specific change to the article? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about the removal of the misleading claim that 'The existence and nature of the Holocaust was well-documented by the extremely bureaucratic German government itself'? As apparently, either through poor record keeping, or a cover-up effort, most key indicators are not well documented at all. 69.73.114.56 (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to whom? Not according to Christopher R. Browning, who say that is was indeed well-documented. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh goody point me to those gas chamber construction blueprints pl0x?Redpointist (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the purpose of Talk: page is to propose article changes, not to debate the veracity of the Holocaust. Are there any specific article changes you think should be made? Please describe them, and the sources which support them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should have no problem with removal of the highly misleading claim that 'The existence and nature of the Holocaust was well-documented by the extremely bureaucratic German government itself' because it's already obvious that it's not well documented at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.71.189 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that Christopher R. Browning says the exact opposite. He has a rather good reputation as a Holocaust historian; where have you been published? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to help out us simple-minded folk. Where does Mr Browning say all this documentation is? Or in what book does he give his footnote pointing us to this documentation? Or does he only say there is documentation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would that be relevant? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Mr Browning did some original research - or can at least point to someone elses' research. Mr Browning "says" must be a little light even for wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources and interpretations
I think that this discussion is getting a bit vague. To be more concrete, I think it would be possible to agree precisely what evidence exists and what evidence does not exist. Then it would be possible to put a sensible interpretation on it, e.g. arguing whether this consitutes "well documented" whatever that means, and whether we are interpreting the sources cited for the claim above in the way they were intended.

According to , "No records"? This is nonsense (which may explain why this claim was removed from the "revised" versions of the 66 Q&A). True, extermination by gassing was always referred to with code-words, and those victims who arrived at death camps only to be immediately gassed were not recorded in any books. But there are slip-ups in the code-word usage that reveal the true meanings, as already described. There are inventories and requisitions for the Krema which reveal items anomalous with ordinary use but perfect for mass homicidal gassing. There are deportation train records which, pieced together, speak clearly. And so on. Several examples have been given above.

We see here that those who were gassed were not recorded. Would any editor dispute this claim? (Depending on this, it may become clearer whether we can call the nature of the Holocaust well-documented.) Count Truthstein (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the relevance of your post; we have two extremely reliable sources saying that the genocide was well documented, which is really all that is required (though others exist, if necessary). Wikipedia editors cannot try to debunk what reliable sources have said on the matter - that is original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also note that the statement "those victims who arrived at death camps only to be immediately gassed were not recorded" does not mean "those who were gassed were not recorded." It ony means that some of those gassed were not recorded. - EronTalk 14:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the wording should be along the lines of - we have documentation that claims gassing, etc but no proof of any of the claims. Maybe this would state the denier position better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Holocaust denial should be moved and redirect to Holocaust revisionism (it is currently the other way around).

Holocaust revisionism is a broad process, as opposed to the very specific conclusion of Holocaust denial. It makes sense that the main article title should be Holocaust revisionism, while a section discussiing Holocaust denial could be contained within (being a specific, extreme, possible conclusion stemming from Holocaust revisionism).

Holocaust denial is most often used as a pejorative term, as its use claims that Holocaust revisionists seek to support a predetermined conclusion (an attack on motives that cannot be substantiated for anything other than on an individual basis).

Holocaust denial is a conclusion, and labeling Holocaust revisionism (a review of evidence) as equivalent is nothing more than an attempt to label anyone involved in any form of Holocaust revisionism as already having come to the conclusion that the Holocaust did not take place. This is a false, rediculous, and insulting notion.

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable."

Redpointist (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC) *If you want to argue that Holocaust Denial should be called Holocaust Revisionism, please read (not an exhaustive list):, , , , ,
 * As the box at the top of the page says:
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already read through those archives, and my concerns are not addressed. Referencing me to discussions from over 2 years ago that in no way include my argument does nothing to address the issue at hand. My position stands until someone finds a fault in the logical truth of the point I am making. Nowhere in those archives does this occur.

