Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 12

citing Nizkor.org
Jpgordon and others evidently continue to insist on reverting all citations to IHR, with one line of "argument" being that empirical research supports a logically necessary conclusion as opposed to a merely empirical conclusion, such that any need for further inquiry or examination of the particular circumstances of the citation is unnecessary. The other line of argument appeals to the WP:RS policy on "extremist and fringe sources" (which is rather surprising given that that particular policy explicitly allows exceptions to a no cite policy (e.g. when "those claims have also been published by reliable sources")).

If we assume that IHR is "extremist and fringe" by supposing that it declares in bold on the top of its webpage that the number of Holocaust victims is zero, then if we also accept that "mainstream" and reliable sources consider the number of Holocaust victims to be 6 million, it seems to me that considering just historical accuracy, the Nizkor Project, which declares in bold on the top of its webpage that the number of victims is 12 million, is equally "extremist and fringe". Both contentions are equally "lies", if that's the sort of language that is appropriate. Why, in that case, wouldn't the "no cite" policy apply to both? Is historical accuracy not, in fact, the real issue here? Looking at an article on Nizkor.org that's cited multiple times on Wikipedia (and this Talk page), the article says the claim of an unnamed "denier" that "The four million figure at Auschwitz was a widely held notion" is "clearly false". Yet the Auschwitz Museum itselfdescribes the "figure of 4,000,000 Auschwitz victims" as "widely-circulated", and, furthermore, "was often cited in the literature over several postwar decades". That isn't the only point on which the Nizkor article is contradicted by the Auschwitz Museum article, either.

I'm not claiming here that Nizkor.org is necessarily unreliable (although I will readily admit to believing that the Auschwitz Museum's website is likely more reliable). Unlike Jpgordon et al, I don't believe necessary inferences can be drawn from contingent evidence; - I'd rather look at things on a case by case basis than make sweeping generalizations about a website's reliability. But, it being clear that my citing IHR would start a revert war, and with the reverter remaining unwilling to discuss such reversion, I am curious as to whether any reversion, or even just a "reliable source?" note, on my part of Nizkor's headline claim that there were "12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died" (or less featured claims cited to nizkor.org) would provoke a revert war. What, exactly, are the parameters here? To what extent does don't question how unreliable the bad guys are extend to don't question how reliable the good guys are? In sum, it remains unclear just how far the dismissal of inquiry and investigation extends. Perhaps it is still possible to get some consensus re this nizkor.org issue, if not re the ihr.org issue.Bdell555 (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if it is not what the term conventially refers to, it's reasonable to assume that the 12 million number the Nizkor site mentions is in reference to all victims of Nazi persecution and not exclusively Jews. Secondly, the Auschwitz Museum refers to the 4,000,000 figure as "widely-circulated", while Nizkor's "clearly false" remark is in reference to how many historical sources out of the ones they examined maintained a 4,000,000 figure (two out of nineteen). In other words, Nizkor refers to only how many sources out of the ones they examined maintained that figure, while the Museum refers to the 4,000,000 figure's overall circulation. Two different contexts. Finally, Piper's quote from that Auschwitz Museum link continues: "However, scholars who researched the problem more closely while following the principles of the historian’s craft—the comparison of various sources and the evaluation of their credibility—defined and continue to define the number of Auschwitz victims as somewhere between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000", and thus regardless of its dissemination, Piper actually confirms Nizkor's sentiment that the 4 million figure was not a widely held notion among scholars and historians. WilliamH (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant bias on this page
Wiki's "Reliable Sources" have been proven to be anything but reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.134.207 (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just the fact that the Jewish people claim they are God's "Chosen Ones" should raise many RED flags on anything they say, especially since God is a myth too and CANNOT BE PROVEN to have said anything ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.134.207 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There can never be any reasoned analysis of the Holocaust because IT NEVER HAPPENED and it is MAKE-BELIEVE, and I'm Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.134.207 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

this page is extemely biased. instead of going into details of why holocaust deniers/revionists believe what they believe, it instead discredits them. no matter what your personal beliefs on this subject is, they should have a fair say. its not like they are asking for another holocaust to occur, they are asking for a real, provable truth on this. which is understandable and respectable. 72.89.79.140 (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is riven with bias against holocaust denial. Wikipedia is a place to go for reasoned analysis of topical subjects. It confounds me that it was even nominated as a 'good article'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkerb (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

it's because these ideas are generaly frowned upon. i do agree that all article should be un-biased, no matter how distasteful the subject matter is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.226.101 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there should be a support for holocaust revisionism or denial as many editors insist on it being called in addition to criticism. Both a critcism and support page for these ideas should exist, with each side arguing against, debunking, or critically examining the arguments of the other to present a MORE COMPLETE picture of holocaust revisionism/denial. Of course third party sources as well as other wikirules should apply. I humbly submit that in certain historical contexts, it was once (and may still be) thought blasphemous, unfaithful, and downright evil to believe the world was round or that minorities deserved equal rights or that abortion should be a right of all women. Not that holocaust revisionism/denial is anything approaching 100% correct - but that if a notable debate exists, it should be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources do not negate the existance of the Holocaust and its occurance, so accordingly, Wikipedia has no obligation to appease the unreliable ones which do. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it the case that as soon as a scholar (self-professed or otherwise) or institution (like IHR) begins to question or undermine certain parameters like the the 5-6 million figure that they become ostracized and disreputable? If the flat-earth society majority discredits and ignores any dissent as unreliable, untrustworthy, unscientific, etc. does that mean that wikipedia should not have an entry about those institutions or persons' views (no matter how incorrect they may be) even if those views are published, numerous, noteworthy, and relevant to the article? For example look at the page on Intelligent Design in wikipedia - although "scientific consensus" appears to stand against "creation science" - and the article definatively and clearly expresses this point numerous times, there is also a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement that explores (in detail) the viewpoints and positions of the supporters. For example this passage - "Though not all intelligent design proponents are theistic or motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the principal intelligent design advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in their view the intelligent designer is clearly God. The response of intelligent design proponents to critics and media who discuss their religious motivations has been to cite it as proof of bias and part of a hostile agenda. The Discovery Institute provided the conservative Accuracy in Media a file of complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the media, especially by National Public Radio." Perhaps a Holocaust Revisionist/Denial page? Although I believe information in the parent to begin with is necessary about documenting the "movement/group/whathaveyou." Still I feel that a "Support for Holocaust Revisionism/Denial" section to this article would immediately be taken down - is this incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources of questionable verifiability should only be used as sources pertaining to them and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then, scantly. You may suggest both critical/analytical views of something, but only with reliable sources and it is for this reason that there is no Revisionism/Denial dichotomy of pages here, and will not be either. I do not seek to discuss the facts of the Holocaust on this talk page as its purpose is for discussing the article at hand only, but sources which negate things which would otherwise contradict them are hardly reliable - like individuals and institutions which ignore/fail to explain why approximately 6 million Jews in occupied Nazi territories disappeared, for instance. WilliamH (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please do not restore that edit. As described below, there already is a reliable source that describes the contentions and claims of Holocaust denial and it has been established that the David Cole citation is both unreliable and superfluous. If you are interested in being a contributor to Wikipedia, consider registering for an account. WilliamH (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't question the Holocaust, but this article is painfully biased. "WilliamH" seems wholly biased as well. For example, there is no proof that 6 million Jews disappeared from the Nazi territories. Every scholar acknowledges that it is only an estimate. Your snide remark seems completely uncalled for. The article is clearly biased, and it seems unreasonable to ignore this fact. It discusses "denial" versus "revisionism," says they prefer to be called "revisionists," and then goes on to only refer to them as "deniers." How is it not biased when the article purposely chooses the term they don't want to be used?


