Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Closure of discussion

Not a bad idea to close the previous discussion but on whose decision was it and who is making the request that we don't modify it? I think this information should be made available Hardicanute (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

It is. All changes to the Wiki are in the database, and, with very few exceptions, all revisions are visible. Check the history from the history link (which you will find somewhere on your interface). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is there via the history link but not in a form I can understand it. Please could the party/s responsible for closing the discuission state here who they are. Hardicanute (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Try reading the help page: Help:Page history. It's pretty essential to be able to use history pages if you want to have any wiki-fu at all.

In this case, you're looking for the addition of {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I spent a couple of minutes on this and couldn't find anything. Why doesn't the user/s responsible for closing the discussion identify themselves, do they really want to conceal themselves behind other users lack of advanced editing techniques? Hardicanute (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

I suspect "the user/s responsible" may not have read your request, this being a weekend and all. Moreover, we are all volunteers here. I suggest that if you are unwilling to spend the 5 minutes necessary to understand basic functionality of the Wiki interface, it's a bit rich to expect somebody else to hand-feed you easily available information, in particular since it's unlikely that this will be the only time you need such information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find the tags. I don't anticpate needing the information again. I'll wait a day and see if the user/s wish to identify themself.Hardicanute (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardiancute I do not wish to contribute frther to this discussion and no longer wish a response to the foregoing. Hardicanute (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Neutrality

Another dead-end discussion; closed per WP:TALK. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can't but notice this article isn't neutral at all. It could be Holocaust deniers are very wrong by the current consensus, however this shouldn't be stated in every single paragraph. It should rather be written in the style one would use for creationism and the believe in ghosts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.155.146 (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) If you got through the archives you will find that many users make comments of this nature on this article. You will also find many similar comments on other Wikipedia articles on the Holocaust. Making such comments does not seem to have any effect. Hardicanute (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute Please review WP:TALK; do you have any changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Yes I'd like to make many changes along the lines suggested by the first user to comment in this ection. I'm not going to propose any in detail as I think they would all be rejected. I would suggest to those editors who seem to have reached a consensus on this article that they ask why so many users make comments of this nature, all apparently independently of one another. I would ask them to consider whether the article promotes good relations between Jews and non-Jews. Hardicanute (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute Hardicanute—you refer to users making "comments of this nature, all apparently independently of one another." I am not saying that there is sockpuppetry but if there were it would probably not be apparent. In response to your last sentence, I don't think Wikipedia has an aim to foster "good relations" between people. I think Wikipedia is only supposed to supply the reader with reliably sourced information. It would be a bit presumptuous (in my opinion) to think that we Wikipedians know how to foster good relations between people. Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (ec)The aim of this article is not "to promote good relations between Jews and non-Jews" (an interesting classification of humanity, if I may say), but to fairly represent our knowledge of the topic, following the best available sources. This article has between 1.2k and 1.5k views every day. The few complainers are a trickle, compared to that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC) I think businesses know that for every one person who gives feedback there are many more who may have similar reactions but don't voice them. So I'd think there are many others who have this view and don't feed it back. Would you have thought it preferable for me to write 'gentile' instead of 'non-jew'? Hardicanute (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute No. I would have thought it preferably to not cast this as a "Jews vs. anybody" issue. It's an "a couple of idiots against most of humanity" issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Bus Stop I think the concept of fairness isn't a million miles from 'good relations'. I think the article is a long way from being 'fair'. Hardicanute (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute You're entitled to your opinion, Hardicanute, but consensus (and common sense) are against you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Consensus of whom? Yes I'm sure that the consensus of 'committed editors' is against me, but far from convinced that their views reflect those of ordinary readers - you aer getting the same sort of feedback from quite a few readers. However we have no sure way of knowing unless Wikipedia runs a neutrality poll of ordinary readers - which might not be a bad idea if technology permits. Editors may have a surprise. Remember that in politics the views of activists may not accord with those of voters - and many an election has been lost because a party has adopted policies which appeal to activists rather than voters. Surely if editors have a particular view of the nature of 'Holocaust Denial' and the wording of the article is causing readers to take an opposite view then editors would wish to know. Hardicanute (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute Per my previous response, responding to the point that you made, the notion that this article might cause Holocaust skeptics to feel ostracised and refuse to accept the Holocaust is completely irrelevant. If they wish to pursue that academic dead end, that is their own malfunction, but Wikipedia cannot and shall not be expected to appease them. WilliamH (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) This is to me as though you are saying that Wikipedia and its editors are not expected to have any sense of social responsibility.Hardicanute (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute That is an amazing leap of logic. Care to explain? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, we have a responsibility to ensure that fringey conspiracy theories are marginalised and not presented as anything more than what they actually are. If exponents of such things feel ostracised, then that's just too bad. Please, Hardicanute, drop the stick. WilliamH (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Is this sense of responsibility limited to the intention or does it extend to the actual result? If in attempting to marginalise such theories you manage to achieve precisely the opposite and make the margin so broad it is no longer the margin wouldn't you consider you were failing in your sense of responsibility? If nobody responds further then I doubt I'll have anything else to say here, but I may respond to any response. Hardicanute (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute Could I please make clear for the benefit of anyone who has read or answered my comments that in choosing my screen name I was simply looking for a pre-conquest King of England and chose what was available, I wasn't specifically looking for an Anglo-Danish king which, in this context, might carry unintended overtones of Nordicism. Hardicanute (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute Various editors appear unhappy that the same issues are raised over and over again. By concealing the discussion on these issues it may be more likely that some future reader will wish to raise them again. Also it may create an impression that some editors wish to conceal the discussion.Hardicanute (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC) It is not concealed. You can just click 'show' to read it. Pretty straight forward. Singularity42 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Normal, pointless chatter gets rolled up and archived. Only completely off topic or offensive material is actually removed. If that were a form of censorship or "concealment" it would be pretty much the least effective form ever. There is a FAQ at the top of this talk page which deals with the most tediously recurrent questions. Sadly we can't force people to actually read it. The notion that those people who don't read the FAQ will read other old chatter and that this will somehow dissuade them rehashing the old non-issues is unfounded. Many won't read anything at all and will just dive in. Those who do glance at the old chatter will get a misleading impression that such contributions are welcome here and be encouraged to add more. Furthermore, keeping a lot of inane chatter on a talk page does discourage and distract from meaningful discussion on improving the article, which is the sole reason we have talk pages. If an editor finds that they regularly have their attempts at discussion labelled unconstructive and rolled up I would urge them to look at the way they are attempting to conduct discussion rather than seeing it as an issue with the other editors. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Well said. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC) It happens to me only here so I tend to take the latter possibilityHardicanute (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

David Irving as historian

More unhelpful noise continues
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A reliable source says that David Irving is a historian It is very important that editors don't simply select some reliable lest it give the appearance of partiality.Hardicanute (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC) And here's another the BBC in 2006 Hardicanute (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC) This has been extensively discussed in the David Irving article's talk page, where the consensus view was that reliable sources generally don't call him a historian and neither should Wikipedia. His article also discusses the differing views on whether he's a 'historian'. Note that most the actual news stories in the Guardian linked from that website label him as being "disgraced author" and "pro-Nazi author", though one does call him a "rightwing historian". Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC) I'm extending the roll-up template to cover this whole series of circular discussions. — kwami (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC) I undid that, kwami. It really screws up the formatting to have several sections in one rollup template. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I can't but notice this article isn't neutral at all. It could be Holocaust deniers are very wrong by the current consensus, however this shouldn't be stated in every single paragraph. It should rather be written in the style one would use for creationism and the believe in ghosts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.155.146 (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is not at all neutral. Not only it fails to mention that the definition of holocaust denial changed over time, the article also engages in hate speech and hysteria. For some sanity: http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/02/what-does-holocaust-denial-really-mean/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.215.164 (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2011

Ah, yes. An arsonist's opinions about holocaust denial: quite helpful. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a different Daniel McGowan. This one is the retired economist and pro-Palestinian activist - both of which, of course, make him an expert on 20th century history in general and the Holocaust in particular. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be about the same qualification as ADL has. 109.77.27.74 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That remark is arrant nonsense. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with OP, the article is flawed and does not have a NPOV.Averagejoedev (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view? That's like having an article about the tooth fairy and getting angry that it says it's false. What's next? Articles about evolution saying how it's not proven and should be compared to "intelligent design"? Just because "every" viewpoint is not represented does not mean that an article is not neutral. Wikipedia must be a collection of some sort of verifiable information, Holocaust denial is pure religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.163.211 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV about the Holocaust does not mean giving equal time to the possibility that it never happened. NPOV means describing what happened as well as can be achieved. The Holocaust article could include emotional reactions to it, but it must strive not to be an emotional reaction to it; which isn't easy an easy perspective to maintain. Similarly, NPOV about Holocaust deniers does not mean giving equal time to the possibility that they are correct, it means describing Holocaust denial as a phenomenon, without getting up in arms for or against it. True, the Wikipedia does try to maintain a fairly skeptical, analytical, scientific, and hopefully disinterested viewpoint. NPOV does not mean that Wikipedia should discard that viewpoint half the time so those with other views can "teach the controversy". The web provides infinite space for persons of faith to express themselves, but the consensus will never allow Wikipedia to be among their pulpits. Ornithikos (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Codoh links in codoh section

Could somebody please explain to me why in the codoh section no links to codoh are allowed and instead there are links by ADL? In fact, the whole article seems to be a political piece by ADL, not an academic one.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.

If no links to codoh are allowed based on that guideline, no links to ADL should be allowed either. 109.77.27.74 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how else to put this. You seem to be suffering from a deficit of ordinary common sense and contact with reality. The ADL is a respected organization that fights racial and religious bigotry. CODOH is a club for Holocaust deniers to share their pathetic musings on why they refuse to accept reality. There's no similarity between the two. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My Bookshelf

Just thought I'd let people know that I have prepared a list of books I own; reliable sources highly relevant to this article and other aspects of it. If anyone wants something fished out of them, let me know. If your question relates to a book not on that list, let me know anyway - chances are I can almost certainly get hold of a copy. WilliamH (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Change to lead

I removed a minor sentence from the lead today. The sentence was: "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary." Since the reference that is backing up this assertion was false, unsupported and unverified. If anyone opposes this please feel free to respond below.Averagejoedev (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been replaced, rightly so far as I can see. There are two sources for the sentence, not just one. How do you justify saying that they are false, unsupported and unverified? 08:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I've replaced the previous text. A reference cannot be "false", it either exists or it doesn't. The McFee reference can be verified by clicking on it in the footnote, so the only way it's "unverified" is if you didn't click on it (which is not an issue with the article). I'm not sure what you mean by "unsupported", though there are two references given to support the sentence. Finally, sentences in the lead summarise the article body, so there's additional detail supporting that statement further down the article. EyeSerene^talk 08:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Eyeserence you have very curious definition of 'false', I don't quite follow, could you elaborate why you believe a source cannot be false? Likewise your definition of unverified also seems flawed, a source is verifiable if it can prove it is reliable, likewise a source is unverifiable if it is not reliable. You are correct that some things written in the lead are summary to what follows in the article, however this particular sentence was not followed or closer examined in the article(I suspect that is due to the invalidity of the statement). The second source which you mention, is not directly quoted, the supposed material supporting the now deleted statement was not revealed which naturally any postulate in the lead should be, so I disregarded it. Averagejoedev (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. The second source is specified very carefully. We don't require direct quotation - in fact, in most cases copyright law would prohibit this, not to mention counter to the aim of an encyclopedia, which is to summarize knowledge. Get the book and check it if you think it has been misrepresented. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No thats wrong. First wikipedia requires inline citation of sources for statements that can be challenged or are likely to be challenged read here:Wikipedia:Verifiability. Second according to the "fair use" provisions outlined in Title 17, Chapter 1, Article 7 of the US Copyright Law reproduction for purposes of criticism, comment or educational purposes is not a copyright infringement. The "fair use" provisions under English law can be found here:[[1]]. It's the original poster of the now removed statement's job to apply inline quotation not mine, however I will take you advice and visit the main library tomorrow to see if I can find this book, to specify the quote.Averagejoedev (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"citation" != "quotation". It has never been required that statements are supported by direct quotation, and you will find quotations very rarely indeed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It has never been required that statements are supported by direct quotation, but it is strongly encouraged especially on controversial articles like this one. In fact the lead alone has a total of 12 direct quotation due to the controversial nature of this article. I see no reason why this source is not provided as a direct quotation aswell when it is clear that it can legally be quoted and that it can be challenged.Averagejoedev (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(od) Averagejoedev, I think you may be mixing up verifiability ("does the source support the article text?") and reliability ("can we use the source at all?"). If you read the sources given they support that sentence.

