Talk:Holocaust denial: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:07, 10 August 2006 editAmoruso (talk \| contribs)13,357 editsm →Evidence that outs Question the Holocaust as we know it ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo71.229.52.174 (talk) →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2024: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~controversial~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Talk header}}
	{{onlinesource2004\|section=February 2004
			{{Round in circles}}
	\|title=Gibson's dad stirs furor with anti-Jewish talk
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
	\|org=The Dallas Morning News
			{{Not a forum}}
	\|date=February 20, 2004
			{{ArticleHistory\|action1= FAC
	\|url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http%3A//www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/022004dnrelmelsdad.ae76f.html&e=7417}}
			\|action1date= 2004-6-6
	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk"
			\|action1link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2004#Holocaust denial
	\|-
			\|action1result= failed
	\| width="40px" \| ]
			\|action1oldid= 4302108
	\| This article is a former ]. Please view its sub-pages ''''']''''' and ''''']''''' to see why the nominations failed. For older candidates, please check the ].
	]
	\|}
	{{GAnominee}}
	<div border="1" style="border:black solid; background-color:white; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;">
	'''Some discussions to note:'''
	Some topics have been discussed multiple times on this talk page. It is suggested that editors review these previous discussions before re-raising issu*es, so as to save time and cut down on reptition.
	*If you want to argue that Holocaust Denial should be called Holocaust Revisionism, please read (not an exhaustive list): , , , , ,
	* If you want to argue about the Auschwitz Plaque, please read: , , , and the appropriate section in the ] article.
	* If you want to argue that "most historians" or "almost all historians" do not reject Holocaust Denial, please read: ,
	* If you want to advocate Holocaust denial or discuss evidence about the existance of the Holocaust, please read:
	</div>

			\|action2= FAC
			\|action2date= 2004-10-11
			\|action2link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/September 2004#Holocaust denial
			\|action2result= failed
			\|action2oldid=

			\|action3= GAN
	Older discussions may be found here:
			\|action3date= 2006-12-27
			\|action3link=
			\|action3result= listed
			\|action3oldid= 96706924

			\|action4= GAR
	==Archive==
			\|action4date= 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
			\|action4link= Misplaced Pages:Good article review/Archive 23#Holocaust denial
			\|action4result= kept
			\|action4oldid=

			\|action5=GAR
	* ]
			\|action5date=July 15, 2008
	* ]
			\|action5link=Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 11#GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
	* ]
			\|action5result=Kept
	* ]
			\|action5oldid=225573669
	'''Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.'''

			\|action6=GAR
			\|action6date=01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
			\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Holocaust denial/1
			\|action6result=Delisted
			\|action6oldid=974441173

			\|currentstatus= DGA
	==Holocaust denial?==
			\|topic=Socsci}}
	: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.
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|collapsed=yes\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Jewish history\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative views\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Germany\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject European history\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=High}}
			}}
			{{talk fringe\|Holocaust denial}}
			{{Trolling}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	: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?
			\|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\|counter = 22
			\|minthreadsleft = 3
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Politically motivated historical revisionism) ]. <!-- {"title":"Politically motivated historical revisionism","appear":{"revid":12819523,"parentid":11662539,"timestamp":"2005-03-29T21:42:57Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":459514452,"parentid":459353566,"timestamp":"2011-11-07T20:51:09Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
			}}

			__TOC__
	: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.--] 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

			==Soft Holocaust Denial should be added?==
	One of the most basic thing Holocaust deniers deny is that they are deniers in the first place. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
			https://www.thetower.org/article/the-rise-of-soft-holocaust-denial/
			The matter with JK Rowling because the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany
			points here, but this article doesn't mention Rromani, LGBT, who were part of the Holocaust, even though they were not the most public.
			https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/deborah-lipstadt-historian-donald-trump-advisers-soft-holocaust-denial
			There are plenty of articles to support it. There are examples that can be pulled too. Addressing the arguments that it's more prevalent v. hard denial should also be addressed and added.
			--] (]) 14:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

			:@] Maybe first try creating an article about this (], I guess)? Is this term used in academia? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 11:02, 3 December 2024 (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 here is too long to add the soft denial, I think to add the soft part, though I think an insertion of "soft denial" as a header would still be wise, rather than an addendum. There seems to be enough articles to support making it, but I have to admit I don't particularly want to do it alone. ] (]) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2024 ==
	:::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. --] 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

			{{edit extended-protected\|Holocaust denial\|answered=no}}
	::::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. -] 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
			My suggestion is to add an additional section for the middle east category to include Israel. In 2015, Benjamin Net. voiced his opinion that Palestinian leaders persuaded the Nazis to commence the holocaust. This denial denigrates the Nazi decision to carry out the mass killing and is a way to condemn Palestinians today.

