Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 2

What is Holocaust Denial?
Can anyone define exactly what it is? How does it differ from "Holocaust Revisionism"? Are there any groups which promote "Holocaust Denial" (as opposed to "Holocaust Revisionism")? Are there any individuals who claim to be a "Holocaust Denier"? Or is it just that other people call Holocause Deniers "Holocaust Deniers", and Holocaust Deniers call themselves "Holocaust Revisionists"? If these are just two different names for the same phenomenon, then only one article is required, and it should explain the differences in nomenclature. Jayjg |  (Talk)  16:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no question that "deniers" call themselves revisionists. Most of these are, more likely than not, neo-nazi anti-semites. Real & serious revisionism and revisionists (such as frenchman Paul Rassinier, who was a concentration camp inmate and a socialist, certainly no fan of Hitler's) should be distinguished from the neo-nazi rabble. BSveen 00:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * O.K., how do we distinguish between a "serious" revisionist and a denier? Do they have different qualifications? How do their views differ?  By the way, disliking Hitler doesn't mean you like Jews. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  16:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * All Islamists call themselves Muslims. And despite this fact, we have seperate articles on Islamism and Islam. Why, then, shouldn't we have seperate articles for Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionsim (two seperate things by my reckoning) simply because deniers call themselevs revisionists? BSveen 00:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Islam is a religion, Islamism is a political orientation based on a specific conservative religious view of Muslim fundamentalism. Indeed, what you have described is more akin to the difference between Historical revisionism, which is an approach to historical research, and Holocaust Revisionism, which is a political and sociological movement aimed at "proving" that the Holocaust did not happen.  And since you reckon Holocaust Denial and Holocaust Revisionism are different things, I'd still like to hear what the significant differences are, and which groups promote the former rather than the latter. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  16:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Holocaust revisionism actually can be "historical revisionism based on an approach to historical research". I think you are making a mistake by lumping all revisionism and all revisionists with a few fringe nutcases. This is like a King in Europe hundreds of years ago throwing out all scientific research because a few loony-toon alchemists were trying to turn stone into gold, which is obviously impossible. Should the King of England have stopped Newton from his research because some other "scientists" were busy trying to turn stone into gold? Should we throw away all serious revisionism because a few idiots want to apologize for Hitler? BSveen 23:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * What you call "a few fringe nutcases" I see as being the entire movement. I have yet to be shown the "serious" revisionist you imagine exists; in fact, the most serious historian of the "Holocaust Revisionist" lot, David Irving, was indeed an apologist for Hitler, even wrote a huge book defending him, and was found by a British court to be, in fact, a Holocaust Denier. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that we need to have some mathematical equation that seperates Revisionism from Denial. We do not have any set-in-stone criteria that seperates Islamism from Islam and yet we have an Islamism article. Actually, I would imagine that some Islamist could make the same argument against starting an article titled "Islamism" that you are currently making against the revisionism article. He might say "How does one seperate Islamism from Islam? Give me solid criteria or you cannot make this article."


 * I hope that we can reach some consensus here. BSveen 23:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I haven't asked for a mathematical equation, I've simply asked for some way of differentiating, such that you can point to specific groups and say "these are Holocaust Deniers", while other groups you can say "these are Holocaust Revisionists". If there are going to be separate articles on the two, then there must be some way of differentating them, don't you think?  I believe I've asked this question at least a half dozen times on this pages in the past couple of days, and as yet, have not seen even an attempt at an answer. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  23:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There does not need to be an answer to this strawman question, because they really are two seperate things: Rassinier as I understand it was not a Hitler-apologist, he was a serious revisionist simply in search of the truth; others that you may point out are indeed just Hitler-apologists. If you genuinely cannot see the difference between the two, well that surprises me (although it's possible that you have a very staunch POV on the matter and you can see the difference, but you are merely trying to discredit the good side by lumping it together with the lunatic side.)


 * You should at least hear this out and allow the relevant article to be written instead of trying to silence it. Of course, even if the article were written it probably wouldn't go anywhere because of fanatical POV warriors on both sides! But we have plenty of other articles like that already. If you refuse to hear this out, well then I suppose I can't do anything about it, but I think you are making a mistake by forcing your own POV through. BSveen 23:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * To begin with, proposed re-writes of articles on controversial topics are usually written in a User space, and then, when agreed to, transferred to Wikipedia. Next, it's not a strawman argument; "Holocaust Revisionism" is a euphemism, no more. Your response is merely an attempt to avoid the question. If you can't define the difference between "Revisionism" and "Denial", if you can't point to any groups which promote the latter ideology, then there is no point in writing an article on them, is there?  As for Rassinier, he minimized the numbers of Jews killed, denied there were gassings, denied there was a Nazi policy of genocide.  He said the Holocaust had been invented by Jews to swindle Germany out of money and increase support for Israel.  His evidence for there being no gas chambers was that he didn't see any, which was true, since he was in Buchenwald, which had no gas chambers. He was an apologist for the Nazis, saying it was the camp inmates who killed everyone, not the Nazis. In what way do his views differ from other Holocaust Deniers? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  00:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi BSveen, I think Jayjg is making a fair point here and his question is valid. Can you name a group of historians (academic, or in some other way serious, historians; not self-styled), who are regarded by other historians as Holocaust revisionists, but who are not regarded as Holocaust deniers? And, if so, can you provide a citation? Slim 01:05, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think one might call Ward Churchill a holocaust revisionist. His revisions are to contest the emphasis on Jewish victims, which he calls "Jewish exclusiveness" (I think). He notes that some Jewish and other writers on the Holocaust minimize other victims such as the Roma and Sinti (Gypsies) and deny that the use of the word holocaust and genocide could be applied to Native Americans. He is certainly not a holocaust denier, more of an expander of the concept. Fred Bauder 17:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a cite for Ward Churchill's version of holocaust revisionism: http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm Fred Bauder 17:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call Churchill an academic historian, Fred. And below is his comment on September 11. SlimVirgin 21:13, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * "As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire &#8211; the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved &#8211; and they did so both willingly and knowingly."


 * The mere fact that you disagree with the man's politics does not make him any less academic. His claim that WTC victims were at the heart of the American financial machine is correct.  He believes this makes them morally reasonable targets in war.  You disagree.  But your disagreement with the validity of Churchill's definition of innocence is a matter entirely removed from his academic status. 10:15 AM June 1, 2005


 * Fred, I think the question here is still unanswered. There are plenty of people who claim to be "Holocaust Revisionists", and they are very clear to distinguish themselves from "Holocaust Deniers".  But who are the people who claim to be "Holocaust Deniers"?  What are their beliefs?  How do they differ from "Holocaust Revisionists?"  I'm still waiting for the name of one of the "Holocaust Denier" groups, and a link to their website, so I can examine their beliefs and see how they compare and contrast with those of "Holocaust Revisionists".  I'm not the first to pose this challenge on this Talk: page, and two years later it is still unanswered. Jayjg (talk)  23:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The difference between holocaust revisionists and holocaust deniers is nonexistant--one term is the one used by those who are against them to describe them, the other is the one used by themselves and those who are neutral. MeanMrMustard


 * Encyclopedia's serve the public as a NEUTRAL source of information. There is indeed a large difference between holocaust deniers and revisionists. Revisisionists claim that the holocaust is exagerated (hence, revisionist; it needs to be revised). Not only is historical revision in ANY case necessary, it is required for society to increase the accuracy at which it presents past occurances. Holocaust deniers believe the holocaust never happened. This is quite different from revisionists. Hence, this site must, if it wishes to maintain its credibility, create an article for revisionism, and keep one for denial. When making such decisions, it is important for neither side to inject personal feeling or emotion into the discussion. If anything it shows that wikipedia is unwilling to be historically accurate and unbiased.

- Daniel Jose


 * Holocaust denial has become a legally defined term. You can look up its definition by looking at the criminal statutes and the resulting criminal prosecutions.  It is "holocaust revisionism" that is obviously distinguished from "holocaust denial" by the legislative bodies and the courts.  Jim Bowery 23:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

New question
New Question When I was at school we were taught that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews, including 4 million at Auschwitz. In the early 1990's Lech Walesa, the Polish Prime Minister, had this figured lowered to 1.5 million and the memorial at Auschwitz was altered accordingly.

Does this mean that the total figure of 6 million murdered Jewish people should likewise be reduced to 3.5 million, or would this be an act of holocaust revisionism/denial?


 * This issue is examined in the companion article, Holocaust denial examined. Quoting the article:


 * "A much-quoted instance of disputing the toll is the "Breitbard Document," (actually a paper by Aaron Brietbart) [2] (http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/education/revision/) which describes a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there, which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning. The lower numbers are due to the fact that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau," according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Holocaust Deniers seize on this discrepancy and insist that the number of Jews killed must be immediately brought down at least 2.5 million. However, they ignore the facts that


 * the 4 million figure of the Soviets included almost 2 million non-Jews, and
 * historians in any event did not use the 4 million figure in calculating the total number of Jews killed."


 * --Modemac 17:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Do you know which 'ratio' this statement refers to please? "In a clever attempt to disguise the subterfuge, the figures for Jewish losses were inflated by nearly double, so that their losses would still be larger than those of non-Jewish victims, though now by a much smaller ratio."


 * It works like this: Say, for the sake of simplicity, that 2 million Jews and 100,000 other Poles were killed at Auschwitz. With this 20:1 ratio, it's clear that Auschwitz was primarily about the Jews. Now say that the Polish government felt the need to diminish the the primarily Jewish aspect of the what happened at Auschwitz. They did this by inflating the numbers of non-Jews killed there, to (say) 1.8 million. Then the ratio of Jews to non-Jews is just 20:18, and thus Auschwitz is more generally of Polish concern. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's more like this: Say, for the sake of simplicity, that 1 million Jews and 100,000 other Poles were killed at Auschwitz. With this 10:1 ratio, it's clear that Auschwitz was primarily about the Jews. Now say that the Polish government felt the need to diminish the the primarily Jewish aspect of the what happened at Auschwitz, and increase the significance to Poles. They did this by inflating the numbers of non-Jews killed there, to (say) 1.8 million, and then increasing the number of Jews to 2 million, so Jews would still be the slight majority. Then the ratio of Jews to non-Jews is just 20:18, and thus Auschwitz is more generally of Polish concern, particularly as 1.8 million (not 100,000) non-Jewish Poles are now claimed to have been killed there. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - did the Polish government acknowledge (eg, in press-releases) that the Auschwitz memorial was being revised to reflect a lower non-Jewish death toll? If not neo-nazis could still play on these figures.


 * They play on those figures anyways, regardless of what any government or authority says. Not that it really matters; it's been shown that most of the arguments presented in favor of Holocaust revisionism or denials are lies, hot air, and racist sentiments, so we can expect many misstatements and outright falsehoods from that camp anyway.--Modemac 12:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modemac - I've had a chance to track down a relevant article now. According a report entitled 'Auswitz deaths reduced to a million' on page 10 of 'The Daily Telegraph' (UK) 17 July 1990 the Polish government acknowledged that it was the non-Jewish death toll that was being reduced. It quotes these fatality figures: Jews: 960,000, Poles: 70-75,000, Gypsies: 23,000 and Soviet POWs 15,000.

My only other issue with your link is its claim of 'the uniqueness of Jewish suffering at Auschwitz'. I think the figures in the above article would support me on this.

holocaust denial law

 * Holocaust denial is a per se criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences.

I'd appreciate a source for this assertion. I have sources for Austria, France, Germany, Israel, and Lithuania but not Belgium, Czech Rep., Poland, or Switzerland. Also, the article should be updated to include Slovakia: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1107864138211

Edit: never mind, I've confirmed all the rest via Google. I'll edit Slovakia into the paragraph myself. Viva la free speech!

--

Don't you just find it strange that this holocaust, out of the many (some of which are larger and more brutal than the 1940's holocaust)is the only holocaust which you cannot question... :) Not that I fully deny the holocaust (there certainly were a couple of hundred thousand people killed), but its scale, I do deny.

Has anyone ever questioned any of the other genocides?

why the hell would they try and silence demial maybee it's true that no one was killed at those camps why give a person a fine because they are expressing their ideas of the matter don't fine them if people were killed at those camps don't fine people just point at them and say they're crazy Dudtz 7/30/05 12:50 PM EST


 * Here's the thing about "Holocaust denial": Over a hundred movies with the Holocaust as a central theme have been made.  To my knowledge there has been one movie made about the Holodomor which killed more Ukranians than were Jews killed by the Holocaust but let's say they killed the same number of each nationality just to be ultra philo-semitic:  The conclusion is that by virtue of their disproportinate influence on the media Jews have succeeded in Holodomor denial by malign neglect. Jim Bowery 23:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems like the Holocaust is used as a moral tool moreso than a depiction of history. It serves the agenda that apathy kills (which of course justifies, for example, USA's current foreign policies). I think that "revisionists" or "deniers", or however we choose to call them, will never have a chance to expose errors or overturn facts (if in fact the truth about history calls for it, a fact which I haven't been swayed to), since the Holocaust's role as moral tool is served best with the violent depictions and horrific figures we are subjected to in school. It's easy to label all "revisionists" as anti-semetic, neo-nazi, etc, and therefore undermine any legitamacy in their work. It's no different than labelling intelligent design as a neo-Creationist Christian movement... just because its propents are Christian, does it mean they have nothing scientific to contribute? I suppose this opens up a completely new can of worms but I hope I'm getting my point across...--Graatz 12:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, Graatz, scientists are adopting the tactics of opponent of holocaust denial by refusing to debate advocates of creationism. The argument is that by debating these people you give them legitimacy, which is what they most want, and in the case of intelligent design, which they would argue has nothing to contribute to science and will only undermine legitimate science giving legitimacy to proponent of ID is a very negative thing. GabrielF 13:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrailty
I don't think anyone can seriously make the claim that this article is neutral. Someone who has no idea about what denial/revisionism is who reads this article will certainly come away thinking these guys are a bunch of racist whackos. Whether or not that is true, it's unfair for an encyclopedia article to do this (and there certainly are plenty of revisionists who are not national socialists, in fact, there are many who are jews. Dr. Robert Faurisson is a revisionist and a french resitance fighter who himself was interned in a concentration camp. Joseph Ginzburg is a jewish revisionist. This article gives the clear impression that all revisionists are KKK skinheads). People say that revisionism is a euphemism for denial, but it's clearly quite the opposite. Many Holocaust revisionists do not "deny" that certain parts of what is referred to as the Holocaust occured. (such as the field shootings by the Einstatzgruppen) but that our understanding of other events were incorrect (i.e. gas chambers were used in very rare and isolated conditions for specific dissidents, not genocides). Of course, many revisionists "deny" the what some would consider "the whole thing" altogether. Regardless, the term revisionism is completely neutral while "denier" carries a strong anti-revisionist connotation.

The fact that a user who searches for "revisionism" is automatically directed to "denial" is ridiculous. It's like someone who searched for "conservative" is directed to "reactionary" or "liberal" to "radical." You can't use the terms that critics use to describe their ideological enemies without sacrificing neutrality. Neutrality is only possible if we use the terms people use to describe themselves, as much as we might hate it. We don't ridirect people who search for Holocaust to "The Jewish Myth," so too we shouldn't riderect those who search for revisionism to "denial," a term used exclusively by those who are against the idea.

This whole article is so loaded against the revisionists that it is almost impossible to correct it without scrapping the whole thing. Further, this whole issue is so filled with emotional investment, so I propose a new article called Holocaust revisionism that is more sympathetic to the idea be started. We have an article that refutes revisionism but no article that presents evidence against the Holocaust occuring. (and whether or not it actually proves anything, there IS plenty of real evidence. There are plenty of people who would be willing to work on such an article. You might say "opinionated" or "not entirely factual" but the same thing can be said about this article--it's just a matter of who's "facts" you buy into. Just because "more experts" beleive one way or another doesn't mean that we should be unfair. MeanMrMustard

So then if you arguing that there are differences between "revisionists" and deniers why do you contend that Ernst Zundel is a "revisionist" when he denies the Holocaust outright? Methinks you're playing semantic games in an attempt to promote a "politically correct" euphemism over a more accurate term. Denial is any attempt to deny or minimize all or part of the Holocaust. "Revisionism" is a term of obfuscation AndyL 21:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. There is no-one who calls himself a "Holocaust Denier"; rather, they call themselves "Holocaust Revisionists" in order to give themselves the veneer of respectability of Historical Revisionists, and play semantic games about not really "denying" the Holocaust, just all of its salient features.  However, the rest of the world calls them Holocaust Deniers.  Jayjg (talk)  03:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where I contended that Zundel was a denier and not a revisionist, and either way, it doesn't make much of a difference. The line isn't very clear between a denier and a revisionist, maybe there isn't one. But to employ the term denial is an admission that you are taking a side on the matter, and when that is coupled with the rest of the unfairness of the article (which you have no adressed), produces a bias that should not exist in an encyclopedia article. Just because you don't agree with revisionism or the mainstream doesn't agree with it doesn't mean it can be treated as a neo-nazi joke or crazy conspiracy theory--which you would know it wasn't if you actually took the time to read some revisionist material or look at who the revisionists themselves are. |MeanMrMustard
 * But it is, indeed, a neo-nazi crazy conspiracy theory -- and most holocaust deniers are the worst sort of pseudo-historians, pseudo-scholars, anti-semites, and outright loons. Yes, holocaust deniers are given short shrift here, as are flat earthers, moon landing hoaxists, promoters of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Nazi apologists, NAMBLA, LaRouchites...Maintaining a neutral point of view does not mean accepting the garbage spewed by every fringe group. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I know just me saying this won't convince you of anything, but your characterization of Holocaust revisionism is incorrect and based on ignorance. You should check out what some of these guys are saying for yourselves. I doubt you will be convinced "it never happened" but the overwhelming ammount of real evidence they have should make you at least acknowledge that it's not as one-sided an issue as some would have you think. MeanMrMustard
 * I checked it out; it turns out it's exactly that one-sided. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Y'know, Mr Mustard, some of us (like me) have been dealing with this holocaust denial garbage for decades, and it's the same old nonsense over and over again. Doesn't matter how much evidence you think you have if it's driven by hatred of Jews (and a conviction that Hitler didn't do the job properly); perhaps you yourself do not have such a hatred, but if you believe the "holocaust revisionists" or whatever you want to call them, you are a dupe of those who have such a hatred. Good luck. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that people continue to spew forth about how much "real evidence" revisionists supposedly have. If all of this evidence is so compelling, then why is it that none of it stands up to a real review, by people who are familiar with the subject at hand? Perhaps this evidence is only convincing to those with another agenda, who don't care how "real" the evidence is, as long as it supports their cause? 18:13, 10 Mar 2005(UTC)
 * If you think that it doesn't stand up to real reviews, so be it. Present them and take them apart. But I think it's unfair I can't take part of their argumentation just because it isn't politically correct. --194.47.220.223 19:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Or, perhaps that the people doing the "real review" are also only looking at the evidence that doesn't support their cuase? You can't deny that you tend to see the peices of evidence that you like if you are a "believer." This isn't to say many revisionists don't do the same--but the fact is the issue IS a cloudy one and it's not 100% in either direction like both sides would have you believe. There is certainly a lot of contradiction among the eyewitness accounts, and other anecdotes that have been proven (by holocaust historians) to be outright false--for example, the Jewish soap story. When Dachau was first taken by Americans, a propeganda film about the holocaust that had taken place there was made, but now even Wiesenthal acknowledges that it wasn't a death camp. There is no way you can dispute that the history that is written byt he winning side after a war's end is very likely to be a little clouded, and there has been such emotional investment (and legal/physical--your life can be made a whole lot worse by being a revisionist) in the whole thing that we really haven't moved that far away from that initial writing. Furthermore, even the "mainstream" holocaust historians often debate and "revise" some minor and larger points about the whole extermination theory.

Not only is it unfair to portray the side you happen to not beleive because of your preconceived notions as a bunch of crazy whackos without really addressing the bulk of their claims (which wikipedia doesn't), but it's intellectually lazy. Are there some revisionists that are neonazis and make ridiculous claims and distortions? Yes. But there are also Zionists who make ridiculous claims about human skin lampshades and write laws making "denial" illegal, and there are also Jewish revisionists who make some "real" points. To try to make revisionism into some neo-nazi plan to spread hate (when there are clearly many prominent revisionists who aren't neonazis at all. the first guy to do any revisionism at all, robert faurission, as i have already pointed out, was a french resistance fighter and interned in camps himself) is just as crazy as saying "the media" has a zionist plan to promote Israel. Obviously the field might attract those who don't like jews that much, or cause those who believe it to start to dislike jews, it doesn't prove anything. Why would true nazis try to deny the holocaust anyway? If they hate jews, shouldn't they be proud of six million deaths? And you Jews, if you suddenly discover that those six million deaths didn't really occur, shoudln't you rejoice that your brothers and sisters were not really burned and gassed to death?

