Misplaced Pages

Talk:Holocaust denial

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stevertigo (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 13 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:10, 13 September 2009 by Stevertigo (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents
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.
WikiProject iconJewish history GA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Good articleHolocaust denial has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 11, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 5, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
July 15, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

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 issues and/or use the search form below, so as to save time and cut down on repetition.

  • 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 Auschwitz article.
  • If you want to argue that "most historians" or "almost all historians" do not reject Holocaust Denial, please read: ,
  • If you want to argue that Holocaust denial is not antisemitic, please read: ,



Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22


This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.


Why is Holocaust Denial labeled as part of Antisemitism?

This makes no sense. Holocaust Denial doesn't necessarily mean Antisemitism; it simply means you disagree with the "official" view of the Holocaust. 24.171.52.43 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So you agree with the "unofficial" view of the Holocaust, that millions of Jews lied about the genocide, for personal and communal gain, but that's not antisemitic? Jayjg 01:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the OP would appreciate you not putting words in his mouth. Just because he doesn't believe the same thing as you doesn't mean he has to conform to somebody else's. He is entirely capable of forming his own opinions. Jwh335 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So he's going to investigate this entirely on his own then; look through voluminous German records, do archeological digs, undertake scientific experiments, etc.? Or do you think it rather more likely that he will base his opinion on some Holocaust denial leaflet? Jayjg 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I am relatively new of Misplaced Pages, but reading through this whole article really leaves me a bit dismayed...does anyone reading this feel that it is objective, not biased, and NPOV? This starting line, which some contributors are so warmly protecting, is like the judge saying at the beginning of a trial "jurors, before we start, remember that this man is guilty!"
I am reading a lot about the argument, and I am starting to form myself some revisionist ideas.. it's not final yet, for sure. But the arguments are interesting and democracy means that everyone must be invited to explore and to know: here someone wants to label, to blame and to ignore. I am not antisemite, sorry, and I believe Jews and non-Jews have both the right to doubt and investigate... Revisionism is also much more complex, and opinions varied, than what is presented here. I think this article should be completely revised.--Zetajean (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that the charge of antisemitism is a misnomer. Regardless of how we feel about the belief, the denial isn't an anti-jewish statement. Condoning the holocaust, justifying or suggesting it was the right thing to do, are anti-semitic positions. Denying the holocaust's reality doesn't directly correlate to a particular belief against all jewish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.195.42 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
According to reliable sources, it does, so that's all that matters as far as this is concerned. --jpgordon 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC related to this article

For an RfC, that is obviously related to this subject, see: Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view#RfC: Should Holocaust denial be replaced by Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. -- Rico 03:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jayjg 01:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

antisemitism?

I'm removing this from the antisemitism section unless someone has a good reason for it being there. Jwh335 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul Hilberg is not a Holocaust denier. Jayjg 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking at the sources, it doesn't seem like any of them mention that all holocaust deniers are antisemitic. I believe these are also grounds to remove the category. It seems like Misplaced Pages is concluding something from something else. Jwh335 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't claim all Holocaust deniers are antisemitic, but it does provide many, many reliable citations indicating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. Jayjg 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It is clearly inferred that all Holocaust deniers are antisemitic by being in the "antisemitism" category. Jwh335 (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you mean "implied", not "inferred". And the article simply notes that Holocaust denial is considered to be antisemitic. It also provides 17 reliable sources saying so. I daresay there are dozens more that say the same. Do you have any reliable sources indicating that it is not antisemitic? Jayjg 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahmadinejad has stated that he is not antisemitic and is clearly a holocaust denier. I believe that his "not antisemitic" statement is absurd. However, it's apparently a valid source on Misplaced Pages's Juan Cole page. I will use that as my source. Jwh335 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You need to review WP:NOR. Just because Ahmadinejad says he's not antisemitic, it doesn't mean Holocaust denial isn't antisemitic. Please find reliable sources which state "Holocaust denial is not antisemitic". Jayjg 01:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I will let you remove reference 43 from the Juan Cole page because I will not. I've added a new reference. The section that mentions the relevant information follows:
It is not anti-Semitic to make a fool of yourself in public about a historical fact. It is anti-Semitic to preach or promote a dislike of Jews because they are Jews, which is what Bishop Williamson has not done.
Jwh335 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Who deems sources reliable or not, and how? --169.232.173.23 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know this, as well. Jwh335 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
As everything on Misplaced Pages, it is determined by consensus. --jpgordon 02:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
We have a reliable sources noticeboard where such things are discussed at WP:RSN, but the bottom line is that Holocaust denial is considered to be anti-semitic. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources are, for example, sources that originate from academics/scholarly instutions that have a reputation for fact checking. WilliamH (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I am on the "not Antisemites" side. The sources that appear to be the basis of the other sides thought process may or may not be reliable, but they don't state that HD deniers are antisemites.60.229.36.164 (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section discussing the issue, here: Holocaust denial#Are Holocaust deniers antisemites? Feedback welcome. Jayjg 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that section. Jwh335 (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that some articles have the category box under certain sections of articles. Would it be okay to put the antisemitism category box under the "Are Holocaust deniers antisemites?" section? Jwh335 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, although a couple of non-expert authors have opined that it might be possible to theoretically be a Holocaust denier without being an antisemite, in practice all reliable sources agree that Holocaust denial is undoubtedly a manifestation of antisemitism. In fact, that it is one of the most obvious manifestations of antisemitism imaginable. Thus, the category box belongs exactly where it is. Jayjg 01:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Entirely agree with Jayjg's statement above. WilliamH (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe we need to take a consensus. Jwh335 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
We seem to have one; everyone here other than yourself thinks the antisemitism box is correctly placed. --jpgordon 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how reliable a source is if it's merely being used for an opinion point. We use reliable sources to get reliable descriptions of events and reliable data and so on, but they mean very little for opinions of motive, or complex subjective definitions of anti-semitism. It's impossible to make the claim that holocaust denial is always anti-semitic, since it's the rejection of popular historical record and not inherently a claim of Jewish conspiracy - the stature of the person (source) claiming otherwise does not change that. 94.197.64.58 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that "It's impossible make the claim that holocaust denial is always anti-semitic", this article does not do so. Please read the article for details on what it actually says. Jayjg 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Conceptualization issues

In what has been our nominal convention for the last five years, my friend User:Jayjg reverted my basic changes to the lede, in which I sought to remedy a couple obvious issues - that its conceptualization appears to me to be inaccurate, and its writing contains what appears to be an unnecessary caveat. The lede currently reads:

"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized."

BTW I note that my actual edit was missing a vital transition from before the em-dash to after the em-dash. Hence a better version would be something like... (changes in bold and underlined) :

"Holocaust denial refers to a type of claim regarding the Holocaust — the genocide of Jews and others during World War II — in which the Holocaust did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent as historically recognized."

To explain each of my edits in typically unnecessary detail, the first change is conceptual. The main reason Jayjg gives for his revert appears to be that "Holocaust denial" constitutes a specific thing, rather than a type of thing. However note that the lede sentence itself offers some variance in its descriptions (from "did not occur at all" to "or.. in the manner or extent.. recognized"), hence this article is not about a specific claim, but rather a type of claim - one in which the facts of the Holocaust are rejected and substituted with notions devoid of factual basis.

Taking that a step further, we deal then with the general concept of a phenomenon - that all the various different "denials" constitute not just a type of claim, but an "ism": A general type of "denialism" that manifests itself not as "Holocaust denial," but "Holocaust denialism." The latter term I suggest may be a better title for this article.

The second change was elementary - the language "usually referred to as the Holocaust" is rather fishy and obsequious. Its not "usually referred to" - in English its always referred to as "the Holocaust." It reads like a caveat that's not only unnecessary, but one that seeks to make inaccuracy itself a kind of necessity.