			From BBC
	==concerning the list of "Holocaust denial beliefs"==
			https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34594563

			From AP news
	...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.
			https://apnews.com/general-news-61ead35a427a408e9d93d43f41cfa064 ] (]) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	--72.92.0.83 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

			:The sources are good, though it can be argued to be not exactly "denial". A sentence like "Historians said that Israeli PM BN served the interests of HD-ers when he claimed in 2015 that..." is not unreasonable IMO. I note that this thing is well covered in ]. ] (]) 18:50, 2 December 2024 (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 , 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''. ] 03:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
			::As in mentioned in the intro as part of holocaust denialism, "Nazi Germany's "Final Solution" was aimed only at deporting Jews from the territory of the Third Reich and did not include their extermination.", Which even without an explicit comment from a historian or commentator from the articles stating that is in explicit service fellow HD-ers, it matches the definition as provided in the intro. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal. ] (]) 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Point, per the WP-article's definition, this does seem like a version of HD. I've ]d in a couple of places, we'll see if other editors can be arsed to have an opinion. For the interested, the coverage in the BN-article is at ]. ] (]) 05:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Also, there is , '']'', 2015, , , etc. ] (]) 05:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I would like to suggest adding the following under the middle east section.
			::::=== Israel ===
			::::Israel's Prim Minister, Mr Netanyahu, at a speech to the World Zionist Congress in 2015, insisted Adolf Hitler did not want to exterminate jews but had only wanted to expel them from Europe due too the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini request. This has been seen as a means to reduce Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust by Angela Merkel and chief Israel Holocaust Historian, Yad Vashem. ] (]) 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Section on Germany ==
	:: 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)

			In the German section, the terminology of "Volksverhetzung" is explained and translated twice in mostly the same way. I think it should be possible to remove one of those (preferrably the second one) to make for more fluent reading. --] (]) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (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. ] 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
			:Done, thanks. ] (]) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (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). --] 05:39, 8 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''

	] 11:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
	*Yawn. What suggestions do you have to improve the article? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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. ] 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] 14:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
	*Please be advised that this is not a discussion forum. The sole purpose of Misplaced Pages 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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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. ] 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. ] 23:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Revisionist vs. Denier - Contradict ==
	"The term "denier" (also but less often in English "negationist") 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. 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.
	{{unsigned2\|07:27, August 6, 2006\|Monkeyblue}}
	*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. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 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.] 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.] 00:48, 7 August 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.
	] 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. ] 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. ] 18:06, 6 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; Misplaced Pages isn't that. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
	**It us '''neither''' an ] nor a ]. It is an ] 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 Misplaced Pages. Get real and be honest. Plenty of debates go on all over Misplaced Pages without a peep of objection. It's encouraged everywhere except here. ] 11:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:20, 19 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holocaust denial article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Important: In order to save editors from repeatedly answering questions which have already been asked, as well saving you the time from asking them, it is strongly recommended that you view the following FAQ section, which contains responses that represent editorial consensus on the following issues which have frequently arisen on the Holocaust denial talk page. In addition, the links given to related archived discussions are not necessarily exhaustive, and it is recommended that you use the search tool as well.

To view an item, click the link to the right of the question.

1: Holocaust denial is not necessarily antisemitic. Response: One item that has been raised here several times is the contention that Holocaust denial is not inherently antisemitic, and/or that Misplaced Pages should not conclude that everyone who is a Holocaust denier harbors antisemitic feelings.

Misplaced Pages is not here to conclude that, and its editors' opinion on the matter - whatever those opinions are and regardless of who they belong to - are irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is here to present what reliable sources say. In this case, there is a preponderance of reliable material stating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic, and therefore the article notes that Holocaust denial is considered to be antisemitic, and why the antisemitism template is legitimately included.

Related archived discussion: , .

2: The antisemitism template should be removed. Response: Please see the response to Item 1 as to why the antisemitism template is legitimately placed. 3: Holocaust denial should be renamed Holocaust revisionism Response: No. Per numerous reliable sources, the correct terminology is Holocaust denial/denier.

Related archived discussion: , , , , , .

