Jump to content

Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 20

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

Long footnotes

These long footnotes in the lede are a mess and making it difficult to edit the article - I am going to remove them. This was probably well-intentioned but it is getting in the way of editing the article. I am copying them here in case they need to added to the article body but everything in the lede should be cited and discussed fully in the article anyway - some of these can be used to expand the article, but many are primary sources: Seraphim System (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"Long footnote" material removed

Key elements of Holocaust denial:

  • "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'. Holocaust deniers, or 'revisionists', as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project, July 2, 2004. Retrieved December 18, 2006.
  • "In part III we directly address the three major foundations upon which Holocaust denial rests, including ... the claim that gas chambers and crematoria were used not for mass extermination but rather for delousing clothing and disposing of people who died of disease and overwork; ... the claim that the six million figure is an exaggeration by an order of magnitude—that about six hundred thousand, not six million, died at the hands of the Nazis; ... the claim that there was no intention on the part of the Nazis to exterminate European Jewry and that the Holocaust was nothing more than the unfortunate by-product of the vicissitudes of war." Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman. Denying History: who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and why Do They Say It?, University of California Press, 2000, ISBN 0-520-23469-3, p. 3.
  • "Holocaust Denial: Claims that the mass extermination of the Jews by the Nazis never happened; that the number of Jewish losses has been greatly exaggerated; that the Holocaust was not systematic nor a result of an official policy; or simply that the Holocaust never took place." What is Holocaust Denial Archived February 16, 2005, at archive.today, Yad Vashem website, 2004. Retrieved December 18, 2006.
  • "Among the untruths routinely promoted are the claims that no gas chambers existed at Auschwitz, that only 600,000 Jews were killed rather than six million, and that Hitler had no murderous intentions toward Jews or other groups persecuted by his government." Holocaust Denial, Anti-Defamation League, 2001. Retrieved June 28, 2007.

The kinds of assertions made in Holocaust-denial material include the following:

  • Several hundred thousand rather than approximately six million Jews died during the war.
  • Scientific evidence proves that gas chambers could not have been used to kill large numbers of people.
  • The Nazi command had a policy of deporting Jews, not exterminating them.
  • Some deliberate killings of Jews did occur, but were carried out by the peoples of Eastern Europe rather than the Nazis.
  • Jews died in camps of various kinds, but did so as the result of hunger and disease (most died to the unavailability of food due to allied bombings). The Holocaust is a myth created by the Allies for propaganda purposes, and subsequently nurtured by the Jews for their own ends.
  • Errors and inconsistencies in survivors' testimonies point to their essential unreliability.
  • Alleged documentary evidence of the Holocaust, from photographs of concentration camp victims to Anne Frank’s diary, is fabricated.
  • The confessions of former Nazis to war crimes were extracted through torture." The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial? Archived July 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, JPR report No. 3, 2000. Retrieved December 18, 2006.</ref>

Denial vs. "revisionism":

