Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 5

Holocaust denial?

 * I think this article needs to explain itself in several ways. First: "Holocaust deniers" are not holocaust deniers per se. This dishonest term pairs those who delusionally believe the Holocaust to be a "zionist hoax" with those who question the evidence that has been put forth to prove the Holocaust's dynamics. Stories about aspects of Dachau, shrunken heads and soap have been discredited, and some documents were later reexamined and determined to be forged. What gets me is that to show such dissent (before "mainstream historeography" changes its mind) is Holocaust denial, according to the article and this definition. Ever since these stories unravelled, the view that they were fabricated became accepted as mainstream. So, my question is, what exactly is Holocaust denial? Is it the guy trying to prove that the Earth is square and lying about it (and knows it or is in denial)? Where does that put Copernicus, who is trying to prove his conviction that the earth round but doesn't have enough evidence to disprove the skeptics yet? If both represent Holocaust denial, I think we are in trouble.


 * I was also confused by the section showing World Almanac Jewish population. Holocaust deniers were quoting a number from a book, and others looked in the same book and found a different number? Seems very elementary, such blatant distortion...even for "Holocaust denial". Can we have sources on this?


 * Also, perhaps FP Yockey the individual can be interpretted as a Holocaust denier (it would take some work), but Imperium itself only argues that World War II was twisted into a story of good vs. evil (as many wars are/were to gain popular support) with fabrications made to propagate this view further than the facts would lead on their own. No mention of the Holocaust, however. As for Yockey's identification w. Hitler, that is only because Hitler's was in line with the "Age of Absolute Politics" and concerned about nation and volk - or at least Hitler presented himself that way. In any case, Yockey's sought after the Imperium for "Western Man" and in Hitler, it is obvious that he was drawn in by the Messiah-like figure Hitler appeared before Germany as. Yockey's obsession with his long-awaited Imperium and historical culmination. His views about the culture-soul and identity made him rather "xenophobic", but his primary disapproval of the Jews was their ungrounded status as "cultural parasites" (sounds much worse than how he writes about it). As a culture-centrist, it followed that he would have disapproved with the Jew's - or anyone's - effect as a minority. Multiculturalism had no purpose in his view. He hardly endorses Hitler, and the Jews are mentioned rather infrequently in the 600+ pages of his book and he even tries to analyze anti-semites, criticizing them.--72.92.0.83 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the most basic thing Holocaust deniers deny is that they are deniers in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is really constructive, Jayjg. Thank you for bringing it to my attention that I'm supposed to be a "Holocaust denier" because I don't feel such a strong bias against those who challenging history (when it is conducted according to the rules of legitimate investigation). That is exactly why this pigeonholing title of "Holocaust denier" does ont work. Those who legitimately question the dimension of things should not be persecuted by your rhetoric.


 * The article isn't very consistent on its definition of "HCD" either. First says its one, then it says that it is the other. Then when someone is quoted to discreted efforts of "HCD" we are led to assume it is anyone who has even pondered the subject. The article is pretty decent otherwise, but I wish you could answer my questions constructively. I'm taking Yockey off your smear list (although in some cases, it is rightfully titled). I'm sure you wouldn't have the patience to read Imperium to find out for yourself that he makes no claims about the Holocaust, which is your exact claim. I read it, he's concerned with political theory, not denial or anti-semitism. --72.92.0.83 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "you" but this is what I have to say to a lot of the people here (though not the person above me): if you think the article is wrong, change it. -Unknownwarrior33 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone think of a good term - derogatory please - for Holocaust believers ( Holocaust insisters, Holocaust hallucinators, etc ) just to get the name calling on a level playing field. An honest article - sorry to offend - would list several of the points that "deniers" have put forward that are now excepted by all but the radical fringe "believers". That would be a start. There are many questions that "believer" researches could answer if they could get the kids onto the sidelines.

You want a term for Holocaust believers? Fine how about non-Nazi, or better yet normal people. Sure some of the stories might be exaggerated or made up (this happens with EVERY era in history) but to say the whole thing is a humoungus conspiracy? That makes you seem more crazy then the people who think Lee Harvy Oswald was an FBI agent set out to kill JFK with the help of 30 people behind the grassy knoll that Jack Ruby was with the White House staff and the whole thing somehow linked to the Lincoln assassination.Father Time89 06:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

concerning the list of "Holocaust denial beliefs"
...some are exclusive claims of Holocaust deniers, while others borrow from other realms of history and are, by the wording of the article, also discredited. There is nothing "weaselly" about stating that some of the claims listed are shared by Holocaust deniers and other patrons, or that some are actually valid points. What certainly is suspicious is including certain claims in Holocaust denial territory and stripping away their credibility when paired with some of the beliefs of Holocaust deniers that are, and are written off as, completely absurd. You can't say "here is what the Holocaust deniers believe" and include items that are accepted outside of H.C. denial territory without identifying them as such. That is just wrong. --72.92.0.83 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The entire article is rife with bias of a sort that wouldn't be tolerated on other pages. As pointed out in discussions above [now archived], the name of this article is itself a POV. "Holocaust supporters" or "holocaust deniers": it's all such tripe. Why don't we stick to the facts? The point is that "deniers" are actually "questioners" or "seekers after the truth". Lumping people who don't fit a certain profile together into one denigrated group is the tactic of Stalinism and fascism. Perhaps we should all read Orwell's "1984" once more with feeling. Al-Fie 03:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, Deniers are actually "questioners or seekers after the truth". Or, at least the truth as they'd like it to be. People who are honestly "seeking the truth" look at BOTH sides of an issue, and _critically_ examine evidence. While there is lots of lip service paid to the truth by these so called "truth" seekers, it's amazing how often they bring up debunked claims, recycle old mistruths and try to cast doubt on small details while ignoring the overall events. I also specifically disagree the "article title is POV" -- the Holocaust is a historical fact, and there are people that attempt to deny some or all of this fact. These are all facts, and not point of view. 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I was telescoping my argument and conflating the two terms, "deniers" and "revisionists", since that is precisely what the article atttempts to do. They are not identical terms. There has been one long effort at undermining the revisionists' contributions towards critical examination of all available facts. If revisionists are so patently absurd, why not state their views baldly, without comment, and just let everybody laugh their heads off? A valid question is a valid question, and if people here refuse to allow it to be stated openly, then that is censorship, and worse. It is fear that one's belief system might start to crumble around the edges. Al-Fie 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, almost all "holocaust revisionists" _are_ holocaust deniers, so they are, in effect, identical. As a student of history, I welcome any question about any event. However, the interesting thing is that "holocaust revisionists" seem to ONLY question the holocaust, and not any other historical event. But, they aren't just historians (or what they'd like to believe are historians), but also chemists, engineers, and a dozen other disciplines. What I think is that it's not a belief system that is starting to crumble, but rather a political system which is in need of desperate rehabilitation. 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ...or outright elimination. *tongue-in cheek* Not that I support Holocaust denial (or Holocaust revisionism, or whatever the hell it is). --physicq210 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "holocaust revisionists" seem to ONLY question the holocaust" Some of them also question events of WW2 unrelated to the Holocaust (like the events in Oradour-sur-Glane), or even events unrelated to WW2 like the Armenian genocide. Serge Thion also says the was no genocide in Cambodia. Apokrif 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of Holocaust "Deniers"
Some thoughts:

War crimes trials are characterized by the assumption that rules of evidence are a technicality designed to enable the guilty to evade punishment. In fact, however, their purpose is to protect tribunals from errors in judgement.

Centuries ago, it was common to prosecute women for performing sexual acts with the Devil. These acts were described in minute detail in thousands of trials, in millions of pages of sworn testimony. It was established, for example, that Satan's ejaculatory fluid is cold.

Thousands of women stood fast in their confessions to the very foot of the stake, proving the truth of the matter stated; others recanted, proving the contumacy of the Tempter.

Thousands of men were burned for signing a Compact with the Prince of Darkness. This was a written contract, binding on both parties, the exact text of which was known to jurists for centuries; yet the original document was never found. Secondary evidence was accepted as to its existence and content.

Satan's existence was proven by his many appearances in the form of a cat or a goat; his failure to fulfil his contractual obligatians was seen as a simple breach of faith.

Scientific experiments were performed. Women known to have participated in the Black Mass were found not to have left their beds during the night, proving that transportation is spiritual, rather than physical.

Professional witnesses denounced thousands of people; defendants were condemned on the basis of ex parte affidavits signed by unknown persons; hallucinations and dreams were introduced into evidence in sworn statements.

Persons defending the accused could only be motivated by secret sympathy with Satan's conspiracy or Common Plan.

Respected people entered prison defiant, confident that God would prove them innocent; only to emerge a month later, prepared to confess publicly and be burned alive for kissing the anus of a goat.

Slimilar procedures and rules of evidence were used after the last war to convict Germans of killing millions of Jews in a toxicologically absurd manner, using an insecticide requiring 24 hours to kill moths.

It is characteristic of modern thought that man is held to be progressing in some manner, a concept which was foreign to the medieval world.

Carlos Whitlock Porter

Al-Fie 11:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yawn. What suggestions do you have to improve the article? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

None, Jpgordon. You, jayjg, and SlimVirgin have absolute control over the article. However, I draw the line at the suppression of free interchange of ideas. BTW, people who find themselves bored are often boring themselves. Al-Fie 05:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer the only factual thing concerning HC in your citation, visit Nizkor's respond to the "66 Q&A" 28-32, it answers issues with Zyklon-B quite well.
 * In short: The mentioned insecticide is hydrogen cyanide - this no longer sounds as harmless as "insecticide"... It takes long to kill insect, it takes much shorter to kill mammals - ask some US executioners . For other "toxicologically absurd" issues, read the pages on Nizkor. --Marvin talk 11:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It's a very important distinction between killing insects and killing mammals. The title of this discussion section, "Philosophy", means "love of learning or knowledge" in classical Greek, so facts are what really matter in deciding historical issues. These things should have been investigated and proven with demonstrable evidence (photographs, pre-1945 documents, etc.) by those best situated: the Nuremberg prosecutors. The Nuremberg evidence is almost solely testimonial, which is highly capable of corruption. I'm always amazed at how many Nazis "committed suicide" in their jail cells with some poison in their possession which the jailers somehow never noticed. But this can go on forever. Show me a photograph of the ventilation systems, if you would, please. There are pictures of shower heads, pictures of ordinary cellars, pictures of nice little cottages or houses or outbuildings, and pictures of piles of rubble which once may have been ammunitions magazines; but there are no pictures of special equipment except those small, airtight chambers intended for removing lice. At least that I've seen. Al-Fie 14:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be advised that this is not a discussion forum. The sole purpose of Wikipedia article talk pages is to work on improving the article. Since you've said you have no suggestions for improving the article, please find another place for this conversation. Thank you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have said that one is not allowed to have sugestions. Curious use of the


 * "bullet"

there, Jpgordon. Seems nonstandard, as if you are making more out of yourself than other contributors. Al-Fie 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist vs. Denier
Yet again this issue crops up with regard to the list of "Notable Holocaust Deniers", since people seem to want to put anyone in there who is an enemy of Israel, an outspoken anti-semite, or who has merely made loud statements against the concept of the Jewish Holocaust. It seems intellectually dishonest to equate all of them with each other, and all of them as a group with people who have published discussions and research about factual matters and who openly question the holocaust, whatever a person here might think of such conclusions. 69.109.167.245 23:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist vs. Denier - Contradict
"The term "denier" (also but less often in English "negationist"[3]) is objected to by the people to whom it is applied, who prefer "revisionist," though most scholars contend that the latter term is deliberately misleading.[4] While historical revisionism is the re-examination of accepted history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less-biased information, "deniers" have been criticized for seeking evidence to support a preconceived theory, omitting substantial facts. Broadly, historical revisionism is the approach that history as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate and should hence be revised accordingly. Historical revisionism in this sense is a well-accepted and mainstream part of history studies, and it is applied to the study of the Holocaust as new facts emerge and change our understanding of it." -- this seems to contradict its self and needs to be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyblue (talk • contribs) 07:27, August 6, 2006
 * No, it doesn't. It's making a distinction between what holocaust deniers want to call "holocaust revisionism" and historical revisionism. One's hooey, one's just the craft of history. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In your opinion.
 * There are some basic tenets of the holocaust "believers" which have been demonstrated to be absolute bunkum.
 * Such as lampshades made of human skin.
 * Or soap made from human fat.
 * Or the tattooing of numbers on forearms/hands.
 * Or the existence of gas chambers at numerous claimed sites.
 * I'm using bullets because jpgordon uses them, apparently to make himself appear to be the one "in charge" here, and I just think they're kinda neat. I'll go back to the standard format some other time.
 * My suggestion for this article is to state the facts, views, and history of Holocaust revisionism without the insinuating POV tone which pervades the article currently.Al-Fie 16:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

'''OK JPGORDON, HERE'S A BONE TO PICK FROM THE "INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW", A MAJOR HOLOCAUST DENIER WEBSITE, IN YOUR OPINION. THIS IS IN DAVID IRVING'S OWN WORDS. IRVING IS LIKE THE DEVIL INCARNATE TO YOU:'''

''Here I want to mention something that I'm always very adamant about. Although we revisionists say that gas chambers didn't exist, and that the "factories of death" didn't exist, there is no doubt in my mind that on the Eastern front large numbers of Jews were massacred, by criminals with guns -- SS men, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, whatever -- to get rid of them. They were made to line up next to pits or ditches, and then shot. The eyewitness accounts I've seen of this are genuine and reliable. David Irving''

That's what I call a balanced, historically factual viewpoint. Get real. Get a clue. Millions of people died in WWII, some of them were innocent Jews, some of them were innocent French, some of them were innocent Dutch, Russians, Italians, Poles, Latvians, Belgians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukranians, English, Greeks, Austrians, Czechoslovakians, Yugoslavians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Danes, Swedes, Finns, and yes, even Americans. Can't bear to argue with a holocaust denier? It's yourself you're arguing with.

What the heck, I bet a few innocent Germans died, too. Oh no, that's right, "innocent German" is an oxymoron in your playbook isn't it? Who the hell do you people, jpgordon, jayjg, SlimVirgin, the occasional squiddy, et al think you are? Control-freaks of the universe? Stop reversing everybodies' edits in your sanctimonious, gang-warfare kind of way. Have you finally gotten to me? You bet you have. I'm so mad I'm gonna crack a beer and calmly stroll outside and contemplatively look over my garden and maybe even feed my goldfish and koi and enjoy watching them fulfill their existence, such as it is, that's how far under my skin you've gotten. Then I guess I'll go eat dinner and read a novel, I'm so pissed off.Al-Fie 00:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Jpgordon. You, jayjg, and SlimVirgin have absolute control over the article." Jpgordon and jayjg are two of my favorite Wikipedia Administrators. I would dispense with the notion the article is subject to debate, its content has already been decided with priori. These admins police any article related to the Holocaust and viciously attack anyone who raises the same sort of concerns that you have Al-Fie. A quick look at JPGordon's talk page reveals the articles he almost exclusively participates in. The first subjects are users complaining that JPgordon is policing the Benito Mussolini and Benjamin H. Freedman articles, followed by what exactly "Gesher Tov" means in Hebrew. Further down we see debates about the Bill Clinton article and what exactly constitutes a black person being labeled black versus what constitutes a Jewish person. As for jayjg, he has much the same response to any disagreements on sensitive talk pages such as the Holocaust page, Holocaust Denial et al. in that "what you're saying has no relevance to the article" or some statement about how phony the sources you cite are in relation to the "accepted facts" already in the article. He has already called me a Holocaust denier and suggested I am trying to "white-wash" Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich because I don't agree with certain suspicious content and biased statements inserted into related articles. One user even posted on jayjg's talk page demanding he intervene and claimed I am turning the Einsatzgruppen talk page into a "Holocaust denial forum" simply for raising these same concerns that you are. Judging from jayjg's talk page, he and jpgordon seem to post on alot of the same discussion pages and police the same articles. The first subject on his talk page is another user asking jayjg to protect the Tay-Sachs disease article from edits, as I suppose this is a rather sensitive subject for a certain ethnic group and only they should be allowed to edit its content. The rest of the topics on jayjg's talk page consist of circumcision, the "new anti-semitism," the Lebanese-israeli conflict, Israel-Venezuela relations, a user demanding jayjg more carefully police the Einsatzgruppen article from "Holocaust deniers," and numerous assorted topics such as the "Jewish Israel lobby in the United States," IDF and Military of Israel, "Jewish Wikiversity," Islamophobia, Anti-Muslim sentiment, the 1929 Palestine riots, how to remove the term "arpatheid" from any article related to Israel, and a very in-depth discussion about how to edit the protocols of the elders of Zion article. Therefore it is not hard to deduce your complaints about this article will fall on deaf ears, especially when the Wikipedia Administrator body appears to be more Kosher than a Palm Beach Bar mitzvah. Now having pointed that out, watch how long it takes before the hysterical shrieking about Anti-semitism starts and then suddenly this talk page is "revised" to remove the uncomfortable facts I just presented. --Nazrac 23:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, pot meet kettle. Your rant isn't a "hysterical shrieking", huh? Talk pages aren't supposed to be discussion forums in general, but rather _discussions about the article in general_. Also, we are trying to put together an Encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool, and the first part of NPOV is Neutral.
 * Now that you've had your little political snit fit, maybe you can get back to assuming good faith and actually talking about the article on the article's talk page? 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where in Nazrac's hysterical rant did he deny that it was one, or that hysterical rants are bad? Also, the post is about the article, or at least WP articles in general, in that he discusses the tactics used by some to effectively end debate and change in this article and other similar articles. Against your claim that WP isn't a propaganda tool, Nazrac is saying that to have a bloc of articles controlled by a small number of people, who aggresively resist any changes contrary to their viewpoint, makes it propaganda, removing the N from NPOV. So let's get back to assuming good faith by allowing people to have alternative viewpoints on the Talk pages, mpbx 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as alternate viewpoints go, they are great provided they have a hope of being included in an article. Things that are reliably sourced and can be cited are more then welcome. Pet theories of an editor, however, should remain out of the page, as there isn't any hope that they could reasonably make it into the article. (Due to no sources being available)
 * Where does Nazrac present any proof that "a bloc of articles (are) controlled by a small group of people"? And even if that is the case, isn't there a possibility they could be Neutral, and be trying to maintain balance?
 * I've had the (pleasure?) of discussing some issues with Nazrac on various pages. His posts are often rambling, leaving the issue of the article and touching on a wide variety of related subjects, with no direct relevance to his point. When pressed for cites for his "facts", he produces links that are either off point or don't support his arguement. If that isn't propaganda, I'm not sure what is.
 * So, let's get back to Civility, and let's have some alternate viewpoints (even Nazrac's) that can be backed up and included to improve the article. 17:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is you can't actually "improve" an article on Holocaust denial without actually stating the views and evidence which the deniers themselves actually believe in. This article is not about what any individuadal editor believes to be the truth; this article is about what a fairly substantial group outside the mainstream believes to be the truth. The administrators who keep their abidingly watchful eye on this article will not allow it to be included, however, in sufficient form to convince any reader. That is what they are afraid of: a Wikipedia article which presents a cohesive viewpoint on Holocaust denial and which might actually change some minds. 69.109.167.107 05:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Something that would improve the article would be linking to the 'debate' conducted between Nizkor and Ernst Zundel. The links can be found on both websites and offer a balanced overview of the conflicting view-points from both sides. They can be found here --Nazrac 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous poster -- what "views and evidence" are we omitting? Is the article putting words in the mouths of revisionists/deniers?
 * Nazrac -- Both sites already have a link in the External links section, which gives much broader access to both sites. I'd be personally against adding extra links to sites that already have one, as there are so many links thre already. Plus, without any narrative, it won't really add anything to the article, but would rather encourage a "link war", where people would add _their_ viewpoints from both sides. (I'm not sure about wikipedia policy on this, it's just my feeling). I'd also like to thank you for making a concrete improvement suggestion. 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * what "views and evidence" are we omitting? Is the article putting words in the mouths of revisionists/deniers? In my view, the lion's share of the article is devoted to discounting or explaining away revisionist claims -- this can be judged by a cursory scan with the naked eye sans word counting. Further, a cohesive argument is never presented from start to finish, including a discussion of the evidence. The fragmentation of the denier/revisionist arguments and claims make them easy to brush off. 69.109.167.107 05:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are two articles on the denial subject; this article, and Examination of Holocaust denial. While I think that the arguements of denier's/revisionist's should be addressed there, I will respond to your point. The fact is there is a diverse group among revisionists/deniers, and they aren't always in agreement on all points. So, "fragmentation of the denier/revisionist arguements" starts with the revisionists/deniers themselves. I'm not sure there is a cohesive arguement "from start to finish" that is advanced by all revisionists/deniers. 17:16, 22 September 2006(UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that because the Holocaust deniers are not in absolute, 100% agreement with each other they are fragmented and incoherent? That's an awfully high standard to set, and I doubt most of Wikipedia could function if it required 100% agreement. I think "consensus" is the key word here. Are you implying it would be impossible to set forth a central argument in a cohesive form that would explain the "logic" of Holocaust denial? I can guarantee you it is possible, but were it done here would be deleted almost immediately. 69.109.166.52 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, this is best addressed in Examination of Holocaust denial. I'll clarify my point, though: I didn't mean that everyone has to be in 100% agreement, but most revisionists/deniers focus on fine details, and there are few (if any) overall treatments of the subject. There was a long discussion about whether "all", "most", "many" or "much" should be used to describe the core reviioinst/denier support of arguements, and great pain was taken to point out that all did not share those views. 22:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Examination of Holocaust denial is about Holocaust denial rebuttal, which is what this article is also largely about. Sometime in the future I will attempt to formulate one single cohesive argument against the mainstream conception of the Holocaust, and I fully expect it to be deleted no matter where I place the edit. Thanks for enlightening me, though. 69.109.166.52 01:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Proskauer, please login when editing. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you've got the wrong idea of Wikipedia. It's not our job to "formulate one single cohesive arguement" -- that would be original research. Our job is to try and explore topics that others have already looked at. As for rebuttal, whether revisionists admit it or not, their views and evidence are not generally accepted by historians, and that information has to be given in an Encyclopedia. Your original claim was that "views and evidence" were missing -- but now you seem to be saying that it's "not fair" that your treatment is deleted. Are you saying that your evidence and views trump all other editors and Historians, and that this is significantly different from what is described in the article? 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is talking about formulating an argument out of thin air. Perhaps "formulate" is the wrong word. Instead, the idea should be reporting existitng arguments made by Holocaust historians who question the mainstream account of the Holocaust in a cohesive and comprehensible way. A Wikipedia article on Kant or Heisenberg or Einstein would be obliged to represent the thoughts, beliefs, or achievements of those people in a way that the reader can actually understand. THE OPPOSITE is being performed here. Holocaust revisionist concepts, views, questions, etc are NOT put forth in a way that is understandable. Can you point me to a WP article in which it is impossible to understand the subject matter, but eminently possible to understand its refutation? Proskauer 06:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, the false comparison. Instead of people, how about advocates of theories, like the Flat Earth Society or any other Conspiracy theory? I do think that the article does report existing arguements . You have stated several times now that they aren't understandable, but haven't said why. Are they written with Weasel Words, or are the sentences somehow mangled? I'm not sure what isn't understandable there. Cantankrus 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Section: A Question of Belief
Heh, after much prior effort, I see I've been briskly archived. Not to worry, I'm wearing my tin foil hat today so I'm quite safe :)

Which (ahem) rather leads me to my point: in the interests of having something a little more encyclopedic in the article could there maybe be a section on irrational beliefs; beliefs confounded by evidence, people's propensity for such things, how they attack them and defend them etc. The article seems stuck on suggesting that "holocaust deniers" are equal parts evil and deluded. We could maybe deal with the deluded part in both this and the "Examination..." article with a bit of context and overview(?).

So I'm thinking the usual kind of thing: aliens, ghosts, cults, religion (if we're careful), racial superiority, racial purity, national myths etc. Hakluyt bean 17:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I was motivated to go back and read your (Hackluyt bean's) archived comments and found this one worth repeating, in response to someone's self-described conversion from denier to believer:


 * Re the ... statement ... it offers as evidence of what it describes only the words that it uses to describe. Ie it asserts rhetorically something we are invited to accept logically. If we follow your verbal description we come to your logical conclusion, but in reality we have made no logical progress, only rhetorical, and we can show no workings. The words "philosophy of science" for example do not in reality adequately substitute for the philosophy of science. Realistically proof of your position should be served by evidence not words. The Holocaust stands on evidence, not words.


 * Indeed. That's a very cogent statement and I admire your succinct logic. The Holocaust is not an article of faith. It is not something you can choose to believe in or not believe in, based on whether or not the rhetorical content comports with your other belief systems. It is not a religion to which fervent devotion is required. Nor does one's opinion about the Holocaust reflect well or poorly upon one's moral character. If you find certain evidence factually convincing or compelling, then that means you are using your mind. The Holocaust is an historical event of massive proportion, yet the record is finite. There cannot exist more information in the future than exists right now. Potentially some is in existence now but is being hidden away or potentially more could be "manufactured", but those are separate issues. The question is, how do we analyze the information we have right now.


 * As to your suggestions, they seem entirely reasonable, beneficial, worthwhile, etc. The problem is that "rational" versus "irrational" is often just a popularity contest. I mean, Galileo was just one guy against all others when he started out. Al-Fie 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Other genocide denials
This section is a decent summary atm. At risk of forcing a decision on whether to create a new article (genocide denial in general) it could do with expanding if it's to be informative. For example re Turkey and the Armenians, one factor is entirely political, Turkey's aim of joining the European Union, and its very contemporary political intransigence at being obliged to acknowlege the Armenian genocide. As there aren't articles on other instances of genocide denial this section should really explore what distinguishes these instances from the subject of this article. It does give rise of course to the question of why this article is here, but that shouldn't prove fatal to attempts to put some thought into it. Hakluyt bean 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Have added and referenced the Iraqi (sanction) Massacre from 1990 to 2003 -Theblackbay 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I've removed it. I've found no linkage whatsoever, other than here, between "Iraqi massacre" and "holocaust denial", leading me to conclude that it most likely your original research. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a denier/revisionist write this article from a different point of view. Give his sources and scientic method so anyone looking up the topic can browse and study for themselves. ie how fast can a body be cremated, could Zyclon B really kill in x minutes at x degrees, can diesel exhaust kill quickly or at all, etc etc etc. Let an anti-denier give alternate sources and let the reader sort out the truth from the ideology. Scary thought?


 * Not scary at all. But this in an encyclopedia, not a debating society. There are plenty of venues for that sort of stuff; Wikipedia isn't that. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It us neither an encyclopedia nor a debating society. It is an oligarchy with you in charge, since all you do is revert every edit you disapprove of. And you are backed by a team of editors replete with "superpowers" bestowed upon them by Wikipedia. Get real and be honest. Plenty of debates go on all over Wikipedia without a peep of objection. It's encouraged everywhere except here. Al-Fie 11:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To begin I make no comment about the 'Iraq' addition/removal beyond saying that re-reading my above paragraph I may have invited it, though it wasn't necessarily what I had in mind, so I apologise if that misled the poster of that entry. Just re the issue of genocide and the tendency for societies to minimise involvement/outright deny and the ways this is achieved - still strikes me as relevant to the article, hence the existing section. I guess I feel it's the how and why that we're short of. And I guess I'm not really throwing this out as an open question so much as addressing it to jpgordon. So, if you think it's a good or bad idea please say. Noting which, the above poster has a point. I can see the need to watch this page in case some wag from the KKK comes here and starts posting hateful garbage, but at the same time I think the best defence would be a reasoned presentation of the topic. Hakluyt bean 16:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the general thought about the Holocaust, qualify Holocaust belief for denial of the seriousness of all other genocides? I see people act as if the Holocaust is the absolute most horrible event in human history, far worse than any other genocide, which is what I deny about the Holocaust, as all genocide is equal evil. The anti Holocaust denial laws are part of this, they forbid anyone from marginalising the Holocaust, including denying that it was the most horrible event. Though to an extent this is true, for in addition to the victims of the Holocaust, weren't also the Germans as a people killed? Germans are scared to be German now. Any pride at being German is immediately compared to National Socialism, and to act as anything less than personally responsible for events that took place many years before their birth, is punishable. Obviously, there are still a great many Germans who were alive during the Holocaust, but to demand that they and their descendants be shackled with the shame of being who and what they are is, in my opinion, the worst result of the Holocaust. mpbx 06:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mpbx's comments go straight to the heart of the concerns surrounding this article and others. I started out trying to present a balanced viewpoint and found myself instantaneously labeled a "Holocaust denier" which by definition meant my opinions didn't maatter, that I could be ignored, that I could be dispensed with, that my Wikipedia presence (an extension of myself) had undergone a form of "Vernichtung". Rather ironic.


 * I don't believe that belief in multiple genocides to be "mutually exclusive". Often, the Holocaust is talked about in relation to "6 million Jews, as well as 5 million others" that died at Nazi hands. There is a long section in this article that addresses them, some of which reader's may not generally know of.
 * There is lots of chatter about what the target of the various laws against denial are. The thrust of most of them seems to be preventing the rehabilitation of the NS state, and it's crimes; paticularly in a public (not private, not academic) forum.
 * Most nations have faced shame. The US had slavery just about 150 years ago; while there is shame, I think that there is more empathy at present for the victims and a desire to learn lessons from that history. History is littered with mistakes; we're all human, after all. The challenge is to learn from them.
 * "to demand that they and their descendants be shackled with the shame" ... I think your mixing up "German" and "Nazi" here. What was shameful, even outside the parameters of the Holocaust, was the way that the Nazi's sought and abused power. However, this doesn't automatically taint future generations of Germans, unless your implication is that ideology is genetic.
 * As for balancing viewpoints, without a pointer to the issues you are raising (or the edits you proposed), it's hard to make a judgement. However, I've seen the article read something like "Holocaust Deniers are Nazi's" and "There is no such thing as Holocaust Denial", both at far ends of the political spectrum. "Neutral" doesn't mean taking an average of the edits and calling it a day; this would only encourage fringe elements to advocate their position much more strongly.
 * So, mpbx, I don't think you disagreeing that the Holocaust "was the most horrible even in human history" is Holocaust Denial. And anonymous, without a link to your proposals, we're all left guessing. 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous wrote: "Mpbx's comments go straight to the heart of the concerns surrounding this article and others. I started out trying to present a balanced viewpoint and found myself instantaneously labeled a 'Holocaust denier' which by definition meant my opinions didn't maatter, that I could be ignored, that I could be dispensed with, that my Wikipedia presence (an extension of myself) had undergone a form of 'Vernichtung'. Rather ironic."

I have run up against the same sitution on here pointing out these same problems. Time and again people raise these concerns and time and again they end up on the receiving ends of argumentum ad nazium and Reductio ad Hitlerum comments. Take jayjg for example, one of the Administrators who polices this article. He has already called me a Holocaust denier and claimed I am trying to white wash Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, simply for pointing out some of the more obvious problems with the Einsatzgruppen article. You will notice on several other language versions of Wikipedia the image I am disputing has already been removed based on the same argument. The German language version which retains the image in question has absolutely nothing on its talk page whatsoever, which makes you wonder exactly who wrote it to begin with. I suppose even if some Germans had concerns about the image on factual grounds they wouldn't dare write it, as that in itself might be considered a criminal offense in their country. I think to improve the article there needs to be more open debate and discussion. If one is afraid to have the viewpoint of his opponent heard for fear he might be proven right, the only alternative is to silence him, distort and misrepresent anything he does say and turn the opinions of others against him. The real question is, if one is so convinced of his position, why does he need to suppress debate? I quote George Orwell:

"All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious -facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. — George Orwell"

"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. — George Orwell"

--Nazrac 20:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nazrac, this pleading is a bit dishonest. Almost 3/4 of the talk page at the Einsatzgruppen article is currently occupied by your "debate". While the proper forum for vetting those problems is on that page, I will say that when you were challenged to provide cites to back up your issues, you seem to have not been able to. So, rather then being "surpressed", you were rebuffed because your case wasn't very good.
 * Remember, our goal is to create an _Encyclopedia_, not a forum for debate. While discussion about impoving an article is good, it can only be productive if the changes proposed conform to Wikipedia's guidlines, so they can actually be included. 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost nothing on the "other genocides" - seems to be that Jewish genocides carry more weight. Anyway, many other genocides are disputed - humorously the alleged genocide in the Ukraine( and any other place in Russia - under the Communists) is rabidly supported by mostly the same people who dispute the Jewish holocaust. The Jews would never support research into a Palestinian genocide, or even rough treatment. This genocide looks alot like politics. The Ukranian, Armenian, and Jewish holocaust all seem to have an element of extreme exaggreation in numbers, methods and motives assigned to the "bad" guys. They all lack proof too, their other commanality.

Hutton Gibson
Any reason why he is listed as Mel's father? I removed the reference...Thanks --Tom 23:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is what he's known for. Were he not Mel Gibson's father, he probably wouldn't be a "notable" Holocaust denier. It's like putting "Inventor of AC, the light bulb, etc" next to Thomas Edison, in a list of "notable men who wore waistcoats", despite its having nothing to do with Edison's waistcoat.

Spare sections
The final two sections with content are both good encyclopedic material but aren't a perfect fit for this article. That combined with the fact that this article is already a bit too long, I suggest that they both be moved to their own seperate article, one for List of Notable Holocaust deniers and revisionists; and another for Genocide Denials. Vicarious 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Rassinier
The article at Paul Rassinier is written from a denier's viewpoint, it seems to me. I know little more about him than that his views are contradicted by the work of historians, so I've just put a tag on it. Does someone have the time and energy to NPOV it? It needs serious work, especially the 'Post-war activities' and 'The father of Holocaust Revisionism' sections. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

His work is not contradicted by the work of historians. Some/most historians have disputed his work - usually loudly not factually. The embarrassing thing about him is that he was a witness - a Nazi hating witness at that. He refused to go along with lies - the sob.


 * His work doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and if that isn't "contradiction by historians", I'm not sure what is. Why is it "embarrassing" that he was a witness? Being a witness doesn't make on authoratative on something, it just is a part of the evidence. 19:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of his work doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Just interested in a link. PS Careful about comments about witnesses - that is almost the only evidence that proHolocaust advocates have, and now you are dumping on your only evidence, poor evidence that even you don't take as the last word.

Article Length
This article is becoming much too long and unwieldy. More importantly, it is tracking current events on an almost weekly basis. I strongly suggest splitting off the "Arab" issue from the actual issue of people who at least claim to have done their research. The Arab issue is largely political and has little or nothing to do with the Europeans/Americans like Irving, Faurisson, Butz, etc. Proskauer 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
Can someone please explain to me the necessity of including the phrase "the very real belief". This seems, at minimum, extremely odd for this article. CJCurrie 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and changed back to the original wording. Ergative rlt 03:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted intro
The expansion of the intro by Harrisonferrel, while well-meaning, is not the sort of thing that belongs as the introduction in an encyclopedia, even when dealing with such as Holocaust deniers. Also, many of the specific points raised are otherwised covered in the article or in Examination of Holocaust denial. Ergative rlt 03:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article states that Holocaust deniers are Anti-Semites who rarely challenge that assertion. This is in contradiction with the actual categorizations for Anti-Semitic people. SighSighSigh 06:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, rather, this article is tightly controlled by a several agenda-driven individuals who would like to put forth the image that all Holocaust revisionists/deniers are anti-semites and, further, that every word spoken by a victim of the Holocaust is truth in the utmost. Most revisionists vehemently deny that they are anti-semitic. Whatever the truth is must be found in the hearts, souls, and minds of the protagonists themselves. To treat such a disparate group with such a broad brush is also verging on bigotry, IMHO. Proskauer 07:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please list the specific statement in the specific article you think this article contradicts. And please do not use this or other articles as a place to carry on a proxy edit-war regarding Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein comment
Finkelstein's work is rejected by much of the mainstream Jewish community as well as many scholars.[24]

I believed this line should be changed or removed, for the following reasons:

(i) Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier, notwithstanding that some of his opponents have tried to label/libel him as such. His book, The Holocaust Industry, affirms both the reality and extent of the Nazi holocaust against Jews.

The book is relevant in the context of this article only for its title, not for its arguments or for Finkelstein's motivations in writing it. As such, critical comments about the book are not especially relevant here.

(ii) Only one source is listed in the footnotes.

(iii) Raul Hilberg, possibly the world's leading authority on the Holocaust, has spoken favourably of Finkelstein's work.

The remark appears to be an arbitrary dismissal of Finkelstein's work, and one which is neither warranted nor necessary in the course of the article.

Comments welcome. CJCurrie 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article is too long and goes in too many directions already, and Finkelstein's work probably should not be directly connected with Holocaust denial, though it makes sense to reference the work for the sake of the title. 69.109.176.77 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since no-one has objected to my arguments, I will remove the line. CJCurrie 16:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Bigoted Trash
The article is a piece of bigoted trash.It lacks NPOV. It is PRO-SEMITE.Brothers in Arms 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust sceptisism is rational for some.
My POV is that the defenders of this article strongly belive that to question the holocaust you need to be an anti-semitic villian or an uninformed baboon. In their minds this is the logical conclusion, as the holocaust is the "best documented event in history". People like me on the other hand, who once belived something, and then found out it was a lie will be more sceptical of official history. As a norwegian i read about norwegian WW2 history, and found a lot of it to be propaganda, lies and half-truths.

Examples of this is: The british and the french had no plan to invade Norway. (Lie)

The british and the russians sunk multiple norwegian civil coastal-liners and norwegian fishingboats. They also shot on lifeboats after the wessel had sunk. (Suppressed)

Norway was an allied nation. (half-truth, they capitulated without condition and could therefore only fight in british/american uniform. Almost the same number fought for the germans IIRC.)

Most norwegians hated/disliked the germans. (true)

Of course not all of it is a lie, but like the saying goes. Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me.

I didn't belive that the germans beat the romans in Teutoburger Wald, but strangely archeologists found remains who confirmed the story after 2000 years. Only lying stalinists have found remains in the holocaust story, so until some impartial modern forensic investigations have been done, I am placing the holocaust in the undesided category. surre-hue


 * Yes, to subscribe to the beliefs of the holocaust deniers as described in this article, you have to be either a Jew-hater or an idiot or both. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Being skeptical and asking questions is a good thing. However, the "lying stalinists" don't have control over the Soviet Union anymore, and even when they were in control, they didn't lie about everything. We have the testimony of the Nazis, we have documents of the Nazis, and we have scores of witnesses. When this corroborates with the "found remains", it's a pretty daunting mountain of evidence.
 * Since your skeptical, will you also be demanding "impartial modern forensic investigations" into the happenings of World War I? I mean, how can we place that in the decided category, since it is a fact that there was much more propoganda during that war? 04:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My point beeing that you don't know who lied and who told the truth. We have testimony from the Moscow purges as well. Is this the truth? Ever heard of Trofim Lysenko?


 * Do we know the number of norwegian jews who died? I belive yes, and i think you do to. Do we know how they died? I say no, but you probably say yes.


 * No, I wouldn't ask for impartial forensic investigations for WW1 because it has been done over and over again. Every year you can read about soldiers bodys beeing found in battlefields all over europe. They even sometimes manage to identify the soldiers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5086938.stm


 * Where does this more propaganda in WW1 come from? Is there any way to measure this? Do you refer to the alledged gassing of 6 mill jews in WW1 as one of the reasons that ww1 beat ww2 in the propaganda department?


 * A broken watch is correct two times a day, but no rational person would base his schedule on it. Same goes for trusting evidence coming from lying stalinists. It is impossible to separate lies, truths and half-truths if no forensic investigations is done. surre-hue


 * But see, here's where your apparant willful ignorance comes in. What "alledged gassing of 6 mill jews"? Who has made such an allegation? Blather. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As for not knowing who lied and who told the truth, there is a thing called corroboration. If it lines up with the documentary evidence, the survivor testimony and other SS/Nazi testimony, we should be able to figure it out.
 * Since you say that the number of Norwegian Jews who died is known, you are only skeptical about the method. Do you think they all died of "natural causes"?
 * There are similar finds in various locations for Nazi attrocities, too.
 * For example, newspapers reported as "fact" that German Soldiers killed babies on bayonets "for fun". This was a way to harden public opinion of the enemy. This "6 million jews of ww1" is something trotted out by deniers. BTW, I'm pretty sure it's a "holocaust" of 6 million, not a "gassing".
 * I'm afraid you've fallen victim to the "great leap" logical fallacy. If one Soviet court was lying, then they ALL must be lying. I guess if Stalin said 1+1=2, that would also be a lie?
 * Even without "forensic investigations" (which a few have been done), there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, supplied by multiple documents, witnesses (both survivor and Nazi), as well as the physical structures. So, I think your assertion that there must be forensic investigations falls on it's face. 17:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust sceptisism is rational for some? Everything is rational for some, the question is how far you will go in order to believe it. You don't seem to want to believe anything no matter how much evidence you see. If you want to believe the holocaust didn't happen, that is your desicion. If you want to believe that it did happen, even better, but if your determined to be 'sceptical of official history' and not believe either side you can't get anywhere. If you won't believe any of the proof they have for the holocaust's existence, I don't know what you will. You can always try to find a way out but we are all human and there is no way to prove anything 100% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.64.221.101 (talk • contribs).

True, nothing can be proved 100%. However, the holocaust is very weak on evidence - as museum directors ( Majdenik)etc officially keep changing the numbers ( always in the direction of the deniers' claims I notice ) of victims it appears that the truth is going to win out even without the "deniers". Ad hominem screaming, etc piques a persons interest and suspicion. The extreme stance of the pro_holocaust crowd appears to be their undoing ( of course they will insist that there is a conspiracy against them if "deniers" disputed that 1+1=3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs).

lets remove abbas and the president of iran from the list
Mainly because Abbas denies denying the holocaust and claims that the holocaust happened to the extent that everyone says it did. It's the same story for the president of Iran, who has said that Israel should be in Europe or the US because these are the people that allowed the holocaust to happen.

I figured Id toss this up and wait a day before taking them off. --Jonmedeiros 22:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia on Abbas: in May 2003, he claimed merely to have been quoting the wide range of scholarly disagreement over the Holocaust, but no longer harbored any desire to argue with the generally accepted figures; he further affirmed his belief that "the Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind".


 * Not much of a denier. Therefore removed

I removed the president of iran but he keeps coming back. I would say at best their is a controversy over what he thinks. The other people on the list dont really deny that they deny the holocaust, they are pretty open about it. With the president of Iran its not so clear so if you disagree, please, lets discuss rather than just putting him back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmedeiros (talk • contribs)


 * We present facts, opinions and excuses from reliable sources. I believe this content is relevant (each on their own merit of course), please do not remove it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * wait, peoples opinions have little say here. I mean, the ADL has accused plenty of holocaust denial. If the president of iran (I really need to learn to spell his name) says he doesnt deny the holocaust, and the iranian press agency says he doesnt...where is the controversy? I know he said some ambiguous things, but come on, if he really denies the holocaust, why deny denying it? Compare him to the other people on the list who are pretty much proud of the fact.--Jonmedeiros 02:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ahmadinejad really doesnt seem to deny the holocaust... "In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives. They were all human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important?" He seems to have questions about the politics of it all, but that is certainly not denying the holocaust. I'm removing him until someone can explain why he should remain. --Jonmedeiros 20:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was all over the news, so this is not about ADL. I find it ironic that someone choses to deny Ahmadinejad‎'s Holocaust denial, so widely reported and widely condemned. I'll try to improve this article, for more see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. BTW, when did MA say that he did not deny the Holocaust? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Added 3 refs and a ton more can be easily found. Even the UN and Arab sources do not deny it. Why would we? ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * well I think we should take the man's words for what he thinks. If he denies the holocaust why does he say things like Israel should be moved to Europe because THEY PERPETUATED THE HOLOCAUST. Or the direct quote above, "In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives. They were all human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important?" Obviously here he is talking about the Jews. So at best you can try to make an argument that Ahmadinejad contradicts himself. There's no way you can claim that he is a holocaust denier in the same way the rest of these people are.


 * See WP:V and please do not make it anymore difficult to assume good faith on your side. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * i dont see how that is relevant here. I am not relying on original research...I am not interested in political correctness or popular opinion, just the truth. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so perhaps I don't understand what you are saying. Please elaborate. --Jonmedeiros 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Your opinion and your analysis is irrelevant. So is mine, along with everyone else's around here. What is relevant -- for the purpose of Wikipedia -- is the analysis and opinion of verifiable reliable sources. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't see how it's relevant-I have credible sources, the mans exact words and the iranian state run press agency, that say that he doesnt deny the holocaust. --Jonmedeiros 17:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, MA made many speeches and bringing one of your choice doesn't prove anything at all. Second, "iranian state run press agency" is not credible nor reliable because it has conflict of interest. Third, independent sources contradict your POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, its not my POV, its the exact words from the man himself. Unless he specifically said that the holocaust didnt happen, which he didnt, any source you throw out that does not cite his speech is POV. The Iranian state run press agency may have conflicting interests, but they are the official mouthpiece of Iran. That makes them more credible than other sources for what the president means. Hows this for a compromise, next to his name we include a link to his controversy page that goes into more detial about his statements. It's either that or his name has to be removed, because, like I said, at best he has made conflicting statements. --Jonmedeiros 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "official mouthpiece of Iran" indeed "have conflicting interests" to highlight what they (ayatollahs, oligarchs, or MA himself - after the fact) consider important and downplay what they consider unimportant. You seem to misunderstand WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all, this is completely different. We are discussing what a person said. The first place to look is at the words of the actual person themselves. I will repeat;

Unless he specifically said that the holocaust didnt happen, which he didnt, any source you throw out that does not cite his speech is POV. Hows this for a compromise, next to his name we include a link to his controversy page that goes into more detial about his statements. It's either that or his name has to be removed, because, like I said, at best he has made conflicting statements.

Show me specifically what he said (in the actual speech) or else I'm taking it down. That's a fair request. --Jonmedeiros 13:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't get excited. I'll do you a favor and provide more evidece, as if there not enough: "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets" BBC, "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces... we don't accept this claim..." VOA, see also Ahmadinejad: Holocaust is a 'myth' (Middle East Online), Ahmadinejad: Holocaust a myth (al-Jazeerah), Iranian leader: Holocaust a 'myth'. The evidence is overwhelming. Every time you deny facts you lose credibility. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there is no debate possible about including this one: The translators and the journalists of differently coloured reputable news agencies reported this. Harald88 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

lets source these names
Some of the pages of the people have no mention of holocaust denial, for example, Tadeusz Rydzyk. Since this is treated as a pretty serious thing I think these should have sources. Obviously the ones whose pages detail it dont need sources. I did some searching, including some on Tel Aviv University's website, and I couldnt find an example of Tadeusz Rydzyk denying the holocaust. he seems to be a white supremacist of sorts, but i cant find holocaust denial. I wont delete his name yet, but if no one can source it I think it needs to go. --Jonmedeiros 03:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I also am under the impression that David Irving no longer denies the holocaust, so is this list including former holocaust deniers too? --Jonmedeiros 04:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He changed his mind again. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * haha, did he really?
 * Yup. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So I checked it out and actually he doesnt deny the holocaust anymore, but he is sticking to his claim that hitlers knowledge of the plan was limited. I think this means he should be removed, or it should acknowledge that he is a former denier, or something. --Jonmedeiros 23:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. David Irving has proven himself to not be a reliable source, even about the opinions or beliefs of David Irving. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, it doesnt work that way. I'm adding "former denier," for now. The guy has changed his opinion so many times I don't know why anyone cares anymore. --Jonmedeiros 02:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad first sentence: mix-up
The first sentence confuses revisionism with denial in an unacceptable way: It happens to be truly revisionist to consider that something "did not occur as it is described by mainstream" (as also explained furtheron in the article). But revisionism is certainly not what is meant with "Holocaust denial", and indeed it is not what this article is about. The article is about the positive claim that no targeted mass murder of the Jews was orchestrated by the Germans. Harald88 11:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we call Elie Weasel a "holocaust alleger?" "Holocaust Denial" is a loaded term and is inherently POV. So is "disseminating hate propaganda." LMAO "hate _____ " usually doesn't describe *anything* except how jews want it.

please also keep a watch on the Holocaust article
I just corrected a holocaust-denial claim that had found its way in the Holocaust article, see my last edit on its Talk page,  :-( Harald88 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Laws against Holocaust denial
Why is the Czech Republic listed as a country responsible for participation in the Holocaust? They were a conquered part of the Reich, wholely under German control, so how do they come into that list? It would be more accurate to include Hungary, where the regime was fully involved in the deportation of the Hungarian Jews to the death camps. --Iain1917 20:03, 20 October 2006


 * Hi, Iain. What is probably being referred to is the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, with the coerced "cooperation" of Emil Hácha. Technically speaking, no, the Czech Republic was not "responsible for participation in the Holocaust," but referrring to the Czech Republic to denote the territory controlled by the Protectorate is standard practice in history. Justin Eiler 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspected as much, but I don't think it is standard practice in history to include the Czech Republic as a participant in the Holocaust because the occupiers implemented their policy of genocide there. It is more than "technically speaking" that the Czech Republic was not part of the Holocaust: it was not.  I am therefore removing it from the list.  Iain1917 19:50, 22 October 2006