Jump to content

Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22

Enigma Decrypts

The Enigma Decrypts (of which the film "Imitation Game" refers) did not contain references to the genocide of any people or the effects thereof. This is interesting, considering they do contain periodic death-toll counts and their causes - of which the numbers are commensurate to a labor camp, but certainly not a genocidal execution machine ("1 Prisoner shot during escape attempt," for example). They also contain repeated orders to shore up the Typhus epidemic, improve worker conditions, health, and so forth. Regardless of one's beliefs regarding the holocaust, this is an explicit part of the denier's argument. If there is an adequate refutation of the charge, then it should be included in the article as well. As it stands, the article's lacking this point constitutes either ignorance of holocaust denial or a failure to maintain NPOV. Editors, please address. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.102.227 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that I came to this site hoping to find a refutation of the charge as the result of having been in a debate with a denier. The denier proved to have some very strong arguments and I assumed that this would be the ideal place to fact check. I am somewhat astounded that there doesn't appear to me much "there" there, in this article. We need better scholarship regarding denier charges and their refutations here, and less POV and attempts to discredit denier psychology (whether stated or inferred). Such things do not help those like me who come here in good faith looking for cogent counter-arguments. Failure to provide them only lends credibility to deniers's own arguments. After all, the majority of internet debate does not take place in the Edit pages of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.102.227 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Please see Ultra#Holocaust intelligence for some clarification of this. This may help in any further discussions with these types. Also please mention the Posen speeches, with specific reference to Posen speeches#Holocaust denial. It blows such denialist garbage out of the water. It is inconceivable that such explosive information would have been sent by routine enigma traffic, because enigma usage was routine down to sub-unit level, it's supposed security notwithstanding. An absence of such material in intercepted traffic as an argument against the Holocaust is ignorant and inane. Such material was usually transmitted face to face or in highly confidential written material, which was unsurprisingly almost completely destroyed at the war's end by the perpetrators. The issue with the intercepts appears to have been primarily misinterpretation of the material intercepted, and an inability to grasp the sheer scale of events. Or even what these scattered pieces of material mounted up to as a badly fragmented picture of an event of unimaginable precedent. A cognitive denial if you will. Finally I would recommend you read the complete transcripts of the Irving v Lipstadt libel trial. It is a long read, but it provides expert historical refutation of both the specific case and the denialist methodology in general "Irving v. Lipstadt : Transcripts". Holocaust Denial on Trial. Emory University. Retrieved 26 June 2009. Regards Irondome (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Provocative statement

"At this point, knowledge of the Holocaust was not widespread among the public.[citation needed]"

I removed this, as its too profoundly provocative to remain unsourced. if its true, thats really sad, but i wasnt alive at the time, so i assume that it was known about, being only the biggest news story of the 20th century, after the atomic bomb.(mercurywoodrose)2602:304:CFD0:6350:F9A6:4510:3DA9:22E0 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@2602:304:CFD0:6350:F9A6:4510:3DA9:22E0: You're not necessarily wrong to remove it if you find it provocative and unsourced, but there are intermediate steps before doing that of increasing urgency, starting with {{citation needed}}, and leading all the way up to {{disputed}}. In fact, your assumption that it was known about is mistaken, as I recall from watching the reaction to the Eichmann trial on television. However, personal experience is not a reliable source. Before something counts as the biggest news story, it first has to appear in the news at all; merely being profoundly important, explosive, and a matter of great urgency is not enough.
If it seems incomprehensible, or doubtful, consider the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. I won't try to convince you here that Church sex abuse is an issue that goes back centuries, I'll just draw your attention to the Servants of the Paraclete. The Church itself knew that this was a problem of long standing, and finally established a facility to treat sexually abusive priests in the 1940s. Some people knew, of course, especially the many victims and their families, but knowledge of it was "not widespread among the public". It's a little hard to prove a negative, but there may be secondary sources out there that say something on the order of, "news articles of clergy sex abuse was first reported in the 1980s" or some such statement which could be taken as evidence that it was not widespread knowledge before that (even though it might not have been widespread after that, either).
In fact, knowledge doesn't become "widespread" about something even when it is first published, especially if it's on an inside page, and doesn't have immediate, repetitive followup. Many people think the sex abuse scandal started in the 2000s in Boston with the revelations by the Boston Globe Spotlight team in 2004, due to the drumbeat of articles and the huge, page 1 headlines. But in fact, the New York Times had already covered the case of Gilbert Gauthe in Louisiana 20 years earlier. There it was, in black and white, in the "newspaper of record" but it just didn't make a splash; maybe a small ripple. It's absolutely the case that "knowledge of clergy sexual abuse was not widespread in the 1980s" after the NYT report, but I don't expect that the WaPo followed up with an article, "Knowledge of Clergy Sex Abuse Still Not Making Waves" the following year. It's just not the way the news works. People first became publicly aware in the mid-1990s with a series of documentaries, but it only became "widespread" after 2004 with the explosive Boston Globe reports. So I hope this example of a huge news story being totally unknown by the public for decades until it finally pierced the public's awareness, makes you doubt your original stated assumption.
There was a similar situation with regard to the Holocaust. Remember that before the Eichmann trial in 1961, there was no Schindler's List, or any of the movies or documentaries we are now so familiar with. Television was still in its infancy, small, grainy, and black and white. There were no live news broadcasts from abroad yet, the technology didn't exist. People kinda knew "something bad" happened to the Jews in Europe in WWII, because there were a lot of Jewish immigrants around and occasional stories of atrocities. People knew or heard that they were interned in "concentration" camps (like POW camps or something? they didn't know), or put on death marches, that they were beaten or starved or mistreated, or something. Happens in every war. Nothing to take it out of "Fog of War" territory. Not yet. Public knowledge about the Nazis pictured them as the evil enemy who had marched through Europe invading one country after another, occupying France, bombing London, and finally succumbing to the victorious Allies after the heroic D-Day landing. (We learned nothing about the battles of Stalingrad, or Kursk, or the Soviets taking Berlin.)
The Eichmann trial changed public awareness of the Holocaust for two reasons. First, everybody knew about the Nazis, and in 1960 there was a news story about Israel kidnapping a top Nazi out of Argentina, and taking him to Israel for trial. That already created a bit of buzz, but still, not everybody read about that. The second reason, was the day-by-day television broadcast of the trial. This was a technological innovation for television, and caused a sensation. It was not possible to do it live, but videotape was taken to the airport after each day's session, and flown to the U.S. where it was shown on network television the next day. This was the very first televised trial of any kind, and millions watched.
In fact if you go look at the Eichmann trial, the chief prosecutor wasn't merely trying to find Eichmann guilty, he was trying to establish a comprehensive record of the Holocaust for posterity, and so people would hear what happened and know about it, especially the younger generation, who simply didn't know the extent of it, even in Israel. So in sum, yes your assumption is wrong, and no, knowledge of the Holocaust was not widespread before the Eichmann trial. The trial had a profound effect, in the U.S., Israel, and Germany, and in time, everywhere. Doesn't mean the sentence should go in without a source ref, but I hope this background info will point the way to finding some of them. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Fred A. Leuchter

I fixed the broken link for the video documentary: Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. is a 1999 documentary film by Errol Morris about execution technician Fred A. Leuchter. it's currently pending review. The broken link goes to YouTube [1] and the corrected link goes to [2] The Internet Archive. MarianStern (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

How is this "Racism"?

