Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 13

Laws against Holocaust denial: not in order to dictate the truth in History
I don't agree with the last change of User:195.43.57.106 (line 101 on 29/1/2009): the laws against Holocaust denial are no laws which dictate the truth in History. These laws are against racism and antisemitism. Because the genocide in itself was also denied by the nazis (from the beginning). It is the opinion, among othermany authors, of Pierre Vidal-Naquet. The Holocaust denial is the genocide in itself and also the denial of all the massacres in the History. I propose to erase the sentences of 195.43.57.106. I know that there are different views about that in EU, in USA (and so on). But the States which are in favour of laws against Holocaust denial are democratic and liberal States and they don't want to dictate the truth but to punish racism (I have only grounds for the decision from Belgian Courts). Holocaust denial is not really an opinion about history but racism. When the nazis were killing the Jews they said that they were killing stucks" (things). You find this way of speaking in all the genocides,for instance in Rwanda : the Tutsis were named in French cancrelats'' (cockroach). It is possible to have an important section about the differences between the laws in different States. And it is necssary to give the different opinions about that. But the change of 195.43.57.106 is not relevant. José Fontaine (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The laws make no sense, they stand outside of any ideology. Effectively they stand to protect some form of political flag. The phrase "These laws are against racism and antisemitism." is itself racist. Denial of the genocide by the Nazis can be considered political, and certainly denial has a political and rational bent. No democratic process was followed to produce laws on Holocaust Denial, in fact no democratic process was followed before during or after WWII, both by allied or axis states. This is too often used as an excuse for bad behaviour. We bomb Iraq but hey we are a democratic state so that makes it okay, we killed hundreds of thousands of children with sanctions but again we are a democratic state so that's okay. I'm not saying these actions must not be carried out, but I am saying using our current form of faux democracy as a banner for truth is dishonest.


 * The point about using other words to describe the people you wish to kill makes perfect political sense. If they were looked upon as people the actions would have been far harder to carry out. Same is true with all modern warfare. We demonise those we intend to kill, we mark them as unpeople. --Angryjames (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason why I spoke about democracy was only the following: some democratic States have laws against the Holocaust denial, other democratic States not. I read  Pierre Vidal-Naquet who is against these laws.  Perhaps he is right? I don't know.  I am only saying these laws are not dictating the truth. I think the laws make sense, as e.g. the laws against the murder. And the Holocaust denial is a kind of murder.Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an advocate of free speech, and I would prefer laws that force someone to prove what they say. However looking at the various cases of David Irving it would appear that the approach is heavy handed at times. Also the definition of denial taken literally means that I am a denier because I would say I do not accept (without proof) ANY government figures which would include The Holocaust as well. For instance the UK government figures for the number killed and/or wounded in Iraq does not tally with several other agencies including The Red Cross. Effectively one has to lie by saying they do accept the figures even though we know they are dubious, in order to avoid being labelled and in some countries jailed. This is barbarism. --Angryjames (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Maybe a gentle reminder might be appropriate that this page is intended for discussing changes to the article itself rather than debating semantics. Some off-topic conversation may be inevitable with such a controversial subject, but as far as possible please try to confine discussion to specific suggestions relating to article improvement. A quick read over WP:TALK might be helpful; further off-topic comments may be removed. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 20:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course they do not dictate the truth in history, unfortunately they PERPETUATE the lies, otherwise they have nonsense, racism includes antisemitism and all democratic countries have laws to prevent racism. I am so proud of living in a free country where I can deny all those lies. It's so curious to see how zionists lack respect for all non jewish victims of WWII... so sad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetox (talk • contribs) 00:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

— Tetox (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think Holocast denial is a form of murder - thats like saying communism is a form of democracy, but I do think its viciously antisemitic and slanderous against the whole of the jewish community, as such it also seems like a new "warrant for genocide". So I am ahppy for it to be illegal. I don't thik the right of free speech gives you the right to lie about or to slander people in this way Telaviv1 (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Williamson (bishop) - recent lifting of excommunication and reiterating his denial
This is a current issue, happenning at the end of Jan 2009, and seems like this man should be included? --Fremte (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eisenhower section
I added this section because it seemed important to me in the early history of this topic. I also added images of Eisenhower and Congressman Izac inspecting Buchenwald and Ohrdruf, as these relate specifically to Eisenhower's efforts to get the evidence before credible witnesses as quickly as possible. I broke up the opening section into one involving concealment efforts (and Allied refutation) by the perpetrators themselves, and then started a new section with the original start of the history of Holocaust denial following World War II.Mtsmallwood (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

the "gas chamber" at auschwitz
the gas chamber in question is a reconstruction. there is no trace of gas in the walls, and it was built after the war. no person actually died in it. so the "gas chamber" wasnt actually used to kill anyone. and more people died in Kennedy's car than in that recronstruted building that hasnt been shown to kill anyone. Statesboropow (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire case of what is reconstructions and what is historically incorrect about Auschwitz is much more complicated than what you and your David Irwing quote states here. I am not the type who just blindly accept what I am told anywhere in the field of History, but I do neither have the capability to personally study the entire spectrum of this case well enough to edit the article accordingly, but I would much encourage you to do so. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

IHR cite
I have removed the URL in question regarding the IHR's definition of Holocaust denial because it is redundant to the following paragraph that goes into greater detail, and of course, the IHR's definition boils down to "we deny it because it didn't happen" - clearly at odds with reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
"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." That isn't accurate. Nobody or almost nobody into the denyal movement assert that there was a conspiracy but war propaganda (inconsistent statements that shares only public known information doesn't require a conspiracy). When checking references on this quotation one find that everything points out to jewish sponsored projects against denyal or jewish historians so that's not a denyal claim. This sentence should show where this opinion comes from. Please show me a revisionist document about the conspiracy and explain me why many revisionist (i.e. Faurisson) contends that there was no conspiracy.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading through the article, that phrasing struck me as odd as well. This should be sourced, and probably softened, at the very least to say "Holocaust denial claims often imply..." or some such language. JDoorjam     JDiscourse 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't either come across conspiracy claims in my study of deniers, yet. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This theory is clearly put forward by the two most prominent French denialists, i.e. Robert Faurisson and Roger Garaudy. This has been repeated again by Faurisson during the denialist conference that took place in Teheran in December 2006.  One would need to make further researches but I guess it would not bee too difficult to find other denialists sharing the same point of view. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please tell me where in that document he talked about the "conspiracy". Faurisson do not support a "jewish conspiracy" to invent the holocaust. I recommend to watch this video . I never said that the jews invented the story of the gass chamber to make money, I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THERE WAS A PLOT OR A CONSPIRACY. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A PLOT OR CONSPIRACY, I do not believe, myself, in plot or conspiracy, because you need people courageous and discretion. You don't have those two qualities among many people. So, I don't believe in that...
 * He don't believe in plot or conspiracy, thus I repeat: where did he talk about "a conspiracy" to invent the Holocaust? I'm not asking about lies but "a conspiracy". Anyways when you find the document that supports the conspiracy please aware Nizkor, cause he was seaching for this document along years.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any material from reliable sources you would like to insert into the article? Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are confused, who need sources is the one who want to include assertions on the article. The "conspiracy" as a denier claim has no reliable (or even not relieve) source, it has no souce of any kind.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be noted that Holocaust Deniers have failed to explain why such a massive fallacy exists. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory: arbitrary break 1
In the document you linked to above Faurisson says its a massive plot to swindle the Germans and Palestinians. Surely that means he believes its a conspiracy?

Telaviv1 (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "plot" is not present on the document, and the verb swindle does not imply necessarily a conspiracy. In any case, your guess is an opinion, but it's not a "denial claim" as Wikipedia state. I respectfully suggest to amend this sentence.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"a gigantic financial and political swindle" swindle means a fraud, that is a deliberate deception. If its deliberate then whoever has done it is part of a conspiracy and it certainly implies that they have plotted their deception even if it does not say it outright. Put simply its the logical conclusion.

Telaviv1 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A conspiracy implies a plan, to keep a secret, two or more persons working together. If one person cheats 10M Dolar from a bank by means internet, that's "a gigantic financial swindle", or even one person could cheat thousands of people.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As said Faurisson himself, "which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism". what Faurisson says is cristal clear: the State of israel and the international sionism have comploted for politcal and financial reason.  The sole difference with the protocols of the Elder of Zion(another complt theory) is Israel that did not exist in the 19th century.  You do not need to use the word consipacy for developping such a theory.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Faurisson said that some jews used the Holocaust afterwards. That's different to invent the Holocaust with the idea of make money later. Wikipedia says: "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."--85.144.120.49 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Faurisson denies the reality of the holocaust and says that no Jew has been killed in a gas chamber and even that gas chambers did not exist and that this is a hoax invented by the sionists. He has been sentenced several times in France for this.  Here is the exact quote of what Faurisson said in Teheran and for which he is again under scrutiny by a French court: "The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety".  Faurisson position couldn't be clearer and clearly show he belives in a conspiracy theory.  According to him (and by the by to Garaudy as well, the holocaust is a lie spread by comploting sionists.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Focus yourself on the issue that we are discussing here and read the quotation above. In this case it's not necessary you guess whether Faurisson believe in conspiracies or not, since he explicitly says what he believe or not.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

so do you think that all Zionists and/or all Israelis are part of this plot? do you think its linked to the plot described in the protocols?Telaviv1 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that question addressed to me? --Lebob-BE (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

to both of you. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think tht all Zionists and/or all Israelis are part of this plot. In fact I do not even believe there is a plot.  There are enough books writen by scholars that clearly show that the holocaust occured. --Lebob-BE (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a forum. Please let's focus on the issue instead of discuss our personal belief.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having seen that you managed to post this on another discussion page I think your remark above is completely meaningless. And this closes the discussion.  It is widely acknowledge that many holocaust deniers consider that the holocaust has been invented by the sionist as part of a conspiracy.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I repeat over and over again, focus your comment on the issue and avoid personal attacks. Now it's clear that the article must be revised as other users have admitted above. That's my proposal: "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." would be replaced for "Holocaust denial claims that the Holocaust was a war propaganda, an historical lie subsequently used by some Jews to advance their interest at the expense of other peoples.". It would improve the article since that's what "holocaust denial" actually claims in its own words. However if you want to include your criticism or misrepresent it, at least don't talk in behalf of the "holocaust denial".--85.144.120.49 (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that you are talking in behalf of the "holocaust denial"? --Lebob-BE (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was you who referred to Faurisson as one of the "most prominent French denialist" and that is what he said on the video. However if you prefer a direct quotation, including words as "swindle", it's okay for me.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * what about the famous piles of dead bodies showed in the Nuremburg trial (British liberation of Belsen http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/15/newsid_3557000/3557341.stm). do you think that Richard Dimbleby made it all up?

try this http://isurvived.org/Bergen-Belsen_liberation.html are you saying this was a British plot? an American plot? or a Jewish plot? or all three? were the soviets in on it?

Telaviv1 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, I may recommend you a forum to discuss that issue. However you should understand that it is not the point here. We're talking about sources or references on this article. I begun this thread almost a month ago, thus it's time to make a decision. If anybody don't like my proposal I'd like to hear yours, otherwise I'd make the change.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like your proposal, so here's mine: Leave the sentence the way it is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wellcome. If you have read the discussion yet, please tell us what are your arguments, in case that you have any.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence should not be changed. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Talaviv1: I know you do. So your alleged reason to pose this argue is that the "prominent denialist" Faurisson do believe in conspiracies, don't you? Is Faurisson deceiving the world by saying just the opposite? ("I do not believe") Are you and Lebob-BE the only people who know the truth?--85.144.120.49 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of your quote, i.e. "I never said that the jews invented the story of the gass chamber to make money" is already a blatant lie. So why should we beleive the other part of your citation which, by the way, has no reference.  How can we be sure it is a quote from Faurisson and that you did not invent it?  Furthermore I agree with Telaviv1 and Steven J. Anderson, the discussed sentence must remain as it is.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you watch the video? Do you assert that the man on the video is not Faurisson but an actor, or perhaps the IHR conference was fake?--85.144.120.49 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase: the statement "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." is supported by eight separate references. It is verifiable and supported by reliable sources. It should stay in the article. Period. - EronTalk 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The referred works are about a swindle to make money after the Holocaust by misrepresenting, exaggerating or inventing proofs. However Wikipedia claims that the "Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy", which means that the conspiracy invented the Holocaust. Therefore is good idea to go to the sources, to avoid misrepresent all those "reliable sources".--85.144.120.49 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. If the Holocaust did not occur - as deniers claim - then what is it that this Jewish conspiracy is "misrepresenting, exaggerating or inventing proofs" for? One can either accept that the Holocaust took place - in which case there is no requirement for misrepresentation, exaggeration, or invention - or one can state that it did not. You cannot claim that there is a Jewish conspiracy to misrepresent, exaggerate, and invent an event which did not take place without also implying that this conspiracy created that event. It's an absurdity. - EronTalk 20:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to holocaust denial, the holocaust was the result of many war propagandas on WW2 (human soap, people gassed, to assert that Hitler ordered to kill the jews, etc). It could make sense or not for you, but that's not the point. The statement is misrepresenting the claim.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Holocaust deniers claim that the the Holocaust did not occur. They claim that all the evidence in support of the Holocaust was exaggerated or fabricated. They claim that this exaggeration and fabrication was done by Jews and their supporters to further Jewish interests. In other words, they claim that "the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews," just as the article currently states. The statement is accurate and referenced and it will stay in the article. - EronTalk 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read a big amount of documents. There are no references about that conspiracy, so it's not possible that the "holocaust denial" claims that the Holocaust arose out of a conspiracy. And when you check the references on this article, just realize that wikipedia have cheated you, since that sources talk about the swindle after the Holocaust. We took in consideration the most prominent revisionist writers, even according to other wikipedia editor's criteria.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to explain again:
 * Holocaust deniers claim there was no Holocaust.
 * They claim that evidence supporting the existence of the Holocaust was exaggerated or fabricated.
 * They claim that this fabrication was done by Jews and their supporters to advance the interests of Jews.
 * Please explain how this series of claims does not add up to an accusation that "the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews." - EronTalk 01:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

1)True/False. Some "revisionist" do not say that there was no Holocaust (Bradley Smith nowadays) but other do, however all are "deniers" according to the Jews. The answer lies on how you define the Holocaust. According to the dictionay ("a massive slaughter") or the Jewish definition, which includes the 3 elements that define the "holocaust denial": the number (of dead Jews), the method (gas chambers), the plan (Hitler had a plan to exterminate Jews). If you deny some of those elements it becomes you a denier according to the Jews and also to European laws. However it doesn't means that you deny the Holocaust as the historical fact (concentration camps,racist laws,etc). 2)True. 3)I repeat it was war propaganda, sometimes made by Jews and sometimes not. 4) Explanation: there is no coordination among the witnesses, there's a big amount of contradictions and no coordination, therefore a conspiracy is not mandatory to explain it, perhaps a massive torture by Allies, i.g.. And what's the aim of this torture? To get war crime confessions in general. Elements like gas executions or six million dead Jews were prior to the end of the war as Jewish claims or rumors, all well known and useful. You don't need a conspiracy to torture people, it happend on any war, since they always want to put the blame and the atrocities on the other side.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "According to the Jews." I think that makes your motivations in this discussion abundantly clear. You are displaying the twisted argumentation, resistance to logic, and willingness to resort to outright falsehood that is typical of the Holocaust denial community. I'm done trying to reason with you. If you make changes to this article that violate guidelines on verifiability and reliable sourcing, or that remove or substantially alter verifiable and sourced information, they will be reverted. - EronTalk 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another personal attack by explicitly calling me denier. The assertion about a "conspiracy" violate the guidelines, as I proved over and over again. You and your friends don't have arguments nor references. This article cheats the readers by announcing false references. I repeat, your sources are about a swindle to use the holocaust afterwards, whereas the article state that Holocaust denial claims a conspiracy invented the Holocaust.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would say anon is the one with the logic, because the application of the term sometimes defies logic. Still, I say this to anon for trying to place the term in the context of evaluating what did/did not happen: it is altogether unnecessary for you to do this. If the "Jewish definition" as you call it, is also the mainstream definition, then it doesn't matter if it is called "Holocaust denial" or "I don't think evidence collected from tortured Nazis, Nazis who wanted to blame Hitler for organizing something they did on their own, war-time propaganda and those who were there is reliable syndrom". Granted, the term could change or evolve, but I doubt it will. --Sin cloro8 (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "I think that makes your motivations in this discussion abundantly clear." I honestly don't think that this is a very constructive criticism and is not the idea of WP:AGF amongst other things. I think the general discussions on this page always ends up with this kind of behavior. I though this to be a interesting discussion and I am always very objective in these matters and have been for a long time. I see this as a very problematic conclusion just to finish conclude by saying: "If you make changes to this article that violate guidelines on verifiability and reliable sourcing, or that remove or substantially alter verifiable and sourced information, they will be reverted.". It sounds questionable. 85.144.120.49's generalization of the general public community as "The Jews" in his last paragraph is not clever, but regarding the very subject of this matter, it is not something you can blame on some "secret agenda". I strongly oppose forcing reverting of edits to this article and hope it will continue to be changed and edited, like the rest of Wikipedia. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is open to improvement, just as any article in Wikipedia is. As to the assumption of good faith, I have shown abundant good faith by engaging this editor in discussion for as long as I did. I've spent enough time on this and related articles to have learned that argumentative editors who use twisted logic and misrepresent facts are typically Holocaust deniers; when they start referring to "the Jews" as this poster did, they remove all doubt.
 * Note that I said changes to the article would be reverted if they violated WP:V and WP:RS, or if they removed or altered information that met the requirements of those policies. I would do the same for any article. Edits that violate policy should be reverted, especially on contentious articles like this one. - EronTalk 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the Holocaust concept according to the Jews since that's relevant for this discussion, and I explained this concept. Whether other non-Jewish shares this concept or not is not the point. Now you try to derivate the discussion and insult me as "holocaust denier" because you realized that it's over, you have no argument against what a mentioned in regard of the references. This article cheats the readers by announcing false references. I repeat, references (6) on the article are about a swindle to use the Holocaust AFTER the war to make money, whereas the sentence we're discussing says Holocaust denial claims "a conspiracy" invented the Holocaust. Your friends quoted Faurisson as a "prominent holocaust denier" that supposedly would contends the opposite. And I proved they were lying by means a direct quotation on a video where Faurisson says "I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THERE WAS A PLOT OR A CONSPIRACY. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A PLOT OR CONSPIRACY". Now just pretend to be offended and accuse me of "denier" but you cannot change what is written but just could deceive someone who didn't read the entire discussion. As I proved over and over, ALONG A MONTH, YOU DON'T HAVE ARGUMENTS on the concrete issue subjected to this discussion at the outset, and you just try to talk about the Holocaust in general or the denial movement, or pretend to be offended.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The very sentence "Holocaust concept according to the Jews" is quite telling, in many ways. "Holocaust concept"? "According to the Jews"? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Faurisson, here is a direct quote from a published paper under his name:
 * "The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety."
 * (From "The Victories of Revisionism," Robert Faurisson, page 5.)
 * Faurisson - in his own words - says the Holocaust is a "historical lie" which has been used to perpetrate a "gigantic... swindle." A historical lie - something invented to allow this swindle to take place. Are you suggesting that the historical lies Faurisson claims underlie the Holocaust are somehow separate and distinct from the gigantic swindle Faurisson claims was perpetrated as a result of the Holocaust? - EronTalk 01:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory: arbitrary break 2

 * That's what I say: this article cheats the readers by announcing false references. I repeat, references (6) on the article are about a swindle to use the Holocaust AFTER the war to make money, whereas the sentence we're discussing says Holocaust denial claims "a conspiracy" invented the Holocaust. Your friends quoted Faurisson as a "prominent holocaust denier" that supposedly would contends the opposite. And I proved they were lying by means a direct quotation on a video where Faurisson says "I'VE NEVER SAID THAT THERE WAS A PLOT OR A CONSPIRACY. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A PLOT OR CONSPIRACY". As I proved over and over, ALONG A MONTH, YOU DON'T HAVE ARGUMENTS on the concrete issue subjected to this discussion at the outset, and you just try to talk about the Holocaust in general instead or about other denial claims, or turn around the bush.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you even read my last post? I didn't talk about the Holocaust in general. I gave you a direct quote from Faurisson where he states that the Holocaust was a historical lie used as the basis for a gigantic swindle. Where is the false reference? - EronTalk 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * just from "Telaviv1 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2009" till here.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about.
 * You have stated that there are "false references" in this article. Which references, specifically, do you consider false and why, specifically, do you think they are false? Please note that "I don't believe what they say" is not a sufficient response. You should demonstrate how these references are not reliable sources. - EronTalk 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * those references on the article are about a swindle to use the Holocaust AFTER the war to make money, whereas the sentence we're discussing says Holocaust denial claims "a conspiracy" invented the Holocaust.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is some of what those references say:
 * "Jews are thus depicted as manipulative and powerful conspirators who have fabricated myths of their own suffering for their own ends."
 * "There was a conspiracy by Zionists to exaggerate the plight of Jews during the war in order to finance the state of Israel through war reparations."
 * "The Institute for Historical Review... has promoted the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews fabricated tales of their own genocide to manipulate the sympathies of the non-Jewish world."
 * "The central assertion for the deniers is that Jews are not victims but victimizers. They 'stole' billions in reparations, destroyed Germany's good name by spreading the 'myth' of the Holocaust, and won international sympathy because of what they claimed had been done to them."
 * "The purpose of this Holocaust mythology... is the inculcation of a sense of guilt in the white, Western Christian world."
 * "Deniers argue that the manufactured guilt and shame over a mythological Holocaust led to Western, specifically United States, support for the establishment and sustenance of the Israeli state."
 * Who else but the Jews had the media power to hoodwink unsuspecting masses with one of the greatest hoaxes in history?"
 * The references support, in other words, the statement that Holocaust deniers believe that a Jewish conspiracy fabricated the Holocaust. - EronTalk 06:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Every line that includes "denier" or "denial" certainly don't come from the deniers (since they call themselves revisionists), thus what you quote is not their claim. However as I repeated along a month: those sentences are about the Jews used the myth of the Holocaust after the war to make money, but this myth arose out from the Ally war propaganda without coordination, plot or conspiracy. There was no conspiracy to fabricate the Holocaust but to use it after the war and that's what Faurisson says on the video. "I've never said the Jews invented the story of the gas chamber to make money... I never said there was a plot or conspiracy ...some jews invented the lie of the gas chambers and many years later, some else would say: we could make money of it". However Wikipedia says '"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."''--85.144.120.49 (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 85, this has now been explained to you in exquisite detail, repeatedly, for about a month. We use reliable sources to edit these articles. This excludes holocaust deniers themselves, as they are notorious for their relentless dishonesty, even on the subject of their own views. They will make a claim one day and deny having made it the next. The article, as it stands, fairly and accurately portrays the reliable sources. There is a clear consensus among editors here that it does so. Continuing to flog this dead horse is clear-cut disruption. Furthermore, your comments here and here make it clear that you're here to push an agenda, not edit an encyclopedia. This is resolved. Let it go. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If deniers are no reliable source it doesn't change what I had to repeat along a month. Those sentences are about the Jews used the myth of the Holocaust after the war to make money, whereas the article asserts that holocaust denial claim a conspiracy invented the Holocaust (for example the conspiracy would ordered to gathering corpses and putting them on massive grave in order to take photos, etc, etc). This article lacks references that support this point. "There is a clear consensus among editors" this statement proves that you haven't read the entire discussion. I'm not committed to any politic or ethnic group like Zionism, Jews or "Camera" a Jewish group that infiltrated editors in the past. Can everybody here honestly repeat that? My agenda is just the truth and I never call my friends to support me on a discussion.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be having some difficulty understanding what the references say. I'll give you just one sentence:
 * ''"Since its inception...the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), a California-based Holocaust denial organization founded by Willis Carto of Liberty Lobby, has promoted the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews fabricated tales of their own genocide to manipulate the sympathies of the non-Jewish world."
 * This reference supports the statement that Holocaust deniers claim that a Jewish conspiracy invented the Holocaust - "fabricated tales of their own genocide." Please read it. - EronTalk 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This statement talks about "tales" such as the human soap, but again where is the conspiracy. You are the one who is trying to invent a conpiracy by distorting quotations along a month.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You either do not understand what you are reading, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. Either way, as I've said before: The current content of the article is supported by reliable sources. As to my conduct, if you have any issues with it, feel free to seek recourse through the appropriate Wikipedia channels. Perhaps a request for comments? I am confident that any reasonable person will see that I am not "distorting" anything.
 * This article is rather illuminating. Eron is absolutely right. The sentence stands. WilliamH (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire article is a guess about how many documents you need to fake in order to invent the WW2, instead of the 3 points discussed by the "holocaust revisionist": the plan, the method and the number. Anyone can write a text on a forum or newsgruops to show its ignorance and that's the case. There's not even one wartime document about the gas chamber, according to "reliable" jewish historians, no order of Hitler to kill the Jews, no "basic plan", blueprints, estimation of costs, according to Hilberg a Jewish reliable historian. And this "illuminating" webpage talks about "thousands of documents" because is a text that someone posted on the reliable source of "Usenet". The official Holocaust story IS a "conspiracy theory" and it's not me who assert it but the Nuremberg Tribunal on its official reliable document Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. And this conspiracy would have destroyed thousands of documents and killed millions of people in secret along years, talking on a "secret" code,etc. I repeat: the sentence we're discussing is not referenced (its references are fake) and must be removed or edited. Please make your proposal if you have any.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The statement is supported by reliable sources. They are not "fake". You can look them up. (Please, look them up and read them. You may learn some truths about the Holocaust that you will never hear from Faurisson or on the VHO web site). The sentence should stay in the article. - EronTalk 06:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I also read Nizkor and he's right about many things, but not all was true.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that must be the big difference between Nikzor and the denialist websites where almost everything has been proven false. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence is supported by reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources for your belief that it is inaccurate? Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not discussing the "reliability" of the references but whether those references support the statement or not. You asked me this question before at "19:45, 24 February 2009" so read the answer.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory: arbitrary break 3
We are "discussing the 'reliability' of the references." You have been shown the references that support the sentence. You have responded that the "references are fake." That is exactly what reliability addresses - whether or not the references used can be trusted. These references meet the standards for reliability. They are not "fake". - EronTalk 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have explained quite clear and many times. If you add references here about "Columbus discovered America", those references could be reliable but it don't endorses the statement that we're discussing, whereupon the article has "fake references".--85.144.120.49 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which references are fake? Please be specific. List the exact reference and explain why you think it is fake. - EronTalk 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked me it, before, Eron at "05:48, 9 March 2009" those references on the article are about a swindle to use the Holocaust AFTER the war to make money, whereas the sentence we're discussing says Holocaust denial claims "a conspiracy" invented the Holocaust.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did ask before and you did give me the same answer. I responded then, I suppose I can respond again.
 * Here, in more detail, is what just one of those references says about Holocaust denial:
 * "[Holocaust denier Austin App] frequently used any combination of the terms "Talmudist," "Bolshevik," and "Zionist" in his writings as indicators that Jews were behind what he deemed a hoax that the Nazis had murdered 6 million Jews."
 * "[Holocaust denier Arthur Butz] reiterates the notion that the Holocaust is a consciously perpetrated falsification of history. While Butz is more subtle than App in blaming Jews for this hoax (he does not attack the Jewish religion in the manner of App, nor does he depict all Jews as Communists), he does target Zionists specifically as the hoaxsters, along with the governments of the Allies (particularly the Soviet Union), refugee and survivor organizations, and even the International Committee of the Red Cross."
 * Reliable sources have studied the claims made by Holocaust deniers. Based on their studies, they have concluded that Holocaust denial includes the belief that the Holocaust was an invention of a Jewish conspiracy. That is what these references say.
 * You have not supported your argument that the sentence should be removed. Repeating your arguments will not make them any more persuasive. - EronTalk 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All those quotations are about the jews distorted the facts after the war, i.g. they exaggerate the number of victims, but if you state that deniers claim the jews invented the Holocaust, then provide references on that issue. Why is so difficult for you to give me one holocaust denial document about how the jews invented the holocaust? or one document that explicitly says that they did it? There's only one answer: because this document doesn't exists. Now are you asking me for references to add my proposal to the article? Okay, but at the moment, the first thing we may do is to remove the false statement about a "conspiracy" supported by fake references. Eron: It looks like we finally will arrive to an agreement.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are either misunderstanding the references or you are deliberately misrepresenting what they say. The statement is not false and the references are not fake. I don't see any point in continuing to discuss this with you. If you edit the article to remove referenced content or to add unreferenced material, those edits will be reverted. - EronTalk 06:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're the one who made interpretations, not me, since you lack a direct quotation about any "conspiracy". References are fake and I've explained why.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

— 85.144.120.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You're the only one saying that the denialists do not claim there is a conspiracy. That part of the article is clearly sourced and has not to be changed.  Maybe you should consider to go trolling on another website.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "some". I did the same many months ago but someone obviously changed it back in the intervening period. I did not read this section before I made the change, nor do I wish to do so now. I just considered the "all" claim to be so laughable and so obviously factually inaccurate that it had to be changed at once. Meowy 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of some is editorially problematic. Firstly, it opens up a deficit of what the other deniers supposedly state or imply, which you fail to provide any sources for, and secondly, other than Schermer's some deniers claim, not one of the references discusses a selectivity of who claims what. Your proposed addition is unsourced, largely unsupported, and as rather neatly revealed by your obliviousness to the given material, original thought. WilliamH (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is either "some", or the entire sentence should be removed. It is up to those objecting to the "some" to provide credible sources that claim that something other than "some" (i.e. "MOST" or "ALL") Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy. It is the original claim that is unsourced. Where are the sources to back up the implied "all" claim? Even if there were sources, at most the claim would be an assertion, and the sentence should read something like "Some commentators have written that Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy". Meowy 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The material is copiously and directly supported by multiple reliable sources. Do you have any sources that indicate anything different? Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would hafta say, "ALL" because when the first reports about the alleged extermination came out, it was Jews who reported it and it was perpetrated on their behalf so more Jews could get visas (this is what Arthur R. Butz writes). If it wasn't a "Jewish" conspiracy then, what was it, Communist or war propaganda? Roosevelt and members of the State Department thought the early reports were atrocity propaganda. The whole sentence reaks of "Weasel Words," especially the word, "arising," because, today, most people who perpetrate the "hoax" sincerely believe it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Butz's understanding of the Holocaust is described by the university where he teaches electrical engineering as "an affront to our humanity and our standards as scholars". WilliamH (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read (or looked at) his book, WilliamH (I have it on my bookshelf and it's very well referenced to primary sources . . . it's available free, online in PDF)? Here's an interesting story: When Norman Finkelstein spoke at our University a coupla months ago, I approached him after his speech privately and asked him, "Have you read any good Holocaust denial book?" He said, "Yes." I asked, "Which one?" He said, "Butz's Hoax of the 20th Century but I didn't like it." I said, "Oh, that is a good one, what didn't you like about it?" He smiled and said, "No comment!" I smiled and let him go. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. As I said, Butz is apparently unwilling to demonstrate how the "hoaxers" managed to forge the entire workings of the German government for around five years. (Wonder why that is.) Do you have any reliable sources? WilliamH (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources for what, specifically? (As I said before, I can provide primary sources for everything I've written here or link what I wrote to PDF's of books by deniers mentioned in this article -- which is supposed to be about "Holocaust denial" rather than redundancy of the "Criticism of Holocaust denial" article but providing those links will take several hours and I don't wanna waste my time if it has no chance of appearing in this article.) What specific German government documents prove the existance of gas chambers? Are U talking about blueprints that show a mortuary celler in the basement of the crematoria or the flimsy "proofs" of requisitions for shower-heads or an HCN-meter, etc. in Lipstadt's book? (I wrote a book review of Lipstad's book but never published/finished it.) Or misintrepetations of sometimes out-of-context German words? Where's the requisitions for the necessary amount of coke to cremate all those bodies, scientific examination (forensic evidence) about the alleged murder weapon (use of louse disinfestant/diesel exhaust), etc. . . I read Nizkor's account on diesel, saw the original source in our science library that Nizkor used and anyone who can read the original source can see Nizkor misrepresented the evidence on the toxicity of diesel exhaust.) The hard/best evidence is forensic, not documents (which can be forged, misread, etc.) or witnesses (that maybe -- for good reason, malicious) or confessors (who were evidently tortured). Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By reliable sources I mean academic, peer-reviewed publications. WilliamH (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's not acedemic about Butz's book. Peers can review it but have chose to ignore it and conduct ad hominum attacks on him. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Northwestern University considers his academic understanding of the Holocaust as not worth the paper it's written on, so I'd say that sort of comment removes him from the scholarly realm of this area in history. WilliamH (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Raquel, as has been explained to you repeatedly, Wikipedia is not the place for you to float your novel interpretations of history, whether they be on the Holocaust, the JFK assassination, or the World Trade Center attacks. You have a blog where you can do that and Usenet can still be found where it always was. I know you can't have forgotten this because you archived the whole [WP:ANI] discussion on your talk page [|here]. I can't imagine that it isn't clear to you by now. You're not going to revise the generally accepted view of history on Wikipedia. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Novel" POV, Steve. U mean, "re-write (or rivise) history"? Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable Deniers Section to be Removed?
The Notable Holocaust Deniers Section contains a list of infamous Holocaust Deniers. I believe that this list should be removed as all it is doing is giving these people credit & acknowledging there opinion which should not be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie-Alex (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly does not think the list gives anybody neither credit nor acknowledgment. It just states that these people have been somehow linked to the field of the alternative views of Holocaust Denial. The names of the people on the list (at least the ones I know) will be linked to this regardless of their representation on this list. In my opinion, if any action should be taken, it should be to clean up the list. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this however, is it fair to call people such as David Irving a "denier"? Despite this sentence in the article : "The terms "Holocaust denier" and "Holocaust denial" are often objected to by the people to whom they are applied. These people typically prefer "revisionist" and "revisionism". Scholars believe that term to be misleading, however." I believe Irving has drawn the conclusion that around 3,500,000 Jews were murdered rather than 6,000,000. If Mr Irving has evidence to back up his claims, surely he is not denying that the Holocaust took place, but merely our recording of it has been incorrect? While there is no doubt that there are those such as the KKK as pictured who believe the Holocaust didn't happen, I believe it is unfair to brand people like Irving a "Denier". What if someone was to draw the conclusion, with evidence to support his opinion, that 8,000,000 Jews were killed. Would he also be branded a "Denier"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCaleyJag (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He went to court, sued someone who described him as a Holocaust denier, and was found by the court to be one. That's pretty conclusive. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And after which Mr. Irving stated "'Tis but a flesh wound." Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL yes. He did thereafter manage to get arrested in Austria by rather foolishly setting foot there [duh], and was tried and convicted for violating the anti-denier laws there. He recanted some of his denial statements after ending up in a criminal prosecution, claiming that he had rather imprudently made denial-like statements with insufficient evidence but now he had learned better. He nevertheless ended up serving time (over a year in the slammer) but was released early as a result of an appeal. It was really quite a show. He continues with his schtick but one would think he lost credibility in the Nazi lover camp when he recanted -- when Hitler got tried for high treason in Munich, he basically told the authorities that they could go to hell and that he was the true patriot. Irving didn't have the rocks to do that it seems. SixBlueFish (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Romen Yepiskaposyan
In 2002, a book entitled National System (written by Romen Yepiskoposyan in Armenian and Russian) was printed and presented at the Union of Writers of Armenia.In that book, Jews (along with Turks) are indentified as number-one enemies of Armenians and are described as "the nation-destroyer with a mission of destruction and decomposition." A section in the book entitled The Greatest Falsification of the 20th Century denies the Holocaust, claiming that it is a myth created by Zionists to discredit "Aryans": "The greatest falsification in human history is the myth of Holocaust. no one was killed in gas chambers. There were no gas chambers."A speaker at the event also suggested the book should be distributed in schools in order to "develop a national idea and understanding of history." The event was marked with public accusations that Jews were responsible for the Armenian massacres of 1915.Antisemitic Book Presented in Armenia; Jewish Leader Heckled UCSJ

Similar accusations were voiced by Armen Avetissian, the leader of the nationalist Armenian Aryan Order (AAO), on 11 February 2002, when he also called for the Israeli ambassador Rivka Kohen to be declared persona non grata in Armenia for Israel's refusal to give the Armenian massacres of 1915 equal status with the Holocaust. In addition, he asserted that the number of victims of the Holocaust has been overstated

I just added this section it is not insignificant.Holocaust denial and antsemitism is very prevalent in Armenia.Some Armenians on Wikipedia try to hide this fact and idealize the situation of Jews in Armenia.Abbatai (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are soapboxing and, considering subject of the article you are doing it on, you should be ashamed. Meowy 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Denial is denial my friend no matter who does it.If Armenians do it, it is also wrong.Abbatai (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the subject of Holocaust denial, it is not about detailing every Holocaust denialist comments ever published in every country in the world! The information you are adding has no notability. I have removed it again. Meowy 18:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this one is very important it is written in a book maybe Armenian children are reading this book and having some bad thoughts about jews so people should be aware of this fact.there is not the same things in every country.Abbatai (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The qustion is, how notable is this book? Are there reliable sources, besides the book itself, supporting the notability of this book? - EronTalk 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not notable at all, it is only notable because Azerbaijan has publicised its existence for propaganda purposes (it is only because of that that anyone would know of its existence). Note that Abbatai has given no source for his "facts", and uses non-standard phrases like "the book presents" - he has got it straight from an Azeri government press release. BTW, "Union of Writers of Armenia" is just a hall which is hired out, Abbatai is deceptively wording it ("printed and presented at the Union of Writers of Armenia") to suggest some sort of state-level production and approval of the book. Meowy 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Zero notability. Some guy wrote book a couple of years ago, one or two media outlets with an axe to grind took advantage of this and briefly covered the release of the book. End of story. You could probably count on one hand the number of people who purchased or read that book. If we were to list every insiginifcant anti-Semitic author or book published in the world it would require a super-computer with a fiber optic connection to load this page.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just warned User:Abbatai for violations of the three-revert rule on this page. Abbatai, you must discuss this content and obtain consensus for adding here on the talk page before reinserting it. Continued edit-warring on this may result in blocking. - EronTalk 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Shame on you Armenians, you are trying to hide your country's denial.Also I cant understand how or why Azeris came to this issue you must have a problem with Azeris.Anyway some Armenians cooperated with Nazis in WW2(remember Dro) and the only friendly neighbour of Armenia is Iran whose pm denies Holocaust.I know you will call me a nationalist, deny those facts by saying bullshit but one day all the world will see your real face.Thx.Abbatai (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, this was a good addition, maybe not worthy of so many words. How about writing an article about it under Romen Yepiskoposyan and providing a link as a "denier" and Armenian? Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Author nor the book meet WP:N, not even in Armenian wikipedia. VartanM (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good you can write it in Armenian and English if you dont want more Holocaust denial in your country.Abbatai (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Abbatai: unless you can find reliable sources to support the notability of this book or its author, you need to drop this an move on. I would also recommend you read up on the assumption of good faith in other editors, restrictions on soapboxing, and maintenance of a neutral point of view. Comments like "shame on you Armenians" have no place in this discussion. - EronTalk 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Prominent deniers cleanup
I'm going to go through the list of prominent Holocaust deniers to clean it up a bit. There's a redlink, an off-enwiki link, a couple of arguable entries (which need to be addressed per WP:BLP and some serious alphabetization and formatting issues. I will list any removed entries here once I am done. - EronTalk 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed:

- EronTalk 19:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wendy Campbell - Wikipedia article deleted, not notable
 * Jean-Marie Le Pen - Jean-Marie_Le_Pen does not support his inclusion. He was convicted of "minimizing" the Holocaust (he called it "a detail"), not of denying it. Borderline, but I think WP:BLP requires this be removed.
 * Bela Ewald Althans - No English Wikipedia entry, no English language reference; notability for this encyclopedia not established.
 * Mahmoud Abbas - While his earlier writings were clearly denialist, he has moved away from this stance somewhat emphatically in his public statements. In an interview with Haaretz, he said "The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgiveable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind. The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it." Including him here raises BLP concerns.

OK, I will remove wendy campbell. I agree on le pen but not on Barnes: he has a prominent section in the article. either you remove all reference to him or he should stay. The greek guy clearly belongs. While Abbas has changed his stance he is very prominent and definitely notable. a note was added stating that he has since retracted his position: though he avoids discussing numbers which is what his PhD was about. Telaviv1 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think more work needs to be done on the Barnes article and the section on him here. I still don't see a reliable source stating that he is a Holocaust denier. The reference you added to his article helps, but it is his own words. For us to infer his Holocaust denial from that might be logical, but it is also original research. I'd like to read what someone like Lipstadt says about him.
 * For Konstantinos Plevris, do you have more detail on what he claims about the Holocaust in his book? Is there a reference clearly stating his denial activities? The article notes he was found guilty of inciting racial hatred, but not for denial. I have no trouble believing he is a denier, but WP:BLP requires us to have a reference supporting that.
 * For Abbas, I'd like to have some other opinions on his inclusion. The Haaretz interview is a pretty clear refutation of his earlier stance on the Holocaust - again I see some BLP issues if we leave him on the list without some clear support for it. I won't remove him now but I would like to hear what others think. - EronTalk 21:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Article is heavily biased
The entire article needs a revision as it is incredibly biased against Holocaust Denialists, for instance, and this is just one example, "Other acts of genocide have met similar attempts to deny and minimize, most notably the Armenian Genocide and the Pontic Greek Genocide, which is denied by the Turkish Government, but also the Rwanda genocide, Srebrenica massacre, and the Ukrainian famine. " this line implies that the holocaust did infact occur thus redering holocaust denial illigitimate which can not be proven either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.194 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article takes a strongly POV stance, sufficient to color its credibility as an encyclopedic source. (Writing as one who believes the Nazis deliberately murdered as many Jews as they could get their hands on; but having to take the word of witnesses as to how many people were actually slain in death camps.)


 * First, who defines what a holocaust denier is? If someone believes the Nazis deliberately killed as many Jews as possible in concentration camps, but that the total number killed in the camps was less than "establishment scholars" estimate, how is that a denial of the Holocaust?  According to Wikipedia's Holocaust Article, the death toll estimates are based on census records, not body counts or records from the death camps.  Furthermore, according to the source cited in this article, to be labeled as a holocaust denier one must ascribe to all three points, not just one of them
 * Key elements of Holocaust denial:
 * "Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term "Holocaust denial." Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project, July 2, 2004. Retrieved December 18, 2006..


 * Second, this article makes many condemning statements from "consensus", or using misleading statements like "Scholars believe x". There are scholars on all sides of this issue. This article would have far more credibility if it argued from specific scholars by name rather than "scholars" as some imaginary monolith of anonymous truth - as if all literate people automatically agree on this subject.Cadwallader (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note this statement: “Harry Elmer Barnes, an American, was at one time a mainstream historian with liberal credentials; he assumed a Holocaust-denial stance in the later years of his life.”  In other words, any mainstream historian who becomes a Holocaust-denier is no longer a mainstream historian. Therefore, no mainstream historians are Holocaust deniers. And, Barnes did not become a Holocaust-denial after studying the evidence; he just decided to assume a “stance” for no apparent reason. Another quote: “The publication of Arthur Butz's The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry in 1976; and David Irving's Hitler's War in 1977 brought other similarly inclined individuals into the fold.” The implication here is that those individuals did not come into the fold due to facts and rationality, but only because they were “similarly inclined,” i.e., already anti-Semitic. Pressac is cited as refuting Faurisson but neither the recantation nor the refutation of Pressac is cited. rdfuerle (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC) rdfuerle rdfuerle (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comments are not supported by the text of the article.
 * Re Barnes, the article makes it clear that he was an anti-war historical revisionist and states "Following World War II, [Barnes] became convinced that allegations made against Germany and Japan, including the Holocaust, were wartime propaganda used to justify U.S. involvement in WWII." As to his ceasing to be part of the mainstream, that is self-evident. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the Holocaust occurred, it cannot be denied that the mainstream of historical study accepts that it did. Any historian who, for whatever reason, adopts the position that it did not occur places him or herself outside the mainstream. This is no different than saying that an evolutionary biologist who adopts the viewpoint of intelligent design has placed him or herself outside the mainstream.
 * Re "similarly inclined individuals," you are reading something into the text that is not there. The sentence suggests to me that "similarly inclined" refers to their belief that the Holocaust did not occur.
 * Re Pressac, his refutation of Faurisson is referenced here. The referenced text includes a postscript by Pressac detailing how and why he moved away from Holocaust denial. It begins with this statement:
 * "I am not a Jew and I was at one time a “revisionist”. After reading this book, some will no doubt think that I still am one. This is quite possible and I bear them no grudge. The distinction between these two fiercely opposed schools, the “exterminationists” and the “revisionists”, becomes meaningless once a certain threshold of knowledge about the former Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp has been reached. I have passed this point of no return."
 * - EronTalk 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I also find this article to be extremely biased, at least, as far as the style it is written in is concerned. In particular, I would like to darw your attention to these paragraphes:

- Holocaust denial is widely viewed as failing to adhere to rules for the treatment of evidence, principles that mainstream historians (as well as scholars in other fields) regard as basic to rational inquiry.[16] The prevailing—indeed, the virtually unanimous—consensus of mainstream scholars is that the evidence given by survivors, eyewitnesses, and contemporary historical accounts is overwhelming; that this evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holocaust occurred; and that it occurred as these sources say it occurred.-

- The Holocaust was well-documented by the extremely bureaucratic German government itself.[17][18] It was further witnessed by the Allied forces who entered Germany and its associated Axis states towards the end of World War II.-

- According to researchers Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, there is a "convergence of evidence" that proves that the Holocaust happened. This evidence includes:[19]-

Actually, almost the whole Examination of claims section.

Also, those above do not seem to be relevant to the actual subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerinci (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC) — Katerinci (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The facts that there is overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust took place, that mainstream historians all agree that it took place, and that Holocaust denial fails to follow established historical methodology, are all extremely relevant to the article. They make it plain that Holocaust denial is pseudohistory and a fringe theory. - EronTalk 01:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How are they relevant, if the section they come in is called "Examination of Claims"? Should not that section talk about the claims the deniers have? Instead, what it talks about is how their claims are disproved.

I would agree with someone above, who said that this article rather chronicles the debate between the Holocaust deniers and their opponents, than does it explains the nature of the Holocaust denial itself.



And this is exactly why it's biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerinci (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC) — Katerinci (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * This article does not exist as a soapbox for the promotion of Holocaust denial. It explains in general terms what Holocaust denial is, it describes the historical development of Holocaust denial, and it details mainstream historian's responses to and refutation of Holocaust denial. If it is biased, it is biased in favour of the truth. Read WP:FRINGE. - EronTalk 03:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, basically you admit that your article is biased and you see no problem with that what-so-ever.



I don't think that anybody assumed that.



Once again, your article gives too much information on that in comparison to the account of information it gives on the actual subject (Holocaust Denial). To the extend that this alone would make it, once again, biased. But, you don't seem to care.

P.S. The truth doesn't need a bias. The truth is self-sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerinci (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry Elmer Barnes
So was he a "denier" or not? This article claims he was in the text of the article re: HEB, and it also expressly lists his name among notables. But when you go to the Harry Elmer Barnes article, by clicking the link, that article denies that he was a "denier." That is obviously inconsistent. SixBlueFish (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There was more content on the Harry Barnes article regarding his involvement with Holocaust denial, including a reference, that was deleted in this series of edits. I have restored that content as it is supported by the references.
 * Reading up on Barnes, I think the section of this article that discusses him could do with some fine-tuning to correctly reflect his position vis-a-vis Holocaust denial. - EronTalk 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This from the WP article on Paul Rassinier, who is called "The Father of Holocaust Denial": "During the early 1960s, Rassinier corresponded with the American Holocaust denier Harry Elmer Barnes, who arranged for the translation of four of his books. In 1977, these were collectively published by Noontide Press under the title Debunking The Genocide Myth. . . . Besides Barnes, whose critical writings of the origins of the First World War were admired by Rassinier, . . ." Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference from Barnes' article which is the source for his activities around Holocaust denial states:
 * "[Barnes] began by arguing that the atrocity stories were exaggerated and slowly worked his way to the conclusion that they were fabrications. Stopping short of denying the Holocaust, Barnes attempted to connect the "exaggerated" atrocities with German reparations to Israel... Finally, Barnes attempted to raise doubts about the Holocaust in general by raising doubts regarding the existence of gas chambers as a means of extermination." (emphasis added)
 * The source relies on Deborah Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Based on this, its not clear that Barnes ever openly denied the Holocaust. It seems more that as part of his overall historical revisionist work - which focussed on the origins of WWII and the Cold War - he raised questions about the Holocaust which late deniers took further, and that as a revisionist he supported and worked with others, such as Rassinier, who were open deniers. Without reading Lipstadt's book directly, it's hard to say more than that. - EronTalk 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So Barnes wasn't a "denier" but a skeptic: he raised "doubts" about the gas chambers but didn't deny their existence. Should he then be removed as a denier? Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple, I don't think. Barnes really seems to have skirted the line between skepticism and outright denial. In his introduction to Rassinier's book, he wrote:
 * "the International Zionist Movement claimed that six million Jews were exterminated by the Germans in gas chambers... although we are horrified when confronted with these million or more victims, it must be emphasized that we are far from the figure of six million which shameless propagandists, doubtful witnesses, and others ill-informed have accepted... the legend that six million Jews were exterminated by the Germans... This completely inaccurate figure only serves Communist and other political causes in Europe, and outright financial purposes in Tel Aviv."
 * We could easily infer from that that Barnes was denying the Holocaust - he is certainly questioning both the number of victims and the use of gas chambers, and he is postulating the presence of a Jewish conspiracy to promote the existence of the Holocaust to further the interests if Israel. That said, such an inference borders on original research. As I stated elsewhere, I'd like to see what Lipstadt's book has to say about Barnes. - EronTalk 23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No extrapolation needed - I've got Lipstadt's book. She spells it out on page 85: "Harry Elmer Barnes was not the only American academic who attempted to exonerate Germany by denying the Holocaust." WilliamH (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * William, there are several references to Lipstadt in the footnotes, U'll need to revise Ur footnote. Glad to see Barnes is a denier, it gives them credbility. :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup, disambiguation added. If anyone needs a citation regarding the books I have, do not hestitate to contact me. WilliamH (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Claim
"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship."

Should this not read:

"Holocaust denial is a false claim that..."

Giving this "claim" any credence at all should not be envisaged. These people who make these false claims are in fact criminals in many countries - it is a crime to make these false claims. Should this criminal aspect not be brought out in the introduction too? Wallie (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * hi wally. well I disagree with your wanting to add the word false .. a claim is a claim ..tagging it with true or false is a matter of opinion .what I really wanted to ask you was ..you say denying the jewish holocaust is a crime in many countries ..wheras I would say the vast majority of the world it is not a crime to deny the jewish holocaust
 * I think these are the countries where it is considered to be a crime
 * Austria
 * Belgium
 * Czech Republic
 * France
 * Germany

Israel
 * Lithuania
 * Poland
 * Romania
 * Slovakia
 * Switzerland
 * most of these countries were involved in the crimes and all are local to the event ..
 * the countries where it is not a considered a crime are ..I notice the the whole of the americas.. south america the united states and canada and all of scandanavia ..including norway,denmark, sweden and iceland and all of the muslim world ..and uk.. and italy and greece and turkey and all of africa and all of asia including India and thailand and malaysia , pakistan , saudi arabia and china and tibet..not forgetting australia and japan ...and so on ..it is not illegal or considered to be a crime .so ..excluding Israel ..who are the accuser...on every continent apart from a part of europe it is legal to deny the jewish holocaust.so in fact ..yours is the false claim. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I made two points. You are trying to combine them.
 * Point1 - Holocaust denial is a false claim, as everyone knows the Holocaust happened. People bring it up in order to intensely annoy Jewish people.
 * Point2 - Holocaust denial is a crime in many countries, which you have listed. I have never suggested it is not a crime elsewhere. Wallie (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

hi wallie. when I looked into it holocaust denial is not really a specific crime in most of the countries on the list apart from I think germany and austria ..don't qoute me here as I only had a little look ..In the other countries they say that you could be prosecuted for related crimes like ..race hate ..or such... there are racial crimes but actual specific to the crime of "holocaust denial" in reference to jewish people ..only germany and austria ..the actual instigators and perpetrators of the crimes. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
 * would you agree with me that in the majority of the world it is not a crime or illegal to deny the jewish holacaust.(Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

To your first point, everyone doesn't know the Holocaust happened and Holocaust denial isn't simply a way to "intensely annoy Jewish people." (It intensely annoys me as well, and I am not Jewish - but more to the point, it is part and parcel of a wider range of anti-Semetic activity which has harmful effects far beyond mere annoyance.) While I have no doubt that many leading Holocaust deniers know full well that they are telling lies, they have many many followers who have been duped into a genuine belief that the Holocaust did not occur. We have a talkpage archive full of comments from those who have been duped in this way. I am certain that adding "false" to the opening sentence would lead to endless calls from these dupes for proof that it is false, turning this into a debate on the truth of the Holocaust. That would be unnecessarily disruptive; the body of the article makes the falseness of Holocaust denial abundantly clear. To your second point, this article has a section on Laws against Holocaust denial which states "Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries." Given that is a fairly small percentage of countries in the world, I don't believe the illegality of Holocaust denial in those places needs to be detailed in the lede. It is adequately covered in the text and in the main article Laws against Holocaust denial.- EronTalk 23:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * hi eronmain ..well that clears that up ..Personally I would like to see the awful events refered to as ..the genocide of the jewish people..as there has been loads of awful events throughout history and to call this awful event ..the holocaust .as though it is the only one belittles all the others. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, you're not going to be able to achieve your desire there, and Wikipedia won't be any help; all genocides are disastrous for their victims -- this one just happens to have been given a specific name, just as that against the Romani is known as the "Porajmos", that of the Armenians "Մեծ Եղեռն" (the Great Calamity), that of the Assyrians "Sayfo". It's not like there's a pre-existing hierarchy of genocide in which Holocaust > Devouring > Calamity; the Shoah got named "The Holocaust" and it stuck. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

ok. thanks. (Off2riorob (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I'd like to ask Off2riob where he got the list of countries in which Holocaust denial is illegal. Specifically, did it come from this unreliable source, which publishes the identical, unreferenced list? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2009(UTC)


 * hi steven.. no I'm almost certain its not that site as I had a look there and the list there has 10 countries while the list I found has 11 countries and I just copied it and pasted so it must be from somewhere else..just to reiterate their are only two countries where the specific crime of holocaust denial in reference to the jewish genocide by the german nazi party is illegal.. the other countries have race hate laws that when asked about it they said they could or would use although these statements in most of the countries are untested as they have never charged anyone with race hate crimes relating to the denial of the genocide of the jewish people by the nazi party. I was thinking about the title of the page again ..holocaust denial .. and why I think it is incorrect ..It is I think a language thing ..i'm english and to me.. holocaust means ..something awful ..terrible something almost indescribable and is a word for more than one event in history and I feel that to call this one event in history ..the holocaust is like stealing the word ....in the same way that homosexuals have stolen the word gay. regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
 * OK, none of this has any bearing on improving this article; take it elsewhere. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

there is no need to be rude ..you are the one that asked me where I got the list from.. and actually perhaps you don't agree with me but I think it would make the article better if it was made clear that the only two countries where there is a crime of holocaust denial is in germany and austria the two perpetrators of the genocide and ...the article reads as though it is actually a crime in other countries when it is actually not... and I also think it would improve the article if it were under the title of "german genocide of the jewish race". you disagree with me but I have not been rude to you. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I'm sure jpgordon didn't intend to be rude (and I don't read his comment that way). He is pointing out that per WP:TALK, article talk-pages are intended to be used solely for directly-relevant discussion towards improving the article. This talk-page is notorious for veering off-topic, and while your suggestions are appreciated jpgordon has explained that "The Holocaust" (note the capital 'H') refers to the deliberate, systematic genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis. There are other holocausts, but only one Holocaust; you may not like the way the term is used, but the talk-page of an encycopedia isn't the venue to discuss that. Your other point regarding the crime of Holocaust denial has also been addressed - given the controversial subject matter, if you wish to pursue it you'll have to provide reliable sources. I hope this helps. EyeSerene talk 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

yes ,it did help,thank you.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Other genocide denials
in this section it states:- "The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims". There are no cites to back this claim up at all? (Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC))


 * It is a very badly written section, for what is a very complicated issue (see for example the complexities in the Bosnian Genocide article), but you will find a source for "The perpetrators ..." in the Genocide article under the section Stages of genocide and efforts to prevent it -- PBS (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Philip. I'll have a little look tomorrow.I have decided to try and improve this Jews escaping from Nazi Europe article as it is orphaned and there is no one working on it. Perhaps a little more positive and I would like it to focus more on the children and the people that were saved. best regards.(Off2riorob (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Alternative name for the article
In the Claim section on this page Off2riorob says: "Personally I would like to see the awful events refered to as ..the genocide of the jewish people..as there has been loads of awful events throughout history and to call this awful event ..the holocaust .as though it is the only one belittles all the others.... [I] think it would improve the article if it were under the title of 'german genocide of the jewish race'" I disagree for a number of reasons. There have indeed been many acts of genocide; however, my understanding is that in its original use holocaust refered specifically to a burnt offering in the Jewish Temple ceremony. As such it would be less appropriate to use it in contexts unrelated to the practice of Judaism. Furthermore, a phrase such as "German genocide of the Jewish race" is problematic. The Holocaust was not uniquely German: the authorities in many countries willingly participated, in some cases without any German duress or direction. Nor was it German in a collective sense: it was the policy of a small number of Germanic people who wielded near total power over the rest of Germany; while many rank-and-file Germans collaborated (whether willingly, out of fear or under orders), many were opposed to the policy and did what they could to subvert it or delay its implementation. Even the term "Jewish race" is questionable since there is a case to be made that Hitler did not seek to exterminate the Jewish race so much as rid the Germanic lands and those he later occupied of Jews; at times the Nazi regime permitted and even facilitated emigration. On the other hand the term "Holocaust" is in very common use for this particular event and is probably the most likely putative title that a reader would enter into the search box. -- Timberframe (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * very well written timberframe. I had done some searching on the word holocaust and from what I remember there is no direct translation from hebrew..that word shoah is the hebrew word and transtates more to conspiracy.. :[] here is a dictionary explaination of the word "holocaust". I of course agree with you that the word has become now synom..for the catastrophic events ... in modern english they are "a holocaust" but not "the holocaust" ...but the word has I puppose been impregnated now in the modern mind to refer to the Jewish catastrophe .. it's like in england and other places ..telling your friend you are feeling really gay ,,meaning happy ..but this word has been attached to homosexual and that is now the only way you can use it.."the jewish genocide"... thats simple ..and people would know what that refers too immediatly..personally I will always dislike the usage of the phrase "the holocaust" ..It is in my eyes wrong linguistically.
 * You say a bit about the case that hitler did not want jewish genocide but only wanted to remove jewish people from germanic lands ..I have read some of those stories ..but am unsure as to their facts ..for example early on in the war jewish people were given the opportunity to leave the country and some or a lot did ,others thought it would be ok and stayed.... there were boats taking the jewish people to america and the american people didn't want any more and finally a boat laden with jewish people was turned back to germany and there were trains to england but the british would take no more and hitler supposedly said to himself ..I can't even give these people away what am I going to do with them and in that moment the final solution came into being.. but it was previously to this.. not a policy to exterminate the jewish people but just to remove them from genmanic lands.. I'll do some research on these stories...(Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC))


 * It's great that you're interested in increasing your understanding of this subject, but please read the comments towards the end of the previous section. This is nothing to do with improving the Holocaust Denial article. EyeSerene talk 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am working towards changing the passage about the countries that have holocaust denial as a specific crime and also would like to /and am offering it for discussion to change the article name to ..the jewish genocide and discussing the motives behind and the reasons leading up to the catastrophe..please allow me to look for any consensus on these thoughts.as I said I will now go and look for specific cites to insert in the article.. thanks (Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm going to be categorical here: There is no way that the name of this article is going to change to anything else. In the English-speaking world, the genocide of the Jewish people during the Second World War is almost universally known as The Holocaust. Similarly, the act of denying the fact that the genocide of the Jewish people during the Second World War took place is almost universally known in the English-speaking world as Holocaust denial. Under Wikipedia naming convention, those are the appropriate names to be used. Until the English-speaking world moves uniformly to referring to these events by another name, the names of these articles should not be changed. Period. - EronTalk 04:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with Eron. Calling the Holocaust something other than the Holocaust is an extreme minority position, and very unlikely to gain consensus. In any event, it's something that would be better discussed at Talk:Holocaust. But, to be frank, the chances of finding a consensus for a change like that, at that page or anywhere else, are indistinguishable from zero. I would hate to see Off2riorob put a lot of effort into a quixotic effort. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Steven J. Anderson completely. I think that however worthy Off2riorob's motives and however genuine his/her concern, consensus will always be against a name change - this is a snowball in a hot place. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * yes we are all stuck with it now ..and I didn't know the it is the Holocaust..big H .. this holocaust is with a big H and all the other holocausts are with a little h.. personally I would be dissapointed if my holocaust only had a small h when someone elses holocaust had a big H..just for a straw count ..how many people here would be dissapointed it this particular holocaust only had a little h ..like all the other holocausts?
 * anyway ... moving on .. I had a quick look at the europeon laws regarding ..inter eu country extradition ...
 * and it is correct that the specific crime of holocaust denial is only a crime in germany and austria and germany has tried and failed to extradite holocaust denier from uk under a eu warrent and failed...see...from there..But when the draft extradition Act passed through the House of Lords in 2002, one of the questions was what would happen if someone was arrested on a European arrest warrant to be extradited to a country where Holocaust denial is an offence."The response was, 'No, that will never happen'."..
 * I would like to add details of this failed case into the section..laws against the holocaust denial and the e.u. as reading that section fails to represent the reality of the lack of extradion between eu countries regarding regarding holocaust denial (for which there is no eu extradition at all)and the charges of racism and zenofibia is only considered to be a extradition condition of low importance offering eu countries the ability to refuse extradition under these charges.(Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * A few points:
 * 1. You have not cited a source for your claim that only Germany and Austria have laws against Holocaust denial. Since you're interested in the subject, may I direct you to Wikipedia's article on Laws against Holocaust denial? It seems to contradict you and seems quite well researched. If you want to make changes to what Wikipedia has to say about such laws, that's probably the place to start.
 * 2. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the Holocaust denial page. A great many of your posts seem to wander through a number of vaguely related topics leaving readers no clear idea of what changes you're proposing. It really isn't valuable information to say that you're thinking of maybe looking something up somewhere. When you know what changes you want to make to the article, tell us what they are and why. Either that or just make them. If other editors disagree, they won't hesitate to revert at which point discussion can proceed.
 * 3. You fail to accurately characterize the story in the Times to which you have provided a link. The story does not say that there is a "lack of extradion (sic) between eu countries (sic)" for the crime of Holocaust denial. It merely says that one extradition case was dropped by the German government after failing in Magistrate's Court.
 * 4. So far as including information on Mr. Toben's plight is concerned, my personal opinion is that this failed extradition attempt is such small potatoes that any mention or it would constitute undue weight, but that is a matter for consensus.
 * 5. Most of your posts are very difficult to follow. I hope you won't take it amiss if I point out that immediately to the left of the letter Z on your keyboard there is a large key with the word "Shift" printed on it. This key is used to create upper case letters, an example of which is the letter "T" at the beginning of this sentence. You may also wish to peruse the Wikipedia article on the sentence. You'll find that if you compose your posts in complete sentences that begin with a capital letter and end with a period and abandon your frequent use of ellipses your writing will be largely cured of the meandering, unfocused character from which it suffers now. If you continue to express your thoughts in the form of a sentence fragment followed by an ellipsis, followed by an unrelated fragment, followed by an ellipsis, and so on, don't be surprised if other editors simply give up on reading them. I'm really not trying to be overly fussy about grammatical rules; I just have a very hard time understanding the point of most of your posts. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

well..I of course do know (more or less ) where the keys are on the keyboard. telling me where they are seems a little sarcastic ..but i'll assume good faith This is the first time on wikipedia that anyone has said this to me ,.,., I am not writing a book here it is a talk page ..my spelling is not perfect either and I am a little dyslexic .. that is why I havent just dived in and edited the article as it is not easy for me to create a edit of good quality .and takes hard work for me. and as you say ...."just make them. If other editors disagree, they won't hesitate to revert at which point discussion can proceed". I already had this feelig here that any (hard for me) work that I did in a good faith edit to the article would almost certainlly be reverted by one of the interested parties already here.. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)) I went there to see those laws ..thanks for the link and i'll take that there (Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Steven J. AndersonThankyou,I will take your advice about my structure and will try to stop using those ellipsis (now I know what they are) ...dot dot dot... (Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Alternative name
I found this Names of the Holocaust about when and how the name came to be and when I did a search on Holocaust I get the jewish holocaust and then if I click on holocaust (disambiguation) there I get links to some other Holocausts and these holocausts are also with a big H, also confirming their importance.

from there:- Only the African recording has a small h. So, I suggest the name of this article should be "The Jewish Holocaust". or I could go with The Holocaust (Jewish) I feel it is demeaning to these and other Genocides to constantly refer to this Holocaust as "The Holocaust". Names of the Holocaust If you read the article you'll see -
 * African holocaust, Pan-Africanist term for the suffering of African peoples through slavery, imperialism, colonialism, invasions, oppression, and exploitation.
 * American Holocaust, a term used by David Stannard in his book of that name to label the genocide of Native Americans by the United States.
 * Armenian Holocaust, used to describe the Armenian genocide prior to coinage of the term "genocide".
 * Asian Holocaust, in Asia and the Pacific islands under the Japanese Empire.
 * Black Holocaust, the death of Africans on slave ships.
 * Ukrainian Holocaust, the Holodomor (mass famine) during Soviet collectivisation.

"The term became increasingly widespread as a synonym for "genocide" in the last decades of the 20th century to refer to mass murders in the form "X holocaust" (e.g. "Rwandan holocaust"). Examples are Rwanda, the Ukraine under Stalin, and the actions of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia".

In order to suggest comparison with Nazi murders other historical events have also been labeled "Holocausts", for example the oppression of lower caste groups in India ("Sudra Holocaust") or the slave trade ("African Holocaust"). Such usages are often heavily disputed.[who?] Even more contested is the use of the word in the older sense of "immolation" to refer to Allied WW2 bombings, since this is sometimes adopted to imply equivalence between the Allied and the Nazi war record. and-"By the late 1950s, documents translated from Hebrew sometimes used the word "Holocaust" to translate "Shoah", as the Judeocide. This use can be found as early as May 23, 1943, in The New York Times, on page E6, in an article by Julian Meltzer, referring to feelings in Palestine about Jewish immigration of refugees from "the Nazi holocaust." By the late 1960s, the term was starting to be used in this sense without qualification. Nora Levin's 1968 book The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry, 1933-1945 explains the meaning in its subtitle, but uses the unmoderated phrase "The Holocaust". An article called “Moral Trauma and the Holocaust” was published in the New York Times on February 12, 1968[4]. However, it was not until the late 1970s that the Nazi genocide became the generally accepted conventional meaning of the word, when used unqualified and with a capital letter, a usage that also spread to other languages for the same period.[5] The 1978 television miniseries titled "Holocaust" and starring Meryl Streep is often cited as the principal contributor to establishing the current usage in the wider culture.[6]"

A movie!

Room should be allowed for other peoples hardship as well and not to think it is us that have suffered more than others. Demanding and encouraging the use of " The Holocaust " in this way is wrong, linguistically and morally.Please go ahead and tell me what is wrong with calling this page and these awful events "The Jewish Holocaust" What I am suggesting is that then (as a mark of respect to other peoples suffering) If you type in Holocaust you should come to the disambiguation page where the above list of Holocausts is listed and "The Jewish Holocaust" can be listed there with the other catastrophies.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
 * This discussion is completely out of place here at Talk:Holocaust denial; we've discussed this frequently and with the same result at Talk:The Holocaust. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I happen to disagree with you jpgordon, I believe that it is relative here and anywhere else were the word Jewish is missing from the word Holocaust. However if you don't care to discuss it that is fine by me.If you have debated the issue before elsewhere would you please be so kind as to share a link with me so I could peruse those statements, that would be very helpful. (Off2riorob (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Just read through the archives of the talk page; I'm not going to do your research for you. But you're wasting your time. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All the above-mentioned genocides pre-date the (German) Holocaust of (Jews). Were any of them were termed holocausts (with an H of any size) before the word had become so widely used for the mass extermination of Jews by the Nazi regime in Germany? The word is meaningless outside its Judaic context and is used elsewhere as shorthand for what really happened, often in significantly different circumstances, by alluding to the one and only Holocaust with which much of the world is familiar. I compare the borrowing of "Holocaust" to saying that Hitler (or whoever) met his Waterloo - it only means anything if you fully understand what Napoleon faced at Waterloo, but immediately loses its meaning because Hitler's (or whoever's) circumstances were all different. We don't talk about Napoleon's Waterloo in order to differentiate it from other figurative Waterloos, nor should we confuse the Holocaust with other acts of genocide linked only by figurative allusion. -- Timberframe (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)