Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 9

Bradley Smith and CODOH
I propose putting Smith under a separate article as there is sufficient material and content to warrant this, particularly recent activities. His name is currently redirected to Holocaust Denial.


 * The link at the section about CODOH points onto article itself. Article must not use itself as a reference, IMHO.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed that self-link.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are these source relevant?
It seems that the majority of the references used for the "antisemitic" adjective in the first sentence aren't relevant. Most of them say something like, "Holocaust denial derives from anti-semitism", or "Anti-semites around the world are promoting holocaust revisionism". Those kinds of statements aren't describing holocaust denial, they're just correlating it with anti-semitism and attributing it to anti-semitism. If I were to make the statement, "Wearing white sheets is a racist behavior.", I couldn't very well support that with quotes like, "The KKK wore white sheets," or "The KKK supports walking around wearing a white sheet over one's head". johnpseudo 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They attribute Holocaust denial to antisemitism and antisemites, and thus are indeed relevant. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you consider statements attributing public white-sheet wearing to racist people supportive of the statement, "Wearing white shirts is racist"? Certainly some (if not most) of the people who have worn white sheets in public are racist, but that doesn't mean the act itself is racist. johnpseudo 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, the sources that say "holocaust denial is anti-semitic" are obviously relevant. But sources that say "anti-semitism loves holocaust denial" or "holocaust denial is the newest activity of antisemites" do not indicate that holocaust denial is anti-semitic. johnpseudo 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The authors are not just arguing correlation, but actual causation. Lipstadt says Holocaust deniers are extremists antisemites. Schweitzer and Perry describe is as one of the myths that make antisemitism lethal. Trombley says that the establishment of Holocaust denial as a respected field has been the main task of organized antisemitism in the 1990s. Wettstein describes it as on of the reappearances of antisemitism in France. Karsh describes it as a staple of Arab antisemitism. Powell says it refurbished conspiratorial antisemitism. Said says it's part of a creepy, nasty wave of antisemitism in the Arab world. These sources are making a direct connection. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if Holocaust denial is caused by anti-semitism, that doesn't mean it is anti-semitic.
 * Lipstadt says that all deniers are anti-semitic- that doesn't mean that denial is anti-semitic. (Even if all white-sheet wearers were racist, that doesn't mean wearing a white sheet is racist)
 * Schweitzer and Perry say that Holocaust denial is used for anti-semitic ends, not that it itself is anti-semitic. (Wearing a white sheet may be used in the advancement of racism, but it is not racist).
 * Again, Trombley states that Holocaust denial is advanced by anti-semites, not that denial is anti-semitic.
 * Wettstein is using the rise of Holocaust denial as evidence of increased anti-semitism. Correlating the two does not equate the two. (A poll of the number of white-sheet wearers might be used as indirect evidence of the rise of racism.)
 * I'm not quite sure what Karsh means by "staple", but it sounds to me like it could mean "denial is a key component of anti-semitism" (in which case it should remain) or "denial is a chief activity of anti-semites" (in which case it should go).
 * Powell indicates that Holocaust denial became a part of the Klan's new agenda, and that it lent anti-semitism more credence, not that denial itself was anti-semitic.
 * Said is definitely correlating the two, associating the rise of anti-semitism with the rise of Holocaust denial- but he doesn't actually call denial anti-semitic.
 * None of these sources are calling denial good or anything: like you said, they are drawing a direct connection between anti-semitism and Holocaust denial. But they aren't saying that Holocaust denial in itself is anti-semitic. johnpseudo 23:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've chosen a different Lipstadt quote, which I believe addresses your objections.
 * Schweitzer and Perry's intent is clear, since the very next source, which you accept, is also from them.
 * Keep in mind that the Trombley quote is taken from the "antisemitism" entry of The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought.
 * Wettstein is using it as a specific example of the rise of antisemitism.
 * In my view Karsh is saying it is a key component of antisemitism.
 * Powell also says that Holocaust denial is "part of the new antisemitic agenda" of the Klan.
 * Again, Said says it's part of "a creepy, nasty wave of antisemitism" in the Arab world.
 * Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Antisemitism is defined as 'discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group.' It could therefore be asserted that it involves actions, based on prejudice, which cause harm/discomfort, o purport to do so.
 * With this in mind, I fail to see how Holocaust denial is antisemitic. You can't possibly find out what a person is thinking or what his/her motivations are. As a result, it is possible, indeed likely, some people who do not believe in the Holocaust might have properly examined the facts (the opposite of prejudice) and still reached a completely untrue conclusion.
 * That there are several authors who claim otherwise, can we, first and foremost trust they're not advancing their own political agenda and second, accept what they say despite the fact they never actually provide any evidence. If you look at the reference section you'll see that A says Holocaust denial is a new form of antisemitism, B says it's antisemitic, etc. Now, why is that so? Unless evidence is provided, those statements are meaningless. --Ishikawa Minoru 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why Holocaust denial is fundamentally antisemitic both in motivation and impact has already been explained on this page. More importantly, all reliable sources agree. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not nesessary to be Holocaust denier/revisionist to be an antisemite and it is not nesessary to be an antisemite to be Holocaust denier/revisionist. I think that is clear. That is why I think that is silly to call HD/HR "the antisemitic claim". --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 15:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, no-one is interested in your opinions, nor are they interested in your defenses of Holocaust denial; quote reliable sources on the topic. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk for yourself not for everybody.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen. This talk-page is not an opportunity for you to spout fringe opinion crap.--Gazzster 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not "opinion crap", that is just a logic.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Igor is correct. The exact details of what happened during the holocaust are a matter for historians and scientists to establish correctly. No-one should have a personal interest in the facts being this way or that way - they are just facts. If 6 million is correct, it is correct. If someone thinks it is incorrect, that doesn't mean they are anti-semitic. They may equally want an accurate view.


 * It's difficult not to have an emotional reaction, but look at a different situation - say, for example, the number of people who died on the Titanic. If someone has an argument that the offically recorded number is inaccurate, then they are not anti- the people on board the ship. They just have a dispute over the facts.

Short-circuiting the opening sentence issue
This open sentence has generated a lot of debate. This seems a pity to me, as the article would, in my view, be far more encyclopedic and effective if anti-semitism were mentioned in the final sentence of the lead rather than the first one &mdash; and the lead at the moment does not meet WP:LEAD anyway. The problem with applying a label in the first sentence, no matter how many sources are given, is that it effects the way the reader engages with the rest of the material. They might wonder if there is an agenda, or feel annoyed by arguments from authority. It is much more encyclopedic and effective to show readers that holocaust denial is anti-semitic, than to tell them.

For what it is worth, here is how I would rewrite the lead. I would define what holocaust denial is (without the label), then, following WP:LEAD, I would summarize key points about the history, claims, methods, objections and critiques. Then I would end with a sentence like "Holocaust denial is almost universally regarded as an anti-semitic activity" (footnote to a few of the most obviously scholarly sources and a couple of choice quotes). Packs a punch doesn't it? Yet it is much more encyclopedic. By the time the reader has read what it is all about, they have been shown that it is anti-semitic, and so when the article tells them it is so regarded, the response is much more likely to be "I'm not surprised!" than "What's the agenda here?".

Good luck with the article, anyway! Geometry guy 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the label in the first sentence sets the tone for the rest of the article in a manner that distracts the reader from the substantial issues of the subject. A.G. Pinkwater 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with GG as well. The current label is not necessarily incorrect, but I find the sentence uncomfortably jarring, and the (required?) overreferencing does not help. --Stephan Schulz 14:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the structure doesn't work well. I tend to dislike opposition characterizations in the first sentence of an article, anyway. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen... this was my contention all along. You can make the opening much more convincing and strong without incorporating the POV.  It may be a factual assertion, but it set the tone---and everything from that point forward was read with that tone in mind.Balloonman 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've re-worked the intro, based on comments here. Please let me know what you think. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Much more convincing now. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - nice work Jayjg, that should satisfy genuinely concerned editors and remove some ammunition from one or two others ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A great improvement! Without watering down the facts, you have dealt with several, if not all, of the concerns that people had with the lead at GA/R. In my view, some of the footnotes could now be shortened without the corresponding facts being challenged, and that this would also improve the article (some of the information could be incorporated into the body of the text if you feel it is important). Note that I commented earlier at GA/R (and was perhaps a little harsh) but at this rate I think my concerns will soon be addressed and I will be able to change my recommendation. Geometry guy 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thanks, Jayjg, for boldness well applied! --Stephan Schulz 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. Jayjg (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the whole article since the edits have been made, but the lead is SOOO much better IMHO. It sets a MUCH better tone and lets the facts speak for themselves.  I will re-read the article tomorrow, but if the rest of the article shows similar improvement I will be VERY HAPPY to reconsider my opposition to this article.Balloonman 06:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. My only question would now be whether Holocaust deniers only contest the genocide of the Jews (as stated by the lead sentence) or if it follows that they also dispute the extermination of Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, etc. I think the footnotes refer only/mainly to the genocide of the Jews, but it seems odd that deniers would agree that these other groups were in fact exterminated, but the Jews weren't. A.G. Pinkwater 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is they hardly mention the latter, but I agree this needs clarification. See also below (over edit conflict). Geometry guy 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing with WP:LEAD and related issues
Since that seemed to be a success, I will attempt to continue with suggestions for improving the lead to meet the guidelines, in particular, those on overview and emphasis: Here are a few points from the article which I think should be mentioned in the lead, but which are not, or not in summary style. With regard to "significant information", the preconceived theory aspect also needs some citation in the text. Also one disadvantage of my suggestion to move the antisemitism issue to the end of the lead is that it is easy to misread the lead as a synthesis of the material in the article into an argument that holocaust denial is antisemetic. I think such an impression should be avoided.
 * The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.
 * Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
 * Aspects of the history. I would suggest: Nazi cover-ups, beginnings of the movement and key trials (e.g. Irving-Lipstadt).
 * Methodology: this could be covered as part of the critique of "revisionism", i.e., that the methodology involves a preconceived theory and selectively ignores historical fact.
 * Recent trends: I guess the "hoax" and "Zionist conspiracy" could be placed in this context; also Iran is worth mentioning.
 * Laws against holocaust denial and reactions to them.

Other issues: there has been much discussion here about the distinction between the holocaust in general and the genocide of Jews in particular, and the fact that holocaust deniers almost exclusively deal with the latter in their material. I think there needs to be a sourced paragraph somewhere in the claims section explaining the latter point. Also the first sentence now effectively equates the holocaust with the genocide of Jews, which needs to be clarified, with reference to the new paragraph. Finally, I would suggest reversing the order of the two infoboxes: holocaust first, antisemitism second. Geometry guy 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point about Iran... the section on Iran is currently 1/7th of the article, but it's not in the lead. I think the section needs to be shortened (IMHO, it is currently too long and disjointed.)  I also agree about non-jews being mentioned.  While Deniers focus on the Jews, they also have to deny non-jews were killed for the same reason.  A short sentence/paragraph explaining this would short circuit the criticism... my opinion is that if you know what the criticism is, don't ignore it and leave it to the talk pages, address it in the article.  If you know that somebody is going to object to the wording, fix it so that they can't---by being proactive.Balloonman 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Night and Day
Wow, the quality of the lead section of this article is vastly enhanced! MUCH much better than it was last week!Balloonman 06:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't directed to you. Nor was Balloonman's. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 Balloonman It was easy enough to do that - I've just removed the word "antisemitic" from there:)--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (NOTE: prior to this comment, Igor and I had been invovled in a minor edit war where he was moving Jayjg's "thanks" to after his response 3-5 times.) Igor, you can change the wording of your statement---from you original statement, which appeared sarcastic in comparison to the original lead, "It was easy enough to do."  But the change I was referring to was the major rewrite that Jayjg did.  Jayjg placed his response where he placed it---because of some heated debate he and I had over the lead... not over your removing a single word.  A week before I made my post, the lead was IMHO horrendous and terribly POV.  The thanks isn't thanking you for your minor word smith, but rather for the acknowlegment of THE MAJOR improvement Jayjg made.  If this is an incorrect interpretation, then JAYJG is free to fix it... but it is disingenous for a person to move another persons comment in this manner.  Please leave his comment where he wrote it.  If JAYJG wants to move it, then Jayjg can move it.Balloonman 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think that removing of that single word was much more important then "major" changes Jayjg made. He have inserted his comment over mine. I thought that it was Jaygj who moved my comment, sorry:)--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, Balloonman. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead still says "antisemitic", as it should. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed... it's more in how and where it was said for all of the reasons that Geometry Guy expounded upon. Jayjg took those comments (and my less eleoquent comments) and wrote a lead that is MUCH MUCH stronger...without losing the fact that 99.9% of the world agrees it is antisemetic.Balloonman 16:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 99.9% of the world agrees it is antisemetic Do you really believe this? 99.9% of the world's population doesn't care at all about Holocaust. By the way, it is not "antisemitic claim" anymore (about a week). Jayjg is thinking desirable as existing.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't remove the phrase "antisemitic claim", I did, as part of a thorough re-write of the lead. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't sell me that. I did it not you --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop talking nonsense. See this edit, which was the beginning of my re-write of the introduction. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is you, who talking noncences. I did that change not you. Anybody who doubts can look at my list of edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=140347199 I don't want to feed the trolls. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 15:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you two could transfer this to your respective talk pages?--Gazzster 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Claims and Beliefs
I still see some minor wording changes that I don't like (words/phrases that I don't think belong in an encyclopedic article.) Such as "and ignores or routinely minimizes even confirmed evidence that conflicts with that premise." I think the "even confirmed" words are POV. Evidence is evidence, adding those words make it POV. Another place, "The majority of scholars with credentials in the field regard it as unreasonable." Again, the inclusion of "with credentials" is unnecessary. First, the majority of scholars WITHOUT credentials in the field undoubtably feel the same way. Second, it is another POV fork. The statement is strong enough to stand without those words. Those words simply open up a ton of worms that doesn't need to be brought up---for example, "He's a recognized expert in the field, but mainstream academia doesn't accept him because he doesn't kowtow to their lies." By getting rid of those two words, you cut the legs out from this argument. Ok, they find a dozen historians who support their position and have credentials---who cares? The majority do not. It's not necessary.

But the real reason why I've started this section is that the Claims and Beliefs section still needs some help. The lead was my biggest problem with the article, but that looks great now. But the Claims and Beliefs section still needs help.

I'll work on it this evening unless somebody else wants to tackle it before then or objects. It has improved since every sentence doesn't start with "They claim." But I think we need to get rid of "they claim" or "they believe" throughout the section. The header and lead sentence indicates that these are the allegations being made by the deniers. Bullets 4 and 5 (on the photos and Jews spreading stories) are perfect examples of how these beliefs should be written in an NPOV. In most cases, we can simply delete the words "They claim/argue/believe" and leave the statement as the facts that as deniers believe them. Those words, add POV to the statements. In the English language, we often use those terms as a snide comment when we know better. "That's what you claim." Is an easy way to put somebody on the defensive. The article should simply present their beleifs without the implied commentary---let the evidence elsewhere do that.

Also, the section would be stronger if each bullet point had a reference that included a page number. Right now, it is a huge/important section and we have to assume that the different bullet points are in the book cited. But were any of them added from another source? Are any NOT in the book/source quoted? Where would I go in the book to find those cases? This is something that one of the regulars here would have to tackle. IMHO, EVERY bullet point should have a citation---too many references on a controversial subject is ALWAYS better than too few...

Finally, I think the first paragraph to this section should include a piece about functionalism vs intentionalism. I would love to see this expanded upon---perhaps as it's own section before the claims/beliefs one! What is a functionalist argument vs an intentionalist one? How do they differ? What are their relevances? E.g. I can see a person ignorant of the subject accepting the intentionalism argument before the functionalist one... I would also consider moving the intentionalism to the top of this section. I think that's an important point that is lost in this section---and it makes for a jolt when you are reading it.Balloonman 19:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, nice job on cutting down that section on Claims---I think it looks a lot better with the broader categories of the types of claims made rather than the individual ones. Another suggestion would be to change the header to Holocaust Revisionist Claims. Yes, I know that the sentament is to use deniers throughout the article, but on this particular heading I think it would be more appropriate to use "Holocaust Revisionist" because we are dealing with the claims of revisionists.Balloonman 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A few loose ends
Ok, I've made some changes but I have a few discrepencies that I'd like to have resolved: P.S. with the changes made to this article over the past week or so, I've changed my recommendation on the GA/R from STRONG DELETE to Conditional Keep.Balloonman 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would love for the section on "Beliefs and Claims" to discuss functionalism and intentionalism in a little more detail.
 * The History and development section has the sentence "charges that they have rarely rejected." This clearly needs a citation---as it doesn't ring true.  The little bit that I've seen of Holocaust denial, deniers always try to distance themselves from antisemitism. It's like the racists saying, "I'm not a racist" before telling a racist joke. Sentence deleted by JayjgBalloonman 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The section on the IHR has a section quoted from the IHR Journal that is in apparent opposition to the IHR website. Is the article an official proclamation of the IHR?  Who said it?  As is, the quote is out of context.  Most journals are written by individuals, and this really simply says, "a member of the group" says something contrary to the official statement of the Group.
 * The section on Bradley Smith reads, He is former media director of the "Institute for Historical Review" which is known to be a clearing house for Holocaust denial propaganda.---The second half of the sentence needs to be reworded, I just don't know enough about the subject to do so. If the IHR is a clearing house, then that should be discussed in the previous section.  Was Smith known for his work in preparing denial propaganda?  If so, change the section to that.
 * The section "Symposia on holocaust denial" states "Denials of Holocaust have been regularly promoted by various Arab leaders and in various media throughout the Middle East." But the next paragraph begins with, "Holocaust denial is relatively new to the Middle east." These two sentences are at apparent odds with one another---can somebody clarify what is meant?
 * I think the section on Ahmadinejad needs to be shorted significantly. It's 1/7th of the total length of the article and gives undue weight to him.  The section is also the choppiest disjointed section in the article.  Rereading the section right now, I think a number of the quotes could go into the footnotes/endnotes supporting different points made about him.Balloonman 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal Codes
I moved the legal codes out of the main body of the article and placed them into the table. I felt that this makes for an easier read and an easier review of the data. The one thing that I wasn't clear about were some of the countries. The way the article was written I wasn't sure if Poland, Romania, and Slovakia were all under the same code as Switzerland (Article 261bis of the Penal Code.) It looked as if the article was saying that, but it wouldn't make sense for four geographically separate countries to have the same Penal Code section dealing with the same crime. Thus, I didn't include that code for Poland/Romania/Slovakia. If this is an incorrect interpretation of the data, please fix it.Balloonman 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As can be evidenced I've been editing the Holocaust Denial laws section so that it's both comprehensive and concise. I read on the BBC that Lithuania has a genocide denial law, but haven't located the text or even one article outside of the BBC which confirms the existence of the law, therefore I've left the space back. All of the texts of the law need referencing and due to a computer fault I haven't been able to do this. I hope someone who has the time can add the following references where applicable:

AUSTRIA: http://www.nachkriegsjustiz.at/service/gesetze/gs_vg_3_index.php

BELGIUM: http://www.juridat.be/cgi_loi/loi_F.pl?cn=1995032331

CZECH / SLOVAKIA: http://www.mzv.cz/wwwo/default.asp?id=46561&ido=13925&idj=2&amb=3

EUROPEAN UNION: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=216962

FRANCE: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=JUSX9010223L

GERMANY: http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/BJNR001270871.html#BJNR001270871BJNE028206377

ISRAEL: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Anti-Semitism+and+the+Holocaust/Documents+and+communiques/Denial+of+Holocaust+-Prohibition-+Law-+5746-1986-.htm

LUXEMBOURG: http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/ecri/1-ecri/3-general_themes/3-legal_research/1-national_legal_measures/Luxembourg/Luxembourg%20SR.asp

POLAND: http://www.ipn.gov.pl/wai/en/32/46/

ROMANIA: http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/ecri/1-ecri/3-general_themes/3-legal_research/1-national_legal_measures/Romania/Romania%20SR.asp

SWITZERLAND: http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/311_0/a261bis.html

90.240.233.108 18:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive
Wow, I just archived 250KB of discussion... and there is still 36 KB left on this talk page. I archived everything that didn't have new comments in the past five days. Hope this is acceptable to all. If there is an archived discussion that you think we prematurely archived please feel free to get it back... I thought about going to 3 days, but it would leave the exact same topics open. Less than 3 days feels too short for some of the contentious issues raised on this page.Balloonman 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I were you I'd get rid of the Horns (again) section as well. That discussion is over. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about archiving more... but decided that 5 days of non-activity was the least amount of time that I was willing to do on this page... the Horns discussion had conversation on it the day before I did the archive and with as contentious as this page can be, I figured a hard rule of 5 days would be better than a mere judgment callBalloonman 07:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Decided that you were probably right as the conversation was taken offline and to the individuals talk pagesBalloonman 07:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Claims
What is the consensus about changing "The Nazis had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews." to "The Nazis had no official policy or intention of systematically exterminating Jews."? As far as I'm aware, being only peripherally familiar with this subject, many HDers don't deny that Jews died in massive numbers, but deny that this was an organised effort, instead claiming that the deaths were the result of junior officers exceeding their orders, paramilitary or partisan activity, harsh conditions in the camps etc. EyeSereneTALK 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What do reliable sources say? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say the former, not the latter. And whether or not they deny that Jews died in "massive numbers" depends on how you define "massive numbers". Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Their definition of 'massive numbers' being tens or hundreds of thousands, not the millions that are the actual figures. For example, I know Irving accepts that there were many deaths but, according to him, as a result of disease, poor conditions and also the einsatzgruppen operating on the Eastern front (which he admits existed, though he attempts to portray Hitler as trying to put a stop to them). It was the notion that the killing was systematic (ie organised and officially sanctioned at the highest level) that he objected to. This is backed up by fellow Holocaust denier Faurisson: "We assume that there were massacres and hostages and reprisals and so on... I don't know any Revisionist who says that there were no massacres, because there is no war without massacres, especially on the Russian front where you had Jews, and partisans, women, and children all mixed together." Professor Evans stated "Irving had a long record of blaming the high mortality rate in the camps - insofar as he conceded it at all - on epidemics rather than on deliberate, systematic killing." (both quotes from here, paras 24 & 30 respectively). However, I suppose the word policy in the current sentence implies this to a degree anyway, so I don't intend to argue the point ;) EyeSereneTALK 09:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GA/R discussion archived
I have closed the Good article review discussion with the result "no consensus to delist". Hence the article retains its good article status for the time being. Note that this result was not determined by counting votes, but by considering the weight of argument on each side in the light of the current content of the article: further details can be found in the review archive. Geometry guy 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Were five to seven million systematically killed?
Whilst not a denier of the holocaust it does seem to me that this article in not neutral. Concentration camps were first used by the British during the Boer war and without trying to kill anyone hundreds of thousands of Boers and Black Africans died simply because living in enclosed spaces leads to epidemics and disease and poor sanitation.

From what I know of history not all concentration camps were extermination camps and one would assume that not all those who died were deliberately exterminated; many probably died of disease exacerbated by a lack of nutrition.

Indeed in many places Jews were kept alive to use as slave labour, just as captured Russian soldiers were.

Disregard for life is not the same as deliberately and systematically killing someone.

Just my two cents. RichardColgate 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go read some more history. No, not all concentration camps were extermination camps. But how does this change the fact that there was systematic extermination? As for being "kept alive to use as slave labour", see Extermination through labour. --Stephan Schulz 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"But how does this change the fact that there was systematic extermination?"

Using that argument, you could say plantation owners in the 18th-19th centuries were 'systematically exterminating' millions of African laborers on their properties to push forward a racist agenda aimed at destroying black people. Obviously, though, they weren't, because it would be bad for business to deliberately want your slave to die and thus cost you the hassle of bringing in another to replace him.

So, would you mind explaining how Holocaust slave-profiteers were any different? Surely, it would behoove them to keep their slaves alive as long as they could to keep their nice stipend from the government coming along. Vissario 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The exploitation of African labourers was certainly systematic.And it occurred in the context of a society which believed that the black races were inferior human beings, if human at all. And here, there is no difference between the Western oppression of the Africans and the Nazi oppression of the Jews. The difference is that while Western thought regarded the African races as insignificant, the Nazis regarded the Jews as dangerous to civilisation as they understood it. So the West did not want to exterminate the blacks, while the Nazis did want to exterminate the Jews.--Gazzster 04:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet version of holocaust revisionism
A version of "holocaust revisionism" was common in Soviet historiography -- quoting a more or less random article:

"It is a generally accepted fact that East Germans never experienced the same confrontation with the Holocaust that their West German counterparts did prior to the reunification of Germany in 1990, in large part because the official state anti-fascism celebrated almost exclusively the suffering and struggle of the communist resistance fighters. When official state discourse did engage the Holocaust, it was interpreted almost exclusively through the lens of Marxist class analysis, which stated that antisemitism was only a diversionary tactic of the ruling class to distract the workers from the class struggle and revolution."

Mark A. Wolfgram, "The Holocaust through the Prism of East German Television: Collective Memory and Audience Perceptions", Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol 20, No 1, pp. 57-79.

Wolfgram refers to the following book in this context: Mary Fulbrook, German National Identity after the Holocaust (Cambridge: Polity Press 1999), p. 65. Lebatsnok 09:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical problem with this page
In the section "Laws against Holocost Denial", the 2nd paragraph is not rendering correctly in IE6 or Opera; althouh it's fine in Firefox. It's supposed to be underneath the table of laws; but in both IE & Opera it appears partially underneath (IE) or overlayed with the 1st column (Opera). I don't know enough about how Wiki works to correct it myself. --80.7.160.249 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's fixed now; let us know if it's not. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Never ending mistake?
I don't know what happens, but everytime I come here the word "peoples" is always in the article. It appears two times and I've edited it to "people" a few times already. That "s" is not needed, as the word "people" is the plural form of "person". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetbitchness (talk • contribs)
 * I think the problem comes from the fact that people is both the plural form of 'person' and a singular noun in itself. - A l is o n  ☺ 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contributions, Sweetbitchness. I've left a note on your talk page explaining what's going on here - we're honestly not being difficult ;) EyeSereneTALK 09:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

'Peoples' is actually a legitimate use of English. One can talk about, for example, the European 'people', but that is not specific. It merely refers to the mass of persons who are Europeans. One can however talk about the European 'peoples', which implies different ethnic groups.--Gazzster 09:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. Sweetbitchness 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"A predetermined conclusion"
There is written in the head section: "Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples,[6] a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary" Can somebody say, which historical evidence holocaust denial/revisionism ignores? --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. If you don't know by now, all comment will be useless. Go read a book if you want to know. Lipstadt is is ok on the denial issue, there are thousands on the Holocaust itself. --Stephan Schulz 14:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lipstadt? Are you serious? She called even Jimmy Carter "softcore denier" despite he didn't say a word about Holocaust.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 14:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, may be, Elie Wiesel? He wrote that Buchenwald was an extermination camp, where people were burned alive on the eyes of other prisoners. Buchenwald never was an extermination camp. Do you want me to believe these people? --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 14:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even baron Muenchhausen is more credible source then they are.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 14:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I could not come up with a better example of a "predetermined conclusion" if tried... --Stephan Schulz 14:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing else to answer, I deleting that part. OK? --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As always, I stand by my comments, and want them neither deleted nor edited by others. If you want to archive all of this discussion, that's fine with me. --Stephan Schulz 15:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comments, and want them neither deleted nor edited by others What are you talking about? I'm just don't see reasonable response from you, only statement withn't any proves. If you want to archive all of this discussion, that's fine with me Sure, I don't want. I said that these people are not credible sourse because they speaking nonsenses (I pointed, which nonsenses). You answered, that is "predetermined conclusion" Is it serious answer? --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me spell it out: If you know about Elie Wiesel and Buchenwald and can reiterate out-of-context quotes by Lipstadt, but still stand there as a wide-eyed  innocent who does not know about historical evidence for one of the best documented and best analysed events in history, then because you don't want to know. Or, in other words, because it would conflict with your "predetermined conclusion". Again, if you ignore the thousands of books written on the topic, what use are a few lines on Wikipedia? If you are interested in the truth, the sources are there. Start at Buchenwald, for example. If not, stop wasting out time. --Stephan Schulz 21:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Having read both sides (deniers/revisionists and their opponents) I came to conclusion, that deniers/revisionists say reasonable things. According to Lipstadt Holocaust is extermination of about 6 millions of Jews, mainly by gassing. According to oficial version only about 2 millions of people were gassed both in Treblinka and Auschwitz. So even if there was gassing, the number must be indeed much less then 6 milloins. Yes or no? If yes, then deniers/revisionists are right on this subject and it must be told. I already said, that many eyewitnesses claim that Nazis made soap from Jewish bodies (which is not true). Many eyewitnesses also have seen flying saucers, Loch-Ness monster and so on. And there are many photos of this subjects. But neither Nessy nor UFOs doesn't considered as proven facts. So is the Holocaust. The Holocaust is good documented indeed, but these documents only prove that deniers/revisionists are right. As I know, the allies have captured many tons of original Nazi documents, but there are no single document with the order to extreminate Jews by gassing.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read more than out-of-context quotes and soundbites. And apart from your assumptions, your logic is atrocious as well. Do you know any revisonists who agree with the 2 million death figure for Treblinka and Auschwitz? If not, how can you use these figures to show they are right? And of course there were plenty of gassings in other camps. Again, read something. Our own article series on the Holocaust is reasonably good, and extensively sourced. --Stephan Schulz 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I know, the official version of history's opinion now is that only Auschwitz and Treblinka were extermination camps. In wikipedian article, Buchenwald, for example is called concentration, not extermination camp. If you know some more extermination camps, please, point me their names. So, official history claim that only 2 millions were gassed for anyone who is skilled in arithmetics. For this reason, the death toll of the Holocaust is much lower then 6 millions, regardlessly what deniers/revisionists or zionists say about gassing. Deniers claim that real number of Holocaust victims is much less then 6 millions, so they are right. Yes, or no? Please, answer this question, I think you are trying to avoid to answer it.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

AEB
(Dedent). I don't know where you get your "official version of history's opinion" (much less how you arrive at such a grammatical construction). I must have mislaid my copy, but still, in my version Auschwitz, Bełżec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibór and Treblinka are commonly considered extermination camps. And of course you were just as dead if you died in another camp - your example, Buchenwald, killed over 55000. Thus, your assumptions are doubly wrong, and no version of history even close to the mainstream is compatible with your weird claim. --Stephan Schulz 20:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I was wrong about that. Official historyography indeed believes that number of gassed people was more then 2 millions, about 2,600,000 (of course, it doesn't mean that anyone has been gassed indeed).--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 09:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So my argument is still valid: the Holocaust is called "the industrialized mass murder of six million Jewish women, men and children" according to official version. 2,6 is still much less then 6.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 12:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to educate you. Go read the Holocaust, which has a number of breakdowns of the (approximately) 6 million victims, provides ample sources for them, and also has a reasonably nuanced definition of the term. Again, can you tell me where to get "the official version" you are repeatedly referring to? Amazon finds nothing useful... --Stephan Schulz 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Relax, I didn't asked you to educate me. There is writen in wikipedian article you pointed: The Holocaust (from the Greek holókauston from holos "completely" and kaustos "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. "The official version" number I've got just making the sum of the official numbers of gassed in Auschwitz, Bełżec, Chełmno, Majdanek, Sobibór and Treblinka, as it described in Wikipedia. There are only 2,600,000, not 6,000,000. Go and check it yourself. That is just arithmetics. Or may be it's that is called "original research"?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 00:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you have found the article I suggested. Good! Did you know that you are allowed to read past the first paragraph? In particular, you can read this section. And I have to say, it's a bit suprising to see you pick out some numbers, add them up, and call the result "official" when many serious published sources explain how they arrive at very different numbers. --Stephan Schulz 02:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So you see no difference between "industialized mass murder" and all Jewish losses during WW2. I am not surprised. But before point me that I alredy readed, look first what that section says about Hillberg. His numbers are almost like mine.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * HD/HRs deny only industialized mass murder, what don't you understand still? If you call them "Holocaust deniers", you must choose something one - either "Holocaust is industialized mass murder of 2,6 - 2,9 millions of Jews or "Holocaust deniers deny part of Holocaust". But then they must be called "Holocaust-part deniers". Silly? Sure. Because your position is silly.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So I deleting that nonsense about "predetermined coclusion".--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, don't. And if you try to quote me, please try to avoid the introduction of spurious typos. I make enough on my own.--Stephan Schulz 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, already deleted. And if you try to quote me, please try to avoid the introduction of spurious typos Surely, I'll try, that is easy enough. But it seems like we forgot that we are talking about. Do you agree that you have lost this discourse? So let my edition remains. Because all I made is just removing POV. OK? --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Knock knock knock. Anybody home?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm...I don't know about you, but I have a life that includes work and even food.
 * "Lost this discourse" - huh? Do you declare victory by the longest string of incoherent nonsense, or by adding the last incoherent nonsense? I have to admit, your comments have become a bit hard to follow, so I don't quite get what your point is. Let me just point out a few misconceptions:
 * You have correctly quoted the definition of Holocaust from that article. You should have noticed that the term is not restricted to killing in the camps, but to all of the persecution and killing of Jews by the Nazis. In particular, it includes more than one million victims shot outside any camps, and the people starved to death in ghettos. Indutrial mass murder one aspect that makes the Holocaust unique in history, but it is not all of it. Your "official definition" is plain wrong.
 * Your claim that Holocaust deniers only deny "industrialized mass murder" is obvious nonsense. Deniers have denied very many and very different points about the Holocaust.
 * The term "Holocaust denier" has a standard meaning, namely anybody who rejects significant aspects of the Holocaust. You don't get to define your own language, sorry.
 * Our articles on the topic present quite a few different sources, and contain a lot of details about the victim numbers, including breakdowns by country and means of death. While they allow for some uncertainty in the numbers, they are all reasonably consistent. You keep ignoring this information in favour of some arbitrary numbers quoted out of context. Well, you can chose to live in your own illusion, but don't expect us to take you serious. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." --Stephan Schulz 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm...I don't know about you, but I have a life that includes work and even food Hm, but then I changing the article, you awake immediately, like you neither work nor eat anytime, and only your work is to prevent me from changing this article. And the whole hive of other admins do so. Surely, I won this discussion. Because you have nothing reasonable or even new to answer. So have courage to admit it.
 * 1 I suspect that you didn't even looked still that your own link say about numbers (hint: Hillberg).
 * 2 Not good enough. The term "Holocaust denier" means that they deny the Holocaust. All of it. That is nonsense indeed. So they must be called revisionists as they are, not deniers. They still deny only 2,6-2,9 millions not all 5-6.
 * 3 If nonsense is repeated it doesn't become more reasonable.
 * 4 Yes, there are many sources, but many of them hardly seem reliable. Debora Lipstadt, for example, is not reliable sourse - she can't be taken seriously in any case. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Absolutely agree. So stop misrepresent facts and allow people who learned more then you to cleanse this article from the nonsenses.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Hm, but then I changing the article, you awake immediately,..." - well, you are sure great at generalization. Suprisingly, there are times when I'm online, and when I'm online I sometimes work on Wikipedia, and then I do indeed check my watchlist sometimes. If I find nonsense, I act accordingly. That has happend once in the current dispute - I don't remember if we have met before. The fact that others seem to share my opinion of your edits could mean that they agree with me and not with you. But if you get to declare your self winner by fiat, why don't you declare your self King and Emperor of the Galaxy? Then you can send your Storm Troopers to Florida and make Wikipedia publish your "thoughts".
 * Are we talking about the same Raul Hilberg who is quoted as "over 800,000" who died from "Ghettoization and general privation"; 1,400,000 who were killed in "Open-air shootings"; and "up to 2,900,000" who perished in camps"? He arrives at 5.1 million, and is generally considered conservative, as he only includes documented cases.
 * Now maybe English is not your native language, but terms do acquire distinct meanings. An "American Indian" has nothing to do with India, and a "Holocaust Denier" is somebody who denies a significant aspect of the Holocaust. You may not like that, and you are certainly free to not use the term like that. But if you do, and if you want to communicate with others, you have to settle on the agreed meaning. Don't play semantic games, but do tell us your version of what happend to the European Jews in WW2.
 * Huh? Do you claim that all deniers ("revisonists" in your language) agree about what happend?
 * Lipstadt is not a source about the Holocaust, but about Holocaust denial. Can you stick to one topic at a time? Why don't you give us what you think is a reliable source? --Stephan Schulz 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But if you get to declare your self winner by fiat, why don't you declare your self King and Emperor of the Galaxy? Then you can send your Storm Troopers to Florida and make Wikipedia publish your "thoughts". Oh, pleeeaaase... Don't joke anymore. Your sense of humour doesn't impress me. I think I won and you lost only because I feel so. OK, let others judje us. If I find nonsense, I act accordingly - that probably means that you take your best effort to protect it from deleting. The fact that others seem to share my opinion of your edits... These "others" are the same people each time (with few exceptions).
 * 1 You read at last. Yes, that is exactly that Raul Hilberg. What don't you understand still? Holocaust revisionists ("deniers" in your language) don't deny neither ghettoization nor open-air shooting. They don't deny even "Final Solution", which they consider to mean "expulsion". They deny only those who considered as perished in extermination camps. Note, not in concentration camps. This number is about 2,6 millions, like I patiently trying to explain you.
 * 2 No, the very term is misleading. Very little number of people read explanations about "different aspects" and so on. They just read "Holocaust deniers" - "Aha, they deny that Nazis killed Jews, so they are crazy bigots". This is the way which propaganda hoodwink people about revisionists. So I don't playing semantic games, but zionistic propaganda does. My version? Let us first define, what is the Holocaust. I propose, that The Holocaust incudes all Jewish civilian losses. Is it acceptable? My version is mainly based on the version of the CODOH site.
 * 3 Surely there are as many opinions, as many people.
 * 4 If Lipstadt is not sourse about Holocaust, how she can say something reasonable about revinionism ("denial" in your language)? David Irving is reliable enough about this, IMHO.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This troll is overfed. No-one is going to convince him, as he is a conspiracy theory fan. Revert his shitty article edits, ignore his shitty talk page edits. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Invisible one appears at last. I love you too. You seem to be little bit more histerical now then you often are. It seems like this guy have serious behavioral problems. I strongly suspect that only reason he is not banned still is that he belongs to the same trollish gang that most admins here are members of.
 * 2 Stephan Schulz If you stay silent, I'll estimate your silence as an admission of your defeat. I wait till tomorrow. If you have nothing to respond, let my version of this page stay untouched by you.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 15:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Stephan...
Hey, Stephan. I know Igor is difficult to conduct a reasoned discourse with but, as annoying as he is, he's got a valid question for which you have a valid answer. The problem is first of all "6 million" is an "easy, round number". The real estimates range from 5.1 million to 5.86 million. Second, even these numbers represent estimates of all Jews that died during the Holocaust, not just those who were gassed or even those who died in concentration/extermination camps. That number IS much lower (2.5 - 3 million? - my off-the-cuff guess). Now, there is a potential for a valid criticism that the remaining 2.5-3 million Jews that died outside concentration camps did not necessarily die as a result of the Nazi Final Solution. A more detailed explanation of Holocaust estimates is required to explain this gap and, AFAICT, the article on The Holocaust does not do a good job of explaining this. There is an attitude of "trust us - the sources are reliable". It would be better if this niggling question were simply dealt with head-on so that it could be dispensed with once and for all. --Richard 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually no, Igor does not have a valid question. His question amounts to "Here are some made-up numbers that conflict with my carricature of the "official" view of the Holocaust. Doesn't this show the deniers are right?" - to which the anser is, of course, "No". I have neither the time nor the inclination (nor, actually, a suitable qualification) to teach history to an unwilling subject. The information is there, and I point him to it. As to your remark: Indeed, 6 million is a rounded number (although estimates go from about 5.1 million to somewhat beyond 6 million). We don't know exactly how many died in the 9/11 attack, an isolated incident in very recent times, with modern data processing and census data. Of course we don't have exact numbers for an event that took place in the middle of a war, over many European states, often in areas just conquered and with at best a temporary emergency administration, by a country that later actively tried to destroy the evidence and whose own administration was essentially eliminated, and which experienced serious population loss and massive population displacement, further destroying established structures. This lack of perfect information is not, however, a valid argument against the factuality of the Holocaust. --Stephan Schulz 08:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Stephan... hey I tried to put the best face on it that I could. I understand your frustration.  Please try to remain as civil as you can or just let someone else conduct the discourse.  Also, please see my entry titled "Estimates of Holocaust deaths" on Talk:Holocaust as I have a question about the "somewhat beyond 6 million" comment.
 * --Richard 17:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Brief protection
I have temporarily protected the page to fix the ref tags, that have somehow got to be a mess. Tom Harrison Talk 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All done, thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you undone change I made. Can I ask you, why? --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Denialism and conspiracism are tightly linked in the literature. It was correct as written: holocaust denial is an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 19:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Denialism and conspiracism are tightly linked in the literature Agree. But the reason, pointed in the article in not correct, IMHO ("a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary")--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this: "Denialism and conspiracism are tightly linked in the literature, for this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory"?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is pretty much a predetermined conclusion that ignores evidence. It's not that it is antisemitic and a conspiracy theory because of the literature, but that it is both because of its characteristics, as cited. Maybe I'm missing your point. Tom Harrison Talk 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which evidense HD/HR ignores? I don't see. Deniers/revisionists speaking reasonable things, their opponents speaking nonsenses. Conspiracy theory is not nesessarily predeterminated conclusion, but the theory, which doesn't accept mainstream opinion. Most conspiracy theories are wrong, but HD/HR is right conspiracy theory. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

'Right conspiracy theory?' You are talking about 'right conspiracy fact. If it were fact, it should be able to be supported by a uncontroverted body of evidence. But it is certainly not. The most embarassing evidence contradicting the theory is the eye-witness accounts, particular of the holocaust survivors.'Conspiracy' theory, by definition, is, in any case, beyond proof. For a conspiracy of individuals to present some truth as an untruth, or some untruth as truth, supposes the surpression of evidence, silencing of witnesses and a cojnspiracy of silence. How then, can such a theory suffer any scrutiny at all?--Gazzster 07:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Once the theory that Earth is the planet orbiting Sun was considered almost like conspiracy theories now. Like heresy.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Igor, the points in the article are copiously sourced, and correct as written. This article is an article about Holocaust denial, not a platform for Holocaust denial, and it will stay that way, regardless of your best attempts to the contrary. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is an article about Holocaust denial, not a platform for Holocaust denial It must be based on Deniers/revisionists materials to accord facts.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it must be based on reliable sources, to accord with the WP:V policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it must be based on reliable sources, to accord with the WP:V policy If your sources claim nonsenses, they aren't reliable then. Or may be I've missed something?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're exactly correct. That's why holocaust denier websites are not considered reliable sources. Now it's time for you to go away. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Go away yourself--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a problem then trolls become admins.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to consider "denier" websites "not reliable sources", because they speak reasonable things unlike some admins here.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know reading is not your strongest skill, but try reading WP:RS and in particular WP:SPS. Random websites are not reliable sources at all. And "reasonable" and "true" are, of course, different concepts. --Stephan Schulz 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Deniers/revisionists have published books. And not only self-published, like you trying to say. For example, those of David Irving.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 09:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Iranian government consider Deniers/Revisionists trustworthy enough. Authoritative? The senior palestinian historian shares revisionist/deniers position. So they are reliable sourse. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I know some editors can be trying, but lets not be personal and insulting. If anything, it gives them fuel for saying we are biased.--Gazzster 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions regarding scope and sourcing
Disclaimer: I feel like the ACLU defending the right of neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, Illinois. What follows here is not an endorsement of everything that Igor has asserted or demanded above.

AFAICT, I am against everything Igor believes about the Holocaust. However, I do wish to point out that there is a valid question of what the emphasis article should be and what a reliable source should be in the context of this article.