A third edit involved the simple addition of "and others" to the line describing the Holocaust and its targeted victims. Jayjg in his revert comment appears to make the point that Holocaust denialism is specifically about Jews, hence another reason for his revert. But even if that were true, and I'm not so sure it is - for example in cases where the entire Holocaust is denied - it still does not change the fact that the phrase in question was simply describing what the Holocaust itself was, hence the disinclusion of the Roma and others is inaccurate. -Stevertigo 07:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, good to see you are back to your usual BS. At best, you just want to add words that make th elead wordier and no clearer, indeed, less clear. At worst, it is your typical pattern of violating WP:NOR. Steve, pleease go to your local library and fill out the form for a library card. Then you can read books, and do research and perhaps contribute to Misplaced Pages. In the meantime, please don't waste our time with crazy edits that have no virtue except that they are not backed by any research. Have philosophers argued that Holocaust denial should be considered a "type of claim" rather than a claim? Has any significant verifiable source claimed that it is an "ism?" Well, please share your sources with us. But you are not a source for Misplaced Pages articles.
I guess at least we can thank you for being almost clear about your compulsion to side with anti-Semites whenever the chance appears. The article is about people who deny the genocide of the Jews. The introduction ought to introduce the article. Therefore the introduction has to make clear that Holocaust deniers are denying the genocide of the Jews. The lead phrasing does that, your edit changes it. You claim that it is required for conceptual clarity but so far the only conceptual muddiness I can see is somewhere betweenyour ears. Holocaust denial is directed towards Jews. That is what this article is about. If you want to discuss other Holocausts or meanigns of the Holocaust do it at the appropriate article, not here. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
SLR wrote: "Hi Steve, good to see you are back to your usual BS." Since we are going off topic, here Slrubenstein: Over the last year or so, by my count you've used perhaps around thirty expletives when talking about my edits, my comments, questions, and even my person.
I wonder, Steven, how much your academic reputation - whatever it actually was - has suffered as a result of your interactions with me - such that you have fallen a bit from the status of at least an articulate academic to one who doesn't bother at all to use his God-given intellect anymore. -Stevertigo 17:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC) PS: Please think twice about going off the deep end with the paranoia. Remember Oct. 3, 2003.
  • To go back on topic and offer not my own original research but the position of multiple reliable sources, Holocaust denial is the denial that a) the Nazi government of Germany had a state policy to kill Jews, that b) homicidal gas chambers were used to do this, and that c) the death toll was around 6 million. The destruction of Roma and other groups of people by the Nazis, however as equally tragic, is not pertinent to Holocaust denial. WilliamH (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The state policy to kill Jews and 6 million figure are key here, since 6 million is the approximate number of Jews killed, not the total of all victims of the Nazis. Jayjg 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Well note that the one cited source for this view, Niewyk (why does the citation omit Nicosia?) is himself not quite so certain. He notes several caveats, notably that an inclusive definition of Nazi murders total perhaps 17 million. He adds that:
"During WWII the term was used to describe the fates of both Jewish and non-Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities. Only later, during the 1960's, was it appropriated () by scholars and popular writers to denote the genocide of the Jews in particular."
He further calls "essentially Judeocentric" the view that the term refers only to the murders of Jews alone. He says "scholars who limit the Holocaust to the genocide of the Jews rest their case variously on issues of motive, scale, and intent." The terms *Judeocentric and *variously are important here, as Niewyk is plain enough to state that there is a naturally ethnic dimension to this historiology, as well as a certain type of conceptual selectivity.
Suffice it to say the definition - one that in a certain sense "denies" the tragic fates of the other 11 million murdered people - is not a universal one, or as Niewyk puts it "not everyone finds this a fully satisfactory definition." Indeed, while the Shoah may refer (uncontroversially) just to the demonic attempt to destroy Jews, the term "The Holocaust" - in the current lingua franca - is not bound by particularly "Judeocentric" concerns - particularly where we lack another more general term for the mass destruction of Jews, Poles, Slavs, Romani, German dissidents, and others. Rather I should state, that is, we appear to lack a more general term other than... "WWII."
With all that said, I am more than aware that words can sometimes have more than one meaning. That "The Holocaust" most often refers to the murder of Jews specifically is not controversial - along with the various nominal concepts of anti-Semitism, systematic apparatus, incineration and pure evil. However, in the non-Jewish world we may have to be less ambiguous, and have no reason to favor one particular definition over another. Hence the inclusive meaning - the one that does not actually omit or ignore 11 million murders - must be understood to be just as valid.
I understand now why the obsequious language in the lede - "..the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust.." in a certain way its quite accurate as it employs a caveat to the definition of the term. But it does not explain itself, such that it could just as well mean 'there are other equivalent terms' as much as it could mean 'the term has a more broad, but less common meaning.' I don't see why it couldn't be restated in accord with the latter. -Stevertigo 00:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It cannot be reinstated because it's wrong. This article is about people who deny the destruction of the Jews, because its the destruction of the Jews that they deny, and not the destruction of, for example, Roma peoples. As a non-Jew in the non-Jewish world that you speak of - a rather nominal term I must say, I cannot think of anything less ambiguous. WilliamH (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo, as WilliamH points out, while the Holocaust affected peoples besides the Jews, Holocaust denial is a denial of the genocide of Jews. Holocaust deniers don't deny other genocides, just the genocide of the Jews. Please review the relevant literature and familiarize yourself with the topic before attempting to make further changes to the article. Thanks. Jayjg 03:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Really. This is just pointless argumentation; perhaps there's a vague possibility that this discussion might be fruitful on Talk:The Holocaust, but Holocaust denial is about Jews. --jpgordon 03:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
(To WilliamH and Jayjg) I know you both are keeping your replies simple and detail-free, but follow along with me here. I don't necessarily agree, and I say this without being argumentative. Again, Neiwyk pointed out that even the term "The Holocaust" was "appropriated" to refer specifically to the Shoah. It (the definition you promote as absolute) excludes 11 million deaths, and therefore it cannot be considered the universal or absolute definition, even it is the more common of two legitimate ones. Thus the term "Holocaust denial" - if it means only exactly what you two suggest - is likewise based in an "appropriated" definition - one that ignores or excludes not only 11 million other murdered human beings, but other plausible causes and reasons by which people generally reject bad news about old events.
While certainly the largest and most notable, anti-Semitism is only one dimension within the overall concept of "denying" the Holocaust. Denials all share similar characteristics - denials follow culpability, as well as extreme incrimination. In plain point of fact, dealing with a social, ethnic, cultural, and even familial association with an unspeakably evil culture - one that needed to be destroyed - certainly "shame" and "guilt" can be considered as related - if not altogether contributing factors - to "denial."
These different aspects perhaps fit better under a Holocaust comprehension article. Now, I'm certain these psycho-sociological tangents have been written about somewhere - why are these not covered here? If it's because the article is constrained by a noticeably artificial fixation on anti-Semitism, then this oversight needs to be corrected. Noting the caveat in the definition of "the Holocaust" is half of the solution. The other half is in dealing with the subjective aspects of "denial" - distinguishing the term as one of "appropriated" meaning - and touching on other non-anti-Semitism aspects (such that Holocaust comprehension covers) is required to satisfy NPOV. -Stevertigo 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The definition of "Holocaust denial" hasn't been "appropriated" from non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, just as the definition of "antisemitism" hasn't been "appropriated" from non-Jewish "semites". Both are activities directed solely at Jews. To quote Kenneth S. Stern from his 2006 book Antisemitism Today (p. 80) "...Holocaust denial is about Jews, not about the Holocaust". Jayjg 23:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the definition of "Holocaust denial" rest somewhat on the definitions of "The Holocaust" and "denial?" The latter term has subjective elements, and the former term, as stated before, has a larger, more inclusive, definition. Why then the limitation? Is it because the limitation is imposed by the "essentially Judeocentric" view mentioned by Niewyk/Nicosia?
Further, does not this definition exist largely to deal with only the anti-Semitic definition? Keep in mind that it wasn't anti-Semitism that made the Nazis particularly notable - it was their egomaniacal embrace of death and destruction that made them finished. -Stevertigo 06:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the definition of Monster truck rest somewhat on the definitions of "Monster" and "truck"? The latter term has subjective elements, and the former has a larger, more inclusive definition than that used in the phrase "Monster truck". And yet, the "Monster truck" article doesn't actually discuss trucks in relation to monsters, or trucks that are driven by monsters. As for the "limitation" in the definition of "Holocaust denial" is indeed "imposed" by the "essentially Judeocentric" view of those who deny the Holocaust. As explained, they are only interested in the Jews, and only interested in denying the genocide of the Jews. Now, what do you mean by "only the anti-Semitic definition" of Holocaust denial? What is the "non-anti-Semitic definition"? Jayjg 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
(Response below) -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Anti-semitism didn't make nazis particularly notable? Do you mean that all the scholars that have written thousands of pages on nazism where they emphasize that anti-semitism was one of the main pilars of the nazi theories are completely mistaken? --Lebob-BE (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
(Response below) -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Lebob, Stevertigo habitually tries to see how far he can brush up against anti-Semitism in his remarks, without actually presenting himself as an anti-Semite. Obviously if you do not care about genocide against Jews, the Nazis were more notable for other things, like their fashion sense. I suggest you not rise to the bait. Stevertigo loves pissing Jews off. Just don't rise to the bait. Let's instead look at his sytematic attempts to violate Misplaced Pages policy. "Doesn't the definition of "Holocaust denial" rest somewhat on the definitions of "The Holocaust" and "denial?"" Well, no, Steve, no more than "A slow comfortable screw on the beach" depend son the definitions of these words. Sure, bartenders know what each individual word means - but the phrase all together has nothing to do with these words. Buddy, trust me on this, but a "blow job" is not what you must think it is!!
The definition of Holocaust denial depends on how people use the term. People use it to deny a genocidal campaign against the Jews. If you have a significant view from a verifiable source that says that the term means something else, by all means share it with us. Oops, that would require you to do actual research! I forgot that you prefer to sit on your chair thumbing through your dictionary looking for ways to violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite have time at to moment to respond adequately, but I can deal with a couple points. For one, I would never have had the insight to compare The Holocaust, or any aspect thereof, to a "blow job." But as he has more than sufficiently demonstrated before linguistics is not one of Slrubenstein's fields of actual expertise. Allow me to demonstrate:
"Holocaust" ----> "blow" (!)
"denial" ----> "job" (!)
I don't mean to embarrass Steven too much, in fact not only do I hold a tremendous respect for him, but he's probably as close to an actual friend I have here on en.wiki. (Yes, this is the same person who 'habitually tries to see how far he can brush up against' making explicit accusations of "anti-Semite" against me).
For future reference, though, it would behoove all of us to learn from SLrubenstein's mistakes, and not make comparisons between literal concept terms - such that "Holocaust denial" reportedly is - and highly idiomatic ones like "blow job" and "a slow comfortable screw on the beach" (I would probably be too self-conscious to be comfortable). Likewise comparing aspects of the most terrible events in human history to some of the most wonderful is not... appropriate.
Let us note though, that the substance behind Slrubenstein's inexact metaphor is a concession - that the term for which this article is named has some idiomatic distinctions that set it apart from the actual term "Holocaust." I agree, and I'll let Slrubenstein go about filling in the holes. Again, the issue I am more interested in is comprehension - which on the surface doesn't seem like a particularly easy subject to tackle. Regards, -Stevertigo 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Steve, do you have any reliable sources that corroborate your theories? Jayjg 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