Also, as I mentioned above the purpose of a lead is to summarise the rest of the article. That sentence summarises the Terminology and etymology section (among others) and strictly speaking may not even need citations at all per WP:LEADCITE because it's a summary of cited text in the article body. In some ways those cites in the lead are redundant. If you want to challenge the reliability of the source(s) that's a different matter, though I believe Gord McFee as a professional historian would be regarded as reliable. EyeSerene^talk 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are simplifying the definition of 'Verifiability' here is the direct quote of the 'in a nutshell' summary from the wikipedia aricle on Verifiability: "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Verifiability very much seems to encompass reliability. Regardless lets not continue this debate on semantics, its a bit beside the purpose of this discussion. I fail to see how the sentence is relevant to the Terminology and etymology section, could you point out where exactly you believe this is. And also do you not believe that the preceding statements to the deleted statement, are much more relevant?Averagejoedev (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)::Joe, as far as I can tell, you're quoting copyright law correctly, but that really doesn't matter. Wikipedia's style guidelines discourage the profligate and unnecessary use of direct quotations. See WP:QUOTEFARM. If Wikipedia articles were composed the way I think you're suggesting for purposes of verifiability, they'd be nothing but one quotation after another. That's just not good writing style. If you're having trouble understanding what verifiablity means, here's your answer: Wikipedia articles have to be based on sources that can be readily checked by independent persons. That way, another editor can verify that the source actually says what is reported in the article. An unpublished letter that an editor has in his desk from one of the world's top experts on the history of the Holocaust, even if the source is impeccably reliable, fails this test. There's simply no way for others to verify the contents of this letter. On the other hand, a book, a magazine article, a newspaper, a website, even a blog or internet forum all pass the test. The blog or internet forum would almost certainly fail WP:RS, but they'd be fine so far as verifiability is concerned.

Also, I still don't understand what you mean when you say the source (I'm not sure which one you're referring to) is "false". Wikipedia is based (according to policy) on reliable sources. The sources say what they say, and if they're reliable and our editing complies with the rest of Wikipedia's policies, we can use them. Are you questioning the reliability of one of the sources? Are you saying that despite being generally reliable they seem to have gotten their facts wrong? Or are you saying that the sentence as written does not accurately describe what's in the source? It's hard to respond to your objection unless you clarify that.

Lastly, I want to put a question to you the answer to which may save you significant time and aggravation. Ask yourself the following question: "True or false: This article should read in such a way as to grant more validity to the idea that Holocaust denial can be a legitimate and worthwhile project" If your answer to that is true, congratulations; you are the holder of a fringe theory. Now Wikipedia does not banish discussion of fringe theories (indeed this article is about one), but it does insist that they be treated as the fringe theories they are. Furthermore, I can pretty well guarantee (if your answer is true) that you're going to be unsuccessful in making the kind of changes that you'd like to this article.

Hope this helps. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As to the definition of verifiability I will stick to the one I quoted from the verifiability page in my last reply, which encompasses reliability. As to direct quotes, I absolutely do not think that it would be 'unnecessary' to apply direct quotation on a controversial article like this, and judging from the high number of direct quotations in the lead, neither do others. As to your rhetorical question; I believe Wikipedia should represent this article from a Wikipedia:NPOV. The source reached a conclusion without empirical study or closer examination of said conclusion. I find it both inaccurate and misrepresented in the statement. Inaccurate because it makes an invalid generalization about a broad group of individuals, without extensive study, including David Irving, Arthur Butz,Carlo Mattogno,Walter Sanning and others. Averagejoedev (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec'd by ecx3!) To answer your previous question to me, the Terminology and etymology section explains in some detail why deniers call themselves "revisionists" and why scholars find that to be misleading. Paragraph two of the lead (the sentence you removed and the previous sentence) gives a potted summary of that, even redundantly citing some of the same sources. Hopefully a careful reading of both will make the repetition of ideas and themes between the two fairly clear. If it doesn't, further assistance is beyond my ability to provide :)

If, as you appear to suggest, your issue is with what the sources say, you must take that up with them. Wikipedia can only reflect the preponderance of reliable sources. If they all agree that Holocaust Deniers are deluded lying anti-Semites then that's what the article must say too. NPOV is about how we present the sources, not about what the sources themselves say. EyeSerene^talk 10:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No thats an invalid interpretation of NPOV. According to Wikipedia:NPOV one should:"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."Averagejoedev (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You've been asked twice what you mean by saying the source is false. Please explain. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand its hard to keep track of this mounting thread. See my last reply to Steven, for elaboration.Averagejoedev (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You aren't going to get anywhere challenging our policy on reliable sources and verifiaiblity in this way. However, if you do want to challenge a particular source, there is WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you are confusing me a bit here. Who's trying to challenge policies? Averagejoedev (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides the fact that you seem to be arguing that we can't use a source because you think it's wrong, there's your posts at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth which seems related to your posts here. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My critique of the source is partly that it is invalid as its not based on scientific study, and partly that the sentence misrepresented the source. Furthermore it could be argued that the article is breaching with NPOV when it states this opinion as a fact. These points of critique seems to be very much within wikipedia policy.Averagejoedev (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your critique of the source is based on an assumption for which you've offered no evidence other than your opinion. But that's beside the point - we don't need to know what the source itself relies on, only that it meets WP:RS. Your assertion that the sentence misrepresents the source is also lacking evidence at the moment. How does it not represent the sources? Can you suggest a better summary? Finally, where does the article express opinion as fact? "Scholars use the term..."; "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on..."; "Holocaust denial is generally considered to be...". These all attribute opinion to various groups as detailed in the article body. If the article text said something like "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are based on..." or "Holocaust denial is an antisemitic..." you might have some basis for your criticism. EyeSerene^talk 13:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate on my critique of the source. The main source which is cited in the inline quotation, can be found here: http://www.holocaust-history.org/revisionism-isnt/ states: "Revisionism" is obliged to deviate from the standard methodology of historical pursuit because it seeks to mold facts to fit a preconceived result, it denies events that have been objectively and empirically proved to have occurred, and because it works backward from the conclusion to the facts, thus necessitating the distortion and manipulation of those facts where they differ from the preordained conclusion (which they almost always do). In short, "revisionism" denies something that demonstrably happened, through methodological dishonesty. " Firstly the source does not directly deal with Holocaust Denial, Secondly the source does not present this conclusion with evidence, leading one to think that this is an opinion piece. As if using an opinion piece in the lead wasn't enough, the lead also states this opinion as a fact(This goes directly againstNPOV). Since there was no evidence to support the conclusions, but merely opinions stacked upon other opinions with no empirical data, this source could safely be considered invalid. The fact that the text is ridden with grammatical errors also leads me to suspect that it was written in a bit of rush without much study or care.Averagejoedev (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Averagejoedev, how would you rewrite the sentence, and which sources would you use to support your version? WilliamH (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would remove it altogetherAveragejoedev (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The source deals with Holocaust denial, in that it explains why the concept isn't legitimate revisionism. As for your second point, it cites a number of examples, e.g., it compares the revision of the time when Hitler ordered the Final solution against the revision that there were homicidal gas chambers, which is not revisionism, but the denial of verifiable fact. There is a clear consensus that this source is accurately placed, and as some editors have touched on, your contention rather appears to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which isn't really a suitable rationale. WilliamH (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It speaks of holocaust denial, not by examining holocaust deniers or by studying the subject, but by slinging out unsupported postulates. Secondly where is this 'clear consensus' you speak of? I see none. And please refrain from argumentum ad hominem. My critique is largely unanswered I take that as testimony to its validity.Averagejoedev (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Averagejoedev, as has already been explained to you:

1. Sources do not need to have done an "empirical study" or "present evidence" to be considered reliable. They merely need to meet the requirements of WP:RS.
2. The sources do, in fact, "deal directly with Holocaust Denial". Please make more accurate talk page statements.

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No this direct quotation from the source is not dealing with the subject of holocaust denial, but denial in general. And as mentioned in my critique of the source, it is stating opinion as fact, and so is the representation of the source in this article which goes directly against.WP:RS Lastly you did not refute the greater part of my critique, so I assume this stands valid, if so, that is grounds for removal.Averagejoedev (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Holocaust denial is only a part of denial in general, this source is perfectly acceptable in an article about holocaust denial. And there is no "opinion as a fact" as the quotation reproduces a conclusion based on facts. Your critique has been largely refuted and there is no ground at all for removal. --Lebob (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable: perhaps, accurate: definitely not. You are wrong my critique has not been answered, nor has it been refuted. You postulate that there is 'facts' in the article, is a pure bluff, There is no empirical research or any extensive analysis leading to any of the conclusions, its purely opinion, nothing else than that. And if you truly wish to defend that hopeless postulate I demand you quote directly from the source, to support your postulate. Regardless this is still an opinion stated as a fact on wikipedia, this goes directly against NPOV and is grounds for removal. I am removing the source until anyone formulates it according to the rules in NPOV.Averagejoedev (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The source in question is on a website devoted to the examination of Holocaust denial, in an article specifically addressing denialism in the context of the Holocaust. The first sentence of the essay is "This essay describes, from a methodological perspective, some of the inherent flaws in the "revisionist" approach to the history of the Holocaust." Thus it deals directly with Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the ongoing edit-warring by Averagejoedev on this issue, including after a warning was made on his talk page, I have referred this issue to WP:AN3. 02:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Where he was blocked for 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great, but we all know that he's going to continue being disruptive until he's indeffed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you give someone enough rope... WilliamH (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Or WP:ROPE even :) If I can offer some friendly advice to Averagejoedev: since you've unfortunately now got yourself into conduct difficulties (which is often an indication that an editor is unable to take a detached view of a subject) I think it might be sensible for you to consider moving on. You should recognise that no-one else here is supporting your interpretation of policy and this seems unlikely to change. Your arguments have been seriously considered and answered; that you are continuing to post things like "You are wrong my critique has not been answered, nor has it been refuted" is coming across (to me at least) as WP:IDHT. You don't have to agree that you're mistaken, but you should at least accept that a number of experienced editors in good standing think you are. The longer this continues the greater the impression you're giving of tendentiousness.