First, the scope of this article should be primarily about Holocaust denial. It should provide a fair and objective (no irony intended) presentation of the phenomenon. The current revision spends more time attacking the claims than presenting them. This is imbalanced. The claims should be described in more detail than just in summary.

Second, Holocaust denial sources are reliable sources about themselves. That is, this article should not claim "Eastern Europeans killed most of the Jews without any assistance or encouragement from the Nazis" (assuming that is one of the HD claims). You cannot use an HD source to support this assertion because HD sources are not reliable sources for this kind of assertion.

Instead, the article should state "According to HD source X, Eastern Europeans killed most of the Jews without any assistance or encouragement from the Nazis". HD sources ARE reliable sources for substantiating what HD proponents assert.

The reader of this article should not walk away thinking "Well, I don't know for sure what HD is about but it's clear that Wikipedia thinks it is scurrilous nonsense." That is POV and that is the impression that I get from reading this article.

THe reader should walk away thinking "OK, I've got a pretty solid handle on what HD claims. I also know that there is a pretty overwhelming verdict that HD is scurrilous nonsense and I know where I can find reliable sources on both sides so that I can do further research if I so choose."

--Richard 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Holocaust denial sources aren't actually reliable sources about themselves, because, as the academic literature points out, they are deliberately deceptive about almost everything regarding themselves, from their methodology, to their agenda, to their claims, even to the number of hits their websites get. We can only rely on reliable sources, which we have done. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yuh. I omitted an important clarification.  By "HD sources", I don't mean HD websites which suffer from all the standard problems described in WP:WEB.  What I mean is HD books with some claim to notability.  If a HD book is self-published or published by obscure, fringe publishing houses, it doesn't quite meet the criterion of reliable source.  However, I would assume that the publications of the people and organizations mentioned in the article are reliable sources for documenting what the claims of those people and organizations have been.
 * BUT NOT FOR DOCUMENTING THE TRUTH VALUE OF THOSE CLAIMS.
 * --Richard 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But if we use HD sources to write about those sources we'll be doing WP:NOR. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not necessarily but there is definitely some risk of it. It's a question of primary sources vs. secondary sources.  Obviously, secondary sources are preferred but primary sources are probably OK provided that we avoid interpreting or passing judgment on the material found therein.  Primary sources are good souraces for what the original claim was but not good sources for evaluating the truth value of that claim.  Interpretation and evaluation should be left to secondary sources.
 * --Richard 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you decide which parts of the primary sources are notable and which are not? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You raise a valid point. Do you argue then that all quotations of primary sources must be found in secondary sources first and then cited from the secondary source?

""""""In a long discussion on Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews, User:Humus sapiens took the view that the Bible was not a reliable source. I countered that it was a reliable source only so far as in determining what it said. Thus, it is reasonable to say "In the Bible, Paul says that he was persecuted by the Jews" and then cite chapter and verse. However, this only establishes that Paul said this. It does not establish that it actually happened. I am applying the same principle here. I fully recognize that picking and choosing which passages to cite can lead to problems of interpretation and evaluation. Thus, I am not claiming that we can arbitrarily cite from primary sources without reservation. I do believe that it is reasonable to cite from primary sources where there does not seem to be a concern of interpretation resulting in original research.
 * --Richard 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Predetermined conclusion 2
Hi,

I wanted to start a separate discussion on this as I don't want my point to be confused with the discussion conducted above under the heading "Predetermined conclusion". I am NOT a Holocaust denier nor do I have any sympathies for that POV. Nonetheless, I am a bit uncomfortable with using the phrase "predetermined conclusion" in the lead without further explanation. It "seems" a bit too POV although it's obvious that the mainstream POV is that the Holocaust deniers haven't a leg to stand on.

So, what I'd like to ask for is a quote from the cited source which justifies the use of the phrase "predetermined conclusion". Based on what the quote says, I'll re-evaluate my position and follow up accordingly.

--Richard 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have that source, but I added another that says the same. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "predetermined conclusion" should be controversial, it's the standard model of all the pseudosciences like pseudohistory see here. In any case, it's been cited. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 02:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

6 million
Ugh. So I've done some very superficial research into the "6 million" number and it appears to be an estimate based on a "population balance" computation. Without diminishing the horrific tragedy that this number represents, it is important to recognize that there are problems with using the "population balance" methodology.

Now, I could be wrong. I've only looked at a few websites and half of them were HD websites. This is the best table I could find providing a breakdown of the 6 million number.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-statistics.htm

Note that over 4 million of the deaths were in Poland and the Soviet Union.

One of the HD sites argues that 2 million Polish and Soviet Jews were deported by the Soviets. I can't attest to the accuracy of the 2 million figure but I believe that it is true that the Soviets deported Poles from Poland between 1939 and 1941. Even assuming that the number of Polish Jews was 0.5 to 1 million instead of 2 million, that reduces the 6 million number somewhat.

Also, because the population balance figure necessarily includes non-combatant deaths due to warfare, we cannot assign responsibility for all 6 million deaths to the Nazi "Final Solution" campaign.

Now, I'm not disputing that European Jewry lost 6 million souls (although the HD sites do hint at the number being too large and even have the unspeakable whatever to claim that the number of Jews actually went up during the period in question!)

Nor am I saying that this loss was anything less than a horrific tragedy that is a stain on humanity.

However, it does seem that there is a failure to distinguish between "population balance loss of 6 million" and the "number killed as a direct result of the Nazi Final Solution".

Because my research has been very superficial, my off-the-cuff guess is that the number killed as a direct result of the Nazi Final Solution could arguably be in the range of 3-5 million. Still a horrific number but something less than 6 million.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in either the Holocaust or European history in general. However, I have experience as a major contributor to [this article] on estimating the number of deaths caused by the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe.

Now I confess that the referenced article is not the greatest article. It started out as a collection of notes in support of the Flight and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe during and after WWII article. Nonetheless, it is our best effort to document the debate that exists in academia over the estimate of "2 million German deaths".

My experience in researching that article with other editors is that big numbers are often bandied about and assumed accurate when they are often just "best guess" estimates that are susceptible to criticism.

I'm not saying that the 6 million number is wrong. However, I think there is encyclopedic value in clarifying what the 6 million number represents and how it was arrived at. I would like to see an article like [this article] that digs into the methodology behind the 6 million number. The table in has some "big, round numbers" that should be looked at more closely.

--Richard 14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't really need to discuss this on two different talk pages; you can assume the answers will be the same here as on Talk:The Holocaust. That "six million" is an approximation is not disputed. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I should have read the article. --Richard 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)