Redpointist (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article name plainly speaks for itself. The subject is simply the denial of the Holocaust. Reginmund (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The only "broad" part of Holocaust revisionism is that it tries to attack facts about the Holocaust on all fronts. Legitimate historians who are refining research about the Holocaust are not labeled Holocaust revisionists, nor do they like to be named as a member of that group.  Generally revisionists and deniers have a common goal, the only difference that revisionists pick and choose which facts about the holocaust to deny as being  factual, while deniers are bolder and simply throw that whole chapter of history out. Newtman (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, of course. Holocaust denial is what the reliable sources call it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, did you all get together for a group meeting? I'll get my buddies to join too, then your buddies can vote against my buddies, as apparently all that is needed is someone who can type their vote, include the word Holocaust within sentance structure, and sign.

Before I leave you:

Reginmund, if I were to claim with new evidence that there was one big burial pit vs three little ones at a site, that's "holocaust denial"? Genius.

Newtman, the 'broader' sense of revisionism is that it includes all recountings, from the repair of trivial details, all the way to idea of simply denying that the event took place. It is not hard to comprehend.

Jayjg, those that dare call their work revisionism are no longer 'reliable' in your view? Of course not, because you don't agree with them. Can I say that Jews who use the term 'denial' are not reliable sources because of their actual or percieved connection to the event? I could, but you wouldn't have to take my statement any more seriously than I take yours.

Oh yea,


 * ApproveRedpointist (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're being deliberately obtuse and obnoxious. "Holocaust revisionism" has clearly established implications and meanings behind the term, and you're choosing to ignore that.  If you can't deal civilly with the fact that countless editors and scholars disagree with you, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the best place for you to be spending your time. Newtman (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignore as a tendentious, bad-faith proposal. Debating the Holocaust is for web-forums, not WP. EyeSerene TALK 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 *  Oppose: Of course it is a bad faith proposal. But wikiapedia has not yet found a sufficient way to deal with such problems. Checkuser anyone ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sounds like whitewashing. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As is noted in the article, legitimate historians examining and re-examining the Holocaust using legitimate historical methodologies do not call themselves revisionists. The term "Holocaust revision" has been appropriated by deniers who are trying to whitewash their activities. There's no need for Wikipedia to do the same. - EronTalk 14:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignore Not that I do not believe that Holocaust revisionism is a more sensible term, but there are more important problems with the content of the article. I would prefer that any effort is directed not towards arguing about trivial points like the title of the article but rather towards presenting what the claims of the Holocaust deniers are and any appropriate refutations of their arguments, for example inclusion of evidence for the mainstream Holocaust claims. In any case, "Holocaust denial" does seem the most common term used by sources that would be found to be acceptable to the "Wikipedian community". Count Truthstein (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Approve - Makes a lot more sense and is more in keeping with the reality, plus the fact that "denial" these days is a loaded term used in a derogatory fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.70.71.189 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignore - Holocaust denial is a well sourced and written article. If you want to write a different article about revisionism ect or aurgue that it shouldn't redirect here, go for it. --Tom 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for the following reasons:
 * If the argument is for a broad process then Revisionist history; in particular Historical revisionism (negationism) is an even broader process and it should belong there.
 * If the argument is that "Holocaust denial" is a subset of "Holocaust revisionism"; then "Holocaust revisionism" itself is a subset of Revisionist history and an argument can be made that it should belong there.
 * "Holocaust denial" is indeed a pejorative term; and it is this pejorative term which gets almost a million hits on Google which is the subject of this article. It is only insulting to the denier.
 * "Holocaust revisionism" might mean a revision of some aspects of the Holocaust; while "Holocaust denial" deals with a general denial or a major attempt at watering down the Holocaust; putting the entire concept of the Holocaust in question.
 * "Holocaust denial" gets four times as many hits on Google then "Holocaust revisionism".
 * The subject here is the "denial" part; not the revisionist part. Revisionism (which we are told has a positive and a negative form) is the means by which the attempt is made for a "plausible" denial.
 * All the other good reasons above. Itzse (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Main section (definition) and a section for criticism
The article starts with a short definition of holocaust denial but is quick to start debunking it. As much as I disagree with holocaust denial, I think the article should read like any other article in Wikipedia: it should be completely about what holocaust denial is and have a section (or maybe a separate article due to its length) dedicated purely to criticism of holocaust denial. --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The lede does summarize exactly what Holocaust denial is, in fairly dispassionate tones, and the majority of it is a simple description. WP:LEAD also states that notable controversies should be briefly described, which it does. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV if we failed to note in the lead what the consensus of scholars and historians are regarding the subject. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Various changes
Because of Jayjg's reversion to December 28, it seems necessary to justify the changes that I made. It was mostly re-arrangement and re-organization. I remember the following changes I made:
 * Combining the "Claims" and "Examination and criticism of the claims" sections, because the "Claims" section was quite short and can be thought of as "examining the claims" anyway, so they really belong in the same section.
 * In the "Examination and criticism of the claims", I thought it was slightly disorganized, and seemed to ramble on too much, so I thought that I would combine it all into a single list, so that there is less repetition.
 * At the end of the aforementioned section, there was talk on how to deal with Holocaust deniers. That is not really criticism of the claims, so I moved that down to the public reactions section (which again was too short for a section, I thought) which I renamed "Reactions". Then because making "laws against Holocaust denial" is one way used to "deal" with Holocaust deniers, I made that a subsection of the "Reactions" section.

I feel these changes make the article more organized. I am not sure what weasel wording Jayjg refers to in his edit summary, perhaps this refers to the edits other editors made. I propose unreverting because these changes are, on the whole, good ones. If any mistakes have been made or other unwanted changes have crept in then of course the appropriate corrections should be made. Count Truthstein (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether all the controversial changes were made by you or by the IP editors, but I do know that you inserted text into a direct quote from Shermer and Grobman (footnote 19). Perhaps you should take things a little more slowly, one change at a time. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean now, but it wasn't obvious to me that that list (with points 1-5 by Shermer and Grossman) is a direct quote from them. What I was trying to do was to incorporate text before the list into the list because there is repetition and redundancy. (One example: "film and stills that showed the existence of prisoner camps" and also "3. Photographs - including official...") Of course that can't be done if it actually a direct quote. Nevertheless the redundancy still exists. We might not have this problem if direct quotes from our sources were only used as references, and not as major parts of the article. Otherwise it may be seen as a violation of the GFDL. I suggest that Shermer and Grobman remains a source for the article but I don't think it is appropriate to incorporate that quote like that. The article is about "Holocaust denial", not "What Shermer and Grobman have said about Holocaust denial". Articles consist of the main article, and then references to support what is written in the article (e.g. a reference to Shermer and Grobman). Even if we were talking about what Shermer and Grobman said in the main, informational, part of the article it still might not be appropriate to quote them in this way, if what they have written is used to substitute for writing content that is free (under GFDL). Count Truthstein (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is 113k; the quote in question is only a small part of it, hardly a "major part of the article". There's no question this properly cited quote qualifies as "fair use" and in no way violates GFDL. As for Shermer and Grobman, any good article on Holocaust denial will, of necessity, rely on Shermer and Grobman since they wrote one of the two major works on the subject (the other was by Lipstadt). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that fair use does not apply if the quoted material is being used for a directly comparable purpose. Both the source and this article are on the same subject. Nevertheless more important is the redundancy and lack of organization in the article. The fact that a direct quote is used to impart information means that the text in that quote cannot be reorganized with other text in the article, it must remain intact. What would you do, for example, about the redundancy that I mentioned above? And relying on this source is not the same as quoting it. It is the difference between
 * New York is a state of the USA. According to expert Joe Schwashington, "New York is the third most populous state." ; and
 * New York is a state of the USA. It ranks third when the states are listed in decreasing order of population (so that the first state in the list has the greatest population)..
 * One of the above is good style, the other isn't. (I know I was more verbose in the second example but I was avoiding doing a direct quote.) Oh, and if it is going to be quoted it needs to be made more obvious that it is a quote. Count Truthstein (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotes are almost always used in articles on the same topic as the quote; otherwise it would be original research. Now, exactly what do you feel is redundant? I'm sure material can be re-arranged or re-organized, and the wording tightened up. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two examples aboves (the New York ones), are original research. The point is that material cannot be rearranged because that material lies within an immutable quote. The quote gives us 5 points. What if there is a sixth one? No, it can't be added. What if it is sensible to split one of those points into two? Not allowed. What if you want to elaborate on one point by inserting more material? Not allowed. In this edit I did many of these things. The nature of this edit reflects the repetition and disorganization of the material and my attempts to fix it. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I like the fact that you surrounded it in large quotes to make it clearer it was one quote, thanks for doing that. Your statement about original research is a non-sequitur - please review the original context of that discussion. Again, could you describe what you want to do to the text, aside from modifying or deleting this, and other sourced material? Perhaps make a couple of small changes to illustrate what you're trying to do. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of the Holocaust article
Since editors use this discussion page to debate facts and sources on the Holocaust rather than discuss the article itself, a new article should be created that deals specifically with Holocaust numbers and calculations, with the most reliable sources being used. This will allow a place to refer editors to if any disputes over the numbers come up in this talk page, and should be more detailed, showing tables or charts or restating anything from reliable sources including documents and images of documents that would be used to calculate the numbers and show them explicitly, rather than using general statements such as "The Nazis themselves documented many of their crimes."

The article could be titled Calculations of the number of Holocaust victims or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.93.38 (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with this approach - if these numbers existed there would be no such thing as holocaust denial. All documents, so far discovered, are vague( ie need lots of "code word" intrepretive effort, etc ). The lack of these documents is "holocaust denial". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In some ways, it's not a bad idea. At a peer article, there's a near constant stream of folks asking for new numbers, alternate numbers, etc. While there are certainly those who seek to inflate and deflate the numbers (for various reasons), aggregating the different tolls (and detailing their methods) in one place might help us to at least make sure we has less contention in the way of "my source is better than yours" kind of edit skirmishes. Ronabop (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag
There is a substantial amount of doubt that the article is free of bias, or even if the title is appropriate. It would seem that at the very least the neutrality of this article is in dispute, is it not fair that the appropriate tag be affixed for this condition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clearsight (talk • contribs) 07:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Tags are not weapons. The article itself discusses the dispute, which at Wikipedia is resolved by attending to WP:UNDUE; the opinions of the deniers are reportable but not supportable here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is using the tag as a weapon? It seems you are trying to indicate that there is no dispute over this heavily subjective topic. The tag will indicate that the content and title of this article is in dispute between at least three major parties: Zionists, Deniers and Revisionists. This topic is about Holocaust Denial and revision, not a description of the holocaust, so stating that revisionist viewpoints, which are on the verge of being represented of strawmen in this article, are given due weight when they almost unanimously disagree warrants the use of the Disputed NPOV Tag. There is no universal consenses here and many readers notice a bias one way or the other after reading it, which can be seen by reactions throughout the various comments on this talk page. This debate is not over and there can be no reason to assert a false consensus. I am replacing the tag. Clearsight (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2 cents - if it can be GA listed (and so far not delisted), we can assume it's NPOV - that includes title. Will (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Good Article Listing comes from the same source as much of the perceived bias. Think of it this way, would a GA listing given by the members of Stormfront on the merits of Der Giftpilz lead to a safe assumption that the article is NPOV? What most observers see here is not a dispassionate and accurate representation of this issue. It is politically charged and being used as a venue by both Anti-Semites and Zionists to advance their agendas, while some called revisionists want to know what is verifiable and what is not. At the very least, this issue is under dispute and should be labelled as such so readers can understand that not everything here is a good faith representation of the issue. Clearsight (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008


 * Quite frankly, this article will always be "in dispute". It's just par for the course. We accept that we will never write an article on Holocaust Denial that will please everyone, especially where wilful dishonesty is a characteristic of some of the objectors. However, we try to represent the subject in a neutral way. It's worth pointing out that the title is "Holocaust denial" as opposed to something like "Holocaust research"; one is a racist/political movement, the other is a historiographical discipline. There is a difference. EyeSerene TALK 12:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eyeserene is absolutely right. Holocaust deniers and or revisionist do not present a valid case and never have. We have the consensus here and will likely have it for years to come. The opinions of the revisionists and the deniers are duly noted and dismissed as being spurious. And that is just the way it is. : Albion moonlight (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If Eyeserene is right, and there will always be dispute, then the tag noting it as such should remain always and forever. This is an encyclopedia not a forum or a venue for POV pushing. The purpose of wrting this article is not to please everyone, neither is it to please just one side of the issue. Both responses illustrate the need for casual readers to be aware that there are multiple "camps" trying to take control of this article and use it to promote their view on this controversial and highly subjective issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clearsight (talk • contribs) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and therein lies part of the problem we regularly face. Insofar as there are 'camps' involved, I suppose one would be the "let's try to write an NPOV, factual, verifiable article that defines the phenomenon of Holocaust Denial", and I hesitate to characterise the other(s) for reasons of tact and decorum ;) It has to be said, too, that past experience has shown that those who regard this as a subjective issue are demonstrating either an inability to understand what the article is about, or are displaying the same kind of double-standards that Holocaust deniers apply to evidence for the Holocaust itself. It's partly due to objections like this that the article is so scrupulously sourced; Holocaust denial is only subjective in the same way that gravity is subjective ;) EyeSerene TALK 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eyeserene, is it fair to say that all revisionists are deniers and all deniers are anti-semites, therefore all revisionsists are anti-semites? If it is fair to say that, then I would quote Tony Judt in defense of revisionists "You cannot help it if idiots and bigots share your views for their reasons. That doesn’t mean that you can be tarred with their views. You have your views and they should be judged on their merits...". Some would say that asking questions about this issue is not anti-semetic in itself, which the term "denier" implies, and that it is illogical to use such reasoning. One side claiming that the other is spurious or citing sources that are openly biased to one POV does not amount to authentic credibility. What this amounts to is that it is not an unreasonable assertion that this is a heavily disputed issue where neutrality is by no means guaranteed, and lay readers should be alerted. If the goal is to prejudice perceptions of this issue, one of the numerous forums are where such tactics are more appropriate. Clearsight (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When one side -- the deniers and their allies -- are indeed spurious and bigoted, as shown by reliable sources, then neutrality doesn't require us to pretend otherwise. Holocaust denial (the topic of this article) is inherently anti-semitic; the article lays this out in a well documented, well supported fashion; and the complaints of deniers will not change what we do here. Holocaust denial is fraud compounded on fraud, and you're attempting to perpetuate it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the heart of the issue. Indeed there is prejudice here as is being currently demonstrated, perhaps you have too large a stake in this issue to have the responsibility of overseeing this article? Wanting to deny anti-semites a platform is an admirable goal, but perhaps you and others are going too far by trying to marginalize those who have legitimate questions and curiosity by tarring them with the same brush? Your definition of holocaust denial, and by extension anti-semitism, may be broad enough to cover those who do not agree that there is neutrality when there clearly isn't, but that is expected from a person who it seems is intolerant of any differing belief, or opinion.

Clearsight (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Consensus is on Jp Gordens side here. You are free to try and change consensus through discussion but you are fighting a losing battle by doing so : ```` Albion moonlight (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be on Jp Gordens side, but consensus is not as it does not exist. Virtually the only thing agreed upon here by all sides is that lack of it.

Clearsight (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict; this took a while to write though so I'm posting it anyway!)
 * True, as long as all revisionists are indeed deniers. That's not how the article defines them though. I can see that this is coming down to semantics: the fact that many (most?) deniers prefer to call themselves revisionists is neither here nor there; if I call myself a tree it doesn't make me one. Genuine historical revision adheres to academic methods; deniers borrow the term to avoid the overtly anti-Semitic association with the term denial, and to piggyback on the credibility of mainstream historical revision. Of course, it's also true that they dislike the term because many claim not to deny the holocaust at all... they just define it differently to everyone else ;)
 * I think we are in a period where the methodology of Holocaust denial is becoming more widely known, thanks in large part to some well-publicised investigations where its methods/claims have been put under the microscope by some of the top historians in their fields and thoroughly exposed/debunked. What I'm getting at is that, to subscribe to Holocaust denial these days, one would have to be either ignorant of historical evidence or wilfully ignoring it for whatever personal or idealogical reason. Ignorance is excusable, and can be addressed by access to the facts (isn't Wikipedia marvellous!). Unfortunately it's the second type we often see on these pages, and this is not excusable. Neither is it a reason to represent their regular objections as a valid POV, any more than it would be to give undue weight to the Moon landing conspiracy theories in the Apollo 11 article (which, incidentally, doesn't have a neutrality tag). Furthermore, the (wilful) deniers have been consistently proven to deliberately falsify evidence to support their position. From our perspective on WP, this means that they cannot be trusted to represent themselves and their motives truthfully - they fail the 'reliable' part of 'reliable sources'. The best we can use such sources for is to cite what they claim about themselves, which of course differs considerably from what other reliable sources have to say. I believe this is how the article approaches the issue.
 * That went on longer than I intended - apologies! Regards, EyeSerene TALK 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A central question and one of the main reasons that this article is in dispute: are all revisionists deniers? True, if you call yourself a tree, it doesn't make you one; but it is also true that if you call me a tree, it doesn't make me one either. This is what one side is doing to the other here and does not a consensus make. If this article were strictly about the holocaust, then your example regarding the moon landing would be appropriate; however, this is an article about revisionism and denial of the holocaust, so asserting that the regular and strenuous objections to their (hostile?) characterization do not qualify as dispute is dubious at best. Another disputed issue is regarding revisionism versus denial. Denial is a state, whereas revision is a process. The assumption being pushed here by JpGorden et al, is that the default motive of seeking to verify historical claims in this case is anti-semitism, which is simply an unverifiable generalization. One that some people are willing to make in order to supress a line of questioning that they deem unfavourable. While there is nothing new here about this revelation, it is not the place for such tactics. Also posited is the prejudical notion that anyone attempting to verify claims will be doing so in an acedemically unsound manner, and like most prejudices this is almost impossible to prove. Until such disputes can be resolved, the notice which states only the neutrality and title are in dispute (not the facts), is appropriate.

Sincerely, Clearsight (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no. This article is about holocaust denial. According to Wikipedia's methodology, when a preponderance of reliable sources says XYZ, Wikipedia says XYZ. When a minuscule fringe element says ABC, we might mention briefly, without undue weight, that a fringe exists that says ABC. That's the status of this article; the overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion is that Holocaust denial is how we describe it. "Neutral" and "consensus" doesn't mean "everyone agrees", and it certainly doesn't mean that the subjects of the articles agree. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick audit of the the "preponderence of reliable sources" regarding why "revionsim is denial" is also dubious when within it there are internet essayists, Zionisists, quotations from the ADL and the Jewish Policy Research report. These are hardly neutral sources for the preconceived conlusion of revision=denial, and represent a confirmation bias. To use an extreme example, I'm sure quoting Nazis on Nazism would produce a similar effect.

Clearsight (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag because I think the tagging is still being used as a weapon. Perhaps the time for for an rfc on the tagging itself is appropriate.: Albion moonlight (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Romval reverted. This is not finished and there is no reason to act in bad faith. What you are doing is essentially edit warring. If you have something to contribute, feel free.Clearsight (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is you who is acting in bad faith. But for now I am going to let somebody else revert you. You are refusing to abide by a long standing consensus and using that tag as a weapon even though you have been warned by a member of the arbitration committee that npov tags are not weapons.
 * Albion moonlight (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of an abritrator who is openly biased toward one POV is relatively worthless when their duty is to remain neutral. Clearsight (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not here as an arbitrator, or even as an administrator; I'm here as one of many plain ordinary Wikipedia editors very familiar with Holocaust denial as well as Wikipedia's expectations regarding NPOV, especially in regards to fringe beliefs. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That capacity would be the only logical explaination as you have already made the libellous insinuation that this user is anti-semetic for merely questioning the neutrality of this article's representational faithfulness. You say "the complaints of deniers will not change what we do here." Who is this "we" you are refering to? People who agree with you, or a more specific community? What are you doing here? Ensuring that history is written as you see fit, according to your personal beliefs? Many would like that privilege, but you are theoretically here to prevent it.Clearsight (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't add much to what Jpgordon has already said, but to state it in explicit, unambiguous terms: not all revisionists are deniers. No-one is claiming that, and neither does the article. Perhaps reading the article on Historical revisionism would help clarify this for you? It examines both the legitimate and perjorative uses of the term. The fact that Holocaust deniers prefer to call themselves Holocaust revisionists is irrelevant; the rest of the world calls them deniers, and legitimate revisionists repudiate their use of the label too. The defining characteristics that distinguish the legitimate revisionist from the illegitimate revisionist (ie the denier) are the methods and motives underpinning their work. To take one example, after WWII the Polish initially displayed a plaque at Auschwitz stating "4 million died here". This was disputed by historians as unsupported by the evidence, and the numbers have now been revised downwards to what current research regards as the correct figure (around 1.1 million). This is legitimate revisionism; it is evidence-based, historiographically sound research, and no-one labels the historians who worked on this as 'deniers' or 'anti-Semitic'. In contrast, claiming that, for example, homicidal gas chambers never existed requires the claimant to both ignore a mass of evidence to the contrary and to fabricate/distort/misrepresent evidence to support their case. This is historiographically unsound research, and has been invariably shown to come from ulterior motives that may include anti-Semitism. The vast weight of respected academic opinion labels this 'denial'... and thus so does this article since it has to reflect that mainstream view. I take your point that the article appears to uses some sources that might be expected to be hostile to Holocaust denial, but I think you'll find that their views are supported by non-Jewish, non-partisan sources too. There is no bias being introduced, because (regardless of, eg, the ADL's perceived agenda), their take on Holocaust denial is not at variance with mainstream academic opinion - in fact, it is based on it. It's also logical that Jewish organisations were particularly concerned with investigating and answering Holocaust denial, so you shouldn't be too surprised if that's where we find many of the sources. They are not used uncritically, and only used if they meet the standards for WP:ATT.
 * There is consensus here, established through many debates like this, and you'll have to eventually accept that it's not on your side. EyeSerene TALK 11:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Clearsight indefinitely. Going through his contributions he's an obvious sockpuppet (that was his second edit) of someone-or-other here purely to edit disruptively - edit war, call people names, push POV, whatever. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Big surprise ;) Thanks Moreschi! EyeSerene TALK 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks Moreschi you did a good thing. Albion moonlight (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived
It looked like time to archive the talk page, as no new discussion was occurring. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)