Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about Holocaust denial. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

David Cole Jewish Holocaust Denier

Is there any reason why Jewish Holocaust Denier David Cole is not mentioned in the Holocaust Denial article on Wikipedia? Carmelmount (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

At one time (several years ago), the article contained a David Cole section that was deleted by consensus, largely due to WP:BLP concerns. Extensive discussions on this subject can be found in this talk page's archives. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What specific part of WP:BLP was at issue, when other living Holocaust deniers are discussed freely? Carmelmount (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The main concern was that Cole had apparently recanted his Holocaust denial. Having an article on a minor denier who had since recanted is a BLP can of worms. WilliamH (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What and how did he recant, do you have a source for this recantation? Carmelmount (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please consider the deletion discussions here and here. WilliamH (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to see the old pages that were deleted? Carmelmount (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How many Jews died during World War Two According to Holocaust Deniers

I didn't see in the article what numeric figures Holocaust Deniers generally believe is "the real" number of Jews that actually died during WW2. If Holocaust deniers are claiming that the '6 million Jews were killed figure' is a gross exaggeration, then what rough number of Jews do they generally claim died during World War Two? Do they have an estimated number of deaths, or a general range? Is their claim in the millions? Hundreds of thousands? And how are they calculating their estimates? Carmelmount (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the number differs very considerably between deniers. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Which deniers have given numerical ranges? Do they state what these numbers are, given that they sometimes hold Holocaust Denial Conferences? Carmelmount (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As one of the reliable sources states, it can be anywhere between 300,000 to 1.5 million, but usually an order of magnitude significantly lower than the accepted 5 - 6 million. WilliamH (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I remotely recall hearing about some red cross document claiming 278,000 Jews in total died during World War Two, is this document real or was it created by Holocaust Deniers? Carmelmount (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Information concerning the misrepresentation of Red Cross documents can be found here. WilliamH (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it benefit the article to put the their number of Jewish Deaths during WW2 that Holocaust Deniers claim, rather than being vague about their claims? Carmelmount (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It is much better we use the interpretations of reliable secondary sources, instead of pitching our own interpretations from the deniers' sources. That would be original research, and is not permitted. Remember that deniers are not even adequate sources on themselves. WilliamH (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth "Did Six Million Really Die?", still a highly popular holocaust denying pamphlet, claims that no more than 1.5 million Jews could have died during the Nazi regime. (And of course they were not systematically murdered." The pamphlet is easily available online as a pdfMfhiller (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Where can I find this book online from a reliable source (not a neo-nazi web site)? Why would a book say no more than 1.5 million Jews died during the Nazi regime, when the accepted figure is 6 million? Where did the other 4.5 million Jews go? How is it coming up with this 1.5 million figure that contradicts every popular culture book that claims 6 million Jewish men, women and children, died during the nazi regime? Carmelmount (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which websites host it, and am unable to comment on that. As for the sources which published it, it was established very publicly that the book "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities", so that completely eliminates it from the realm of reliable sources.

I'm going to suggest that this conversation is now considered closed, as talk pages are for discussing improving articles, not general discussion of the subject itself. Please review WP:NOTFORUM, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion was to improve the article, by putting how many Jews the Holocaust Deniers believe died during WW2. Right now the article appears to be intentionally nebulous about it, which is a shame. There must be some reliable sources out there that can be cited for listing the 300,000 to 1.5 million range that deniers believe. By the way, thank you for helping me find Did Six Million Really Die? from the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), I am shocked at how convincing it might be to people not familiar with WW2 and can now see why so many people have been tricked into thinking the number of Jews that died during WW2 is less than 1 million. Carmelmount (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Arab world

According to Aziz Abu Sarah, published in Haaretz, "growing up I did not know much about the Holocaust. As Palestinians, we simply did not learn about it. There was a stigma attached to it, an understanding that Israel would use the Holocaust to lobby for sympathy, then turn and use the sympathy as a terrible weapon against the Palestinian people."[118] The source for this text does not relate to Holocaust denial. It will therefore be deleted.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The only tenous link that this A private English-language school in western Beirut censored excerpts of the diary of Anne Frank out of a school textbook after it caused uproar when Hezbollah learned the chapter was included in the textbook.[120]

has to HD is that in the source a Hizbollah MP states that Anne Franks sufered a ' so-called tragedy'. If this is really to be taken as HD, and we ignore the rest of the source which states that the book was dropped because Hizbollah thought that 'the tragedy of the Lebanese people, the tragedy of the Palestinian people... the tragedy of the people of the south under the hands of Zionist occupation," should be taught to pupils, then it needs to be re written to attribute the HD to the individual MP. I suggest that it should be removed instead.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The link is the "censored excerpts of the diary of Anne Frank" compounded by MP's comments who described it as a 'so-called tragedy'. You have also omitted the Paris-based organisation that fights Holocaust denial which issued a statement condemning these events. Ankh.Morpork 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

the source does not say that the unnamed paris based organisation called this holocaust denial, so you still have a very tenous link. I think that this has to be removed, unless other RS can be found that states that it was HD.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the most long-standing pieces of Holocaust denial concerns Anne Frank's diary, e.g., alleging it was a hoax, or that it was written by her uncle. It has an entire article devoted to it on the Holocaust denial on Trial website. In this case, censoring it — or to put it bluntly, acting that certain parts of it don't exist and describing it as a "so-called tragedy" — is not a tenuous link whatsoever, and there are no grounds for it to be removed. WilliamH (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

all you have shown is that one individual thinks that Anne Frank suffered a 'so called tragedy.' the rest of what you write is irrelevant to this text. It is pure OR on your point. It should be removed. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's utter rubbish. Here is a source discussing the rejection/negation of Anne Frank's diary/experiences, and here is a source discussing someone negating Anne Frank's diary/experiences. Original research is not required to make such a connection, because such a connection is self-evident, and already vindicated by a reliable source. There are no grounds for it to be removed, and unless you find consensus to do otherwise, it is there that it may legitimately remain. WilliamH (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That Sort of reaction is not helpful. I'm afraid that without an RS that states that this action was taken for HD reasons all you have is OR. Your new sources do not help. Claims of something being self evident are not good enough for wikipedia. If this keeps being removed then i will take it for a ruling.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment, this section of the article isn't very good - it's largely a series of short paragraphs based on news reports, and is very choppy. Surely there are scholarly works on this topic which can be used to develop a more coherent and better-rounded discussion of this issue. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean? it needs a re write as it repeats itself. Denials of the Holocaust have been regularly promoted by various Arab leaders and others and in Arab media throughout the Middle East. The Palestinian and the Arab world attitudes towards the Holocaust range from total denial to a minimization of the extent of the genocide.[104] Holocaust denial is rife within Palestinian society and common in the Palestinian territories.[105]is rife in Palestinian society."[106] and "Holocaust denial is still common in the Palestinian territories".[107] Note that thia also needs to be credited to its sources, The Associated Press, as we cannot accept statements claiming to represent the whole of Arab and Palestinian opinions on the basis of AP reports.

Further Arab world mayerial that needs to be removed. Prominent Arab figures from the Middle East have rarely made publicized visits to Auschwitz. This is not directly related to HD, so it should be removed. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have had to remove further material because it is not justified by any source on the grounds of Holocaust denial. The reference in the source is to 'the deep reluctance among many Arabs to acknowledge the Holocaust for fear of diminishing their own narrative of suffering at Israel's hands.' THIS IS NOT HD. The material therefore has been removed, and any return needs to give RS that state that these actions were taken for HD. Whether we agree with the view or not, the reluctance to acknowledge the holocaust does not meet any definition of its denial.16:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This was stated in reference to the Arab MK's Auschwitz visit. Adjacent paragraph to the disbanding of the orchestra states, "Views toward the Holocaust among Palestinians - and around the Arab world - range from outright denial to diminishing the full extent of the genocide." Ankh.Morpork 16:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

these attitudes to the Holocaust are not under dispute. However you have not provided anything that states that the actions here were driven by denial, rather than any other attitude to the Holocaust. Until you can provide that, then the material is not stated to be HD.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I intend to take this disputed material to dispute resolution. Any one any comments before I do so?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is any help at this point but Deborah Lipstadt takes up the question of The Diary of Anne Franke in her book on holocaust denial. As far as Lipstadt is concerned, and what more can you ask for regarding reliable sources, the so-called question of The Diary of Anne Franke has become a major component of revisionist/ negationist arguments. Mfhiller (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Examples of websites denying the Holocaust

Do we really need the Examples of websites denying the Holocaust section? Why drive traffic to these people? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Holocaust Denial, so high quality example links to Holocaust Denial websites are relevant. Are you specifically referring to the link to The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, the www.Codoh.com web site appears to be one of the best examples of Holocaust Denial, trying to bring the debate to the public, aside from www.VHO.org website. Moreover, if you look at the web statistics of these sites, for instance https://www.vho.org/webstat/index.html it appears thousands of their books are being downloaded each month, so more should be done in the articles to show how the deniers are debunked. Carmelmount (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Former President Ronald Reagan Holocaust Denier

I just came across this video of Ronald Reagan on youtube.com called, 'Ronald Reagan On The Holocaust Lie (1967)', implying the 6,000,000 number was a big lie. Is this enough evidence to add him on the list of Holocaust Deniers? How much evidence is needed to add a denier to the list of Holocaust deniers? Carmelmount (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Short answer is more than a YouTube video. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Plaque

No mention of the plaque at Auschwitz being updated in 1985 to cite a lower number of deaths? Russian's released German records with much lower records of deaths and the total of 6 million is still claimed though the number of dead from Auschwitz is admittedly less than original claims. Where did the missing deaths occur?

Please see detailed answer to this question in FAQs, above. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 18:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How many Jews do Holocaust deniers claim died during WWII?Carmelmount (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the denier (or group of deniers); they like to manipulate reference works, almanac statistics, geopolitical data, bedrock historical facts and other sources of information and reportage in various ways to come up with different numbers. For a time, many of them cited various almanac figures that appeared to indicate that the worldwide Jewish population before and after World War II remained essentially stable, thereby "proving" that no Jews died during the war. However, those data were compiled before comprehensive accounts on the Holocaust were available. These days, most deniers acknowledge that Jews died, but they blame it on typhus and other "natural" phenomena. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the most accurate number to date as of 2012 enumerating the number of Jews that were killed during all of world war 2? Five to six million is a pretty wide range, do we have a more precise number? Carmelmount (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The current best-guess figure cited by researchers at the Simon Wiesenthal Center is 5,860,000. Six million continues to be the round figure accepted by most authorities.

Here is a breakdown of the Wiesenthal Center's estimate by country, along with the percentage of the pre-war Jewish population that each number constitutes:

Austria 50,000 -- 27.0%

Italy 7,680 -- 17.3%

Belgium 28,900 -- 44.0%

Latvia 71,500 -- 78.1%

Bohemia/Moravia 78,150 -- 66.1%

Lithuania 143,000 -- 85.1%

Luxembourg 1,950 -- 55.7%

Denmark 60 -- 0.7%

Netherlands 100,000 -- 71.4%

Estonia 2,000 -- 44.4%

Norway 762 -- 44.8%

Finland 7 -- 0.3%

Poland 3,000,000 -- 90.9%

France 77,320 -- 22.1%

Romania 287,000 -- 47.1%

Germany 141,500 -- 25.0%

Slovakia 71,000 -- 79.8%

Greece 67,000 -- 86.6%

Soviet Union 1,100,000 -- 36.4%

Hungary 569,000 -- 69.0%

Yugoslavia 63,300 -- 81.2%

Remember, also, that there were significant (perhaps as many as five million) non-Jewish victims as well. These included gypsies, Serbs, Polish intelligentsia and nobility, Russian POWs, resistance fighters from all the nations, homosexuals, physically & mentally handicapped unfortunates, Jehovah's Witnesses, criminals, "the anti-social" (beggars, vagrants, hawkers, etc), and -- although it is seldom discussed -- non-Jewish German citizens (political opponents, clergymen, etc.) who had the conscience and courage to publicly denounce the Reich. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 04:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

How were the specific numbers of Jewish deaths calculated? Carmelmount (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Poland, there were censuses both before and after the War, and religious affiliation was assigned at birth, and very hard to subsequently change [birth registration was in the hands of religious bodies]. In any event, the sheer number of eye-witnesses to what went on, Home Army {resistance] intelligence reports, and the testimonies of Jewish, Polish and other collaborators as well as Germans in post-war trials, along with thorough German documentary evidence, made the sad task easier. One only had to look around to see absence everywhere, seems to be the survivors common testimony. 86.12.129.2 (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Einsatzgruppen, mobile death squads, kept very detailed figures. At first the murder of Jews was disguised as that of partisans, but soon they ceased to maitain this fiction. And they always listed women and children accurately, as far as can be determined. 194.70.181.1 (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Edit war going on over at Wiktionary as to whether Holocaust denial is a denial of all Nazi crimes, or more specifically the genocide of the Jews. Other opinions may be useful. — kwami (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

People who deny the Holocaust do also tend to downplay other Nazi crimes, though the opposite doesn't always apply (for instance, some people argue that Germany was right to invade the USSR as it was a potential threat, but also fully accept the barbarism of the Nazis towards Jews and others). Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a quote in the citations to that effect (genocide of the Roma). This is more a question of the definition of the phrase "Holocaust denial". I added a definition reflecting the sources in this article. Another editor insists on adding a broader definition and making it primary, so that denial of the genocide of the Jews is a secondary meaning of the phrase "Holocaust denial". — kwami (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I know of no place where the term "holocaust denial" refers to the denial of all Nazi crimes. The classic books discussing the issue clealy use the term for the denial of the Nazi mass murder of Jews, i.e. Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and ..., by Richard J. Evans; Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory Deborah E. Lipstadt; and Christopher Browning's expert testimony at the Irving trial: Christopher Browning's testimony--Joel Mc (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of usual deniers question the definition of the Holocaust as meaning the mass murder of Jews.Joel Mc (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what's being presented as the primary definition of the term. But the discussion should occur on that project. — kwami (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"All nazi crimes" is a big field. Does that include waging an aggressive war? Use of slave labour? Extrajudicial punishment? Trade violations? Nobody actually denies 'all nazi crimes', so lets narrow that down a bit.

"Is holocaust denial a denial of all Nazi genocidal crimes" is perhaps a better question. And I would say the answer is yes. can anyone think of any writer or individual, anywhere, who accepts the death camps, accepts aushwitz/Birkinau, Chelmo, Treblinka and the others as human abbatoirs, but claims the jews were not targeted in these camps, and it was ONLY Slavs, homosexuals, gypsies, etc? No of course not. peiople who deny the holocaust usually start with denying the mechanics of the holocaust (such as gas chambers), no matter who was killed in them. Nobody accepts the existence of gas chambers but claims no jews died in them.

I suspect that holocaust deniers do deny all genocidal crimes of the nazis, but not 'on purpose'. They do so because there is no way to deny the genocide of the jews without also denying the active mass-murder of slavs, homosexuals, political opponents, the insane or disabled, gypsies, etc. These other groups just get caught up in denial as a byproduct of their anti-semitic revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:1A00:4:0:0:0:1972 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 September 2012

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth Journal

Perhaps it would be a good idea to mention this journal in the recent developments section: http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/index.php

The contributors consist of some of the bigwig deniers like Graf, Dalton, Mattogno and Germar Rudolf. It would appear this journal has taken the place of the old IHR journal as the choice publisher for denier literature. With Rudolf's recent release from prison I expect a surge in denial literature being produced likely centred around the contributing authors of this journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.163.93 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you suggest any secondary sources which discuss this publication? Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much need to publicize it unless, as Nick-D says, it actually gets some coverage from non-insane sources. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I had no luck looking for references in Google Scholar - all that turns up is journal articles discussing the nutters who called Al Gore a Nazi in response to his documentary of the same name. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of a Zionist conspiracy

This section is tag bombed. Not a good look for a Good article. Are they relavent? Does this section need to be removed or a reassessment carried out? AIRcorn (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I tagged the sources because they do not meet RS requirements. The relevant discussion is here. No one in the discussion defended the sources as meeting RS requirements. Some alternative RS were offered, so I think ideally the section should be rewritten based on those. Dlv999 (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is it true that neither Churchill, nor Eisenhower, nor de Gaulle mentioned the Holocaust in their memoirs or diaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.79.49 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Eisenhower wrote about the Holocaust in Crusade in Europe and his personal letters. From this very article:

"The same day I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never been able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain however, that I have never at any time experienced an equal sense of shock."

"I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that "the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda". Some members of the visiting party were unable to go through with the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton's headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and the British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt."-(Eisenhower, Dwight D., Crusade in Europe, pages 409–10, Doubleday, New York, 1948)

"Eisenhower, upon finding the victims of the death camps, ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead. He wrote the following to General Marshall after visiting a German internment camp near Gotha, Germany:"

"The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they [there] were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to "propaganda."-(Eisenhower, Dwight D., Dear General: Eisenhower's Wartime Letters to Marshall, page 223, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999)

In short, no Holocaust denier actually read these books. As for Churchill and de Gaulle, I wouldn't know, but I'm sure they did. Maybe someone else can check.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Holocaust doesn't mean "starvation and mistreatment", it means "extermination, largely by gas chamber, of six million Jews." So you are incorrect. From Eisenhower's statements, you can't draw conclusions about how many died, or that they died through any other means than starvation. I also wonder, how would he have known that that starvation was deliberate, rather than the consequence of the catastrophic conditions of the last year of the war? The believers are quite simply jumping to conclusions, as usual.

The original observation comes from Richard Lynn, and goes like this: "Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle's three-volume Memoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi 'gas chambers,' a 'genocide' of the Jews, or of 'six million' Jewish victims of the war."

The point is, no mention of gas chambers, no mention of genocide of the Jews, and no mention of six million victims. Whatever horror story Eisenhower is recounting doesn't include those central tenets of Holocaustianity. So called deniers don't even question that the camps had poor conditions at the end of the war, or that hundreds of thousands of Jews died due to starvation and disease. Needless to say, your facile treatment of the topic is typical of believers and this whole article is similar heavily biased pap, being rather an explanation by believers regarding why denial is "wrong" than an explanation by deniers regarding what their denial consists of and what it is based on. Firrtree (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Topic is Well Below Wikipedia Standards

Briefly, I think this entire article is so non-neutral and not very fact-based that it's existence violates Wikipedia policy. The very term "Holocaust Denial" is a biased one, as it was chosen by one "side" of the issue. It is also too vague of a term, since the Holocaust itself has been subject to re-definition over the years. It is essentially meaningless to say someone is "denying" the Holocaust, and so the term is used really just as an offensive term. For example, for many years it was 6 million Jews killed in camps, but in recent years that number has been revised downward. Is a historian that says "only" 5.5 million died guilty of "Holocaust Denial", or is this a revision of history based on facts? There is no known source of anyone saying that no Jewish people died at the hands of the Nazis, and so the debate is really just whether 6 million died, or if the number is actually lower. The term "holocaust denial" is also inflammatory, and unfairly lumps together legitimate, fact-based re-evaluations of a historical event with uninformed and blanket denials that Jewish people were even targeted. It thus opens the doors to calling ANYONE who even questions any element of the Holocaust as being "anti-Semitic". This itself is racist, as it elevates one historical event above any criticism, based only on the race/religion of a specific group of people. Besides violating Wikipedia principles, it is also in violation of freedom in the pursuit of knowledge, and sets a dangerous precedent. It also unfairly promotes one point of view above another (that there are factual inaccuracies with the prevailing Holocaust explanation that deserve re-examination) but shutting the door on further debate. I am not aware of a single other historical event that has been placed "off limits" of debate, and Wikipedia is doing so with this page, with the blanket and unfounded labeling of any counter views as "anti-Semitic". There is even a an entirely different page that attacks all Holocaust revisionist claims, yet there is no page that explains the fact-based ideas behind why the details of the Holocaust may need to be revised. These existence of these two pages, in their current forms, is a true embarassment to Wikipedia. I recommend a complete and neutral rewrite that simply outlines the claims of Holocaust revisionists, and counter-claims by those opposed to any revisions. Single page, perhaps even part of the same page defining "Holocaust".

I welcome all comments, but please don't accuse me of being anti-Semitic simply for opposing this page. I am actually a practicing Jew, of orthodox parents, and am simply interested in historical accuracy, and maintaining an open and non-race/religion biases pursuit of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaherbivore (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As is explained in the first section of the article historical scholarship into the Holocaust (of which there is much) is not considered 'Holocaust denial', and is rightly not covered by this article. The second section of the article defines what 'Holocaust denial' is. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

An idea

All these Nazi fools say "there was no holocaust!" But at the same time they say they hate Jews. But an event that killed millions of them never happened according to them. Shouldn't they be proud? Holocaust denial goes against everything they stand for. We should add that in somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.57.78 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The first line

"Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II."

It's not an act, it's a belief. I hesitated in editing it, though, I am a laymen and I don't really edit articles at all. What's your guys' take on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.53.35 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

'Act' seems like the correct term to me. What is defined as "Holocaust denial" is not just the belief in denying the Holocaust (either fully or partially), but an actual act beyond just the belief (from statements to active advocacy to cover ups). Singularity42 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

not just jews

I don't understand the bias toward babying jews, christians died just as well but this article is all about jews. and denying the holocaust is not antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.102.109 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust is generally referring to the Jewish victims by historians. Christians did die in concentration camps, but this is then not considered part of the holocaust. check the talk page of the holocaust article for more detail. Additionaly, most (if not all) attempts to deny the holocaust stems from very anti-Semitic sources, with admitted anti-Semitic goals. Ganglerian (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Arguments of deniers

Hi, this article does not cover the arguments of deniers in detail, arguments such as lack of cyanide blue staining on alleged gas chambers, or inconsistencies in testimonies. UltimateBoss (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

~~It reads like a list of biographies of deniers, but largely omits what they said. UltimateBoss (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)~~

There's an article that does a point by point refutation of their bullshit, Criticism of Holocaust denial. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

~~::The criticism article should contain criticism, this article should detail their arguments. Editors are expected to edit with a NPOV. UltimateBoss (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)~~

No. The resulting articles are expected to be NPOV; editors can have whatever POV they please, they just don't get to inject it into the articles. We are, however, biased toward truth and against fraud. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

::::It doesn't matter whether it's true. WP just reports the issues. Imagine an article on "climate change skepticism" that just reported events in the lives of scientists who do it, without discussing their arguments. This is wrong. UltimateBoss (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The article does in fact cover the views of these people, as well as the responses they've received so I'm not sure what your concern is. The article isn't going to present the views of deniers as being factual or without noting the responses as doing so would violate the policy WP:NPOV and guideline WP:FRINGE. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

~~::::::The responses are noted in Criticism of Holocaust denial. UltimateBoss (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)~~

Struck posts by sock puppet of Mikemikev. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of section

I have recently removed the section on Germar Rudolf as clearly attaching undue weight to this individual (not to mention that this section was added by banned user User:Mikemikev). He is already listed in the relevant section of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Good on you in removing it, but do know for future reference that just because material may be placed by a now-banned user, doesn't automatically invalidate it. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The content they place may be valid, but per WP:EVASION, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Transcendence (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Introductory section

I think the introductory section does not state clearly enough that there is no evidence whatsoever for Holocaust denier, and sticks too much to the fact that this appears to be the case to scholars, etc. I understand why it's written this way, but if we compare it to articles on pseudo-science, which say things like this much more explicitly, I think it makes it less clear that denying the holocause has no scientific, non-ideological grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.148.32 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

please can we agree to remove the alleged 'bone crusher'

the cited photo from US Holocaust Memorial Museum is clearly a rotary grading mill that is used to rough mill grain or separate gravel into grades. US Holocaust Memorial Museum is clearly a biased organisation and this photo is not in keeping with wikipedias unbiased nature and ethos. it also has nothing to do with the subject matter of the article which i may remind is holocaust 'denial'. i am sure someone can browse the wikis own archives to find the photos of a real bone crushing machine and a rotary screen grader and compare the two. it is important to keep this sensitive article free of confusing material such as the above photo. maybe replace with photos of proponents or objectors on this contentious issue. i already tried to remove the photo but it was redacted. please review this and lets clean up the article and keep it on topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.120.201.61 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You lost me at "US Holocaust Memorial Museum is clearly a biased organisation". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, me too. What is your evidence (other than your personal opinion) that the description is wrong? Opinions don't matter on Wikipedia; what matters here are sources; so if you honestly feel that this gadget is a grading mill and not a bone crusher, you'll need to produce a reliable source confirming it. Is it possible that it began its "life" as a grading mill, and was modified for bone crushing by the Nazis? After all, nobody would have designed and built a commercial machine for that purpose; the Reich would have had to find something originally used for something else, and then adapt it for crushing bones. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

ok if you bother to search wikipedia itself as i suggested, you will find articles on bone crushers with photos therein. a bone crusher is a common machine used for making fertiliser, glue and other bone based products. it works by pulverisation with reciprocating hammers due to the rather fibrous nature of the bone. bone is not ground or crushed by rotary machines as they would soon clog and need stripping. however that is not my major point, despite working with actual bone crushers and rotary screen graders my whole life. my primary point is that bone crushing machines have nothing to do with the topic 'holocaust denial'. they may have relevence to a topic 'holocaust cover-up techniques' where maybe an actual bone crusher was used to feed the photographed rotary screen grader to eliminate identifiable particulate matter. I do remember while on a tour of the auswitz museum in poland that bones of the dead were crushed by the inmates to make fertiliser, but this disturbing job was done by hand with hammers on a concrete slab. no doubt the amount they could process was insignificant and used only to demoralise inmates further. as for my comment that the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is a biased organisation...well they have a vested interest in the holocaust being true, and as shocking as possible. thats the trade they do for funds. what disturbs me most as the child of a holocaust survivor, is that misleading non-facts are presented to the public, thus giving credibility to the holocaust deniers and anti semites themselves. back to the point, however, bone crushers have no place in this topic, real or imagined. no more than an article of kylie minogue should have a photo of cornflakes because she once did eat a bowl of cornflakes for breakfast. it is not notable! henry siberstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.120.201.61 (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad Bias

The first sentence of the Ahmadinejad section seem a little bias, making Ahmadinejad sound irrational and contradictory. Both Notes 117 and 118 links are broken. 117 states what he said in the video in 118. I believe his statement was taken out of context to make him sound less credible. Isn't this a primary source also which should be avoided? Sirwigwam (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

bone crushing machine photo (again)

According to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, this photo was taken in "Janowska, [Lvov] Poland" (that is, the Janowska or Yanov concentration camp) and originated with a "captured SS officer" who took the photo in 1943 and was put on trial in Moscow. This photo has the same date, but this one of the same machine (looking the exact same) is dated August 1944 (after the Red Army had recaptured the area). Given that it is agreed the Soviets took one of the photos, the Soviets could have quite plausibly have taken all three in 1944, precluding the need to posit an SS officer - whose job it was to destroy evidence - being caught with this photographic evidence.
The bone crushing allegation was introduced at the Nuremberg Trials by a Soviet prosecutor, Colonel Smirnov, on February 19, 1946 where he he started off with "I refer to the report of the Extraordinary State Commission relative to Yanov Camp in the city of Lvov" and claimed that "the Hitlerite murderers adopted in the territory of the Lvov region the same methods for concealing their crimes which they employed earlier in connection with the murder of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest. ... the Germans set up in Lvov, in the Yanov Camp, a special school... The chief of the Sonderkommando Number 1005, Scherlack, taught the commandants on the spot how to organize the exhumation of the corpses from the graves, how to pile them on stacks, burn them, how to scatter the ashes, to crush the bones, to fill up the ditches, and how to plant trees and brush wood on the graves as camouflage. I now refer to a document... which is the report of the examination in the town of Lvov of the special machine for the crushing of bones." Smirnov continues, "I remind the Tribunal that the bones which had not been calcinated were sold by the German fascists to the firm Strem [for the manufacture of fertilizer].... SS technical minds... began devising such methods of complete annihilation of human bodies, which would not only conceal the traces of their crimes, but also serve in the manufacturing of certain products [including] the production of soap from human bodies and the tanning of human skin for industrial purposes..."
Note that the bone crushing allegations come as a three-fer: fertilizer out of the crushed human bone that hadn't first burnt to ash, soap out of human fat, and additional products out of human skin. Indeed, in the war museum in Kiev a bone crushing machine is presented alongside a bar of soap and a pair of gloves manufactured from human bodies.
The question here is if the soap and the gloves are doubtful, why is the bone crushing allegation not doubted? Recall that this is all from the same Extraordinary State Commission ("Soviet war crimes investigation team" as the USHMM puts it) that insisted the Germans were responsible for the massacre of Polish officers at Katyn.
Now there's another oddity here with this particular camp where this one and only bone crushing machine was found. According to this book in the USHMM catalog, Jews at this camp were occasionally allowed to leave the camp and go on day trips to town unaccompanied. In town they scrounged up Torah parts and smuggled them back into the camp under their clothes. These parts survived the war and were assembled into the Yanov torah currently in California. Now if it's true that "concentration camps were graded... [such that] those beyond the pale were sent to grade III camps, the "bone mills" which one rarely left alive" then why did these Jews return to an extermination camp when they could have escaped to somewhere else? After all, if the person in the center of this photo could find "shelter with a gentile family in Lvov until the Soviets liberated the city," as claimed by the USHMM, why not these day trippers? Supposedly, while some were being allowed day trips to Lvov, the camp commandant had (according to Smirnov) "children between the ages of 2 and 4 years tossed in the air and then took pot shots at them, while his daughter applauded and shrieked, 'Papa, do it again; do it again, Papa!" While some Jews were in town, Leon Wieliczker Wells (whose Eichmann trial testimony the USHMM calls our attention to with regard to this photo), from the same camp, says he was "grinding the bones [and then] throw[ing] the ashes up in the air so that they would disappear" (incidentally contradicting Smirnov's fertilizer claim) and his brigade did this for 310,000 bodies at two locations a few miles apart (in less than 6 months). You've got some inmates travelling to town on their own accord, and then you've got fellow inmate Wieliczker going to his work in a spectacle where "the Brandmeister would march in front, he was clothed like a devil; he had a special uniform with the hook in his hand and we had to march after him and sing. Afterwards we were also joined by an orchestra." Just what is going on at this camp? How was our bone grinding machine here able to keep up with Wieliczker's parade when the three photos of it here suggest its carriage or trailer would fall apart if moved? Wouldn't an accompanying band create the risk of curious Polish locals following them to the fires and witnessing the cover-up operation?
I accordingly suggest that this "bone crushing machine" photo be excluded on the grounds that it could very well be just be a piece of industrial equipment that the Soviets took a photo of and then passed off as something nefarious. It could also be excluded simply because the USHMM doesn't have the copyright rights to give away if it's originally the work of a German officer.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

I edited the section which begins with "Holocaust deniers differ from established fact.." because that is not neutral language. That asserts a dogma more than it assumes a history, which the study of the Holocaust certainly is. Holocaust revisionism (which is a more accurate and less perjorative term than denialism) has objections which have never been sufficiently attended to by mainstream proponents of the Holocaust story. The rest of my edits were clarifiers and one attempt to find more neutral language for otherwise perjorative terms. I'm not going to comb through the rest of the nonsense that has been written here, in the sense that there is loaded language and disengenuous phrasing in spades here, but I would prefer that the edits that I did make stand. Holocaust story proponents should not also "own" the "denial" page. That reeks of an attempt at whitewashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostc (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you point to sources that back up your claims, please? We're citing Mathis, Shermer & Grobman, Vashem, the anti-defamation league and jpr, according to the inline refs for that sentence. We have a lot more throughout the article. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth my time actually. You don't sound like someone who understands what the difference between neutral and perjorative language is. I would just like to make my objection to the content and the tone of this article known. It is poorly researched, written, and provides little to no explanatory power for why Holocaust revisionism exists. Anything I write will be reverted by fools, it's not worth it.

Since discussion of Holocaust Revisionism is banned on this page, it is impossible to establish validity for any sources I put forth. It is impossible to challenge the opinions of fools here. That's my more important objection. Good luck with whatever you think you're accomplishing here. Gnostc

Yes, it's sadly impossible to establish validity for the sources you put forth if you don't put forth any sources. Bishonen | talk 07:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

What are you asking me to source? That "established fact" is not an accurate statement, and that my revision was more neutral, since it attempted to paint revisionism as valid (on its own wiki page no less), while simultaneously not denigrating the other side? I didn't make some specific claim and then failed to source it. My complaint is that the entire tone of the article is biased and disingenuous while pretending to be neutral. It's like you don't even know what you're saying when you say it. Here's some links though. I expect them to be removed. Don't complain about the irrelevance of the information since you don't even know what you want sourced in the first place. My complaint was a matter of language and bias, not information.

www.nazigassings.com - a significant source of revisionist information, but not the only one.

http://www.nazigassings.com/zyklondelousing.html - concerning the gas chambers

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Ausrottung/argument.html - concerning the Nazi "extermination" plans

http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/145-references-to-6000000-jews-prior-to.html?zx=8321917dd9b2334d

Those links cover all of the claims purported in the criticism section to be unfounded. I just want to change the language of the article, not necessarily to add these sites as sources at this point in time. Gnostc (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources for our purposes. You should read WP:WEIGHT. We are obligated to present ideas with respect to their prominence in reliable sources. The relevant academic community is what matters, and nazigassings.com and blogspot cannot demonstrate anything about the mainstream academic view, so they cannot influence the weight given to Holocaust denial on wikipedia. — Jess· Δ ♥ 08:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok then this entire article is unreliable, and will be so until mainstream academia stops giving credence to sensational propaganda. Mainstream academia cannot be trusted with an issue as political as the Holocaust for now. I should be surprised that the editors here haven't realized this, but I'm not. And editors here don't accept the IHR or David Irving or any other source that has an ounce of credibility and originality if they so much as disagree with them on the issue. You aren't impressing me, because I know how much the revisionists have behind them, and how unable the other side is to address their material arguments (about historical events, no one can lay claim to an event). And no one here seems to understand how important propaganda (particularly concerning wartime atrocities) has to do with what we know and don't know about the Holocaust. I could go on, but I know I am falling on deaf ears. I just wanted to say this to anyone actually concerned with finding out what they can of what happened, and they find this article and wonder why it is so terrible. The reason is because many are fooled by propaganda and by the power behind media to tell them what to think and what to feel. Think (and feel) for yourself, if you can. Gnostc (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. If you want to change our NPOV policy, go to WT:NPOV. — Jess· Δ ♥ 14:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, everyone but the racists and other Holocaust deniers are wrong. You might be happier at Metapedia. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that Gnostc might be right, this article seems biased. More than a "Holocauts denial" article it looks like an "Holocaust denial denial", and most of the article seems to consist in claims against the Holocaust denial, which should be listed in the "Criticism" section. As an example, we've got the "Examination of claims": A list of the principals claims, that's it. Oh, and then a list of why it is considered wrong, with an explanation of every reason. Shouldn't the claims of Holocaust deniers be explained as well? I'd bet something that they have a theory answering the fifth criticism (if six million Jews were not killed, what happened to them?) which would be interesting to know: Where's the counterargument backed on, sources, which consensus has been reached...

We shouldn't be supporting all that criticism with a biased language (nor should we support the denial). Neutrality goes first; and until proven otherwise, when it comes to write any article in wikipedia, both opinions should be deemed as "wrong". Six billion died? It's a lie. No one died? It's a lie, too. Everybody died? The nazis were jews genociding aryans? Aliens built the pyramids? All lies. The only thing that matters it what are these lies based on.188.76.50.234 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, sources? All the sources we have point one direction. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"All the sources we have point one direction." Including the original sources from the Wehrmacht. The consensous of academia is that The Holocaust happened and that denialism is racist axe-grinding. Until such time as there are reliable sources change this article should treat the subject as racist carping from pseudo-historical hacks, because that IS the neutral point of view.--Adam in MO Talk 14:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Gnostc, There is no controversy here. Holocaust deniers/revisionists are a fringe group, and their opinions mean next to nothing considering the incredible amount of evidence there is about the Holocaust. There are no reputable sceptics of the Holocaust, and one does not balance or neutralize historical fact with lies. Maybe the Nizkor Project's Responses to the IHR page would answer some of your questions. -Shalom11111 (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Standard term

Nick-D: Undid revision 596264469 by JankoNilovic (talk) Holocaust denial is the standard term used by academics, historians, judges, journalists etc. Presenting it as abusive is POV: pls discuss.

Well, sure it is a standard term. However, that does not hinder it still being an insult. Words like criminal or pedophile are also standard terms used by academics, historians, judges, journalists etc. and nevertheless derogatory. Someone labeled with one of those words is branded as a social outcast. JankoNilovic (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denier is the standard term which is applied by dispassionate experts and writers, and presenting it as an insult rather than as its current usage as you propose is silly. We don't need to give much weight to the views of a handful of people who regard the term as being an attack on themselves given the frequency and nature of this usage, and their preferred terminology is noted in Holocaust denial#Terminology and etymology anyway. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispassionate experts and writers also use the term "criminal" or "pedophile" etc. All these terms still remain to be insults. To pretend otherwise is rather silly. Additionally, there is no clear distinction between "deniers" and "non-deniers". Anyone writing about the subject could be called "Holocaust denier" by anyone else writing about that subject. There is no clear black-white but a rather big grey area. For instance, previously it was universally accepted that e.g. Bergen-Belsen or Buchenwald had a homicidal gas chamber while nowadays it is universally accepted that they did not have that. Same with the issue of "soap from Jewish fat" - today universally regarded as false. In earlier decades someone disputing those statements would have been labeled Holocaust denier while today this is regarded as scholarly opinion. JankoNilovic (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This depends on the context where the term is used. If I call you "pedophile" and I have nothing to back it up this will clearly be an insult. On the contrary, if I say Marc Dutroux is a pedophile it is merely a fact. Maybe Marc Dutroux might feel insulted if I call him pedophile but this will not change in itself the fact that he is actually a pedophile. By the way the issue about the "soap from Jewish fat" has always be considered with much reluctance by the holocaust scholars although quite widely spread by the media. --Lebob (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I would rather say those terms are always an insult regardless if applied correctly or not. Consider for instance that Norman Finkelstein has been called a holocaust denier, sometimes with the attribute "soft" before Holocaust denier. JankoNilovic (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Report lodged at WP:AN3 Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

JankoNilovic has been blocked. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

section "Recent developments and trends" aren't recent

The material in this section discuss the 1990s and the most recent even dates to 13 years ago. I don't consider them recent and certainly there is nothing there about current trends. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting the wording for "David Irving and the Lipstadt libel case"

I just want to make sure I understand the source-references and the wording in this segment.

"In February 2006 Irving was arrested in Austria, where Holocaust denial is illegal, for a speech he had made in 1989 in which he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz."
I can actually find information with the provided sources putting it very bluntly as to what happened in what year:
"2005: Arrested in November in the Austria province of Styria under laws against denying the Holocaust. Police acted on a warrant for his arrest issued in 1989 in connection with two speeches he gave in Austria. Bail is refused."
I'll also refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_trial
With this said I believe this part of the article should have 2005 as the year referencing his arrest. --Popodong (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Feb 206 is when he was convicted, not when he was arrested. Zero^talk 10:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Justification for Holocaust Denial in the Arab World?

The section on "Holocaust Denial in the Arab World" features a politicized justification of Holocaust denial in the introduction, which I find highly inappropriate for this particular article.

"According to civil liberties and human rights lawyer Michael Ratner, the use of the Holocaust as a narrative to justify victimizing the Palestinians is likely the main culprit of the presence of Holocaust denial among Palestinians: On our trip to Hebron our Palestinian guide had asked me whether I really thought six million Jews had been killed in the Holocaust. He was skeptical. I was angered by his doubts. I answered him directly and unequivocally: six million Jews had been murdered. The visit to Yad Vashem gave me some perspective on his doubts. He implicitly understood that it was the narrative of the Holocaust that was used to justify his victimization and the refusal of much of the world to do anything about it. His way of dealing with it was to reject the claimed justification for his oppression. School of Oriental and African Studies professor Gilbert Achcar has argued that "Holocaust denial in Arab countries ... finds its roots in Israel's exploitation of the Holocaust for political purposes. It also serves as a simplistic explanation for Western support of the Zionist state and as an outlet for frustrations created by Israel's oppressive supremacy.[107] On a similar vein, prominent French historian and opponent of Holocaust Denial Pierre Vidal-Naquet opined, "Those who, in Israel or elsewhere, make political use of the Shoah, are running the risk of making this into not a historical truth, but a 'political truth', as the deniers' sect puts it, in other words something which can be crushed by more incisive reasoning."

First off, that the "Holocaust Denial in the Arab World section would need a disclaimer larger than its introduction is concerning. Second, this article concerns Holocaust Denial, NOT the political nuances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first source addresses the "use of the Holocaust as a narrative to justify victimizing the Palestinians", while not substantiating that the Holocaust is ever used to justify anything or that the Palestinians are being purposefully "victimized" by Israel. It appears to conflate the genocide of millions to a refugee crisis—with the implication that "Jews are doing to Palestinians what Nazis did to Jews". In addition, it seems to pin the long history of Arab antisemitism on the actions of the State of Israel. The next source is far more concerning.

"Holocaust denial in Arab countries ... finds its roots in Israel's exploitation of the Holocaust for political purposes. It also serves as a simplistic explanation for Western support of the Zionist state and as an outlet for frustrations created by Israel's oppressive supremacy."

The notion that Israel exploits the Holocaust for political purposes is unsubstantiated and frankly offensive. By quoting such an obviously biased source which dubs Israel "the Zionist state" (similar to Iran's "The Zionist Entity") and claims "oppressive supremacy" this article justifies antisemitism by alleged Israeli actions, which is frankly antisemitic.

The use of these quotes in the context of this article is questionable, taking an article about the Holocaust and tangenting into politics about the State of Israel.

I propose that the "justification" be deleted, considering that when explaining Neo-Nazi Holocaust denial, no one adds that "They deny the Holocaust because the Jews sold out Germany in World War I." That's just absurd.

Lastly, many of the citations showing that Abbas denied the Holocaust are reliable, it's a common fact that can be searched for easily.

I propose that the questions of reliability for the sources be reviewed

Thoughts? --monochrome_monitor 00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing on the basis of what offends you. That's not good enough; you have to argue on the basis of Wikipedia rules. Gilbert Achar is one of the leading scholars of this subject. Michael Ratner seems to be prominent enough for his opinion to be notable. Bring reliable sources with different opinions if you think they need balancing. Zero^talk 00:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of Michael Ratner as a RS seems problematic. He is certainly a most brilliant lawyer with a strong POV in certain areas, and is arguably very publicity-conscious. He is not an academic in the sense that he is a professional historian who has published works in the field and is recognised as a RS by his peers. I would suggest WP:Undue in terms of Mr Ratner. I will not pretend to be a wiki expert yet, but I suspect there is a category that Mr Ratner falls into. We may be seeing a fault-line or disconnect here between Notability and a reliable scholarly source. He is merely a notable legal mind who has spearheaded several legal challenges and defences of high political controversy, and harbours strong opinions, who can get them "out there" with little trouble. His target audience is a loose coalation of like-minded intellectuals rather than the expert and most widely-cited specialists in the professional historical world. I would argue this weakens his weight as a source. Undue may be a bad choice on my part, but I cannot locate the specific WP guideline that most covers this at the mo, as its dinner, 2 beers and crash for me. Will check in morning. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To an extent, I admit, I am offended. My great grandmother immigrated from Lithuania after her sister was shot by the killing squads. But I also think it is, scholarly, inappropriate. For excample, Gilbert Achar is very biased, a self described "Marxist/socialist", and if you read the article he wrote he absurdly claims that Holocaust denial in the Arab world is relatively uncommon. A very good critique of this article was done by Cifwatch. If not for being offensive, this quote should be eliminated due to bias.

In addition, I think the "condemnation of holocaust denial in the Arab World" section should be cut. It's not there for any other ethnic group and frankly doesn't belong. The article is about Holocaust denial, not "criticism of Holocaust denial" (a separate article). It seems someone included the anti-Zionist quotes and Arab holocaust condemning references trying to skew the point of the article.

The very last source is also biased, accusing Israel of "denying" its "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians. --monochrome_monitor 02:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous article at Cifwatch is full of ignorant nonsense. The worst is "He organised the killing of 12,600 Bosnian Jews", which never happened. As for Achar, you should get his book and read it. Every historian and every Wikipedia editor is biased, that by itself means nothing. You have still not made a case based on Wikipedia rules. Zero^talk 02:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

To Irondome: I think you have a point about Michael Ratner and I will replace him by Sammy Smooha who conducted the survey mentioned at the start of the section. Meanwhile, is there a better case for quoting Paul Rauber earlier in the article? I don't think so. Zero^talk 13:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Rauber seems problematic too, Zero0000. What do you think? Irondome (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

To User:Monochrome Monitor.There is probably a significant percentage of WP eds who have a direct connection through family history to the horrors of the Shoah. This editor is one. I also agree that there are some issues with this article that I am becoming aware of. But remember what we are here for. To improve WP. We do that by finding other RS (there is a lot to support the view that HD in the Arab world is being somewhat understated in this piece) and engaging. Do not sucumb to a negative despair which eventually manifests itself in a mere criticism of sources based on POV/bias. That is human nature. Find new sources, get out there and lets improve the article together. I mean all of us of good faith and human kindness. With great respect Irondome (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You're fantastic. Holocaust denial is definitely understated per the Arab world. In fact, it's much more common in the Middle East than in Europe today. There are certainly polls that could be used to indicate that. But anyway, I think the article should be about Holocaust denial and not the reasons for it. I just don't think the problem is about Palestine, considering Jews were hated by the Arabs way before the rebirth of Israel. Here are a few sources [1] [2] --monochrome_monitor 00:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, please try to avoid inflammatory terms such as "hated". Other eds will be far more willing to read your posts if they are couched in a moderate tone. Let your sources speak for you. Irondome (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to be too opinionated on the talk pages. But seriously, according to a recent poll antisemtism is 73% in the Middle East. --monochrome_monitor 20:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

Holocaust denial is a form of pseudohistory, isn't it? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, quite on the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.17.161 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. However, the article does a very good job in getting the facts stated. If there is a Reliable Source that states this explicitly, improve the article by citing it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A template and a category

Re this repeated removal, both the category and the template seem adequately relevant to the topic to include. Assuming that Solntsa90 isn't joking with their "I would argue that Iranians are not nazis" edit summary. My counter is that this is not what the article/category/template say. VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Is Holocaust Denial/Revisionism an inherently neo-nazi concept? That is to say, is it primarily perpetuated and espoused by neo-nazis, and if so, can you back this up with sources? Ditto with Holocaust Denial/Revisionism being a primarily anti-semitic concept. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I ask this, because "adequately relevant" is subjective terminology. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The "antisemitism" category was found to be appropriate after discussion, and "Frequently Asked Question" #1 above specifically addresses the point , as well as extensive material in the article's footnotes (especially footnote 10). There has been no new discussion warranting the removal of the category and it should be maintained. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a prevalent trait in Neo-Nazi groups, information which is already discussed and sourced in the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Being male and of European ethnicity is also a prevalent trait in Neo-Nazi groups. Should we list these as 'category:neo-nazi'? Correlation does not imply causation. (The anti-semitism tag is accounted for as per arbitration, but since this tag has not been, this one is subject to scrutiny and needs sources implying that holocaust denial is an 'anti-semitic' belief--once again I ask you, would you call the Iranian who proscribe to Holocaust denial 'neo-nazis' or that they believe in a 'neo-nazi' concept? also, this may be in violation of WP:WORLDVIEW. Unless something strong from an academically neutral source can say that this is a 'neo-nazi' ideology, I will remove it once more. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That holocaust denial is prevalent among neo-nazi groups, and by extention anti-semitism, is richly sourced. I think we are just playing with semantics here. Irondome (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. Are you? Many sources are subjective and trying to confer an opinion, and I am just pointing errors with the categorisation:

1.) Which neo-nazi philosphers/thinkers/pundits/posters invented Holocaust Denial/Revisionism? Holocaust Denial is listed as a 'Neo-Nazi Concept', but it doesn't seem to be a concept that originates from their camp; rather, most of the people seem to range from Eastern Europe to Japan and are well into their 80s, old enough to have had been nazis originally, disqualifying the title;

2.) What does that make of the rest of the world that isn't Neo-Nazi that believes this in largely polled numbers (Iran, Palestine, South Korea, etc.) are they following what is a Neo-nazi belief? Do they believe in white pride, aryan race, etc.?

3.) Since when did Correlation imply causation? A googling of "neo-nazi holocaust denial" will reveal many, many websites that will talk of neo-nazis who hold the belief in holocaust denial...but this is not the same as holocaust denial itself being neo-nazi and its a very important distinction to make. Also of interest is how no sources seem to attribute holocaust denial to neo-nazis (perhaps nazis themselves have invented this idea, but 'neo-nazis' from what I understand is a relatively new working class-movement that isn't known for it's intellectual prowess), and the snark answers make me think that there really are none out there in confirmation of your view that this page adequately ascertains the criteria for the tag. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Shall we label ketchup as a vegetable next because they're both made of tomatoes? Solntsa90 (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Straw man, no need to address. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take your refusal to address the points above as admission that you have no evidence or sources to support the extraordinary claim that neo-nazis are in direct relation to the subject of Holocaust Denial, and am thus using your refusal to answer the questions as your agreement that neo-nazi reference should once again be removed from the article. Strong emotions don't make up for facts. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The words straw man fully addressed the "points" above. There is agreement from three other editors here that your proposed changes are undesirable. VQuakr (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Solntsa90 (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, explain how to the above points are 'strawmen', or the above are merely argumentum ad hominem. As such, your explanation remains unsatisfactory. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

...[Wikipedia's] primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster discussion and should be used with caution. Sorry, did I miss a vote or survey somewhere? Everyone who has contributed to this discussion thread has provided reasoning. VQuakr (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Ad hom is a personal attack. Pointing out that a line of reasoning is a straw man is a comment on an argument, not the editor and as such would never be an ad hom even if not correct. You are making a straw man argument by substituting a fallacious and easily-countered line of reasoning (that all Iranians are neo-Nazis) for the actual response by other editors (that most neo-Nazis espouse Holocaust denial). Given that you have zero support from other editors for this change, there seems little point in continuing this conversation. If you think the consensus here is not clear, please use dispute resolution to get additional opinions rather than continuing to impose your edits on the article space. I suggest a request for comment. VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with VQuakr: there has been no sign of support for, much less a consensus in favor of, the category and template changes proposed by Solntsa90 here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Also agree, no consensus for these proposed changes whatsoever. I vote "no." HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Really?

"Scholars use the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from legitimate historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies..." I'd rather say that those using the term "Holocaust denier" are academic activists and should be distinguished from legitimate historical research. --41.150.26.100 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear your personal opinion. Do you have some reliable sources to go with it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that people who say holocaust deniers have no credibility have no credibility? Huh. --monochrome_monitor 03:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Worst than that. They are "activists" innit? It may be (cue gasps) signs of a cunning Zionist conspiracy demanding academic rigour. I am sure that is what our worthy (AGF, AGF dammit Irondome!) colleague is trying to intimate here. Irondome (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Worthy indeed. He boasts an impressive 1 edit. --monochrome_monitor 00:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection Status

I believe this article's protection status should be increased. It has been vandalized a lot recently by anonymous antisemites. ^[1]^[2]^[3]. I propose changing it to confirmed-user only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome monitor (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not needed. There are tons of us monitoring the article for vandalism. One of those three was reverted in 35 seconds, the other two within 4 minutes. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You guys are doing a great job and I try to thank you whenever you make a revert. It was just a suggestion. --monochrome_monitor 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of definition

Holocaust denial is described as the "act of denying established facts concerning the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust". Is this correct? Doesn't it extend to anyone studying or questioning a wide number of facts or assumed facts?101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reference which supports that definition? Honest historical research into aspects of the Holocaust which challenges/disproves existing beliefs certainly isn't Holocaust denial. Nick-D (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it "anti-Semitic" to question?

The opening paragraph of this article states that holocaust denial is the denial of the genocide of the Jews of Europe during WW2. This is a little confusing to me for a few reason. First, it is claimed that the holocaust prepetrated by the Germans against civilains cost the lives of 11,000,000 people, 6,000,000 of whom are alleged to have been Jewish. That means that only around 55% of the victims were Jews. If you doubt, question or even flat out deny that there was a policy of extermination coming from the highest levels of government, how are you only against 55% and not against the other 45%? Jews are not the only claimed victims of this event. There were many others deemed undesirable by the Germans like homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally incurable and political dissidents. Why are you only anti-Jewish if you dont believe the hisorical narrative?

Jews were the primary target of the Nazi extermination. They also constitute the vast bulk of surviving witnesses against the murderers. It is not possible to argue that the Holocaust did not happen without implying that there is a vast conspiracy on the part of millions of people, but Jews in particular, to concoct and prop up a hoax. Holocaust denial is at best rank idiocy, and at worst outright slander and fraud. But it is ALWAYS and inherently anti-Semitic because you can't construct an explanation that doesn't involve a vast Jewish conspiracy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial within these Wikipedia articles

Altho there is no argument (to date) that most of the victims of the Holocaust were jews, the numbers of millions of victims murdered for reasons other than being jewish are so high that the one-sided emphasis on jews, both in this article and the main Holocaust one, itself arguably constitutes a form and a degree of Holocaust denial. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust#.27Some.27_historians.3F_.28.21.21.21.29.--95.149.79.137 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Holocaust deniers do not care about theother victims of nazis. They do not deny the mass-murder of gypsies, disabled persons or other populations. They feel only concerned by one single question: deny that the Jews were mass-murdered by the nazis using all kind of means including industrial ones. Holocaust denial specifically addresses the mass-murder of Jews and this is the reason why this article relates to that specific question. For the rest an appropriate answer has already been given here to the question you raise. There is therefore no need to answer to it one more time on this talk page. --Lebob (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Counterproductive bans

There is massive empirical evidence for the holocaust, and that should be cited in spreading knowledge about it. However, using bans and politization to fight holocaust denial makes it look as if the actual evidence did not exist, as if the case for the holocaust had to rely on ex baculum arguments. So laws against holocaust denial promotes holocaust denial. Many holocaust deniers are likely just misled by that misargumentation. And of course many are just ignorant (when there are weak students in all other school subjects, why would history be exempt?). While antisemites had political motifs to deny the holocaust in the past, none of those motifs remain in a society where holocaust denial is associated with antisemitism.2.69.217.169 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If I am well informed there are currently in world 195 countries which have a seat at the UNO and can therefore be seen as independent sovereign countries. Among these 195 countries there are only 11 which have specific laws against holocaust denial. And I never got the feeling that holocaust denial is more widespread in said countries than in other ones. Beside a weak student usually does not know what he is talking about but does normally not promote a fringe theory. When someone is promoting holocaust denial he is not proving himself to be a "weak student" but to be a holocaust denier (for many possible reasonS among which anti-Semitism is the more common one). --Lebob (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources for "Notable Holocaust deniers"

I assume this has been discussed before on such a sensitive and high-traffic topic, but why is each entry in "Notable Holocaust deniers" not sourced? VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Because all of them have a detailled article on wikipedia where the topic of holocaust denial by the concerned individuals is developped and explained with reliable sources. --Lebob (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR. We should not be relying on our own articles as the source. As material with a reasonable likelihood to be challenged, the source should be inline and in this article. VQuakr (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Added new Background section

Hi. It seemed to me that there was a missing "Background" section near the top of the article, so I added one, retaining an older section called "Attempts at concealment by perpetrators" as a sub-section of it.

I tried to provide background on both the early efforts to suppress archives and evidence of the Holocaust, as well as the efforts to preserve them, along with a mention of how any of this may have affected future historiography.

I intentionally stayed away from sensitive areas. All the events related to changes I made occurred by 1961 at the latest, which to my knowledge predates any impactful denier publications, so hopefully as background these additions won't be considered controversial by anyone; that was my intention anyway.

As to the structure of the change: formerly, in the previous version we had headers:

1 Terminology and etymology

2 Attempts at concealment by perpetrators, and

3 History and development post WWII

but §2 had a mix of some quotes by Himmler, and also some quotes by Eisenhower about his observations and actions upon liberating the camps which hardly belong in a section named "perpetrators". In addition, the section included none of the other efforts either to conceal, or to preserve, the historical record. It seemed ripe for a structural overhaul, starting with the sub-section organization, and an expansion in both areas.

I started by creating a new "Background" section at Level 2, and pushed "Attempts at concealment by perpetrators" down below it as a new L3 sub-section. Also at L3 below that one is a new L3 "Efforts to preserve the historical record".

Finally, I fleshed out both sections with additional text and references. The structure of the Background section now looks like this (diff):

2 Background: staking a claim on post-war Holocaust historiography
2.1 Attempts at concealment by perpetrators
2.1.1 German efforts - contains the "concealment" portions of the old §2 (with additional text)

2.1.2 French collaboration in archive destruction

2.2 Efforts to preserve the historical record - first two subsections contain the "preservation" portions of the old §2
2.2.1 During the war

2.2.2 Immediate post-war period

2.2.3 Nuremberg trials

2.2.4 Trial of Adolf Eichmann

The goal of adding small sub-sections on Nuremberg and Eichmann was strictly to indicate their impact on future historiography, and on public opinion, which ended up affecting the former. No doubt there were efforts at concealment I'm not aware of, and so §2.1 should be expanded. Maybe ditto §2.2 for the preservation side; in any case, I hope this is a good start.

Comments on the structure and/or content welcome, as well as improvements to the section. Mathglot (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Terminology and etymology

The section on Terminology and etymology as it is currently constituted deals strictly with a discussion of "denier" versus "revisionist" (along with "negationist") and if that's the intent, maybe the section should be renamed to "Denier vs revisionist".

If there's going to be a Terminology and etymology section, then it seems like it should include definitions of some of the other central terms that have a bearing on Holocaust denial.

This should include at least the word Holocaust itself, with some notes on when it was first used, its sense in early references, whether there's been an evolution in the meaning since then, and so on. The same with Shoah which currently is a redirect to The Holocaust. Etymonline.com gives 1957 for holocaust in English as a reference to The Holocaust and Shoah (from Heb. שואה) as existing prior to that. Wiktionary gives 1942 for holocaust and gives two definitions for Holocaust, a "broad" and a "narrow" one, depending on whether non-Jews are included in the number.

A terminology section should probably include genocide as well, a concept which I imagine that Holocaust deniers also deny. I didn't realize until just now that the word was created in 1943 or 1944 by a Pole in connection with the events of WWII. It was apparently a loaded word, because in the first major work on the genocide in 1951 by Leon Poliakov, the term genocide was still considered too sensitive to appear in a book about the topic. See section CJDC#Early publications.

Those seem like "the big three" terms but there may be others. Any discussion on "denial" and what that means ought to define (or refer to definitions) of the central term(s) of what it is they're denying. Mathglot (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

I've just reverted this good faith change by Steeletrap (talk · contribs) to the article's first sentence as I think that it presents an overly narrow definition of what Holocaust denial is. However, it would be good to discuss possible changes. Many deniers concede that the Nazis killed very large numbers of Jews, but argue that this was nowhere near the figure of six million, was done without Hitler's knowledge and the facts around the Holocaust aren't really settled, so I'd suggest broadening the wording. The Oxford dictionary defines the term as "the belief or assertion that the Holocaust did not happen or was greatly exaggerated" ([1]), and I'd suggest that something like this might be an improvement. I note that the remainder of the first para picks this up though. Thoughts? Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the opposite: the current version--which refers to denial only as denial that there was a genocide--is too narrow You can accept that it was a genocide while still being a denier: e.g. one would be a denier if one thought it was a "genocide" but that only 500,000 Jews died. I prefer my proposed version, which calls denial denial of established facts about the Holocaust. The next sentence describes the three established facts that deniers deny: 1) deliberate extermination policy 2) that utilized gas chambers and 3) 5 to 6 (or perhaps 7) million deaths. Steeletrap (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"For this reason, Holocaust denial is considered to be an antisemitic[10] conspiracy theory"

I take issue with this bold, black-and-white claim; I think it marginalizes those who don't see the theories of the Holocaust being false as inherently antisemitic. I tried to add "widely" before "considered", but Tarc twice reverted my change. This isn't just Tezero and his invisible army of Holocaust denial sympathizers - if you'll notice, to anyone reading, even the section "Holocaust denial and antisemitism" uses the word "widely" right away and cites numerous examples of scholars who disagree. I really think that the simple phrase "is considered" as it's used stands only as a slap in the face to Holocaust deniers and their sympathizers: "Ha ha, you're wrong and everyone knows it. Even Wikipedia isn't going to afford your view any real estate here. Go cry all the way home to Stormfront." Tezero (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Go cry all the way home to Stormfront" is precisely the message to send here. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? If you think Holocaust denial is inherently antisemitic, then it should follow that we shouldn't advocate against it, because that's an ideology and Wikipedia doesn't take a position on such things. Go cry all the way home to the JIDF; how about that? Tezero (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I consider it to be more akin to pedophilia, really. Some beliefs just don't get a say or a voice in this project, sport. Sorry. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm proud that you're secure in your teleiophilia. However, Wikipedia doesn't care. Wikipedia doesn't have to agree with viewpoints, but it does have to acknowledge them. Besides, what do you mean "some beliefs"? What rule should we use? What the Western world thinks is icky? Tezero (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

When you cross one of those bright lines, as you did here, that is when you will be made aware of the rules. Run along and spruce up a Pokemon or Sonic article now. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I must've missed the rule that says "Wikipedia doesn't have an ideology... except against Holocaust denial and pedophilia. That shit don't fly." Sorry about that. Bright lines, indeed. Tezero (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this adding "widely" to the lede in the manner suggested by Tezero as well. See FAQ response #1 at the top of this page. VQuakr (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"Preponderance" doesn't cut it when there's a whole section largely about people who don't consider it to be antisemitic. If those aren't "reliable", they shouldn't be in the article at all. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS, and realize this is an (amateur) encyclopedia, not a blog or forum.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS only strengthens my point - there are reliable sources later in the article that question whether Holocaust denial is inherently antisemitic. It would be more like a blog or forum, in fact, to exclude these completely to phone in the assertion that no one disagrees. Tezero (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are those? Only thing I see is "Some have argued that not all Holocaust deniers are necessarily antisemitic", with precisely one example (which means the "some" has to go) -- which says one particular holocaust denier is a fool, not an antisemite. You know where the other reliable sources are in the article; I'm not finding them -- please elucidate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There's another example: Walter Reich said "The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism". Tezero (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

While the article may address certain fringe opinions (that Holocaust denial isn't antisemitic) it's not wrong to unequivocally state the prevailing opinion as fact. Pedophila is a great example. "Most scholars agree that children are incapable of informed consent. For this reason, child porn is viewed as highly unethical." there doesn't need to be a "mostly" or "widely", it's viewed as antisemitic. And thanks for making me all the more confident in my choice to change it, considering it will be a "slap in the face for Holocaust deniers" (like that's a bad thing?) And while Tarc was blunt about it, I would agree this is not just something you compromise on. "If Holocaust denial isn't antisemitic, then is blood libel antisemitic? Does antisemitism even exist? Does anything exist?".

Those are stupid examples, because I'm not advocating that the charge of Holocaust denial being antisemitic be removed entirely, only that it be characterized as what it is: a majority opinion rather than an absolute, unanimous one. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If our refusal to be a platform for insane, hateful ideologies truly offends you, feel free to go back to Stormfront.--monochrome_monitor 21:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Basically, while if you deny the Holocaust there is a 0.0x10^-16th chance that you, as a person, don't hate Jews--the very act of denying the Holocaust is always hateful towards Jews, hence it is antisemitic.

Yeah, you know what? It does offend me that we can't add one fucking word to make the intro actually summarize the body text just because Wikipedia wants to make an exception to its undue weight and neutrality policies so the Jews can feel 100% safe. Oh, and I can't go "back" to Stormfront as I have no interest in joining and would probably not be accepted anyway because of my Arab and Iranian blood, but thanks. What if one said that they couldn't believe that the Holocaust had happened because they knew the Jews are too strong to be exterminated like that? Tezero (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Get a grip eh? Your POV is showing now. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

My POV is that accuracy > simplification. I don't despise Jews, although there's no non-clichéd way to try to demonstrate this, I think. Going by the presence of my uncommon Czech surname in official records, some of my own ancestors were killed in the Holocaust (or perhaps Jews who adopted the name). Tezero (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry man but if you think the holocaust didn't happen, for whatever reason, you are accusing Jews of lying (to gain sympathy.)

More than just Jews, and even for Jews, not necessarily because of their ethnicity or faith. It's like how Malcolm X continued to indict whites after his 1964 revelations because of their perceived role in subjugating minorities. Tezero (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You have to understand that in the world nothing is ever 100%, but the amount of holocaust deniers that are antisemites is quite close. Widely is a weasel word in this context. It's supposed to be used for things like "malaria is concentrated widely in Asia and Africa". From an encyclopedic view it just doesn't work, not to mention the moral view, which is why we are so blunt about our opinions in the subject. --monochrome_monitor 00:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia have a moral view?

Also, I'm aware that the vast majority of Holocaust deniers, if given some kind of test of antisemitism, would "pass" it. But that doesn't mean the positions are inherently intertwined. It's like how the vast majority of Prius owners and vegetarians are (I assume) liberals - does that mean their viewpoints are inherently liberal? Tezero (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand what I said. I said for an encyclopedic view it is wrong, and that the moral view is the reason why we insist on keeping the correct encyclopedic wording (widely is a weasel word and the Holocaust is not a place for weasel words). Your spurious comparison to Prius's only shows how out of touch you truly are. I'll repeat: Denying the Holocaust is ALWAYS antisemitic, whether or not the denier is antisemitic. For example, drawing a swastika in a Jewish cemetery is ALWAYS antisemitic, whether or not the vandal is antisemitic. You don't need to be a hateful person to do a hateful act.

I'll remind you that holocaust denial isn't as broad as revisionism. A denier never claims that 10 million Jews really died, or that Hitler was a space alien. Denial is accusing Jews of exaggerating or fabricating the evidence, claiming no gas chambers existed, etc. Holocaust deniers always presume that (and if they didn't they would be simply called revisionists) "the Holocaust wasn't as bad as they said it was" (because less people died, people were killed by natural causes, Hitler had no intent) .... Making this claim and then distorting facts to convince others of this ideology is purposefully diminishing a despicable tragedy and IS ALWAYS ANTISEMITIC.

Good day sir, if you still don't understand, then frankly there's nothing I can do to convince you. --monochrome_monitor 15:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice no-true-Scotsman fallacy; the article states itself that "revisionist" is the term Holocaust deniers use for themselves, and so there is no difference. Oh, and if "widely" is a weasel word, why does the intro still include "most" or "generally"? But really, all three of the words are fine because Wikipedia isn't supposed to take exception to controversial topics. No, you haven't convinced me. Tezero (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't insist any change be made, but the article reads very differently from the usual, featured wikipedia article. In wikipedia even the best human contributions are allowed to be criticized and the worst crimes are allowed to be defended. Even Saddam is praised for some stuff! This article sounds like it is promoting an agenda, and stifling opposite views. These opposite views, however wrong, should be allowed. This is Wikipedia, not a blog. Don't give me "this is what scholars/empirical evidence/blahs says." Yes, true, and scholars are right, but wikipedia always presents wrong views as well; not as facts, but as alternative views to widely believed facts.Xullius (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

On WP, we go off of reliable sources. RS say that Holocaust denial is false and intrinsically antisemitic. So those are the views that we must emphasize on this page. Steeletrap (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable Holocaust Revisionists

I saw David Cole was missing from the list of notable and famous revisionist. I was going to add him but then I saw that things need to discussed in the talk page first. So here's the discussion :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.105.91 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In 2007 Smith was successful in getting screen his holocaust denial film, El Gran Tabu, at the Mexico Corto Creativo 07 Film Festival in Baja.^{[r 1]}^{[r 2]}, of which Jewish holocaust denier, David Cole (holocaust revisionist) was active in producing during his years in hiding.^{[r 3]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.23.73 (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Reflist for Notable Holocaust Revisionists

Edited by Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC) to add reflist and 'group' param to refs in this section, to prevent them from sorting confusingly to bottom of page under some other Talk section.
Edited by Mathglot (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC) to tweak style and Reflist section name.

Deleted section Notable Holocaust deniers

I boldly removed the section Notable Holocaust deniers as a duplicate of Category:Holocaust deniers. The deleted article section contained a simple list of 65 names, each name hyperlinked to an article about the individual. The category contains 99 names and one subpage.

Background

On 00:57, 29 April 2006 User:ZZZZ created a short list of 7 people in a section entitled "Holocaust Deniers". This section slowly expanded, under various different section titles, over time, to its most recent state containing 65 names.

When the article section was created, category Holocaust Denial already contained unpopulated subpage Holocaust Deniers since category Holocaust Denial was created on 11:25, 18 August 2004 though the subpage remained empty until its population 14:12, 23 November 2006 with 99 people.

Rationale for delete

The chief rationale for the delete is to avoid the burden of having to make the same name change in two places, since any person in the list in the article should also be in the category (if supported) and the list should either be identical to the category or a subset of it. If the latter, having 65 "notable names" out of 99 "total names" seems pretty arbitrary and WP:OR--if we decide to keep the 65, who is to decide which are the notable ones? Best just to have the whole list in one place, and not make that judgment about which are notable in the article, unless, of course, we have reliable sources with verifiable claims about that that we can refer to.

An additional rationale is that we don't need a bullet list of "notables" in its own section, since many notable deniers are already included in the article itself, in the #History and development section (namely: Barnes, Hoggan, Rassinier, Faurisson, Bradley Smith, Carto Smith, Keegstra, Zundel, Nolte, Mayer, McVay, Irving and others) although not all their names appear as part of a name of a sub-section (perhaps they should?).

what about the 7 refs that were removed?

Note that the article bullet list of 65 names included seven references which also got removed. However, this is not an argument for restoring the list, as each of the six names (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, Harry Elmer Barnes, Bobby Fischer, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, Roeland Raes) links to an article which includes mention of their denial along with at least one reference about it, except one. The exception (Rantissi) links to an article which did not have the reference, so I checked out the reference with the intention of adding it to the Rantissi article so it wouldn't be lost. The ref is a Guardian article about The New Anti-semitism^{[d 1]} which talks about Rantissi's antisemitism, and talks about Holocaust Denial by Hamas members, but does not actually say anywhere that Rantissi is a denier himself. So it seems to me the claim is not supported by that ref, so I did not add it to the Rantissi article. Bottom line: deleting the List from the article removes no verifiable reference about any individual person's denial status from any article of the encyclopedia.

were any names removed that were not already in the category?

I've compared the two lists, i.e., the article list of 65 against the category list of 99 and found that 19 names of the list of 65 were not in the category, and 52 of the 99 in the category are not in the list. The 19 are: Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, Carl O. Nordling, Dariusz Ratajczak, George Lincoln Rockwell, Georges Theil, Gerald L. K. Smith, Gerd Honsik, Günter Deckert, John Kingsley Read, Jürgen Graf, Khaled Mashal, Larry Darby, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, Norman Lowell, Roger Garaudy, Salvador Abascal, Salvador Borrego, Siegfried Verbeke, and V. T. Rajshekar. I checked each article individually, and where supported, added them to the category. Results:

14 added to Category:Holocaust deniers: Nordling, Ratajczak, Rockwell, Theil, Honsik, Deckert, Read, Graf, Darby, Akef, Lowell, Garaudy, Borrego, Verbeke.
3 not categorized because they were not supported by the article: G. Smith, Marshal, Abascal.
2 not categorized and possibly controversial:
- Rantissi - there is a reference claiming to support his denial status^{[d 1]}, but as noted, the reference supports the denial stance of others mentioned in the article, but not Rantissi himself.
- Rajshekar - he founded periodical Dalit Voice which has published denial articles, but they are not necessarily his views. Of a list of 26 of his publications in the article, one is antiZionist, none are specifically denial.

All names from the deleted list which can be supported as being a denier, are now categorized as such.

reasons to keep the list of names

One possible rationale to keep the list in the article, would be to give a snippet of information about each one, sort of like the basic info in a list on a disambiguation page which would help the reader decide which article they were interested in reading more about. But in that case, we'd be back to the objection of deciding which names were "Notable" or otherwise worth including in the subsection, and finding a reliable source for that.

The article could use a brief list of names in an intro paragraph

I think some kind of short set of notable names is worth having, especially for someone scanning the article, who is perhaps looking for someone's name, but can't remember it, but a long bullet list with no other info is the wrong way to do this, imho. Rather, the proper place for this is in a new, introductory paragraph to the already existing |#History and development section. This section currently has no introduction at all, but instead launches right into a discussion of Harry Barnes, without setting up any context for any of the subsections to follow. History is made by people, and imho this would be an ideal place to include not a list, but a series of names in running text embedded in an informative lead paragraph, and forming a lead-in to the subsections which follow. Something like this perhaps (I'm sure this could be improved upon):

Although the seeds were planted earlier, Holocaust Denial begain in earnest in the 1960s, and continues to the present day. Some of the major figures were American historian Harry Barnes and his protege David Hoggan, and French historian Paul Rassinier in the 1960s. They were followed by Arthur Butz and David Irving in the 1970s along with the foundation in 1978 of the the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) by Willis Carto, who also founded the magazine Barnes Review devoted to the subject, as well as Robert Faurisson in France, also linked to the IHR. The 1980s saw the rise of Bradley Smith and the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust which tried to influence public opinion using newspaper ads, the Canadian legal cases of high school teacher James Keegstra and of Ernst Zündel, and of philosopher/historian Ernst Nolte in Germany, and the writings of American historian Arno J. Mayer. In a noted case Irving filed a libel case against a respected historian who authored a book about Denial, and lost. The 1990s also saw the rise of Denial publications in Japan, Turkey, and the rise of négationnisme in France as a movement consolidating disparate, preexisting denial politics; and in the 2000s in Belgium, and in the Arab world, including Fatah founder Mahmoud Abbas and others, with surveys showing an increasing percentage of the Arab pubic believing the Holocaust never happened. In Iran, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly questioned its existence, and even hosted a widely condemened conference to deny it.

That would be placed as a new introduction at the top of section History and devlopment (right after the new See also) and above the first subsection Harry Elmer Barnes.

Conclusion

Although this was a large delete, I hope it is supported by the evidence. Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC) edited by Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
Edited by Mathglot (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC) to tweak style and References section name.

References for Deleted section Notable Holocaust deniers

^ ^a ^b "The new anti-Semitism". The Guardian. London. June 21, 2003. Archived from the original on 2003-06-22. Retrieved May 4, 2010. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2013-08-27 suggested (help)

Proposed deletion of section Notable Holocaust deniers-Discussion section

The main purpose of the proposal is to avoid duplicate content between article section Notable Holocaust deniers and Category page Category:Holocaust deniers that would have to be maintained in two places to stay in sync; secondly, it's about avoiding having to make POV judgments about which deniers are "Notable" (65 listed in the article currently), whereas the Category just lists them all (113).

No actual content would disappear from the encyclopedia, no Holocaust denier name would be left untagged, no references would be lost; only duplicate content would be removed. Details of the proposal can be found above. Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Support proposed edit due to the precise rationale given above. No content would be lost, and it would appear we would be left with actually more detail, with appropriate links to the more detailed category Holocaust deniers. More comment from interested editors would I am sure be appreciated, in order to reach a speedy consensus on this, either way. Irondome (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I also support removing this list for the reasons given by Mathglot and Irondome above. It doesn't add much to the article, and regularly raises issues around WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, seems to be a trend to eliminate lists on article pages without even links to the lists. (Sometimes the lists are removed from the article page and a separate page is made of the list.) I like the paragraph Mathglot wrote. The paragraph would be okay if there was a link to the names in the Catagory but I'll bet someone will quickly remove the paragraph. Only reason I can see for deleting the list is to make the article appear to be a fringe theory. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Raquel, the green paragraph pretty much wrote itself, as it merely summarizes the remainder of the long History and development section that follows, kind of the way the Lede summarizes the rest of the article. There's really nothing new there, so there wouldn't really be a reason to take it out. And yes, absolutely it should have a link to the list of names in the category. Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow, Irondome, and Nick-D:. Well, a month has gone by, no one else has weighed in. Shall we do this? One complication of having waited: the list is larger than before, I don't feel like going through the whole thing again one by one, to make sure the Category has every single one that now appears here. I don't mind going through the edit History however, so as long as the edit section in the summary shows /* Notable Holocaust Deniers */ it will be easy to pick up the changes by doing diffs from there, but if they tried to obfuscate the section, or snuck it in under some other section or wiped the edit summary, it won't show. Anyone think we need to wait for more opinions on this? Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest sorting the list a bit more. Perhaps removing dead holocaust deniers and distinguishing between them by occupation, maybe more of an examples section. Also shouldn't Mahmoud Abbas be in the list? The list should focus on the most prominent deniers and not include anyone Telaviv1 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @Telaviv1: that the list should be kept, and perhaps organized better. I don't see the rationale for removing dead list members, however; death does not absolve anyone of their holocaust denial sins, n'est-ce pas? I also agree with adding Abbas; as the founder of Fatah, he certainly deserves mention. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the list should be kept, and if necessary re-organised and expanded. Denisarona (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I see three recent votes for keeping it, however they all seem to be WP:PPOV to me, as there has been no reference to the reasons already given for deletion or any support for a keep other than personal preference. Telaviv1 suggests reorganizing it (which is an implied keep) but what's the reason for this, as the Category maintains the list sorted automatically? If you wish to support a keep and oppose the deletion, that's fine, but please base it on WP:POLICY and not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. More specifically, there is a long discussion above about why deleting it is a good idea; please read the section, and kindly explain why keeping the list would be an improvement to the article. Absent a reasoned argument for keep, the list should be deleted after a decent interval. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Strong support. We've been over this stuff in many other categories and designations. See here. It violates BLP if it is only alleged or accused. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I will amend my vote to support removal, as I thought that you were proposing deletion of the category list as well. As long as the category list is retained, and linked within the article, I have no problem with eliminating redundancy. This has nothing to do with WP:PPOV, by the way, at least in my case -- a list is necessary because without it, as someone already pointed out, the article takes on the appearance of a fringe theory. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

But it is a fringe theory. I guess perhaps you're using the term differently than I might? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Contentious label

I added the “contentious label” template to a number of Holocaust denial -related categories. This template was removed; a removal to which I do not object and which I currently do not intend to revert. To reassure others, I am by no means a Holocaust denier. I agree, the Holocaust is a fact in the same sense as any number of other historical events. However I enjoy editing Wikipedia, and I thought the “contentious label” template would be appropriate, given that the term “denialist” is listed as a contentious label.

I apologize for my potentially inappropriate edit.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Kollerstrom

Is there a reason that Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom isn't listed in this article? He is a self-proclaimed denier and was booted from his professorial post for his beliefs. I believe he wrote "Breaking the Spell," which is probably the most recent denier work published, at least by a notable person. As far as I can tell it is also one of the most best-selling as well. 02:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.102.227 (talk)

I added Nicholas Kollerstrom to the list of deniers, thanks for the heads up! Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Asian Holocaust denial

In new pages patrol I came across Draft:Asian Holocaust denial and thought that regulars here might appreciate a heads-up. 08:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Netanyahu says Holocaust was idea of Palestinian leader...

How're we going to deal with his holocaust revisionism? Normally we'd just label someone a holocaust denier and an anti semite, but in this case we might need a more subtle approach.109.154.105.52 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Referring to this article: Germany Responds to Netanyahu: We're Responsible for Holocaust, Not Mufti. Not sure if it's "denial". Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It is straight-up Holocaust denial of the "Hitler only wanted to deport Jews" type; Holocaust historians are already saying as much. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it falls under denial, as he is not claiming that the holocaust didn't happen or was smaller than the historically accepted figure. It sounds like a petty politically and racially motivated attack on the Palestinians. The claim is easily refuted, but certainly needs to be included in the article. --Dmol (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The IHRA would disagree with you. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This story is on CNN as well: [2]. It is mentioned in the Haj Amin al-Husseini article, may deserve a mention here too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This not about denial; as Dmol said, he's not claiming that it didn't happen; he's blaming it on the Palestinians, which, I think most editors on all sides of this issue would agree, is absurd. It is about disinformation, which is a closely-related issue, and as such it does deserve mention, perhaps with a notation (easily sourced) that "his allegation is not supported by the scholarly historical record" -- or something to that effect. That's the way CBS handled it on their evening news last night. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denial isn't solely about "claiming it didn't happen". It's also about the intent of the perpetrators. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but there's a subtle distinction here: The myth that the Final Solution policy involved only deportation, not murder, is certainly part of the definition of Holocaust denial; but Netanyahu is alleging that the Mufti persuaded Hitler to switch from deportation to murder. So he's not disputing the official policy (deportation vs. murder), he's offering a revisionist version of how they got there. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see it added if only to emphasize the deportation policy. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Netanyahu's comments on this have been added to his own Wikipedia article, alongside the refutation by Moshe Zimmermann, who said that this was tantamount to Holocaust denial (using the first source cited by Sceptre here). Personally, I think this should be mentioned (albeit very briefly). – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 17:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Zumoarirodoka. We have RSes linking this to denial so we should mention it without overdoing it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I do too, I guess. Part of me worries about the potential liability and WP:BLP issues inherent in labeling an Israeli prime minister a Holocaust denier; but we have at least one reputable source (Zimmerman) who has made the link in public statements, so we are unquestionably on firm ground, guideline-wise. By all means, keep it brief, low key, and as neutral as possible - and pray we're not opening a can of worms. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised there is no mention of Netanyahu's speech on the page yet. It is the most prominent example of - according to Israeli law - Holocaust denial in the past few years. The law specifically prohibits saying or publishing anything "with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts" - and diminishing Hitler's role in the genocide is clearly that. I think it seriously weakens the strength of the otherwise academic rigour of this page to not mention it. Andrew Riddles (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think as long as there are RS describing what Netanyahu said as "holocaust denial", we can make note of it if we do not speak in WP's voice and attribute it specifically to whoever described it. Cannolis (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cannolis. There are wp:rs that state what Netanyahu said is Holocaust denial. Their rationale is not basically stupid. We cannot use WP's voice but we can report this in attributing this. Per WP:BLP, let's not forget to report also what Netanyahu said after he was blamed for his declarations. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect the general opinion of the reliable sources; if it's only one or two who call it "Holocaust denial" while most about it don't then it's undue weight to say "reliable sources say it's Holocaust denial." AnnaLiver (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I also notice that the IP who started this section has been blocked for disruptive posting, so there may be a limit to how seriously we should take this question. AnnaLiver (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We definitely need to be very careful how we word this because we have different sources going to different lengths on this. We need to be accurate but not overcover it. We don't need more than a short paragraph unless this blows up into a bigger story later. Maybe we should have one or two sentences reporting what he said, one sentence clarifying the true extent of the Mufti's involvement, followed by something like (and I am not necessarily proposing this specific wording, just trying to give a flavour of what I am thinking of). "These comments were met with strong criticism from Jewish, Palestinian and German commentators.(References) Some (insert list) suggested that these comments would assist holocaust deniers attempting to shift blame away from the Nazis.(references) A few (insert list, or maybe it is just Zimmerman here?) claimed that they were tantamount to Holocaust denial itself.(References)" --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that it's any other historian than Zimmerman, which is why I'm wary. It's more or less unanimous that Netanyahu said a remarkably stupid thing, so stupid he was forced to retract it a week later, but so far it seems only Zimmerman responded by calling it Holocaust denial. As such, the controversy rises to the level of deserving a mention in Netanyahu's entry, but I'm much less convinced it rises to a mention here.AnnaLiver (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What About Denial of Other Parts of the Holocaust?

For example, Scott Lively's attempts to erase Nazi genocide against gay men and trans women, attempts to erase genocide against the Rroma, against disabled people such as Aktion T4, etc. 108.48.94.155 (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I just looked at the Scott Lively article. That is scary stuff. Denying history, be it the mass killing of Jews or gays or anyone else is extremely worrisome. I don't know how to label it, but it worries me greatly. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

One of the lessons we can take from recognizing the denial of the Jewish holocaust is that we can't allow any holocaust or genocide to be denied. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Add B.o.B to list of notable deniers

[3]

"But before you try to curve it, do your research on David Irving Stalin was way worse than Hitler That’s why the POTUS gotta wear a Kippah" '''tAD''' (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"By whom?" needed

I don't know how to do this, but the FAQ section contains these words: "In any event, reputable historians did not use the 4 million figure in their calculations of the overall number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Rather, they used numbers of 1 to 1.5 million, figures which are still used today." This part obviously needs a "By whom" tag, or it is just what this tag tries to combat. Unverifiable pseudo-facts with no source-checking possible. It would be in everybody's best interest to make 'reliable sources' out of this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.27.93 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Holocaust denial

A template that may be of interest to editors of this article has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Content fork to holocaust revisionism

I keep adding reliably sources showing changes in view of historical fact ( so far.death count in one camp down in 90s, overall death count and ghetto count up in 2013) but it keels getting shut down without consensus and just bounced back hear.

The attempt at Talk:Holocaust revisionism to progress does not bode well as I think people like to throw OR around blandly for basic recognition of synonym interchangeability. Just as "the holocaust did not happen" is clearly denialism without using the word denial, alleging any change like "twice as many people died" is obviously revising even if the source does not use the word revise so long a there is an obvious before/after comparison in the source.

The redirect here is.extra absurd since this article.has a paragraph acknowledging the difference:

in The Holocaust: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, Donald L. Niewyk gives some examples of how legitimate historical revisionism—the re-examination of accepted history and its updating with newly discovered, more accurate, or less-biased information—may be applied to the study of the Holocaust as new facts emerge to change the historical understanding of it

On a wide scale have historical revisionism for legit vs historical revisionism (negationism) for illegitimate.

So "holocaust revisionism" should be restricted to discussing legitimate revisions while if there must be a redirect here it should follow the pattern and.be Holocaust revisionism (negationism).

Revisionism exists in all historical fields so we should actually cover it instead of relegating the phrase solely as masquerade to illegitimate research. It should be used to cover legitimate research with a footnote that illegitimate research also calls itself that.

The main article of science should be about covering science, not pseudoscience and a section about how pseudo scientists do not call themselves pseudo scientists. --Ranze (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a duplication of The Holocaust article and its family of articles which should reflect the most up-to-date research and disagreements between the findings of legitimate researchers. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: while I agree that present consensus is what the TH article should present, that is not what a revisionism article should present since the whole point would be to illustrate how consensus changed over time. Kind of like "history of science" or something. The verb revise is primarily more than a euphemism for the verb deny and so we ought to illustrate legitimate accepted revisions to historical facts over time so there is an example of property research to contrast with denialist pseudo-research. Ranze (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Outside statistics there is also revisionism about the Holocaust regarding culpability, see Hitler's Willing Executioners#revisionism for a good example of non-denialist revisionism regarding the Holocaust which is not denialist. Ranze (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see why a separate article is needed for such a topic. Are there any examples you can give of where material tracing the evolution of views hasn't fitted into an article when its been added, leading to a consensus to move it elsewhere? Otherwise, the fork seems totally unnecessary as it would be better to improve the existing articles than set up a difficult-to-maintain article with a rather unclear scope which would be a magnet to deniers and cranks. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, despite the fact that multiple reliable sources both use and describe "Holocaust revisionism" as merely a euphemism for "Holocaust denial", you appear to be arguing that there is a specific subject "Holocaust revisionism" that is somehow both distinct from Holocaust denial and distinct from the usual kinds of historical revisionism that go on in any legitimate area of historical study. If such a topic actually existed, then where would be reliable secondary sources that named and described it as unique and different activity/subject. Where are these sources? Please bring them here and quote them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

[4] ttp://codoh.com/media/files/SR207.pdf

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwentslVpXw

[6] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-DCHPeuS5c

[guardian-2003-7] "The new anti-Semitism". The Guardian. London. June 21, 2003. Archived from the original on 2003-06-22. Retrieved May 4, 2010. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2013-08-27 suggested (help)

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&direction=prev&oldid=619764197

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&direction=prev&oldid=618607713

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&direction=prev&oldid=617514561

[1]

[2]

[3]

[r 1]

[r 2]

[r 3]

[d 1]