Of course this is only advice - feel free to disregard :) In that case though you should probably look at dispute resolution measures. It might be a good idea first though to confirm that your understanding of policy is correct. As has been suggested above, the reliable sources and neutral point of view noticeboards might be good places to start. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 08:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so much 'friendly advice' as it is sardonic eh? There's far to many dubious statements to really take your advice, you can consider it largely disregarded. And I can assure you that if I had seen my critique clearly answered I would move on, alas this has not happended, especially my critique that we are stating the opinion of the source as fact, and thus in breach with NPOV has not been refuted or even mentioned by those who disagree with my stance, seems to be more or less ignored despite the fact that as I have said a few times now: this alone should still be enough to push for deletion of the sentence, or at the very least a reformulation. Although since most people in the thread at this point seem to aim their words not at my stance or argumentation but instead at my person by way of Ad Hominem I doubt we will reach a consensus. So I agree, dispute resolution is perhaps the best choice. Though I would still like to hear from you, steven, williamH or some of the other vocal parts of this thread, about the sentence breaching with NPOV, do you not believe this justifies deletion? And if not, we could look into reformulating the sentence. Although as I touched on earlier in this debate, I prefer the deletion between the two.Averagejoedev (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The article does not represent the contention as fact. Instead, it offers it as a criticism: "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on...". This allows for other perspectives on the methodologies of Holocaust deniers. As has been pointed out to you, if the text was "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are based on..." then that would indeed assert a single perspective as fact, and your criticism would have some basis. But it doesn't, and for that reason, we already have a consensus, namely that everyone here except you thinks that the sentence is accurately constructed and legitimately included. WilliamH (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It presents the criticism as a fact not as an opinion. It states as fact that Holocaust Denial has been critized while this is not the case. The case is Gordon McFee has critized it, other historians, for instance: Irving and Mattogno, don't agree. Averagejoedev (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not present the criticism as a fact. As I already explained to you, it is presented in such a way that it does not prevent the inclusion of other criticisms of the methodology. We could include the criticisms of David Irving and Carlo Mattogno if they satisfied the guideline on reliable sources, but they don't, so that's not going to happen. WilliamH (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I do believe P., Berg, R. Faurisson, R. Garaudy , R. Granata, M. Mattogno, G. Rudolf, E. Zündel and I. Rimland are reliable sources. I still move that we delete it or at the very least state that this is the opinion of one Gordon McFee. Does not seem fair to judge the entire matter on the hinge of one unprofessional man's opinion. Regardless stating his criticism as fact is still against NPOVAveragejoedev (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That you believe professional liars Zündel and Faurisson are reliable sources pretty much explains your difficulty in gaining consensus for your position. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If the sentence in question breached NPOV, that would justify deletion, but it doesn't, so it should stay. Likewise, your repeated insistence that your critique has not been refuted, despite the fact that everyone else here can see perfectly that it has is a clear case of WP:IDHT. Also, you might benefit from actually reading the Wikipedia article on Ad hominem (actually I think that's unlikely, but possible). There's an outside chance that by doing so you might absorb the idea that criticisms of conduct are not necessarily ad hominems. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If it has been 'clearly refuted' as you claim, then refute it or show where it has been sufficiently refuted. Completely focusing on a person rather then the person's argumentation is ad hominem, something which you seem good at, however it is unhelpful to this discussion. Averagejoedev (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Averagejoedev, I apologise if what I wrote came across that way - if so, it wasn't intentional. I think the advice was and is still sound though. We've reached the point of repeating ourselves here, which is never a good sign. You have my responses above; I see no value in writing them out again. EyeSerene^talk 14:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Denialism vs Revisionism

Shouldn't there be a page or at least a section on people who believe that the number is greatly exaggerated? Why even lump people who deny the existence of the death camps to people who just think the numbers are exaggerated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabbish (talk • contribs) 03:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia. I have reverted your edit because it does not reflect what the sources say; all of them state that the 3 aspects come together. Also, the points your raise can be found on the Criticism of Holocaust denial page, including the dishonest attribution of data to the International Red Cross, and the misrepresentation of old World Almanac statistics. WilliamH (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact the point raised here is more general, and asks why Wikipedia's consensus on most topics is relatively tolerant of shading, yet on this particular topic the prevailing consensus is that it is an entirely binary thing (hence the "lumping"). Either you are a Denier or you are Not. To the original poster: if you should contend that 4 million died in the Holocaust, you are a Denier; just hit Flush. Why? Because as the owners guardians of this article will tell you, there is no such thing as "minimization." A minimizer is a Denier. So just Stop right there. Personally, I think what matters is one's accuracy, which is closer to being normally distributed around the "truth" than a binary distribution. Which is to say that a source like nizkor.org, which declares that there was 12 million victims, is of dubious reliability in my view because its verdict as to the magnitude of the Holocaust is too many standard deviations away from the consensus of professional historians to be accepted without further investigation. That's without further investigation; ie assess the documents it hosts on a case-by-case basis, instead of categorical acceptance. But that's not the way it works around here. As long as you somewhere acknowledge that the victim count is over 6 million, you're "in". Less, and you're out, categorically, and not just out in terms of accuracy but out morally: you've just gotten yourself categorized as either a witting (default) or unwitting (best case) apologist for anti-Semitism. There is no point in arguing the matter, because if you are amongst the "outs", any and all of your arguments are a priori invalid. Your well is poisoned. I'm not saying this just to be cynical but to preclude the time wasting that goes on on this Talk page. People repeatedly come here and complain about the article's neutrality but the discussion never goes anywhere (despite the fact the frequency of these complaints suggests the "received consensus" should be revisited or at least not enforced so dogmatically) because of one side's persistently rigid conviction that the other side cannot possibly have any argument no matter what they say or what sources they might cite. Any source that you might cite that suggests, even incidentally, that 6 million is high will be categorically rejected because of its conclusion. Therefore FIRST see if Jayjg, jpgordon, et al have mellowed at all with time and are prepared to admit that they can't ALWAYS start with an argument's conclusion and then decide on that basis alone whether the supporting argument has any validity, in other words, concede that it is actually possible to make respectable inquiries into this particular field of knowledge and that reasonable and respectable people can disagree. To the original poster I suggest that, unless you are given some acknowledgement like that, expect neither reason nor respect around here. You'll be engaged with here, but it'll be Kabuki theater since you will ultimately not have any influence over the reading of the article.

By the way, before anyone nails the lid down on how to categorize me, let me just say that I have never been especially interested in this particular article. There is a rather a particular closemindedness re the "received consensus" concerning this article that creates ripple effects throughout the rest of the Wikipedia in terms of sourcing policy, NPOV policy, etc (a phenomenon quite possibly related to the fact the creators/defenders of the "received consensus" here are disproportionately admins and the challengers disproportionately newbies). I come back to this Talk page on occasion because this is where the ripples (ie the problem mentality) are originating from.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

How do I apply to join the shadowy cabal which runs this article? If I'm 'in' do I get a big hat and a cape? Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Respond to critics but don't actually take their arguments seriously. In other words, you're just joined! I dunno about a hat and cape but you can call yourself an opponent of hate and intolerance. Which is the Most Important Thing (at least according to the club's founding charter).--Brian Dell (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian, your extended crybaby act is long on injured innocence and strawman arguments and short on facts. Let me lay it out for you.

First, Nizkor's figure for the total number of Holocaust victims is (like all the other reliable sources) (around) six million Jews and (around) six million others. This puts their estimate exactly zero "standard deviations away from the consensus of professional historians". The fact that you completely missed the difference between Jewish victims and total victims is a clear indication of how carefully you've looked into this.

Second, your absurd claim that "(a)ny source that you might cite that suggests, even incidentally, that 6 million is high will be categorically rejected because of its conclusion" is patent nonsense, a figment of your imagination, utterly belied by the facts as known to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the relevant field of study. The most obvious, no, famous, example of this is Raul Hilberg's magnum opus, the seminal work in the field, The Destruction of the European Jews. Hilberg's research led him to a figure for total Jewish Holocaust deaths of between 4.8 and 5.4 million (for a median figure of 5.1 million). However, contrary to your persecution delusion, no one considers Hilberg a denier. Indeed, he testified for the prosecution at the Zundel trial. The reason no one considers him a denier is because anyone can see from examining his work that he's a legitimate, reliable, professional historian who arrived, by honest means, at a figure for the Jewish death toll that was somewhat on the low side of average, in short, precisely the opposite of a total assclown like David Irving, who never met a source he couldn't falsify. In your imaginary view of the way things work that figure should have gotten Hilberg branded, ostracized, destroyed professionally. But, that never happened because your view has no connection to reality.

Here's the short version. This article is written based upon reliable sources. If you think it doesn't portray matters accurately or honestly, tell us what changes you'd like to make based upon which reliable sources. Or shut up. But you won't. Because you can't. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If there were 12 million Holocaust victims then why does this article say there were 6? Either this article is using the wrong default definition or Nizkor is. Maybe I missed where Nizkor said only 50% of Holocaust victims are Jewish because the vast bulk of material on that site seems to assume the same definition of the Holocaust that this article does. As for the "figments of [my] imagination" I suggest you go back and review the Talk history of this page and review what people like Jayjg and jpgordon told me was their view on sourcing issues. As recently as this summer Jayjg repeated his view that anyone who "minimizes" the Holocaust is a denier. No fine gradients. If one is going to adopt a binary doctrine like this, there necessarily has to be a cut off point whereby one is either in the category or not. If Jayjg has abandoned this doctrine then he should speak up here and say so, since that would mean minds have opened some since the last time I was here. re "tell us what changes you'd like to make based upon which reliable sources" this is a waste of time when before one makes any inquiry at all a guy whose resume consists of running a gas station can throw up a website and be considered a more reliable source than the Chair of 20th Century History at Most Prestigious University in the country and referee of the most prestigious academic journal in the world depending on the source's conclusion. I have raised this hypothetical before in order to call attention to the absurdity of defining a reliable source by the use of an a priori argument instead of a posteriori one. Use of an a posteriori argument means that one cannot conclude that a source is unreliable simply because it fits into a "denier" category. Is there any more willingness to concede that now than before? If so, then things have indeed changed in terms of the consensus around here.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You misread. Please read more carefully in the future. Sources are not evaluated based on their results, but based on their methods, and on the evaluation in further reliable sources. That's why CODOH is a crap source, and Hillenberg is a good source. And that would be true even if they reached the same conclusions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you (although in my view identifying the general reliability of a source does not necessarily preclude the value of further inquiry into a particular citation, a source that generally uses good methods can occasionally use bad methods and a source that generally uses bad methods can occasionally use good methods, e.g. the New York Times is generally a far superior source than a blog, but the NYT is not absolutely infallible and it is at least possible that a blogger could be correct about a claim the NYT is wrong on and a Wikipedia editor could potentially satisfactorily explain why in justification of a particular edit, similarly, it is unlikely but possible for good scholarship to appear on a denier site and for bad scholarship to appear on an anti-denial site) but Jpgordon, below, does not agree with you and says his view represents consensus, which I'm inclined to concede to him since whenever this issue comes up, I'm the one challenged not Jpgordon. He doesn't agree with you because you are calling here for an assessment of the method while his view is that there is, in effect, no need to evaluate the method because if the result of the method is something that appears on a "Holocaust denier site", the method must have been "inherently" flawed (Jpgordon starts with the "propagating falsehood" part and then contends that there is an identifiable general group of sourced edits that can be summarily rejected).--Brian Dell (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nizkor writes that around 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust, and states the key components of Holocaust denial. To argue it out of its position based on its extended definition in the dedication is a pretty weak argument. WilliamH (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What one person simply dismisses as "out of its position" might appear to be an indicator of unprofessionalism to another. Given that nizkor.org was thrown up by someone's who primary professional qualification seems to be former service station manager, what strikes me is not that this website should be so readily assumed to be authoritative, but that it is cited on multiple occasions while when I cite the Chair of the History Dept at the University of Dallas, my edit is deleted without any further inquiry at all. To return to just one of Nizkor's supposedly authoritative take downs, Nizkor attacks (an uncited) denier claim that "The four million figure at Auschwitz was a widely held notion" by insisting that, according to his research, this is "clearly false." Yet what does the Auschwitz Museum website say?

The Soviet Commission secured, as material evidence of crime, the plundered victims’ property that the Germans did not manage to ship out, and collected testimony from more than 500 surviving prisoners. It also carried out almost 3 thousand examinations of former prisoners and over 500 autopsies. The Polish commission, in turn, secured thousands of documents found on the grounds, questioned many ex-prisoners, and sent samples of victims’ hair and some metal components of the gas chambers to the Institute of Forensic Research in Cracow....

On May 8, 1945, the Soviet commission issued a communiqué presenting the results of its investigations. One of them most important findings was the figure of 4 million people who died or were killed in the camp, which quickly became fixed in the public mind....

So is auschwitz.org.pl correct that 4 million was "fixed in the public mind" or is this "clearly false"? According to this Wikipedia article, the conflict should presumably be resolved in favour of Nizkor, since Nizkor doesn't just "try to" point out "inaccuracies and errors", Nizkor simply DOES do this, as if it's authoritative.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Brian, you're confusing two different contexts again. You were wrong about this 3 years ago and you're wrong about it today. WilliamH (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

3 years ago you told me that "Piper actually confirms Nizkor's sentiment that the 4 million figure was not a widely held notion" but this remains demonstrably false. Piper in fact said? "Polish crime investigators and the Supreme National Tribunal in Poland, which tried the Auschwitz prisoners, also accepted the figure of 4,000,000. Established by the prosecutorial authorities rather than by researchers, this number gained acceptance by the public and became canonical knowledge on the subject of Auschwitz for many years, in Poland and elsewhere.... the method that the Soviet commission used in arriving at its estimate still finds approval today". May I submit that if anything "canonical knowledge" is an even stronger claim than "widely held"? There are also other sources here at odds with Nizkor. For example, this September 1998 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung piece by Wáclaw Dlugoborski says that the 4 million number was "dogma". Now according to your "different contexts" contention Nizkor was not responding to "widely held notion" with a period but to "widely held notion among scholars and historians". Leaving aside the fact that Dlugoborski, research curator of the Archiwum Panstwowego Muzeum w Oswiecimiu, calls the 4 million estimate an "embarrassment" (contrary to Nizkor's theme that the matter is trivial) and notes that right up until 1989 it wasn't the man in the street who was threatened with disciplinary proceedings for questioning the 4 million number but researchers employed by the Auschwitz memorial, the fact is there IS a period after "widely held notion", the claim Nizkor declares is "clearly false." In other words, the qualification you want to add simply is not there.

Now perhaps you could argue that even if Nizkor has been contradicted by Piper, Dlugoborski, and others over how widely accepted the 4 million number was, the real issue is whether there has recently been any deviation from a 1 to 1.5 million number in terms of what's been recently published in respected academic journals. Indeed, you appeared to make this point when you quoted Piper 3 years ago. On this I would just ask how the claim that "half a million fell victim to the genocide." managed to get published in OstEuropa in 2002? According to the operating policy around here, you can start with this Osteuropa article's conclusion that the victims are less than half of what a designated "non-denier" would claim (and less than 15% of what was accepted as "canonical knowledge" "for many years") and reason backwards to conclude that an academic journal founded by Otto Hoetzsch is necessarily not reliable. Franciszek Piper clearly does not agree with this approach, since he feels obligated to actually investigate and challenge with argument and evidence the OstEuropa article instead of just dismissing it as denialism. He also seems to believe it is possible to do this without calling someone an "idiot", "troll", and "racist", unlike our distinguished (200000 en.wikipedia edits) admin below, Kwami.

All this to repeat my main point that the original question in this thread, which asked why denier is a black and white category, is a perfectly legitimate question that deserves a reasoned and respectful answer, the history of this not being forthcoming notwithstanding. Again, when people keep coming to this Talk page to complain about the same thing, this MIGHT suggest that the "editorial consensus" should be revisited. But this Talk page template has spun this pattern into the mere nuisance of "restating previous arguments" instead of a problem to take seriously. Note that readers are asked to "save editors from repeatedly answering questions which have already been asked, as well saving you the time from asking them". In other words, "we" are the editors, you, meanwhile, well, you are just "you". You can ask a question, as long as the question doesn't pertain to what has been deemed settled by the "editors", in which case the matter cannot be reopened or otherwise reexamined because however much time "you" have for such endeavours, the time of the "editors" is too valuable to be so expended. I'm sorry, but I've been around here for years just like many of you who consider yourself part of the "editorial consensus", and even if I hadn't been, I'm as entitled to DISCUSS and EDIT this article as much as you are. I am not ASKING your highnesses whether the "editorial consensus" re what is a reliable source needs to be reviewed in favour of something more subject to further inquiry (The Talk template declaims that "Wikipedia is not here to [consider] editors' opinions... [which] are irrelevant. Wikipedia is [rather] here to present what reliable sources say." And what's a reliable source? Why, that's decided by editor opinion! It's only after this decision have been made that editor (ie a newcomer's) opinion becomes irrelevant!). I am TELLING YOU, just as you are more inclined to tell me what the deal is instead of asking me, and I have indicated a willingness to DISCUSS it. After all, this is called the "Talk" page not the "Ask the Authors" page. When it comes to explaining why the number of new editors coming to Wikipedia has been declining for years, this article is Exhibit A. With that, for the record I object to Kwami's call for my comments to summarily deleted; I believe newcomers to this article and this Talk page are entitled to know what the nature of the "editorial consensus" is around here and that they are entitled to more engagement, and in particular more respectful engagement than just being told what the "consensus" is.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You are overlooking a basic and fundamental aspect: the Iron Curtain. Nizkor makes a clear distinction between Western and non-Western sources, and the description of the four million/widely held notion figure being false concern the 19 Western sources it mentions on the following page, which were not under the veil of Soviet propaganda. Regarding Meyer, I could only speculate why osteuropa published Meyer, but the fact remains that following the methodology of the Soviet investigation commission is bound to bring false conclusions. This relates to your original question - since experts (Meyer is a political scientist and journalist) have said that Meyer is unsuitable to source for this, so shall it be in Wikipedia.

It's a similar story for situations involving new/inexperienced editors. Using Carlo Mattogno and David Irving who were recently brought forward by a newbie, Mattogno's publishing outlet is a non-peer reviewed journal (which in itself fails WP:RS), and is described by the Organization of American Historians as "nothing but a masquerade of scholarship". As for Irving, it was established in a very public place and in a very public manner that Irving "...misrepresented, misconstrued, omitted, mistranslated, misread and applied double standards..." to historical evidence. The reality is that it does not take Wikipedia editors to render Irving/Mattogno etc as unreliable sources - they are quite capable of doing it themselves. WilliamH (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Soviet "veil" has been known to extend well beyond the Iron Curtain when it comes to challenging false allegations of Nazi atrocities. FDR ordered a report that implicated Stalin (instead of the Germans) for the Katyn massacre suppressed (this bit of atrocity denialism by FDR doesn't seem to have hurt his legacy). Another concurring report, filed in 1945 by a US Colonel who visited Katyn in 1943, suspiciously vanished from US archives. In Britain, both Churchill and the Foreign Secretary asked the Polish government in exile to issue a statement that denounced Nazi propaganda regarding Katyn and when some US Congressmen took it upon themselves in 1951 to form an investigative committee to verify the the truth of the alleged war crime, the British Foreign Office chimed in to denounce "anti-Soviet propaganda in the guise of a legal inquiry." In fact until Thatcher came to power the British government tried to block the building of a Katyn memorial in Britain.

But leaving that aside, if you were consistent in your belief that a journalist can't be a reliable source because he is a journalist, you would not be referring me to this Nizkor piece by Brian Harmon, who apparently was a Detroit News reporter for 5 years and with NY Daily News for 8. As far as I'm concerned, it is entirely possible that a journalist is a reliable source. On Nizkor, however, there does not appear to be any editorial control over Harmon, and more importantly it is apparent that he arranges his research in order to get the conclusion he wants. Note Harmon's claim that only Friedman and Kogon "listed the total Auschwitz dead at four million." What does Martin Gilbert say? Well on page 337 of Auschwitz and the Allies Gilbert says... 4 million! This is then taken as authoritative by Deborah Lipstadt, who cites Gilbert to declare on page 262 of Beyond belief: the American press and the coming of the Holocaust, 1933-1945 that "[o]f the approximately 4 million killed at Auschwitz a minimun of 2 million were Jews." No one can accuse Gilbert of changing that 2 million Jews number around with the passage of time because the 3rd edition of his Atlas of the Holocaust came out in 2002 and on page 100 of that book Gilbert writes "The gassing of more than two million Jews at Auschwitz began on 4 May 1942..."

Although Lipstadt is excluded from Harmon's list of "historical references", Harmon actually DOES include Gilbert... in order to say that Gilbert claims "Total Polish dead 3 million" at Auschwitz. Now think about that for a moment. Given that Gilbert claims that more than 2 million Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, you're already over 5 million victims by adding in the Poles, and we haven't even gotten to other nationalities or the Jews were died from other causes! So which would you rather maintain, 1) Gilbert (and by extension Lipstadt as well) is not a reliable source, 2) Nizkor is not a reliable source, or 3) well over 5 million died at Auschwitz?

Personally, I'd go with both (1) AND (2). Apparently on page 26 of the 1981 edition of Auschwitz and the Allies Gilbert says "in the spring and early summer of 1942... hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmo, Sobibor and Treblinka." EVERY DAY? This is obviously well over a million a week without even including Auschwitz. Reportedly Gilbert deleted this sentence in the 1990 edition of his book after Robert Faurisson pointed out how totally implausible this claim was, which means insisting that Gilbert is a reliable source creates the additional problem of having to admit that the Deniers can rightly demand corrections to sources previously considered reliable.

Anyway, I have no particular beef with you, William. I disagree with your contention that a web post on nizkor.org is a more reliable source than an article in Osteuropa. But you've provided a rationale for your belief that goes beyond just "it's a denial site," and you've done so without making personal attacks.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You are aware of the fact that the vast majority of Polish killed at Auschwitz were Jews, and that most of the Jews killed at Auschwitz were Polish, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To put it more briefly, Mr. Dell's problem with me is that I've made clear here and elsewhere that Holocaust denier sites, such as CODOH, are inherently unreliable sources, as they are dedicated to propagating falsehood. This seems to be the consensus opinion on Wikipedia, as well. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do we even bother with idiots like Brian Dell? Since he's demonstrated that he refuses to engage in serious discussion, I don't see how he's any more than a troll, and IMO his comments should be simply deleted like other trolls. When an honest question is asked by someone like Dabbish at the top of this thread, we have plenty of FAQ responses we can direct him to without inviting the racists out of the woodwork. — kwami (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian, I love you. DarklyCute —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Jewsoap & Lampshades

A search of the holocaust article and holocaust denial article gives zero hits for "soap" and "lampshade" words. Someone told me the Germans turned Jews into household items like lamps and soap. I guess this never really happened so it is not holocaust denial to claim Jews were not turned into soap and lampshades? Or is the article incomplete?

Please advise.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.190.115 (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The soap story was just rumor -- perhaps related to similar atrocity rumors in WWI. The lampshade story has some basis in fact, but not much -- Ilse Koch apparently did collect skin samples, but there's no convincing evidence of lampshades. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nizkor.org apparently considers the topic relevant to Holocaust Denial since a lengthy piece is dedicated to responding to "Holocaust-deniers [who] have attempted to cast doubt upon the existence of this skin, and upon the guilt of Ilse Koch in particular." Deborah Lipstadt thinks there is "convincing evidence of lampshades" since when she wrote the LA Times in 1981 she claimed that Koch "used the skin of Jews to make lampshades"--Brian Dell (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

First, Brian, you're lying. The Nizkor article doesn't say what you claim it does (that anyone who doubts the human skin lampshade or soap stories is a denier). Second, are there any changes you would like to propose to the article based upon reliable sources, or are you only here to troll this talk page? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

When somebody on the Phil Donohue Show some years ago asserted that "It [is] a lie that Germans cooked Jews to make soap from them," a reply was "No, not a lie. It's a mistake." Before ruling out the possibility of mere mistake on my part, perhaps you could use quotes to repeat back to me the claim to see if I stand by it. I'm more than willing to extend the same courtesy. For what it's worth, I stand by the accuracy of what I quoted from Nizkor as I rendered it above. Re your question, you asked it before and I replied to you. If raising doubts about whether what are held to be unreliable sources are really so unreliable or whether what are held to be reliable are really so reliable constitutes "trolling" then, yes, I'm a troll. re this particular topic (soap and, especially, lampshades), I disputed what seemed to me to be the unstated suggestion or at least possible implication that the article need not mention these things, even in passing, because the allegations have never been sufficiently relevant to Denial or the responses sufficiently notable.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

First, your comment, before you altered it claimed that by Nizkor's standards, doubting the soap and lampshades stories constitutes denial. That statement was clearly false. Second, the article currently doesn't mention the soap and lampshade stories so what are you on about? Third, claiming that you answered my question before is bullshit since your answer was that doing so would be a "waste of time". If that's the way you feel about it, you're welcome to bugger off. What you're not welcome to do is continue trolling this talk page with nonsense and crybaby complaints that we don't regard idiotic crap like the IHR and CODOH as reliable sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

First, what I initially said and then retracted was only "clearly false" if you argue from ignorance. You haven't provided any evidence that the folks at Nizkor would not consider a lampshade doubter a denier. If they don't consider lampshade doubters deniers then why don't they just let these particular deniers deny away? After all, they are doubting something that is not part of the Holocaust, no? However I'll concede that what I initially said was possibly or potentially false (perhaps the Nizkor people believe there is "canon" of Holocaust tenets, denial of one of which means you are necessarily a denier, but also some non-canonical tenets, which while also denied by deniers can be denied without being a denier... since you seem to be fishing for an apology I apologize for not picking up on this subtlety until after a bit of reflection) which was why I retracted it. If you have a problem with something that is not stated here may I suggest you take it up on my userpage or with an admin (there are plenty of them around here), since besides the time wasting involved in attacking statements I don't stand by, attacking statements that do not appear here on the Talk page makes it that much more difficult for other readers to follow. Second, although I never said anything about "soap" contrary to what you said I said ("your comment... claimed that... doubting the soap..."), I'll mention soap now to note that Nizkor spends even more time on the this than on the lampshade stuff, so the site managers evidently consider both topics to be non-trivial items on a denier debunker's "to do" list. Third, I realize that typing "waste of time when..." would mean typing additional 7 characters, but it would be the difference between quoting me fairly and misrepresenting what I said. What I said was conditional and you have never challenged whether the condition holds. You're apparently unhappy about the level of abstraction relative to a particular, concrete article change so I'll drop the reliable source issue back down to the specific edit that brought me here six years ago. It's an edit to another article, but I have to come back here because according to Jpgordon he reserves the right to revert edits that have nothing to do with the Holocaust on articles that that have nothing to do with the Holocaust because of what he believes about reliable sources within the specific context of the Holocaust. Indeed he refused to participate in the Talk discussion on the article in question when the edit was discussed. You seem to agree with this view in that you state that that the source I cite there can only be "idiotic crap" without any further assessment being necessary. If you would indulge some further investigation you would see from the source's bio that the source is a former chairman of the Department of History and Political Science at the University of Dallas. John_Wheeler-Bennett cited this author in Semblance of Peace. A United States Senate Subcommittee invited him to edit one of their publications. Has my calling attention these particulars caused you to moderate your assessment of "idiotic crap" or I have I just wasted everyone's time?--Brian Dell (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Brian, this is ridiculous - you protest against what you consider as Jayjg and jpgordon using their own opinion/extrapolation in concluding what is and isn't a reliable source, and yet you are doing exactly that. WilliamH (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

They have made it clear that they will not entertain any arguments or evidence proceeding from or even just associated with sources on their particular blacklist(s). I've repeatedly invited them to explain the methodology that puts sources on or takes them off this blacklist, what its dimensions are, etc and they've declined, beyond saying that Holocaust deniers (and Holocaust "minimizers" since they are not distinguished) are on the blacklist. The only way to productively advance a dissent beyond this, therefore, is to present arguments or evidence derived from sources that they appear to approve of.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You've been going on about this for six years now, and have gotten no satisfaction; you might consider there's a reason for this. Methodology is simple enough. "Is it a Holocaust denier website? If so, it's an unreliable source." I've not had any reason to consider marginal cases, since the ones that come up are pretty consistently the same ones, and are unambiguous: IHR, CODOH, FPP, for example. If you wish to argue this policy, this is not the place to do it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps to elaborate, the consensus among academics within established research institutions, universities and publishers that Holocaust denial is a fringe theory, the proponents and venues of which therefore are not reliable sources. It's as simple as that. WilliamH (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why not just quote from and apply WP:FRINGE? Is it a fringe theory to contend that 2 million Jews were gassed at Auschwitz? How about half a million? Is Nizkor.org promoting fringe theories by criticizing claims of no lampshades or soap? These Qs should have obvious answers if "it's as simple as that." If it's not that simple then perhaps citations should be considered on a case-by-case basis.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Is there any material you wish to change in the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So henceforth you're going to dissent from the position jpgordan just reasserted above, Jayjg? You'll endeavour to blind yourself to WHO is making claims by throwing out the blacklist and looking at WHAT is being said? Your call to abstract perspective from the personal and particular is surprising given that you take offence to a critique of your personal position on reverting article content, pointing to Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" policy, but when "racist," "troll", "crybaby", "idiot", "liar", etc are not directed in your particular direction you have no comment. It's henceforth irrelevant to you whether the "contributor" is generally on your side of the issue or the other? Then we're making progress. Now get back to the "content" dispute at hand by supporting your reliable source policy as I've invited you to do here and perhaps we'll make even more.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, the Nazis never made soap from human corpses on an industrial scale (as was widely rumored), but may have experimented with making it - see Soap made from human corpses. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

David Cole

Why no mention of the Jewish Kid who caused a stir in the early 90s when he began to promote revisionism? Oh, is that because we don't want to mention that he is in hiding to this day because the Jewish Defense League put a hit on his head? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.41.92 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• There was, but because he recanted his views, it was deleted per the policy on biographies on living persons. WilliamH (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He recanted because his life was threatened...so you are helping the people who threatened his life by not including his impact on the topic. By removing him because he recanted under duress, you are aiding his assailants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.220.20 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever the reason for him recanting, to have an article on an individual notable for his Holocaust denial who is no longer a Holocaust denier could not be reconciled with Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living people. At any rate, the main basis for deletion was the lack of reliable sources. With these two factors in mind, it really is not realistic to give Mr. Cole an article. WilliamH (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The two IPs posting here are obviously lying. The article was deleted, twice, not because of BLP problems, but because of lack of notability. The deletion discussions are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cole (revisionist) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cole (revisionist) (2nd nomination). Anyone who thinks Mr. Cole's notability can be established by reference to independent, reliable sources is welcome to try again. Please peruse Wikipedia's notability policies in advance of doing so. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A little biased

It seems to me that this article is a little biased against Holocaust deniers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.215.135 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to be a bit more specific, bro. What content, in your opinion, constitutes bias? DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For consideration

Not a soap-box for the fringe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This article pushes the point that "no serious scholar denies the holocaust". In reality, many of the leading scholars of the Holocaust have stated on record that the actual evidence to prove the Nazis operated homicidal gas chambers is virtually non-existent. See the following: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-real-evidence-for-gas-chambers.html128.114.105.79 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Not reliable source. ZZArch talk to me 12:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC) The sources cited and linked to in that link are reliable.128.114.105.79 (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Nonsense. The site takes short snippets out of context. I can easily do the same for the Roman Empire or the Battle of Trafalgar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC) It isn't "out of context" as much as it is a list of admissions. The Montreal Gazette article certainly isn't out of context.128.114.105.79 (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC) The site uses such quotes to argue the contention that there were no homicidal gas chambers, which was not the case according to all the reliable sources out there. That is pretty much the definition of taking the material out of context. This and the fact that the website is a self-published blog on a fringe theory completely remove said link from the realm of sources we can use. WilliamH (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC) That's right. Furthermore, if the blog is misrepresenting the views of people it quotes to make them appear to be holocaust deniers when they are not then that could well be considered defamatory and we certainly want no part in that! --DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC) The world's best Holocaust scholars with teams of post-grad assistants, bankrolled by Spielberg & Bronfman, prepared for over two years for the Irving v Penguin & Lipstadt trial. But according to Grays' final judgement: "The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archaeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence." Judgement 6:80 http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/06.15 He goes onto to judge: "Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews." Judgement 13.91 http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/judgement/13.41 It's an indisputable fact, the Nazis gassed Jews, there's no tangible evidence, but that's irrelevant. And yes two of the same Russians who compiled the completely fraudulent report on the Germans perpetrating the Katyn Massacre (IMT doc USSR-54) also compiled the report on Auschwitz (IMT doc USSR-008), which is cited by Raul Hilberg, William Shirer, and Jean-Claude Pressac. But that's irrelevant. They may have completely lied about Katyn, but about Auschwitz the were 100% honest. Apart from the 4,000,000 death toll, obviously. http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/01/ok-we-lied-about-katyn-but-we-told.html The Holocaust is different, we don't need tangible evidence, just like we don't need to prove God exists, we can feel that He does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.142.186 (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Please see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FRINGE. You're wasting your time pushing nonsense. I imagine that there are other websites were you can have discussions with like-minded people though. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC) We have January 21, 1943 letter from Wirths to Hoess, which states they intended to keep office equipment, in the split leichenkeller 1 of Krema 2. Or "gas chamber" to you. What did this Nazi euphemism mean: "... the 2nd room will be needed for anatomical preparations, for the preservation of files and writing materials and books, for the preparation of colored tissue sections and for work with the microscope." Gas the Jews and turn them into soap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.142.186 (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"MPAC Rebukes Iranian President" reference

The link to the relevant MPAC website is outdated (i.e. broken). I found the link here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080617083103/http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=231 but I do not know how to edit references in this article. So, Wikipedia junkies, have at it! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.214.70 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Question concerning definition

"Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust." Could someone clarify the way 'Holocaust denial' is defined? It seems it'd make more sense to include 'some or all parts' (or something similar) in the introduction, because many of the Holocaust deniers don't dispute the actual genocide of Jews and others in the camps. While it's certainty disturbing what some refuse to believe, the sentence reads as if Holocaust deniers deny Jews and other groups died at all. I may not be as exposed to some of the literature out there as others, but I've never heard such a claim made by anyone. I would have changed it myself, but this is a sensitive issue and I'd like to hear what people think about the definition as it stands. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, killing a group of people, some of whom happened to be Jewish, would not be genocide. Genocide is the mass extermination of an ethnic group. To deny that Jews were killed en masse is to deny "the genocide of Jews during World War II". Whether holocaust deniers admit that some Jews were killed is irrelevant to the question of genocide.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, to deny that Jews were killed en masse would be to deny the genocide of Jews. But what I've read from David Irving, and to a lesser extent David Duke, neither deny that Jews were killed en masse. Both admit that Jews were (deliberately) killed in large numbers. What both are denying are the exact number of Jews killed and the means with which they were killed. This seems to be a common thread amongst deniers. The numbers that the they throw around are still considered sufficient to constitute the term 'genocide' in any case. What they will admit is relevant, in this case, if what they admit still constitutes genocide. But let me reiterate the original reason for posting, which is the definition in the introduction. It still implies that Holocaust deniers deny mass killings of Jews took place, which as I mentioned above, is not correct. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lede explains that "The key claims of Holocaust denial are: the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews, Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews, and the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million". That is how reliable sources define it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Genocide is still genocide whether there was an official policy or not. I think the issue with the extermination camps is one of semantics, because clearly the camps were where the killings took place. Deniers generally refer to them as concentration or internment camps and try to equate them with the concentration/internment camps in the US that held Japanese/Japanese-Americans. The problem I'm seeing with the definition still stands, as the major deniers don't deny Jews were killed en masse, don't deny the existence of camps (however they're terming them), and even the lowest numbers I've seen thrown out (ABSURDLY low) still easily meet the definition of genocide. I'm really not trying to split hairs, it's just the first sentence doesn't reflect this. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to post again right after myself, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial The introduction uses the exact same source as the introduction to this article, but the Criticism of H.D. article has a much clearer and more accurate definition of Holocaust denial. "Criticism of Holocaust denial criticizes claims to the effect that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust[1]—did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship." The phrases 'did not occur in the manner' and 'to the extent' are a much more accurate description/definition of Holocaust denial than 'denying the genocide of Jews' which is what this article currently opens up with in the introduction. Clarity is important. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what it used to say here too - it was copied from this article. However, someone objected and changed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Further looking into sources, I mistakenly thought Citation 1 was where the definition came from; my mistake, it appears that it is citing the definition of the Holocaust. But Citation 3, where the 'key elements' in the introduction come from, says: "First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." So this says that Holocaust deniers generally believe mass murder of Jews occurred, there were no homicidal gas chambers, as as a 'general rule' throw out numbers between 300,000 and 1.5 million. This means that Citation 3's definition allows for mass murders, albeit without gas chambers, and even the lowest number, 300,000, would still constitute genocide. My problem now is that the definition in the introduction of the article contradicts not only the key elements that follow immediately after it, but contradicts the source that actually defines Holocaust denial. This should be fixed. Either the sources, or the way this is being defined in the first sentence. EDIT. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability "Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." As it stands, the first definition of Holocaust denial does not have a source, because the citation following the definition lists the definition of Holocaust, rather than the definition of Holocaust denial. Citation 3 does, however, define Holocaust denial. It just doesn't match up with the current first-sentence definition in this article. 65.0.151.65 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the def in Criticism of holocaust denial. Do we know why that was changed? Are there any objections to changing it to something like this:

Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust, or the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship.

I'd welcome anyone to clean the wording up (I'm short on time myself), but I don't see any neutrality problems with that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The only issue I have with that wording is that it essentially keeps the current definition. I didn't bring it up because of neutrality issues or anything, I brought it up because Holocaust denial isn't defined as denial of the genocide of Jews, nor is there a source in this article that says it is. The citation that actually has the definition says what the other article (Crit. of Holocaust denial) says, and what the 'key elements' part of this article says, which is also what the second part of the new proposed definition says. Neutrality wasn't a particular issue for me, because immediately following the current definition, the key elements get it right. The first definition doesn't. 65.0.151.65 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Holocaust denial constitutes a couple different things, so our definition is going to have to cover each of those possibilities. You're right that we shouldn't only say that it's about denying a genocide, but we also shouldn't only say it's about denying the gas chambers, or only denying the raw numbers. I think my proposal above (rephrased from the criticism article) covers each of the three possibilities well (I'm obviously happy for input/criticism on it too). Anecdotally, I've heard, seen and read people denying the Holocaust happened at all, and if our sources don't cover that possibility, I would suspect it's our sources which are lacking rather than the text. Next week I may have some time to look into it. If we really do have no sources at all which say Holocaust denial includes denying a genocide altogether, then we can change the wording to "is the act of denying the manner or extent of the genocide..." instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's cited and includes something along the lines of what you've suggested, that sounds great. I just don't want undue weight on the denial of the Holocaust as a whole, because as far as I can tell from the major deniers (listed in this article), this is not the case. In any event, what you're saying sounds fine to me. 65.0.151.65 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

CAIR

I recently added CAIR's condemnation of Ahmedinejad's Holocaust denial conference, but it was removed because it gave "too much detail". I don't feel that way. The section includes individual views of individuals and groups, including some author named "Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani".

I think its also appropriate to know that the Islamic Republic's statements on the Holocaust have been condemned by Muslim groups.VR _talk 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a whole article about the topic, and this is supposed to be just a summary; it's not clear to me why the views of one specific group would be more interesting or valuable than any other, and in any event the CAIR is an American group, not Iranian (an Iranian group might be more relevant). If there is other stuff in the summary that doesn't belong, the solution is to remove that stuff as well, not add even more inappropriate material. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've added criticism by an Iranian leader.VR _talk 19:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This article is completley biased against holocaust deniers. The claims are apparently examined, but all I can see is a basic introduction. It doesn't even state any of the key evidence which supports the claims, such as it's impossible to cremate over 2000 people in one day using 5 ovens with 15 muffles, which apparently happened in Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria 2. The article gladly displays uncited 'evidence' in support of the holocaust. This article should contain both sides of the story, not uncited evidence about the holocaust and a bunch of name-calling against deniers. 2.25.254.114 (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In much the same way the Wikipedia entry on the planet eath is totally and unreasonably biased against flat-earthers. Oh and yes, it most certainly is possible, as has been proven time and time again by peiople who actually know what they are talking about. Consult the nizkor project for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.140.2 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention—we have an article on Nizkor Project. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean giving equal side to all sides of a dispute. You need reliable sources for claims. I shall work on including more citations for the article itself. Furthermore, please see Wikipedia policies on:

• WP:UNDUE - Undue weight
• WP:FRINGE - Fringe theories
• WP:RELIABLE - Reliable Sources

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, the article that deals in more depth with the claims is here:

• Criticism of Holocaust denial

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers don't come out with wild uncited claims. All you have to do is some basic maths and logic, and even a chimpanzee would see sense in what we are saying. I feel compelled to write a new section entitled "Examination of the claims", with actual detail about the claims, and not implications of bigotry toward holocaust deniers. 2.25.234.199 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Make sure it's cited to reliable sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A wise person once summed up Wikipedia philosophy as: "Your opinion, and mine, are unimportant. What is important is sourcing."

Wikipedia operates by using reliable sources and not our personal opinions. You will need a reliable source attesting to your claims before they can be added to the article. Also, Neutrality does not mean giving undue weight to scientifically incorrect or minority positions. Do not insert original research WP:NOR. Any information that you include that does not follow WP policies may very well be removed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I came to this article because of the National Socialist Movement presence in Florida in response to the Trayvon Martin killing. The NSM website had a .pdf file for FAQs, one of which discussed Holocaust denial. And so I came here looking for facts. This topic would benefit greatly from the inclusion of claims and the evidence refuting those claims. Such an inclusion should be completely uncontroversial. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Holocaust denial is the main article examining their claims. More could be ported over to the main article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Claims that gas chambers were not used.

The claim made by deniers is that either the gas chambers did not exist, or that their design was such that they could not have proceeded the numbers claimed to have been killed. It is OR to state that this claim only refers to the gassing of one group of victims. Roma and Sinti were gassed as well. Therefore the claim that the Nazis did not use gas chambers denies the deaths of all those known to have been gassed. There are references which include the Roma and Sinti as victims of gassing, and I can provide them, but they are not required to justify the change I have made. The denial of gas chambers is a denial applying to,all victims.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Use_of_gas_chambers ' There have been claims by Holocaust deniers that the gas chambers which mainstream historians believe were for the massacre of civilians never existed, but rather that the structures identified as gas chambers actually served other purposes. These other purposes include delousing and disinfection. A similar argument is sometimes used that claims gas was not used to murder Jews and other victims, and that many gas chambers were also built after the war just for show.'. Therefore the ref I added to other victims of gassing already exists in that article. Therefore it should be in this article as well.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources used to support the description of the main claims of Holocaust deniers mention only Jews. None of the sources mention "Roma or Sinti". Please respect WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg is correct. In addition, please review WP:SYNTHESIS. WilliamH (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

the point is that many of the sources refer to the denial of gassing, and the victims of gassing. Here are two refs from the article. "In part III we directly address the three major foundations upon which Holocaust denial rests, including... the claim that gas chambers and crematoria were used not for mass extermination but rather for delousing clothing and disposing of people who died of disease and overwork;  Scientific evidence proves that gas chambers could not have been used to kill large numbers of people. It is WP:SYNTHESIS to say that these quotes only refer to the gassing of Jews. The inclusion of Roma and Sinti is justified by these two quotes alone.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/denial-of-science.html.     Writer: Mike Stein In recent years, Holocaust deniers have turned to "scientific" arguments to "prove" that the Nazi regime could not have used gas chambers to carry out an extermination program against Jews and Gypsies. This can be added in, if someone needs a quote that refers to non Jewish victims of gassing. Also another link to Holocaust denial and the Roma http://platosbeard.org/archives/474 17:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And another one http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/holocaust_denial.html Here is the quote

'This article is about the history, development, and methods of Holocaust denial. Holocaust revisionism as it is referred to by its supporters or Holocaust denial as referred by its opposes, is the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography. Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection that, in the Holocaust: The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews and the Gypsies for extermination as a people;

And an academic rebuttal to Holocaust denial, that includes 'Gypsies, and political radicals' http://www.adl.org/holocaust/academic.asp Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Punishment for denial of the holocaust referring to Roma. http://www.budapestreport.com/2010/03/11/hungary-impose-3-yr-prison-holocaust-denial/ Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti holocaust denial organisation that includes Roma, Vision Yahad – in Unum has three aims : To restore dignity to thousands of Jews and Roma who were murdered and trown into mass graves; to fight against Holocaust denial; http://www.matanel.org/content/yahad-unum

You need to be more selective. For example, this one doesn't show Holocaust deniers denying the genocide of "Gypsies"; rather, the refutation of the deniers asserts that genocide. This one is actually citing an older version of Wikipedia's Criticism of Holocaust denial, so we can't use that. This one is just someone's blog, can't use that. If you really want to convince us, you'll need to find something showing or pointing to an example of Holocaust deniers caring a bean about Romani and Sinti, as opposed to an opponent of Holocaust denial defining the Holocaust as including those people as part of a description of the Holocaust. I'd really like to find such sources; I haven't seen anything new regarding this pathology in ages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Jp you need to read ths article again. The references in this article are to those who refute holocaust deniers stating what the holocaust is. What is the difference between this. In recent years, Holocaust deniers have turned to "scientific" arguments to "prove" that the Nazi regime could not have used gas chambers to carry out an extermination program against Jews and Gypsies. And this. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. There is no difference. One is from Nizkor, and one from The Holocaust History Project. You need to show that Nizkor is not a reliable source in order to persuade us not to use it. I suggest that you review WP:SOURCES when you ask for Refs to holocaust deniers caring about Sintim or Roma, you apparr to be asking for Primary sources, which is not what we do. I have provided verifiable, reputable third-party sources, and that is all that is required. Therefore the edit should be made.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ref to negationism of the Romanian govt against Jews and Romani (sic) (Redacted) per WP:COPYVIOEL - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I think I'll let someone else deal with this; you're not hearing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=q2CtmOFt1NoC&pg=PA187&dq=Negationism+gypsies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pF2YT4yIM4Wj8gPk4-HpBQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Negationism%20gypsies&f=false. Negationism By Faurisson referrered to Gypsies as well. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Jp. I think that the fact that you have not answered my points, and have only dealt with some of the refs I have provided shows who is not listening. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jp. This is classic SYNTH unless you can provide sources showing deniers denying the genocide of specific groups other than Jews. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done exactly that, and i have shown that the refs above match those presently used in the article to show that holocaust deniers deny that Jews were gassed. You need to explain the difference between these two refs. In recent years, Holocaust deniers have turned to "scientific" arguments to "prove" that the Nazi regime could not have used gas chambers to carry out an extermination program against Jews and Gypsies. And this. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. Please explain why one is an RS and one is not. Until then this is POV and OR as to what you believe the motives of deniers are. We go by sources, not interpretation. I have provided those sources.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources in this article do not refer to Holocaust denial as being denial of the genocide of Roma and Sinti, and you've used material from (and linked to) the Holocaust denial website Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste. What next? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it you mean the sources in this section, not the article. You have failed to answer my question above. Was this a deliberate oversight? I repeat my original argument, the denial of the gas chambers is a denial that anyone was gassed there. That is a denial of all those known to have been gassed. That is all I have to show. You are inventing your own criteria. The article should state that holocaust deniers deny that the gas chambers at Auschwitz birkenau were there. Google no holes, no holocaust. Therefore that should be included in the holocaust denial article. I am not insisting on any more than that. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The quickest thing to do is probably for me to enter a new section as Other Claims of Holocaust deniers. The material I have listed here which shows that Hd's deny that any 'human beings' (a phrase used by Irving) died in gas chambers can be added there, along with other claims.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The "holocaust" refers to the 'the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime', and this article details its denial. I do not understand your reasons for including unrelated claims.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ak I recommend that you read wikipedia The Holocaust where you will find this. Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.[8] Using this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims is between 11 million and 17 million people. If you maintiain that Holocaust denial s only about the murder of Jews by the Nazis, and nothing else, then we will have to remove the following sections which do not meet your definition. Focus on Allied war crimes in Holocaust denial literature. Other genocide denials. And we have to remove much of Laws against Holocaust denial, as it deals with laws about denying genocide, and not only laws against Holocaust denial. Best regards. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that "the holocaust" is open to a wider interpretation that what I originally posited. However, you must focus on its meaning in the context of "holocaust denial", and this expression has a much narrower ambit. It is original research to claim that all definitions of "the holocaust" will also apply to "holocaust denial".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ak, Please show me where I claiming that all definitions of the Nazi holocaust apply to Holocaust denial? I certainly do not intend to claim that. What I am stating is that Holocaust deniers make claims that apply to non Jewish victims, as well as Jewish victims. An example is the claim that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, or that if there were then they were only used for de lousing. That claim applies to the deaths of all those who we know were gassed there. Therefore these claims should also be referred to in this article. There is plenty of other material here that does not focus on Jewish victims, but focus on other claims of the deniers, (e.g. the bombing of Dresden) therefore all the key claims of the deniers should be referred to in this article. If we can find space for the claim that "more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz." then we can find space to name all the groups that those women came from.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources indicate that Holocaust denial is about Jews. That's why they characterize it as antisemitic, not anti-Romani, or anti-Polish, or anti-Russian, or anti-gay, or anti-Jehovah's Witness, or anti-Communist, or anti any of the other groups or individuals persecuted or killed by the Nazis. "Holocaust Denial is not about the Holocaust, but about Jews". Kenneth Stern. Antisemitism Today, 2006, p. 79. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

agreed. I have never disputed this. Sonce this article already contains much info that relates to other claims made by holocaust deniers, then either that material is removed, or a new section is started that covers the other claims made by deniers. Which is it to be?

YM Criticism of Holocaust denial HTH HAND. The existing material doesn't need to be removed, as it is meant to support the article on Holocaust Denial.

HAND I do not understand your point. I am stating that if the consensus view on this article is that it cannot refer to the Holocaust deniers claim that there were no gas chambers at A-B, therefore no one was gassed there, including ALL those known to have been gassed there, because that claim relates to Holocaust victims other than Jews, then this article can not contain other sections that relate to other claims made by HD's. I am not referring to the article Criticism of Holocaust denial. If we want this article to include only HD's claims that relate to the genocide of Jews, then that needs to be reflected in the whole of this article. That was why I suggested that there be a new section in this article titled Other Claims of Holocaust Deniers, which could refer to just those other claims. That has not received any support, so we are left with removal of material to meet the concensus. I will propose a list.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency

This article says Canada bans Holocaust denial, but laws against Holocaust denial does not. That article says Bosnia and Herzegovina bans it, but this one does not. From what I can tell, Bosnia has merely proposed a ban but not adopted one, while Canada actually has a ban. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada does not have a ban per se. There are laws against racial incitement and things like that. These laws are controversial, however, and even Zundel was never convicted purely of Holocaust denial. Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.115.61 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abbas - Holocaust denier

The current article tries to link Mahmoud Abbas with holocaust denial. This is a remarkable claim that requires decent reliable sources. The current sources justifying the claim do not get anywhere near the standard required.

• History News Network[2], the story at the web page is linked to Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva) - Not an RS suitable for facts in the Wiki voice let alone claims about a living person.
• MEMRI[3] - Nowhere near reaching the standard required to justify a remarkable claim about a living person.
• An opinion piece by a certain Dr. Rafael Medoff [4]
• www.tomgrossmedia.com [5]- Appears to be a personal blog site
• Palestinian Media Watch [6] -Nowhere near reaching the standard required to justify a remarkable claim about a living person.

Firstly there are no sources here that reach the standard to justify describing facts in the Wikipedia voice for a living person. Secondly we don't have any reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact checking that discuss Mahmoud Abbas in relation to the topic of this article - holocaust denial, so I am unsure as to what justification there is for including him in the first place. In fact the only RS in the section categorically quotes Abbas as accepting the Holocaust Dlv999 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good summary of the issue by Deborah Lipstadt.

And here's the NYT reporting about it along the same lines. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

More information and sources at The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And here is a scholary source [[7]] that describe Abbas Holocaust Denial.--Shrike (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Another one [8]--Shrike (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure of the worth or usability, but Yossi Beilin told me personally that Abbas no longer engages in HD and hasn't for some time. Andrew —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

I know of at least a half dozen reliable books that also discuss it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Jayg, don't hold back, feel free to replace the junk citations with your "reliable books" whenever you are ready. Dlv999 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No one has defended the sources I have criticized in the first post of the thread. I have labelled them in the article in the hope that they will be replaced by more suitable sources that have been suggested. Dlv999 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sections to be removed

The consensus that this article should only deal with some of the claims made by Holocaust deniers, i.e. those that relate to Jewish victims means that some of the material here is not appropriate. I suggest that the following should be removed.

From Examination of Claims

Other claims include the following:

Stories of the Holocaust were a myth initially created by the Allies of World War II to demonize Germans.

Interrogators obtained Nazi prisoners' confessions of war crimes through the use of torture.

Attempts at concealment by perpetrators

Both quotes of Eisenhower do not refer to the murder of Jews only.

Harry Elmer Barnes

Following World War II, Barnes became convinced that allegations made against Germany and Japan, including the Holocaust, were wartime propaganda used to justify U.S. involvement in World War II.

Barnes took the view that World War II had ended in disaster for the West with Germany divided and the United States locked into the Cold War, made all the worse in Barnes’s eyes, as in his view Germany never wanted war. Barnes claimed that in order to justify the “horrors and evils of the Second World War”, the Allies were required to make the Nazis the “scapegoat” for their own misdeeds.

In his 1962 pamphlet, Revisionism and Brainwashing, Barnes claimed that there was a “lack of any serious opposition or concerted challenge to the atrocity stories and other modes of defamation of German national character and conduct”. Barnes went on to write that in his view there was “a failure to point out the atrocities of the Allies were more brutal, painful, mortal and numerous than the most extreme allegations made against the Germans”

The beginnings of the modern denial period.

In 1961, the American historian and a leading protégé of Barnes, David Hoggan published Der Erzwungene Krieg (The Forced War) in West Germany, which claimed that Germany had been the victim of an Anglo-Polish conspiracy in 1939.

Focus on Allied war crimes in Holocaust denial literature. Needs to be removed.

Other genocide denials. needs to be removedDalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You're suggesting all of that be deleted? Some of it is highly relevant. E.g., the focus on Allied war crimes in HD lit is proof of the use of relativist arguments and minimization as "soft" Holocaust denial. Andrew —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

what do,you mean by relevant? The consensus is that only,claims related to HD claims about Jewish victims be included. I will start the removal tomorrow.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Slow down: Rather than posting a whole block of text and suggesting that it's all irrelevant and must be deleted, why not post shorter passages and explain why they're irrelevant before deleting stuff. Please do it this way; otherwise, you could stand to delete important information. Andrew —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Actually, the consensus is that only material that discusses Holocaust denial can be included. Regarding your suggestion, please review WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Mayer controversy

Why not have both references (i.e., Mayer and secondary source)? How does citing Mayer constitute original research where the material is especially obvious? Mfhiller (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Clear Article Bias

I came to this article to find information on what Holocaust Deniers believe and how they justify those beliefs in the face of accepted mainstream accounts of the Holocaust. I was pretty dismayed to find almost none of that information in the article itself, and had to read the Criticism article to get at that information. Now, it's all well and good that the info can be found at least somewhere, but that info belongs mostly in this article. I feel like there'd be more room for it if not for the fact that so much space in this article is used to debunk deniers.

I don't understand why so much space is given to the "reactions" section when there is an entirely separate article dealing with those subjects. I'm not against summarizing some of the arguments here, but I don't think that should be a priority until this article actually includes information as to why and what deniers actually believe. the one section in this article that should have that information, "examination of claims" does have a few bullet points, but is mostly made up of information REFUTING holocaust deniers. that information does not belong in this section, as there is already a section for reactions, as well as an entire article detailing criticism.

again, I don't have any problem with the information already in the article, I just have a problem with the fact that the primary information that SHOULD be included is nowhere to be found. I'd be willing to start importing some of the info from the Criticism article unless someone else would like to fix things up. --Ztmike (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What specifically would you like to see added? Why don't you try some edits? Mfhiller (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Censorship

First, my enghlish its very poor, so sorry if it has some errors. Hopeful its still comprehensible

Holocaust denial its commonly punished for being "hate speech", so I consider that its obvious censorship. --Realxsalo (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion to the talk page. I disagree that the censorship template should be included for the following reasons...

• The article is not primarily about censorship. An article for instance on the legality of holocaust denial would certainly warrant the template.
• Denial is not a crime in much of the world, and indeed, is state policy in many countries.
• Most articles only have one or two templates. There are dozens of others that could apply such as Genocide, History, War etc, but that would dilute the value of all templates through overuse.

Regards--Dmol (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dmol. This is an article about the act of denying the Holocaust, so it's not really relevant to censorship. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Even Child pornography doesn't have the censorship template. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Realxsalo has put the template on Laws against Holocaust denial. WilliamH (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think its apropiate there --Realxsalo (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

scope of the word "holocaust"

Should all groups the Nazis systematically murdered be included under the heading "the holocaust"? I see that someone has tried adding other groups to the first sentence of the article but the edit was undone. Any thoughts?Mfhiller (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

check out the wikipedia page the holocaust, it states that the definition can include other groups, therefore they should be included here.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Holocaust denial, which specifically denies the genocide of Jews. Holocaust deniers don't really care about denying the genocide of other groups. Please review the archives of this article, where this is discussed extensively, and the sources themselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This article starts with the following sentence. 'Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust'. The Holocaust is also used, within wikipedia, to refer to the genocide of other groups. Therefore it is entirely approriate that the first reference to the Holocaust refer to those other groups. You can change this be something like. The Holocaust is ..........etc, etc. Holocaust denial is usually the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II. Do you see the difference? However note that anyone who states that the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Berkinau were actually air raid shelters (as an example of a claim that is made) is denying that Roma and Sinti people were gassed there. That specific claim, as an example, does not refer to Jewish victims alone. The rest of the article should, as it does, refer to the specific claims made by Holocaust deniers, and most of these will refer to Jewish victims. However general denialist claims, such as this example, are just that, general examples that apply to all Nazi Holocaust victims. Neither do the laws against Holocaust denial not differentiate on the basis of the victims. They generally refer to acts of genocide. Again, this should be reflected in this article, by making it clear that Nazi racial and social policy had several targets. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources describing holocaust denial as having anything to do with the Roma and the Sinti, it's usable. But: many of us here have been students of holocaust denial for decades, and have never encountered any instances of Holocaust deniers having any interest in any Holocaust victims other than the Jews. Certainly, Nazi racial and social policy had several targets; holocaust denial, however, is specifically a form of Jew-hatred and is only concerned with Jews. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

you have not grasped the reason for the change that I put in. The change reflected the fact that the Nazi Holocaust was directed at several groups, as other wikipedia articles state. My change referrered to that fact, not to any claim about Holocaust denial. This section is headed scope of the word holocaust. It is not titled scope of the words Holocuast denial.Dalai lama ding dong (talk)

suggestion for intro. Scholars differ in either describing the Nazi Holocaust as referring to the deaths of between five and six million Jews, or maintaining that the definition should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin. Using this broader definition, the total number of Holocaust victims is between 11 million and 17 million people. Holocaust denial is usually used to refer to the act of denying the genocide of Jews only during World War II.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

People are capable of following the link to holocaust to get that information; that's the whole point of links. "Holocaust denial" is always used to refer to the act of denying the genocide of Jews only during World War II. What you're wanting to add is quite relevant to the Holocaust in general, but not at all relevant to the subject of Holocaust denial. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Dalai. While I sympathize with your position—I find it abhorrent that the genocide of the Roma is typically ignored in accounts of the Holocaust—Jpgordon is right: Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the Roma. It originates in antisemitism, and AFAIK has nothing to do with antiziganism. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so. DLDD, this article is about Holocaust denial, not the Holocaust. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here... WilliamH (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

at least someone has understood, though most have missed the point. The description of the holocaust as only applying to Jews is only one definition. Both must be included. There is no reason why the intro should not refer to both. Why not just say Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, which occurred during the Holocaust. That is a NPOV wording. Other articles on the holocaust refer to all victims. Articles on holocaust denial should use this NPOV wording as well, when referring to the holocaust. Otherwise there is incosistency. No one should have to follow a link to see that there is more than one definition, when it is so simple to include both.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that there's more than one def, it's that people focus on different aspects. The genocide of Jews is WWII was the Holocaust. The Holocaust was more than that (though that was most of it), but when speaking of the genocide of the Jews, we use the word "Holocaust". You're proposing a convoluted phrases that almost no-one will understand to mean what you're trying to convey. I think what we have now is fine. — kwami (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Kwam. Please read the intro to wikipedia page holocaust, which shows your view to be POV. 'Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.[8] Using this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims is between 11 million and 17 million people.'. There clearly is more than definition of what the holocaust is, according to wikipedia. All I am asking for is consistency, and NPOV.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK maybe we all (mostly) agree that holocaust denial originates in antisemitism and that since this article is about holocaust denial it should speak about the genocide of Jews. However, consistent use of the word "holocaust" is important and there is no reason why the first sentence(s) can't situate a definition of holocaust denial in terms of the genocide of Jews in relation to the broader definition of the holocaust. Also I don't think it is irrelevant to be clear up front to identify the Nazis. By the way some holocaust deniers speak you'd think that it was the Russians who were really responsible. Mfhiller (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

mfhiller, I agree with you, as the requested changeas are so small, and do not detract from the article, they add to it.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Any more comments before this is taken to a higher level for a ruling?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the same issue as the section below. Holocaust denial is about Jews, regardless of who the victims of the Holocaust were. They are separate topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

this is not the same issue at all. This article isPOV in using only one definition of the Holocaust. The change would be very small, and I do not understand why it can not be made. It adds to the article, and sets the background.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the identical issue - an attempt to focus on the broader (and minority) understanding of The Holocaust that includes non-Jewish victims, ignoring the fact that this article is about Holocaust denial, not the Holocaust. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The definition of the proper noun, the Holocaust, has been discussed over and over during the past years. A compromise was arrived at on the Holocaust page. Given the choice of lack of knowledge or trolling I will assume the best of intentions in this case. One of my more recent comments can be found here: Joel Mc comment 9 March 2012 The fact remains that to the best of my knowledge, there is not a major historian of modern Europe who does not define the Holocaust as the mass murder (or genocide) of only Jews by the Nazis. The most recent reference I have is one by Yale history professor Timothy Snyder (one of the foremost experts on Nazi mass murders) in the New Republic:

"The point is not that the Nazi extermination of European Jews can never and in no way be usefully compared to other crimes. The point is that the word “Holocaust” means precisely that, and not something else, and we have to preserve the terms to have a chance of understanding the history. Germany implemented other policies of mass murder besides the Holocaust; we should and do give them other names. Other states, too, implemented policies of mass murder; we can and should give them other names." Savagery Timothy Snyder March 29, 2012

For those worried about neglect, there is a separate WP article on the genocide of the Sinti/Roma at: Porajmos--Joel Mc (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Joel. Your reference to European historians does not fit well with statements such as this from the notes "Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American,..." Therefore your claim about European historians is not appropriate to Holocaust denial, which is the subject of this article. The compromise at the Holocaust page should apply to all wikipedia articles that reference the Holocaust. That will be the subject of my request. Also your linked comment says that 'It is true that a few historians still take issue with confining the definition to the mass killing of the Jews and it would be appropriate to mention this in a sentence with references'. Why is that not appropriate here? If that is not acceptable then why not just change the first sentence to be 'Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II'? That would be a better compromise. It is clearly POV to use one definition, where two exist. Of course you assume good faith, to state otherwise would get you in trouble, so there was no need to state that, was there?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is about Jews, and the definition of Holocaust does not fall under the breadth of this article. From a purely grammatical standpoint, the lead should be changed to "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II." As the lead currently reads, it is unclear as to what the Holocaust "usually refers" to. Rip-Saw (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

this is an excellent suggestion. Would you like to make the change? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is a good suggestion. Thanks. Mfhiller (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Its true that a majority of historian agree that it was indeed, when refering to the holocaust, gypsies, poles, russians and homosexuals given the numbers.

http://www.holocaust-education.dk/holocaust/sigojnerne.asp "Not only Jews were systematically persecuted and murdered during World War II. Gypsies too, from Germany and other parts of Europe, were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis. " as such, to fit the description, one would say that it is indeed the ignorant and the intentional downplay of others suffering, surely not a widelyreader to ignore such a thing that the holocaust was sent out to exterminate every gypsy, pole russian and their grandparents, as there is no evidence other then racist holocaust denial sites which is not reliable sources. Holocaust denial based on such a thing proves that is indeed in the defence of the nazis never did anything not only not to the jews, but to the gypsies, poles russians aswell and just to simple state "-:they were just overstating the numbers" or "they were lying grossly about it, it didnt take place"

Thus a good reliable introduction would be ""Holocaust denial is the act of denying that the holocaust ever happened, or not to the extent what the historical archives proves.It is mainly used against the jews and to another extent while denying it, to cover up the nazi warcrimes or to defend national socialism."

The latter here is obvious that they want to try to cover up nazi warcrimes. so if there are people that for example are anti-israel but pro-palestinian,then they obviously want to cover up the other groups they killed so people at the holocaust conference at iran could form alliances with the government. Do a google search on racist parties on the rise in the economic crisis to get my point here. ask yourself this:If the leaders are condemning the rise of anti-semetic VIOLENT hate crimes against jews in europe,(a good source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/anti-semitism-in-europe-h_n_534063.html) then why ARENT(the leaders) doing anything and just...saying speaking out against it, but refusing to either imprison or give extra protection. These racist parties are small but they can affect bigger ones, proving my point.

In short, they deny the other groups to not look bad and thus making such an idelogy more ok to anti-jewish groups in the middle east. are there some who think it happend and praise it? sure. there are also some who dont think it happend such at the holocaust conference in iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.101.126 (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)