Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 22

HD is connected to Pseudoscience and should be included in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Let's mention that Holocaust denial has pseudoscientific elements here, so that we can include it in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience.

Drafts with sources


 * Add in this article to the body under  Institute for Historical Review :


 * As a movement, holocaust denial historical revisionism is associated with pseudoscientific evidence  and fringe academic networks including their own  intradiegetic pseudoscientific journals, conferences, and professional organizations (e.g. Journal of Historical Review, International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust).


 * Add to the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience :


 * Holocaust denial – Historical revisionist movements associated with holocaust denial have employed pseudoscientific evidence  and conspiracy theories published in intradiegetic pseudo-academic journals and presented at fringe conferences (e.g. misconstruing cyanide residue studies, claiming despite all evidence to the contrary that gas chambers were built after the war).

Thoughts, feelings? On where to add it to the body? How to word it? Feel free to edit the above drafts, or add your own below, at your own will. Let's resolve this! Thanks.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC) ( edited 16:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC) to add quotes to sources and add the term "intradiegetic" to describe these pseudo-academic journals)
 * Yes as it missuses (or straight-up lies) about using the scientific method to make false claims. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. Holocaust denial is more pseudohistory than pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is sometimes used to push the narrative, but it isn't really characterised as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to this position, @AndyTheGrump, but I have to tell you, the sources are pretty explicit. From academic experts who are recognized both in this field and in pseudoscience in general. We have better sourcing on this than we do on many pseudoscience topics. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I say yes... my background is from the hard and also soft sciences...... to me it is ridiculous that economics is considered a science, while history is not.  But as you have stated, the sources are quite explicit and numerous: Yale press, Stanford, etc.  DTMGO (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Economics is considered a science? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Enough for the Nobel Prize given by the Sveriges Riksbank to be officially called the: Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Thomas Carlyle called it "the dismal science" As a virologist and neuroscientist, of course I would dispute this characterization, but I think inter-disciplinary rib-jabbing is probably not encyclopedic, lol — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clearly more relevant than "Christ myth theory", which is in there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support this move. There are enough very RS to justify it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "employed pseudoscientific evidence" phrasing skirts around the "history as science" issue. Thanks for the wordsmithing. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some part of holocaust denial that are more pseudohistory than pseudoscience but the work of deniers like Fred A. Leuchter seems to fall pretty cleanly into the latter. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. These seem like reasonable enough summaries of the sources and aren't placing undue weight on that aspect. It's definitely true that Holocaust denial is more pseudohistory than pseudoscience, but it's not like we're adding this to the lead; pseudoscience is also involved and is worth a brief mention in the body like this. --Aquillion (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds good to me. Pseudohistory and pseudoscience will naturally overlap in places, and the sources make clear that this is one of them. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I don't see why not. Holocaust denial is pseudo-history rather than pseudoscience, but that seems like splitting hairs over how to categorise claptrap. Realistically HD is a political or ideological tool, used by those who know better to fool those that don't. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, and agree with previous comments. Holocaust denial is only partly pseudoscience (Leuchter was the first thing that came to my mind, too), but this is skilfully worded and well-supported. DFlhb (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, regretfully. While I am *very* sympathetic to the underlying goal, here, and would like to see some kind of action, the terms of pseudoscience simply don't apply to history for the most part (except in very clear cases of falsification of primary documents, which does occur, in well-known and less well-known examples). I'm deep into a project about historiography, and it's amazing how recently professional standards came to the profession of "historian" (mid-19th c.), and how much the philosophy of history and history-writing, what it is, and what it means to say we "know" something applies to this field. It's hard to say something significant about it here without writing a novel, so I'll just leave you with the quote, "Facts are artificial constructions" as a teaser to read the monograph, The Historical Narrative", by Peter Munz. I think we can apply WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, but unfortunately not pseudoscience, except for the special cases noted. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are no sources that say it is pseudoscience, just that it employs pseudoscientific methods. But that is the case with most conspiracy theories and false claims, such as JFK assassination conspiracy theories, WMDs in Iraq or whether Meghan Markle's children exist. Should all of them be listed? I would say that unless a theory is specifically about science, then it should not be included. Incidentally, if holocaust denial pseudoscience, then would one consider the accepted history of the holocaust to be science? If so, should we list every verified historical as science? TFD (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Appendixes
Tagging discussion participants from elsewhere to centralize discussion productively: @DTMGO, @VQuakr, @Valjean, @Tgeorgescu, @MrOllie, @Girth Summit, @Roxy the dog, @Hob Gadling, @Hypnôs, @Escape Orbit, @Bon courage, @Aquillion, @XOR'easter, @Some1.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Grammar
Under Denial as a Means of Genocide, the grammar of this sentence doesn't seem right:

Denial of the mass murder of gas chambers, according to Douglas, repeats the Nazi efforts to persuade the victims that they were actually harmless showers

Maybe this should be 'Denial of the mass-murder using gas chambers...' 24.51.192.49 (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done with other adjustments to the sentence to help the flow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do we have it at all? It seems to me that it adds nothing. Zerotalk 07:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Denying 6 million is not denial
The introduction states that Holocaust denial entails the view that "The actual number of Jews murdered is significantly lower than the accepted figure of approximately 6 million."

Raul Hilberg, the eminent Holocaust historian and author of the Destruction of the European Jews, estimated 5.1 million dead. Hilberg wasn't a denier.

Obviously, if you said the number was 500,000 that would be denial. But significantly lower than 6 million (e.g. close to 5 million) is not denial. This passage should be rewritten to read: "The actual number of Jews murdered is significantly lower than the accepted figure of approximately 5 to 6 million." 205.178.44.20 (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article does not claim that Raul Hilberg was a Holocaust denier. In fact, it notes that Hilberg testified for the prosecution in the trial of a Holocaust denier. Hilberg also was an expert concerning the extensive documentation accumulated by and seized from the Nazi government that supports the historical record of the Holocaust. The lead of the article is quite clear as to what constitutes Holocaust denial, and debate as to the exact number of hundreds of thousands murdered is not proposed in that definition of Holocaust denial. That Hilberg may have felt the figure was closer to 5.1 million does not make the estimate of 6 million something other than the "accepted figure". As cited: We follow our sources.  General Ization  Talk  01:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * HIberg has come up over a dozen times in discussion, so should be added to the FAQ. Hilberg estimated a range of 4.9 to 5.4 million, which is not "significantly lower" than the current estimate of 6 million. Furthermore, Hilberg relied on sources available in 1961 and his estimate does not include deaths for which records were not available or where they had not been kept at all. TFD (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Deviation from settled facts only becomes denialism after those facts are settled. Since Hilberg wrote before that time (and contributed to the settling), his figures could be even further away from the later figures and he would still not be a denialist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Add information
I suggest this to be added to the article:

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has defined Holocaust denial as: “any attempt to claim that the Holocaust/Shoah did not take place [and]… may include publicly denying or calling into doubt the use of principal mechanisms of destruction (such as gas chambers, mass shooting, starvation and torture) or the intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people”. A resolution on Holocaust denial was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in January 2022, condemning Holocaust denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, and urging Member States and online platform companies to take active measures to combat antisemitism and Holocaust denial or distortion. Holocaust distortion refers to claims that do not outright deny the reality of the Holocaust, but seek to distort or subvert key facts about it. Holocaust distortion is both far more widespread than Holocaust denial and “often shares the same antisemitic goals”.

I suggest to add a section on Holocaust distortion:

Holocaust Distortion
Holocaust distortion significantly and deliberately misrepresents its historical facts. For example, the numbers of victims might be underestimated; the numbers of helpers and rescuers inflated; difficult parts of a country’s own national history might be overlooked or omitted (for example, holding only Hitler and the leading Nazis responsible, downplaying the role of collaborators and the widespread complicity of many ordinary people in the genocide, including in occupied and allied countries). Several countries have introduced “memory laws” that attempt to advance specific narratives of the Holocaust, that deflect guilt and responsibility for the crime of genocide from the nation to Nazi Germans, “marginal fringe” groups, or onto the Jewish people. The laws advance Holocaust distortion when they deny national or communal complicity in atrocity crimes, and protect those narratives from criticism or refutation. In several instances, such laws have been used to prosecute or have significantly restricted legitimate historical inquiry by researchers, scholars and on the victims of atrocity crimes, which infringe upon international standards of freedom of expression. National memory debates have also included efforts to rehabilitate the perpetrators of the genocide, by portraying their ignorance of Nazi crimes, conjecturing about their “secret opposition” to genocidal acts, or representing the perpetrators as victims. Current expressions of Holocaust distortion are numerous and varied.

-

I suggest adding a section on "actions against Holocaust denial".

A global commitment to counter Holocaust denial and distortion
The United Nations resolution from January 2022 defines Holocaust denial and distortion as referring to:

•	Discourse and propaganda that deny the historical reality and the extent of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their accomplices during the Second World War, known as the Holocaust or Shoah;

•	Any attempt to claim that the Holocaust did not take place, and may include publicly denying or calling into doubt the use of principal mechanisms of destruction (such as gas chambers, mass shooting, starvation and torture) or the intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people;

•	Intentional efforts to excuse or minimize the impact of the Holocaust or its principal elements, including collaborators and allies of Nazi Germany;

•	Gross minimization of the number of the victims of the Holocaust in contradiction of reliable sources;

•	Attempts to blame the Jews for causing their own genocide;

•	Statements that cast the Holocaust as a positive historical event;

•	Attempts to blur the responsibility for the establishment of concentration and death camps devised and operated by Nazi Germany by putting blame on other nations or ethnic group:

In the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on Holocaust denial, adopted on 20 January 2022, Member States expressed specific concern about “the growing prevalence of Holocaust denial or distortion through the use of information and communications technologies”. The resolution urges all Member States to ‘reject without any reservation any denial or distortion of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end’. It further asks Member States to develop programmes to educate future generations, and urges online platform companies to take active measures to combat antisemitism and Holocaust denial or distortion. This report and recommendations are intended as a contribution to this vital work.

COVID-19
Procedural equivalence is a type of equivalence, it focuses on comparing current government behaviour, especially policies related to COVID-19, to the tools and techniques of the Nazi regime. A rhetorical use of the Holocaust is evident – the “Nazi card” being played to delegitimize government policies. These references focused on the language and practices of Nazi government, equating them with policies said to threaten contemporary society in similar ways. Procedural equivalence also makes use of the moral force of the Holocaust but is largely oriented towards dire fantasies and predictions rather than comparison to actual events. One such reference was to the “Yellow Star”, a badge that Nazi Germany and its collaborators throughout Europe forced Jews to wear to identify themselves (although in other forms it has featured in many other societies since medieval times). Comparisons of the Yellow Star to “health passes”, which were part of many societal responses to COVID-19, were a recurring motif on online platforms (and have also been used in demonstrations throughout the world), with many arguing that the health pass is used to exclude and marginalize the unvaccinated in the same way that the Yellow Star was used to push Jews out of society. Vaccination requirements bear no resemblance to the experience and reality of persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany or during the Holocaust and reveal a deep lack of empathy towards victims of the Holocaust, or the incapacity to conceive of Jews as victims.

Lisa Rechelle (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "oriented towards dire fantasies and predictions rather than comparison to actual events." What is the difference with old-fashioned fearmongering? It has been used to manipulate large populations for quite some time. Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Outdated text
"In 2006 the Netherlands rejected a draft law proposing a maximum sentence of one year on denial of genocidal acts in general, although specifically denying the Holocaust remains a criminal offense there." is now outdated as this sentence of one year was passed. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a reference? Zerotalk 06:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is modern Polish Holocaust denial not mentioned?
It has become fashionable in Poland to paint the Polish nation as having been largely uninvolved or unwilling participants in the Holocaust, which is a form of soft Holocaust denial or "Holocaust distortion" as Jan Grabowski calls it. Why is this not mentioned in the text? It has gone so far as the PiS-controlled senate passing a law making pointing out Polish participation in the Holocaust punishable by up to three years in prison (BBC article, NYT article). KetchupSalt (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * What text do you suggest adding to what section cited to what sources? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me get back to you on that, I need to dive into the relevant research. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not tried looking at sources at all, but it may not be that easy to find good ones referring to this "thing" as Holocaust denial. Which is a must per WP:OR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Holohoax" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holohoax&redirect=no The Holohoax] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Why no evidence in the article for the denial?
There is literally a complete, separate Wikipedia article on the evidence for the standard Holocaust theory. ("Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust")

This seems to be the only article for Holocaust Denial. Why is there no evidence for the Holocaust Denial / Revisionism here? There are multiple books on the subject, and for example the Zundel trials were places where evidence was given. (The trial evidence is also in books)

So why is there no evidence in this article? For example, hoaxes relating to Holocaust diaries, death tolls etc are pure facts, and can be found even on MSM, but somehow not here. Ioooi (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Because we have a higher standard of what constitutes "evidence".  -  Sumanuil  .  (talk to me) 04:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your statement seems to be objectively not true.
 * Ioooi (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The same reason we don't list evidence that the earth is flat?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You do realize it is much, much more persuasive to claim the the Flat Earthers are "wrong", if you actually take all of their arguments, and show why they are wrong?
 * Currently, Wikipedia clearly avoids every single thing about Holocaust Denial like a hot potato. Not a single mention of e.g. the long, long list of different hoaxes that made it even to MSM through all the years.
 * If the theory is true, it will be extremely easy to show that it is true. For example, everyone who doubts the gravity as a permanent physical phenomenom, can be pretty quickly shown to be wrong.
 * Ioooi (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is literally a list of evidence against the Evolution theory
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
 * Ioooi (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As you noticed, there already is an article that explains the evidence for the Holocaust. TFD (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But why on earth there is not a similar article on the evidence against the standard Holocaust theories?
 * The intellectual credibility of Wikipedia is not very high, if every single piece of evidence against the Holocaust is just censored to oblivion.
 * Here is an article against the Evolution theory:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
 * Ioooi (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In order to create an article you need to show there is a sufficient body of sources to establish weight. There is a large body of literature addressing creationist objections to evolution. But there is probably little or none addressing the arguments of Holocaust deniers. Or can you name any articles or books written about it? TFD (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That other article is "objections to evolution", not "evidence against evolution", because the former exists, but the latter does not. Likewise, there is no real "evidence against the standard Holocaust theories". We deal in facts here, and Sealioning is not looked upon kindly.  -  Sumanuil  .  (talk to me) 23:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the Wikipedia guidelines on this, and they *specifically* note that these viewpoints can be expressed, and Holocaust Denial was a *specific* example of a "fringe theory", that can and will be written about, despite it being completely contrarian to standard theories of history.
 * "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept"
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
 * "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
 * "Examples
 * Sufficiently notable for dedicated articles:
 * Holocaust denial"
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Examples
 * Thus I claim that Wikipedia should 100% have an article about the Holocaust Denial "proof", and that it is 100% in line with the specific Wikipedia Guidelines on articles about Fringe Theories
 * Clearly, the Holocaust Denial is a matter of sufficient notability & importance to have it's own article, otherwise this page would not exist. And clearly, a page like that should have in it the "proof" for the fringe theory in question. Without this, Wikipedia is not much more than cherrypicked propaganda.
 * Ioooi (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This article mentions the claims, appropriately. If you wish to provide some reliable sources providing proofs for the assertions of Holocaust Denial, please do so. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 February 2024
Request to remove the word "myth" from the lead of the article.

The original sentence includes:

"... that asserts that the Nazi genocide of Jews, known as the Holocaust, is a myth, fabrication, or exaggeration."

I'm proposing changing this to:

"... that asserts that the Nazi genocide of Jews, known as the Holocaust, is a fabrication or exaggeration."

Wikipedia defines "myth" as "a genre of folklore or theology consisting primarily of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myth." There are a number of places in Wikipedia where it's emphasized that the encylopedic/academic/historical use of the word "myth" means "legend" or "origin story" (see here, here, here, and here). Here, it's being used to mean "false statement", which is explicitly discouraged in those links.

Also, if we take "myth" to mean "false statement", then it's a synonym for "fabrication", so "myth, fabrication, or exaggeration" is redundant. Crystalholm (talk) 05:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)