(To Jayjg - from a few notes above) I meant to write "non-anti-Semitic dimension," not "definition." The answer then to your question (rephrased) "what is the 'non-anti-Semitic dimension?' is simply 'any not Jewish-related reasons for why some people might disbelieve, reject, or else deny the facts about the worst crime in the history of the planet.' -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(Response to LeBob above). One point to consider here is that Europe was plenty "anti-Semitic" for a long time, little of which is generally notable. Anti-Semitism's relevance is not in question here - but it is only one dimension within the story of how Germans became Nazis, and consumed themselves in destruction. Granted, in Jewish contexts, other possible aspects of history's worst crime just might not be as interesting as the specifically Jewish ones, and I concede that point. I happen to like it however when any ambiguities, such those regarding the other 11 million, are reconciled upfront in the article. -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Jayjg - previous question) If there is any "theory" is its that there is an aspect to terrible events that we call "comprehension." In the case of Jews, Germans and other humans, we all have a natural difficulty in comprehending the Holocaust, such that there have been debates about it at every level ever since. If we can, we can try to start the comprehension article here, and fill things in as we do here via collaborative development. (Other academic circles might do things differently).

Of course, all articles here are based in a concept of fulfilling "comprehension," but I'm suggesting that we deal with "comprehension" as a meta topic - such that looks at how different people have tried to "comprehend" a thing that defies just about any attempt thereof. It should be workable. There are a lot of dimensions to the subject, one of which of course being the way some people deny the facts. Others perhaps don't deny the facts, but rather deny its meaning. The aspect I'm most interested in is the religious one - have people to some degree become atheistic or agnostic because of the Holocaust? So, there are a lot of things to cover, and, to answer the routine component in your question - there are far more sources out there than we can possibly include. -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Should the Antisemitism category bar be moved to the "are deniers antisemitic" section?

Consensus. I vote yes. Jwh335 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote; one or two people clamoring for changing something that has been stable for ages does not indicate a change in the consensus. While it is (intentionally) difficult to pin down an exact number for when consensus weakens, it is usually pretty obvious ala the Stewart test. There is clearly no indication that consensus has changed here, and this section should be closed. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with WilliamH and Avi. Consensus has already been established. --jpgordon 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no need for the proposed change and certainly no consensus for it. The only consensus I see is that this should remain as it is. --Lebob-BE (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the only consensus I see too. Jayjg 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
We also have consensus against consensus being established by simple voting. Feel free to vote otherwise. :) Ronabop (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
If this article is confined to the topic of anti-Semitism, the box deserves top placement. The context to a large degree defines the concepts therin. Again, the word "denial" itself has comprehension (or lack thereof) aspects, which need some coverage here. But even then, I don't see how the topic box in question should belong any lower than the second section. In fact I don't see how the move makes much sense, given the general context. -Stevertigo 22:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's official

Based on his various comments above, it is clear that Stevertigo has come to this talk page only in order to disrupt and meaningful discussion. Since it is clear that he will not provide any sources, I suggest we just ignore Tigo and move on to whatever discussion, if any, may improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I am inclined to agree. I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that someone so articulate can be so involuntarily obtuse. WilliamH (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Will, I don't quite know what you mean here by "obtuse," but maybe that's itself just a symptom of the syndrome you mention. What I do understand is that by "articulate" you must mean that something was articulated. I'm therefore wondering if it wouldn't be less obtuse for others to just deal with the articulations, and put aside any of my alleged obtuseness. (Slrubenstein is obviously off the hook as far as articulation goes). -Stevertigo 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that there aren't sources that contend that "the Holocaust" should encompass more than just the destruction of the Jews by the Nazis. But, Stevertigo, what has been outlined to you at least half a dozen times is the following: let's take the all the peoples, Jews, Roma, Political Prisoners, etc, etc, that died through Nazi persecution.
Now, let's take "certain individuals". They form pseudoscholarly institutions. They crawl the ruins of the crematoria at Auschwitz and do pseudoscientific analysis on the material they collect. They ignore and misrepresent historical documents, as well as people who have good reason to completely disagree with the conclusions they come to.
The conclusions that these "certain individuals" come to is that the Nazi government of Germany did not have a a) state plan to kill Jews via b) methods such as gas chambers, which resulted in around c) 6 million dead Jews.
The denial that these "certain individuals" engage in is not the denial of the destruction of Roma people, of political prisoners, or anyone else. Of the destruction perpetrated by the Nazis, it is the destruction of the Jews that they deny. Repeat: nobody is disputing that some sources have slightly wider goalposts when they define "the Holocaust", but if the lead section of this article is amended so that it implies that the deniers of NSDAP-perpetrated genocide deny the destruction of Roma, political prisoners, etc, etc, then the article is wrong.
Slrubinstein's blowjob remark, even if perhaps crude, is in fact an excellent lexical analogy and your comments regarding it are perhaps more of a reflection of you (i.e. your failure to grasp the matter at hand) than him. The verb "to blow" has more than one use, but "sharply exhaling" has nothing to do with the sexual act of a blowjob itself. To amend the blowjob article to imply that it does would be wrong. WilliamH (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. WilliamH: "but if the lead section of this article is amended so that it implies that the deniers of NSDAP-perpetrated genocide deny the destruction of Roma, political prisoners, etc, etc, then the article is wrong" - Did I propose such a thing? Read each of my comments again. I did not. What I did say is that as this term uses "The Holocaust" for only the most common of its two accepted definitions, it needs to disambiguate "Holocaust denial" as being based in the more common definition that deals specifically with the Shoah, and not the more inclusive one that deals with 11 million less important gentiles. That way, this article is keeping step with the main article, and not serving the function of "appropriat by scholars and popular writers" the term "The Holocaust" for its less inclusive definition. In fact the current version tries to do this, albeit quite clumsily.
  2. WilliamH said: "nobody is disputing that there aren't sources that contend that "the Holocaust" should encompass more than just the destruction of the Jews by the Nazis." - My issues are plainly encyclopedic: 1) it's a case of needing preemptive, upfront disambiguation between the two valid definitions. That way Serbs and Poles who read this article aren't surprised when the see it use a definition of "The Holocaust" that does not include them. Furthermore it makes it more plain that the denialists are actual anti-Semites with Jewish fixations, and not just wannabe revisionists. (Which is quite interesting actually - one would think the guilt would extend to crimes against others as well..).
  3. WilliamH: "..has been outlined to you at least half a dozen times is the following..." - No such "outline" has been given. You three have repeated an oblique statement about this subject as dealing with denials specifically in regard to the crimes against Jews. Fine - just do a better job of disambiguating that upfront.
  4. WilliamH: "excellent lexical analogy..." - I understand that Steven was trying to make a point about lexical differentiation: Certainly it exists! But this is not an article about "cutting the cheese," or "throwing a hotdog down a hallway." I understand that Steven, like the rest of us, reads Urban Dictionary just to unwind, but I didn't like his general flippant disregard for my articulations and found his inaccurate usage of sexualized lexical examples to be entirely out of place here, and that's why I had to deal with them. -Stevertigo 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo, if I understand you correctly, you are now saying that you do not object to the definition of Holocaust denial, but rather to the definition of Holocaust used by an extremely reliable source in a footnote of this article? Jayjg 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Jayjg, contrary to what you imply by your words "now saying," I have not said anything different nor have I changed my suggestions for this article - I've simply confined myself to dealing with substantive and responsive points (in this case WilliamH's). I repeat - the issue is that there is some ambiguity in the Holocaust term itself (ref: Niewyk/Nicosia), hence this article needs to disambiguate itself as one rooted in the common, non-inclusive, exclusively Jewish definition (WP:LEDE). -Stevertigo 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you disputing that the genocide of the Jews in World War II is referred to as "the Holocaust"? Jayjg 01:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not disputing that the genocide of the Jews in World War II is *commonly referred to as "the Holocaust." Are you denying that, in addition to over 6 million Jews, another perhaps 11 million Goyim were systematically murdered, and that the term "The Holocaust" *may just as well also include the destruction of these other human beings, as it commonly did for nearly two decades after WW II? -Stevertigo 03:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever does that have to do with "Holocaust Denial", a phrase which (in the absence of reliable sources indicating otherwise) is generally accepted to mean denial of the Shoah, not the more general destruction of life by the Nazis? --jpgordon 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If you cannot determine relevance, please start at the beginning of the "#Conceptualization issues" thread, and work your way down. Forgive me, but at the moment I am far more interested in what Jayjg has to say. -Stevertigo 03:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: Doing a little re-reading above - here's a little quote from Jayjg (stars* mine): "while the Holocaust *affected* peoples besides the Jews, Holocaust denial is a denial of the genocide of Jews." Note Jayjg uses a word like "affected" instead of something even remotely accurate like "mass murdered." And his language "peoples besides the Jews" also seems fishy, but I won't go further. Anyway, according to Jayjg, "peoples besides the Jews" were "affected ." Funny. -Stevertigo 04:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't care who you're interested in hearing; if you want a private conversation, use email. Now, if you don't have specific suggestions to improve this article, that have any chance of gaining consensus, you really should move on. --jpgordon 04:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
1) Who are you? -Stevertigo 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
One of several editors who have suggested it's time for you to move on. Never mind, I'll take Slrubenstein's advice and ignore you. --jpgordon 05:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Good advice for you. For others - ie. those here who pretend to know what they are actually talking about - I require actual intelligent responsiveness. They who want to be gatekeepers of knowledge have to also deal with how the human intellect processes and reflects that knowledge. -Stevertigo 05:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd echo jpgordon's advice. If you want to discuss the Holocaust, find another website; although we traditionally allow some laxity in these areas, Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. This has been going on for a while now, and I've seen no sign of concrete suggestions for improvements to the article. You might like to look at WP:TALK for guidance on the use of talkpages, and WP:DISRUPT for the possible consequences of abusing them. EyeSerene 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's clear from your comments that at the time of writing, neither you nor Jpgordon had actually read the above discussion. I know what those policies are about, and not just what they say. For example your mention of DISRUPT in the context of this discussion and TALK shows that you don't know its scope is limited to articles, not talk pages. As far as "concrete suggestions" go, I've said a number of times already what those are. Please read them for yourself.

At issue here is the two above regular editors know better than to ignore valid issues, but also know they cannot directly deal with the issues that I raised, and that's why the sudden silence. That this issue of "essentially Judeocentric" (Niewyk/Nicosia) terminology creates a conceptual quandry among scholars who shape history is not my concern. That Misplaced Pages should endorse only one particular meaning of "denial" and reject another meaning - one that gives some small regard to 11 million more people - is of course getting into issues of our own scholarship and editorial capacity. But real scholars of course could directly answer my questions and suggestions without resorting to personal attacks and avoidance. -Stevertigo 05:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, do you have any reliable sources backing your claim that there is another "meaning" of "Holocaust denial"? Jayjg 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The points you raised have been considered by other editors, and your failure to supply reliable sources - thereby making an apparent synthesis - has led to them being rejected. To support your position you have moved to semantic debate about the scholarly use of the term "Holocaust", which has gone away from improvement suggestions and beyond Misplaced Pages's remit; while your arguments may well have some validity, this is not the place for them. Your refusal to accept this means that it becomes a user conduct rather than a content issue, and if appropriate, WP:DISRUPT (which goes across all Misplaced Pages spaces) will be applied. EyeSerene 10:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To EyeSerene