Best not to feed the trolls Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The article states:

"Holocaust denial, they contend, is 'the worst form of racism and its most respectable version because it pretends to be a research'"

How is denying the holocaust delusion in any way "racism"???73.220.34.167 (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • At the risk of feeding the trolls, you could ask that question of the author of the reference that accompanies the quote in the article. Footnote 195. As for one personal opinion, like mine or yours, this is not a forum, but a place to discuss article improvement.. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear. "How is denying the holocaust delusion (sic) in any way "racism"???". Now where shall we start? Care to improve the article with some mainstream sources backing that? Why am I even bothering? Irondome (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
You are begging the question. You are basically using a loaded question that apparently answers itself. This is a logical fallacy. It's like asking someone, "Why do you enjoy beating your husband" when the person is in reality a non-violent pacifist who loves his husband. If you have mainstream sources that have been vetted through a peer review process and acknowledged as reliable research then please by all means add inclusions to the article. MarianStern (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Holocaust denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

requires attention and investigation - I am dead serious

Holocaust-denial in today's Germany is (even-though a dark figure) extremely high and flares up more and more also amongst younger generations. A reveal-figure of how many Germans join the Holocaust-denial bandwagon would be shockingly high. At least I am shocked because I happen to live in Germany and know how Germans talk outside the mainstream media. On second note, Israel's diplomatic relations with Germany should be reconsidered (but that's not up for debate here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rosenberger (talk • contribs)

What specific changes are you suggesting? Do you have nay articles that discuss Holocaust denial in modern Germany? Epson Salts (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think of changing the article fundamentally, but perhaps mention that the holocaust-denial is going through a renaissance. This phenomenon isn't only in Germany, and with that premise, younger Germans from an uneducated background are more prone to respond from the outside world as it is more appealing to them dealing with rise in unemployment and social difficulties. This is based on my observations in Germany. It is alarming, as history repeats itself because of denial. At the moment I can't offer an unbiased solution, but will try to get a study with some figures. State Departments in Germany do love bureaucracy, so I don't expect a swift answer. I will do my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rosenberger (talk • contribs) 16:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
If you can provide a source that says that holocaust-denial is going through a renaissance, we can add it to the article.Epson Salts (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


Perhaps the word renaissance is romanticizing and inappropriate. I was trying the offices today to get some accurate data but they are not interested to talk as they hung up. My apologies for providing this info in form of web data but gives some idea that Germany hasn't learned from its past. I'm shocked.

reference https://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/1021326.freibrief-fuer-holocaust-leugner.html reference http://www.welt.de/regionales/nrw/article157894733/Neuer-Prozess-gegen-87-jaehrige-Holocaust-Leugnerin.html reference http://www.huffingtonpost.de/2016/07/02/eklat-um-afd-mann-gedeon-holocaust-leugner-sollte-offenbar-gutachten-schreiben_n_10786722.html reference (old) http://www.dw.com/de/h%C3%B6chststrafe-f%C3%BCr-holocaust-leugner/a-2352189 reference http://www.dw.com/de/viel-mehr-beschwerden-%C3%BCber-braunes-web/a-19066272 reference (denial and Anti Semitic) http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2016-06/antisemitismus-vorwuerfe-afd-baden-wuerttemberg-fraktion-wolfgang-gedeon

One has to keep in mind that Holocaust Denial is an offense in Germany which will be punished with imprisonment, therefore the voices of such people are loudest when in closed up parties inaccessible to the public. Proving it with statistics from the state departments is hard and one only can assume the reality is, they don't care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rosenberger (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC) ]

Unfortunately i don't read German, and don't trust Google translate to do a good enough job. If you can pull out a sentence or two from those sources that you feel should be added to the article, present them here and I'll take a look. Epson Salts (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been active in retrieving stats for the matter of the German FBI (Bundeskriminalamt BKA) which reads

Holocaust Denial is correlating with PMK-Straftaten translated to Politically Motivated Crimes for the following years as

2010 66 crimes, 2011 114 crimes, 2012 54 crimes, 2013 54 crimes, 2014 94 crimes and for 2015 180 crimes.

These crimes relate to Swastikas painted on grave stones, statues, physical attacks against institutions such as throwing stones or Molotov-Cocktails in windows or setting fire, physical abuse of German Jews, hate mail, death threats.

These statistics don't cover Antisemitic incidents though they are closely related, Antisemitic issues are skyrocketing higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Rosenberger (talk • contribs) 09:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Don Rosenberger: Sorry, but this is nonsense. I am German and I think your assumption may be a misunderstanding because of the language barrier. First: The statistics quoted above refer to right extremism, meaning idiots who are antisemitic, xenophobic, antisocialist etc. and are committing the above mentioned crimes in context of contemporary life (And who sometimes even celebrate the Holocaust). Second: There are some notorious deniers, like Ursula Haverbeck, who are repeating this rubbish against better knowledge and get a lot of public attention because of the resulting trials. Third: If there is a statistical rise of Holocaust denials, it means that more people reimburse criminal charges, probably because they are more sensitive about right wing tendencies, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there are really more people who think the Holocaust didn't take place.
On the other hand, there a really quite a lot of young people who, in regard to the various genozides in the last decades, especially the atrocities committed by IS, tend to deny the singularity of the Holocaust, like "There are genozides all over the world just now and nobody is trying to stop them, so why are we still talking about a crime that has taken place seventy years ago?", but not the fact itself. By the way, "Neues Deutschland is the newspaper of the party "Die Linke" and not exactly neutral.
For future reference: If you want to get information about criminal statistics, look at the various Landeskriminalamt websites (for example: https://www.polizei.nrw.de/lka/artikel__9255.html). Ringing up and just wanting statistical informations doesn't work. But since you are claiming in your post "...they are not interested to talk as they hung up. My apologies for providing this info in form of web data but gives some idea that Germany hasn't learned from its past. I'm shocked." in hindsight I get the impression that you are not at all interested in the topic but just using it as a pretext to slander Germans. 2003:DF:3BC6:5500:941A:350A:3CDB:57C8 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism tag

Although I recognise that holocaust denial can be a symptom of antisemitism, it is not the only cause, and therefore the correlation is inappropriate - as would be linking the subject of chair to the wood article. Not all chairs are wood, and not all wood is used for chairs, similarly not all antisemitism leads to holocaust denial, and not all holocaust denial is a result of antisemitism. They are related subjects, but this does not warrant such a prominent advert. Perhaps the "see also" sections would be a more suitable location. --Rebroad (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that antisemitism is related to Holocaust denial is a good and sufficient reason for including the sidebar. That at least some Holocaust denial might arguably not be the consequence of antisemitism is totally irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not. Otherwise we would have prominent related subjects as side-bars on other subjects. For "related" subjects, the "see also" section is the correct place. Wikipedia is not here to advertise personal agendas. --Rebroad (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Wikipedia does not have a rule that an article cannot have a sidebar on a related topic, and I don't see it adopting one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rebroad: there's a bluelink for this, WP:SIDEBAR, which is a guideline. Let's check the five criteria:
  • Articles relate to the subject? Yes, definitely related.
  • Subject of template mentioned in article? Check.
  • Articles refer to each other? Very much so.
  • Article exists? Yup.
  • Template is useful for navigation? I sure think so.
Seems to pass. As a result, I think the template should remain. VQuakr (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
What he said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is a key element of modern antisemitism, so the sidebar is clearly relevant. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D, how do you know? There is a correlation perhaps, but how do you determine it to be intrinsic? I would argue that someone can be an antisemite without denying the holocaust, and therefore it is not a key element. I am also concerned about the chilling effect this correlation may have to people genuinely wanting to explore how factual the holocaust is without being labelled an antisemite. For example, the antisemite label is often used in this way, for example, for anyone speaking out against the decisions of the state of Israel, so there are certainly examples of this correlation being used to silence debate. For this reason, I strongly advise avoiding this correlation until it is proven to be intrinsic, as you are implying. I'm not yet even sure if it can be proven. --Rebroad (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To give an example, think of a controversial label, e.g. "racist", and then apply this to any situation where race is present, e.g. The OJ Simpson trial, or any case of discernment unrelated to race. This is how to muddy the waters of what is factual in a case and take away attention with rhetoric. --Rebroad (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Rebroad, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia is not a debating site. I think this discussion should perhaps be archived. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a debate to determine how to edit the article. This is what talk pages are for. To quote WP:NOTFORUM would be to argue that no discssions should take place, which is clearly not true as this is what the talk pages are for. Please, stop trying to game the system - this is against policy. --Rebroad (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the reasons I am stating that the antisemitism side-bar should be removed is that it strongly implies that holocaust denial IS antisemitic. It does not imply that it is a related subject, but rather that this subject is a SUBSET of antisemitism. To imply this is both not NPOV, and also is a personal attack on anyone who is a holocaust denier. Both of which are against Wikipedia policy. --Rebroad (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You are in effect encouraging other editors to debate the meaning of anti-semitism and the nature of Holocaust denial with you, under the guise of dicussing how to improve the article. The longer you continue doing that, the more likely that someone will shut down the discussion entirely, and even be justified in doing so. (WP:NPA means that one Wikipedia editor cannot make personal attacks against another; it does not mean that a Wikipedia article cannot call Holocaust denial anti-semitic. How unfortunate that this need even be said). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am inviting people to refine/clarify the meaning of anti-semitism, perhaps, although indirectly since this is not my main intention. My main intent is to improve the article, so I do not know why you use the word "guise" - what is the hidden intend you imagine? --Rebroad (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a subsection in the article that deals directly with this subject: "Holocaust denial and antisemitism." The first sentence of that section states, "Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic." The section contains references to support that view. Also, the FAQ at the top of this Talk page discusses the previously made assertion here that, "Holocaust denial is not necessarily antisemitic." The answer given by the FAQ is that, "there is a preponderance of reliable material stating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic..." If user:Rebroad wants to remove the Sidebar, he will need to adduce sufficient reliably-sourced evidence to overturn the current sourced consensus as presented in the article. Opinions and arguments personally held by user:Rebroad on this topic are not relevant to the content of the article, just as the personal opinions of any Wikipedian on any topic are not germane to articles. Article content is based on reliable sources, not user opinions. DonFB (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DonFB, I have just found the FAQ section in the talk page thanks to someone else pointing it out to me. I can now see that this issue has been raised previously, and that consensus needs to be achieved before the sidebar can be removed. --Rebroad (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rebroad: in your reasoning for wanting to remove the sidebar, you are attempting apply a criterion that you invented to this article. I linked and paraphrased the actual criteria for a sidebar above, and you have since posted in this section repeating your same inapplicable criterion while ignoring the applicable guideline. As it happens, your synthetic criterion is also met in this case, but that is moot. This is not a forum for you to promote your personal definition of antisemitism. VQuakr (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not promoting my "own definition" of antisemitism. I am promoting the dictionary definition, and the definition given by Google [3]. I would encourage other editors to do the same. --Rebroad (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? What does that have to do with the inclusion of the sidebar? VQuakr (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue beyond denial

Shouldn't this article also mention those who would justify and/or glorify such an event (for any reason whatsoever)? All forms of genocide denial are linked to genocide justification as well as genocide glorification. It's a serious subject that must be addressed. Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Arguing that the Holocaust was a good thing would be reprehensible, but I don't see that it fits within the scope of this article as defined in the lead. VQuakr (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a subject for another article? Any ideas? Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You could start by reviewing what we have already in existing particles, perhaps pogrom or antisemitism. Coverage could be expanded there, and if warranted a stand-alone article could be split off. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust denial - denial of any pertinent fact around the Holocaust?

Is it Original research, or, alternatively, an inescapable logic, that any aspect of denial of the Holocaust should be included in 'Holocaust denial?' And indeed, similarly, denial of any key/crucial historical fact around the Holocaust? By the first definition, we would arguably have to include the current world legal system in 'Holocaust denial,' because, to this day, it excludes the extermination of political groups in its definition of 'genocide.' And by the second, we would have to include prizewinning Holocaust scholar Philippe Sands, who has denied the role of the World Jewish Congress in excluding political groups in the legal definition of genocide.--188.39.71.98 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. We try to follow the mainstream of Holocaust historiography, so no, not any aspect will do. El_C 17:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but in 'following the mainstream of Holocaust historiography,' we see the emergence of Holocaust denial, usually as a denial of the historicity of some aspect of the Holocaust (e.g., scale) rather than the whole historical event or series of events. Given that you offer no clear, definitive guidelines as to which specific aspects of the Holocaust must be denied for it to constitute Holocaust denial, if follows that the denial of any aspect of the Holocaust could be so construed, does it not?--188.39.71.98 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it does. It depends on which aspect is contested and how firmly the historiography is about its validity, or its supposed dimensions, etc. Myself, I really would rather deal with specifics than generalized hypothetics. El_C 18:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a definition from the Holocaust Encyclopedia (Laqueur, Walter (2001)) is helpful "Holocaust Denial: Holocaust denial is a phenomenon at whose core lies the rejection of the historical fact that close to 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis during World War II. Alongside explicit repudiation of the Holocaust, denial includes the minimization, banalization, and relativization of the relevant facts and events, in order to cast doubt on the uniqueness or authenticity of what happened during the Shoah"p. 293. Professor Richard Evans gives a minimum number of beliefs to identify a denier with respect to the Irving trial (Evans 2002) p. 110 Joel Mc (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It would have been helpful had it not become apparent that Holocaust denial is not necessarily a purely antisemitic phenomenon; that it can apply to non-Jewish groups; and that distinguished Holocaust scholars and Jewish organisations are among the offenders.--81.174.135.199 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Holocaust denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sean Spicer

Should Sean Spicer be included in the list of Holocaust deniers given that he has claimed Hitler didn't use chemical weapons? 174.30.192.215 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Context is everything here. If he was clearly and intentionally talking about the Holocaust then he would be eligible for inclusion but, much as it pains me to have to defend him, I doubt that he is. It is hard to tell exactly what he is talking about with his foot jammed that far inside his own mouth but I think/hope that what Spicer is trying to say, however ineptly, is that there is a distinction between chemical weapons, used in war, and using chemicals to murder people outside of any combat situation (which is what the Holocaust was). Hitler used chemicals as agents of murder but not of warfare. Lets see how this pans out. If lots of notable people, writing in reliable sources, accuse him of Holocaust denial then we have our sources to justify inclusion but I really doubt that it will go that way. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
You may want to review Chemical warfare. There is evidence that Nazi Germany used poison gas in warfare against the Russians, in at least one case (to exterminate survivors of the Battle of Kerch). If that (civilian murder versus warfare) was what Spicer was trying to say, he was wrong in that as well. General Ization Talk 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That is an interesting point that I was not aware of.
Anyway, I see that the story is now the top item on the BBC News' US & Canada page but they are not saying "Holocaust denial" so I don't think it belongs here. Of course it will probably deserve mention on the article about Spicer. No need to rush though. Lets let the reliable sources write it up and then take our cue from them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Without going off on historical tangents, the bottom line is that no; the linked source is nowhere near adequate evidence to label Spicer a Holocaust denier. It's Holy Week and I have enough to confess on Friday, so I'm not going to express my opinion of Mr. Spicer, or his employer. But whatever else I may think of him, Holocaust denier is not a supportable charge. Moving on... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Spicer cannot be considered a Holocaust denier, but not because the Holocaust was not carried out outside of a combat situation; it was. Without the war, it almost certainly could not have taken place. Spicer is not a Holocaust denier because he didn't deny that the Holocaust occurred; he just made an inept, Godwin's Law sort of comparison between Assad and Hitler, implying that Assad was actually worse than Hitler. It pains me to defend him as well, but this bit of ineptitude has nothing to do with Holocaust denial. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should assume that anything a governmental minister of communications says is "inept" communication. We should not think in terms of blame or defense. Just the facts. And of course the Trump government also drew global criticism and condemnation when it made strange revisionist statements on Holocaust Remembrance Day. SPECIFICO talk 12:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, "denial" is less of a test than "denier" the latter of which entails judgment of the person and the former of which relates to demonstrable actions. SPECIFICO talk 12:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Assumptions are not okay if they lead to to the inclusion of something in an article which should not be included it the assumption is wrong. In this case, the assumption, following Hanlon's Razor, results in the rejection of Spicer's inclusion. So it is okay. (Also, pretty much everybody already knew about Spicer's ineptitude.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you reversing what I just stated? The impermissible OR assumption would be that Spicer is inept. We take peoples words at face value. We don't figure out our own ways to ignore verified statements that have been reported as noteworthy in Reliable Sources. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't what you mean by "reversing". Let me put it in simpler words:
Writing OR into articles: bad. Not writing OR into articles: good. I am in favor of not writing it, so you cannot accuse me of OR.
If RS explicitly call him a denier, then we can include it. As long as they are just facepalming at his incompetence and insensitivity, no.
Clearly, what he meant was: Hitler did not use gas in battles, which would have killed both parties. We cannot conclude from his clumsy wording that he denies people were gassed in camps. Even if we could, it would be OR and we would have to wait for RS drawing the conclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Quotation needed

An attempt to make my request for quotation (hopefully) bit more clear than I did in the edit summary: I accessed the link given, and as far I was able to search the text, it deals with the 'sense of disbelief' and (psychological) denial, not in sense of the denial/negation of an historical event. Perhaps it makes sense - as one of contributing factors to later Holocaust denial - but it does seem to be quite unfortunately worded, as those people were not denying the fact that the Holocaust had happened, they were (according to the source) just unable to (subjectively) deal with the fact.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:E427:946D:6F76:74C3 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I still feel that some clarification is needed, as the source deals with the emotional/psychological denial, not with historical negationism. This should be worded more clearly, as the current wording is bit misleading.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:DCCF:9B86:C7C7:EB89 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Holocaust denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

redundancy of listing Holocaust deniers despite categories

Since there's a perfectly well maintained set of categories listing Holocaust deniers, isn't it a redundancy to include an explicit list on this page as well? Wouldn't it make more sense to just indicate the link to the list -- "For a list of prominant Holocaust deniers, see..." ? TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed two years ago. List is also linked in this template. Also think this page is watched more than the Category is. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree. And categories aren't lists. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Original research

@Beyond My Ken: In the section on the laws against Holocaust denial, it only claims that the denial itself is illegal, and not specifically promoting it. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 19:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What does the source itself say? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: The sources themselves just say that Holocaust denial is illegal. They don't get as specific as to say the promotion of it is illegal. If they do, then the section in the article should say it as well, but it doesn't. Ergo, the specificity of the sentence in the lead is WP:OR. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 20:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, if that sources don't say "promotion of", then you're correct, the lede shouldn't either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
BTW, the next time a dispute like this happens, please don't tag the entire page with an OR cleanup tag for one item, use the inline OR tag after the specific item in question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 14:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Holocaust denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How many Jews died according to deniers

I have read numbers as low was 150,000 up to 2 million, is there a set figure they all agree on Amy foster (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC))

If you mean people who say the number was much lower because the gas chambers were not used killing, the number varies from between 300,000 and 1.5 million on the front (I am not sure if this includes deaths from causes such as starvation) - This is the source [4] (they use a 3 factor definition of genocide denial so you may be talking about some other definition)Seraphim System (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK the deniers are not quite united on this point, and the number of victims varies from "it didn't happen at all" to "x million died, but purely due to 'natural' causes". Anyway, they're chiefly attempting to deny the genocidal intent (and/or the existence of gas chambers), not that they're concerned with the number of victims - though they generally attempt to downplay it.--2A00:1028:83BE:4392:B4BC:6FFD:E29A:98E5 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I find it sorta confusing how even slight disagreement over the number would constitute denial. 5 million people dying would still sound like a holocaust to me. Obviously if someone said only 5 people died they've downgraded it from something you'd call a holocaust. Though I'm not sure where the numerical line is. ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
It is well cited in several articles and argument to lower the numbers/estimates seems to just want to make it be less than it was; like that is going to make any difference in the end. I agree with you B4BC. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
There is also this book [5] published by Routledge, I think this article does a pretty good job of explaining it [6] - I don't think its particularly helpful to keep trying to broaden this to accuse people of wanting to make it "less than it was" and that trend is at least controversial. As the article says:

Cole raises the disturbing question of whether some marketed images might actually "play into the hands of deniers, because they tend to blur the critical distinction between reality and representation."

So it could just be that. I think it's difficult to come up with a solid definition of what is Holocaust denial, and what is honest histiographical analysis. Right now it seems to be mostly a question of reputation and perceived intent, some are perceived as having a bad intent and are discredited, and others are asking questions that might be difficult but should be allowed to be explored. So, controversy. Seraphim System (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, reputation, perceived intent and also laws. There is also the article Criticism of Holocaust denial which should probably be merged into this article as a POVFORK. Seraphim System (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

"Conspiracy theory" should be added to the title. Holocaust denial makes it sound like a legitimate position. -Ben Cohen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8782:32DF:396D:54A3:AE32:708C (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not really a conspiracy theory, and it is not termed as such in the majority of academic literature. This article itself is broader, including discussion of Holocaust denial laws. It is discussed here in a specific context connected to Zionism, but this is too narrow to change the article title. Seraphim System (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no need to change the title. There is no “Conspiracy theory”, only a denial of the facts. Kierzek (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the title is fine like it is, even though Holocaust denial is of course an example of a conspiracy theory and called that, for example, by Deborah Lipstadt in her book on the subject. I don't get Kierzek's point at all, since tons of conspiracy theories are contrary to the facts. Zerotalk 01:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The title is fine as is. Adding "conspiracy theory" would either mean that Holocause denial itself is a conspiracy, which I don't think is the case: these people are benighted, biased, blind, unable to properly evaluate information, and many other things (some of them are just downright evil), but they're not calling each other up at night and saying "What'll we do next to advance our conspiracy?" The other possibility is that Holocause deniers think that the Holocaust is a conspiracy, probably spawned by the eternal Jew and their fellow travelers. These people do exist, but not all Holocaust deniers are conspiracists, so the title would be inappropriate for the article as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The title is right as it is, per WP:COMMONTERM, there's no need to add the "conspiracy theory" bit which would make the subject of the article less clear, even though holocaust denial is generally considered an antisemitic conspiracy theory - which is explained in the article itself.--ז62 (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
We use the most common name, which is Holocaust denial. Indeed it is a conspiracy theory, but that alone does not support changing the title. TFD (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I think these terms refer to different ideas. Holocaust denial is denying the Holocaust happened, which itself is not a conspiracy theory, but it is certainly associated with various conspiracy theories acknowledging the widespread belief that it happened and trying to explain it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
"Hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts" - e. g. "denying that something happened although generally available evidence clearly and unambiguously confirms that it happened" - are one of the classical qualifiers for a conspiracy theory.
It's perhaps even quite a bit more complicated on the semantic level - there's conspiracy (i.e. when members of some organized group act in agreement in order to achieve some nefarious and/or illegal goal) and on the other hand there's conspiracy theory (when some loosely associated subjects claim that such conspiracy by a third party - for some alleged reasons, which can be fairly varied even between the conspiracy theorists themselves - existed or still exists) - and the Holocaust denial is not a 'conspiracy' in the former, but is a 'conspiracy theory' in the latter sense, denying that The Holocaust happened, somewhat in a similar way how the Moon landing conspiracy theories deny that the Moon landings happened, despite all the existing evidence.-ז62 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
They are foremost denying the truth of the matter asserted. Kierzek (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Holocaust denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"An order of magnitude"

As someone said in their edit summary, "an order of magnitude" does not mean "some order of magnitude", it means "one order of magnitude". That is my understanding of the meaning of the term, and it is for that reason that I restored it. "Much lower" is extremely vague, and could mean practically anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand "one order of magnitude" pretty much means 600k, which is probably too specific, especially since many Holocaust deniers will deny that anyone was killed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm.... good point. Perhaps it needs to be re-written: "...and the actual number is significantly lower, with figures ranging from X to Y being cited," or something along those lines. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm a native English speaker with three university degrees, and I have no idea what "an order of magnitude" means exactly. From Googling it, its literal meaning is "a class in a system of classification determined by size, typically in powers of ten", which is confusing and not accurate in this context. Leaving aside the literal meaning, the frequent use of the term to mean something like "very different" is also unhelpful here. "Much lower" is plain English. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Three degrees - that seems pretty excessive to me. Hey, I never finished college - can I have one of your degrees? Please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I remember from high school that "an order of magnitude" means ten times as much (ten for each order of magnitude) and googling it confirms this, so perhaps different systems of education simply don't use that expression. In any case, the nerdy "order of magnitude" is far less well understood than "ten times as much" (or fewer) so we should use the latter, or an approximate figure. Mathglot (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Order of magnitude refers to ranges as shown here. It says that the average height of a human is in the same order of magnitude as the length of a London bus (1 to 10m). That's useful information if you're trying to determine what type of telescope you need to view from a distance. In the edit the first lower order of magnitude is 100 thousand to one million. But I don't think its helpful to use, since not everyone apparently knows what it means and the value of the concept is in describing either microscopic or (literally) astronomical weights and distances. TFD (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm the editor who restored "order of magnitude" to the article, and on the basis of this discussion, I agree that better wording is needed. I still think that "much lower" is too vague and casual. If we can move off the question of "order of magnitude", does anyone has any suggestions for a replacement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The source provide a few examples, but do not claim there is a range. It's not even clear that those writers claim any responsibility by the Nazis. Nor is there a section about them in the article. Since the sentence already says "significantly lower," I think it is best left without further explanation. It may be vague, but so is the information in the sources and this article. TFD (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
There are other sources out there, we shouldn't be limited to what this one says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I restored it earlier today without looking at this talk page, based on the previous edsum. I will of course go with consensus, but the phrase is perfectly fine, imho. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to come up with a range of deaths which constitute "holocaust denial". The range of deaths deniers put forward varies considerably, from zero to the millions (our David Irving article notes he alone - as a particularly prominent denier - has put multiple figures forward, including four million deaths). Deniers often argue that while large numbers of people were killed this was either not the industrialised mass murder which actually occurred (eg, they died of disease) and/or that Hitler somehow didn't know about the killings and/or tried to stop them. It's simply incorrect to say that deniers believe that about 600,000 people were killed as the article text implies. As noted above, I suggest going with "much lower" or equivalent. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
"An order of magnitude" does not mean, or even imply, the same as "exactly one tenth". It is much less precise and I think that the vast majority of readers will correctly understand it that way. It is a term used in fairly everyday speech. An order of magnitude less than 6 million is in the hundreds of thousands but not specifically 6 hundreds of thousands. The only change I would suggest is to work in the word "typically", thus further reflecting that there is a wide range here for anybody who has failed to pick up on it already. So maybe we could change "and the actual number is an order of magnitude lower." to something like "typically claiming that the actual number is an order of magnitude lower". --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Declutter lead with LDRs

This topic was originally subsumed under the Rfc above, and split into its own section in this edit

As an o/t aside regarding footnotes: I understand why BMK placed the LONG FOOTNOTE hidden text with separator dashes and it's a huge help for finding the actual text content of the lead which is submerged by long notes, but there is a much better way to address that problem, and it's list-defined references. If there is no objection, I'll convert lead footnotes to LDRs, and it will make the lead ten times easier to edit. Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC_

I was thinking of that, but didn't know if you could combine regular refs with list-defined refs, and I certainly didn't want to convert the entire article. In any case, I have no objection - I think it would be quite helpful in editing, and better than the kludgy method I used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Ditto about the not sure, but here's my thinking: there's nothing in the guidelines that specifically says you can't: you're supposed to stick to one style (harv, sfn, etc.) but this isn't a change of style, everything renders identically, plus in the end, IAR for the benefit of the article. I'll wait a couple more days for other thoughts on this, but will deal with it then if still okay. (Btw, begging your pardon for adding the new header above, feel free to put it back under the old section if you prefer; I believe this is one of the allowable changes under TPO. Feel free to un-small if you wish, as I've already un-indented one level for the new section.) Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I was more concerned with function - i.e. will it work, rather than with permission, since IAR allows us to do pretty much anything which will improve the encyclopedia. I know that at the moment it's virtually impossible to edit the lede because of the clutter created by the long footnotes, so any solution to that is going to be an improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations

An editor is attempting to remove multiple citations from one fact in the article. I have reverted with these two arguments:

  • The thing that holocaust deniers do is deny that they're holocause deniers, therefore additional references are appropriate.
  • In many situations where facts are controversial and apt to be disputed, additional cites are given.

I think these both apply here. Of course, giving multiple citations for an ordinary fact is overkill, but when establishing that a person is a holocause denier, I believe it is appropriate to provide as many citations from reliable sources as possible, to head any arguments disputing that fact. Being called a holocaust denier is a very controversial thing, and needs to be firmly cited. A single citation or even two or three are not necessarily sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

In the list of holocaust deniers, Abbas is included. The 'status quo' is having six citations; however, per common sense and WP policy, I trimmed it down to 4 cites. 95% of the list has no no citations whatsoever, so I don't understand the obsession with including six for one person. There is no reason to have six citations to support one statement - four reliable sources is MORE than enough for inclusion. If someone removes the entry from the list, that would constitute vandalism. I don't understand how there can be an argument for having six citations, controversial or not. A tangential issue is User:Beyond My Ken's WP:Own behavior on Holocaust and Nazi related articles, but that is only a side issue.
So: how many citations is enough for Abbas' inclusion in the list? 4, or 6? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Four is already enough, especially if they are reliable sources. Six can not be justified based on the claim that it may be disputed. That's what reliable sources do - they settle these disputes. --Dmol (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
So is "four" based on something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Try reading Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Three at most is the generally agreed consensus - but I left four in hopes of avoiding conflict, though this apparently did not happen. This is not a content issue, it's a MOS issue, and even though it's a 'guideline' and not a rule (per your talk page), there is a reason there are agreed upon standards. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:Citation overkill is an essay, which means it ranks ever lower than MOS on the scale of Wikipedia "rules". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, why don't we discuss whether or not each of the six citations is the best we can use? Rather than applying some random number as a limit ... let's discuss the actual sources used. This is Tom Goss on his own site, I suspect this isn't going to persuade anyone who isn't already aware of Abbas' beliefs. this is the Wiesenthal center, definitely a good quality source, if not one that won't be dismissed by some folks as "biased". Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, probably not as well known as Wiesenthal - perhaps not adding much value here. The Commentator - not very well known "news site", which appears to do a lot of opinion. Not sure it's exactly the highest quality (although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise). This is the NY Times, so an excellent source, if a bit dated. The last source - here, times out even at Internet Archive, so I"m not sure what its adding. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents, based on quality - leave NYT, Wiesenthal, and Wyman Institute. Cut out the others. If more citations are needed - I'm sure (from a very cursory check) that much higher quality ones from the 3 others are available.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
That seems backwards to me. If better-quality sources are available, let's have them, and keep the high quality sources we already have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's my take: WP:Citation overkill is referred to far too often. A claim with 6 cites is better than a claim with 4, which in turn is better than a claim with 3. If it becomes controversial in the future, by leaving it with all 6 cites, that's at least three that we don't have to go digging through the history to find again to use in the discussion about whether the claim is true or WP:DUE or whatever is controversial about it.
If some claim has become almost unreadable from too many cites, then my advice is to comment out those not needed and leave them in the article. If those in support of extra sites don't like that, then hit me up on my talk page and I will design a mutltiple-source cite template that we can use, to get it down to a single [N] tag. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have used bundling a couple of times in cases like this, and assuming we could come up with a consensus per Ealdgyth's idea of choosing the most reliable ones, perhaps bundling offers a path to a compromise here; less clutter reading the lead, but still a longer list of sources. Mathglot (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I wasn't aware that was a thing. Well, it saves me the effort of writing code, so by that measure, I love it! But yes, I firmly believe that bundling cites is far preferable to removing them. There's really no reason to complain about having too many citations if they don't affect the readability of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work: What is the advantage of having six citations for a single claim? Could you imagine how inaccessible WP would become if every claim had as many cites as possible? There needs to be a cap. Your argument of 'the more cites the better' doesn't really pass as a reasonable theory. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
What is the advantage of having six citations for a single claim? The claim is epistemologically better supported.
Could you imagine how inaccessible WP would become if every claim had as many cites as possible? Given the existence of bundling, yes, but what's the point in imagining a problem that has an easy solution?
Your argument of 'the more cites the better' doesn't really pass as a reasonable theory. So you say, as your own rebuttal fails to actually offer any concrete criticisms of it. Instead, you say "can you imagine how bad it would be if you got your way?" and hope that the implied dire consequences make your case for you. No, I'm afraid that, whatever the strengths or merits of my argument, I at least have an argument. So far, you have given nothing but empty rhetoric in response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It's unnecessary. There is no reason for it. Period. That's it. Having six citations creates clutter that makes everything hard to read. 99.9999999% of sentences on WP have 3 cites or less, which I should think shows a clear consensus. I don't understand why you guys are choosing this hill to die on. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
maybe because we’ve been around a long time and can see how something like this is often so contentious that six (or more) citations may be needed. Many of us have been in situations were we did need a huge pile of citations...Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason for it. Period. That's it. If that were true, you would not need to state it so forcefully. It would be obvious. Instead, it's decidedly not obvious to anyone but you.
Having six citations creates clutter that makes everything hard to read.This objection has already been addressed multiple times and shown to be without merit. Please read my response to you above and click on the link that I gave you, which I in turn got from Mathglot, who so thoughtfully provided it in response to my offer to create just such a feature if needed.
I don't understand why you guys are choosing this hill to die on. In our case, it's because there is a clear, rational, and fairly easy-to-implement answer to this question. Which leaves the question; why are you electing to meet us in mortal combat on this particular hill? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I too, have seen multiple occasions where many more than three cites were necessary. The first sentence of Creation science has eight citations, while the stub section about it in our Creationism article has four cites in the sentence calling it pseudoscience. The last sentence of the first paragraph on Intelligent design in that same article has ten citations, while the lead of the Intelligent design article itself -despite requiring zero citations per policy- has 25 citations (though to be fair, only 20 are unique). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I think from the perspective of the average Wikipedia reader 6 cites does clutter the page and it does negatively effect readability. It's only necessary because of content disputes, not because it actually improves the article to have six citations for a single statement. I think a multi-source template would be a good idea.Seraphim System (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)El Cid, can you please define or describe the clutter you object to? Is it having six pairs of brackets with numbers in running text that you have to scan past to continue reading? If we understand you better, it might be easier to find an equitable solution amenable to all. Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ll point out that I’d be more impressed wit( the argument El CID is putting forth if more discrimination had been put into which citations they removed. It appears they just removed the last two in the string, taking out the New York Times in the process. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

GOP has a problem

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-the-gop-has-a-nazi-problem-and-it-just-got-a-whole-lot-worse-1.5937282?utm_source=Push_Notification&utm_medium=web_push&utm_campaign=General Xx236 (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can not see how exactly is this relevant to the article Holocaust denial, unless Arthur J. Jones is notable enough to be included in the section on notable deniers. -ז62 (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Candidates for office at that level are generally not considered notable enough for their own articles, so I have to wonder why he has one, since he has never held office. The nature of how he received the current candidacy (essentially by default: the Republicans put up no official candidate, combined with rote party-line voting) speaks against notability as well. In the very unlikely event he should win the election, then, of course, he would be notable, but until then, I think not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess WP:NPOL's "significant coverage" clause covers him. I added him to the list, but would not be upset if someone disagreed with the addition and removed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you - he's certainly notable enough for his own article (notable perennial candidate, known for his extremist views, has lot of media coverage), but I was also not sure if he's notable enough for including in the article (which seemed to be the relevant point of the article linked by Xx236, as far as the topic of holocaust denial is concerned).--ז62 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on removal of phrase "conspiracy theory" from lede without consensus, leaving sources abandoned.

Closing this RFC as per a request for closure. The participants appear to have reached a version everyone is reasonably happy with, that sticks with the phrasing "antisemitic conspiracy theory" but separating the issue of legality, to ensure the reader is aware that it's the antisemitism that is illegal, not the fact it's a conspiracy theory. Fish+Karate 09:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Beyond My Ken removed the words "conspiracy theory" from the lede without explanation. It seems there were many specific sources added prior to support it. (Holocaust_denial#cite_note-conspiracy-9). I attempted to fix the issue and re-add the words but the edit was reverted. I propose keeping it as it was. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Keep as is, "antisemitic conspiracy theory"
  • Remove

Discussion

  • Keep as is-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This RfC is confusing, unclear and malformed , and also somewhat misrepresents the situation. Here is the original wording:

    Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is an exaggeration or a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy, designed to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[8] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory, and is illegal in several countries.[9][10]

    R9tgokunks changed it to

    Most Holocaust denial claims implicitly, or explicitly state, that the Holocaust is an exaggeration or a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy, designed to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[8] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory, and is illegal in several countries.[9][10]

    I then copy-edited this extremely awkwardly-written paragraph to:

    Most Holocaust deniers claim, either explicitly or implicitly, that the Holocaust is a hoax – or at best an exaggeration – arising from a deliberate Jewish conspiracy designed to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other people.[8] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be antisemitic, and is illegal in several countries.[9][10]

    This version says the same thing as the original, but says it in a manner which is easier to read and understand. The important part of the statement is that Holocaust denial is considered to be antisemitic, which is why it is illegal in some places. The fact that it is a conspiracy theory is entirely incidental to its illegality.
    Clearly, my re-written version is superior to R9tgokunks', and is functionally the equivalent of the original. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
That's not the issue. If anything you are misrepresenting the situation. I have no problem with the other edits.
This edit is the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&diff=825576811&oldid=825576543
You removed "conspiracy theory" without any consensus or explanation, which I reverted here. Based on the lack of an edit summary, it was borderline vandalism.
Now there is an abandoned bundled sitting source there unused:
<!-- FOOTNOTE --><ref name="conspiracy">Conspiracy theory: *"While appearing on the surface as a rather arcane pseudo-scholarly challenge to the well-established record of Nazi genocide during the Second World War, Holocaust denial serves as a powerful conspiracy theory uniting otherwise disparate fringe groups...." [http://www.adl.org/holocaust/theory.asp Introduction: Denial as Anti-Semitism], "Holocaust Denial: An Online Guide to Exposing and Combating Anti-Semitic Propaganda", [[Anti-Defamation League]], 2001. Retrieved June 12, 2007. *"Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term 'Holocaust denial.'" Mathis, Andrew E. [http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/denial/abc-clio/ Holocaust Denial, a Definition], [[The Holocaust History Project]], July 2, 2004. Retrieved December 18, 2006. *"Since its inception ... the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), a California-based Holocaust denial organization founded by Willis Carto of Liberty Lobby, has promoted the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews fabricated tales of their own genocide to manipulate the sympathies of the non-Jewish world." [http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/usa.htm Antisemitism and Racism Country Reports: United States] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628184616/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/usa.htm |date=June 28, 2011 }}, [[Stephen Roth Institute]], 2000. Retrieved May 17, 2007. </ref><!--LONG FOOTNOTE FOLLOWS-->
As you can see the sourcer clearly intended this to support the fact that Holocaust denial comprises a conspiracy theory.-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 06:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Please learn how to properly indent comments and, for that matter, how to properly create an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
"There is an abandoned bundled sitting source there unused." Is this English of some sort? The "sourcer's" comment are clearly POV (and unsourced) and will be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
OH MY GOD! Why is this so hard to understand?
OKAY. Here is a timeline.
1. The lede for Holocaust denial had this set of words "antisemitic conspiracy theory." Someone thoroughly added sources, as "reference #9", and the reference is still there.
2. you removed the words without explanation(possible vandalism), meaning that the sources are just sitting there unused. I objected and told you to take it to the talk page based on your removal of a sourced phrase, you rejected and said flippantly "you take it to talk."
3. I re-added the words "conspiracy theory" as the sources were still there for that specific term.
4. It was removed again.
TL;DR= Currrently, there are sources sitting at the article unused because the term that they supported is deleted. How is this so hard to understand? -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 07:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Jeez, chill out already. The extremely long footnotes in the article make it practically impossible to follow the text when editing, so it's hardly surprising that mistakes can easily be made. I have edited that last sentence so that the proper footnote is connected to the proper word or phrase, and so that the illegality is disconnected from "conspiracy theory". The paragraph is still poorly written, especially since it is in the lede, which summarizes the article. The salient point about Holocaust denial is not that it's a conspiracy theory, it's that it's antisemitic, so "conspiracy theory" really should not be in the lead at all. Holocaust denial doesn't get any gravitas from being called a conspiracy theory, conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen.
Anyway, you got what you want, so put your socks back on and get a grip on yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I have edited BMK's comment above to add "not". I hope he doesn't mind. I also endorse said comment. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Why has a RfC been launched before there was any other discussion of this issue? This seems a gross over-reaction to a standard editing issue, and rather WP:POINTy. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
For real. We don't need an RfC to have a conversation. For the record, the current version looks fine. I disagree with removing the term "conspiracy theory" from the lede, though the reason why this was done is obviously benign. The reason I disagree is because the phrase "conspiracy theory" appears 5 (actually 7, but there's two duplicates) times in the footnotes. The ADL, The Holocaust History Project and the Stephen Roth Institute all call it that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Happy with the original wording, or BMK's version. However, why are there any references/footnotes in the lead at all? The lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article. If the ref/fn are relevant to the main body then they should be used there. If a statement in the lead is not expanded on in the article body (thus needing a ref), it should not be in the lead at all. - Nick Thorne talk 14:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADCITE it's one of those whatever-works-best things. For whatever reason, the material in the lead is sometimes challenged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Happy with either orig, or BMK version, per Nick Thorne. If the latter is preferred, then I object to the change from "peoples" to "people". I *normally* agree with NT's objection to notes in the lead, however per User:GGS and LEADCITE it's not prohibited, and in highly contentious topics—of which this article has to be the poster boy—it may be helpful to have them. Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as is/was-- the original wording i.e. "[an] antisemitic conspiracy theory" was much more concise, and there's no actual need to split it into "antisemitic" and "conspiracy theory" parts, as both these are quite inseparable. Also, the rationale given by user Beyond My Ken does not seem to be convincing to me - alleged awkwardly-written changes made by R9tgokunks can be break down to changing from "[Holocaust denial claims] imply, or openly state," to "[Holocaust denial claims] implicitly, or explicitly state" - in my opinion it's hardly a reason to justify a rather major change of wording, without any explanation other than "copy edit" - which can be applied to changes by R9tgokunks, but not really to removing long-standing term conspiracy theory (which was completely uncontested).-ז62 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You're a little behind the times, as I have conceded the inclusion of "conspiracy theory". As such there is no substantive issue to discuss here, and this totally unnecessary RfC should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
As far I was able to folow the discussion I'm actually not - the discussion is still about the original "[an] antisemitic conspiracy theory" vs. the rather awkwardly worded "[a] conspiracy theory, and antisemitic". If there's nothing substantive to discuss here, can you finally return the wording of the lede to the original state with "[an] antisemitic conspiracy theory", before the rather clumsy changes to "[a] conspiracy theory, and antisemitic"?-ז62 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You know, the snide edit summaries really aren't helping anything. If you want to be civil, then be civil. Don't pretend to be civil in the thread while being an ass in edit summaries. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
OK,I'll try. I'm sorry, but the I couldn't help myself vis-a-vis the condescending tone of "Beyond My Ken's" comment. -ז62 (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
There were no "personal remarks" in my comment, just a straightforward statement that you were responding to a situation that no longer existed, therefore that you were "behind the times", which you literally were, and are. "Conspiracy theory" was what I removed, and that's what the RfC was about. "Conspiracy theory" has now been restored, with my acquiescence, which is why the RfC should be closed.
As for the grammatical issue, my version doesn't create the inaccurate impression that Holocaust denial is illegal in some places because it's a conspiracy theory, which the original version did. Holocaust denial is not illegal because it's a conspiracy theory, it's illegal because it's antisemitic, which my rewrite makes perfectly clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:You can surely attempt to claim so, but there's no way how not to interpret personally phrase "You're a little behind the times [...]". Please refrain from such offensive personal remarks in the future.
I was not responding to a situation that no longer exists, although I've commented on both the original request for comment and the then-current state of the article - "conspiracy theory and antisemitic" is a rather poorly worded substitute for the orginal "antisemitic conspiracy theory".
According to the sources, it's illegal because it's antisemitic and conspiracy theory - it's sort of intertwined. "Your rewrite" even reused some sources for both parts.
Please make yourself more clear - are you now claiming that the latter version is somewhat "grammatically superior" (using "[a] conspiracy theory, and antisemitic" instead of "[an] antisemitic conspiracy theory") as you stated here or that "there's no substantive issue" as you claimed here? How exactly you'd attempt to reconcile both these claims?
If there's no "substantive issue", what is your argument against the original wording ("[an] antisemitic conspiracy theory"), exactly? -ז62 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I'm good with the current version. Yes, the "antisemitic conspiracy theory" read better, but you're right about the implications. I think clarity should be preferred over good prose in an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, a more public thanks to ז62 for taking my criticism with such good humor. A positive attitude in the face of criticism is rather more rare than it should be, and should be recognized when it appears. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Especially around midnight, I often feel myself to be too clever by half, which sometimes - quite unfortunately - shows. But I have to admit that the most recent edit by "Beyond My Ken" introduced the wording of the lede actually quite acceptable to me, reconciling both possible versions.-ז62 (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've made another change, which perhaps may make everyone happy, restoring "antisemitic conspiracy theory" but separating out the statement about illegality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually I personally feel I can go with this wording. It would perhaps require some more details on the illegality aspect (and sources, even), but in my opinion it reads better than previous versions of the lede. -ז62 (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep with antisemitic conspiracy theory. Holocaust denial is a conspiracy theory (by just plain commmonsense, DICTDEF, and per [7] [8] and I bet a whole lot of other refs if we really need to check this up). It is also antisemitic. Not all antisemitism is conspiracy based (though alot is). Not all conspiracy theories are antisemitic (though some are). Thus, we should definitely state this is a conspiracy theory in the lead. As for the exact wording - I agree some improvement might be in order, but conspiracy theory should definitely be retained.Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Describe as antisemitic conspiracy theory. The sources are fairly unanimous (and this section is carefully-worded anyway, attributing it via "generally described as" rather than using that in the article voice), and I think it's an important enough point to be unambiguous. (And yes, I know this has probably been resolved, but it seems important enough to weigh in on just in case it comes up again.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed removal

Seraphim System wants to remove from the article the phrase "and referred to Holocaust education as a 'war crime'" in regard to Hamas, on the grounds that it's outside the scope of this article (his opinion). I think it's a pretty good example of Holocaust denial (my opinion). He thinks my opinion is OR, but, of course, OR doesn't refer to the opinions of editors, it refers to the material in an article, and this material is sourced, therefore OR is irrelevant. What we have is simply dueling opinions, or, in other words, a content dispute.

What do other editors think: include the phrase or not? The full sentence is:

In August 2009, Hamas' told UNRWA that it would "refuse" to allow Palestinian children to study the Holocaust, which it called "a lie invented by the Zionists" and referred to Holocaust education as a "war crime".[119]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A BLP issue should not have been restored until after it was discussed with other editors, and removing it is not edit warring: [9] I was about to open a discussion but I was making dinner, so the hasty reverts are also uncalled for. The cited source does not attribute the statement to Hamas, it attributes it to Yunis Al Astal, who is still alive as far as I know, so it is a BLP issue — assuming editors will agree with me that it is not acceptable to attribute to an organization, a statement that is made by an individual. It is a (defamatory) BLP issue to call someone a Holocaust denier based on a statement they made publicly, which can be inferred from inclusion in this page. No where in the source does it support the assertion that this is Holocaust denial. Seraphim System (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It is also one of the clearest examples of WP:OR that I have seen. Maybe another editor thinks it is "brainwashing" and wants to add it to the Brainwashing article. The only thing these two suggestions have in common is that neither is explicitly supported by the source.Seraphim System (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you need to read WP:OR again, more closely, since there is not a scintilla of OR connected to the statement in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: The applicable part of the policy is: The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research — please review these policies yourself before making belittling statements about other editors, and I think it would be helpful if you could explain your comments more instead of just making ex cathedra statements like there is not a scintilla of OR — especially if you are questioning another editor's competence I think you need to offer much more of an explanation than this, or it would be better to focus on the content of the edit and not the editor in the future.Seraphim System (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, you read it, apparently, and you quoted from it, but you clearly still do not understand it. Let's let it pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Include. Properly sourced and and obviously relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m not sure how anyone could think that a statement calling the teaching of the Holocaust a war crime could not be considered relevant to Holocaust denial. And I don’t see how BLP applies, since the person making that statement isn’t actually mentioned in this article, nor is he listed at the bottom. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: You think it is acceptable to misrepresent a source to avoid a BLP issue? - the source does not say Hamas said this, it is Yunis al Astal said it. You can not just call people Holocaust deniers without clear WP:RS to support it on your authority, it is actually defamatory. This article is subject to the same policies as all the other articles on Wikipedia...the content is based on WP:RS not editors beliefs about what relevant.Seraphim System (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Since no individual is referenced, there is no BLP violation. Since the person making the statement represented Hamas in an official capacity, ascribing the statements to Hamas is perfectly legitimate. Since the information is sourced, there is no OR. There are no policy-based grounds for removal that I can see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Where in the article does it say that he is making the statement in an official capacity? All it says is Hamas religious leader Younis al-Astal called the teaching of the Holocaust to Palestinian children a "war crime" - why do you think it is ok to change that to "Hamas called it ..."? Its a pretty clear distortion of what the source actually says. Seraphim System (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
If an article says "A teacher at Johns Hopkins Highschool said bats are delicious" you can not just assume that Johns Hopkins highschool said it. That is nothing more than an identification of who he is. It is not like everything members of Hamas say are official statements of the organization and just because its Hamas we don't have to care about it. It's not a license to just start making things up that aren't there, sorry.Seraphim System (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
A high school teacher obviously does not necessarily represent the opinion of his school, a Hamas religious leader making a public statement obviously does represent the opinion of Hamas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that, and that is the kind of source this needs - thank you SarahSV. Is there any objection to adding this as a second sentence sourced to this article: Hamas spiritual leader Younis al-Astal said teaching the Holocaust in Palestinian schools would be "a war crime, because of how it serves the Zionist colonizers and deals with their hypocrisy and lies’’ and citing it to the Boston Globe article? Seraphim System (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally, considering the opinions you expressed above, I'd like to see how you intend to connect the two sentences before you make the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to do anything special - the current version should be revised anyway, its currently a bit clunky:

" In August 2009, Hamas' told UNRWA that it would "refuse" to allow Palestinian children to study the Holocaust, which it called "a lie invented by the Zionists". and referred to Holocaust education as a "war crime". Hamas religious leader Younis al-Astal said that teaching the Holocaust in Palestinian schools would be "a war crime, because of how it serves the Zionist colonizers and deals with their hypocrisy and lies".

Seraphim System (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Are you talking to me? Seraphim System (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You got it! Drmies (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me say this — I think especially for something controversial about whether refusing to teach the Holocaust in Palestine is Holocaust denial, the source should say it explicitly. I think from the POV of someone in Palestine it might not mean what it sounds like to you and me where it is taught in Western schools teaching a universal rights of man "lesson" — this seems obvious, but when you read scholarship about this, it's not actually that obvious. And so I really think the source should be explicit for whatever it is you want to add here, not just our interpretation of his statement that it would be a "war crime". The standard for this should be high — the source should actually say it. The source in the article appears to be a public statement is not really enough — the second source SarahSV posted actually says it was a written statement, and this is better. This is my understanding — I think I understand WP:OR and WP:BLP well enough to apply them in my own editing — this isn't any different standard than the standard I hold myself to when editing, so if there is something I haven't understood about it, which I am not denying is possible, or if the standard I am setting is too high — then I would appreciate it if you could actually be specific about what you think that is so I can apply it to my own editing also. Thanks Seraphim System (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There is an entire section of commentary here; I think that should be enough of an indication. And then there's the section above this one, where you drop some indictment and upon being questioned say a. "Please don't ask me WP:FORUM type questions" (those weren't forum-type questions) and b. "I'm not going to debate about Yad Vashem" when Yad Vashem was one of the subjects of your indictment. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I hear you, and if there is something specific I am misinterpreting about the policies you are always welcome on my talk page to discuss that more. Regarding Yad Vashem, I think it would be better to clean up the dead links for the benefit of those reading the article, or seeking to use it for research/writing school papers/whatever. The words I chose were strong words, and I am still surprised that editors were as offended as they were. I did not think the idea of "Jewish Holocaust" as they refer to it, or minimizing non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust as not within their "sphere of responsibility" (their words) was the consensus view of the Holocaust here. I am still not sure, and while I don't fully understand editors beliefs about this, because of the intensity of the reaction, I want to step away from that issue because I think we all have POV about this and I don't want to spend more time debating it, if that is ok with everyone.Seraphim System (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
And checking again I may have been wrong about this — I was basing this on what is in our article here Holocaust which has done a careful job of referring to a "larger event" that is not really named, and I know this is controversial, so maybe Yad Vashem still is the majority view on this. Britannica seems to follow this also. But checking again I see we have separate articles set up like Nazi crimes against the Polish nation so maybe I will find one of those and work on it. It may just be that this article isn't about what I thought it was about — and I will certainly apologize for that if I was mistaken here. Seraphim System (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
So, some editors might know that I'm more interested in working on articles about Christian history than Jewish history and while there are a few sources that recognize a Nazi genocide against Christians like Phayer the vast majority of sources available on Google Books seem to blame Christians for the Holocaust, which I totally do not deny after a closer look at the state of the reliable sources — I had no idea that the deaths of Christians were not counted as part of the Holocaust or that editors would feel this ... strongly, about it — obviously I was totally wrong about Yad Vashem so I'm going to work on something I find more interesting. Kindly close this topic. Good night everyone. Seraphim System (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Include clearly relevant. The only real question is whether to attribute to Hamas (note that Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri also objected to including what he referred to as the "so-called Holocaust" in the lesson plan - [10] - so this is an official position - and "so-called Holocaust" is clearly denial) or to Hamas spiritual leader Younis al-Astal. I think that as we have an official spokeperson as well as official contacts between the Hamas government and UNRWA on the matter that we can simply attribute to Hamas (without mentioning each and every Hamas leader and official who made such a stmt).Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I think representing it as coming from one statement is inaccurate. If I were reading this article, I would want to know the information was represented accurately. The source for a quote like this should always be stated, in my opinion. Also, I think the full quote from the Boston Globe source SarahSV posted is essential, because that is the one that says deals with their hypocrisy and lies — just calling it a "war crime" may be antisemitic, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it is denial. These kinds of specious connections are something I try to avoid and as disappointed as I am that the consensus of so many esteemed and established editors seems to be no big deal, if the majority here feels that is acceptable for Wikipedia (which I get is different from academic or scholarly writing), then I am willing to work on something else.Seraphim System (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_19&oldid=1136800164"