If some of the revisionists were running this encyclopedia they would change the "Holocaust" article to the "Jewish Myth" article, but we should be better than that and try to be more objective. MeanMrMustard


 * Your rhetoric is revealing. Which "Zionists" have made "ridiculous claims about human skin lampshades" or written "laws making "denial" illegal"?  As for your claim that denial is illogical, since Nazis should be happy Jews were killed, and Jews should be happy they weren't, this specious "logic" is often advanced by deniers; denial of the deaths of 6 million Jews does a great deal of good for present day Nazis in their attempts to battle their current perceived "enemy", yet does nothing for present day Jews in bringing their murdered relatives back to life except destroying even the memory of their suffering. Jayjg (talk)  15:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you agree with the way I use the term "Zionist," the two points I made are factual. Read the article and see where revisionism is illegal. I can't find a quote where someone claims the existance of human-skin lampshades a the moment but here's an equally ridiculous one made by (Zionist?) Simon Wiesenthal about soap made from human fat. In 1946 he described his eyewitness account of this soap, writing "On the boxes were the initials "R.I.F." ( pure Jewish fat). These boxes were destined for the Waffen-SS. The wrapping paper revealed with complete cynical objectively, that the soap was manufactured from Jewish bodies. The civilized world may not believe the joy with which the Nazis and their women and the general government thought of this soap. In each piece of soap they saw a Jew who had been magically put there and had thus been prevented from growing into a second Freud, Erlich or Einstein." In 1981, Professor of Modern Jewish History Deborah Lipstadt wrote "the fact is, the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter, anyone else, for the production of soap. The soap rumor was prevalent both during and after the war. It may have had its origin in the cadaver factory atrocity story that came out of World War I. The soap rumor was thoroughly investigated after the war and proved to be untrue," and Shmuel Krakowski, Director of Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Center, wrote "historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat." So here we have an example of a story that was clearly fabricated for propeganda purposes by someone sympathetic to Jewish interests, later revealed to be an outright lie. If this aspect of the story was completely made-up can be revealed to be a lie, then is it that much of a stretch that other aspects, such as the number of people gassed opposed to the number who died from typhus or starvation, can be modified as well? So when someone points out that American gas chambers had big steel doors and complex systems of pipes and valves, whereas the Aushwitz gas chamber had a flimsy wooden door and little holes to drop in pellets, with no ventilation system whatsoever, should we really cover our ears and scream "anti-Semite?" I'm not sayign the Holocaust didn't happen--I wasn't there so I don't know. What I am saying is the issue is NOT closed. You are correct, revisionism won't comfort those who believed their loved ones were gassed (as opposed to have died by other means), and that it would exonerate the past Nazis (but it has no effect on modern national socialists--many groups acknowledge the holocaust occured but are either neutral as to its justification or denounce its violent methods). But as an encyclopedia we should remove these emotional investments and be objective. If you believe in the Holocaust and you try either dismiss your opponents as crazy neo-Nazis or lock them up in jail, you only give more credibility to their story and, as more and more non-Nazi's start to read and write that kind of stuff, you will find your version of history has lost all weight of authority. |MeanMrMustard

Without a doubt those laws were written by those sympathetic to Israel, if under direct influece by lobbying groups, etc. I'll admit I have little direct evidence and haven't researched the issue much, but if Israels enormous influence (with the second most powerful lobbying group) in the USA country is any clue they certainly have some, if limited, role.
 * For a long time, many of us observers of the rhetoric of holocaust denial advocated non-response, believing that giving the deniers the dignity of a response would legitimate the deniers, not only in their own eyes, but more importantly, in the eyes of uninvolved observers. I'm still not sure that this was the wrong tactic, given my strong belief that you can't logic somebody out of something they haven't been logiced into. Your arguments are a good example of why it's a waste of time to attempt a dialogue with holocaust deniers; since they are anti-scientific in their approach (just like religious arguments, they start with a conclusion and then attempt to twist the evidence to support that conclusion.) For example: you pick one obvious case of a false, propagandistic assertion (the soap production) and then say "well if that one's false what about all the others?" -- while simultaneously rejecting any similar logical constructs in opposition to your position. You then draw upon specious, disproven, non-scientific claims, like that of Fred Leuchter, while ignoring the large body of evidence that Leuchter's analysis of the gas chambers at Auschwitz were invalid. "Those who believe their loved ones were gassed" -- ok, maybe MY relatives weren't gassed (they mostly were murdered along with around a million others at Treblinka, and might just have been shot and then burned or buried); so what? The distinction between gassed, shot in the back of the head, or just worked to death as slave labor is meaningless to their ghosts, and meaningless to their survivors. The Holocaust is not something one "believes in". The Holocaust is something that occurred, to real people, and was committed by real people; it is documented carefully, there is a vast amount of human testimony supporting the facts from Jewish and non-Jewish survivors, as well as from the people who actually ran the camps and committed the atrocities. If you have doubts the Holocaust occurred, then only a few possibilities exist: you are a Nazi or a fellow traveller, you are a fool, or you are deluded.  There really isn't any other alternative. Holocaust denial material has no place in rational discourse. (PS: You're real good at missing the core of a question. You asserted earlier that Zionists "write laws making denial illegal". Jayjg then asks "which Zionists have written laws making denial illegal?" You might consider answering this as asked; certainly, denial is illegal in several countries, Germany and France in particular; are those countries laws written by Zionists? Feel free to make this argument, if you can.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Usually when one makes a claim about an event as wild as the systematic, industrialized murder of six million individuals, they are expected to give evidence. "Eyewitness evidence" and "Nazi documents" aren't real evidence because they are easily fabricated, and, when examined, blatantly contradictory. The fact that alot of evidence that WAS fabricated doesn't disprove the whole thing, but it means that a logical person can't accept it on faith alone. To any logical person the burden of proof is on the exterminationists side. Have you ever calculated how much room six million corpses would take up, or the ashes of six million corpses, assumign they went and crushed up ever single bone? Which brings us to the real myth of the Holocaust. The myth that the existence and use of homicidal "gas chambers" is well documented. In fact, the thing that really got me interested in this subject in the first place was the lack of documentation for gas chambers presented in the standard Holocaust work and the contradictions and guesswork inherent in the evidence that was presented.

Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, by Jean-Claude Pressac, was published in 1989 by the famed Nazi-hunting duo, the Klarsfelds, and heralded as the final refutation of Holocaust revisionism. Yet, Pressac offers this damning condemnation of what has passed for Holocaust history among traditional historians. He says that the Holocaust historians "... demonstrate the complete bankruptacy of traditional history, a history based for the most part on testimonies, assembled according to the mood of the moment, truncated to fit an arbitrary truth and sprinkled with a few German documents of uneven value and without any connection with one and another." Also in 1989, Jewish professor and refugee from Hitler's Europe, Arno Mayer, wrote in his Holocaust book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? that "sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable."

Many Holocaust historians themselves admit that there is little real evidence for gas chambers. Most of the testimonies given by "those who ran the camps" were given in exchange for clemency or extracted under duress. A British Sgt. bragged in his 1983 book Legions of Death about extracting a confession from Rudolph Hvss, the camps commadant, using torture. If you were in a labor camp, you'd definately be willing to support a story that woudl get your former jailguards killed or jailed themselves. There are also many people who spent time in the camps who are revisionists.

Though your claim that it doens't matter whether prisoners were gassed or not tacitly implies it is possible no gas chambers existed, you miss the fact that the "holocaust," while remaining a terrible and tragic event, would cease to be the unique and awful event it is portrayed as today, since similar things were commited even by the Americans. Eisenhower ran several post-WWII camps in which several hundred thousand to over two million Germans died from disease and malnutrition. But you didn't know that, right?

I'm getting tired of arguing my point because you guys clearly refuse to budge, and I fully understand why. However, those of you who really want to be serious about "keeping an open mind" or examining revisionism to reveal "just how one sided" the whole argument is, should watch this documentary: http://vho.org/dl/ENG/DavidColeatAuschwitz.wmv. Use visitor////download as the login////password. The video, by the way, is by a Jew. Though I should add he recanted after his life and livelihood was threatened (this isn't made up--those who threatened his life openly brag about it)

Here are some more important observations that would lead any logical person to become extremely skeptical of the Holocaust story, none of which are refuted on the Nizkor site. That site takes huge oversimplifications of revisionist arguments or quotes out of context and proceeds to "refute" them while completely bypassing the greater arguments. []
 * More of your logicless logic. It's pretty remarkable. I said, "maybe my relatives weren't gassed", which you then claim somehow "tacitly implies it is possible no gas chambers existed". That's an invalid conclusion. At Treblinka, and probably at all the camps with gas chambers, various methods of execution were used, but the problem was that these methods were, to the Nazis, wasteful and/or inefficient. They certainly didn't want to waste any precious bullets on Jews. There was an evolution of Nazi killing methods, with considerable overlap. (Not every death camp got gas chambers, and those that did didn't get them simultaneously.) But it's interesting to see how your thought processes work. But none of it matters. You're just quoting the party line; every single argument you've presented can be seen at http://www.nizkor.org -- along with detailed, point by point refutation of each. I'm sorry I wasted the energy to move my fingers to type to respond to you, and I'm sorry I wasted the time of anyone else who read this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * However, I am amused to note that Mr Mustard (assuming it's he that wrote the section before this) can't even come up with his own arguments; he just cuts and pastes other people's writings. The section beginning, "Which brings us to the real myth of the holocaust" is lifted verbatim from http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html. And I'd like to recommend these refutations of the stuff Mr Mustard is chanting. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I pasted that in because its exactly what I wanted to say but I grow tired of typing long refutations of everything you write. So sue me. I can tell your mind is locked in what you've been told in school. The Nizkor page contains as many fallacies and outright falsehoods as your average nazi revisionist page, which is unsurprising. You can't expect nazis to be objective just as you can't expect jews to be. Just for fun, I'll point out some more thigns you didn't know. 1) Zionist and Jewish newspapers claimed that 6 million jews were being killed...during World War I! 2) Testing (done by non-revisionists) for Zyklon B residues produced huge ammounts in delousing chambers, but only trace ammounts in "gas chambers." The traces in the gas chamber were equal to the traces in soldiers barracks, since the gas was routinely used for delousing (which Holocaust historians admit). If you check the link above you can see a Jewish historian tried to explain this away by saying gassings occured less often than delousings...only to completely contradict himself in stating a higher frequency of gassings a few minutes later. User:MeanMrMustard
 * Sources, MeanMrMustard? I must say you seem to be afraid to back up any of your outrageous claims. 130.94.164.136 01:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How is Ward Churchill not an academic historian, as is claimed earlier in this discussion? Quoting his comment on September 11th doesn't refute the fact that he is a professor at a major university. Also, what is the purpose of quoting him in that context? Ann Coulter, of course, calls for the extermination and forced conversion of Arabs and yet she seems to continuously get a free pass in the mainstream media, while Churchill is blasted endlessly.

The ideology of portraying the Jews as the foremost victims of aggresion in the long history of the human race is tiresome and ethnocentric. I loathe neo-Nazis but they have a right to free speech, however repugnant it is to others. After all, many people have been the victims of American aggression domestically and overseas (including Ward Churchill's ethnic group...and yes, he is "part" Indian, if not "full-blooded" like his detractors call attention to). One reason, I suspect, so many non-Jews are ambivalent to or hostile towards the Jewish Holocaust is that it's been forced down their throats for 60 years while numerous other genocides have occurred, most of them under the auspices of the Western "beacons of democracy". Churchill points this out in his condemnation of Lipstadt's work, as, bizarrely enough, do the rightwingers who make up much of the Holocaust minimizer movement (Churchill is, of course, not a neo-Nazi).

The lack of an open forum for debate is a main reason our society still inflicts war on weaker nations and why angry whites still want to blame people of color for their problems. Shrill cries of "anti-semite" or "anti-American" are pathetic methods of avoiding discussion on powder keg issues like the Holocaust.


 * There are plenty of open forums for debate; Wikipedia is not a forum for debate. As far as neo-Nazis having the right to free speech, sure (at least in this country), but so what? The right to free speech doesn't require any private party to provide a platform for speech that they consider loathesome. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * PRIVATE party? I was under the impression that the whole point of wikipedia was to be a public encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Or are you admitting to the accusations anti-semites and neo-nazi's make that wikipedia is a "stronghold of zionist thought?" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such should not promote one viewpoint over the other. If it chooses to have an article on such a loaded topic as "holocaust denial," in which it is impossible to provide a completely neutral viewpoint, then all points of view should be covered equally. That you say wikipedia is a "private party" that doens't have to "provide a platform for speech they [sic] consider loathsome" is very telling. MeanMrMustard


 * "zionist thought"? Oops, you appear to have yet again used "zionist" as a code word for "Jewish".  How telling.  Regardless, jpgordon is right, Wikipedia is a private enterprise, and that enterprise is to create an encyclopedia, not a public forum for debate, or a platform for neo-Nazis and White supremacists to promote their ideologies.  If you had ever bothered to read the WP:NPOV policy, you would have noted that your own racially supremacist ideology does not need to be covered equally with more widely held and rational views.  Now why don't you stop pretending that you are merely trying to neutrally represent the views of some "other" people, admit that you are trying to promote your own racist ideology, and scurry back to the Stormfront message board where you can commiserate with your buddies about Wikipedia's "Zionist bias". Jayjg (talk)  19:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find this article to be surprisingly neutral for such a difficult topic. It takes pains to apply a proper sense of demarcation of POV -- the article does not claim that Holocaust denial is factually wrong, it claims that mainstream historians have found it to be factually wrong. It also covers well the free speech concerns, and does not paint all Holocaust deniers with the same paint. I think the POV notice should be removed -- only someone wishing for a very dishonest version of neutrality would find this to be biased. This article adequately notes that the label is applied by mainstream historians -- the reader is still free to question whether or not they are accurate or not, the article does not itself claim allegiance to either side of things. --Fastfission 22:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Zionist, jewish, big deal, that's just semantics to me. You can't deny to me when that holocaustism/exterminationism is debated not in a rational, factual, unbiassed manner but in the way you guys do it, it serves the same purpose to jewish/zionist interests as would crazy, biased debate in the opposite direction to nazi/skinhead interests. I'll have you know that I am not a white nationalist (my examinations of that ideology and zionism reveal them to be essentially the same thing, only one is for "whites" and the other for "jews," whatever that means). In fact, I'm one quarter asian. That you start accusing people who disagree with your factual view of history nazis reveals that YOU have political investment in this issue and you are not merely a neutral arbiter of the facts. The "zionist bias" i referenced is a common criticism of wikipedia made by anti-semites and even some who I view as more levelheaded--up until recently I didn't believe they were true, but this page and ridiculous claims about a private institution being able to selectively publish what it wants gives alot of credence to those claims. It's true that a private organization can do what it pleases, but if it chooses to censor anything that might make jews or israel look bad it makes it obvious what its trying to do and thus looses all credibility as an encyclopedia). And I don't appreciate the edit by whoever decided this article's neutrality was no longer disputed. User:MeanMrMustard

I'd like to ask everyone involved in this, er, discussion to reflect on what they're trying to accomplish here, and how well their current course is accomplishing it, while noting the inefficiency of shouting in making the other side shut up. Additionally, should anyone know a way of attempting to civilize a conversation that actually works, please do drop me a note. -- Kizor 02:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This kind of nonsense seems to happen every few months or so. Some joker shows up and starts re-writing Holocaust/racism/Israel-Palestine articles from an extremist POV (to put it mildly); then when he finds that his edits are quickly reverted to something more closely resembling a neutral POV, he starts ranting about Wikipedia's pro-Israel, pro-"Zionist" bias and declaring that everyone here except himself is a censor.  Folks like this only seem to be interested in re-writing a handful of articles at the most (notice how Mr. Mustard's edits are all related solely to this topic).  Eventually it all winds down, the windbag declares us all to be evil racist Zionist censors, and departs in a huff.  And that's that, until the next loser shows up. --Modemac 12:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * To quote Malcolm Reynolds: That's what makes us special. [ www.stormfront.org /archive/t-183229Need_more_White_Nationalists_on_Wikipedia.com.html] Peachy. --Kizor 00:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Come on now, no need for insults. I mostly just read the articles and made this account because I wanted to comment on this one. It's strange how you act like you're the mature, sensible one and the you call me a loser and a joker. I know being part of the majority is pleasing, but it doesn't make you right. User:MeanMrMustard


 * No. But in this case, being right coincides with being in the majority. Sorry about that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia not a forum for debate? What's the point of the discussion section? Just because you read something in your high school history textbook doesn't mean it's true. Bias can't be avoided, whether it's from a fascist, communist, or whatever. --Daxtox 23:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The point of the discussion page is to discuss changes to the article. It is not for debating the article topic itself. NPOV attempts to overcome bias.  Jayjg (talk)  23:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MeanMrMustard's first comment on neutrality is to the point. This article is neither neutral nor balanced and does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Neutral point of view Just look at the References section. To begin with, there are a scant four. Two of them are against denial/revisionism, and a third is a work of fiction (Troncoso) and not relevant (see NPOV requirements). ODP lists 13 sites, but that none were deemed significant enough to be listed here is unacceptable. The weaknesses are not limited to the References, and to go into them in any detail would be almost as much work as rewriting the article. I was interested in doing some work on the article until I found the discussions here. The bias of people in these discussions and the resulting deleting/reverting of the article by supposedly responsible administrators has escalated into a 'holy war'. That there is no room for progress to be made has seriously undermined the value of this article. Administrators who are biased and unable to make neutral decisions with regard to NPOV policy should exclude themselves from this discussion/article for the benefit of others. Then this article should be deleted and rewritten to be in line with NPOV policy. --Concerned User 19:25, 04 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a piece of fluff. Instead of either advancing an article, or addressing points in the article, this entire paragraph is a "user" who feels qualified to educate all on the finer points of the policies of Wikipedia. The purpose of this page is to talk about changes to the article, not whine about POV issues. Really, the issue that MeanMrMustard, and "Concerned User" have is that the article isn't to their POV, not that it isn't neutral. I've watched this article get disputed, had some heated discussions with revisionists, but never have I seen a real NPOV problem brought up. 06:31, 05 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Research into Holocaust revisionism has revealed that anti-Semitism has been an important part of the revisionist philosophy since the very beginnings of the movement. With few exceptions, charges of anti-Jewish bias have been leveled against many revisionists over the years –charges that they have rarely denied." I'm sorry, but unless you have something to back this up besides your own opinion, I feel the need to remove this on the grounds of it being biased and simply trying to label most holocaust deniers/revisionists as neo-nazis or anti-jewish. --Keith, evil dude 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The rest of the section does back up the introductory paragraph. Change reverted. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see it proved. Throwing in almost random names of people who were accused of being anti-semetic or actually were anti-semetic does nothing but put a stereotype on many holocaust revisionists/deniers. We are not here to put labels on people or bring our own personal morals into this. --Keith, evil dude 01:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) 01:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not a stereotype, but a simple factual description. Jayjg (talk) 14:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A clumsy sentence
Numerous accounts have been given (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, and even deliberately falsified evidence.

This is real awkward. The word "evidence" shows up three times and the sneer quotes around "facts" and "evidence" (as they do whenever used) cheapen the discourse. Accounts of claimed facts? Doesn't scan. Let's try to improve this a tad... --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea; I have a very low tolerance for edits by Holocaust Deniers, which is why I tend to revert them. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you admit you are prejudiced, you should refrain from editing an article in which you cannot maintain neutrality. Please re-read the NPOV guidelines that govern this site. Spinosaurus 14:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

starting with Germany
Isn't it noteworthy that Germany was the first country to outlaw Holocaust denial (if indeed that is true)? -Lethe | Talk 07:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. But look at that sentence: Starting with Germany, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in a number of European countries punishable by jail.. To make that point in a grammatically sensible way, it would need to say something like "Following a policy started by Germany in 19xx, ..." -- but then we start getting the sorts of details that aren't necessary or desirable in the introduction to the article. What's most important is that it's a crime (and I just changed "criminal offence" to "crime" in the name of conciseness); a section on the criminalizing of some political speech could expand upon this in the article, and would be quite welcome. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Links
All the links are to pages refuting Holocaust revisionists/deniers (one in parody form). I seem to remember it not being like this before.

That is a pretty unneutral. How about giving the people the facts, as revisionists see them, and letting them make up their own mind? Isn't that what it's all about.


 * Hold on a moment. I have been here two days ago, and the links are different.  Before they lead to some idiots that kept talking about how jews benefited after WW2, and today's ones are so damn convincing that there is something wrong with the official picture it will take a detailed plan of the camp to convince me that the gas chambers designed for genocide existed at all and were large enough.  What is going on with the links section?

What absurd bias.
"While historical revisionism is the reexamination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, "deniers" typically seek evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial fact."

This sounds a lot like an encyclopaedia article where only one point-of-view is tolerated, where the personal prejudice of administrators allows the article to be non-neutral -- in direct violation of the terms of this website -- and which is a bully pulpit for bigots to tar dissenters as "anti-semites,""loons" and worse. I believe that Gordon and his jackbooted ilk should excuse themselves from touching this article or this talk page as their heavy-handed interference is an obstacle to reasoned discussion and the presentation of a balanced article.

Guess what? Critical re-examination of the "six million" figure is a perfectly valid historical undertaking, particularly given the haste with which it was derived and its being promulgated under the fog of war.

There is nothing "anti-Semitic" about such inquiries. Spinosaurus 14:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your complaint. And why did't you provide references to dispute the "six million" figure? What do you know "SPIN"osaurus?--AI 22:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You asked references? What about the following?!

websites :
 * Intstitute for Historical Review
 * VHO.org
 * Holocaust Historiography project

books :
 * Holocaust Affirmers (Alexander Baron)
 * The Hoax Of The 20th Century (Arthur Butz)
 * The Rumor of Auschwitz (Robert Faurisson)
 * The Giant With Feet Of Clay : Raul Hilber and his standard work on the "holocaust" (Jürgen Graf)
 * Holocaust or Hoax? (Jürgen Graf)
 * The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War One (Don Heddesheimer)
 * The Myth of the Six Million (David Hoggan)
 * Auschwitz: The End of a Legend (Carlo Mattogno)
 * Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Carlo Mattogno
 * Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
 * Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
 * Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
 * The Drama of the European Jews (Paul Rassinier)
 * The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein (Henri Roques)
 * Dissecting the Holocaust (Germar Rudolf)
 * The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Germar Rudolf)
 * The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses (Paul Rassinier)
 * The origins of the Second World War (AJP Taylor)--IlluSionS667 18:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No original research
Hi 216.209.109.187, I reverted your edits because they seemed to smack of a personal essay. Please see No original research. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pseudohistory
Why is Category:Holocaust denial categorized in Category:Pseudoscience when the article Holocaust denial isn't categorized in Category:Pseudoscience?--AI 22:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist POV argument
This acticle is completely onesided. It connects ideology with revisionism AND it prefers to use the offensive term 'denier' instead of 'revisionist'. Using one-sided rhetoric and offensive terminology is NOT objective. --IlluSionS667 18:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Offensive to you, perhaps. Google says there are 110,000 more hits for denial as opposed to revisionism - clearly, denial is the term used by the vast majority of people to describe the practice of pretending the Holocaust didn't happen. --FCYTravis 19:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Holocaust revisionists do NOT claim that the so-called holocaust didn't happen. Holocaust revisionists bring forward evidence to prove that parts of the so-called holocaust did not occur. The fact that the majority of people use the term 'denier', is only because they're misinformed about revisionism. Sources such as wikipedia should not reinforce that misinformation, but rather give the proper information about revisionists. This is something it fails to do.--IlluSionS667 19:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And offending holocaust deniers is a GOOD thing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether it's a good thing or not, isn't the issue. The issue is whether this acticle is objective of not. Your statement already implied that it isn't, but still you remove the POV request without a second thought. That's very hypocritical of you.--IlluSionS667 19:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I also added some links in favor of revisionism on this page, by the way. Those too were deleted, by an admin. Not only is this entire article subjective, but even the references appear to be limited to an absolute mimimum of two, so no one could objectively make up their mind... Great job, guys... My belief in the objectivity of WIKIPEDIA is now completely gone. --IlluSionS667 20:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Objectivity doesn't mean publishing every hare-brained idea. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It does mean that you provide information, without putting any personal views in it. This article completely abandons that approach. The article is filled with subjective and offensive remarks. Also, when you provide references about a subject, it isn't exactly objective to provide predominantly sources in oposition, and barely and sources in defense of the subject (unless there aren't sufficient sources in defense). By deleting the extra sources, this site also proves not to be objective in that fashion. Further, I also need to add that I doubt you've actually checked out any of the provided links. It takes a lot more time to check them out than the time you took to white your reply. How can you comment on something you haven't even read? I expected more of the people on this site. --IlluSionS667 20:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That the Holocaust occurred, and that Holocaust deniers are either deluded or malicious, is hardly a personal view. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That 6,000,000 jews are murdered by an extermination plan intented for the murder of all jews has been disproven over and over. That revisionists use improper historical research and holocaust enforcers are objective researchers is also utter nonsense. That revisionism is a tool to promote an agenda, is another lie. Then the statement that revisionists just 'deny' the 'holocaust' is a lie. Revisionists deny certain aspects of the 'holocaust', namely those that have been proven wrong. The existence of the German concentration camps, the fact that jews were hated in Hitler's Germany, Kristallnacht, the fact that people were executed for various reasons (though not because of their race and religion) and all other facts are recognised by revisionists as facts.--IlluSionS667 21:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I have to add, are the following quotes from famous people who do know what they're talking about, unlike you guys :


 * "There are two histories : official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events" (Honoré de Balzac, 19th century French novelist)


 * "All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." (Friedrich Nietzsche, 19th century German philosopher, philologist and psychologist)


 * "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th century German philosopher)


 * "Only the winners decide what were war crimes." (Gary Wills, Pulitzer Prize winner and current Adjunct Professor of History at Northwestern)


 * "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are not even capable of forming such opinions." (Albert Einstein, 20th century German theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner)


 * "The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." (J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1924, until his death in 1972)


 * "These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures." (Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education)


 * "In general it should not be forgotten that the highest aim of human existence is not the preservation of a state, let alone a government, but the preservation of the species. The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar beings. This preservation comprises first of all existence as a race, and thereby permits free development of all the forces dormant in this race.  For in the long run systems of government are not maintained by the pressure of force, but by faith in their soundness and in the truthfulness with which they represent and advance the interests of a people."  (Adolf Hitler, leader and imperial chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945.)

....... IlluSionS667 out .......

Yep, it's been a couple of months or so. Time for yet another person to appear out of nowhere and declare this article to be "totally biased." And guess what? Based upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=IlluSionS667 IlluSionS667's edit history], it's yet another white supremacist troller. What a surprise. :) Funny how the only ones who object to this article's neutrality *love* editing the racist articles from a racist POV. --Modemac 11:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a racist, nor a "white nationalist" or "white supermacist" according to the definition given on Wikipedia or anywhere else. I AM, however, a nationalist. The reason why I made my first edits, was because I noticed that some websites were referred to as "white supermacist" while they did not fit wikipedia's definition of the term, and they were at most "white nationalist" (some did not even apply to that definition). I merely wanted to rectify that first lack of objectivity I noticed. Some of these websites have now already disappeared from that list, by the way.


 * I also added extra information on "jewish supermacism", which is the jewish equivalent of "white supermacism", "black supermacism and "East-Asian supermacism". After adding that entry, I noticed that "Jewish supremacy" was already an existing entry in Wikipedia, with pretty much the exact same info. Therefor I decided to link both to one another, because an encyclopedia doesn't need duplicate entries. Great was my surprise when "jewish supermacy" got deleted and "jewish supermacism" was put under "votes for deletion". Groups like "Lehi", "Kach" and "Kahane Chai" are generally known as jewish supremacist groups. Organisations like "B'Nai Brith" and the "ADF" are often accused of jewish supremacist groups -- it appears to be justified -- but no one other than David Duke and his clones out there would even dare mention that in public, it seems. Why is it that there is no problem with calling a group white supremacist, while they do not apply to the definition of the term, but even thinking something such as "jewish supermacism" exists, is regarded as racist? That seems pretty hypocritical to me.


 * Then I realised that there is an issue with a lot more controversy than this : the so-called "holocaust" and "holocaust denial". As suspected, the information on both subjects was extremely subjective. Because I realised that my edits would immediately be undone anyway, I decided to POV instead. It's much less time consuming, and I expected at least a decent discussion. Again, I was chocked to see that the POV notices were removed within a few minutes, and no one wanted to even discuss the total lack of objectivity present.


 * Now you may understand my edit history. It is no surprise that nationalists are the only ones who seem to care about the truth about these issues to be known. The majority of the people are just lemmings who swallow all the propaganda thrown at them, intended to demonise genuine nationalism and to criminalise genuine historical research. I have no always been a nationalist. I have not always been a revisionist. I come from a liberal family, and I used to think "the nazis were evil" and all the other BS propaganda thrown at me, just like you. I started doing some research, though, and after a few years I started seeing a bigger picture. I realised how distorted our history was, and I noticed the effects of it. My changed views on history, have also had an influence on my ideological views. Like Orwell once said : "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The way people look at the past, influences the way they look at the present and the future. That's the explanation why their holocaust myths are so important to holocaust enforcers and why they criminalise any objective research on this issue.


 * The revisionist view on the political implications of Holocaust Revisionism can be found on this page.


 * I didn't come out of nowhere. I've visited this site quite a few times in the past. I just never felt the need to edit. Then, when I actually do find some articles that need some serious editing, I'm not allowed to. Great job, guys. Anyway, I'm not going to bother about this anymore. I don't care for being part of a community as hypocritical as this one, that claims to be objective by all means, but that fails to show any objectivity whatsoever on certain issues. I would have loved to input my knowledge on many other subjects to the advancement of WIKIPEDIA and the general knowledge of its visitors, but with this climate I rather go elswhere. You guys just keep playing in your little sandbox. --IlluSionS667

From the last time I visited, this article has only gotten wrose. More stereo-types, more abuses of admin power, and a farther and farther slip away of what what this article should be: an outside and neutral explination of Revisionism. Too much internet drama. Great job, Wikipedia is well on it's way to becoming a better community. --Keith, evil dude 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem here
Is that there are obviously two sides on this issue. Two very polarised sides. Not many people whose opinion falls in the middle, based on research or not, wants to put it out there, because they either don't care enough, or don't want to be attacked by one side or both. --Edward Wakelin 23:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What's the "middle place"? Hitler did it but didn't really mean to? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You ought to start exposing some of the holocaust deniers, Willis Carto in the article.--AI 02:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The middle ground would be identifying it as what it was: The deaths of 11-13 million people, of various causes, for varying reasons (some were deliberately targeted, ie Jews and Gypsies, some would say Poles and Russians went here; some were just allowed to die because who cared about them, eg homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc). Not using it as a political tool would be a good thing, dropping the talk about how it's a unique event would be too (aside from the scale the Holocaust happened on and its "mechanical" nature, genocide or attempted genocide has happened many, many times before, is happening now, and will happen many, many times again).

Trying to explain it in terms of real human psychology, instead of going on about "evil", would be a great way in which to actually possibly prevent something similar from happening again. Neither the "just a few bad apples" nor the "Hitler's Willing Executioners" model is useful here (the former is stupid, because it just blames "evil", the latter is politically motivated and besides Goldhagen isn't a historian, he's a political scientist).

For all the talk of "never again", genocide has happened again repeatedly, and nothing happens. Nobody stepped in when Cambodians were being murdered after Pol Pot took over, it took a damn long while for anybody to do anything about events in the former Yugoslavia, very little was done about Rwanda, and the Sudan was not the site of even an attempt at intervention. A more accurate motto would be "ever again". --Edward Wakelin 14:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PA?
"the Palestinian Authority regularly publish[es] and promote[s] Holocaust denial literature" Unless some convincing evidence can be provided for this assertion I'm going to take it out.Palmiro 20:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * See Israeli-Palestinian_history_denial. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your link doesn't provide evidence that the Palestinaian Authority regularly publishes such material.
 * I'm well aware of this sort of thing. It deserves to be included in the article but it's quite a long way from "the Palestinian Authority regularly publish[es] and promote[s] Holocaust denial literature". How about, "there have also been instances of holocaust denial in official PA media"?Palmiro 15:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable summary. Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Auschwitz again

 * Jayjg, you just reverted an edit of mine where I added two images right below the "Did 6 million die" image. These images were of the entrance plaque to Auschwitz: Image:Ausplaq1948.jpg "1948 estimate of 4 million dead at Auschwitz." and Image:Ausplaq1990.jpg "1990 estimate of 1.5 million dead at Auschwitz."  The primary article on "The Holocaust" states: "mainstream estimates by historians of the exact number range from five million to over six million."  The clear implication of both the "Did 6 million die" image and the statement in the primary article is that anyone who would purport that in Auschwitz alone there were 2.5 million fewer deaths than reported when the original 6 million figure was published must be engaging in "Holocaust Denial".  This is critical since you have already pointed out there is no article on "Holocaust revisionism" and until there is the "Holocaust Denial" article should have not just the most irrationally low figure for the number dead but also those figure which will subject you to prosecution in countries like Germany if you promote awareness of the discrepancies.  Jim Bowery 18:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Holocaust denial above, which answers your point completely. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is more support for the need for a separate "Holocaust revisionism" article rather than a mindless redirect.Jim Bowery 19:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see why; do you imagine that "Deniers" don't make specious arguments regarding the Auschwitz plaque, only "revisionists" do? I've yet to meet anyone who admits to being a "Holocaust denier". Holocaust deniers call themselves "revisionists", the rest of the world calls them "deniers".  There is not difference in kind, just in terminology. Jayjg (talk)  19:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't obfuscate the issue by reversing what I said. I said something fairly simple:  If there is a reduction of 2.5 million in the purported deaths at Aushchwitz and no one disputes this reduction occurred, this is clearly NPV Holocaust revisionism and the absence of an article titled "Holocaust revisionism" relegates discussion of such revisions to the talk page here. Jim Bowery 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how I'm reversing anything, nor do I understand the point you are trying to make. The exact number of deaths at Auschwitz was never a fundamental point of history about the Holocaust, since the final totals of those killed were not based on it. Jayjg (talk)  20:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * See | this stub for a Holocaust revisionism article.
 * If it's not there already, that information belongs in Auschwitz. I've reverted the page back to the redirect (as I'm sure you knew would happen.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Does the fact that I suspected you or someone like you would further vandalize the article justify you vandalizing it? Re-reverted Jim Bowery 21:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you do not understand what the term "vandalize" means. Reverting an article to its long agreed-upon, deeply discussed, and long considered state does not constitute vandalism. If you wish to make the change you suggest, you'll need to first gain consensus for it (and here would be the place to do it.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Jpgordan: You reverted the Harry Dexter White page on August 12 to remove a United States government source. Why?  Because that source was in turn used by ihr.org.  Never mind that the holocaust was not even remotely related.  The ihr.org link happened to contain the most complete excerpts from the underlying paper US Senate Subcommittee Report available on the web.  I comment here simply because I believe you are misrepresenting your reversion policy when you suggest that it is anything other than kneejerk.Bdell555 05:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're engaging in self-deception. Just because a number of vandals are convinced they're not and are, by force of numbers, able to prevail doesn't make their activity constructive. Moreover "consensus" isn't required for Wikipedia -- NPOV is.  By any reasonable interpretation of the phrase "Holocaust revisionism" the downward revision of the estimate of Auschwiz dead from 4 million to 1.5 million is a "historic revision" of "the Holocaust".  Jim Bowery 22:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In other words, you made it up. On Wikipedia that is known as original research, and is forbidden by policy. Jayjg (talk)  22:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud, simple direct and obvious reading of the English language cannot be "original research" or you'll have to throw out every contribution to Wikipedia to be consistent. Jim Bowery 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Your novel interpretation of this is hardly "simple direct reading of the English languge", but rather is a pointed attempted a promoting a personal POV. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What point are you trying to make; that the Soviets are Holocaust Revisionists? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Did the Soviets revise the number downward from 4 million to 1.5 million? Do you know what the word revise means? Jim Bowery 21:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Who has described the Soviets as "Holocaust revisionists"? Who has said that reducing the estimate of the number killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.5 million is an example of "Holocaust revisionism"? Is that your own original research? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In your revert to : (cur) (last) 21:48, 23 August 2005 Jayjg m (Jabowery, that's your third revert. If you revert again you will be blocked. Please use the Talk: page instead) First, I have been using the talk page which is how you were informed of my change. You claim to have authority to "block" me.  By what authority do you make this claim and what is it to be "blocked"?Jim Bowery 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:3RR to understand the "three revert rule". Secondly, please read WP:ADMIN. Jayjg probably won't block you, since he's involved in the dispute, and neither will I; however, another administrator will. Third, see WP:BP for the blocking policy; the block in the case of a 3RR violation will be 24 hours. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Now I see from Jayjg's user page: "Thanks for visiting my User page. I'm just your typical Wikipedia editor; I joined Wikipedia on June 15, 2004, and I was made an administrator on September 13, 2004. In July of 2005 Jimmy Wales appointed me to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee." He also "jokes" about being part of a "Cabal" which uses the Star of David for its symbol.  Cute.  From the gross reading comprehension problems he's displayed here it is clear "Jimbo" messed up big time with this choice. I wonder how badly he's messed up all told?  Time for the next step in the resolution of the dispute.  We're obviously beyond just two people here.  I really wonder how far this goes?  How many language destroyers like Jayjg have made their way to the arbitration committee?  You can't get away with dispensing with the English language so lightly without some consequences.  Jim Bowery 22:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please desist from the personal attacks. If you can build consensus for your proposed changes, they will be welcome; this is the correct place to do that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Without in any way suggesting that, at this point, I don't believe the Holocaust is a historic fact, I would point out that revisionism is by definition contrary to the consensus (that is, to the generally accepted history)!Bdell555 05:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that "consensus" is not going to be reached here. There is a clear agenda here to send the phrase "Holocaust Revisionism" down the memory hole.  Stalin would be proud.  As to the verbal haze covering the agenda:  "That's not right. That's not even wrong." — Wolfgang Pauli Jim Bowery 23:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The phrase is discussed in this article; it has hardly disappeared. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Description of reversion policy needed
In the interests of making this lengthy discussion more productive without taking a position on what is being discussed, I would note to the self-styled revisionists that you are wasting your time at present. While I have not yet tried to determine what Jayjg's policy is, you should assume that there is no edit that you could make that jpgordan would not revert. For an example, see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Dexter_White#Morgenthau_Diary_quote_source. A user had concerns about a link to a revisionist source but was willing to critically assess the source. A discussion that I felt was productive followed. jpgordan presumably felt that discussion would be a total waste of time since he reverted the source without justification. Actually, I distinctly recall jpgordan saying something explanatory on the Talk page for that Harry Dexter White article, but reverted the history of the Talk page so that his comment on his reversion no longer appears (this revision should not be consider revisionist, of course...). In the interests of full disclosure, I assure you from my recollection that whatever his elided comment was, the clear implication was that whatever a revisionist had to say was a lie by virtue of the fact a revisionist said it. Unfortunately, there are Wiki reverters who are impossible to satisfy, and my conflict with Witkacy over the Oder-Neisse Line page is a typical example. A difference from Witkacy, however, is that jpgordan actually appears to be willing to engage on this Talk page. So if you ask what sort of article edit he would not automatically revert, he might actually articulate a standard that you could actually satisfy. Once he has stated that, if it is extremely demanding, you should simply demand that he apply the same standard to the other side of the argument, e.g. if sources associated with one ethnicity or political group are held to be automatically disreputable, then why are sources associated with another ethnicity or political group not also automatically disreputable? This is how you advance the argument: find out what the other person agrees with you on (e.g. generally accepted principles for sourcing in an academic article). Then point out how a particular belief (which disagrees with yours) is inconsistent with another belief of his. Many disputes can be advanced a long ways if both sides value logic and accuracy.Bdell555 02:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I never made any comment on the talk page at all regarding my reversion of the link to the revisionist site, regardless of what your recollection may have been; anyone can look at the history to verify this. And I did not "revert the source without justification"; I removed a link to ihr.org with the comment remove holocaust denier link. Historical information presented by a holocaust denier website is ipso facto unreliable. This does not mean it is untrue -- it might be completely accurate. But it also might not be, and it is a given that a holocaust denial website will contain large amounts of contrafactual utterances. It would be an insult to our readers to direct them to a a holocaust denial website from an article about anything other than holocaust denial or holocaust deniers. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding not linking to sites that may not have accurate info - taken to its logical conclusion, you guys shouldn't be linking to WhiteHouse.gov, either.

I'm kind of joking, but I'm kind of not. I'm new here and scanning the controversial pages to see how they play out, and I have to wonder, is that an actual policy, not linking to pages that an editor or admin or what have you deems to be uncredible?

By the way, how about linking to that Onion article, "Did 6 Million People Really Visit the Holocaust Museum?" --BarrettBrown 08:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You said you "stuck your nose in this one" in order to remove links like ihr.org "on sight". If there is no record of that in the Wiki system it is because you have some sort of administrator's power revise the history.  What is "an insult to our readers" is supressing facts and using Wiki as a private propaganda vehicle.  The link you supressed did not deny the holocaust.  If a website contains a "counterfactual" (can you cite one or two?  This should be easy for you since there are "many") then should all the articles on that website, even if by other authors, be rejected as without credibility without further inquiry?  How many counterfactuals on a website you happen to support would be enough to deem the whole website "ipso facto unreliable"?  I note here that you say a "holocaust denial website" might be reliable with respect to the holocaust but not with respect to any other topic.  The logic there escapes me: if it is intrinsically unreliable on other topics, how does it suddenly become reliable on the holocaust?Bdell555 09:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can express one of my points more simply. You cannot advance both of the following claims at the same time:
 * (1) You deleted the link because it denied the Holocaust (e.g. remove holocaust denier link)
 * (2) You deleted the link because it did NOT deny the Holocaust
 * I take it you say your original explanation was (1), but now your explanation is (2). Is that correct?  I don't want to straw man you.  By the way, I will withdraw my charge that you manipulated the record of a page's edit history and I will apologize if an administrator other that you or JayJG should show up here and declare that administrators do not have such powers (I would have to accept that I must have just been hallucinating in that case).Bdell555 15:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Bdell555, Jpgordon asked me if I could take a look at what's going on here... It seems from reading this discussion that Jpgordon is saying that he deleted the link because it points to a holocaust denial website because holocaust denial websites are ipso facto unreliable sources of information, and then says the website may be entirely accurate, which seems to be taking both sides of an argument to prevent any opposition. Disregarding for the moment whether or not we should be providing links to such sites, per se, if I might clarify (I hope): Jpgordon is saying "Holocaust deniers lie about history" → "Holocaust deniers therefore can't be trusted" → "Just because the information may be accurate on parts of their website, the website as a whole is unreliable because a significant part of its portrayal of the "facts" is very incorrect." As for the ability of admins to edit histories, I'm not an admin, but I'm pretty sure only developers can do that... Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK 19:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Bdell, I can confirm that admins don't have the power to manipulate a page's edit history. Entries can disappear when items are deleted entirely, but I'm assuming that's not what you meant. We can't actually go into a history and edit it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks Slim.  I asked User:causa sui, User:Lucky 6.9, User:FeloniousMonk and User:Redwolf24 to comment, but I see you already have.  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  19:56, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, SV is right, admins cannot change a page's history. FeloniousMonk 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I can also confirm this. Only Developers, i.e. Tim Starling can do that crap. Redwolf24 20:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In order to make this perfectly clear, admins have the power to delete an article and selectively un-delete particular edits. So in some sense, yes, admins have the power to "tamper" with a page edit history. However, this is transparent to all editors for two reasons: Since the activity of merging page histories is effectively "tampering" with the page history, I can say that this is something admins have the power to do. But it is perfectly transparent, easily reversible, and most importantly just isn't done. If there is any question of whether a page history has been fraudulently edited I would be happy to investigate. --causa sui talk 20:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Other administrators can view the deleted edits, but most importantly
 * 2) Any editor can view the deletion log to see if an article has been deleted or restored.


 * OK. I apologize for not assuming good faith.  Without trying to water down that apology I'll just say that I felt that more of a good faith approach could in turn be shown towards persons who describe themselves as revisionists.  Revisionists may be motivated by a number of considerations other than anti-Semitism, and even if they were all anti-Semitic it does not help the situation to try and censor them.Bdell555 14:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apology. However, holocaust denial websites are not encyclopedic sources, and such sites as ihr.org are not acceptable links from non-holocaust-denial-related topics. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, then, there is nothing more to say then, is there? I have asked for a defence of that view that goes beyond merely stating it but you apparently refuse to give one.  I (and, I believe, fair and rigorous scholarship) want the link you removed from the Harry Dexter White page put back and I see little point in revert wars, hence I request arbitration of some sort.  I believe that everything that can be done on Talk pages has been exhausted.  I request that whoever performs the arbitration be advised of the existence of the Talk page record of the discussion over the appropriateness of using the link in question.  I can only imagine what Wikipedia would be like if some of you administrators took some of the time you spend reverting users like the one who added that cite to reverting fact suppressing propagandists like Witkacy.  If someone is already performing an arbitration role I suggest it is either time for a ruling or a specific request directed at one or both parties for the additional information needed to make a decision.  The precedent set by the decision would have a minor impact on the Harry Dexter White article relative to many other articles which is why this discussion is not being confined to there.Bdell555 21:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, though I removed the link back on Aug 12, it was immediately replaced by Willmcw, and I've not made any edits to the article since then. Other editors have taken it upon themselves to purge the article of information solely sourced from holocaust deniers; complain to them at that article if you feel the need. Secondly, I already have justified my policy of removing the links; holocaust denial is a fraud, and linking to holocaust denial sites, other than to illustrate holocaust denial, is a perpetuation of that fraud. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;
 * What I want arbitrated is the decision to remove the link. Whether the link is there or not at any given instant is not going to resolve anything going forward because so long as there is no resolution to your policy, there will be no reason to believe you, or someone who agrees with you, will not be apply it in the future to other articles.  I am raising the issue here and with you because there are many other articles out there such as this one that I, and others, may wish to edit but would just get reverted.  I am trying to conserve time and effort for myself and others: unresolved, the same underlying issue will keep rearing its head in different circumstances.  Maybe linking to a paper presented at a revisionist conference "is a perpetuation" of a "fraud" and maybe it isn't.  Just because your mind is closed is on the issue does not, by that simple fact, mean everyone else's should be.  You've already shot down the best online link to an Anthony Kubek work so I am left wondering whether it would be a waste of time for someone to provide links to Antony Beevor, John Sack, or Alfred-Maurice de Zayas if ihr.org is the most comprehensive source for a hardcopy publication by one of those authors (a plausible scenario given the influence of the interest groups that are hostile to what they have written).  According to you, if Beevor's "The Fall of Berlin" had been published by the IHR then citing that book would have been perpetuating a fraud.  He was published by Penguin, however, so does that simple fact transform a perpetuation of fraud into a perpetuation of fact?  I'll consult Transubstantiation if you consult poisoning the well and Guilt by association.  My problem, to rephrase, is that I don't know how many academic presses and conferences are on your black list.  If you would circumscribe it or even just further describe it a little, I might be more inclined to think that an edit of mine would not continually result in another run-in with your revert policy.Bdell555 02:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read Resolving disputes. You're not going to get any satisfaction from me on this talk page (which isn't the right place for this anyway, since it appears to be about some problem you have with me, rather than with the Holocaust denial article.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I assure you my current grievance is with your reversion policy and not with you, even if you should happen to identify yourself with your reversion policy. And I have more of a grievance with those like JayIG who appear to agree with you but are unwilling to speak up here than I have with you, who is at least is willing to say something.  Their silence makes it look like you are isolated, which I doubt to the extent that I suspect a general Wiki poll on whether "holocaust denial is a fraud" would receive majority agreement ("Holocaust denial" is, after all, illegal in many countries).  Does this article state that it is a fraud?  Not in so many words, but apparently you will reverse any edit to this article or others that implies otherwises.  More importantly, you seem to take a broad view of the implications.  I came here because the primary assumption from which your implications follow would inevitably come into play.  I began this section of the Talk titling it "Description of reversion policy needed".  I take it that to the extent you or others who agree with you are going to provide such a description, it has been provided.  We can therefore bring this section to an amicable, if unsatisfactory in my mind, close.Bdell555 11:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Jpgordon was doing a fine job, he didn't need my help. The IHR is an unreliable source, therefore it should not be used as a reference for anything but an article about the IHR. Is that enough talking to resolve your "grievance" with me? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  03:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And, upon reading this, Bdell5555 proceeded to insert a link to ihr.org in the Harry Dexter White page. He'll not be surprised, I assume, to discover it's been removed. As it will continue to be. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Three bits of advice:
 * 1) Don't feed the trolls
 * 2) Look at the pretty flowers, and let them calm you.
 * 3) Compliment me on the pretty flowers, and reckidniZe, THIS IS THE INTERNET. Donna let jerZelf be sucketted inn!!!
 * :-D Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  12:31, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Bdell555, are you now, or have you ever been, guilty of being called an anti-Semite or white supremacist? Jim Bowery 04:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * On a recruiting mission, Stormfront boy? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That reminds me... Bdell555, are you now, or have you ever been, guilty of being called a Stormfront boy?  BTW, Jpgordon, I'm sure you'll come up with _some_ sort of answer for this so here goes:  When the Germans were facing defeat and were supposedly ramping operation of their Zyklon-B chambers or whatever, desperate to exterminate every last Jew in captivity before they lost, how many incendiary bombs would it have taken to torch all the camps the way the allies torched Dresden?  Jim Bowery 18:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously not because I am writing something here. Like User:Amalekite, I've indentified Wiki users Jpgordan, JayJG, and others as propagandists (and I've done so on a Wiki page, which is surely a more relevant offence), but unlike Amalekite I have never posted to a Stormfront forum, hence Amalekite is indefinitely blocked while yours truly continues to disrupt Wikipedia, noting strange inconsistencies, like the fact that atrocity denial is not universally denounced but selectively (e.g. the Polish Foreign Minister is uncriticized by the press (that is, the press that is not on Jpgordan's black list) for his opposition to a Berlin memorial to the German expulsions, Katyn massacre denial is perfectly reasonable because an entity that did it (the Soviets) is not on JayJG's list of presumptively "unreliable" sources, etc.).Bdell555 06:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Another page for revisionism
First of all this is not a neautral page. How about a seperate page for revisionism? Since denial is outright saying it never happened, and revisionism, is to update the original record with further evidence etc.

Also worth noting there is a Jewish revisionist called David Cole. He had the curator of Auschwitz flip-flopping on the offical record of the Holocaust.
 * Everyone calling themselves a "Holocaust revisionist" is essentially a Holocaust denier. The people concerned with updating the historical records call themselves "historians". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Other Holocaust Denials
I had added a line here on the denial of the genocide against the Ukrainian peasantry. This was removed. Now my question is this: was it removed because that 'denial' is too marginal to be mentioned, or because whovere removed it does not think that genocide took place?

The former rationale would actually make sense, the latter would be rather offensive and on par with run-of-the-mill holocaust denial a la 'did six million really die'. --80.228.154.115 13:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC) Ok, maybe I should put my name to things.

all posts by IP 80.228.15x.xxx are by me. --Dietwald 16:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Who denies that Stalin's collectivization scheme ended up causing famines which killed millions of kulaks? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hard core stalinist apologist. I admit, they are a rarity, but they DO exist.

Here,, and here, for example.

Jayig, one more comment: I will assume the best for now, and simply advise you that the usage of the term kulak is implicitely Stalinist. It's a Russian word, meaning 'fist', and it was coined to denigrate almost all independent farmers of the Russian empire, including the Ukraine. Using the word kulak to refer to the Ukrainian peasantry is the same as if one would use the term Zionist to refer to the Jews. (and here I mean the term Zionist as it is used by those who "have-nothing-against-jews-but-are-only-against-the-zionistst".)

So, please do not use the term kulak. It's Stalinist. Most people don't seem to know that, and hence I point it out to you.

--80.228.154.61 09:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen several Holocaust movies this year without really trying as I tend to go to art houses quite a bit. I've never seen a single movie about the Holodomor -- and I've looked for one.  I hear one was made some time ago.  A similar search for Holocaust movies yielded over a hundred -- quite accessible -- movies.  As far as the Holodomor goes, there's nothing to deny because from the stand-point of the Zeigeist, it is a non-event -- made so by Jewish dominance of Hollywood and western politics.  One could call it Holodomor Denial by Ethnocentric Malign Neglect.  Jim Bowery 19:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm curious; is there anything you Stormfront denizens can't blame on the Jews? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What's your explanation of why there would be a 100 to 1 ratio of Holocaust movies to Holodomor movies when the death ratio of Jews to Ukranians in those events was less than 1? PS:  It must be obvious to you that Albert Einstein must have been a "Stormfront denizen" since he said "anti-Semitisim is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jews by the Jewish group". Jim Bowery 06:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Bowery, curiously enough, this quote is found on the world wide web on only one location - stormfront.org. Isn't that cute? To be fair, however, I vaguely recall this quote from somewhere, but I read it in German, and your rendition has lost much of the fine irony of the original. I would even consider the comment to be almost sarcastic. It remeinds me of the famous quote by some Jewish lawyer, which goes like this "the Germans will never forgive the Jews for the Holocaust".

A brilliant example of the best of Jewish humour.

Ok, while I think Jim Bowery has a point, but please pay attention to what I mean by that: fortunately for the Jews, they happen to have become probably the single most successful ethnic groups in North America (slowly being paralleled by the Indians, by the way), due to some interesting features of their culture (excellent family structures in the past, a very effective socias identity, and, most of all: a strong cultural tendency towards education. Due to the social make-up of Jewish immigrants to North America, and the traditional work specialisation these groups brought with them, they were, among other things, quite successful in the entertainment business. Fortunately, I might say. Jewish cosmopolitan attitudes have contributed much to the high quality and diversity of the movie industry. Imagine movies being made by puritans... In any case, consider further the tendency of distinct ethnic groups to show preference to their own kind (that's the same for every distinct group, by the way, it's natural. Just consider your own tendency to associate with people of your own social class, and most likely ethnic group). So, since Jews were among the pioneers among the movie makers, it is not surprising to find out that Jews continue to hold key positions in the industry. However, to conclude from this sociologically logical sequence of events that there was some kind of evil conspiracy is idiotic.

Ok, why are there no movies about the Holodomor? Well, probably because there are few Ukrainians in the movie industry. Most Ukrainian immigrants were farmers, for example, and hence not exactly the kind of social group likely to make movies.

In addition, there is little awreness about the Holodomor in general, which I believe has to do with the fact that at the time the Holodomor occurred, the world outside Germany and the USSR was quite busy with figuring out who of the two was worse. Then came WWII, and being anti-Soviet became unsexy, to put it mildly. After that, the world was probably ripe for the tale of the Holodomor, but... something did not take place, namely: a huge number of Ukrainians with access to free media. That is the difference between them and the jews: there were enough Jews in the free world that were able to access the media and talk about their experiences. Of course, they talked about the Shoa, and not the Holodomor (just as Ameriindians don't talk about the Shoa but about Colonization, for example). It was a fortunate constellation of social and polticial circumstances that made it possible for the Shoa to become widely known, whereas the Holodomor remained obscure for a different set of historical and social circumstances. And then it became increasingly easy to talk about the Shoa, since more people knew about it, and the dramatic set-up for a Shoa themed movie became a lot easier. It's actually a really interesting example of success begetting success.

The Armenians suffer from a similar problem, but they are slowly beginning to address it, particularly as the Armenian diaspora is far better organized and financially successful than the Ukrainian.

So, on the face of it, Bowery has a point, but his analysis sucks. It's like stating that the sun rises in the east, but claiming that this is because Helios is taking his horses for a ride.

Hope I have sufficiently muddled the discussion.

--80.228.154.61 09:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good analysis. The Holodomor is deserving of wider recognition. Is there an organized Holodomor Denial movement (to compare to the Holocaust Denial movement)? There might be, for all I know; there are still Stalinists around who refuse to recognize any wrongdoing by the Stalin regime; and I figure the facts of the Holodomor were suppressed by the Soviet government, which had (shall we say) an interesting grasp on what constituted "truth". Does anyone have any good data to present on this? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I do not have any data on that, and I do not honestly believe that there is a HUGE movement out there denying its reality. However, I SUSPECT that you may find a few holodomor denier in Russia, as well as in universities in most western countries, particularly France, Germany, Italy, and the US. Western academics have had a sickening tendency to try to assume the best about the USSR, and I am not sure that this has changed too much. I actually own that disgusting piece of drivel I have mentioned earlier (the book denying the holodomor took place). However, considering that it is the ONLY copy of such books, and comparing it to the quite extensive collection of Shoa denial literature, I would have to believe that shoa denial is much more serious a threat to the open societies than holodomor denial.

Both drive me up the wall in a very serious manner, though.

Well, I actually do consider a lot of the 'revisionist' literature on the Soviet Union to have the potential of possibly having to be considered part of holodomor denial. I think rather than holodomor denial, one should call it Soviet atrocity denial... now there's a cute word I just invented... THAT IS a fairly widespread way of thinking, though, and that COULD be considered as being morally on par with shoa denial.

Well, at least according to me. and who am I, after all? Just an anonymous IP.

--80.228.154.154 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're more than just an anonymous IP -- you're an anonymous IP who has made my case for me. Jews should not be allowed to occupy positions of trust and authority, either in the public or private spheres, among other peoples due to their ethnocentrism, which produces such moral grotesqueries as the bias in public awareness toward the Holocaust and away from the Holodomor.  The fact that people call such a statement "conspiracy theorizing" and nod their heads in stupid agreement, as you called my prior similar statements, merely demonstrates the damage to the mental faculties Jews have caused to the population. Jim Bowery 06:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bowery, your position is anti-semitic to the core, motivated by nothing than ethnic hatred. If you were really just concerned about any ethnic group dominating an industry, then please tell me whether you are bothered by the fact that the fruit-growing industry in the US is dominated by Anglo-Saxons. Are you bothered by the fact that grain-growing in the US is dominated by Anglo-Saxons? Are you botheref by the fact that the pork-industry in Canada is dominated by people of German and Dutch decent? Are you bothered by the fact that the software industry is dominated by an Anglo-Saxon? In fact, this one Anglo-Saxon seems to have a monopoly on almost all personal computer operating systems in the world. Does that bother you? Does it bother you that the grain-trade is dominated by Germans and Anglo-Saxons? That the beef industry is almost ENTIRELY in the hands of Anglo-Saxons? If one were to apply your 'logic', one should be far more concerned that a single ethnic group, Anglo-Saxons, seems to control almost the entire food supply of the US.

OF COURSE, you are NOT bothered by this. Because you are an Anglo-Saxon with a major anti-semitic complex. I could try to analyse the psychology of that, but I think that would go to far for this page. Simply look up [anti-semitism] here on wikipedia.

I have not made your case, because you don't have a case. The fact that you think I have made your case simply proves that you are incapable of understanding what you read. What I have done is demolish your case by showing how the apparent 'neglect' of the holodomor is simply the logical outcome of some unfortunate historic trends.

Let me state it very clearly, in a manner that even a dumb anti-semite like you might understand: the surprising presence of Jews in the entertainment industry is actually the DIRECT consequence of anti-semitism in Europe, as well as North America. I have not stated this explicitely, because I thought that my reference to the particular social composition of the Jews who immigrated to North America was a reference to limitations imposed on Jews in Europe by Anti-Semites throughout the centuries. It's an irony of fate that the anti-semitically motivated restrictions imposed on Jews in Europe over the centuries have actually turned out to be an advantage for the Jews as a social group in the long run when they arrived in North America. Many Jews remained at the bottom of the food chain even in North America, but for the intellectual and economic elites of the Jews, the former disadvantages have become major advantages. All I can say is: good for them.

The Jews as a social group are surprisingly accepting of non-Jews into their own social group, by the way. 'Mixed' marriages between Jews and non-Jews are extremely common, and have been one of the reasons the Jews have survived over the centuries. They do not seek converts, but they do accept others into their families. When a Jewish woman marries a non-Jew, the children are automatically accepted as Jews.

Most other ethnic groups have been far less accommodating. I bet, Mr. Bowery, that you would not accept the children resulting from a marriage between an WASP and a non-WASP as WASP.

If all ethnic groups would be as 'ethno-centric' as the Jews, there would be little racism left in this world.

I am not saying that all Jews are cosmopolitan multiculturalists, Jews are just as likely to have morons among them as other ethnic groups -- but, at least in North America, Jews are probably one of the least ethno-centric groups one can imagine.

So, to state it again, Mr. Bowery, your 'point of view' can take no solace from my analysis. None. You have no 'case' - you merely have an opinion, and a stupid one at that.

--Dietwald 16:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't waste your energy. I will avoid personal attacks, but I will point out that it is absolutely worthless to spend time attempting to convince dyed-in-the-wool Jew-haters of the blindness of their position. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right -- I am not aiming at Bowery, but at eventual accidental readers of this. Bowery's arguments appear strangely logical to the untrained eye - just like creationism or marxism. It's important to point out the absurdity of these arguments at least once whereever they are put forward.

In addition, I want to make clear that Bowery's opinions bear no resemblance to mine.

Thanks for your support.

How about we get back to the topic at hand, however?

--80.228.154.228 23:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably Mr Bowery would like a Nuremburg type law banning Jews from public office and then concentrate them all in ghettos!


 * OK. Back to the Holodomor. Our own Holodomor article indicates that it's a legitimately open question as to whether the famine was a deliberately genocidal policy or not. That's one of the differences, I think, between Holocaust and Holodomor; no reasonable person can suggest that the Nazi program was not explicitly one one of annihilation of the Jews. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

JP, I would agree in so far as that it was not a genocidal policy in the sense we understand it - however, I am certain that it is only a minority of people who believe the policy was not deliberate - the Soviet government knew about the famine, but deliberately failed to implement policies that would prevent it. Consider, for example, that at the time of the Holodomor the civil war had been over for almost ten years, and the USSR was in the midst of peace. The policy was not targetted against an ethnic groups, so far I agree. BUT, it was targetted against a social group. It WAS deliberate mass murder on a scale that today would be considered genocidal.

I am actually quite ticked off that the Tottle book is given so much prominence in that article. Imagine the Shoa was not a very promiment topic these days, and you look it up on wikipedia. Further imagine that you would find, say, the book "Did six million really die" in the intro, and it would be introduced as so-and-so says there actually was no deliberate mass killing of Jews - sure, many died, but to say that was deliberate is a zionist fiction. Well, this is pretty much what that article does. Tottle should be taken out of there, because he has no credibility whatsoever. It's like saying that while Raul Hilberg says this and this, Arthur Butz says this. Those two are not just not in the same league, they are hardly playing the same sport.

I think I will go there now and suggest to remove Tottle.

--Dietwald 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the Holodomor article now provides sufficient indication that would allow to include denial of the Holodomor into this section :q ....

Ok, well, let's wait how it works out. I'd appreciate if some of you who care have a look at what is going to happen there now. I am new here, and I hope i don't do any major booboos in terms of approach.

--Dietwald 16:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Biased Language
Holocaust denial refers to the claims of a small number of amateur historians who argue that the Holocaust

What about the historians who are not amateurs, and what about all the Ph.D. scientists who also claim there is little scientific evidence to support the holocaust? Why amateur historians? and not the mention of scientists?


 * I don't know of them please give names... Ericd 03:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, please name the professional historians and Ph.D. scientists who deny the Holocaust. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dr. David Duke, Dr. William Pierce, Dr. Fredrich Toben, Dr. Butz.... Many Many etc.. etc...

Human Liberties
lets not worry about people who supposedly died 60 some years ago,let's worry about people who get arrested for saying the holocaust didn't happen.

people getting a fine or being arrested just for saing somthing "wrong" violates civil liberties. Dudtz 9/20/05 5:53 PM EST
 * Sure does. Why not expand the section in the article discussing such laws? You're not the only one with this opinion; an NPOV description of the issues surrounding banning Holocaust denial might be both interesting and useful. On the other hand, the tiny number of people who have actually (not supposedly) been prosecuted under such laws certainly don't cause as much worry for most people as the millions actually (not supposedly) killed. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying they wern't killed but,I'm saying there is a possibility that they were. Dudtz 9/24/05 12:04 PM EST


 * Mm hm. And there's a possibility the moon landings were faked, too. There's a difference between an open mind and a lack of critical facilities. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Dr. David Duke, Dr. William Pierce, Dr. Fredrich Toben, Dr. Butz.... Many Many etc.. etc...

Crema Purposes
After the last typical, and boring, vandal wandered in (and got reverted), I noticed what might be an odd POV in stating what the deniers "believe", where their beliefs are assumed to be that only a "few" natural deaths would require the presence of Crema. According to my grandfather (oddly something of a denier), who was in 4 different camps during the war, the crema were often used for waves of disease or large numbers of death due to freezing, elderly people not able to handle the stress, overwork, etc. I started looking through the IHR and similar sites, and sure enough, they do not characterize death from "natural causes" as something rare. It seems to hinge on how one is defining "natural causes", or rather something like "expected deaths" vs. "intentionally inflicted deaths". Any suggestions on improvement? Ronabop 08:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs of Holocaust deniers and revisionists
There are some serious problems with the "deniers' and revisionists' claims" section.


 * 1. There was no specific order by Adolf Hitler or other top Nazi officials to exterminate the Jews.

Actually no such "specific order" by Hitler was ever found, and the distribution of responsibility for the killings is subject of serious historical debate, see functionalism versus intentionalism. This claim should be weakened.


 * 4. The figure of 5-6 million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration, and many Jews who actually emigrated to Russia, Britain, Palestine and the United States are included in the number.

5-6 million died in extermination camps, in all camps, or as a result of all Nazi anti-Jewish activities ? Nazi extermination camp suggests that 3.2M-3.8M people died in the extermination camps, not all of them Jews. The death toll should be qualified.


 * 5. Many photos and lots of film footage shown after World War II was specially manufactured as propaganda against the Nazis by the Allied forces. For example, one film, shown to Germans after the war, of supposed Holocaust victims were in fact German civilians being treated after Allied bombing of Dresden. Pictures we commonly see show victims of starvation or typhus, not of gassing.

Some certainly did, doh. Widespread manufacturing of propaganda materials during the war is no secret, even one of the most famous war shots - the German September 1st's toll gate movie (I don't know if it's as well known outside of the Central Europe), is known to be a fabrication. On the other hand it would require a much stronger claim - one that almost all such material was fabricated for the claim to have any strength as an arguement for denial.


 * 6. Claims of what the Nazis supposedly did to the Jews were all intended to facilitate the Allies in their intention to enable the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and are currently used to garner support for the policies of the state of Israel, especially in its dealings with the Palestinians.

There are two separate claims here - one about moving Jews to Palestine, which is just weird, and another that Israel uses Holocaust for its own purposes, which is, well, simply true and has little relation to Holocaust as such.


 * 7. Although crimes were committed, they were not centrally orchestrated and thus the Nazi leadership bore no responsibility for the implementation of such a policy.

Functionalism versus intentionalism is a valid research subject.


 * 8. There is an American, British or Jewish conspiracy to make Jews look like victims and to demonize Germans. Also, it was in the Soviet interest to propagate wild stories about Germany in order to frighten related nations into accepting Soviet rule (Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.). The amount of money pumped into Israel and reparations from Germany alone give Israel a strong incentive to maintain this conspiracy.

Conspiracy or not, inequal treatment of German and Soviet atrocities is well documented. Katyń massacre anyone ?


 * 11. In any event, the Holocaust pales in comparison to the number of dissidents and Christians killed in Soviet gulags, which Holocaust deniers usually attribute to Jews.

The most common estimates for number of people killed by the Soviet camp system are higher than for the Nazi camp system. As the Soviet number is much less certain, this statement has more to do with one's opinion on Gulag, than on the Nazi camps. Taw 15:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the issue you are raising. These are the arguments they make; are you saying they're not good arguments? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

der
Holocaust deniers deny the holocaust completely. Holocaust revisionists believe that the holocaust happened, but that 11 million people (its amazing the amount of people who say to me '11 million werent killed, 6 million jews were' they are fools, it is claimed 5 million others like gypsys slavs and homos were killed ontop of the claimed 6 million jews) didnt die in it.