  1. EyeSerene wrote: "The points you raised have been considered by other editors.." - I don't see how my "points" have been even called "points" yet, by "other editors." Only you thus far have had the civility and intelligence to understand these as "points," even if you don't quite understand what they are. And how have my points "been considered by other editors?" I see no evidence of this "consideration." If you have been in private communication, and thus are privy to secret knowledge about this "consider," please share. How many? Who? How are these "considerations" being expressed?
  2. (Also to Jayjg) EyeSerene wrote: "..failure to supply reliable sources" - The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, (Chapter: "Defining the Holocaust") by Donald L. Niewyk and Francis R. Nicosia is the sole source I've referred several times to in the above discussion. (I didn't have to buy it either). It is coincidentally the sole source in the lede of this article with regard to this article's definition of the Holocaust, and second cited source in The Holocaust article itself, as well as being the main source in the Victims and death toll section. It is cited seven times in the Holocaust article, and twice here. Moreover, my references to the source have been more accurate, and my issues with this article flow to some degree from this article's apparent inaccurate usage of this source, which, for starters only credits Niewyk and not co-author Nicosia.
  3. EyeSerene wrote: "..thereby making an apparent synthesis" - WP:SYNTH is defined as " combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." a) I've already established that the source I've cited is unequivocally "reliable." b) I've also already established that I've cited only one source. c) (It occurs to me that by "failure to supply reliable sources" you may instead be placing the emphasis on the word "supply," such that I have not brought any new ones. No, just the old authoritative one). d) These ruled out, that leaves only the interpretation that you must mean I have "fail to supply sources," which obviously isn't true, per above. Hence, all that is left of your statement about SYNTH is a contradiction to your own above allegation of -RS: If I have "fail to supply reliable sources," be they truly reliable ones, new ones, or else any ones) then how can I have "combine multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicity stated by any of the sources?"
  4. I should stop here, at least to give us both a break, if not just to let it all sink in. Ok, break over.
  5. EyeSerene wrote: "To support your position you have moved to semantic debate about the scholarly use of the term "Holocaust"." - This isn't accurate. I have no "position," for one, and my entire issue here began with a simple edit to correct in the article the very same issues I have discussed above. Further, if this allegation of "ambiguity" in how we are "Defining the Holocaust" constituted a "position" of some sort, it rests entirely on the above source and its nuanced treatment of the subject. Hence my issues have less to do with the subject matter, rather more with our universal necessity for a conceptual approach. In addition this article is misusing its source, by misrepresenting what the Columbia guide actually says.
  6. EyeSerene wrote: "...which has gone away from improvement suggestions and beyond Misplaced Pages's remit" - I am suggesting that the source above - the article's first source - be cited accurately. Would that not be somewhat of an improvement?
  7. EyeSerene wrote: "..while your arguments may well have some validity, this is not the place for them." I note the courtesy you give in regarding my "points" as "arguments," though they somehow qualify as -RS and SYNTH. As far as this being "not the place" for them (whatever "them" are), I am not so certain. Are you?
  8. EyeSerene wrote: "..Your refusal to accept this" - By "this" you perhaps mean the issue of "place?"
  9. EyeSerene wrote: "..means that it becomes a user conduct rather than a content issue" - It's hard to disagree with something so inaccurate. But this inaccuracy was largely dealt with in my responses to your above statements.
  10. EyeSerene wrote: "..and if appropriate, WP:DISRUPT (which goes across all Misplaced Pages spaces) will be applied." - Again, you've inaccurately cited policy - this time the DISRUPT policy (again), which (again) refers to "disruptive editing:" Discussion comments are not generally referred to as "edits." This also sounds like a threat, and as with most threats its natural that the threatened (me in this case) will try to identify the source of the threat to determine its.. threat. Let me put this in the nicest way possible: I am not convinced your statement is a threat. -Stevertigo 13:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo, it's really not my intention to take up a debate with you and become a contributory factor to the issue here. You're right however that I used WP:SYNTH when I should have used WP:OR. I was thinking that you seem to be taking a valid point - that the term Holocaust (capital "H") has a 'weak' definition that refers to the wider atrocities that took place under the Nazis, as opposed to its 'strong' definition referring specifically the persecution of the Jews - but you are then extending this to propose a non-standard definition of Holocaust Denial. I agree that the word "Holocaust" can be used ambiguously; "Holocaust Denial", on the other hand, is pretty unambiguously defined, and you are apparently using the ambiguity of "Holocaust" to come to a novel conclusion about "Holocaust Denial" that doesn't seem to be supported in those terms by the sources. Continuing to advocate such changes when they've been rejected by other editors is disruptive. I intend my post as a notification, not a threat, that the spirit of WP:DISRUPT will be applied if it becomes necessary to prevent ongoing unproductive debate on this page. EyeSerene 14:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. EyeSerene wrote: "..it's really not my intention to take up a debate with you and become a contributory factor to the issue here." - I accept your apology, but don't quite understand what you mean "contributory factor to the issue here." If the "issue here" is not about substance, then to what are you referring that I should be the least bit concerned with?
  2. EyeSerene wrote: "You're right however that I used WP:SYNTH when I should have used WP:OR." - I am not "right" in the way you suggest, because your summary is not accurate: I did not say you "used WP:SYNTH" (rather you referred to it), or that you "should have used WP:NOR," I said your usage of -RS and SYNTH in the same breath showed that you a) apparently didn't know what one or both of these policies actually say, b) you appeared to not know what I had actually wrote or else didn't understand it, and c) you got yourself a little bit confused there, and this sometimes happens with newbies.
  3. EyeSerene wrote: "I was thinking that you seem to be taking a valid point - that the term Holocaust (capital "H") has a 'weak' definition that refers to the wider atrocities that took place under the Nazis, as opposed to its 'strong' definition referring specifically the persecution of the Jews" - Well, please note again that your terminology is inaccurate: Its not just "Holocaust" but also "The Holocaust" that fall under the actual variance you just acknowledged. Contrary to the way Columbia source is used here, Niewyk and Nicosia do not simply settle on a single definition, rather what they do is break it down for us by defining four variant concepts and explaining each of them (underline mine) :
    1. "First, we may hold to the traditional definition that it was the genocide of Jews alone. Because no sane person will deny that the Germans killed members of other groups, too, one will have to be satisfied that they belong to a different category.. not in any substantial way in the history of the Holocaust."
    2. "A second definition might recognize several parallel Holocausts, one for each of several victim groups (the exact number being debatable), and each displaying special characteristics."
    3. "A third definition would broaden the Holocaust to embrace Gypsies and the handicapped along with the Jews."
    4. "A fourth definition would insist on seeing Nazi racism whole, and describe the Holocaust as an inseparable complex of policies and events encompassing all racially motivated German crimes and their victims."
  4. They then state upfront that they are working with only one of them.
    1. "The authors of this volume have adopted the third approach to a working definition: The Holocaust - that is, Nazi genocide - was the systematic, state-sponsored murder of entire groups by heredity. This applied to Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped."
  5. Interestingly, the one they choose is not the "traditional definition." This raises the question as to why they are cited as a source for the definition of "The Holocaust" in articles like this one that consider, without explanation, only the "traditional definition?"
  6. EyeSerene wrote: "I agree that the word "Holocaust" can be used ambiguously; "Holocaust Denial", on the other hand, is pretty unambiguously defined, and you are apparently using the ambiguity of "Holocaust" to come to a novel conclusion about "Holocaust Denial" that doesn't seem to be supported in those terms by the sources." - I understand this point and to a certain extent agree it has some practical, if not scholarly or linguistic validity. I will get into that shortly, but firstly I appreciate your precision and care in stating this point accurately. The issue I raised is simply that the "traditional definition" cannot be assumed to be the dominant one, even though the term "Holocaust denial" might only refer to anti-Semitic and anti-historical rejectionism. The reason being is that this article's scope rests on a definition of "The Holocaust," and its main source, the Columbia Guide, states quite upfront that its own definition was itself selected from some variant definitions. Likewise, the working definition they choose for their book is not the "traditional definition," but the one that includes "Gypsies and the handicapped," based on "heredity" as the subjective scope. (Note, "genetics" might be more precise than "heredity," but even that is not entirely accurate where considering mentally ill, and in any case Nazi concepts were never reliable to begin with).
  7. The point is that the sources we use undergo their own vetting process for selecting particular working definitions for their essays, and make this vetting process upfront, we must also do so. Our articles also undergo to some degree a similar selection, such as to define what they mean, but this selection process is not apparent here. My term "disambiguation" here refers not to distinguishing "Apple" from "Apple Inc." or even "Holocaust denial regarding Jews" from "Holocaust denial regarding non-Jews," but to the fact that the fundamental concept, The Holocaust, embodies some scholarly subjectity and always will, regardless of how many paperbacks are published in accord with only the "traditional definition."
  8. Note also this general disambiguation-explanation concept (to disambiguate this term from the disambiguation policy) applies to other concepts as well. An article on auto racing, for example, will need to be explanatory such as to explain what it means by "auto." While we need not bother with interpretations like "self racing" (such as the Latin might literally suggest), we also cannot assume that "auto" just refers to stock cars or else open-wheel cars. Inclusivity is required by explanationism. Nor can it rest on an idea that "auto racing" means "NASCAR," just because NASCAR happens to be the most popular in certain self-absorbed parts of the world. Even if NASCAR is widely considered the "best" definition of "auto racing," in accord with various subjective criteria (what might in extreme focus be called "objective" or "quantifiable" criteria), we can't write an article about auto racing without treating the variance. If there is variance in the root terms, we must explain these, even if "open-wheel cars" are on their way out, and even if "nobody" uses "The Holocaust" to refer to Gypsies.
  9. If the substance behind the "traditional definition" was without question, and not instead highly subjective, or else largely rooted in concepts defined by the Nazis themselves, then there would be less of an issue. But there is an issue, because it gets deep into subjective territory, "essentially Judeocentric" concerns, and the terminology of "popular writers," who reshaped an existing general concept that had existed for over twenty years into a specialized one. Note also that, as Niewyk and Nicosia define the "traditional definition" above, its quite circular: (paraphrasing): the definition is exclusively limited to crimes against Jews, so we are "satisfied" that "others" belong in a different "category," hence they don't satisfy the definition.
  10. EyeSerene wrote: ".. but you are then extending this to propose a non-standard definition of Holocaust Denial." - Your term "non-standard" is ambiguous, and strange. If the term was "Jewish Holocaust denial," then the "standard" definition would naturally be confined to the Jews. As there is variance in the definition of The Holocaust, we need to treat this variance. This article does try to do this upfront, but with the briefest of notation, and thus fails to both explain the variance and its lack of applicability to this term, and likewise fails to accurate cite its own source, which is explicitly upfront about the variance. (Note, "denial" is not generally capitalized, AIUI.)
  11. EyeSerene wrote: "Continuing to advocate such changes when they've been rejected by other editors is disruptive." - The first part of this statement is correct. The second is not: It's not "such changes" that have been "rejected by other editors," its "NPOV" and "LEDE," along with my own very participation here, that are "rejected by other editors." I've had to deal with Steven and Jay for a long time now, and they most certainly have had to deal with me.
  12. EyeSerene wrote: "I intend my post as a notification, not a threat, that the spirit of WP:DISRUPT will be applied if it becomes necessary to prevent ongoing unproductive debate on this page." - I see, so I'm on "notice" that you will apply not the actual policy called DISRUPT, but your own misinterpretation of the "spirit" behind it, with a modulus of some subjective concept like "unproductive debate"? - Ostensibly, you are violating your own made-up concept here with your interjections. Perhaps you are trying to mediate the situation by helping the now-silent parties, and are in touch with them. If that's the case, you should be aware that the usefulness of passive intervention has its limits - particularly where things otherwise are generally quite open and straightforward, or where openness and straightforwardness gains respect. The CIA is learning this, as are others. -Stevertigo 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Stevertigo, as has been explained many times now, this article is about "Holocaust denial", not "The Holocaust". Again, to quote Kenneth S. Stern from his 2006 book Antisemitism Today (p. 80) "...Holocaust denial is about Jews, not about the Holocaust". Do you have any sources that indicate that Holocaust denial is about anything else? If so, please produce them. Jayjg 00:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've already stated that the Columbia Guide does not support the definition of "the Holocaust" that you claim to be operant for this term, and it is this divergence between article-concept (as you claim) and its own first source that makes my criticism here relevant and valid - not the issue of terminology. That there is no other generally accepted meaning of "Holocaust denial" at this time is not relevant to the way in which articles must define and express their fundamental concepts upfront and with clarity.
It has nothing to do with presenting a source which claims that there is some variance in "Holocaust denial," simply that this article explain that its omnibus usage of the term "The Holocaust" resides exclusively in the "traditional definition." Clarify the definition this article does use, and do so in accord with the sophistication that the source cited first in this article actually employs.
Of course the source you offer is not a scholar, but an activist, promoter, and writer. The sources I cited are at least actual scholars, if not good ones. Theirs is not just some Tel Aviv coffee table book, and in fact its citation twice in this article suggest you don't disapprove of it. Why then do you dislike the concept of citing it accurately? Note its current citation here doesn't even mention the co-author. You always talk about "reliability." Rather than trying to game the system here like you typically do and gloss over your own POV, why not just simply do as I suggest and make it more clear that this article resides in only the "traditional definition?" -Stevertigo 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I don't know why you keep bringing up the definition of "the Holocaust", much less claiming I think it is "operant for this term". We're talking about the definition of "Holocaust denial" here, not the definition of "The Holocaust". Please do not make any further posts about the definition of "The Holocaust" here; save them instead for the relevant article, The Holocaust. Now, do you have any reliable sources that indicate that "Holocaust denial" is about any group other than Jews? If so, please produce them. Jayjg 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I was assuming that the meaning of this term had some actual relevance to "The Holocaust" - the general term for Nazi mass-murders (of humans) in accord with some deviated and unholy concepts. Forgive me then if this article refers to some other "The Holocaust" - one so different from the one mentioned above that the terminology here is, like you say, completely unrelated (just as "lighter" (more light) and "lighter" (cigarette flame) are). Indeed, if your point is that the term "Holocaust" here is only a homonym to the other term "The Holocaust," then indeed I understand my comments here, and indeed my very place here, are entirely out of place! -Stevertigo 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC) PS: "Indeed."
In this article, "Holocaust" refers to the genocidal campaign against the Jews by Nazis and their allies. Now you are suggesting that "Holocaust" in this sense is as unrelated to "Holocaust" in the sense of the mass murder of other groups by Nazis and their allies as lighter (cigarette) and lighter (less heavy)? How can you possibly say this. Are you unaware that of this historical connections between the two sets of events, and between the ways the word has been used to refer to one and then the other? Or are you just saying that for you Jews are not humans? Are you an anti-Semite, or just a moron? Either way, you have no business editing this article. Please take your venomous filth elsewhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. I will let you retract your above comment by erasing it whole. You (Slrubenstein) also have my authorization to remove this comment along with your above comment. If you like you can replace these with a comment fitting your stature and assisted by your better angels. If the above vile spew is not gone shortly, lets say by 8pm UTC, I will most certainly make you regret having even logged in this morning. Otherwise, good day, Steve. -Stevertigo 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Clearly responding to an uncivil comment with a threat is a Good Idea. Both of you, keep it cool and collected. lifebaka++ 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Lifebaka, please let Steve think, and authorize the removal of these lower comments as well. (I do this one). -Stevertigo 16:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have thought it over. I am glad to leave it stand as it expresses my view. And please, Stevie, hurt feelings and all, do not delete what I wrote. So much of your trolling offends me but have I ever deleted anything you posted to a talk page? By the way, 0:00 has past and I have to say, I am still pretty glad I logged on this morning. Yup. pretty damn glad! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Stevertigo, you have highlighted a reliable source (Niewyk and Nicosia) which outlines several different possible ways of conceiving of the Holocaust. Can you cite reliable sources on the matter whose stance would give us reason to discuss anything other than the conventional definition in the article? If not, this discussion should be brought to a swift conclusion. Thanks,  Skomorokh  19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with a question (or two): Can you provide a reliable source which explains to us why writing clearly and stating any relevant ambiguities upfront should be regarded as original research? Or, why one should assume, without explanation, that this topic is confined to just the "conventional definition," when the ambiguities within the actual supercategorical definition are notable? -Stevertigo 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll make it easier and cite a policy: WP:WEIGHT. Neutral point of view does not mean giving coverage to all perspectives in articles, it means giving coverage to perspectives according to their prominence in the relevant literature. As an uninvolved administrator with no horse in this race, I am going to close this thread unless there are sources forthcoming indicating why the multi-definitional approach ought to be taken seriously.  Skomorokh  19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm. That's an interesting angle, and certainly very very not similar to previous callers who've tried various others including V/RS and NOR. I should point out that by citing WEIGHT, you are in fact contradicting the NOR and V/RS arguments: Issues within the scope of WEIGHT only deal with statements that have passed V/RS and NOR or else are not in conflict with them.
So, without even dealing with the issue of WEIGHT, I've already demonstrated how your change-up of cited policy here represents a deeper flaw in your angle of approach.
I will ignore your claims to authority here such that would permit you to close this thread. For one, your claimed "uninvolvement" is now nullified by your questions and comments on the substance of the debate. You claim of "no horse in this race" is nullified by the partisan angles you have taken. -Stevertigo 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Not at all; WEIGHT in this instance is a stricter inclusion requirement than V/RS or NOR; content that is original or not supported by reliable sources at all has no place in an article, and only some reliably sourced information does. Your behaviour on this page has been called tendentious, and frankly for an editor who is not being tendentious, your reticence in providing supporting references is discordant to say the least. Patience is not limitless.  Skomorokh  20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've got to run to the store. Hold that thought. -Stevertigo 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Back. Hm:

  1. Skomorokh wrote: "WEIGHT in this instance is a stricter inclusion requirement than V/RS or NOR;" - Is it now? I do remember the WEIGHT policy being formed, and IIRC its place is directly subordinate to NPOV. "NPOV" itself has rarely been called "strict," it fact its actual application required more actionable sub-policies to be developed. WEIGHT is one of those sub-policies, formed to explain how certain concepts might, in context, be less relevant to the subject matter than others. Through deliberation and trial, we then decide on the proper place new material belongs - provided of course people agree that the new material is substantive (as a couple of you have admitted here with regard to how the main source defines the main concept in this article. Otherwise, of course I agree that dealing with the definition of the Holocaust is irrelevant here).
  2. (continued): The first case I can remember having to do with WEIGHT was one of the Creationism-related articles, but in any case its general usage is to keep the FRINGE theories out of the substantive articles, while still satisfying NPOV by giving them appropriate inclusion via a mention. WEIGHT has a place in FRINGE articles as well, wherein such topics the critics need a place, but should not dominate the article just because they are the mainstream view.
  3. Skomorokh wrote: "..content that is original or not supported by reliable sources at all has no place in an article.." - Certainly. Now please provide a source for the claim that "The Holocaust" refers only to the "conventional definition." I only seek to remove this claim that by default there is no variance, or else that the mainstream view dominates - both of which are original research not supported by reliable sources. Removing the unreliable sources is not actually required, if I can simply put this article into the context of the "conventional definition," wherein its various statements, reliable or not, can be said to be within its limited scope.
  4. Skomorokh wrote: "..and only some reliably sourced information does ." - Is this actually true? I suppose you're working with the whole spectrum of absurdities here: At the one hand that every. single. statement. have a citation, and on the other hand that we confine ourselves to certain reliable information and not others. So, in this case this view would mean what? That the promoter that Jayjg referred to has a prominent, foundational place here as a "reliable source," while an accurate usage of the scholarly Columbia Guide does not? The burden is not on me to provide a second reliable source, when your side has yet to provide one for the view that treatments of this topic should avoid referencing an extra-"conventional definition." Sorry, but if even the Columbia Guide itself chose a different working definition from the "traditional" one, and this article cites it for its basic definition, then how can you say the topical ambuguity is irrelevant, when theres ambiguity even between the "conventional definition" and source used to support it? Anyone who actually reads this first source in this article will find a contradiction to what this article says.
  5. Skomorokh wrote: "Your behaviour on this page has been called tendentious, and frankly for an editor who is not being tendentious" - I appreciate the fact that know they are wrong.
  6. Skomorokh wrote: "..your reticence in providing supporting references is discordant to say the least." - Discordant! Just the word everybody's been looking for. Note, again you've switched back to citing WP:RS. I guess that means your reference to WEIGHT still somehow valid, in spite of the direct contradictions?
  7. Skomorokh wrote: "Patience is not limitless." - True! Relevance? -Stevertigo 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I asked you a simple and straightforward question, and you've responded with obfuscation and wikilawyering. Congratulations, you've succeeded in convincing me that you are editing here tendentiously.  Skomorokh  21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I do recall asking you for a source to backup your claim that limited scope equates to an omission of explanation - a claim that violates guides like WP:LEDE. I don't see how I can be any less obfuscative than that. -Stevertigo 21:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, how exactly would you amend this article? Perhaps you could forward us a suggested edit made in your sandbox, for example. Then this discussion might move to some sort of conclusion depending on what you suggest. WilliamH (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, an acutal question about substance! A few sentences or less will be enough, and I will deal with that after dinner. I would prefer not to use a "sandbox," since the text will be quite short (here will be fine) and I have had some bad luck with using my own "sandbox" space lately. Be back in a bit. Regards, -Stevertigo 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Before making any changes, please discuss them here first. In particular, please make it clear exactly what sources you are planning to use. Jayjg 02:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't always do either, but then neither do I always expect you to AGF. Shouldn't I anyway, in spite of all evidence - anecdotal and experiential - to the contrary? -Stevertigo 03:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede revisionism

The salient points in pseudo-lede form with discrete notation. Obviously noone can deal with these things alone, but I fully expect my critics to be on their best behaviour anyway. Note, many of these claims are taken at face value from existing text or from statements above. -Stevertigo 03:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a term for pseudo-scholarly claims that dispute and reject the historicity of The Holocaust, along with any relevant historical evidence. Though accepted definitions of the "The Holocaust" itself may include up to 17 million both Jewish and non-Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities, all notable "Holocaust denials" thus far have only attempted to refute the systematic Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews.
The Nazi genocide of the Jews is an incontrovertible fact, and as such, claims to the contrary are identified not only as unscholarly and inflammatory, but ultimately anti-Semitic in origin, association, intent, purpose, and character, The term "Holocaust denial" was thus itself coined for and is widely understood to refer specifically to pseudo-scholarly "revisionism" that is rooted in anti-Semitism, and is engrossed in attacking what it perceives to be a "Jewish" version of history.
Due to a belief that similarly "revisionist" claims can promote anti-Semitic ideology and sentiment, and thereby inflame local, regional, and even international tensions, the very act of formulating and promoting distorted accounts about Nazi genocide is regarded as a crime in 13 countries — mostly in European countries that were adversely affected by the Nazis . These crimes themselves are often regarded collectively, with the typical shorthand translation being "Holocaust denial."
Earlier comments
It should be "that reject the historicity of the holocaust" - otherwise you imply that "rejecting the holocaust" (for example rejecting taking part in it, ot rejecting that it was a good thing) is holocaust denial.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Good catch. -Stevertigo 03:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What is your source that supports point 8? It is clearly at odds with Maunas' comments below. WilliamH (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm. Good point. I hadn't the energy to get into Maunus comments here, and anyway I had been told over and over again that "Holocaust denial" is "about Jews" - with 'exclusively' being strongly implied - but I understand their focus was on anti-Semitism. Of course if some particular "denial" claim also throws some Gypsy rejectionism in there too, that doesn't seem to change the anti-Semitic dimension aspect in the least.
Will take a look at those in a bit. Note of course that Slrubenstein, Jayjg and others work quite hard on putting things together. We can't overlook the work they've already put into the article thus far, and naturally any changes should be focused and limited to just those extremely few things which they may, in their humanness, have overlooked. The conceptual/perfected writing approach helps at least to get the right overall balance among the essential points. After that, its just a simple matter of getting whomever here has read thirty-two books on the subject to start plugging in the citations. ;-) -Stevertigo 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Without any assumption of bad faith, I'd take some of Maunus' suggestions with a pinch of salt. Ward Churchill was found guilty by a University of Colorado faculty panel of repeated, intentional academic misconduct. I'd say that pretty much removes him from the realm of reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I didn't know anything about that defrocking. According to his article, the jury found in favor of Churchill, and the only reason that this finding was overturned was due to something called "quasi-judicial immunity." (Sounds sort of like "..Whitney Young being run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process."). I took a read of the Committee findings, and noted an interesting passage about how they disregarded the political context:
"To use an analogy, a motorist who is stopped and ticketed for speeding because the police officer was offended by the contents of her bumper sticker, and who otherwise would have been sent away with a warning, is still guilty of speeding, even if the officer’s motive for punishing the speeder was the offense taken to the speeder’s exercise of her right to free speech. No court would consider the improper motive of the police officer to constitute a defense to speeding, however protected by legal free speech guarantees the contents of the bumper sticker might be."
They are wrong, even if they a legally correct. Institutional dickage is never irrelevant, not because the allegations are exaggerated, but because the fine is. When a fine itself is a crime, treating the second, greater, institutional malady as just an issue of status quo is irresponsible, even if there's little a court can effectively do about it otherwise.
Anyway, the validity of particular sources is not something we can ascertain ourselves here in the context of one article. Even if the accusations are substantial (seems like if a jury doesn't think the charges rise to the level of even a firing, then..), we will need to clarify how we treat that particular source in a clear way. -22:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Then let's clarify: he isn't a reliable source. He has engaged in a "pattern of deliberate academic misconduct involving falsification, fabrication, and serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research." He completely misrepresented his military experience and his family background: he isn't even a reliable source on himself. A writer, yes. A reliable source, absolutely not. WilliamH (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing that he's less than reliable. I am simply saying that it would help if we kept a central record of how we interpret source reliability. Maybe WP:EFL/WC can serve this purpose for now, and we can sort of work on developing a more formal system. -Stevertigo 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no attempt at Wikipdia to exclude Roma or other groups from articles on 20th century genocide. The issue here remains Stevertigo's peddling his bogus "concept approach" to writing articles which basically means we write articles on whatever Stevertigo is thinking about, rather than building up articles from significant views from notable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Why start up with the ethnic angle again, SLR? The Gypsies do not belong in some generalistic "20th century genocides" category, nor even in the "bad stuff that happened between 1938 and 1945" category. Nor do they need to be sorted in accord with another ethic group's subjective concepts of relevance or scope. Putting aside details about "motive, scale, and intent," "The Holocaust" simply refers to all deliberate human destruction perpetrated by the Nazis that wound up getting them thrown in hell.
The conceptual approach is our approach, and all I've done is conceptualize it with some degree of exposition and formality. I've done so for the reason that Misplaced Pages cannot become Wikinfo, by diversifying our articles in accord with various subjective conceptualizations, while failing to work together on objective ones. Just as the database makes it possible to edit discrete articles, the conceptual approach makes it easier for me and others to plug in our suggestions into the precise place. Also, dealing with only discrete points makes it easier to tell which new suggestions are actually redundant with existing statements, and which new statements are sufficiently valid, (and thus may be being opposed for only POV reasons).
The conceptual approach simply serves to give an outline of the most relevant points, and to sketch these out in some order and with at least some pretense of good writing. If the included points are essential, complete, and properly weighted, then the only issue is to merge these into the existing article lead through a similarly conceptual process: Pick the most salient points from the current and proposed versions, put them in a kind of order, and write the text with these in mind, leaving the sources to be added by people who's deep, learned, interest (if not talent for explanation), might make them less than suitable for objective writing, but still altogether necessary to sign off on each salient point with a signature of topical literacy.
Hence my only issue here was in covering in the lede the points others missed and removing perhaps one or two that maybe belong in the terminology section. The point, for example, about the genocide of the Jews being incontrovertable is essential, but for such an essential point, it is missing from the article lede. Likewise the point about "deniers" (for lack of a better term) being "engrossed in attacking... Jewish history" is also essential - after all we all know that anti-Semitism exists and that its awful, but these points don't go anywhere toward explaining why it is expressed. Likewise is my whole point that though "The Holocuast" itself may include 3 million Soviet POW's, 300K German dissidents, some mentally ill, some homosexuals, a considerable number of Slavs and Poles, and don't forget the Gypsies, the term "Holocaust denial" is de-facto limited in scope.
One last point, the term "The Holocaust" naturally may have particular definitions that limit its scope, in accord with particular conceptual frameworks - subjective, objective, or otherwise. As Niewyk and Nicosia point out, its acceptable for academics to put limited scope on a subject for which "the most expansive conceptualization would further complicate an already complex subject and place additional burdens on scholars and students." Our project carries a prominent disclaimer about accuracy, which says essentially it makes no claims to such. There are also no "scholars" nor "students" here, (just "writers" and "readers"), nor is this an actual "academic" context. This is not to say that we don't need to strive for high "academic" standards, but it does mean that we are not bound by the same practical concerns as academia, in which context people typically act more independently and thus naturally must follow a modality of limited focus and greater depth. And if that wasn't enough, NPOV itself demands that we extricate our articles into an abstract form that minimizes the overweight influence of particular frameworks. This is not for example, the "Gypsypedia," and thus a definition fitting for such a resource alone will not typically suffice here, unless put into explicit context. -Stevertigo 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The second sentence in the lede is an unnecessary diversion into the definition of the term "The Holocaust", and contains unsourced assertions. What sources were you planning to use for footnotes 1 to 18? Start with the sources, and build from there. Jayjg 06:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You are taking issue with matters of substance, right? Please then take a couple minutes to rank each of the numbered statements (1 to 18) for their accuracy. You could say for example something like "statement 9 is a 7" (of 10). That way I can prioritize my sourcings in accordance with your conceptualizations, which I know to be somewhat accurate. -Stevertigo 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

my two cents

According to this source a second, less consipicuous, kind of Holocaust denial is that "the Holocaust undoubtedly occurred, but it was something experienced exclusively by Jews. Here, the fates of the Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and others at the hands of the Nazis are routinely minimized and consigned to the ambiguous category of "non-genocidal suffering.". The same author makes the same claim here: (pg 36). a similar point is made here and here and here and here and chapter 3 in this book analyses holocaust denial movement lining up some reasons apart form antisemitism for why deniers deny (e.g. general racism, looking for enemies, simply believeing in conspiracies, psychological need to defend a speccific life narrative, group mentality). This book (pp 354-363) ties current persecution of romani in eastern europe to neonazism and holocaust denial. This book (pp 213-14) describes the debate of whether the romani experience of wwII can be called holocaust - and it describes how one person who has denied that gypsies were subject to the holocaust has been labelled a holocaust denier (incidentally this paper suggests that the previous book's author (Magalit) downplays the jewish holocaust and implies that he is unwittingly denying holocaust). This book shows quite clearly that Gypsies were subject to "endlösung" strategies similar to those perpetrated against the jews. I don't think one has to be an antisemite to see that by not mentioning the possibility that holocaust denial can be and have been done not of solely for antisemitic reasons but of anti-romani, anti-communist or other reasons. Also I think it is worth noting that well into the sixties German politicians were denying to pay recompensation for Romany genocide - giving as a reason that it had not been a racially motivated problem but a solution to a criminal problem (if thats not holocaust denial I don't know what is). In other words I think it would be good for weight and balance to mention in the article that holocaust denial also denies that other groups than jews were subject to the holocaust. I think however that it should be clear that largely Holocaust denial is an antisemitic undetaking and should be shown as such (e.g. by being categorized as antisemitism and by having the bulk of the article's weight given to this perspective). Oh and just for the sake of full disclosure I am of partial Romani heritage and identify with Romanies although I am not culturally Romani - I am not trying to downplay Jewish suffering but i do think recognizing Romani and other suffering is a part of recognizing the holocaust and that denying the holocaust also necessarrily denies the suffering of non-jews. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Roma were victims of genocide. I am not sure what is at stake with lumping all forms of Nazi genocide under the word "Holocaust." Whether these various forms of genocide or oppression are the same or different is not a meaningful historical question. Of course the violence against Jews was unique. So was the violence against Roma. And homosexuals. And there were also similarities. I think the important historical research on the Nazis looks at both similarities and differences among their victims, and forms of victimization. Now, I have no doubt that there are some in Eastern Europe who deny the genocide against the Roma, and do so to protect continued persecution of Roma. But I seriously doubt that Jews, or Jewish scholars of the Holocaust, are part of this. I think Churchill is someone to be taken seriously but I think that he is expressing a fringe view that takes several real things and lumps them together to make a proovactive point. I don't mind being provoked into thinking more about something hard. But his views in this essay (which reads more like a well-informed editorial than a work of historical scholarship) from what I know represent that of at most a tiny minority. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Over at The Holocaust, there was a similar, multi-year, debate over the lede, and who was, and wasn't, part of the Holocaust, eventually resolved by a bunch of people taking GF efforts at lede re-writes, incorporating ideas as they went. The lede seems to suffer the same symptoms here, only it's compounded by not just who suffered the Holocaust, but which parts of the suffering are being denied. Any more suggestions for lede re-writes, so we can get a synthesis ball rolling? Ronabop (talk)

Attn: Crazy People

In order to correctly reflect what is going on with the documented issue, and because we have sources on both sides, the article should refer to the fact THAT THERE IS A DEBATE. The only neutral point is that some consider it anti-semitism and some do not. If we say it is anti-semitism, we are inappropriately taking the the anti-antisemitic side. That's fine if this is your position, but its not the position of an encyclopedia, which doesn't have an opinion, and can't have one. If we say it is not anti-semitism, we are also making an inappropriate judgement that SHOULD NOT be included in the article. It documents a point of view that people find controversial, what that point of view says, and how people react to it, among other things. What should we not include? Personal judgements about this concepts perceived correlation to a separate idea.

Therefore, this is not an anti-semitic article as much as it is an anti-semitic article. It's carries inappropriate connotations under any such title, and should be related to similar topics in the similar topics section at the bottom of the page.

Remember, it is verifiable that people hold both points of view. That is what the article should tell readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.195.42 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 76.250.195.42 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

For example, this page exists http://en.wikipedia.org/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. That is where we should say that many people find the idea to be anti-semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.195.42 (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 76.250.195.42 (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does tell readers that people hold both points of view; and it tells what sort of people hold those points of view. If you want an uncritical presentation of lies and liars, there are plenty of websites willing to do that. --jpgordon 03:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1.) The article also does take a side. 2.)An encyclopedia should be a website that presents an uncritical view of lies and liars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.195.42 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 76.250.195.42 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind, 76.., that even if you have some legitimate points to make about bias, you titled this thread "ATTN: CRAZY PEOPLE" (changed). That alone raises a flag that whoever wrote it is probably just a troll. That said, I detect there are perhaps one or two points in your comment that can be addressed. But first I'd like you to restate them in what might pass for clear, logical, and rational form. I'm asking this for your benefit, so that you can break your own conglomerate of thoughts down into three or four concise arguments.
I will then refute each. -Stevertigo PS: WP:SIGN your posts.
Categories: