Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 15

Why is Holocaust Denial labeled as part of Antisemitism?
This makes no sense. Holocaust Denial doesn't necessarily mean Antisemitism; it simply means you disagree with the "official" view of the Holocaust. 24.171.52.43 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you agree with the "unofficial" view of the Holocaust, that millions of Jews lied about the genocide, for personal and communal gain, but that's not antisemitic? Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the OP would appreciate you not putting words in his mouth. Just because he doesn't believe the same thing as you doesn't mean he has to conform to somebody else's.  He is entirely capable of forming his own opinions. Jwh335 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. So he's going to investigate this entirely on his own then; look through voluminous German records, do archeological digs, undertake scientific experiments, etc.? Or do you think it rather more likely that he will base his opinion on some Holocaust denial leaflet? Jayjg (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am relatively new of Wikipedia, but reading through this whole article really leaves me a bit dismayed...does anyone reading this feel that it is objective, not biased, and NPOV? This starting line, which some contributors are so warmly protecting, is like the judge saying at the beginning of a trial "jurors, before we start, remember that this man is guilty!"
 * I am reading a lot about the argument, and I am starting to form myself some revisionist ideas.. it's not final yet, for sure. But the arguments are interesting and democracy means that everyone must be invited to explore and to know: here someone wants to label, to blame and to ignore. I am not antisemite, sorry, and I believe Jews and non-Jews have both the right to doubt and investigate... Revisionism is also much more complex, and opinions varied, than what is presented here. I think this article should be completely revised.--Zetajean (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the charge of antisemitism is a misnomer. Regardless of how we feel about the belief, the denial isn't an anti-jewish statement.  Condoning the holocaust, justifying or suggesting it was the right thing to do, are anti-semitic positions.  Denying the holocaust's reality doesn't directly correlate to a particular belief against all jewish people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.195.42 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to reliable sources, it does, so that's all that matters as far as this is concerned. --jpgordon:==( o ) 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * According to logic and reason, reliable sources are not very reliable if they commit logical fallacies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.81.107 (talk • contribs)
 * According to my opinion, that's a pointless statement. Holocaust denial is anti-semitic not necessarily in the abstract (Aliens from Tau Ceti who cannot believe it happened may do so for other reasons), but undoubtedly in the concrete - all but a vanishingly small minority of deniers are antisemites, deny the holocaust for antisemitic reasons, and use antisemitic arguments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

my two cents
According to this source a second, less consipicuous, kind of Holocaust denial is that "the Holocaust undoubtedly occurred, but it was something experienced exclusively by Jews. Here, the fates of the Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and others at the hands of the Nazis are routinely minimized and consigned to the ambiguous category of "non-genocidal suffering.". The same author makes the same claim here: (pg 36).  a similar point is made here  and here and here  and here  and chapter 3 in this book analyses holocaust denial movement lining up some reasons apart form antisemitism for why deniers deny (e.g. general racism, looking for enemies, simply believeing in conspiracies, psychological need to defend a speccific life narrative, group mentality). This book (pp 354-363) ties current persecution of romani in eastern europe to neonazism and holocaust denial. This book (pp 213-14) describes the debate of whether the romani experience of wwII can be called holocaust - and it describes how one person who has denied that gypsies were subject to the holocaust has been labelled a holocaust denier (incidentally this paper suggests that the previous book's author (Magalit) downplays the jewish holocaust and implies that he is unwittingly denying holocaust). This book shows quite clearly that Gypsies were subject to "endlösung" strategies similar to those perpetrated against the jews. I don't think one has to be an antisemite to see that by not mentioning the possibility that holocaust denial can be and have been done not of solely for antisemitic reasons but of anti-romani, anti-communist or other reasons. Also I think it is worth noting that well into the sixties German politicians were denying to pay recompensation for Romany genocide - giving as a reason that it had not been a racially motivated problem but a solution to a criminal problem (if thats not holocaust denial I don't know what is). In other words I think it would be good for weight and balance to mention in the article that holocaust denial also denies that other groups than jews were subject to the holocaust. I think however that it should be clear that largely Holocaust denial is an antisemitic undetaking and should be shown as such (e.g. by being categorized as antisemitism and by having the bulk of the article's weight given to this perspective). Oh and just for the sake of full disclosure I am of partial Romani heritage and identify with Romanies although I am not culturally Romani - I am not trying to downplay Jewish suffering but i do think recognizing Romani and other suffering is a part of recognizing the holocaust and that denying the holocaust also necessarrily denies the suffering of non-jews. ·Maunus· ƛ · 01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Roma were victims of genocide. I am not sure what is at stake with lumping all forms of Nazi genocide under the word "Holocaust."  Whether these various forms of genocide or oppression are the same or different is not a meaningful historical question.  Of course the violence against Jews was unique. So was the violence against Roma.  And homosexuals.  And there were also similarities.  I think the important historical research on the Nazis looks at both similarities and differences among their victims, and forms of victimization.  Now, I have no doubt that there are some in Eastern Europe who deny the genocide against the Roma, and do so to protect continued persecution of Roma.  But I seriously doubt that Jews, or Jewish scholars of the Holocaust, are part of this.  I think Churchill is someone to be taken seriously but I think that he is expressing a fringe view that takes several real things and lumps them together to make a proovactive point.  I don't mind being provoked into thinking more about something hard.  But his views in this essay (which reads more like a well-informed editorial than a work of historical scholarship) from what I know represent that of at most a tiny minority. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Over at The Holocaust, there was a similar, multi-year, debate over the lede, and who was, and wasn't, part of the Holocaust, eventually resolved by a bunch of people taking GF efforts at lede re-writes, incorporating ideas as they went. The lede seems to suffer the same symptoms here, only it's compounded by not just who suffered the Holocaust, but which parts of the suffering are being denied. Any more suggestions for lede re-writes, so we can get a synthesis ball rolling? Ronabop (talk)
 * There are numerous problems with using Churchill as a source, outlined elsewhere. The rest of the sources don't actually address the term "Holocaust denial". See also Slrubenstein's comments above. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AN/I Notice
An AN/I thread relating to this subject can be found here. WilliamH (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This Article
Before anyone reads this article they should take in to consideration that it is blatantly biased and is flooded with the authors opinion on the topic, which, is completely unnecessary in an analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.227.200 (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And another one. Anything specific, preferably RS-based, or are you just passing through? 78.54.186.6 (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced section
An editor recently tagged (in my opinion to excess) the following passage for lack of citations:

"Among the evidence produced are motion pictures and still photographs that show the existence of prisoner camps, as well as the testimony of those freed when the camps were entered. The Holocaust was a massive undertaking that lasted for years and was implemented across several countries, with its own command-and-control infrastructure, a bureaucracy that left a large trail of documentation. Although Nazi officials made attempts to destroy evidence of the Holocaust when it became evident that their defeat was imminent, substantial documentation remained. After the Nazi defeat, many documents were recovered, including numerous reports written by the Nazis about the number of Jews killed, records of train shipments of Jews to the camps, orders for tons of cyanide and other poisons, and large numbers of photographs and films of the camps and their victims. Many thousands of not yet decomposed bodies were found in mass graves near facilities that were indisputably concentration camps. Thousands of interviews with survivors, perpetrators, and bystanders added to the massive level of documentation that attended the Holocaust. A diary written by German anti-Nazi Friedrich Kellner not only attests that some atrocities, such as the murder of Jews at gunpoint, were indeed committed by German soldiers, but also illustrates that some German anti-Nazis were aware of such acts."

This passage - in contrast to the rest of the article - lacks any citations and so appears to be an editorial opinion, falling short of WP's standards. IMHO it either needs to be supported by citations or else it should be deleted. The latter isn't drastic, since the refernced passage which follows renders it largely superfluous. Thoughts? -- Timberframe (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be deleted, primarily because Wikipedia already has The Holocaust. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

✅ OK, no opposition to this proposal in 18 days, so I've deleted the paragraph. Feel free to reinstate part or all of it with refs. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Start anew
After an extensive yet failed referendum on my general editing and an undue block, I'm now back, and am going to be dealing with this article and how its conceptualized. If people have any problems with that, they can express their generalized misgivings upfront. I've already made the arguments rather clear, so if anyone has any issues with those arguments they can state those upfront as well - just refrain from "misstating my arguments for your own political ends." Further personal attacks will not be tolerated. Thanks, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Insanity?
People who think the holocaust is fake are absolutely insane and I wish there families don’t go through what the the children women went through what that hell bound demon hitler may god destroy him again and again Denying the Holocaust is like denying the earth is spherical. So, is it possible that at least some Holocaust deniers are suffering from some mild form of insanity (I mean that respectfully)? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's possible, although there are probably many reasons for denial and "insanity" is a subjective and wide-ranging term so categorically proving insanity on a case-by-case basis, let alone a causal relationship, will be difficult. More to the point, are you suggesting that the article could be improved by including a section on this topic or just dropping in for a chat? -- Timberframe (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

this is an absurd article and should be removed.
how do you prove you are not anti-semetic? do you have to espouse that you believe six million jews died in gas chambers? do you have to marry someone who is jewish? if you dont believe in something, are you automatically a "denier"? there are many reasons, reasonable reasons to doubt the official story. from the lack of physical evidence to the absurd eye-witness claims that jews were thrown directly into ovens. if a person doesnt believe an historical even is being portrayed accurately in the mainstream historical community, THAT makes him a "hater" of the people the story involves? this article is pure garbage and needs to be removed. Notonekilled (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is entitled to his/her own facts. While opinion is a private matter, it does not belong, nor does it affect an encyclopedia. To decide that something is false when the facts show otherwise is an opinion. Small deviations or small non-factual stories about the overall topic - if these deviations even reliably exist - do not change the overall fact and truth.  This is not an article where a debate on the historicity of the holocaust belongs.   --Fremte (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are about 52,000 videotaped testimonies out there that I'm aware of and quite a lot of physical records. In fact, it's one of the most documented occurrences in history. One of those testimonial videos, btw, is my grandmother. So, yes, if someone thinks the event was fake because someone told him that there isn't any evidence, he's either really really (really) ignorant and thick minded or possibly antisemitic. It doesn't have to be the latter. It could definitely be the first. All of this has got nothing with wikipedia having the article or not though. Wikipedia is not a forum. Regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:DNFTT --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

it is the "most documented" events in history? show me ONE wartime document that proves that even one human being died in a gas chamber. people like yourself always want to parrot that same old lie that it is so well documented.....well then where are the documents? there aren't any! Notonekilled (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC) and if its so well documented and the facts were so clear, then it wouldn't be necessary to jail people for expressing a different point of view. Notonekilled (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The onus is on someone making an assertion - in your case claiming that nobody died in a gas chamber - to provide evidence for their case. Note that WP:RS requires reliable sources.Autarch (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What has any of this to do with improving the article? Take it to a forum. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Notification of this debate has been posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism  —Nsaum75 (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why has this been removed? I agree that the heading is provocative but the attempt to justify it is made perfectly reasonably and does not breach any talk policies that I am aware of? Please do not censor in this way. The only objectionable comments come from someone opposing the OP: "ignorant and thick minded or possibly antisemitic". 89.242.96.251 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It has not "been removed" or "censored". It just been condensed. Click "show" and you can read it all. Click "hide" if you are fed up already with these comments. Singularity42 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I accept that it is can be viewed, as I have now seen and altered my post to reflect. So to rephrase: Why is it no longer normally visible in the normal way? 89.242.96.251 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It says why. The editor who started the thread was blocked WP:DISRUPT and WP:SPA. Singularity42 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Was he blocked for this or some other reason? 89.242.96.251 (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571. Singularity42 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take my observations there. I agree that the choice of name is deliberately provocative, but find that his arguments are reasonably expressed.89.242.96.251 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571 is an archive, not to be edited. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 4wajzkd02 is correct. The talk page we are currently editing is the page to discuss content changes to Holocaust denial. Discussions of Notonekilled's block should usually be left for when/if Notonekilled appeals their block, in which case it would go through the normal channels. Singularity42 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see there that he was accused of creating a one-time account to push a single issue. That seems a reasonable complaint and sufficient justification for closing the account. (I am IP: 89.242.96.251. It got changed again!) 78.147.23.177 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Censored books
Hey, I'm a Kuwaiti and being taught (when I was in highschool) in an American school when we were learning about WWII we had American books but all the pages about the Holocaust were either ripped out or covered with black tape. Sections of text about the Holocaust were either tapped up or blackened by a marker. What source or type of evidence would I need to add this to the article and where in the article could I put this? To be honest, I'm not sure if it was due to a stance of denial by the Kuwaiti government or they just didn't want us to learn it. Thanks. --CantoV (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First step is to see if there are multiple, reliable sources covering the incident, such as mainstream newspapers. Singularity42 (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Attn: Crazy People
In order to correctly reflect what is going on with the documented issue, and because we have sources on both sides, the article should refer to the fact THAT THERE IS A DEBATE. The only neutral point is that some consider it anti-semitism and some do not. If we say it is anti-semitism, we are inappropriately taking the the anti-antisemitic side. That's fine if this is your position, but its not the position of an encyclopedia, which doesn't have an opinion, and can't have one. If we say it is not anti-semitism, we are also making an inappropriate judgement that SHOULD NOT be included in the article. It documents a point of view that people find controversial, what that point of view says, and how people react to it, among other things. What should we not include? Personal judgements about this concepts perceived correlation to a separate idea.

Therefore, this is not an anti-semitic article as much as it is an anti-semitic article. It's carries inappropriate connotations under any such title, and should be related to similar topics in the similar topics section at the bottom of the page.

Remember, it is verifiable that people hold both points of view. That is what the article should tell readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.195.42 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 76.250.195.42 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For example, this page exists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. That is where we should say that many people find the idea to be anti-semitic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.195.42 (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 76.250.195.42 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does tell readers that people hold both points of view; and it tells what sort of people hold those points of view. If you want an uncritical presentation of lies and liars, there are plenty of websites willing to do that. --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * jpgordon, please remove yourself from any further editorial role on this topic. Your reference here to "lies and liars" and elsewhere to "utter scum" demonstrates that you are too emotionally involved to be objective.  89.242.96.251 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1.) The article also does take a side. 2.)An encyclopedia should be a website that presents an uncritical view of lies and liars.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.195.42 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 76.250.195.42 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind, 76.., that even if you have some legitimate points to make about bias, you titled this thread "ATTN: CRAZY PEOPLE" (changed). That alone raises a flag that whoever wrote it is probably just a troll. That said, I detect there are perhaps one or two points in your comment that can be addressed. But first I'd like you to restate them in what might pass for clear, logical, and rational form. I'm asking this for your benefit, so that you can break your own conglomerate of thoughts down into three or four concise arguments.
 * I will then refute each. -Stevertigo PS: WP:SIGN your posts.

Jpgordon, you can't honestly call people on the other side of this argument liars. What kind of encyclopedia contributor would you be? Come on people, we are in the 21st century, on the internet. I'm not taking any sides right now, but let's give both of them some space. This article is unfairly biased, and controlled by those with set views on the issue. This isn't your personal academic review, this is an encyclopedic entry. Let's be adults here. --78.25.22.67 (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV apply. There is no need to reflect a fictitious debate because there is no credible "other side" beyond far-out there FRINGE.  The title of this section is sufficient to establish POV etc.  --Fremte (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason there is no debate is that one side of the argument refuses to allow the other to be heard, and instead prefers to vilify them, physically attack them, burn their premises, destroy their careers and send them to jail or exile. Difficult to have a debate under those conditions. Criticisms of the lack of material and documentary evidence and the reliance on limited and contradictory eye-witness testimony, including confessions obtained under duress in custody, provide a basis for that potential debate.
 * I presume you have not actually read anything they say, but are simply resorting to ad hominem. 89.242.96.251 (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is (or should be if it were not illegal) a debate, and there is an "other side". Holocaust denial is defined in the article itslef as "the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II... did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized". What is wrong with discussing the "manner...[and] extent" of the killing of Jews?  What are you people afraid of- that the truth might finally come out?124.197.15.138 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no law against Holocaust denial here in the United States where Wikipedia's servers are located, but regardless of whether the "debate" is legitimate or not, this talk page is not the place to conduct it. This page exists for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article by citing reliable sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever believes in this bullshit is fucking retarded. You can stage that 5-6 million people died. Where did those people go? huh? can explain 5-6 million missing people that died. Sure they can change their names and all that. But i am pretty sure getting 5-6 million people to do that would be very hard. I was reading part of the article and it talks about how we got the answers from torture... TORTURE?!?!?! that is complete bull. we may have tortured them i don't care. they had what was coming to them. What about those trains that carried all those people? were those fake too? was this just hollywood and America trying to get money? we may never know unless your not a dumbfuck who believes in this

Native American Holocaust
Would it be acceptable to include a section about Native American Genocide. There is substantial evidence to prove Europeans knew the diseases they carried and that it would almost extinguish native populations as is evident because of the event occurring over a large geographical areas numerous times. Ie. First in the Carribean,Mainland US,Mexico,Central America,South America,Alaska so on and so forth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.78.43 (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not in this article. As explained in the article, "Holocaust denial" specifically means the denial of the genocide of Jewish people by the Nazis. Genocide of the indigenous population of the Americas is currently covered at Population history of American indigenous peoples and Genocides in history. While I'm not sure if those sections cover any denial of those genocides, that would be a good place to start. Singularity42 (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Five/Six million...
There seems to be some confusion from recent edits about why the lead says "five million" instead of "six million". Besides the source that is referred to, it is easily explained. The sentence is "...over five million...". The six million death toll number we normally refer to is in fact an approximiation of leading estimates of approximately 5.29-5.86 million (and between arguments about the number included in the scope, accuracy of sources, etc., we usually just say "six million"). (See, for example, Yad Vashem's useful summary of the issue.) Most sources would not say "...over six million.." because that is not reflected by the more detailed numbers. Hope that makes sense, and clarifies the confusion. Singularity42 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Over 5 million" encompasses all estimates by reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably an exageration to make it look like more people died then how many really did. Trying to get themselves more sympathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.116.208 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An IP editor said that? Really?  I'm stunned. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Soviet figures for Auschwitz-Birkenau
It's a story going round the internet that soviet figures for Auschwitz-Birkenau were 4 million, but later revised to 1 million killed at Auschwitz. Is this accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.44.195 (talk • contribs)
 * Please review "The Auschwitz Gambit: The Four Million Variant", here, here, and here. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Zscarpia's lede changes
Zscarpia has proposed changing the lede from this: "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized." to this (most significant changes italicized): "Holocaust denial is a term used to describe the assertions of those who claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent generally accepted." It seems obvious to me that the current lede is better; it's shorter, for one, and it actually describes the topic of the article, Holocaust denial. This article is about an activity, not about a "term". Also, Holocaust denial is not a denial of generally accepted belief, but of historically recognized facts. This difference is, of course, quite crucial. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the article isn't about the term "Holocaust denial" in the same way Kosher tax is an article about the term "Kosher tax". Holocaust denial is a real thing, and the article is about the phenomenon. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant when I said This article is about an activity, not about a "term". ;-) Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, it's strange that the article on the Holocaust defines it as "the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II" without then going on to discuss the term rather than the event. And wouldn't it be a good idea to use a phrase less ambiguous than "historically recognized"?  -- ZScarpia (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not strange at all; the article discusses both the term and the event. Why is "historically recognized" ambiguous? Would you prefer "recognized by historians"? Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to propose a different form of words for the beginning of the first sentence: Holocaust denial consists of claims that ...
 * The ambiguity at the end of the sentence arises (and therefore a different form of words is desirable) because, if something is said to have been done historically, the normal meaning wouldn't be that it is something that has been done by historians. My opinion, in any case, is that because the Holocaust has been investigated by many people other than historians and because the definition of what makes somebody a historian is very subjective, it would be better to use a less restrictive set of words. Perhaps the word 'accepted' is a sticking point? I would be happy for the word 'recognized' (so that the sentence uses phrases like 'generally recognized' or 'mainstream recognition') to be retained. If you want to retain mention of historians, I would suggest making the sentence more specific by using a form of words like 'mainstream historians of the period' or 'mainstream historians of the Holocaust'. Of course, because no source is given for the definition, you need a form of words which is unlikely to be questioned.
 * -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have changed the sentence accordingly. I used the phrase "accepted by mainstream historians" to avoid the complication of deciding whether revionists count as historians, a difficulty you highlighted.  If this doesn't work for everyone, I'm happy to discuss it further. I'd still appreciate some illumination regarding other victims of the holocaust and whether their deaths are also denied by holocaust deniers.Throwaway85 (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need for the weasel-word "mainstream" here, just as there's no need to state that "mainstream scientists" believe the world to be a sphere. Arthur Butz is an associate professor of electrical engineering. James Keegstra was a public school teacher. Robert Faurisson is a professor of literature. Ernst Zündel is a pamphleteer. David Duke is a politician. Germar Rudolf is a chemist. Richard Verrall is a politician. etc. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Throwaway, one of the principle claims of the group of writers associated with the Institute of Historical Review, who are the main targets of accusations of Holocaust denial, is that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. As mainstream historians believe that almost 20,000 Roma and a number of Soviet prisoners of war were gassed there (see the Holocaust Encyclopedia), then, by default, the extermination of non-Jewish victims is also being negated by them. Some definitions of the Holocaust (including the one at Emory University's Holocaust Denial on Trial site, which says: the Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored murder of approximately six million Jews and many other victims by the Germans and their collaborators during World War II) include non-Jewish victims, but most, including the Holocaust Encyclopedia's own, appear not to. Whether Holocaust denial encompasses non-Jewish victims therefore appears to be a point of view. Denialist literature claims that allied (principally Soviet) propaganda, Zionist organisations (for political and financial purposes), representatives (such as lawyers) for compensation claimants (for financial purposes) and Jewish individuals (for self-promotion and financial purposes) have deliberately demonised the Nazis. Hope that helps. -- ZScarpia (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It does indeed, and I can see where the uncertainty comes from. The ushmm site you linked to, however, included numerous references to other victims.  It does not, however, say whether these victims were considered victims of the Holocaust or victims of the Nazi regime parallel to the Holocaust.  This seems to be the prime sticking point here.  I simply want to ensure that, if Roma, slavs, etc., were also considered victims of the holocaust, that they not be entirely excluded here, although I do realize Holocaust denial is a primarily antisemitic phenomena. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refer to references 2 and 6 in the article. Holocaust deniers only discuss Jews. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

JayJG, it was extremely incautious of me to edit an article like this without having a good look at its editing history and talkpage first. My internal "don't touch with a bargepole" alarm obviously isn't working correctly. I've been having a mental wrestling match with myself trying to figure out what some of your criticisms actually mean (and therefore whether they make any sense), but, since you clearly feel that my changes don't improve the accuracy or clarity of the article, I'm happy for your reversion to stand. If you want the Lede to reflect that Holocaust denial is an activity, though, perhaps it should be modified to read "Holocaust denial is the claiming that ..." (an activity) rather than "Holocaust denial is the claim that ..." (not an activity). The reason that I changed the words "historically recognized" was because I suspected that the author meant something, recognition by historians, other than what they actually say, recognition in the historical past. In your comments, you mention "historically recognized facts" (by which I assume you mean facts which have had long-term recognition). Of course, for something to be a recognized fact (in terms of Wikipedia or formal history at least), it has to be something which has solid evidence to support it, usually documentary. I would like to point out that Holocaust deniers exploit the ambiguities and uncertainties that arise because many things relating to the Holocaust appear to have been deliberately left undocumented or else documented in a euphemistic manner, that many documents relating to the Holocaust were destroyed and that the interpretation of much of what remains is debatable. In other words, they exploit the difficulty of establishing much relating to the Holocaust as facts beyond doubt. Lower down the article you reverted the change I made to the title of the "Notable Holocaust Deniers" section (I changed it to read "Claimed Holocaust Deniers"). As someone with quite a history of tacking on the word "Alleged" in titles and other places, I would have thought you would have seen the rather POV nature of the original title. Also, I would have thought that you would have appreciated the circumspection required by the Wikipedia rules because some of the people listed are still living. ZScarpia (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Some further notes:

The article reads like one on "Capitalist running doggism" written by Maoists or "Fellow travellers" written by Anti-communists (complete with lists of Notable Capitalist Running Dogs or Fellow Travellers). The label is a pejorative one used by people holding one viewpoint to separate out those holding a viewpoint they don't like from others holding viewpoints they are prepared to tolerate. As such (in my, hopefully, humble opinion), a broader, more neutral, treatment, along the lines, for example, of the articles on Imperialism, Racism or Jingoism, is needed. For one thing, an explanation of the origin of the term is missing (does Deborah Lipstadt, writing in "Denying the Holocaust" in 94, get the credit for coining it?).

I changed the Lede - "Holocaust denial is the claim" - because it offended my senses of accuracy, logic and English usage, though, I have to say, I wasn't really that happy with my replacement. Something clear is that the definition needs to be cited to a good quality source.

Could somebody explain what is meant in the first sentence by "historically recognized"? It looks very ambiguous to me.

"Notable Holocaust deniers"? A bit opinion-, rather than fact-, based isn't it? How about qualifying the title by preceding the list with a sentence saying something like: notable examples of people accused of being Holocaust deniers?

I think that internal "don't touch with a bargepole" alarm must still be malfunctioning. -- ZScarpia (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Some musings:

It has been said that this article is about the phenomenon, rather than term, Holocaust denial. Perhaps, similarly, the Islamofascism article should be about the phenomenon rather than the term, but it isn't. Why not? Probably because it is a derogatory term. But isn't that true of the label "Holocaust denial" too? The history practitioners among the group of people accused of being Holocaust deniers prefer the term Holocaust Revisionism (and organise conferences under that title).

The Lehi are very often (if not usually) referred to as the Stern Group (or Gang). If anybody tried to refer to them as the latter on Wikipedia they would very quickly be shown the error of their ways. Why? Because, the name Stern Group (or Gang) is seen as POV and non-neutral. Couldn't the same be argued about what its opponents call Holocaust denial?

Sorry! I know, I'm like a dog gnawing at a bone. Funny thing is that I strongly dislike (if not loathe) some of those in the Holocaust deniers list, who I see as deluded chauvinists. But then, I think that many of their opponents are the same, just ideological mirror images. Both groups need to be resisted. -- ZScarpia (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's just test this theory of yours. If you go to Lehi, you'll see that it's a disambiguation page. The last link on that page is to Lehi (group) and it mentions that that group was also known as, guess what, the Stern Gang. If you follow the link to Lehi (group) you'll see that the article also mentions that the group was also known as the Stern Gang. All this has existed on Wikipedia for quite some time without anyone having been "shown the error of their ways."
 * Stern Gang, Stern Gang, Stern Gang. Anyone interested in showing me the error of my ways? Anyone? No? Bueller?
 * See, the difficulty I think you're having comes from trying to use Wikipedia to "resist" these groups that you think "need to be resisted." That's not really what this place is for. See WP:BATTLEGROUND for further information. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Steven, thank-you for replying. Above, I have been trying to raise discussion about the one-sidedness of the article. In my opinion (and clearly, reading the rest of the talkpage, the opinion of others), there are problems here with the non-neutrality of its tone and the non-neutrality and accuracy of its contents which need to be addressed.
 * Let me make it clear that I have no personal problem with the Lehi being referred to as the Lehi. Perhaps, when I referred to the terms Stern Group or Stern Gang - which, incidentally, I think were the names used most widely for the Lehi outside the Lehi itself (judging from books and newspapers from the time that I have read) - being used "on Wikipedia", I should have been more specific and written "in Wikipedia articles". I used the example of the Lehi because I HAVE seen instances of the name being changed on NPOV grounds (though please don't ask me to point to them because I'm too lazy to go and look). Try introducing the term Stern Gang into an article and see how long it lasts. In fact, if it appeared outside a quotation and had been written by anyone other than you, I would change it if I came across an occurrence. I should say that, since musing above about the neutrality of the term Holocaust denial, I've formed the opinion that it has now become mainstream and that, if you hadn't got here first, I would have deleted the second part of my last comment.
 * Am I having "difficulties"? Reading WP:BATTLEGROUND, I can't see that I'm indulging in any of the behaviours described. It is helpful to be able to see yourself as others do, so perhaps you could expand on what you said above and explain how I fit it? I think it is clear that the Holocaust is misused by the two extreme of opposition, both of which try to create fear, one of which has a conspiracy of Jews, the other having a conspiracy of antisemites. When I said that they should both be resisted, I meant it in a general sense, though it does have a specific application here in Wikipedia, where it means trying to ensure that articles conform to the laid down principles. Of course, whether an individual editor, including me, can achieve that depends, besides knowledge of particular subjects and an ability to write, on the ability to identify bias (which means being able to understand different viewpoints) and avoid pushing one's own. I'm doing my best, but perhaps, unbeknownst to me (you're welcome to put me right), failing. The question is, who are the wikilawyering point-of-view pushers and who not (or, at least, who are the worst offenders and who the more minor ones). I'm here at the moment because major chunks of the article appears to have been written by offenders of the former kind (though, of course, it may only appear that way to me because the offender is really me - again, perhaps you could put me right [I'm assuming that you're clear in your mind that you're one of the "good guys"]).
 * Still here despite my better judgement. Wish it was as easy to blunder out as to blunder in. --  ZScarpia (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm having similar reservations about joinging the discussion, but my inner masochist is taking over. Serves me right for cruising AN/I.  I too have concerns about the tone of the article, as well as some of its contents.  While most of us can agree that holocaust denial is reprehensible, that should not be wikipedia's official position.  I find the article too often judges holocaust deniers, instead of merely describing the term and phenomenon.  While it is a POV that most editors share, it is a POV nonetheless.  I would like to see this addressed.  Also, this may simply be a naive comment from someone unfamiliar with its treatment on wikipedia, but there were many victims of the holocaust who were not jewish.  Many roma, homosexuals, etc were also killed.  The article, however, treats the holocaust as solely a jewish phenomenon.  Also, the term "mass murder" is incredibly POV.  Does not genocide suffice? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, very few people - or even nobody - have claimed that the nazi would not have killed Roma, homosexuals, etc. The holocaust denial mainly occurs with respect to the Jewish holocaust.  This also explains why this article is focused on the Jewish holocaust.  Furthermre the fact is that there are no historians who are jholocaust deniers.  The laters are usually self-proclaimed historians, but have no historian education or back ground, do not teach history and do not use the skills and methods used by historians.  Their position is just comparable to the one of the Member of the Flat Earth Society and should be treated the same way.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't encountered that claim before, although I am admitedly ill-versed on the matter. I don't suppose you know off hand if one of the sources supports that, do you?  I was always under the impression that holocaust deniers denied everything, gas chambers, mass murders, and all. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Holocaust deniers only deny gas chambers and mass murders for Jews. They aren't interested in denying the genocide of any other peoples. That's why, for example, notable denial works include Did Six Million Really Die? and Austin App's The Six Million Swindle; their focus is on the 6 million Jews killed, not on the millions of others killed. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the antisemitic basis of these beliefs, I was simply wondering whether they extend to the other groups mentioned. Given that some of the authors are not exactly stupid, I would be surprised if they adopted a position that so clearly lacks internal consistency.  Furthermore, while I appreciate the suggestions, the books you offered quite clearly can't be considered reliable sources, so we would require a reliable secondary source to include such a claim, stated or implied, in the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All Holocaust denial invariably lacks internal consistency; it is inherent in the Holocaust denial belief system. As for whether or not Holocaust deniers are "stupid", well... Please refer to references 2 and 6 in the article. Holocaust deniers only discuss Jews. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

During the War
It might be worth adding that during the war, especially in Britain, there was much skepticism concerning German atrocities, since many such reports made during WWI were later shown to be fabricated. Dynzmoar (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Can you provide reliable sources as a citation? The key word being much - from my own reading of the period (there are quite a number of textbooks, so by no means has my review been comprehensive), I can recall there being some question. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede controversy
I have reverted this edit by Y. The purpose of including the word "mainstream" was to avoid the difficulty of deciding who counts as a historian and who does not. A historian is, simply put, one who studies history. That doesn't mean they agree with accepted history. If you want to claim that "all historians agree the holocaust occurred", you will need to provide sources from every historian on the planet to do so. It's a patently ridiculous assertion. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, to head this off before it becomes an issue, there does not appear to be a 1RR restriction on this article. IS there an Arbcom ruling I'm unfamiliar with? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From the article: "No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place.", Governing council, unanimous declaration, American Historical Association If you insist on making this rather pointy declaration, we'll just change the text back to "historically recognized", as it has been in the lede for years, since there is obviously no consensus for your controversial change. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's controversial about "mainstream historians". Furthermore, to say "no serious historian questions...", while possibly true, is an entirely unverifiable claim.  I'm fine with "the vast majority of historians overwhelmingly", or something to that effect, but you simply cannot include claims that are, by definition, unverifiable. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As to your recent edit, what feels better to you, the plural or the singular? I'm leaning towards the singular myself, as a matter of style.  Thus the first sentence would read "HD consists of the claim that..".  If there's some reason I'm not aware of to make it plural, then that's fine too. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding "no serious historians" being an "unverifiable claim", of course it's verifiable; look in the source, and verify that the AHA said that. That's all that WP:V requires. Regarding the term "mainstream", I'll repeat what I wrote above. There's no need for the weasel-word "mainstream" here, just as there's no need to state that "mainstream scientists" believe the Earth to be a sphere. Arthur Butz is an associate professor of electrical engineering. James Keegstra was a public school teacher. Robert Faurisson is a professor of literature. Ernst Zündel is a pamphleteer. David Duke is a politician. Germar Rudolf is a chemist. Richard Verrall is a politician. etc. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "no serious historians", you are making a judgement about a)what constitutes a historian, b) what makes them serious, and c)that none of the above question the Holocaust. That judgement is at best incredibly difficult to support. As for the source from the AHA, I'm assuming you are referring to Gerstenfeld?  No book by that authour is available at my school's library, could you help me refine my search? Throwaway85 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any judgment at all, nor is Gerstenfeld. The article quotes the American Historical Association's governing council on the subject. The American Historical Association is making that judgment, and it is rather well qualified to do so. If you wish to purchase the book, you can get it here: http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Hate-Selected-Phyllis-Gerstenfeld/dp/0761929436 Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Better yet, why not link directly to the statement, here. I'll update the references now. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if the AHA says it, that's fine. I still think it an irresponsibly unverifiable claim for an academic institution to make, but that's their business. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jean Claude Pressac was a chemist and pharmacist; Raul Hilberg was a political scientist. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a maths graduate, wrote some of the greatest historical works of the 20th Century. Clearly you don't need a formal education in history to write about history or to become recognised as an authority on some aspect of history (as the article on historians makes clear).  -- ZScarpia (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pressac wrote solely about the gas chambers and crematoria of Auschwitz. As for Hilberg, he was a historian first and foremost. His PhD thesis was on the Holocaust, and it was the foundation for his monumental and authoritative history The Destruction of the European Jews. In order to be a historian you need to, at a minimum, be recognized by other authorities/historians as one. No Holocaust deniers are recognized as legitimate historians. Irving came the closest, but he was found in a trial he himself initiated to have "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." As for the others (Butz, Zündel, etc.), they're not historians by any rational definition. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." But, Holocaust denial is about the extent and means, not the existence, of the Holocaust. And the statement does not make a claim about all historians (what qualifies someone to be called a historian being imprecise in any case). So, the quotation does not justify the claim that you are making, that all historians (good, bad, serious, non-serious, amateur, professional, ancient, modern, pro-Nazi, anti-Nazi etc) oppose the denialists. And, even if it did, the original phrase, "historically recognized", doesn't represent that claim unambiguously. As I said above, my opinion is that it would be better to end the first sentence with words that express how small a minority the denialists are in general and not ones relating that directly to historians.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether Holocaust denial is "about the extent and means, not the existence, of the Holocaust" is actually a bit of word play - to be frank, one often exploited by Holocaust deniers themselves (not that I'm suggesting you are one). As Paul Rauber wrote regarding the Holocaust denying Institute for Historical Review:
 * "The question [of whether the IHR denies the Holocaust] appears to turn on IHR's Humpty-Dumpty word game with the word Holocaust. According to Mark Weber, associate editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review [now Director of the IHR], 'If by the 'Holocaust' you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the 'Holocaust' means the systematic extermination of six to eight million Jews in concentration camps, that's what we think there's not evidence for.' That is, IHR doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened; they just deny that the word 'Holocaust' means what people customarily use it for."
 * Or, as Richard J. Evans wrote:
 * "Like many individual Holocaust deniers, the Institute as a body denied that it was involved in Holocaust denial. It called this a 'smear' which was 'completely at variance with the facts' because 'revisionist scholars' such as Faurisson, Butz 'and bestselling British historian David Irving acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed and otherwise perished during the Second World War as a direct and indirect result of the harsh anti-Jewish policies of Germany and its allies'. But the concession that a relatively small number of Jews were killed was routinely used by Holocaust deniers to distract attention from the far more important fact of their refusal to admit that the figure ran into the millions, and that a large proportion of these victims were systematically murdered by gassing as well as by shooting."
 * When the AHA says "No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place", they mean no serious historian questions that the series of events commonly referred to as "The Holocaust" took place; more specifically, no serious historian questions the killing of at least 5 million Jews by the Nazis during World War II, as part of a deliberate plan of extermination, which included hundreds of thousands of deaths by gassing. Holocaust deniers, of course, do question these things; more exactly, for ideological/theological reasons they a priori deny some or all of them, and then attempt to find justifications for those denials. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "theological reasons"? Also, I think there may be a possibility that some of these people deny the extent of the Holocaust because of mental/emotional issues.  That is, they can't grasp the extent of the evil perpetrated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The "historian" issue is a tough one; we've had a related discussion at the David Irving article. My own position is that Irving's a historian, and a really lousy, fraudulent, dishonest historian. "Historian" isn't like "doctor of medicine" or "lawyer"; you can't be stripped of your historian license for malpractice. "Historian" isn't a badge of honor, either; calling someone a historian doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give them increased credibility in the subject areas under discussion. The scholarly, scientific, and historical consensus is that denialists are fraudulent and dishonest and generally driven by Jew-hatred. The lede can get that across in an NPOV fashion without quibbling over the legitimacy of the credentials of amateur historians. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think for the purposes of the article, the definition of historian is irrelevant. The AHA said "no serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place."  They are a reliable source, and that's that as far as the article is concerned, barring some reliable source offering a contrary position, in which case that too should be included.  I'm still uncomfortable with the wording, and the POV that it introduces, but the source is beyond reproach.  For now, however, let's focus on other ways to improve the article, as I can't see this debate going anywhere. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoping that this may help: copies of the defence documents used by Richard Evans at the David Irving libel trial are held online at the Holocaust Denial on Trial site. Section 3.2 contains various definitions of Holocaust Denial which might help in deriving an agreed, sourced, form of wording for the Lead section. -- ZScarpia (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias in Arab Involvement Section
In the section labeled "Holocaust denial in Arab nations" the involvement of the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up is mentioned as a holocaust denier and it appears to suggest that the current government of the UAE is a supporter of holocaust denial. However, HH Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan shut down the center in 2003 due to exactly this incident.

Furthermore there should be a link to Sheik Sultan bin Zayed al-Nahyan's page do dispel confusion as to which leader was in charge at the time this incident occurred. His name (as per Arab tradition) is markedly close to his late father and there should be a distinction between him and his father to more accurately reflect the truth.

There should also be link to the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up as a quick inspection of that page will reveal that center's closing.

The government of the UAE has strongly been a proponent of modernization and westernization, to suggest otherwise is not entirely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.224.130 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Link is also broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.224.130 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which link? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If what you say is true, 147, then the section should certainly be modified to reflect the current situation. With countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc, where power is concentrated in the hands of a select few, criticism of government policy comes very close to BLP issues, so we must ensure any criticism there is is particularly well-sourced, and not out of date. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial: Bias Naming?
Is fair to Group Revionists who claim the Holocaust was more small-scale with those who outright deny it? Shouldn't we call the article Holocaust Revisionism and have Holocaust Denial as a subsection? Not all Holocaust Revisions are Antisemetic Holocaust Denyers. Even though it mentions a subtle distinction between Denial and Revisionism, Revisionism is a subsection of Holocaust Denial, when it should be the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.20.241 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the answer question three of the FAQ at the top of this page, and the related links. That should help answer your question. Singularity42 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, its not about "fair." The term "Holocaust Denial" is a propaganda term used to combat those who want to question (or suppress) the conventional history of the massive deaths inflicted by the Nazi regime upon the members of groups that were undesirable in their world view.  It isn't supposed to be "fair."   People who accept the standard history or who enhance the scale of Nazi wrongdoing are safe from being called "Holocaust deniers."  Anyone who claims that a significant part of the official narrative of the Holocaust is false or erroneous or questions whether it is accurate is liable to be called a denier.  There is no middle ground.  There are no "legitimate" skeptics or "revisionists" in this matter since, as the article says, the "manner [and] extent" of the Holocaust has been "historically recognized."  No one calls this "Holocaust Dogmatism" because this isn't about mere history.  It's about TRUTH.  Its about the millions that died.  "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


 * [Deny the existence of Socrates. Deny Thirty Years War. Question whether anyone really important died in the War of the Austrian Succession.  Deny that Walther Rathenau was murdered and no one will say you are evil.  Deny that millions were killed in Soviet gulags--give it a try, just for kicks.  You can claim Che was a liberator--or you can claim he was a murderer.  It doesn't cause much of a stir.  For the most part, you are entitled to your opinion, even if you are wrong.  And with an ocean of historical nuggets to question and have an opinions about, you don't need to have any about the Holocaust.  You just stay away from this one, boy, or you're gunna get burned.  It's totally understandable and it's not so much to ask.]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.220.236 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A pity you did not sign 72.230.220.236, I cannot but agree with you. Interesting to see that the comment just before you accepts to consider this site more as Wiki-prop than -pedia, as if instructing people would just be "the continuation of mass brainwashing through other means" (re-phrasing Von Clausewitz). Citing from article 19 of the Human Rights Charter: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."(The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.) If we forget this and we start passing laws which prohibit people to doubt and discuss, we'll slowly slide into authoritarianism. Paradoxycally, because we want to defend ourselves from pro-Nazis (which deniers often are not, contrary to what stated here).--Zetajean (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

UNDUE and FRINGE
Scouring through the archives, I'm perplexed as to why remarks concerning a perceived bias have not been rebuffed with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE? I'm new here (at least, in terms of being a registered user - I've "lurked" for 4 years or so) so I'm sure there's some entirely reasonable explanation, but shouldn't holocaust denial be relegated to the subterranean echelons of Young Earth creationism, the Ganzfeld experiments and such like? Eh, I probably missed something :P. Cheers. Psychonavigation (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To what particular points do you object? The treatment of holocaust denial on this page is certainly in keeping with the deserved treatment of YEC. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is very biased
I know this is kind of a hot topic and I am not really on either side of the argument, but it struck me when I came to this page how ridiculously biased the whole thing is. The use of the word “denial” is bad enough, but apparently the article is listed under “anti-Semitism” which makes is implicative of anyone who would read it. If that wasn’t enough at the top of the article you have a “See also: Criticism of Holocaust denial”… I mean, of course there is criticism it’s a hotly debated topic in the world but that doesn’t mean it should be the first thing you read upon arrival. This article is a disgrace to the Wikipedia and should be tagged/removed/edited/fixed. 72.45.211.194 (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not really on either side of the argument? That's akin to saying you're neither for or against slavery. There is no argument. That the holocaust happened is historically beyond dispute, and that's why it's properly labeled as anti-semitism. At least with holocaust deniers, we know they're lunatics. Someone claiming neutrality on such an issue may be even more dangerous.Mk5384 (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can kind of see where you're coming from. This article could definitely use a more neutral point of view.  Unfortunately, there are few reliable sources that discuss the matter dispassionately, and so the article reflects their tone.  More academic sources might lead us to portraying the subject in a more neutral light. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the term "revisionists" may be adopted for those "deniers" who call themselves so? "Deniers" sounds pejoratively enough, moreover, it is only used by one side of the debate, so I see no reason why Wikipedia should adopt this term (e.g. Wikipedia does not refer to the Roma as "Gypsies", to the Afroamericans as "Negroes" and so on, because, wherever possible, for the sake of neutrality, each group should be adressed by the name it assigns itself, not others). But the issue is immensely complicated, though. --89.173.62.240 (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't two "sides" to any "debate" here, just as there aren't two "sides" to the "debate" about whether or not America landed on the moon, or two "sides" to the "debate" about whether or not the Earth is the center of the universe. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What criterion do you use to consider something a "debate"?--89.173.62.240 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is not in the least bit complicated. Holocaust denial is historical fraud, and does not deserve to be discussed in any other terms: exactly like the Flat Earthers. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When you say that Holocaust denial is historical fraud, I agree with you (it's also extremely poor history). However, I disagree that it doesn't deserve to be discussed.  If we have as many deniers today as we do (when the event is still fairly "recent"), what will it be like in 100, 500, or 1000 years?  So, any such denials must be addressed so that future historians can reference today's historians and say,


 * Look, deniers have a long history of historical fraud and the historians of the 20th/21st century prove that to be the case. Nobody believed them back then, so why should we now?


 * Also, keep in mind that the physical evidence of the Holocaust, such as survivors, eyewitnesses, death camps, etc., will not be around forever. Sure, there may be a monument here and there, but nothing lasts forever.  At that point, all that historians will have is the word(s) of historians/eyewitnesses as written down and discussed.  Consequently, the attitude of some that say, "Many scholars refuse to engage Holocaust deniers or their arguments at all..." is truly shortsighted.  That's my $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the sentiment, I think you underestimate historians. We have a pretty damned good idea of what went on the last few thousands years with far less to go on than future historians will have.  If the Black Plague is as well known as it is when it occured in an era where <1% of the people could read, imagine the sources future historians will have to work with. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you are right. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you say so Mr Gordon, it must be true. Let's not bother with boring stuff like evidence. Much easier to scream "Denial! I'm not listening." and put your fingers in your ears. Channelwatcher (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually, my eyes and ears are both quite open; I've been studying the phenomenon of Holocaust denial for some thirty years now, and there hasn't been so much as a smidgen of credible material from your camp in all that time. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jp, please try not to accuse someone of being a holocaust denier simply because they happen to believe there is more of a debate than there is. Not particularly civil.  Throwaway85 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shrug. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. All of this person's edits have been promoting Holocaust denial; his arguments could come straight out of IHR. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jpgordon, which edits and arguments are you referring to specifically? I would like to check for myself whether the statements that Channelwatcher has been using "arguments straight out of IHR" and that all his "edits have been promoting Holocaust denial" are true. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He's probably referring to edits such as:, , , , , etc. While I hardly think them sufficient to label ChannelWatcher a Holocaust Denier, they do stand in opposition to Jp's beliefs, and are probably more sympathetic to the IHR than jp would prefer.  I still don't think his label was appropriate. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not too far out, Throwaway, since the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle and the Director of Yad Veshem are probably "more sympathetic to the IHR than jp would prefer". I keep an open mind. Like Zetajean below, I came fairly recently to the topic, taking it for granted that the only Holocaust Deniers were neo-Nazi thugs. I've since read several Revisionists, not uncritically, but in general I have found that they are not the bogeymen promoted by JP and his fellow witch hunters, who love to conflate them with outfits like Stormfront. Unquestioning allegiance to the mainstream story as described by Zetajean below is being imposed using imprisonment, censorship, moral taboo and actual physical violence, as well as mass-media bombardment, and has become in recent years more concerned with promotion of a particular anti-intellectual version of memory than with historical objectivity. My inner Voltaire and George Orwell are somewhat suspicious of a truth that needs to rely on such methods. Norman Finkelstein, while not a denier/revisionist, has identified the campaign and the motives in The Holocaust Industry. I haven't undergone a Road to Damascus conversion; I'm neither a believer nor a denier, but an interested open-minded observer, like the OP on this thread appears to be. In the mindset that unfortunately prevails on Wiki that inevitably means you will be called a denier by some [added by author] 10:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC). Channelwatcher (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neo-Nazi thugs? As far as the group calling themselves Holocaust Revisionists are concerned, I would say that, though there may be a few unwitting members among them, in the main they are admirers whose agenda is to try and launder the image of the Nazis. That is not to say that everything they say is untrue - clearly there are some Holocaust charlatans and fraudsters, clearly elements of the Nuremberg trials amounted to a lynching with a judicial gloss, clearly the "confessions" of some of the Nazis involved in the Holocaust should not be taken at face value, clearly some aspects of widely-accepted Holocaust history are incorrect - but, in mounting their defence of the Nazis, they do, at the very least (as David Irving's failed libel action showed), misrepresent, hide and exaggerate. That is not to say that everything that the opponents of the Holocaust Revisionists say is true either. Judged on what I've read, I would say that many of them also have a tendency to misrepresent and distort. And some of them have denial issues of their own. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There are people here, and this is valid for most of those who agree with the article, which do not accept any objection, any doubt, any enquiry about the Holocaust and its details. What had to be said & written has been said, and the only ones who may add something must swear solemnly to keep with the basics of the Faith: 6 million Jews dead, Gaz Chambers, Shoah as the only "real" Holocaust of History. As for myself, even after "only" 1 year of reading everything on the subject, coming from any side, I am more "sceptic" than ever, as would have said David Irving. We cannot deny the basic horrors of Nazism, but we must further investigate if someone has politically profited of Jews Persecution, which is a fact, to manipulate details, events, declarations, testimonials, to achieve a propaganda effect that would have benefited his party. We should permit and not condemn the research of truth, which may come from every side, including revisionists. This article should be re-shaped to explain the theories and not just be a vehicle to condemn them without explanation.--Zetajean (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia can only reproduce what has been written in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (see WP:RS). These invariably place Holocaust Denial in the same category as other crackpot pseudoscientific theories (although becuase Holocaust Denial requires one to ignore the evidence for the Holocaust and manufacture evidence against it, most sources characterise the motive for Holocaust Denial as malice rather than, say, ignorance or stupidity). However, if you have academically-credible sources that say otherwise, we'd be delighted to include them too. EyeSerene talk 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't comment on the relative merits of questioning established history, as it's not something I know a great deal about, but I will echo your calls for sources, and emphasize that Wikipedia is not concerned with The TruthTM, but rather that which is verifiable. Zetajean, if you have reliable sources that offer an alternate explanation, then by all means offer them for discussion.  Keep in mind, however, that Wikipedia's core drive to remain neutral does not mean that every view that can be sourced gets equal weight, rather that the strength of the various sources is taken into account when deciding how to portray the subject in the article.  The vast majority of sources, including a great deal of authoritative and highly reputable ones, support the current tone of the article.  While I personally am a huge fan of critically analyzing everything, even and perhaps especially widely-held beliefs, on Wikipedia we go by what the sources say, and they are nearly unanimous in this regard. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully appreciate the policy on sources, and in general would agree with it. The difficulty we have in this context is that a particular viewpoint has been decreed and enforced by law in many countries and by moral taboo and academic exclusion in others. If you want to see what happens to academics who deviate from the path try googling Joel Hayward. Also look at the problems Norman Finkelstein has had. Neither of those two people are Revisionists. Any academic historian who is not prepared to unquestioningly accept all aspects of the Authorised Version (sorry, unnecessary sarcasm, I know) official version [stupidly provocative and modified by author] knows to steer clear of the Holocaust. So we get a Catch 22: you can't be considered if you are not a verifiable source, but if you are a revisionist (even lower case) or discuss revisionism you can't be a reliable source.  Channelwatcher (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looked at dispassionately the Holocaust is a fact. There is no "Authorised Version." One doesn't look at black and say that it is white, or look at white and say that it is black. A "Holocaust denier, or revisionist," can use all the "sarcasm" at their disposal — it can't erode factuality. Nor is "law" the primary issue. People will always seek the truth. The laws against Holocaust denial are only in place to prevent the hurting of other people's feelings; the laws do not enforce the facts pertaining to antisemitism and the Third Reich. Germany was an advanced bureaucracy; Germany kept its own records of its Holocaust. Were there anything in that history to be "revised" there would be equally overwhelming interest in disseminating that contrary version of events. But non-credible tales are simply dismissed. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are illustrating the very point I made further up this page.
 * The Holocaust cannot be be "a fact" because it is not one single event that is either true or false, like, say, "Did they really go to the moon?". It is complex collection of events, some well-verified, some less so and some not at all.
 * I was addressing Throwaway85 on a point he made. I expect he will engage constructively on it. Sorry if the "AV" upset you. I'll change it retrospectively, even though this is a Talk page. Channelwatcher (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does "AV" refer to "Authorised Version?" It doesn't "upset" me in the least bit. (You've altered your post after I responded to it.) That is part and parcel of what such revisionism is all about. The laws that are in place are to prevent people from coining fanciful language along the lines of "Authorised Version," designed to undermine the facts that are well-established about the Holocaust. The Holocaust is "a fact" — taken as a "single event" or a "collection of events." No law is necessary to facilitate truth. Truth is a natural longing of mankind. If the facts surrounding the Holocaust were false in any way, all the laws on the books could not prevent the truth about it from seeing the light of day. All that Holocaust deniers and Holocaust revisionists can do is insinuate and suggest. Those sorts of insinuations and suggestions are just a verbal attempt to inflict anguish on other people. Laws against Holocaust denial are an attempt to prevent verbal harassment. The laws have no bearing on research, which is the general means by which information is elucidated. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. I took out "Authorised Version " because I thought it offended you and I explained I was doing despite being against policy. Do you want me to put it back or not? Yes or No will do for an answer. I was expressing a reflection to Throwaway85 on what he wrote. Your trolling doesn't interest me. Channelwatcher (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:REDACTED presents a recommended way to make changes to a Talk page after someone has responded to your post. I didn't notice that you made that change until long afterward; that was an oversight on my part. Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe most laws against Holocaust/genocide denial are intended to discourage hatred of specific ethnic groups, and ultimately to prevent genocide. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I read in the PDF here that:


 * "In 1985, Holocaust denial was outlawed as an ‘insult’ to personal honor (i.e. an ‘insult’ to every Jew in Germany) and a penalty was set under the 1985 law of up to one year in prison or a fine."


 * The above would seem to suggest that at least in part the rationale behind the setting up of such laws is to protect people from speech that would be hurtful. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We are getting very OT here, if you look back at my first post in the thread. The issue is interesting and important but here is not the place. I'll look at the link on WP:REDACTED, and try to comply. I changed it because it upset someone and I was willing to acknowledge that it was rather silly and distracted from the question I wanted to put, as indeed it has, and that question has, I am afraid, got rather lost. Thanks for the advice.Channelwatcher (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it's an intellectual back and forth of the emotional idea that "Nazis are Nazis are Nazis! Holocaust Revision is Denial!!!!" And "Open-mindedness in all aspects should be endorsed, including about the Holocaust's Layout, Driving Force, and Numbers associated with...". I haven't seen any Neo-Nazi comments much to my happiness, so I'll leave you with one reference for a more Intellectual Holocaust Denial, admitingly somewhat biasedly written, which provides 19 References to their writting, which should give them some if not much credit, and maybe open up more to the Debatative Side of Holocaust History. Anyway, anyone aquianted with Solipsism and Nihilism know that untill we can prove that the World is Mind or Matter, we can't prove that any one thing happened, we can only argue with some Underlying assumptions and present them honestly. Untill we take this to the full level, then this article forever remains a case of Yellow Journalism to some extent...http://www.revisionists.com/revisionism.html24.154.20.241 (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)TakeAGuess

Laws against Holocaust denial in Slovakia
Hello, I found a mistake in the section dealing with laws against Holocaust denial regarding Slovak Republic. It is untrue that Holocaust denial was decriminalized in 2005; on the contrary, it became explicitly illegal, the penal code adopting the term "Holocaust", which previously was not present there. Also, in 2009 a rather perplexing amendment to the penal code was made. It made illegal denying any act regarded as genocide by any international criminal court (authority of which was approved by Slovak Republic).

But it is more complicated than that, because the denial has to either be associated with threatening an ethnic group, on which the genocide was purported or slandering of such group (this condition was not required before). Also, it made illegal "producing, spreading and retaining" (I am not quite sure what the official translation of the specific legal terms is, if any) "extremist materials" and one type of extremist material is a written document denying (or grossly minimising) acts I mentioned above.

I tried to change the text of the article in a way that would make it more accurate, but had to decline to some simplifications, otherwise the text would be hardly intelligible and utterly complicated; but probably other alterations will still be required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.62.240 (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) --89.173.62.240 (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ze'ev Tzahor
I deleted the following text: "In February 2010 Israeli historian Ze’ev Tzahor attributed operation of Auschwitz camp to Poles. It is one of the first incidents of Auschwitz lie in Israel itself." This text used the following link as a reference: There are a number of things wrong with this. First, the link goes to an op-ed by Tzahor himself, in which he puts part of the blame for Auschwitz on the Poles. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong to do this, it isn't Holocaust denial, and consequently shouldn't be in this article. Second, the statement that this is "one of the first incidents" in Israel is not supported in the reference. Third, the mere fact that this op-ed exists gives the reader no idea how much attention it has gotten, which brings up questions of WP:UNDUE. This is a core part of Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. It shouldn't be mentioned here unless some reliable, independent sources take notice of it, showing that it's notable. Please take all this into consideration and reply here before attempting to re-post this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The holocaust was project run by Nazi party. If somebody says Poles operated Auschwitz - the main place of holocaust, it is like saying there were no holocaust project by Nazis, but rather Polish holocaust, isn't it?
 * For example, in Sobibor leadership role was played by German SS, middlemen guard were Ukrainians and real job was performed by prisoners themselves. Nobody says, Sobibor was operated by Jews, equally nobody reasonable would say that Sobibor was operated by Ukrainians, because the idea and command was not coming from Ukrainian leaders.
 * Therefore I think every idea that Holocaust was not Nazi project i.e. ideas of Tzahor should be included in the Holocaust denial article. Cautious (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The source says part of the blame for Auschwitz in on the Poles. In what way is that denial? It's rather the opposite: it's saying yes, the Nazis were responsible, and the Poles share some of the responsibility. There's no denial there. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The guy said:"Speaking at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland, the greatest extermination facility in history, (...) and was operated by Poles...". It is clear that he denies the Nazi holocaust, because in German Nazi holocaust extermination camps were operated by member of German Nazi party. Maybe he believes in a holocaust, but not in that holocaust that really happenned. Am I right that he is the Holocaust deniar? If in 50 years somebody sais: "Holocaust? It was when Jews slaughtered Germans" wouldn't it be the holocaust denial? (As today when nobody in Europe knows who killed whom Hutu Tutsi or Tutsi Hutu) Cautious (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're reading an awful lot into a single sentence. Tzahor doesn't say that the Holocaust wasn't a Nazi project. What you're doing goes way past WP:OR. And you still haven't addressed the issue of whether his op-ed is significant enough to bear mention in this article. If no one else has seen it as worth commenting on, Wikipedia can't decide that it is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I should note that appears to have attempted to canvass me to this dispute on my talk, with the Polish "Potrzebuje poparcia", or "need help". That is quite unacceptable, and in violation of a rather significant behavioural guideline. — what a crazy random happenstance  14:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all canvassing is illegitimate. Which particular forms of inappropriate canvassing did  indulge in?  -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that Poles may be partly responsible for Auschwitz may be correct or incorrect, but it is no way Holocaust denial. In any event, the material was a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Good removal Steven.  The claim might be appropriate in Auschwitz, but not here. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Totally missing the point
Those who question the neutrality of this page totally miss the point of an academic approach. If most of the world (rightly or wrongly) think the Holocaust Deniers/Revisionists are mad or danegrous or not really historians (in the true sense) then that must be recorded. That is not being bias it is simply reflecting the widely held view. Indeed to make an article supposedly neutral by including other views (which are held by a minority) would not in fact be academic - sadly (like it or not) Holococaust Deniers/Revisionists are regarded as deluded by most: a true academic article would have to reflect this. I repeat - objectivity can sometimes result in a view one does not like (it happens to me in otherareas). Rather typically Wikipedia (or certain of its contributors/readers) confuse obhjectivity with putting their side of an argument. The next stage is to give equal weight to those who think Hitler was quite a nice guy - when (rightly or wrongly!) almost everyone thinks he was not. To spend half an article saying Hitler was misunderstood would not be unbiased or objective - it would be biased as it does not reflect historical views (nor indeed the reality). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.28.81 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone thinks the holocaust was bad. Hardly anyone thinks much else about it. I vote to reduce the Holocaust article to the single line entry: "It was bad." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust Revisionism
The FAQ here says that the "correct term" is "Holocaust Denial". Verified sources apparently back this up. Aren't there also sources to back up the fact that Holocaust revisionism can be referred to as "Holocaust Revisionism" rather than "Holocaust Denial"? This whole issue is similar to the idea that the correct terminology for an Asian is "gook", verified by the US Military and all its subsidiaries. Honestly what does it take Wikipedia?

For FAQ point #5: Wikipedia's own reasoning (that the "4 million" plaque at Auschwitz cannot be included in this article because no Historian ever used 4 million in any calculations) is irrelevant. If this "reasoning" were to be thoroughly applied, this whole article would not exist. Who says "historians" are the ones being "denied"? No, the denialists are denying information, regardless of who it comes from. And some fraudulent information was indeed being spread by the holocaust industry - a very prominent part of the holocaust industry - the Auschwitz museum (who apparently doesn't hire historians to get their data?) Was this whole scandal not an example of the success of the Holocaust denial movement?

It is easily verifiable that the "4 million plaque" was indeed a source of conjecture used for the purpose of Holocaust denial and this is all that matters. Realistically, a big section needs to be added to this article for the success had by the denial movement - the end of the lampshades and soap myth, the end of the plaque at Auschwitz, possibly more. Can someone agree write this in wiki speak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Bullshit. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would refer the editors of this diatribe to the bull page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacanorgan (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hidden message
Jayjg has restored the hidden message reading, "DO NOT CHANGE THIS NUMBER! five DO NOT CHANGE THIS NUMBER!". As I said when I removed it, I sympathise with the intent behind the message - certainly nothing in an article should be changed in a way that distorts its sources. But what the message does is to imply that the number could NEVER be changed, no matter what, regardless of what other sources might say, regardless of what might take place in the future, and regardless of what future sources as yet unwritten might say. That's contrary to how Wikipedia is supposed to work - there's nothing on this site that in principle could NEVER be changed. It's also authoritarian, and intimidating to editors, especially new ones. UserVOBO (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that the sources say "more than five", as does the article, but well-meaning editors just read the "five", and reflexively change it to six. This happens at least once a week, and it's rather tiresome to have to continually revert. "More than five" will always be correct - this number will, in fact never be changed. What suggestion do you have that would stop well-meaning editors from inappropriately changing it? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No one knows what will happen in the future. For all we know, Holocaust denial might eventually be officially redefined to mean denying that more than 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. It may not seem likely, but who knows? I don't think we should leave messages in articles implying that something will be absolutely beyond debate forever, no matter what happens - it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. UserVOBO (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're safe for at least the next decade in knowing that the definition will be "more than five". We can certainly re-visit this again in 2020. Meanwhile, I don't see any better solution to the problem. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that the message could be phrased more politely. It comes across as intimidating and authoritarian - explaining the reason for the current figure might be a better approach. UserVOBO (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What wording would you suggest? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest something like, "THIS FIGURE IS BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE SOURCES - PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE UNLESS NEWER SOURCES STATE OTHERWISE." Not necessarily that exactly - but something to that general effect. UserVOBO (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Gröning quote
As pointed out elsewhere, the Gröning quote is a falsification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.8.149 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See also link at the top
Any reason for that specific placement? As far as I know, no other article, about fringe theory or otherwise, does this set-up; additionally, the template used isn't supposed to be used at the top of the articles; it's supposed to be used at the top of article sections (it's an important, but admittedly pedantic, distinction). The inclusion of the link also creates an image of anti-denial bias because of the layman's definition of "criticism" (even though the criticism article is actually well-done, clinical and neutral). Given that the treatment of the subject is already neutral with or without the link, wouldn't it be better to move the link to another appropriate part of the article where it doesn't look out of place (for example, "examination of claims", which already has the link), or to replace the link with a sentence or two about the criticism in the lead section? I'd be willing to find an optimal version of the latter if everyone is agreeable to it. Sceptre (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How was the treatment of jews in the early stages of the holocaust, sepcifically in the ghetto's?
unfortunaltly, im confused on this topic, and would enjoy being told further information on there treatment, i know it was harsh, but i need further explaination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.37.78 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Laws
The article mentions that denying the Holocaust is illegal in various countries. Is it true that it is also illegal to deny WW2 in some countries--TimothyJacobson (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Deny WW2? As in, deny that WW2 ever happened? Seriously? I'm not sure there are countries that consider that to be illegal, but I'm pretty sure every country considers that to be a sign of complete insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A different/better intellectual point would be that acknowledging the Armenian Genocide is illegal in some countries, but I'm not sure the subject really belongs in the article. Perhaps a scholar has weighed in on the topic in a germane way. Ronabop (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable Sources"
Whether or not Holocauset denial is antisemitic is an opinion, not a fact, so it shouldn't have anything to do with how "reliable" the sources are. Almost everyone believes the Holocaust happened, many people think denying it is antisemitic, but I'd expect no one to question that its label as antisemitic as an opinion rather than a fact. Please find a better reason than "what reliable sources say" for labeling it as antisemitic.

Even if we can all agree it is antisemitic, there is still no need to stuff a enormous sidebar with an epic title "Antisemitism" big and bold. I mean, the "World War II series" side bar might be a bit less offensive and would achieve the purpose of a side bar a little more: side bars are used when you want to stay on a topic so you can check other parts of that topic easier, and Holocaust denial was a big propaganda influence of World War II. Not as much people will look as "Manifestations: Anti-globalization related · Arab/Christian · Islamic · Nation of Islam/New · Racial · Religious/Secondary · Academic · Worldwide/Incidents 2008–2009..." as the people who will look at "World War II series/ v • d • e /Precursors/Asian events · European events · Timeline..." after they read the page, and the purpose of a side bar is so that people can easily check the next topic they want to read, so the side bar should be change to the "World War II series". 66.183.59.211 (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)...
 * Holocaust denial is a widespread and prevalent form of antisemitism, as multiple reliable sources attest. The antisemitism sidebar is intended for the sides of articles exactly like this, and is intended to guide readers to other related phenomena. It is in no way "offensive", except, perhaps, to antisemites, and if it doesn't belong here, then where would it go? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Jayjg. With all due respect to the 2-edits-to-his-name IP from Vancouver.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "...where would it go?" As I have already mentioned (in "...so the side bar should be change to the "World War II series"."), it would belong in the "World War II series". Also, I did remember saying "Please find a better reason than "what reliable sources say" for labeling it as antisemitic." because "Whether or not Holocauset denial is antisemitic is an opinion, not a fact," and OPINIONS don't have anything to do with how "reliable" the sources are. Saying "Holocaust denial is a widespread and prevalent form of antisemitism, as multiple reliable sources attest." would be like saying |Blue is the best colour because multiple reliable sources say it is their favorite colour.| Look, I think Holocaust denial as antisemitic too, but adding a side bar of antisemitism would be like adding a side bar "Best colours"(not to be confused with a company name) in the page about the colour blue.  I like the colour blue, but I don't want the side bar "Best colours" in the page about the colour blue because I know it is just an opinion.  66.183.59.211 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)...
 * I think you misunderstand how content is chosen and reported in wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia. We report the best information based on reliable sources. To say "a better reason than what reliable sources say" is nonsensical, and entirely opposed to the mission of this site. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 23:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but reliable sources are meant for facts, not opinions. In fact, you got a good point. This is indeed an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are meant for facts not opinions, too, so Wikipedia shouldn't even be based opinions in order to be objective. We all know labeling Holocaust denial as antisemitic is an opinion. Reliable sources can support a opinion, but it is, neitherless, still an opinion, just like if all reliable sources say blue is their favorite colour, blue being the best colour is still, neitherless, an opinion, and |Blue is the best colour because multiple reliable sources say it is their favorite colour.| would still be absurd. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)...
 * You're still not understanding. We report what reliable sources say. We don't judge what the sources say, and pick and choose which ideas to represent. We simply report what is said. If that idea isn't appealing to you, then this isn't the project you should be working on. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 00:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial is a modern manifestation of antisemitism, per all reliable sources. It's not a World War II event. The relevant sidebar is the one on which you'll find the Holocaust denial article, the antisemitism sidebar. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So if reliable sources give opinions you will treat those opinions as facts right? Well, then doesn't that mean if too many reliable sources say blue is their favorite colour, than you will add in an ""encyclopedia"" that blue is the best colour and make no distinguishment that it is an opinion? Yes? No? Honestly I've never seen an encyclopedia that says blue is the best colour without mentioning it is an opinion.  Oh, and by the way, I just checked the word "rely" in reliable on dictionary.com.  "to depend confidently; put trust in" only facts have the problem of trust in them, because they might be false, opinions cannot be true or false, there is no such thing as trusting an opinion, and opinions cannot be reliable.  Look, I understand why you do not totally agree with me.  Your making a good judgement after reading many reliable sources, and I'm telling you it is subjective, a word which unfortunately has a bad reputation.  You probably believe that is an insult because "subjective" is such an ugly word, but I didn't mean there was anything wrong with saying Holocaust denial was antisemitic, I just couldn't find a better way to say it. But keep in mind, MANY good judgements, if not all, are subjective and there is absolutely nothing wrong with listening to subjective infromation in reliable sources.  You can always write those subjective infromation in other places, but some people don't think it fits perfectly in encyclopedias without mentioning that it is an opinion.  If you believe it does fit even when not mentioning it is an opinion, we wont be able be have much discussion, and I'll just do something else instead of wasting my time in a single page of a huge pile of pages.  66.183.59.211 (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the consensus view of reliable sources that "blue is the best color". That Holocaust denial is a common manifestation of antisemitism is not just a "subjective opinion", but rather the consensus view of reliable sources. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For consensus, dictionary.com says: "majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month." Do you see the word opinion in there? And also, although "blue is the best colour" is not the consensus view, if we pretend there is a man named Bill that most people think is stupid, the consensus view is that he is stupid but an encyclopedia would not say "Bill is stupid", but rather, "most people think Bill is stupid" and Wikipedia definitely would not have a side bar "Stupidity" in a page about him.  66.183.59.211 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)...
 * Yeah, good, IP. I think you're starting to catch on. So, tell me, if you understand the meaning of the sentence The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. tell me if you can understand this sentence. The consensus of the editors was that the "Antisemitism" sidebar should remain in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven J. Anderson‎ (talk • contribs)
 * I understand, and I knew this to begin with. I wouldn't have said it didn't belong there if it wasn't there in the first place.  And I reasoned it was very likely "The consensus of the editors was that the "Antisemitism" sidebar should remain in the article." too.  But just because the consensus was like that to begin with doesn't mean people shouldn't question it, if consensuses are never changed we would still be in the stone age.  Please use other reasons than |we though that way in the first place so we should still think that way.|  I think the consensus decision should be the one we ACT upon even if there are no reason for it, but that people should stop AGREEING with it, if there is no reason, to stop it from being a consensus.  I did not act againat the consensus decision (as you can see I left the side bar alone), I just tried to talk people to stop it from being the consensus because I do not see it as logical. Back to point: if we pretend there is a man named Bill that most people think is stupid, the consensus view is that he is stupid but an encyclopedia would not say "Bill is stupid", but rather, "most people think Bill is stupid" and Wikipedia definitely would not have a side bar "Stupidity" in a page about him.  Same applies to Holocaust deniers being antisemitic.  66.183.59.211:Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources indicating that Holocaust denial is not a common manifestation of antisemitism? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources indicating that Holocaust denial being antisemitic is NOT an opinion of any sort, but rather a fact? Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between "factual" antisemitism and "opinion" antisemitism? Also, as many reliable sources state that Holocaust denial is a common manifestation of antisemitism, it is you who need to find counter-sources. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Facts are statements, that everyone will agree with if they are given all the evidence, such as "one plus one is two," and opinions are statements, that many people will disagree upon even if they are given all the evidence such as "that is an easy question." As I have already explained, reliability is only a property of facts, not opinions.  Also, if we pretend there is a man named Bill that most people think is stupid, and Wikipedia has a side bar "Stupidity" in a page about him, I don't think if someone complained a reply to the person would be |as many reliable sources state that Bill is a common representation of stupidity, it is you who need to find counter-sources|.  Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But we're not pretending any of that, nor would we. Absurd examples lead to false conclusions. This article provides the consensus view of reliable sources; if you disagree, you need to find reliable sources that contradict that consensus. Please review WP:V. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't take the examples too literal; the only point the examples focus on the the fact it is an opinion and the fact it is in an encyclopedia disguised as a fact. But if you disagree with the examples, you can see my point even without the examples: "Facts are statements, that everyone will agree with if they are given all the evidence, and opinions are statements, that many people will disagree upon even if they are given all the evidence such as.  As I have already explained, reliability (and  verifiability for the same reasons) is only a property of facts, not opinions."  Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, please review WP:V, which may not say what you think it does. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To make sure I didn't miss anything, I used the find tool. I still didn't see where it said you can post opinions from reliable sources without mentioning they are just opinions. In fact it rarely mentioned how to deal with opinion much, aside from the demand quotations must be used. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this topic under anti-semitism? Having a different view of the holocaust, or interpretation of the "historical" documents used to quantify the extent holocaust is not racist i.e. anti-semitic. The opening paragraph should clearly state that holocaust deniers are not necessarily anti-semitic so should not be confused with a racist belief system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahica (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review the sources in the article on this topic. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The probable reason my opinion and the major opinion (some people don't even know it is an opinion) is that the Holocaust denial is antisemitic is not because all Holocaust deniers are antisemitic, but because virtually all antisemitics are Holocaust deniers. Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? That's the first time I've heard that suggested. Got a source? --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What other suggestions have you heard about this? Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board or debating forum. What we're looking for are reliable sources, that's all. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any reliable sources for "It's not relevant"? No? Is it because talk pages don't need sources? 66.183.59.211 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although this has already gone past being an argumentum ad nauseum I'll point out that the sentence in question reads like this. "Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory." I think the phrase "generally considered" more than satisfies any reasonable desire to characterize this as an opinion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides which, Wikipedia does report opinions; always has. The fact is that opinions exist, and we report that the opinions exist; and when they're sufficiently widely held, we report them in the introduction in the article. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand we need opinions, but opinions need to be highlighted as opinions, and that has not been done with the side bar. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The sidebar is part of the article and is supported and justified by the cited article content; the two are not separate entities. EyeSerene talk 10:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The sidebar about stupidity is part of the article about Bill and is supported and justified by the cited article content; the two are not separate entities. Unfortunately that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with putting the stupidity sidebar in the imaginary page about the imaginary person Bill. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been asked this before; what's the difference between "opinions" of antisemitism and "facts" of antisemitism? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... and I answered this before too. Remember: Facts are statements, that everyone will agree with if they are given all the evidence, such as "one plus one is two," and opinions are statements, that many people will disagree upon even if they are given all the evidence such as "that is an easy question." 66.183.59.211 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, this isn't the place for a discussion about epistemology, or philosophy, or semantics, or however you'd classify whatever's going on here. The fact is that we have an overwhelming number of sources which group holocaust denial in with antisemitism. That warrants inclusion of the sidebar. If there are problems with that, then you'd have to find reliable sources to demonstrate that there's a legitimate field of historical revisionism about world war II that is not antisemitic, and that it's large enough to warrant exclusion of the sidebar. With no reliable sources, you have no case. <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 02:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally considered is a bit of an over the top generalization. Of course there are some rather loud voices that do label Holocaust revisionism "antisemitic" and it is obvious to the critical observer that this is done to avoid an open debate on the issue of the Holocaust by assigning negative roles in that debate to be. --41.14.24.36 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For that assertion to be considered, you need reliable sources. Thanks <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 20:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read everything here before replying about it: First of all this is about Holocaust denial in general, not just "group holocaust denial." Second, I never said Holocaust denial was not antisemitic, I only said it was just an opinion.  Third, I have explained many, many times that relibility is only a property of facts and not opinions, because relibility is only about truth and false, which are absent in opinions.  Just to repeat everything incase they were ignored, facts are statements, that everyone will agree with if they are given all the evidence, such as "one plus one is two," and opinions are statements, that many people will disagree upon even if they are given all the evidence such as "that is an easy question."  And side bars are used when you want to stay on a topic so you can check other parts of that topic easier, and Holocaust denial was a big propaganda influence of World War II.  Not as much people will look as "Manifestations: Anti-globalization related · Arab/Christian · Islamic · Nation of Islam/New · Racial · Religious/Secondary · Academic · Worldwide/Incidents 2008–2009..." as the people who will look at "World War II series/ v • d • e /Precursors/Asian events · European events · Timeline..." after they read the page, and the purpose of a side bar is so that people can easily check the next topic they want to read, so the side bar should be change to the "World War II series".  Remember: that I said the sidebar about stupidity is part of the article about Bill and is supported and justified by the cited article content; the two are not separate entities.  Unfortunately that doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with putting the stupidity sidebar in the imaginary page about the imaginary person Bill.  Also another question: what does anyone lose when the side bar is removed? 66.183.59.211 (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Holocaust denial is classic form of modern antisemitism, as attested by multiple reliable sources, and has little to do with World War II - it certainly wasn't a "big propaganda influence of World War II". People reading articles about antisemitism are generally interested in other forms of antisemitism, not in mostly unrelated military events. Please stop making disingenuous comments, it's getting disruptive. Also, please find reliable sources, or move on. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A) What does anyone lose if the sidebar is removed? The sidebar is an aid to navigation. It's there to provide a helpful easy way to find article on topics. If it were removed, the reader would lose that help.
 * B) Your long-winded, absurd, nonsensical rants on this talk page, on the other hand are of no use to anyone. You've gone on at ridiculous length about how (in your fantasy life) the presence of the sidebar is "offensive" and led us through a pointless, off-topic, abstruse treatise on the difference between facts and opinions. The presence of the sidebar says exactly nothing about whether the link between Holocaust denial and antisemitism is a fact or an opinion. It's simply meant to show the reader some other articles on related topics.
 * C) This is the point (actually a couple of weeks ago was the point but I'm very tolerant) where a rational person in your position would realize that your point of view on the matter enjoys no support from other editors and it's time to stop beating this particular dead horse. Please show us that you have that much sense. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean please find reliable sources about opinions? Tell me how it is possible for a opinion to be reliable first. And to "Steven J. Anderson" you might want to wait a little longer after you drink a 5 bottles of beer before you rant on wikipedia so it'll atleast we can all know your comment was made by a human being. If you don't want to talk to me, don't add to this discussion I started.Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, this is an obviously biased text. An encyclopedia entry should have a correct and neutral language, no matter what the topic. I tried to remove the worst of it but it will need additional corrections. Here are my corrections with explanations: 1. "The Six Million Swindle, is informative because it implies on its very own the existence of a conspiracy of Jews to perpetrate a hoax against non-Jews for monetary gain." Several causes cited in the sources used, not only monetary. 2. According to the Holocaust deniers, by forging evidence and mounting a massive propaganda effort, the Jews have established their lies as ‘truth’ Most deniers blame jewish groups but few blame the group as a whole. All participants are jews, but not all jews are participants. 3. Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic Even if it is obvious that this view is sometimes the case, wording it "generally considered" is too much. For example, others just think it is stupid. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources,Academic consensus 4. "With the main features of the Holocaust clearly visible to all but the willfully blind, historians have turned their attention to aspects of the story for which the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. These are not minor matters by any means, but turn on such issues as Hitler's role in the event, Jewish responses to persecution, and reactions by onlookers both inside and outside Nazi-controlled Europe." This quote is clearly POV and out of place in a dictionary. A more neutral wording would be much preferable, but the quote is in addition completely unnecessary for the flow of the text (which is anyhow too long). 5. "Numerous accounts have been given by Holocaust deniers (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed "facts" and "evidence"; however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, or even deliberately falsified evidence." This claim is duplicated in the next sentence, but much less ambiguously. Clearly the statement above gives the impression that everything the Holocaust deniers are saying is wrong, which is absurd. Some of that which they say is correct, other things are fraudulent. This is unnecessary, as the next sentence in the text states it more clearly. 6. "Historians have documented evidence ..." Either not specific enough or falls under Academic Consensus policy. The only source given is Arad, who in his article clearly states that he relies on all the available witnesses, as doucmentary evidence was destroyed. 7. "After World War II, many of the former leaders of the SS left Germany and began using their propaganda skills to defend their actions (or, their critics contended, to rewrite history)." Really, do all SS officers have training in propaganda? 8. "Taking aim at Israel as a political enemy, since the 1960s, the Soviet Union promoted the allegation of secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist leaders." Source? Doubt there is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AltCons (talk • contribs) 17:18, July 12, 2010
 * AltCons, you claim to know a lot about Wikipedia policies for someone who's only made four edits. Have you ever used another account? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, to attempt and turn over the never-ending discussion of the sidebar, I urge editors to stop making pointless remarks about people commenting with IP addresses and not usernames, and not having many edits. Whether or not people have a Wikipedia account or has made few edits does not say anything about their competences as editors whatsoever.

That being said, to Evrythn1outof8infity et al, the the very core of this debate is the issue about reliable sources. No matter what argument against the content of this article be put forth, it will always be reversible due to the argument about lack of reliable sources of the given statement. This has left this particular article and many like this literally inalterable. Reliable sources are made reliable at Wikipedia based on mutual consensus, and thus articles arguing against anything that is considered a reliable source will never be considered a reliable source - thus creating an infinite loop of discussions on this discussion page and many like it. I see this as a general problem about Wikipedia, so I advice everybody who has opinions against the contents of this article to take that into consideration and ponder if you need to aim your discontent at the right problem.

Has anybody got an example of a source arguing against reliable sources ever being accepted as a reliable source in the history of Wikipedia?

Just my five cents, --Kotu Kubin (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd bother to read what I wrote, you'd notice that I didn't say anything about anyone commenting from an IP address. Likewise, I didn't imply a lack of "competences" (sic) on anyone's part. I specifically asked if AltCons had ever used another account because I was surprised to see an account with only four edits citing policy as competently as he was. I'd say your five cents are worth every penny. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So what did you mean by the comment that is starting "Yeah, good, IP. I think you're starting to catch on."? Finally, I was under the impression that discussions were to be kept on topic, so why were you asking a user that sort of question in here? Ultimately my comment was not directed to you personally, but merely an attempt to seek a solution to these endless discussions about the same thing going on here for as many years as I have followed this discussion page. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if he'd used a nick, I'd have said "Yeah, good, (nick)", but since he used an IP, I said "good, IP". Nothing in that implies that IPs have less right to edit or comment. However, I agree that it's time for this endless, pointless thread to end. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion may end once the main editors either read the points on both sides and state a reasonable and uncounterable reason they disagree or agree, or just admit they don't want to think about the points. If none of these happen, there is no reason to end this discussion as no one is actually forced to discuss and anyone who believes it is not worth the time can ignore this discussion without any problem. This discussion does not harm anyone (I hope) since only people who choose to discuss are here. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a talk page is to discuss the improvementS of an article or to get a consensus for a point under diispute. Your arguments have been read by several contributors and none of them gas agreed this would improve the article or has agreed on the statement that holocaust denial was antisemitic was an opinion rather than a fact.  Continuing this discussion beyond that point is turning this talk pag into an internet forum, which is not its purpose.  Therefore it is now time to put an end to this rant.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the only one here who said Holocaust denial being antisemitic is a fact rather than a opinion. Did you even read the description of a opinion and a fact? A fact is statement everyone can agree with when given all the infromation, and a opinion is a statement people will contine to disagree upon even when given all the infromation. I highly doubt everyone will agree on whether or not the Holocaust was antisemitic when given all the infromation. Also, if you believe this is just a rant rather than a purposeful discussion, why are you talking here? 66.183.59.211 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll say it too. Holocaust denial being antisemitic is a fact, inasmuch as the description of any human psychological abnormality can be a fact as opposed to a scientific opinion resulting from detailed analysis. Your definition of a "fact" is nonsense; people disagree everyday on the scientifically proven fact of evolution, but that doesn't make it any less a fact. At this point, you're (a) repeating yourself, (b) wasting our time, (c) wasting your own time, and (d) verging on tendentious editing; this discussion is going nowhere. The likelihood of you're gaining consensus to remove the antisemitism infobox from this article is nil. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. All the Belgian courts 	are sentencing the holocaut deniers for incitement to racial hattred. It is one of the best example Holocaust denial is NOT an opinion. Pierre Vidal-Naquet or René Girard have shown the Holcaust denial is firstly in the genocide itself when the genociders (every genociders) are denying they are making a genocide. So, it is a fact that all the Holocaust deniers are antisemitic. José Fontaine (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Some Holocaust deniers are antisemitic. Some Holocaust deniers are being duped by antisemites. Some Holocaust deniers are simply trolls or contrarian fools. Holocaust denial, on the other hand, is antisemitic. I'm willing to allow for the possibility that someone expressing Holocaust denial is just an ignorant idiot who can be educated. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Holocaust denial is antisemitic, but not every Holocaust deniers. It is possible that Léon Degrelle was not antisemitic (Nethertheless I am not sure, I simply don't hear something so in his speeches, but, I repeat, I am not sure...), but it is likely a racist and certainly a nazi. And he is certainly an Holocaust denier who finally knew what he was doing. I met a man (over a Forum I manage), who was really conviced that Holocaust denial was merely an opinion. He was not antisemitic. But, on the other hand, you have also the responsibility to know what you are doing. You may  violate the laws without sincerely  knowing them.  I think  in the USA Holocaust denial is not against the laws (against the moral law, certainly). On the other hand everymen ought to think. I am a teatcher. I have in front of me students from Rwanda. If I say the genocide in their country  didn't happen, I abuse them and everymen are able to become aware of the consequences of what he is saying (or denying) in such circunstances. You also ought to avoid to be duped, in other words. When you are seeing the people of the page Lynching, you may see  some people are thinking that lynching is just. But they ought to think and that  happened. This page is very interesting (see the photo with a lynch in Marion above).  For this page I don't know if it is necessary to  write that some Holocaust deniers are not antisemitic. Excepted if we have verifiable sources. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)