 * The Holocaust is a topic similar to slavery in the United States. It isn't politically correct to take an honest look at it, and we aren't allowed to have an honest and open discussion. The Nazis did have an anti-Semitic policy. They did kill Jews, gays, Slavs, etc., but we don't know how many actually died. Far too many "historians" allow their own bias to seep into their research, but they are always applauded for it so long as their findings are politically correct. If you're biased one way, you're an excellent scholar worthy of awards. If you're biased the other way, you're clearly a fraud, liar, false scholar, etc. It is academically dishonest and intellectually lazy to treaty history in this way. Historians are never supposed to instill bias to their research, but it is done far too often today.


 * This article should neutrally discuss why and how they deny the Holocaust. It shouldn't be an oped on why they are wrong, false scholars, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.38.113 (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither is the article talk page a place for you to op/ed about your revisionist beliefs. If you have a reliable source for your claims, provide it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article calls them deniers as opposed to revisionists because that's what a myriad of reliable sources refer to them as - simple as that really. If reliable sources say XYZ, Wikipedia can say XYZ. WilliamH (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bloodlesthecat, you've already shown your extreme bias. There's no point in trying to discuss anything with you. As for William, I and most people would refer to neo-Nazis, Skinheads and the KKK as ignorant racists, but their respective articles refer to them as neo-Nazis, Skinheads and the KKK. Your standard seems to be that a source is "reliable" when it agrees with you, and then everything must come from a "reliable source" to justify anything. That is extreme circular logic at its worst. Based on your logic, the article about the KKK should only exist to say why they're ignorant racists. You just have to provide mainstream sources referring to the organization as such, declare them as the only "reliable" sources and then protect the revised article from any and all correction. Of course, that isn't how an encyclopedia should work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.38.113 (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just Want to Make the Tone More Objective
As an objective reader who is still curious about holocaust denial, I wanted to make the tone of the page more objective, so I started with the introduction, editing some subjective quantifying words such as "generally" as well as adding the claim that "a sizeable minority believe the holocaust revisionists."

I do not believe everything the revisionists say. For example, I don't believe that the holocaust is a jewish lie. Although as a skeptic of history, I reserve judgment on any controversy. That the holocaust happened to millions of jews at the hands of the nazis in death camps is something I put quite a bit of faith in.

I did want to improve the integrity of this article, since this area of historical debate consists of quite a bit of feces-flinging and I believe that by using more truthful and objective terms, the holocaust deniers can be made to look more fanatic.

Please let me insert my edits. I am not doing this to be anti-semitic, but rather to improve the objective language of this article and to add a valuable point - that some 20% of americans doubt the holocaust. This point has currencey for all who are interested in holocaust denial - the deniers, defenders and the genuinely interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circuitcheckr (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How are you making it more objective by introducing a dichotomy with material from unreliable sources? WilliamH (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My goal was to find a report of polls that sampled public opinion about the holocaust - which is relevant to this page. I mean the question "how many people believe the holocaust deniers" is a valuable one and central to the purpose of this page and the anti-semitism series that it is a par of. I found a more reliable source for the most recent edit. The other edits were for the purpose of improving objectivity. I didn't realize that the article was from an anti-semitic site. The new article is not.--Circuitcheckr (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More to the point, let's look at each change.
 * "most" to "many" -- well, we can't easily demonstrate that "most" deniers as opposed to "many" deniers have a particular opinion. This one might be OK.
 * "although a sizeable minority believe the revisionists." -- I don't see "sizeable minority" anywhere in the source
 * "Historians claim that" -- no, it is a fact that, despite what the loons believe. "Historians claim that" is denier rhetoric.
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. The | poll that found 20% of americans weren't sure about the holocaust was incorrectly worded. I would still like to see an indication of how many people believe the revisionists. --Circuitcheckr (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Twenty percent of Americans also think that the sun revolves around the earth: that doesn't mean the Sun article should present disinformation objectively just for the sake of the misguided. WilliamH (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think public opinion is material to this article since the claims of holocaust revisionists fan the flames of anti-semitism.--Circuitcheckr (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. That's just an issue of finding a reliable source -- my problem with "sizable minority" is simply that there's no source for "sizable minority". (Ooops, sorry, you addressed that already above.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the word "most", per concerns raised here on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Specific complaint
In what sense is the entire article encyclopaedic? Any one desirous of learning about the corpus of Holocaust denial/revisionism is met with a bank of criticism of said subject. Shouldn't this be reserved for the "Criticism of Holocaust denial" article? what's the point of two articles if they both have the same purpose? If the goal of WP is to inform, this article falls far short of it. It does not allow the reader to examine the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.55.154 (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting should be done? WilliamH (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be logical that if the article is about Holocaust revisionism/denial then it should cover the subject thoroughly without editorializing. Or, it should be about the PHENOMENON of Holocaust denial, which is clearly delusional, and should be labeled as such. Or, the majority of the article should be played "straight," from the viewpoint of the proponents, with a smaller section on criticism. The Bigfoot article, for example, spends more time dispensing with the notion of a Sasquatch than it does describing one. Of course, there is virtually no evidence available to discuss on Bigfoot/Sasquatch. However, concerning the Holocaust there is a vast body of evidence. This article needs to make clear at the outset that its purpose is absolutely to condemn Holocaust denial and that it sees no compelling need to treat the subject the slightest bit seriously, since it is inherently and inalterably false. Then it wouldn't be POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.55.154 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We have the Criticism of Holocaust denial article to deal with actual criticism - this is largely reliably sourced commentary on the notion of Holocaust denial. If I may quote Michael Berenbaum, "Nonsense is nonsense, yet the study of nonsense can be significant scholarship." WilliamH (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So under that rubric the name of the article should be "Holocaust denial phenomenon" or "Study of Holocaust denial." For example, the article on Portland cement is about its use, technology, application, etc., not about whether people disagree with Portland cement. I'd say that is more the model that should be used for a good WP article. For example, the WP article on witchcraft is largely about witchcraft, pure and simple, even though the majority of the world doesn't believe in it or even condemns it. That might be another model for this article, because as it stands now it is basically POV, which you haven't even bothered to dispute. I don't have much more to say to you or anyone who posts terse, dismissive responses. Please put mre effort into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.55.154 (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow your view on how this isn't NPOV. If this article's purpose was to actively condemn something, then that would be soapboxing, which isn't allowed. It only rejects Holocaust denial by virtue of the myriad of reliable sources that do too. As far as I understand, what it culminates in makes it reasonably clear that denying the Holocaust isn't a legitimate field of rational enquiry; for starters the article is in the "Pseudohistory" category. If you think you can improve the article, please do so, but do not misconstrue my terse responses as discourteousness, because it isn't. WilliamH (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It would seem that pre-deciding that it's pseudohistory is itself POV, but, as you point out, virtually all legitimate scholars have one point of view. I should point out that they are "legitimate" because largely they are on the government payroll in various countries and wouldn't have a job if they engaged in major revisions, such as re-examination of the often conflicting and at times impossible testimonial evidence. More importantly, why doesn't this article discuss the legitimate revisions that have already taken place since the Nuremberg trials? The Auschwitz museum has reduced the number of dead estimate from 4 million to 1.5. Dachau no longer claims that the gas chamber was used for killing. Unfortunately, now I have to leave off for several days as I am going camping. I'll check back.

The reason I don't make any additions to the article is that I have done so in the past and they have been swiftly reversed. It might help if the category of Pseudohistory were clearly demarcated near the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.55.154 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the revision of the Auschwitz plaque has nothing to do with what Holocaust deniers have done: western historians put forward estimates of about 1 - 1.5 million as early as the 1950s based on records of deportees and have never used the communist purported claim as their basis for inquiry - see the given links at the top of the page, as this has been discussed ad nauseum and no further comment on it will be of merit.


 * This is an encyclopedia. It is a foundation for material published by reliable sources, not a blank slate for unreliable ones. We are here to present the truth objectively and neutrally, not put forward an abstract dichotomy. As I have said before, it's 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. Do not confuse objectivity with POV. WilliamH (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is extremely biased. Most people do not believe in Unidentified Flying Objects, but the UFO article is not written to wholly condemn believers as ignorant liars et al. This article does not actually discuss in length the beliefs of the revisionists, why they believe the way do, etc., but rather spends its entire length trying to convince the reader that this is an academic dead end. If a neutral party read this article, they would not come away with any real, unbiased knowledge on the subject matter. They would only take away one side of the argument. WilliamH seems entirely snide when anyone questions the article, and he even goes so far as to act like questioning the POV is utter nonsense. The article is biased, but you must present "reliable sources" to show it is biased. Of course, it seems the only "reliable sources" are the ones that support the current point of view of the article.


 * This is an encyclopedia. If you read an article about alcohol, you should be learning about alcohol. You shouldn't be presented with an oped about why alcohol is evil and should not be consumed. This article is not about Holocaust Denial. It is about why the author thinks "deniers" are ignorant liars and false scholars. It doesn't matter what the mainstream thinks because an encyclopedia should not be choosing a side. Most people don't believe in Big Foot, UFOs or witchcraft, but each of those articles discusses the subject matter from a neutral standpoint. Believers and nonbelievers alike can read those articles. This article presents one side only, and the author spent all of their time trying to convince the reader of the "overwhelming evidence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.38.113 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article isn't one-sided. The views of the ignorant liars and false scholars are presented. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "[it] spends its entire length trying to convince the reader that this is an academic dead end." - on that basis, which reliable sources do you have that say it isn't? WilliamH (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bloodlesthecat has just shown his/her own bias on the subject matter, so any and all arguments are tainted. In response to William, I don't have to present any sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. An article about "holocaust denial" should be about holocaust denial, not the arguments against holocaust denial. I don't agree with terrorism, but I should be able to look up reliable information about it. The article on terrorism shouldn't tell me why it's evil. An article on Islam shouldn't tell me why Christianity is the true faith, or any other such nonsense. The same should apply here. I don't agree with the "deniers," but I would think an encyclopedia would provide reliable material on the subject matter. This article is the equivalent of letting a neo-Nazi write about Zionism. You obviously wouldn't learn anything about Zionism, since the entire article would just try to convince you of why Zionism is evil.


 * William, you keep using the "reliable sources" argument, but it is a non-argument. I'm not debating whether or not holocaust denial is right or wrong. It is clear the author and defenders of this article share a single point of view -- holocaust deniers are "ignorant liars" and "false scholars." The point of an encyclopedia article should be to provide neutral, unbiased information about what is in the title, but this article only exists to present the counter argument. Of course, this is all extremely pointless. The archives provide countless examples of people pointing out the bias, but nothing has changed. The defenders of this article are showing why so many people still refuse to trust Wikipedia. You aren't any better than Sean Hannity fans protecting his article from saying anything negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.38.113 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As your understanding goes, what exactly would counter the 'bias' you find then? WilliamH (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article needs to be about what the revisionists/deniers think and why they think it. It is currently decidedly hostile. Look at the introduction. It explains why it uses "denier" over "revisionist" based on methodology. The problem is that "Holocaust revisionism" points here, but there is no distinction drawn in the rest of the article. The "Examination of claims" section only touches on the wide-ranging arguments, but then tells you why you should view it as nonsense anyway. The rest of the article just talks about certain deniers to undermine the subject matter. It should present the "denier" arguments, the revisionist arguments and then discuss what they think supports them. Any and all criticism should be in a single section or kept in a separate article entirely. Just because we don't like something doesn't mean it shouldn't be treated appropriately in an encyclopedia. That sort of editorialization is bordering on fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.38.113 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Holocaust denial is a fringe theory, any denier "arguments" should be presented so as not to be obfuscated with the conventional view, because it is extremely important that Wikipedia does not inadvertantly become a validating source for things that actually have no basis in fact. This is why the "arguments" of Holocaust denial are presented frugally on this article, and disparaging references are accordingly appropriate, because they help to discern the fringe theorist view from the mainstream. Finally, please note that Godwin's law is null and void on this article; describing edits you don't like as fascist won't get you anywhere. WilliamH (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally can not remain silent to this. This article is grossly biased it is far to opinionated to be an adequate example. There is evidence to support both sides and because one chooses to investigate the other does not make them anti-semitic its not a hatred its a passion for investigating how something really happened. Further more should this not be a catergory of the holocaust article it is after all related to the holocaust and is a very important topic that should be considered with even the basics examinations into the subject. I would also say I put myself in this Holocaust revisionist category hell I do not say it does not happen but that it was grossly exagerated I do not believe the proof can be one hundred percent valid either. If all these people died... how did such a large number of them remain to flee into other countries? They did not just come out of no where. Further more why does this seem so incredibly descriminatory against people who investigate the subject. It is to grossly one sided and I know I am typing things that have been said before but how can I not when we have this plainly offensive article? Yes bad things happen but why is it so important to say they happened exactly how they happened its similar to the catholic churchs reaction to all those emerging sects. Little arguements and disputes lead to instability and what not but does not most people agree a more tolerant outlook is better then a hard blocked wall? Come now this is a place where facts and theories should be layed down without biased analysed surely and true many of these denials have been proven wrong but that is not reason to sway on the whole subject entirely things need to be questioned. Please try not to discredit people who have put so much effort into checking the numbers and the statistics. This... article almost made me feel sick. I thought wiki was the one place that would look at controversal topics in a sensible sense rather then taking sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnivesFF7 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Holocaust denial pertains to those whose only efforts in 'checking' numbers and statistics actually constitutes deliberate dishonesty. See here for example. You can call it what you like, but it is not "evidence for the other side", it is academic fraud. WilliamH (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is Holocaust denial considered anti-semitic ?
I realise that many anti-semitic consider such a notion to be valid, but i still can not understand why the denial of Holocaust leads to the logical conclusion to term it as anti-semitic? Lets take an example. There are people who consider that their own government could be responsible for the events that lead to and occured in September 11, 2001. Now i realize that these people may be labeled as consipiracy theorists by some, yet the taught might not occur to those "some" to consider these people to be terrorist or supporters of terrorism. Is it because their search for the truth appears genuine and even perhaps bordering an obsession, that we may simply label them as consipiracy theorists and not go further and say that since they are denying the "truth", <> ? I realize that most likely, people who could entertain the notion; Holocaust to be non exsistant, or perhaps in lesser magnitude, are considered anti-semitic's, people who perhaps even consider themselves anti-semitic. But there should be a distinction between what individuals consider and what groups of people consider. Can't a person who is not anti-semitic be able to consider such a notion? There are people whose purpose is the search for the truth. If they consider their own reasearch, which leads them to consider the magnitude of the Holocaust to be questionable, are these people too placed in the same booth as those who deny wholly that the event occured? Will we label them aswell as anti-semitic? Then offcourse we have those who question everything, just to question everything because for them its all a "big conspiracy". We may realize that they could be just misguided by their own reasoning abilities, but we would not go as far to label such people who have spesific agenda to target a spesific group, a hateful act. Now it may be unclear, and things might start to get blurry. I must admit i myself am now uncertain where i am heading with this, maybe the reader may be able help me clearify my own thoughts! (It is irrelevant if i consider Holocaust to have occured or not. I only wish to understand why Holocaust denial is considered anti-semitic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.188.231 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Our opinions are irrelevant. What's relevant is the opinions of our reliable sources, as cited in what's currently reference 6 in the article. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm calling BS on that one. How are these sources "reliable"?  How about the whacky Iranian president who claims the opposite?  There is no need for labeling this theory as "Anti-Semitic".  It is POV and debunks the notion of the school of thought without adding anything to the article.  I'm removing that from the first paragraph. 66.171.71.135 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:RS to understand what sources are considered reliable on Wikipedia, and please don't remove this reliable sourced information. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully understand the policy, no need to be condescending. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made:".  This entire article is POV against to paint holocaust "denial" as anti-Semitic, when it frankly is not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.71.135 (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your own personal opinions about Holocaust denial are not relevant. What is relevant is what reliable sources say about it. And in this case, many reliable sources say it is antisemitic. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"... holocaust denial claims imply or openly state that ... Jewish conspiracy' is surely unfair. Holocaust denial in general may be due to misinformation, belief in a conspiracy by other groups, or any number of other possibilities - let us not forget the number of Jews who were themselves victims due to the fact that, like most people of the time, they could not believe that the ongoing genocide was really happening - simply because normal people find it hard to swallow that man could commit such inhumanity to man. This may be naive, but it is not due to any flaw of character. To me, the really dangerous anti-Semite is surely not the duped disbeliever but the ardent supporter of the Holocaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew schaug (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just what I was going to post. I think this can be classified as not neutral/bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.191.224 (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring over "anti-semitism"
Jayjg, Please stop undoing my relatively trivial edits, removing references to the inherent "Antisemitism" of this theory. The article at large (and title thereof) more than states the commonly held belief that this is a "denial" of "truth". That said, taking into consideration the concession that the word "denial" belongs in the title, there is no need to label this theory as "antisemitic" in the introductory paragraph. The cited source is POV and does not belong in an encyclopedic account of this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.71.135 (talk • contribs) 01:44, August 19, 2008


 * Your "relatively trivial edits" removed both a fundamental fact about Holocaust denial (that it is antisemitic), and 17 reliable sources (not a "cited source") backing up that fact, including quotations accompanying each source. Please
 * a) review WP:NPOV, which may not say what you think it does,
 * b) do not remove relevant, properly sourced material again, and
 * c) make more accurate Talk: page comments.
 * Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg's exactly right here. "Relatively trivial" is an untruth; starting with an untruth and then attempting to prove it is, however, exactly what holocaust deniers like to do. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I'm fighting a losing battle here, but to claim that Holocaust Denial is inherently antisemitic is sheer opinion and POV. Rather than citing 17 holocaust deniers that say that, I'll just give up.  It's a shame that you all (who have your own agendas judging your edit histories about synagogues and the jewish faith) simply write this off without thinking about it.  C'est la vie. 66.171.71.135 (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Claiming that Holocaust Denial is inherently antisemitic is indeed opinion... the opinion of just about every reliable source and reputable commentator you'll find on the subject. As wikipedians, we'd be remiss in presenting anything else; our personal opinions are irrelevant. EyeSerene talk 17:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT WHY IS THAT A PERSON WHO DENIES THE SHOAH( HOLOCAUST) IS IMMEDIATLY LABELLED ANTISEMITIC SURELY A PERSON CAN DENY WHAT THEY LIKE, THE HOLOCAUST I THINK NEEDS A VERY SERIOUS REVISION 17:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * People can deny whatever they want. They also have to live with the ramifications of their opinions. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * well, if someone were to see that you are a "holocaust skeptic" and assume you had antisemitic thoughts, would they have reached the wrong conclusion? luckily you have provided the answer to that question in the back of the book, so to speak: "Then i also wondered why have the jews been " EXPELLED" from every country they have migrated to they say because we are just jews.I THINK NOT. Hitler wanted the jews out of germany because there was a very good evidence that the zionists had caused economic collapse in germany, through USERY and he made no secret of that and wanted them out, that would not go were put in work camps . One must remember the zionists declared war on germany." the fact that you probably don't think that is antisemitic, is actually further evidence of antisemitic thought. Gzuckier (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys,

While I don't want to side with the Holocaust deniers, I do think there is a valid point in saying that the assertion "Holocaust denial is antisemitic" is an opinion rather than a fact. Any evaluation of a phenomenon as being of a particular nature necessarily involves a subjective value judgment. Thus, the assertion needs to be sourced as being the majority opinion rather than asserted as unassailable truth. That means, it is not sufficient to assert "HD is antisemitic" but, instead, we should assert something like "the overwhelming majority of group X characterizes HD as antisemitic". And then find a reliable source who says exactly that. To be pedantic, no number of sources that say "HD is antisemitic" is adequate sourcing for the assertion "the overwhelming majority of group X characterizes HD as antisemitic". We must find a source that says it explicitly. Even better would be someone who backs up the assertion with a quantitative survey of reliable sources such as historians. --Richard (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article states "Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory." References are provided to support that statement. This satisifies Wikipedia requirements for verifiability and reliable sources, which is all that is required for this article. - EronTalk 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think millions of Jews have deliberately lied about the holocaust you are, by definition, an antisemite.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming millions of people are deliberately lying. Without being pedagogic about the semantics of "Semite" and its associations beyond the Jewish faith, the underlying issue, as Richard was more convincingly able to put it, is that categorizing this theory as "inherently" or "by definition" antisemitic is strictly opinion.  People are taking this far too personally.  This is not very encyclopedic behavior.  While I don't "deny" that many antisemitic people prescribe to HD, HD in and of itself is not antisemitic.  I have still have not heard a convincing argument as to why it is, other than an interesting amount of Jewish scholars whose opinions were cited.  According to Richard, this does not constitute a valid basis for labeling such as fact by Wikipedia's standards.  People are so hell-bent about putting "antisemitic" in this article's introduction.  It's a shame that there is a block of Jewish wikipedians who are rather popular and reputable and have clout in this digital forum, but the issue is written off by the majority opinion of it.  It's a bad precedent to be setting.  This is a reflection of the sad reality of what Wikipedia has become: yet another instrument for the Ministry of Truth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.71.135 (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again: The opinions of individual Wikipedia editors are not relevant. What is relevant is the position taken by the vast majority of reputable scholars of the Holocaust. And their position, which is well referenced in this article, is that Holocaust denial is antisemitic.
 * (And I'm sorry, "Jewish scholars... block of Jewish wikipedians..." res ipsa loquitor. If you are trying to persuade people that Holocasut Denial really isn't an antisemitic conspiracy theory, you might want to avoid that line of argument.) - EronTalk 03:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not trying to convince anyone of anything; that cannot be done. How is stating the truth of the matter weaking the argument that this label is opinion/POV?  Jayjg who started the little edit war which I got banned for is Jewish.  A sample of the scholars who also label HD antisemitic are also Jewish.  There's nothing wrong with their opinions, but they are just that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.71.135 (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable sources that counter the 17 reliable sources stating that Holocaust denial is anti-semitic, please supply them. Otherwise, per WP:TALK, please refrain from using this page for pontifications, arguments, and Jew baiting. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Eron, using such terminology is a poor line of argument. Furthermore, the only reason it is Jayjg's train of thought you are challenging and not mine is because he replied before I did, and I'm not Jewish. You assume that only our mere personal opinions on the matter are the precedent for this article, and are fallaciously contesting that, while completely ignoring the fact that it is not our opinion, but that of seventeen other sources. In a nutshell, that's a straw man argument. Furthermore, if you would like a good argument as to why negating criminal acts is an incitement, why not simply go over to Slave Trade related articles and tell them that denial of the slave trade isn't racist/inflammatory? Finally, this, as far as I'm concerned, is blatant trolling. Please cease from such disruptive edits. WilliamH (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

where did this talk page go?
some people deny the existence of this talk section, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.209.3 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They are (for the most part) not just blindly removed, but archived since they tend to get quite long in time. They spand from Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_1 to Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_12 --Kotu Kubin (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Faulty statement
"Among the evidence produced was film and stills that showed the existence of prisoner camps, as well as the testimony of those freed when the camps were entered."

This statement is not really valid argument unless someone knows of films and stills which the Soviets produced (though some might be skeptical of such). The article later notes that Rassinier was in Buchenwald and cites this as a basis for arguing that he therefore would not have seen extermination camps. But at the time Rassinier began writing there were many claims going around in the public domain which asserted that Buchenwald and all of the camps in the west had been death camps. This was one of the motives for Rassinier's decision to entertain revisionist ideas. Now the only films and stills which I've ever run across are those taken in the west at not only Buchenwald but also Dachau and Bergen-Belsen. These were not extermination camps and so films from such do not count as evidence (and the article tacitly recognizes this when commenting on Rassinier). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.137.134 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Many people who follow these discussions recommend that one edits or rewrites the parts that are not satisfactory to the reader. I would support an edit of the part, but remember to include your sources. --130.225.243.84 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

False claim should be clarified
I found a passage attributed Andrew Mathis which says:

"Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American..."

Anyone familiar with revisionist literature will be aware that the major bulk of it very definitely does not come either from America or even in the English language. Italy has been the source of the major revisionist work in the last couple decades. Before that France had begun as the country from which the major revisionist efforts were being written. Simply by comparing who has produced what one will have to acknowledge that the USA has generally lagged behind such European countries in revisionist literature. While it's OK to quote whatever Mathis chooses to say, it should be clarified for the reader's benefit that most modern revisionism is distinctly Italian and all of it from the beginning has been distinctly European. That's not an issue of a POV, it's just what follows from a cursory check on the main revisionist literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.20 (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this Wikipedia inform about the Italian revisionism?Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dariusz Ratajczak isn't a Notable Holocaust denier
He admitted he was wrong or missunderstood. To be notable one shoud have an opinion about the subject.Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC) According to  Ion Coja, Radu Theodoru, Albert Szabo, István Csurka are notorious deniers. They don't have their articles here.Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By your logic, we should remove convicted murderers from lists of people convcited of murder if they pled "not guilty." Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dariusz Ratajczak didn't kill anyone. He has published am idiotic booklet (230 copies) and admitted he was wrong. There is a difference between a terrorised man without views and highly motivated people with defined opinions. The main problem of Dariusz Ratajczak is that he is Polish and Poles are guilty by definition. Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Holocaust deniers includes 84 people. Why some of them are listed, the others aren't?Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that the main reason why the people you are naming are not on the list (and by the way also have no article in Wikipedia (en)) is probably because their "notoriety" as denier has still not reached English speaking countries. Maybe because they write in their own language, which makes them less accessible to most of the English speaking persons.  The same goes, for instance, for two well known French denialists, i.e. Vincent Reynouard and Henri Roques, who have no article and are not in the list on Wikipedia (en) although you can find them on wikipedia (fr): Vincent Reynouard and Henri Roques. --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Try Google "Ion Coja", you will find his "Holocaust in Romania ?", in English. He is known in Israel. He is a member of university staff. Dariusz Ratajczak is a night warden. Xx236 (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: I didn't the persons you have cited are not denialists. The question is to know to which extend they are known.  I have googled "Holocaust Denial" + "Ion Coja" and  have got 48 entries which is not much.  The same exercise with the French Robert Faurisson gives more than 9000 entries.  With Ernst Zündel you get almost 20000 entries and even Vincent Reynouard gets more hits.  This being said, you are free to the names of the persons you have cited to the list and to write an article on these persons.  Personaly I have not enough material available to do so.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I try to understand why Dariusz Ratajczak beacame extremely popular, even if he isn't a real denialist. It's probably like Paris Hilton. Xx236 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether he is a "real" denialist or not (by the way, what is a real denialist?), but the fact is that he has been convicted of denialism by a Polish court. I guess this is enough to be considered as a notable denialist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebob-BE (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor US cizens cannot become notable because they can write what they want. Can a legal system decide who is notable as a criminal this way? Are people killed in Islamic countries because of their sexual or drug habits automatically notable?

A notable denialist is a person, who denies the Holocaust. A person who quotes other denialists and later says Sorry, I forgot to declare that I was quoting is a coward, a conformist, maybe even an idiot, but not a notable denialist. If you loose your wallet, someone catches the wallet, you shout - It's mine, and the person returns your wallet - is he/she a notable thief? I doubt very much.

Dariusz Ratajczak has been nominated a notable denialist by media. This reminds me the novel The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum.

You are responsible when you quote - both Ratajczak and you in the same way. Don't tell me later I was only quoting BBC or NYT, I didn't know the subject.

I haven't found any English language text by Ratajaczak but there are many Ratajczak-experts here. Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand the point you are making. However, Ratajczak's claim that he was only reproducing other people's opinions didn't hold up in court - the judge decided that he had in fact made authorial comments which indicated that he supported those opinions. As to how notable he is, the answer is probably not very. Lebob-BE's google test gives only 155 hits. EyeSerene talk 14:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, he is cited 24 times on VHO who presents him as an innocent victim. --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * VHO is Village Health Organization, so I'm not sure if this VHO is notable here.Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking about this VHO, which is not really the same and has completely different objectives, as you will see if you follow the link. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Revisionistic links have been removed from Dariusz Ratajczak article.Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(←)Xx236, I wonder if, when we're using the word notable, we're talking about the same thing? On Wikipedia, notable simply means there's enough published information in existence for us to write a decent article that's a distillation of reliable secondary sources. Outside Wikipedia, notable is often used to mean famous. The information about Dariusz Ratajczak on Wikipedia is certainly well-sourced enough to meet our definition of notability, even though he may not otherwise be especially famous (or infamous!). As Lebob-BE has said, the fact that people you regard as more well-known Holocaust deniers aren't on the list doesn't mean they aren't notable too - it just means that no-one has written an article about them yet. EyeSerene talk 12:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You act as post-colonialists, you impose your image of my world. I don't like to be a post-slave, even if the masters from BBC or NYT are somtimes generous. Xx236 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We try to present a neutral image, although this is the English-language Wikipedia and will inevitably have a resultant systemic bias. However, I think we're approaching the margins of productive discussion here. Do you have any suggestions you want to make to improve the article, and sources to back up those suggestions? EyeSerene talk 14:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have written - to remove the POV list of notable deniers (there is the category) and to describe situation in countries not mentioned in the article.Xx236 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

David Irving and the backseat of Kennedy's car
this is a misquote. what david irving said is that more people died on the backseat of Ted Kennedy's care that went into the river at Chappaquiddick than died in "that" gas chamber, referring to the gas chamber at Auschwitz which was reconstructed after the war. "that" gas chamber didnt kill anyone. here is the video that clarifies Irving's remarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n8FlkiWLKA

this quote needs to be reworded. any suggestions? Statesboropow (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. In fact, this part of the article concerns much less what Irving said than the fact that he was defended by Hochhuth.  And, by the way, the later never invoked the fact that Irving was talking about the gaz chamber that had been rebuild.  Finally, and certainly on touchy topics like this one, youtube must be regarded as one of the less reliable sources.  There enough written documents on this subject without having to rely on youtube documents that have been posted there for whatsoever reason and that can have been altered or falsified for very obvious reasons. --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

what better source than david irving himself being interviewed and the words straight from the mans mouth? Statesboropow (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * YouTube is never a reliable source on Wikipedia, as Lebob-BE just explained. (And Irving, as a habitual liar, is not a reliable source for anything, not even his own opinions.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

that has got to be the dumbest thing i have ever heard. now you tell david irving what he thinks? i think he is a very smart, articulate man. and if he is so crazy, they wouldnt put him in jail. 72.45.61.254 (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would I want to tell David Irving anything? Hopefully I'll never engage in conversation with him. However, Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing and verifiability are quite precise, and that's the sole measure I'm using here. Who said he was crazy? I said he was a liar. Plenty of sane liars in the world, I guess. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

i'd be willing to bet that it couldnt be shown that david irving has ever lied about anything he has written about. he has over 30 books to his credit and anyone who has seen him talk can ttell that he is very well educated on the story of Nazi Germany. and at the end of the day, all he is doing is giving his opinion on an historical event. and for that he has been jailed, threatened and god knows what else. if Wikipedia was forced by law to profess a certain opinion i am sure you'd be in an uproar about it. Statesboropow (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, luckily for me and Wikipedia, we're ruled by laws that provide for freedom of speech, so stupid things like putting people in jail for holocaust denial won't happen here. Doesn't change anything about Irving's veracity, or lack thereof. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

i cant believ that you and i agree that jailing people for holocaust "denial" is stupid. i am done on this issue. just thought it could be improved. Statesboropow (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an American. Freedom of speech is one of the core tenets of our civic religion, to which I am a proud adherant. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion got out of hand at the very first response. This must be a new record. I don't see why a service for delivering footage should not be a reliable source for delivering footage, but if that is the Wikipedia standard then so be it, regardless, it is utterly unacceptable for Wikipedia authors to so openly reject footage clarifying exactly what David Irving meant with his statement elaborated upon by David Irving himself! It is completely irrelevant what he may or may not lie about, this article is about holocaust deniers and David Irving is (whether he likes it or not) a notable mention in this article. Therefore he should be quoted accordingly and not just blatantly having his very own statements rejected. Have you all forgot one of the main rules regarding how to handle holocaust deniers? Quote correctly for everybody to see or do not quote at all! --Kotu Kubin (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Back in the 1980s, following the accident at Three Mile Island, American politician Lyndon LaRouche's followers had the pro-nuclear energy slogan, "More people have been killed in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than in a nuclear accident." I guess the back seat of Ted Kenedy's car is a common standard for mortality. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I to assume from what I'm reading here that there exists Wikipedia rules that effectively implies certain newspapers' articles take precedent over video footage of the same event? If so, then who decided which newspapers (and hence ALL of its articles and journalists past, present and future) are considered reliable, and on what detailed analysis did they base this on? --Angryjames (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You might try perusing WP:RS for an answer to that. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremist and fringe sources: "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities". That would seem to allow the quote by Irving from that source. Also, as I mentioned below, the quote in the German article is actually almost the same as that given by Irving in the video clip. Meowy  01:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the quote, changing it to the words spoken in the interview cited in the opening post (it occurs at 6.20 approx.). They are the actual words of Irving, so I don't understand Lebob-BE objection against using it. The original version of the quote was also not accurate when compared against the cited German source (the article by Karl Pfeifer) - the quote in that source is almost word-for-word the same as that given in Irving's interview. Quotations have to be accurate, if they are not then they shouldn't be presented as quotations. Meowy 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response Meowy and the edit. Of course I was being facetious in my rhetoric. However it is that media trust which grants them carte blanche to print as they will, and they do so with extreme bias. In the UK the owner of The Times, Rupert Murdoch made it clear that he supported Tony Blair (our previous Prime Minster here in the UK), and his media empire did likewise (and during a general election). It is not so much a case of concern over direct bias (which we find in the rantings of certain Holocaust Deniers), but moreover the insidious subtle bias one finds in the mainstream media. The simple use of specific words and phrases, often skipped over but always intended. This can then be quoted (often with some relish I might add) in the likes of Wikipedia as fact, rather than the spin it surely was. Authors and Journalists are in the business of making money, NOT making sure facts are communicated and alternative views given due attention. I like to call this "The Myth of Citation" --Angryjames (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have addressed this earlier but I have been simply too busy lately. Firstly, I underline the sentiment above that it is fundamental that quotes are handled accurately verbatim and in the correct context. Unfortunately, that's an ability which Irving can't even extend to himself. The quote in question is from a speech Irving made in Ontario in October 1991. Here is the relevant passage:


 * Ridicule alone isn’t enough, you’ve got to be tasteless about it. You’ve got to say things like more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Now you think that’s tasteless, what about this? I’m forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it’s called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can’t get more tasteless than that, but you’ve got to be tasteless because these people deserve our contempt


 * In that gas chamber does not serve for Irving's speech as he would state, nor in Karl Pfeifer's article incidentally Meowy, as "in den Gaskammern" is dative plural. Crematorium I in the Auschwitz main camp clearly has nothing remotely to do with the quote's original context (nor does he accurately describe it). In a nutshell, Irving uses an untruth to cover up his untruth. WilliamH (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of Irving's ability to alter his position, lie even, Wikipedia should as you say accurately quote Irving. If he says two differing quotes, quote both. Even point out the difference if necessary and especially state the dates. Irving's position has changed considerably over the years. His views on gas chambers went from complete agreement with mainstream historians, to no gas chambers (except for delicing), to many deaths, to more deaths than even the Polish historians now accept. He can do this, most people do this.


 * An attempt to make sense of his views would also help, however no one can be cited on this. Even Christopher Hitches, whilst supporting him (somewhat) gives no mention of the reasons why. I have a pretty good understanding of why, as do many individuals moderately interested in this bizarre sub-culture, but since I don't work for The Times or some such organ of the press I have no voice here. I recently set about trying to interview Irving, and possibly garner an incite into this seemingly strange man. I stopped short of doing so when all the furore over the recent documentary An Independent Mind came to light. We are left with a bias for Irving and a bias against him. The interesting analysis is never explored because it wouldn't sell books or newspapers. QED... Wikipedia will only detail bias in this area. --Angryjames (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank's WilliamH for locating the actual quote and using it - though I don't see a substantive difference between it and the one Irving gave in the you-tube clip (in it Irving just stresses the word "that" and uses "people" rather than "women"). Meowy 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Meowy, the "that" is key, because Irving is referring to the gas chamber replica the Russians built in '48. Although in the previous quotation Irving is clearly denying the existence of genocide gas chambers at Auschwitz. That is extremely significant, do you not agree? --Angryjames (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the issue in depth, but I was presuming he was referring to some claim that the gas chambers are not actually gas chambers. So maybe some context for the quote needs to be given. The more I look closely at this article, the more serious are the problems I see within it – it may not be much of an overstatement to describe some parts of it as a work of propaganda.
 * That blatant falsification of the Irving quote has been dealt with, but why did it take a month for it to be done after the error was pointed out? The same false quote and associated text is still being repeated in other articles, such as Rolf Hochhuth. I have just removed another falsification, the claim that Irving had been jailed in Britain "for denying the Holocaust". There also seems to be substantial distortion involved in the content dealing with Rolf Hochhuth, both in this article and in the one about him. The cited source contains none of the phrases this article uses, and the context and subject of the interview is distorted and taken out of context. There seems to be a lack of seriousness about the content of this article and in the responses to those pointing out its errors. The attitude seems to be one of mostly ignore the actual subject but use the article to attack named individuals, and ignore the normal rules of accuracy for those attacks on the grounds that they are all total bastards so whatever we say about them is OK. Meowy 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said Meowy. I've been somewhat disgusted with various articles on Wikipedia which do exactly what you say. But putting this into context, this isn't dissimilar from mainstream media (incl. books and reference works). People demonize those who are deemed enemies of the system, sometimes in quite subtle ways.


 * I'm a back-seat driver really. I only dip into Wikipedia from time to time. For the most part I'm hugely impressed with the sterling effort being carried out by Wikipedians, heroes all. However there was a rather wonderful Clive Anderson radio show exploring Wikipedia and revealing some of its darker side. They gave accurate examples of known facts that had been distorted by the "reliable" press and hence cited within Wikipedia. Modifications to make the articles accurate were removed in favour of biased press articles, sometimes at the expense of public figures. Scary stuff. Who watches the watchers? --Angryjames (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've corrected the Rolf Hochhuth quote, both here and on the article dedicated to him. I've also removed the Hochhuth/Irving photo inserted into this article. It is off-topic here given that it dates from a period long before Irving published anything that could be considered Holocaust denial. It does have a valid place in the Rolf Hochhuth article because it illustrates their long connection (a connection that is mentioned and explained in that article). Meowy 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes too long
Tried to edit a simple typo and could not find it amid the blizzard of notes.Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same thing happened to me. Maybe those who regularly edit this article know their way around the maze, but for the rest of us it is almost impossible. Meowy 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

first line of the article
mentions only the jewish victims. if more than just jewish victims died, then isnt denying the Holocaust also a denial of the non-Jewish victims? Statesboropow (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC) no. and i havent seen anything that would lead me to believe that anyone who talks about the holocaust cares to share the misery with anyone other than the jewish victims. i have heard over and over again "six million jews". yes, the jews suffered, but so did a lot of others, and right along side of the Jewish souls too. it may be seen as a silly example, but watch "Dead Man Walking" with Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and there is only mention of the Jews. i know that innocent jews died and suffered greatly as a people. but i am angered when only their suffering is mentioned. sorry if that offends you. Statesboropow (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not seen much indication that Holocaust deniers really care about anything other than the Jews. Have you? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, time for you to go away. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous comment Jpgordon. We who consider ourselves as the "right minded" should never degrade to comments of that kind. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The holocaust refers specifically to Jewish people killed for being such in concentration camps by Hitler and his Nazis, so of course this article is about the modern denial of that. Hitler was also responsible for the deaths of many other people but these deaths are not considered part of the holocaust, so there is no argument here. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

well jpgordon, who are you to tell me to go away? why dont you go away? the holocaust wasnt a uniquely jewish experience and i think people resent that. i know i do. maybe the article can be revised to be a little more fair? Statesboropow (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial is about Jews, though. Perhaps you can get Holocaust deniers "to be a little more fair", and focus on other peoples for a change. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

holocaust "denial", if there is such a thing, cant be about the Jews when they only make up 55% of the victims. 72.45.61.254 Statesboropow (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the deniers; for some reason they only focus on the Jewish victims. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's useful to look at this slightly differently. There have been quite a few debates on wether the term "Holocaust" describes only the Nazi mass murder of Jews, or if it is more encompassing and refers to all Nazi victims of systematic mass murder. My reading of these debates is that both senses exist, but that the one restricted to Jewish victims is somewhat more prevalent. But even of one uses the more expansive definition, the term "Holocaust denial" has a meaning related to, but independent of its constituent words. It describes a certain social phenomenon, and, as -jpgordon and Jayjg have pointed out, that phenomenon is only the denial of the Nazi mass murder of Jews. See  e.g. Did Six Million Really Die? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting point. Deniers (for want of a better term) put forward precisely this argument. It is undeniable that the term "Holocaust" carries considerable weight and that no equivalent term that includes all casualties (or other casualties) exists. It is also the cause of much resentment which fuels the denier argument. The fact remains that for whatever reasons (and there are many good reasons) the term "Holocaust" exists and means what it does. What is perhaps more interesting for the denier argument is that the term is, as I understand it, a fairly modern concoction. I don't believe the Wiki entry for it states the origins of the word, nor the time period in which it was first introduced. --Angryjames (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually if you see Holocaust it has some info. "Holocaust" just generally means "disaster"; indeed, it was used to refer to the Armenian Genoicde as well. However, the modern usage (1940-something onwards) is to refer specifically to the events in World War 2. I'm with Jpgordon here; while strictly speaking "holocaust" in the WW2 context refers to the mass murders as a whole, holocaust deniers and indeed most of the world seem to perceive the mass murders as either 1) being entirely to do with jews or 2) other social/racial groups being involved, but overwhelmingly to do with the jews. Of course holocaust deniers don't believe that; can't have different social groups in a massacre when you believe said massacre never happened. Ironholds (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article though refers to The Holocaust (capital T capital H), which dates to around the 70's (I'm searching for evidence of this, but probably best to write to the OED or some such reference company). You are not correct here. Holocaust deniers are labelled as such for not accepting mainstream views on the events that took place. For instance if you are unsure about the figures the Soviets provided to the Nuremberg courts you would have been a denier. Questioning buildings claimed to be Gas Chambers, that were in fact recontructions... etc. Of course the deniers are much worse than this, they have an agenda, and it is that which needs to be dealt with. But you cannot deal with this by trying to argue with bias or by denying everything they say. It merely fuels their argument.


 * These days the rational (if you can call them that) deniers broadly speaking deny genocide, that is a direct order to commit genocide. They claim that victims (jews and non-jews) were treated with barbaric cruelty by factions of the regime, and that vast numbers (millions) were starved or murdered. This is a deliberate move on their part, because it is difficult to prove otherwise. A lack of evidence (obviously, since the Nazis covered it up), and even the references we have like the famous Goebbels diary entry about liquidation... does not directly imply genocide. However, as we all know, if you put those people in those conditions, in those hands you do so for a reason, you are responsible and indeed guilty. --Angryjames (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * James: the documents buried around crematoria II and III written by the Sonderkommando which were unearthed after the war. All of them read along the lines of "the Nazis are using the basements of these buildings to kill vast numbers of people with gas, and we have to burn the bodies". Does this satisfy your apparently stringent criteria of "directly implying genocide"? WilliamH (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, what I wrote was unclear. The Sonderkommando testified to these atrocities, we need no documents to prove that fact. The OED definition of genocide: "the deliberate killing of a very large number of people from a particular ethnic group or nation." By definition it is clear that genocide took place against the jews at the hands of the Nazis. No question.


 * The genocide extended to many other minorities and peoples than only the Jews. While, doubtless, the Jews were most dramatically effected, some Holocaust deniers deny that homosexuals, for example, were executed. Does this deserve mentioning? Demosthenes, blog 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The point I was trying to make is that deniers argue that Hitler never ordered the genocide, and therefore many of the Nazis did not know of the actions being carried out in the camps. It's difficult to prove this point. We have the Himmler/Heydrich evidence but it isn't concrete. It amounts to hearsay. Albeit compelling hearsay. Did Hitler order the building of the gas chambers? Did he pass on his genocidal plans to all his sub-ordinates and thus make it Nazi policy? Is it not possible that Hitler couldn't care less, or did not want to accept responsibility and therefore passed it over to Himmler/Heydrich?!? There is evidence of his sloppy command style elsewhere. Whatever the position, why argue it? Why not simply present the facts as we know them? I'm not saying give up the search for the truth, I'm asking why persist in adding fuel to the denier conspiracy? Moreover why show bias at all.


 * As for my position... If Hitler himself gave that direct order, or if Himmler twisted his ideas (as Irving will wish to prove with his new book) what does it matter? Does it mean the Nazis who carried it out were just following orders? Are they less monstrous? Is it not one extra monster to add to the pile we already know about. By playing around with these arguments we detract from the reality. Individuals carried out these atrocities and many did so without remorse. They were people, not Nazis, not Hitler's robots. People. --Angryjames (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Abbas as a denier
All I need is a quote showing that he has personally dedicated to any of the numbers (below 5 mil) he cites, and I will stop removing him from the list. forestPIG(grunt) 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked his thesis was not available in English. I guess he now finds it an embarassment, but the title is a strong indicator as to the content and various people quote its content. There are a lot of russian speakers in Israel so Israeli information is likely to be accurate.

Telaviv1 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the fourth paragraph from the bottom here. Also check the quote on his Wikipedia page, the interview with Haaretz. Finally, according to her blog here, anyone with Lipstadt's book History on Trial might be able to shed more light on this. WilliamH (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Lipstadt is right that the list is very Euro-centric. It probably should include more non-Europeans... I guess Abbas is more of a former denier than a present one. But he is important.

Abbas is 'important' because what? it paints a Palestenian leader as what anti-semitic? Fact is he does not deny the holocaust. He questions whether the facts around it are used for poltical purposes related to Israel - the editing of this article is good example of that. The Iranian leader falls in the same boat but I wouldnt attempt to argue about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.232.135 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A quick request for improvement
This whole article is so heavily tied up that it will never achieve being truly neutral, but one can hope.

While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, or less-biased information, deniers seek evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts.

(Do I have to explain why that is... problematic? It's well-sourced, but it claims what is ultimately a value judgement as fact, and is a broad generalization of a group.)

I don't dare change it, lest I be spat upon from both sides of the gallery.

All I ask is that someone who lurks around here takes a look at this and really thinks about it, especially considering the intrinsic value of the words, and tone. 24.205.50.170 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Revisions
I took a crack at simplifying and cleaning up this article. There's still a long way to go. There are many statements are that not well supported by the sources, and there was a lot of material which was tangential to the overall article. One of the biggest problems is that the overall structure of the article is that hideous amounts of text are submerged in footnotes. Much is simply redundant -- it is unnecessary to quote verbatim from every source. Also, the extensive source quotes actually obsure the article sources, because they are submerged in the textual quotations. Large amounts of material could be moved to other articles, and for David Irving I did so. There were also a number of statements like "so and so, Holocaust denier, claimed Holocaust did not happen". I changed a lot of those to just "so and so said Holocaust did not happened." I think that sufficient given the overall completely irrefutable prove of the Holocaust.Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not talking about the nazi-KKK photo ... the whole article must be canceled and rewritten, it's so disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetox (talk • contribs) 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

— Tetox (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Rewrite of first three sections
I rewrote the first three sections, that is, I left the text intact, joined up a paragraph or two. Mainly I cut out all the quotations from the sources and reworked the citation format so the can be more readily identified by future editors. I also combined a large number of duplicative citations, many of which had duplicate quotations as well. I printed out this article before this edit and it was 30 pages long, far too much of which was consumed by the footnote quotations.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the consensus lede so that it complies with WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Please don't attempt to modify it again without gaining significant consensus on this rather touchy subject. Also,
 * Please don't change the way citations are given, and in particular please don't insert lengthy and unhelpful citation templates.
 * When multiple sources are used to support a point, they are generally combined into one footnote, as this is visually more appealing and makes verification easier. Please don't separate combined citations, unless the specific sources are used individually elsewhere.
 * Never remove quotations from a citation, and in particular not from this article. The quotations serve to verify that the material is supported by the source used.
 * Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * you're welcomeMtsmallwood (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your efforts to improve the article. Jayjg (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored this paragraph: Much of the controversy surrounding the claims of Holocaust deniers centers on the methods used to present arguments that the Holocaust allegedly never happened as commonly accepted. Numerous accounts have been given by Holocaust deniers (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed "facts" and "evidence"; however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, or even deliberately falsified evidence. Opponents of Holocaust denial have compiled detailed accounts of numerous instances where this evidence has been altered or manufactured (see Nizkor Project and David Irving). According to Pierre Vidal-Naquet, the Holocaust denial is an attempt at extermination on the paper which transmits the actual extermination. (Pierre Vidal-Naquet, French une tentative d'extermination sur le papier qui relaie l'extermination réelle in "Les assassins de la mémoire", Un Eichman de papier, Postface de Gisèle Sapiro, Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée, La Découverte, Paris, 2005, ISBN 2-7071-4545-9.). In my view the Pierre Vidal Naquet's citation is very important. And also the words biased statements''. Deniers are writing huge books with many actual facts (errors of some witnesses, some things in Auschwitz reconstructed, the Anne Frank's diary published in contradiction wit some drafts and so on), or they use the methods of History and that is "biased statements"... Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed this section because the first three sentences were (a) redundant and (b) unsourced.  The fourth sentence, from Pierre Vidal may be important, but the version here, "attempt at extermination on the paper which transmits the actual extermination" is a bad translation from French and incomprehensible in English.Mtsmallwood (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The title of a large part of Pierre Vidal-Naquet's book  is (in French) Un Eichman de papier . That means: Faurisson is the same as Eichman  because  he says the Holocaust doesn't exist but only in writing the denial. The nazis were denying the Holocaust in making the holocaut. There is a translation of the title in English  and it is A Paper Eichman. I am French speaking but this translation seems to me the best. So, the sentence should be translated by something as :Paper extermination  [i.e . the Holocaust denial] is the relay of the  actual extermination or Paper extermination is the baton of  the actual extermination. In French relais means also the relay in sport. Thank you Mtsmallwood. Paul Barlow translated he French sentence but he is perhaps wrong. For me-and someone as  René Girard for instance -all  violent people are denying they are violent. See you later,sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the quote from Vidal-Naquet:, « dans notre société de représentation et de spectacle, une tentative d'extermination sur le papier qui relaie l'extermination réelle. »? If so, would translate that as:  "In our society of image and spectacle, extermination on paper leads to extermination in reality."  Non? Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quote, as given in the article, is incomprehensible, and that your translation is better. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes OK. Good idea to quote also dans notre société etc." but to lead is stronger than relaie and "may lead would be weaker. "Relaie" is midden the two verbs. Is it possible to say in English  (for instance): "extermination on paper is a link to extermination in reality" or  extermination   is a link (a relay? a thing? a way of doing? an attitude? an act? ) leading to extermination in reality?  Relaie has an abstract meaning in French. If all the translations I propose  are not right  we may temporarily write the translation of Mtsmallwood. Thanks to him. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NO!!!!! THE RIGHT TRANSLATION IS ON THE WEB: On voit peut-être mieux ce que signifie cetteméthode historique: elle dans notre société de représentation et de spectacle, une tentative d'extermination sur le papier qui relaie l'extermination réelle and the translation of the translater in English  (the paragraph On the revisionist method at the end of it after point 8)  It will perhaps now be better perceived what such a historical method signifies: in our spectacle-oriented society, it is an attempt at extermination on paper that pursues in another register the actual work of extermination.'' José Fontaine (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)