4: Not all historians reject Holocaust denial. Response: Yes, they do. As is already stated in the article, according to the oldest and largest American association of historians and history teachers, "no serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place", and that Holocaust denial is a form of "academic fraud". Misplaced Pages must avoid using vague or unspecific terms, and words which do not accuractely reflect what reliable sources say.

Related archived discussion: , .

5: The 4 million Auschwitz plaque Response: One issue relates to the death toll plaque at Auschwitz, which was amended following the collapse of the Soviet Union to read 1.5 million Jewish deaths, instead of 4 million victims of no specified ethnicity or background.

The Soviet authorities estimated the death toll not via historical methodology, but by working out how many people could have been cremated during the entire existence of the camp, taking 20% off to account for crematoria down-time, and using that number: around 4 million. They did not, for example, examine how many people were sent to the camp versus how many did not return, but used the 4 million variant to purposely overstate non-Jewish deaths, and diminish the fact that 90% of those that disappeared following their deportation to Auschwitz were Jewish. Once the Iron Curtain fell, communist pressure to keep the original Soviet estimate ceased and the more accurate estimate replaced it.

In any event, reputable historians did not use the 4 million figure in their calculations of the overall number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Rather, they used numbers of 1 to 1.5 million, figures which are still used today.

Related archived discussion/items: , , and the appropriate section in the Auschwitz article.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Holocaust denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Holocaust denial at the Reference desk.

Holocaust denial was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 6, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 11, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 27, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 5, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
July 15, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
June 6, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Jewish history Top‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read before starting

Misplaced Pages policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents Holocaust denial in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:

Also of particular relevance are:

In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Misplaced Pages deals with fringe views.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (#Politically motivated historical revisionism) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Soft Holocaust Denial should be added?

https://www.thetower.org/article/the-rise-of-soft-holocaust-denial/ The matter with JK Rowling because the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany points here, but this article doesn't mention Rromani, LGBT, who were part of the Holocaust, even though they were not the most public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/deborah-lipstadt-historian-donald-trump-advisers-soft-holocaust-denial There are plenty of articles to support it. There are examples that can be pulled too. Addressing the arguments that it's more prevalent v. hard denial should also be addressed and added. --KimYunmi (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@KimYunmi Maybe first try creating an article about this (soft Holocaust denial, I guess)? Is this term used in academia? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The article here is too long to add the soft denial, I think to add the soft part, though I think an insertion of "soft denial" as a header would still be wise, rather than an addendum. There seems to be enough articles to support making it, but I have to admit I don't particularly want to do it alone. KimYunmi (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2024

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Holocaust denial. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

My suggestion is to add an additional section for the middle east category to include Israel. In 2015, Benjamin Net. voiced his opinion that Palestinian leaders persuaded the Nazis to commence the holocaust. This denial denigrates the Nazi decision to carry out the mass killing and is a way to condemn Palestinians today.

From BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34594563

From AP news https://apnews.com/general-news-61ead35a427a408e9d93d43f41cfa064 71.229.52.174 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources are good, though it can be argued to be not exactly "denial". A sentence like "Historians said that Israeli PM BN served the interests of HD-ers when he claimed in 2015 that..." is not unreasonable IMO. I note that this thing is well covered in Benjamin Netanyahu. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As in mentioned in the intro as part of holocaust denialism, "Nazi Germany's "Final Solution" was aimed only at deporting Jews from the territory of the Third Reich and did not include their extermination.", Which even without an explicit comment from a historian or commentator from the articles stating that is in explicit service fellow HD-ers, it matches the definition as provided in the intro. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal. 71.229.52.174 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Point, per the WP-article's definition, this does seem like a version of HD. I've WP:APPNOTEd in a couple of places, we'll see if other editors can be arsed to have an opinion. For the interested, the coverage in the BN-article is at Benjamin_Netanyahu#Fourth_term. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is Under-fire Netanyahu criticised over 'a form of Holocaust denial', Irish Independent, 2015, , , etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to suggest adding the following under the middle east section.

=== Israel ===

Israel's Prim Minister, Mr Netanyahu, at a speech to the World Zionist Congress in 2015, insisted Adolf Hitler did not want to exterminate jews but had only wanted to expel them from Europe due too the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini request. This has been seen as a means to reduce Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust by Angela Merkel and chief Israel Holocaust Historian, Yad Vashem. 71.229.52.174 (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Section on Germany

In the German section, the terminology of "Volksverhetzung" is explained and translated twice in mostly the same way. I think it should be possible to remove one of those (preferrably the second one) to make for more fluent reading. --131Platypi (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks. JimRenge (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: