Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 11

no use for discussion
The one-sidedness of this article is that obvious that there would be no use for any kind of scientific discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.220.137 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources about claim that soviet union supported a theory of zionist conspiracy
Reading through the article, I came across this: "Since 1960s, the Soviet Union promoted the allegation of secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist leadership." which I have now tagged with Fact. I come here to request some kind of source for this allegation. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 21:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clicking on "promoted the allegation" would have taken you to the Zionology article, which documents the phenomenon well. I've restructured the sentence to make it more clear (and to take the link out of the cookie jar.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers bud. With the layout I use links are sometimes hard to see. --Mad Tinman T C 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Small Issue
I found the paragraph that claims that Holocaust Deniers are traveling to the Middle-East and meeting with "terrorist" groups a little fishy (the tone was that of a government drone rather than a living person) so I looked into the reference. It's number 30, and it links to a completely unconnected page, and offers no validity to the claim. I have no opinion on the subject of Holocaust Denial, other than that I believe it DID happen by default. I DO think that trying to tie the Holocaust Denial Wikipage to the pathetic propagandist methods of the current Western governments ("Just SAY terrorist a lot and the people will believe you") actually makes me a little suspicious of the page, and begins to discredit it. 65.94.184.162 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't inherently mean the paragraph is false, the most likely thing is that the link may have simply died. If you can find a better source/citation/link, by all means add it, but please don't misconstrue a problematic link to jump to the conclusion that the whole thing is a slur campaign, that's not what we're about. WilliamH (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * References to Hitlist magazine and to the relevant information can be found by searching, but they're all references, mostly in blogs (including the author's own); we might just need to take the link away but keep the source. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the statement should be removed unless someone can actually find an accurate source for this claim. I can't.65.94.183.213 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the dead link with a convenience one. It doesn't need a link at all, it's properly sourced regardless. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead deterioration
The lead to this article appears to have deteriorated since last summer when it was reassessed, and I find I am partly to blame for not adding the reassessment discussion to the article history. I've added it now. The lead at the moment is not, in my view, encyclopedic neutral point of view.

The key to achieving the latter is "show, don't tell". At the moment, the lead implicitly tells the reader what to think rather than showing the reader the issues, and letting the reader decide. The worst point is the transition to the third paragraph, which suddenly states: "A common theme of antisemites is that Jews are organized as a group dedicated to world domination, and use their power to control world events. It has been suggested that those with this belief understand that it is incompatible with the Jews having been victimized to the degree claimed in World War II, leading many to resort to Holocaust denial in order to maintain the consistency of their claim about Jewish power." These sentences are almost certainly true, but they are not encyclopedic and they are not neutral. They effectively tell the reader that holocaust deniers are antisemites, which was one of the main issues at the previous GAR.

The conclusion of the GAR was that the article should show the reader that holocaust denial is an anitsemitic activity, rather than simply name-call: the resulting article was not bad at doing that, in my view. The lead has deteriorated since: can it be fixed? Geometry guy 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(For further info on my view, see my comments in the GAR discussion, which still apply.)
 * This isn't a case of the "lead deteriorating since last summer", it's a case of new editor making an inappropriate insertion a month ago that wasn't noticed. You could have removed it yourself, instead of this lengthy comment about GAR etc., but since you didn't, I've done it for you. Problem solved. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting it out. Geometry guy 08:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved "Terminology: Holocaust denial or Holocaust revisionism?"
I moved the section to the near the bottom of the article. I'm not saying that it's not important, but I think the article would read much better if the general information on the topic was up top, and more "refined" stuff closer to the bottom. Please revert if it causes any problems.Squid tamer (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. The only argument I can see for having it near the top is that for deniers, it's very important to called revisionists, so it makes sense to dispose of that issue quickly. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement. Having the paragraph at the top immediately disambiguates a fundamental part of Holocaust denial. It makes absolute sense to start off addressing the terminology before going into detail. WilliamH (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you dissagree with moving it to the bottom, revert it. this is wikipedia. Personally, due to my personality, I like to see the facts first, then the gramatical issues later. I didn't think about the denier's point of veiw. Whatever. I just wandered onto this article and thought that it would read better with that somewhere else. I thought for a bit, and realized that the title was already Holocaust denial, and I read the section, and deemed that it wouldn't hurt anything to move it. Squid tamer (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Terminology is a big issue with Holocaust denial, so it's best to get that out of the way up front. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem Squid tamer, thanks for being bold. I would have indeed moved it to where it originally was, I just figured it was appropriate to post my comments and wait for some other editors' opinions before doing so. WilliamH (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Slight edit suggestion
Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[7] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[8] conspiracy theory.[9] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[10]

This is the third paragraph in the article, I would suggest changing it to this for POV reasons

Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[8] conspiracy theory.[9] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[10]

I think accusing the Jews of a conspiracy theory to advance our interests in the third paragraph is a bit rich, what do the rest of you think? Would like it if someone changed this for me :) Hebrewpridehebrewpower (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. You would be erasing an important factor in Holocaust denial; that Holocaust deniers accuse the Jews of falsifying the Holocaust for purposes of furthering their own interests. Note that the article doesn't accuse Jews of actually doing that, it just states what Holocaust deniers state or implicitly suggest, and is backed up by the commentary of eight independent reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following: Many Holocaust denial claims openly state that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[7] For this reason, most forms of Holocaust denial are generally considered to be antisemitic[8] conspiracy theories.[9] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[10]

Most changed to many because of the grey area where the term revisionism is misused, and the fact that there are plenty of denial claims that state exaggeration or partial inaccuracies rather than hoax, which is stated clearly in this article. Imply removed for POV reasons. Better to deal in facts rather than stating what it seems people are implying.--74.93.118.129 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But why do they say that the Holocaust is an exaggeration? WilliamH (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably a few different reasons. Some of them with an agenda and some of them without an agenda. Is it unreasonable to consider that facts tend to be corrupted more often than not when an issue is political/emotional/controversial/etc... Look, I personally don't have any reservations about what history has accepted as fact about the holocaust, and I totally understand anyone who is passionate about not letting it become marginalized. My points are still valid and it's just not good to protect questionable POV wording. It's not how Wikipedia does it and in this case it only serves as ammo for conspiracy theorists.--75.95.95.227 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Exaggeration, hoax.....hydrogen oxide, dihydrogen monoxide. If claiming the veritable destruction of Jews in the Holocaust never happened/ was a hoax/myth/exaggeration isn't inherently antisemitic, what is it then? Eight independent sources describe that Holocaust denial is antisemitic; I fathom your point, but the only POV I can see is historical point of view. WilliamH (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Omissions
This article, as well as others, constantly references the "six million jews" killed in the Holocaust. However, about twelve million PEOPLE were killed, all told, including Gypsies, homosexuals, slavs, and other ethnicities. The constant omission of the OTHER six million people that were murdered is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I am aware that much of the current debate on this topic centers around the issue of anti-semitism that underlies much of the current discourse, but omitting six million people from the total death toll of the Holocaust, (a trend that is mirrored on other articles, mind you,) is a simple factual omission that should be rectified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.72.87 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While more people than just Jews were killed in the Holocaust, Holocaust denial is about denying that Jews were killed. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fifty millions were killed, not twelve. //roger.duprat.copenhagen.denmark

HOLOCAUST DENIAL is not about denying jews being killed its about the gassings. holocaust deniers QUESTION????the gasing of jews sadly war itself is a CRIME,however deniers like ernst zundel, david irving etc DENY that gassings took place it is an atrocity that aperson should be imprisoned for QUESTIONING the holocaust. Seems to me the shoah needs serious REVISION Dwnndog (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ROBERT SCHMIDT


 * SEEMS to me THAT you should READ the WP:TALK GUIDELINES . Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Historical revisionism (revisionists)
I would like to inform the community that I have started the above WP:List. Note, however, that these people are not to be labeled under the Category of Holocaust denial because the do not call themselves that. Nevertheless, their names overlap, I think, with the names in this article. So I do not believe I need to seek a WP:Split. However, one editor I've communicated with, thinks otherwise. I think the list will be very useful both for Wikipedia and its community and may help us avoid some comfusions regardint Revisionism and related Articles. I would welcome very much the views of the community of dedicated Wikipedians who have developed this page and therefore have some expertese un the project I have commenced. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable Holocaust deniers (currently merely a subsection of our article)
More particularly, I would like to commence a related, but more extensive list of such indivduals than the one we have at the moment in this article under that heading. Certain indivduals now seem to distance themselves from HD and call themselves Historical Revisionists. I would like us to have the more inclusive list, in a List article. How does the community fee about that? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Holocaust revisionist" is a euphemism for "holocaust denier"; consensus at Wikipedia, backed up by numerous and sufficient reliable sources, has consistently been to use the term "denier", regardless of how the deniers may happen to style themselves. Historical revisionism, on the other hand, is legitimate scholarship, and not covered except briefly in passing by this article. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The current list of Holocaust deniers can become more inclusive by adding any documented Holocaust deniers that may be missing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Such inclusion would be too burdensome - would make the article lengthier than necessary. Wikipedia provides for all sorts of lists. Also, such a list would support this Main article on Holocaust denial.--Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS(1): Such a list will also help to show that the Main Article sould be Historical Revisionism - currently named Historical revisionis (negationism). It is also to be noted that some HRists distance themselves from HD (as they do not want to go to jail for it in Europe). The point is - the article should be "Historical Revisionism" --Ludvikus (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS(2) The current HR articles is really about "Revisionist historians."
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ludvikus I think you are confused there are currently two articles historical revisionism and historical revisionism (negationism). The former about legitimate historical revisionism the latter illegitimate historical revisionism (and a term that is often used by the news media in Britain as a pejorative description of historical falsifiers). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand you 100%. What you call legitimate, however, is really about Revisionist historians. The confusion is on your part because you haven't read the reference very cartefully. The reference there is James M. McPherson, President of the American Historical Association. The title of the article cited is "Revisionist Historians." Never does he use the two-words juxtaposed like so: historical revisonism - not once. I think you are the inocent victim of the propaganda campaign of Historical Revisionism. Please, please, please - examine the source with extreme caution and skepiticism. If you do I believe you will immediately side with me that that artical - about the "legit" Historical Revisionism" should be re-named and Moved to "Revisionist Historians." --Ludvikus (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS(1): Here's their reference (read it very, very, carefullly): http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm --Ludvikus (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS(2): It's like FLOWERS IN THE THE SPRING. There's a way to write it so no one sees the double "the." I would love to see the look on your face if and when you say I'm right!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS(3): President Bush has also been a victim of this misunderstanding because he used McPherson "legitimate" expression "Revisionist Historians": . --Ludvikus (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go again. In fact, what McPherson wrote in that article includes the following:
 * "For many of us, the term "revisionist historians" recalls distasteful memories from the 1970s of Holocaust deniers who called themselves "revisionists." One hopes that in resorting to this phrase now, the president's associates are not seeking to falsely and maliciously link present-day critics of the administration to those who misrepresented the past for nefarious ends. But even if they are not guilty of such an insinuation, by misusing the term "revisionist historians" to derisively deflect criticism, Condoleeza Rice and her cohorts are denigrating a legitimate and essential activity of historians."
 * Your word games notwithstanding (i.e. the argument that "revisionist historians" have absolutely nothing to do with the process of "historical revisionism), it is very clear that you are promoting a classification that McPherson sees (and opposes despite your sugestion that he supports your position) as equating "nefarious" Holocaust Deniers with mainstream historians. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist historians
We really need badly a DAB page on Revisionist historians. Here's the legitimate usage (--Ludvikus (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)):
 * "No Honor on the Left [mine] [Free Republic]
 * It explains well why not one Revisionist historian, including Gabriel Kolko,
 * ... But its colors are fading, and the New Left hopes the horrors will soon be ...
 * www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3818ef992f43.htm - 39k


 * To call the revisionist historian Gabriel Kolko a historical revisionist is to insult and disparage him. These are the historians associated with the New Left. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out this Diff:.
 * I just stopped its REDIRECT because it was mistaken. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And here's a reference for the legitimate usage ("New Left revisionist historians"): . These are NOT at all Historical Revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Two other New Left "revisionist historions" were William Appleman Williams and James Weinstein. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So we need to do some DAB & Merging. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the point you are trying to make. And as this is a discussion page for the development of the article Holocaust denial I do not think you should be cluttering this talk page up with discussions about other pages that might or might not need to be created. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Based upon this discussion I'm going to propose a Merge. Historical Revisionism & Holocaust Denial are one and the same. I am disappointed that you do not understand my argument. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

-


 * Discussion
 * 1) There is just one illegitimate movement/school here - and it is called Historical Revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Some of its members - not wanting to go to jail - be imprisoned in Europe - have disavowed Holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) We should not be the victims of their propaganda: Revisionist historians are not Historical revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Here's the only reference & it's about revisionist historians & not about historical revisionism . And if your confused, don't blame me or yourselves. It's how propaganda works. Look to the top of this page with its Warning. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being dense here, but what discussion are you referring to? I think it might help if you (a) clarified what you are after; (b) gave a little more time for other editors to comment; and maybe (c) waited for responses before posting multiple serial comments and postscripts (it's confusing the hell out of me!) EyeSerene talk 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Your confused because the Propagandists have succeeded. Let me try to make the complexity involved clearer:


 * 1) Holocaust denial & Historical revisionism (negationism) are one and the same thing - even though we have 2 articles about the subject matter. The only argument that can posssibly be made for 2 separate article is that some Historical revisionists no longer publicly deny that the holocaust never happened. So what? That does not justify 2 articles on the same subject, people, school, movement.
 * 2) Historical revisionism is supposed to be something legit. That's only because these propagandists succeded in confusing us about something quite different, namely Revisionist historians.
 * 3) Unfortunately, Wikipedia itself has allowed this to happen by letting credence to the phrase "Historical revisionism." There aint no such thing - no scholar calls any legitimate historian a "Historical revisionist" - not one. The 2 word phrase is a pejorative.
 * 4) The legitimate school of though related to these 2 words is [[Revisionist historian].
 * I hope this clarifies things. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet again you distort the meaning of the McPherson article. Note the following from that article:


 * Whatever Bush and Rice meant by "revisionist historians," it is safe to say that they did not mean it favorably. The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes.


 * McPherson pretty much moves back and forth between the terms revisionist and revisionism, doesn’t he?


 * You really should ease up on using a perjorative term (propogandist) for those who disagree with you -- especially since despite carrying this case to at least six different articles and any number of proposals you have yet to get anybody to agree with you.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. And here's one book about 7 Revisionist Historians our President Bush was talking about: "The New Left and the Origins of the Cold War by Robert James Maddox Princeton, $7.95 Professor Maddox's book is a critical analysis of the work of seven revisionist historians. None of them - not one was a Historical Revisionist". It is an insult and a hoax to call them that. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The propaganda trick is absolutely brilliant! Take "revisionist historicans" and call them instead "historical revisionists." And with one more step you've got "historical revisionism.' And that way you've not only got James McPherson, President of the American Historical Society expounding your philosophy - but even the second President Bush. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can anyone else please help me out in distnguishing the New Left historians from the "Holocaust denial variety? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling a legitimate historian an historical revisionist will only be an intellectually accurate insult when Holocaust Deniers are successful in getting themselves classified as revisionist within the meaning given the term by the historical profession. I suggest you check out "Reconstruction: An Anthology of Revisionist Writings" edited by Kenneth Stampp and Leon Litwack.  It has articles by twenty three historians, including at least three Pulitzer Prize winners.  Neither the editors nor the contributors consider the term historical revisionist as "an insult and a hoax".


 * As far as "distnguishing the New Left historians from the "Holocaust denial variety", that is exactly what the status quo you are attempting to change accomplishes -- the former belong in the Historical revisionism article and the latter in Historical revisionism (negationism)Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I will refrain from the use of the word "insult." However, I request that you Disambiguate the two phrase. Let me write about Revisionist Historians and you can write whatever nice things you wish to write about Historical Revisionists. But don't confound thev two. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, despite the fact that nobody else agrees with you, you would like for me to acquiesce while you create a POV Fork? I think not. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't demand that editors do anything on Wikipedia, dude. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you misunderstand - or I do - Tom North Shoreman. What exactly are you against? Arev you say that there is a difference between Negationism and Holocaust Denial? What's the difference? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WHAT is being debated here and WHY?
Can we sum it up in 2 sentences, and put closure on it? This page is being turned into another unreadable monstrosity. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) I'm requesting that we distinguish clearly between Revistionist historians and Historical revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is that here. This is the holocaust denial discussion page. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See the archives of Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism) if this subject is to be discussed I think it should be discussed on that article's talk page and not this one! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Can we agree to move it there (for better or worse) and collapse this discussion. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Haven't you noticed the Merge posting at the front of the page? There is a proposal that the One be merged into the Other. Look at the top of the Article. This is that Merge discussion. I've been arguing - as User:Jpgordon himself said - if I understood him correctly, that Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism are one and the same - therefor they (the articles) should be merged. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? Historical revisionism (negationism), Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism are three distinct topics. It's Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionist that are essentially the same.Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think, perhaps, the disruption that you've been complaining about is caused by this ridiculas plurality that Wikipedia tolerates? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No. You seem to be the only one concerned. And you also seem to write huge swaths of commentary before you actually research the subject at hand. For example, most of the morass of discussion above seems rooted in your failure to understand the meaning of the basic concepts. Yet you propose moves, mergers and countless other disruptions without even a basic understanding of the dfefinitons, meanings, and histories of the subjects you are trying to merge and move. THAT is the source of the disruptions. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your generalization is useless. And your characterization of me Disruptive and Provocative. Once again - please stop! Discuss the issues at hand instead. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you've made yourself the issue at hand. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? Please explain so I can correct myself - as I particularly respect what you have to say. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Returning to your proposal (!), I understand it now, thank you, and although I think I follow your reasoning I believe you may, as others have pointed out, not be entirely clear about the differences between the terms. Although Holocaust Denial is an example of Historical Revisionism (in it's perjorative sense), it's not the only example. Holocaust Denial (called Holocaust Revision by it's practitioners) is a subtopic of Historical Revisionism, and is already mentioned on that article's page (with a link to this, the main article). To try to merge the two would be extremely unhelpful.  EyeSerene talk 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I beg to differ: the lack of clarity is now on your part - but it's certainly not entirely your fault. Please observe what we have: (1) Historical revisionism, and (2) Historical revisionism (negationism). I submit - without wishing to offend you - that it is you who appears confused by the fact that these are two are distinct articles. I propose that #2 (no pun intended) be merged into this article. That does not appear inconsistent with what you just have said, anyway, or does it? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So what you are propsing is a merge between Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism (negationism)? That is what I understood you to be proposing (and I'm not offended) ;) Let me clarify my earlier post:
 * Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism) are two separate articles because they are two different, although distantly related, topics.
 * Illegitimate Historical Revisionists (ie those described in Historical revisionism (negationism)) try to use the name and academic credibility of legitimate Historical Revisionists (per Historical revisionism) to disguise the fact that their methods and motives are unsound. Thus we need two articles to describe the two topics.
 * One group (not the only group) of illegitimate Historical Revisionists are the Holocaust Deniers. Other examples are given in the article.
 * Attempting to merge Historical revisionism (negationism) and Holocaust Denial would therefore be a counter-intuitive move, since there would also have to be mergers with all the other articles about other examples of Historical revisionism (negationism). Alternatively, attempting to bring everything together into the Historical revisionism (negationism) article would create an over-long, unbalanced and unwieldy article.
 * I hope that makes my view clearer? EyeSerene talk 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate 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 for the move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Historical revisionism (negationism) → Holocaust denial — The two are one & the same. —Ludvikus (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Strong support. -- The two are one and the same, as stated above. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Added for the benefit of any RM admin who is not familiar with Ludvikus's recent behaviour over the article Historical revisionism (negationism). Ludvikus there is no reason why a detailed article like Holocaust denial should not exist with a summary in a more general article. Ludvikus Holocaust denial is the best known example of Historical revisionism (negationism), but there are other examples: see these photographs of Stalin's influence on history:


 * Strong oppose. Although the two topics are related they are not the same and unique one.  Even if it is clear that the Holocaust denial is a form of denialism, it is important and specific enough to have its own article in Wikipedia.  I assume that with the kind of arguments he develops here, Ludvikus next proposal will be to have the article The Holocaust merged into the article Antisemitism .  --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Actually, the names need to be appropriately adjusted. But that's a minor point. The content is the same, although the movement subscribes to other outrageous policies besides it's most notorious one, namely, the denial of the Holocaust. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Historical revisionism is currently occupied by the so-called "legitimate Historical Revisionism"'''. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is coming across as stubborness verging on WP:POINT. You have now contradicted your proposal with your first comment, and you've had a few explanations of why this is a bad idea (it's like wanting to merge Prime number with Integer because all the primes are also whole numbers). There's no support for this, so it might be wise to drop it gracefully ;)  EyeSerene talk 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The content of both articles are the same - therefore the two articles should be Merged. In fact, the articles constitute WP:Forking, which violates WP policy. The articles should be merged. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Ludvikus, Historical revisionism (negationism) and Holocaust denial are not the same, they are clearly two entirely different articles. The subject matter of this page and others that you continue to debase and disrupt are serious subjects, and your increasingly delusional disruptions are offensive. This is the last time I am going to ask you to knock it off, Ludvikus. I guarantee if you don't, you will undoubtedly be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) Stop your threats now please. (2) The "negationism" article says it a "pejorative" subject matter. (3) holocaust denial is an established "pejorative." (4) Make the distinction between the two "illegitimate" subjects in the two articles. Tell me why there is no WP:Forking. I want to know. What is the difference besides you saying that there it one. I fail to see any difference. please be specific. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * :::::I'm not arguing with you anymore. That would be insanity. You are a pathological troll who shall no longer be fed. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter where this conversation is going or how it concludes, comments like that will not advance it. WilliamH (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True that, struck. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I truly am sorry I upset you. That is and was not my intent. I have training in both philosophy and law & therefore am trained in logical debate and writing argumentative papers to be submitted into court. I use this method here to demolish my oponents' arguments. I do not think that is "trolling." I sincerely apologize for the pain I seem to have caused you. However, we must get back to the issue - no one has shown any difference between the two articles which on their face assert that they cover pejorative subject matter. So I'm simply asking for distinctions which will demonstrate that we do not, in fact, have here a clear instance of WP:Forking. So far no one has shown any of that. I also want to point out that there appear to be perhaps two or three other editors who seem to disagree with my view here. But I'm told that we do not go by majority voting here. Ultimate each one must make his or her own judgment. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right that we do not go by "majority voting" here. You're wrong that "each one make his or her own judgment". We work by consensus here, which is where you keep running into problems; if consensus is X, and you say Y, X wins, even if Y is factually more accurate. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Ludvikus for 2 years. He had already served two extended blocks (six months and two months, respectively), alongside multiple shorter ones, but these same problems continue to reoccur (much of these follow the pattern outlined in FT2's community ban proposal from last year). I tried to extend several chances for him to reform, to no avail. Our volunteers are not fair game to endless tendentious exhaustion. El_C 23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks El_C, I can't say I'm surprised. EyeSerene talk 07:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This page ignores the definitive 'debunking the holocaust' work
There is a video documentary which describes the flaws and outright deception in the official holocaust story. It is located on the web at http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com   It needs to be listed in the Holocaust Movies section. How is it that you can disagree with just about any other official historical account and not be labeled a 'denier'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.34.135 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i agree, this movie does ask some very good questions. and you are a denier because it threatens the money-making machine that is the myth of 6 million gassed. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you would be a denier if you claimed that "6 million gassed" is a myth, simply because it's only deniers that build that strawman. Approx. 6 million were killed, a percentage of which were from gassing.

Most legitimate review of history takes the form of varying interpretations of events. This legitimate form of revisionism doesn't question that the events took place at all, however. You'll see lots of discussion about why this general did or didn't do things in the American civil war, for instance, but not much about whether a battle happened or not. So, while you can "disagree" that a battle, or the whole American civil war took place, most historians won't bother with such people -- just like they won't with deniers.

And while the videos alluded to above are entertaining, they are also refuted in this series of blog postings: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/sticky-chicken-challenge.html

So, if it should be listed in the Movies section, it would have to be added in the "already debunked" category. Cantankrus (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Did six million really die.jpg
The image Image:Did six million really die.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe
Koenraad Elst is pretty much the definition of fringiness. I spent some time hunting for the perfect quote to replace him; IIRC at the time there wasn't even a mention of Rousso in the article. I would suppose Derrida is good enough for anyone. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on why you think he's "the definition of fringiness"? He seems to have published 15 English language books, and the quote itself is spot on the topic of the section. Derrida, while good, doesn't actually mention "Holocaust denial" - the Elst quote really pulls it all together. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where all the rather extensive discussions have gone. What I can say without trying to locate those discussions is that Elst is largely published by Voice of India, which is openly fringe; he himself has never published in any peer-reviewed journal or by any academic press except for one paper that was part of a collection Routledge India did of Indian historical revisionists; he is the major online supporter for dotty Out of India theories of pseudohistory; this particular reference was probably added first either by a SPAs that spammed various Voice of India quotes a few years ago, or by User:Hkelkar; and the only time mainstream historians or academics of any sort are likely to engage him is as a source for the rhetoric of Hindu nationalism in India. Not to mention his close ties with the Vlaams Blok would make him closer to the subject of the article than I would like. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The quote itself was particularly apt, I'd hate to lose it. Do reliable sources share your views of Elst? Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You know how it is with fringe writers. Reliable sources hardly ever address them directly. Most of the statements at the Voice of India page can be taken to refer to Elst; he has been called "eccentric" and his work "selective archaeologies and fanciful speculations" ; Here is Irfan Habib on the sort of claim he specialises in; I don't have access to at the moment, but I suspect, if you do, it will be relevant. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all very well, but hardly proves your claims, and the quote itself is highly relevant and apropos. I suggest getting wider consensus for its removal. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Scholars are undeniably among the ranks of Holocaust deniers.
How? Who? Which reliable sources do you have to back this up? There is a difference between writing discerningly, and just plain POV pushing. WilliamH (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason that David Irving or David Hoggan or Austin App or Richard Krege don't fit the definition of both "scholar" and "Holocaust denier?" --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for essentially the same reason that the article on Earth doesn't present the possibility that the planet might be a flat plane instead of an oblate spheroid. WilliamH (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more directly: Irving and Hoggan share the propensity for falsifying data, and Irving's not a scholar in any sense of the word; App was a medieval English scholar, yes, but that doesn't really qualify as a scholar qualified to comment on Holocaust issues; and Krege's an engineer, not a scholar. (Appears to be a fraud, too.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we speaking the same language? Holding a stupid opinion doesn't disqualify one from being a scholar, i.e., "a specialist in a given branch of knowledge." David Irving specializes in the study of World War II history. Is that not a given branch of knowledge? Does Irving not specialize in it? What am I missing? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. The relevant scholars are scholars of history, particularly Holocaust studies. What an astrophysicist or a specialist in Tungusic languages might call Holocaust deniers isn't particularly relevant. As for Irving, he was a popular writer who, according to the judgement in his libel case against Lipstadt, "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." That pretty much removes him from the realm of "scholars". Jayjg (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And these writers appear to have ignored the testimony of holocaust survivors.--Gazzster (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And the same can be said from Robert Faurisson, a French scholar working outside of his scope of expertise (i.e. French litterature) and falsifying data. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the weasel words, per the common sense and the consensus here on Talk. If any actual scholars of history show up preferring the term "Holocaust revisionist", let me know. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is simply unfair that this article on Holocaust denial assumes that all revisionists are anti-semitic
Here is a link to a one hour documentary by a young Jewish revisionist's trip to Auschwitz: vho.org/dl/ENG/DavidColeatAuschwitz.wmv Llichtveld (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * David Cole's 'scholarship' can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of actual reliable sources and he has since recanted his views on Holocaust denial anyway. If you wish to contribute, please use reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that the denier claim of "no gas chambers" is already accounted for in the claims section, so Cole's reference isn't necessary. WilliamH (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * david cole's recant is very suspicious because it is a total turn around. nobody as articualte as him, who had done as much research as him and who had asked the kinds of real questions that totally debunk the holocaust could just change his mind and then accept the mainstream view. i believe he was threatened by zionists from the ADL. regardless of the things he says now there is still no official explanation for why there were doors that opened inward on these "gas chambers" and why there is no blue staining on the walls of the gas chambers, but there is on the walls of the delousing chambers. the holocaust is 99% propaganda and if it wasnt, there would be no need to lable people "deniers" and then put them in jail with rapists and murderers. Spoilermdc (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since David Cole is not a reliable source, what he thinks is largely irrelevant. If you can find reliable sources making Cole's criticisms, please bring them forward, otherwise, please refrain from using talk pages as a soap box. WilliamH (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

uh, if you want to know what david cole said, look at his interview on the phil donahue show back in the early 1990's. i am not using this as a soapbox. the fact that you dont like the truth doesnt mean that i am using this forum as a soapbox. Spoilermdc (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim of no gassing based on Prussian blue disparities is the most heavily flogged dead horse in the denier stables, so please, stop using this as a soapbox on which to beat it. If you can find reliable sources on this matter, please put them forward. Otherwise, for the last time, please stop using talk pages inappropriately. WilliamH (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Spoilermdc, is there a specific change you wish to make to the article? Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

that is a great article. i still dont believe. and what about the chambers that had doors that opened inward and locked from the inside? if you are going to make a claim of homicidal gas chambers killing 6 million plus people, the burden of proof is on you and not the person who finds critical flaws with the story. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

you werent there, so there is no way you could actually KNOW what happened. that is why all angles must be analyzed. but if you do, you get labled a Nazi and a Denier. call me what you wany, but i am not going to shut up and eat a bogus story. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, there is a specific change. but if i made it i would be banned and labled a "denier" by the likes of William. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And that change is....? Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I stand by Jayjg's question. I welcome any article improvement based upon reliable sources, and I don't have any prejudice against Spoilermdc to source the given criticism(s) from them, but if not, WP:SOAPBOX applies. I can't say fairer than that. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

-I wonder if there will be any problem if I remove the "Anti-semitism" column from here... I mean, History Revisionism is not anti-semitic. And I feel offended when I am called Anti-semitic just for denying the Holocaust as it has been told. Most of all when I'm semitic myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.33.206 (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There won't be any problem. We'll just put it back. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

sourcing issues
Another Wiki user advises me that his views on sourcing have been "consistently upheld". As an WP:Arbitrator with Revision hiding powers, that must be correct, but it is far from clear to me that WP:RS in fact upholds these views.

1. Apparently certain claims are so indisputable and unchallengeable that they disprove sources instead of the other way around. The reality of the Holocaust, for example, is apparently so indisputable that if, say, the world's most respected professional historian should suddenly shock the world by claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen, not only does he, as a source, not render the claim reliable, but the claim renders the source unreliable ("perpetuating falsehood is by definition unreliable" according to this user)! Where in Wikipedia can I find a list of these "super claims" which create WP:RS policy instead of being themselves created by WP:RS policy (like ordinary reliable claims)?

2. Apparently, "fruits of a poisonous tree are poisonous", such that, to continue with our hypothetical Denier above, not only is his article that denies the indisputable claim rejected as a reliable source, but anything else published by our Denier is rejected in advance as an unreliable source without even looking at it (a priori), never mind if the world's most prestigious professional journal should publish it. In a remarkable logical chain, your see, not only does the "super claim" render unreliable the source that denied it, but all other claims by the source on all other matters are rendered unreliable as well! After all, they are all fruits of the "poisonous tree". But isn't that reasoning in fact a classic example of the Poisoning the well logical fallacy?

3. Apparently, the same standards of reliability apply across everything that appears on any given server or website. So if some crank in a comment section of a New York Times article should deny an indisputable truth, then not only does that crank comment not meet WP:RS, but everything on the entire website fails as well, by the poison-cannot-be-contained-but-spreads-to-everything argument. In the alternative, if the New York Times is not, in fact, full of poison but full of sweetness and light, then the crank comment may be cited as a reliable source by the "fruits of the tree of sweetness and light are sweetness and light" reasoning.

I find it difficult to believe that tbese views on sourcing have, in fact, been "continually upheld". By whom?Bdell555 (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find your rant hard to understand, despite having now seen 6 or 7 versions of it. I advise use of the preview button to avoid wasting other users' time. Assuming you talk about Kubek's paper in the "Journal of Historical Review": This is not a only not a real academic journal, its a crappy propaganda stunt by the Nazi-apologist fake "Institute for Historical Revisionism". If someone publishes in such an low-life venue, that does indeed cast a shadow on all his work - either they are incompetent, or they are consciously supporting blatant liars. Nothing on the IHR web page or in the JHR has any credibility. If it is true, it is so by accident only.  Nothing published there is a WP:RS and nothing there should be used as a secondary source for any kind of statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did use the preview button a number of times but wanted to do a save. It'd been 10 days since the last comment so it seems something of a coincidence we appear here during the same hour.  My apologies, although I don't see how your time could have been wasted anyway since you don't address any of the arguments above regardless of how I phrased them.  You just use the very argument the fallacy of which I pointed out above, namely "liar therefore unreliable source therefore everything by the source on all topics is unreliable", and employing the unstoppable "poison" argument to assert "nothing ... has any credibility".  This while casually insinuating that the Chair of the Department of History and Political Science at the University of Dallas should be counted amongst the "blatant liars" and "low-lifes" (see Association fallacy).  Can we agree to respect people who disagree with us? I'm highly averse to saying "if you don't understand" to a fellow user since it's usually rude, but since you say that it's unclear what I am saying let me say this, you have to universalize your rules.  That means that a reliable source policy must be applied without discrimination across ALL Wikimedia areas.  If you truly believe your arguments, then you'll get the situations I describe above.  Do you find the outcomes I described absurd or not?  Re the Kubek paper, name the claims in it which fail to satisfy WP:RS.Bdell555 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bdell, let us know when you are finished with your statement, so it can be responded to. Responding to something that keeps changing isn't fruitful. And changing something that's already been responded to isn't conducive to honest dialog. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stephan Schulz responded to it so it's done. I agree although I think spelling and grammar corrections after a response are OK because the "honesty" of the dialog is not compromised while later readers may find it easier to read.Bdell555 (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, regarding your reductio ad absurdum -- I'm trying to remember, what's the name of the logical fallacy that thinks that "A implies B" means "B implies A"? If the NYT publishes an occasional crank letter, or even a serially incorrect but apparently popular columnist, it detracts a little bit from the quality of the Times, but it does not say anything about the entire mission of the Times. On the other hand, if Holohoax.com publishes the time of day, it still can't be trusted, because holohoax.com is dedicated to perpetuating lies -- find the time elsewhere; information that's only worthy of being published by holohoax is not useful for Wikipedia purposes. One good piece of information at holohoax doesn't make holohoax.com usable as a source, any more than one bad piece of information at the Times renders the Times unusable. But I guess I'll let other people argue this with you; we had this discussion a long time ago and you clearly were dissatisfied with the results, and I don't have anything new to bring to the table. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent) "what's the name of the logical fallacy"

It's called Affirming the consequent. However, I am saying NOT B. I'm saying that when you say A, that implies B, and B is absurd. Therefore not A. See Modus_tollens.

"it detracts a little bit"

So one bad apple of holocaust denial (in, say, the form of a "crank letter") doesn't necessarily spoil the whole bunch.

"the entire mission of the Times"

I'll certainly grant that if "the entire mission" of the source I cited is to compete with the Weekly World News, the mission is relevant. Show me a Weekly World News article, in fact, that cites the Interim Report of the Committee on Government Operations and 35 or more additional footnotes like that source I used does and I'll immediately concede the argument!

If "the entire mission of the Times" includes providing news and analysis from something of a left wing perspective, however, that is not relevant to reliability. Does the fact the Wall Street Journal publishes from a more right wing perspective make it that much less reliable, and the fact the "holocaust denial" organizations are generally yet further out on the spectrum that much more unreliable in turn? There's no necessary connection between having an identifiable perspective on politics, society, history, etc and reliability. If the world's most respected scholar publishes in the Nation, which describes itself as the "flagship of the left", it is just as reliable as if he publishes in the "conservative" National Review. It follows from WP:NPOV that neither us can reject reliable sources just because we think the websites on which we find their work happen to be controlled by organizations that are on a "mission" to advance a perspective we don't like. Neither can we give sources that we like any kind of a free pass on meeting reliability standards.

"holohoax.com is dedicated to perpetuating lies"

1) You can go ahead and show that A does not imply C, but that does nothing to refute my contention that A implies B. You did not revert an edit where I cited holohoax.com.  You reverted an edit where I cited Anthony Kubek.

2) You're begging the question again: "lies" therefore "can't be trusted". Why not just assert your assumption instead of circling right back to it and calling it a conclusion?  Is it because if you just assert your assumption, it'd be too obvious that you'd have to justify it and that means actually investigating it to see if it's true?  And we can't have that because what you want is to reject the source I cite without any investigation?

"I don't have anything new to bring to the table"

If you don't the time to use the Talk pages then I assume you don't have the time to revert me. If, on the other hand, you have the time but have just run out of argument, are you going to revert me without providing any further justification and while my own justification remains out there unchallenged?

"Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject."

You quote this excerpt from WP:RS on your userpage and say it is equivalent to an absolute prohibition on "holocaust denial" websites apart from "articles about that site". To begin with, it says nothing about sites. It says "organizations and individuals". Anthony Kubek is an individual, and it remains to be proven whether this Chair of the History Dept at Dallas U is "fringe". Even if he is, see the "or". I didn't see any "or" in your account of permissible use. Furthermore, and most importantly, look at the context. The immediately prior sentence says "Articles should not be based primarily on such sources" and the immediately following sentence begins "Use of these sources must not obfuscate the description of the mainstream view...". This whole section is applicable to users who are trying to give voice to a "minority view" of some sort. As such, its application is restricted to those situations and does not apply to users providing the "time of day", as you would have it. There's no support in WP:RS for the breadth of the prohibition you claim. With respect to what this section does apply to, I'll certainly grant that holocaust denial is a "minority view". Now please show me where in that source I cited is the holocaust denied.

Like I've suggested before, if you believe that there is a prohibition on the use of "holocaust denial" websites then put it in WP:RS explicitly so the community can consider it. Wikimedia is a collaborative project. You'd then have a basis for your claim that your view has been "upheld". I might add, though, that since your objective seems to be deletion of sources without any investigation, you ought to say "revisionist" instead lest an investigation have to be required every time into whether a given site is engaged in "denial" or "revisionism".Bdell555 (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, if anyone should be interested in an example of how a different standard of sourcing appears to apply to different Wiki articles instead of being applied uniformly, see Alger Hiss which is chock full of citations to fringe sources, the fringiness of those sources made clear by my June 28 post to that article's Talk page. I linked most of the sources I cited to their Wiki bios so readers can assess their reliability. If WP:RS were applied universally and without discrimination then what is advocated by left wing extremists would be subject to the same standards of sourcing as what is advocated by right wing extremists.Bdell555 (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IHR is known as a pure propaganda outfit without any credibility. Comparing it to the NYT is completely fallacious. Yes, there is a spectrum of reliable and semi-reliable newspapers, and reliability is only loosely coupled with political perspective. But the IHR and the so-called JHR are not part of that spectrum. They are, quite simply, an organized bunch of racist liars, and well-known as such. If someone consciously chooses to publish with that bunch, he certainly loses credibility. And, looking at Google Scholar, I fail to see much work by Kubek: . Of course, Google Scholar is very incomplete for such old publications, but that result is certainly not evidence for much respect. Compare e.g. Noam Chomsky (born 8 years after Kubek, search restricted to the same subfields): or Raul Hilberg (born 1926): . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, and someone else says the gang at the so-and-so radical-left Institute are Stalin atrocity deniers or at least apologists for Stalin and furthermore the fact Chomsky published with them means Chomsky "certainly loses credibility". This is not to try and diminish the Holocaust by suggesting some sort of moral equivalency but rather to suggest that you'd be more effective at undermining your opponents by picking apart their arguments and scholarship instead of calling people names and foaming at the mouth.  If I should happen to publish a paper at IHR, you evidently would have no reservations about immediately calling me a racist and a liar.  Would you call that respect for my free speech or for freedom of inquiry generally?


 * re Google Scholar, it's not just the quantity of output that matters but how often it's cited or referred to. When I search for "Anthony Kubek" I get more hits (which, by the way, includes "Inst for Historical Review", something I'm sure you'll agree really puts the "Scholar" into Google Scholar, right? ;)


 * Whatever Google Scholar should happen to say or not say, fact is the first time I ran across Kubek was when John_Wheeler-Bennett cited him in his book Semblance of Peace. Go get Wheeler-Bennett's book, look at his extended quote of Kubek and note that "Never before in American history..." is word for word what appears on that IHR web page.  So the Historical Adviser for the Royal Archives and George VI's official biographer can cite Kubek yet, according to you, Wikipedia cannot?


 * Re your userpage question "Do you have an accessible source that shows this claim in some context?", I would note on the IHR web page that Kubek refers to "... the Morgenthau Diaries, which I had the privilege of examining and which were published by the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate in 1967," but of course you would just dismiss that as a lie considering its source, right? Fact is, Kubek was indeed the editor of a two volume report published by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.  In the website you found, see section 13.103 for a description.  The "editor" mentioned in that section is Kubek.


 * re your claim that "being printed by the Government Printing Office implies no credibility", again, why don't you go edit WP:RS to indicate that the United_States_Government_Printing_Office is an example of an unreliable source and see what the community thinks? In the mean time, you are just making unsupported assertions about you think is a reliable source and what isn't.  And, no, referring to "extraordinary rendition" does not challenge the credibility of the GPO, it rather suggests that this is just about politics for you (As far as I'm concerned, either Obama or McCain could win in November and my conviction that it's ridiculous the GPO's reliability should even be debatable wouldn't change one iota).


 * Re your man Chomsky, I don't pretend for a minute that Kubek is a celebrity scholar of Chomsky's calibre. The issue is not whether Kubek is the ideal source, it's whether he's good enough.  I'll repeat what I said earlier about the need to apply reliable source standards universally and without discrimination.  If Kubek is not a reliable source, then apply that same standard and revert every other Wiki edit out there that is sourced to a History Dept Chair at an institution comparable to Kubek's Dallas U.
 * Bdell555 (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

TBL break
To take this one point at a time:
 * Your Google Scholar search searches for any mentioning of the name, not for stuff written by Kubek. Being cited is usually good, being "referred to" is irrelevant. Stalin has more hits than Kubek . That does not make him a reliable scholar. According to Google Scholar, Kubek's few available publications are cited extremely rarely. In fact, even there Stalin beats him out... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If Stalin was only really known for being a scholar and that was his day job I'd suggest that being referred to a lot by other scholars probably does mean something. There are citations that are not appearing in Google Scholar such as Wheeler-Bennett's citation which I saw first hand in hard copy, yet you seem convinced Google Scholar is determinative.  If Google Scholar is so good at identifying good scholarship, what is IHR doing in its system???Bdell555 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * May I remind you that you brought up Google Scholar as evidence that Kubek is a reliable source? "This author has numerous citations at scholar.google" (from User_talk:Jpgordon). Google Scholar, just like Google, aims for completeness, not for high quality of the covered material. It is a very useful tool, but not the final arbiter. But my main point is that regardless of what you think about Google Scholar, Kubek's poor showing does not support your claim. And "being referred to" in a sentence like "Schulz has frequently forwarded unjustified claims" indeed does mean something, but it does not mean that I'm a WP:RS (although I think I am, at least in some fields ).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if it is the model of "completeness" then why doesn't it have the Wheeler citation? The years he spent archiving for the Senate aren't in there either, as I recall.  The difference in our use of Google Scholar is that you are using it to argue from ignorance.  And how is it that looking into the article itself is original research but looking into the articles that refer to the article is not?  If Kubek doesn't have enough cites, fine, I'm prepared to concede he's unreliable so long as you agree to apply that universally, so that every other Dept Chair in the same situation regarding citation count is treated similarly.  In any case, when I previously assumed that that stuff was relevant in your eyes, you said I was committing a "logical fallacy", since your key argument was, in effect, that the guy could have 8 million citations but that would ultimately count for zero in the end: your mind closed the second his work appeared on IHR.  I think observers should keep in mind this belief of yours that 8 million citations should count for nil when considering your opinion on whether any deniers or revisionists may be considered scholars or not.Bdell555 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming the Government Printing Office is an unreliable source. It is no more a source than my laser printer is. It prints whatever it is told to print by certain parts of the US government, in this part apparently a senate subcommittee. Senate subcommittees are political, not scholarly sources, and they are often extremely partisan.


 * So the Senate just invites any guy off the street to research archives on its behalf and has him write the intro to one of their reports? See also my earlier remarks about the relevancy of political perspective to source reliability.Bdell555 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not the Senate but at best one of its subcommittees. Yes, Senate subcommittees occasionally do push weird views and unscholarly opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Chomsky is not "my man", although he certainly has an impressive mind. He is one example of how a notable academic of roughly Kubek's generation shows up in Google Scholar.


 * I totally agree, although he struck me as either an odd or telling choice for being the ideal who puts Kubek most to shame with respect to indisputable scholarship, since there are plenty of other prolific and distinguished academics out there who couldn't possibly be labelled radical or on the political fringe like a few might allege about Chomsky.Bdell555 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Chomsky, while certainly controversial, is nearly universally respected for some of his work. Some of his opinions are fairly unorthodox, but much of his science is widely acknowledged. Anyways, I was blindly grasping for someone around Kubek's age. Take Alan Turing, if you prefer. He is much older than Kubek, and stopped publishing much earlier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a logical fallacy. I do not reject Kubek as a source because he is a history chair. I reject this particular source because it has been published by an inherently propagandist and dishonest fake institute. I have my doubts about Kubek because as a decent Scholar he should have known what he did when he published there. And yes, I will consistently reject any paper published (with the consent of the author) by the IHR or in the JHR, no matter who wrote it and what position he or she holds.


 * So you're right back where you started. The article appeared on IHR hence no further investigation is required, in your view.  I suppose that's why you haven't been the least bit interested at looking at the article itself for accuracy and footnoting.  You know its all lies already!  If Chomsky published on IHR you'd evidently call Chomsky a liar and a racist before you'd rethink your blind hatred for IHR.  My question is why did you bother with this business of alleging that Senate publications are unreliable etc etc when none of that matters to you in the end anyway?
 * And you will "consistently reject" will you? Even though WP:RS explicitly allows for my citation?  I refer you to WP:RS: "The material taken from such sources should not ...unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.".  Even if IHR is "extremist and fringe" the entirety of the material I am taking happens to be published word for word by John_Wheeler-Bennett in Semblance of Peace AS WELL AS the Senate publication.  Since you've already attacked the US Senate, are you now going to go after John Wheeler-Bennett, or are you going to let this one go?Bdell555 (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Checking the article myself is original research. I'm frankly not qualified to do that in a reasonable time frame, and I suspect neither are you. Even if you are, Wikipedia has no way of verifying your qualification and instead demands reliable sources. In fact, I don't even know what you try to source to Kubek. I do know that the IHR is not a reliable source. To make a productive suggestion: If the information you want included is all sourced to reliable sources in Kubek's paper, why don't you use the original references instead of trying to argue the absurd case that the IHR is reliable?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So looking at the source to see if it is richly footnoted or not constitutes original research, but exploring the real or imagined political biases of Senate subcommittees is not? Are you going to universalize your theories and revert Wiki cites to Senate reports, or just revert selectively?  I conceded Jpgordan's argument re "mission" insofar as if the article reads like a Weekly World News piece and says FDR ate an alien baby, that would certainly suggest unreliability, but that means actually looking at some content.


 * "argue the absurd case that IHR is reliable" is a straw man. I am making a skeptic's challenge to a positive conclusion, the supporting argument for which has "the IHR is not reliable" as a critical assumption.  Reductio ad absurdum doesn't prove anything.  When I claim, for example, that proving the IHR has an agenda doesn't necessarily prove it is not reliable, that's not a positive claim that it is reliable.  I'll acknowledge that I am making a positive claim that the particular material from Kubek that I am using is reliable.


 * I'm providing a weblink to Kubek as a supplement to citing the Senate report. Here is the edit at the bottom of all this. It gives the reader the opportunity to assess the context of the excerpted material (the IHR link is the only online source available) and informs the reader of a fact that may be revealing, namely, that he has also been published on IHR.  With no sense of irony, Jpgordon reverts as if this information were utterly irrelevant (his rationale presuming the exact opposite with respect to reliability).   Indeed, the disdain for a need for inquiry or examination and the general enthusiasm for censorship and argument Ad hominem of some self-styled anti-Denial crusaders often ends up producing the exact opposite of the discrediting effect they intend (War on Terror, anyone?).Bdell555 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IHR is not a reputable reliable source. Among the vast majority of scholars in the field of genocide research, it is considered unreliable and biased. The issue is not whether or not anyone published by IHR can be considered reliable. You can pour soup in a toilet bowel, but no sensible person would eat it.--Cberlet (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you apply the Poisoning_the_well fallacy so far that not only is the "well" made relevant, its entirely determinative, precluding any need for further inquiry. Are there any left-radical extremist or fringe "toilet bowls", Cberlet, or are they all right wing?Bdell555 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unreliable information can be found across the political spectrum--and should be avoided as a source. The only issue here however, is that IHR is a poisoned well, and no amount of information--no matter how trivial--should be drawn from it. It is not a fallacy of logic, it is a reality of research. IHR poisons its own well with unreliable information. Therefore IHR is not a reliable published source. Nor is it scholarly. If text from a scholar can only be found in an IHR publication, then it is time to flush the toilet.--Cberlet (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a fallacy. And empirical research only supports an empirical conclusion, not a logically necessary conclusion.  You are in effect claiming that you can engage in empirical research until time X, stop, and then draw a conclusion that cannot be challenged empirically for the rest of time.  If someone comes along and questions your conclusion by asking you to consider their empirical research and asking you to present yours, you say you can reject that  a priori.  But your conclusion was reached on a posteriori basis.  You have no warrant to close the inquiry.


 * To use an analogy, you've gone into the field and noted that all observed birds are white. You've then concluded that all birds are white.  If someone comes along and shows you a black bird, you can't say it's white because all birds are white.  You have to believe the same eyes you believed the first time.Bdell555 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem arises when that someone coming along also consents to an organisation presenting his black birds for the sake of green ones, and thus we cannot possibly form a basis for an enquiry for him doing so when none of us are in a position to discern his judgement in the first place. WilliamH (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:
 * 1) "Evidence presented by Holocaust deniers has consistently failed to stand up to scrutiny in courts of law (see Fred A. Leuchter), further calling into question its veracity." This has been tagged since June 2007.
 * "Evidence presented by..." The Fred Leuchter article does not include any mention of his theories being tested in court; rather, his theories were dismissed because he was not an expert. Further, "consistently" would require other cases. I've removed the sentence completely. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "In 1978 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was founded by Willis Carto as an organization dedicated to publicly challenging the "myth of the Holocaust.""
 * See below. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "In 1978 the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was founded by Willis Carto as an organization dedicated to publicly challenging the commonly accepted history of the Holocaust" ref: Chip Berlet & Matthew J. Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, New York: Guilford Press, 2000, p. 189. --Cberlet (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "He is the former media director of the Institute for Historical Review."
 * "Former media director..." Is an acceptable source? (The actual book, of course.) It actually looks to me like he's quoting Wikipedia, though. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend a different source, and if one can't be found but all other issues are addressed, I'd recommend just removing it from the article until a source can be found. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, found a better one. will do, I think. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "In 1985, he was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for "disseminating and publishing material denying the Holocaust.""
 * "1985, tried and convicted..." The cite at the end of the paragraph is comprehensive; it includes the Canadian Supreme Court decision which lays out all the facts. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added another citation directly after from the current source just in case. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "McVay received a number of death threats, and the Nizkor Project soon became the number-one online foe of many Holocaust deniers." This has been tagged since June 2007.
 * "McVay...death threats..." Tightened up, cite found. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Although he has since called the Holocaust, "a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation"..."
 * ""Although he has since called the Holocaust, "a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation"..." See previous paragraph; it's in a pull quote, and repeated; we should clean that a bit, but another citation isn't necessary. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves...(The West) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophets."
 * "They have fabricated a legend..." citation is further in the same (or next) paragraph. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The source states: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets...The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets. (It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet." Either another source needs to be found that specifically matches the current quote in the article, or the quote needs to be updated to the one in this source. It looks like it may be a matter of interpretation between languages though. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a good source on Al Jazeera. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) " On April 24, 2006, Ahmadinejad demanded a free evaluation of the real extent of the Holocaust "in order to find the ultimate truth.""
 * "On April 24, 2006..." I'm having trouble with this one. I can't find an actual source for this, and the "ultimate truth" line seems to come from David Duke at the Iran conference, not necessarily from Ahmahoweverhespellsit. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If a source can't be found, consider rewording it for now without the current quote and then readd it later if a source is found. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a good source. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Ireland also have rejected Holocaust denial legislation." This has been tagged since April 2008.
 * "Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Ireland..." I've found a source for Denmark and Sweden. The only sources I could find for Norway and Ireland were holocaust denier sites. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Other issues: This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:15 29 June, 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead needs to better summarize the article. Try to touch on all of the various sections within the article, while keeping the lead between three to four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
 * The lead has been expanded, but would benefit with a little more expansion, covering more of the individual sections. Just a few words or a sentence is all that is need on most individual sections. Doing so would greatly improve the lead. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The fair use rationale for Image:Denying the holocaust.jpg should be expanded.
 * I've provided a fair use rationale for Image:Denying the holocaust.jpg. WilliamH (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Some people who do not deny that the Holocaust occurred nevertheless oppose such restrictions of free speech, including, despite her legal battle with David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt." This sentence needs to be rewritten as it currently doesn't make sense.
 * "Some people who do not deny that the Holocaust occurred nevertheless oppose such restrictions of free speech, including, despite her legal battle with David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt." The sentence does make sense, but I'm not sure it's helpful as it stands. I've removed it, and just included Lipstadt in the list of historians in the next sentence. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally got it after reading it out loud. I guess it was late at night when I read it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the changes and listed some comments above for some of the issues that still need to be addressed. Overall, good job on getting the majority of the issues fixed. I'll leave the article on hold for another week for the issues that weren't struck to be addressed, but if you finish earlier, please contact me on my talk page and I'll re-review it as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass
I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Good job on addressing the issues. I still believe that the lead needs to be expanded further. See my comments above and look to other GAs/FAs for ideas for expanding the lead. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the online inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)