  • "This is the phenomenon of what has come to be known as 'revisionism', 'negationism', or 'Holocaust denial,' whose main characteristic is either an outright rejection of the very veracity of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, or at least a concerted attempt to minimize both its scale and importance.... It is just as crucial, however, to distinguish between the wholly objectionable politics of denial and the fully legitimate scholarly revision of previously accepted conventional interpretations of any historical event, including the Holocaust." Bartov, Omer. The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation and Aftermath, Routledge, pp.11–12. Bartov is John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History at the Watson Institute, and is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on genocide ("Omer Bartov", The Watson Institute for International Studies).
  • "The two leading critical exposés of Holocaust denial in the United States were written by historians Deborah Lipstadt (1993) and Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (2000). These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial. Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about an historical event, not a denial of the event itself, that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a 'certain body of irrefutable evidence' or a 'convergence of evidence' that suggest that an event—like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust—did in fact occur (Lipstadt 1993:21; Shermer & Grobman 200:34). Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence...." Ronald J. Berger. Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach, Aldine Transaction, 2002, ISBN 0-202-30670-4, p. 154.
  • "At this time, in the mid-1970s, the specter of Holocaust Denial (masked as 'revisionism') had begun to raise its head in Australia...." Bartrop, Paul R. "A Little More Understanding: The Experience of a Holocaust Educator in Australia" in Samuel Totten, Steven Leonard Jacobs, Paul R Bartrop. Teaching about the Holocaust, Praeger/Greenwood, 2004, p. xix. ISBN 0-275-98232-7
  • "Pierre Vidal-Naquet urges that denial of the Holocaust should not be called 'revisionism' because 'to deny history is not to revise it'. Les Assassins de la Memoire. Un Eichmann de papier et autres essays sur le revisionisme (The Assassins of Memory—A Paper-Eichmann and Other Essays on Revisionism) 15 (1987)." Cited in Roth, Stephen J. "Denial of the Holocaust as an Issue of Law" in the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 23, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0-7923-2581-8, p. 215.
  • "This essay describes, from a methodological perspective, some of the inherent flaws in the 'revisionist' approach to the history of the Holocaust. It is not intended as a polemic, nor does it attempt to ascribe motives. Rather, it seeks to explain the fundamental error in the 'revisionist' approach, as well as why that approach of necessity leaves no other choice. It concludes that 'revisionism' is a misnomer because the facts do not accord with the position it puts forward and, more importantly, its methodology reverses the appropriate approach to historical investigation.... 'Revisionism' is obliged to deviate from the standard methodology of historical pursuit, because it seeks to mold facts to fit a preconceived result; it denies events that have been objectively and empirically proved to have occurred; and because it works backward from the conclusion to the facts, thus necessitating the distortion and manipulation of those facts where they differ from the preordained conclusion (which they almost always do). In short, 'revisionism' denies something that demonstrably happened, through methodological dishonesty." McFee, Gordon. "Why 'Revisionism' Isn't", The Holocaust History Project, May 15, 1999. Retrieved December 22, 2006.
  • "Holocaust denial can be a particularly insidious form of antisemitism precisely because it often tries to disguise itself as something quite different: as genuine scholarly debate (in the pages, for example, of the innocuous-sounding Journal for Historical Review). Holocaust deniers often refer to themselves as 'revisionists', in an attempt to claim legitimacy for their activities. There are, of course, a great many scholars engaged in historical debates about the Holocaust whose work should not be confused with the output of the Holocaust deniers. Debate continues about such subjects as, for example, the extent and nature of ordinary Germans' involvement in and knowledge of the policy of genocide, and the timing of orders given for the extermination of the Jews. However, the valid endeavour of historical revisionism, which involves the re-interpretation of historical knowledge in the light of newly emerging evidence, is a very different task from that of claiming that the essential facts of the Holocaust, and the evidence for those facts, are fabrications." The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial? Archived July 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, JPR report No. 3, 2000. Retrieved May 16, 2007.
  • "The deniers' selection of the name revisionist to describe themselves is indicative of their basic strategy of deceit and distortion and of their attempt to portray themselves as legitimate historians engaged in the traditional practice of illuminating the past. For historians, in fact, the name revisionism has a resonance that is perfectly legitimate – it recalls the controversial historical school known as World War I 'revisionists', who argued that the Germans were unjustly held responsible for the war and that consequently the Versailles treaty was a politically misguided document based on a false premise. Thus the deniers link themselves to a specific historiographic tradition of reevaluating the past. Claiming the mantle of the World War I revisionists and denying they have any objective other than the dissemination of the truth constitute a tactical attempt to acquire an intellectual credibility that would otherwise elude them." Deborah Lipstadt. Denying the Holocaust – The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Penguin, 1993, ISBN 0-452-27274-2, p. 25.

Refer to themselves as revisionists:

  • "The deniers' selection of the name revisionist to describe themselves is indicative of their basic strategy of deceit and distortion and of their attempt to portray themselves as legitimate historians engaged in the traditional practice of illuminating the past." Deborah Lipstadt. Denying the Holocaust—The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Penguin, 1993, ISBN 0-452-27274-2, p. 25.
  • "Dressing themselves in pseudo-academic garb, they have adopted the term 'revisionism' in order to mask and legitimate their enterprise." 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.
  • "Holocaust deniers often refer to themselves as 'revisionists', in an attempt to claim legitimacy for their activities. There are, of course, a great many scholars engaged in historical debates about the Holocaust whose work should not be confused with the output of the Holocaust deniers. Debate continues about such subjects as, for example, the extent and nature of ordinary Germans' involvement in and knowledge of the policy of genocide, and the timing of orders given for the extermination of the Jews. However, the valid endeavour of historical revisionism, which involves the re-interpretation of historical knowledge in the light of newly emerging evidence, is a very different task from that of claiming that the essential facts of the Holocaust, and the evidence for those facts, are fabrications." "The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial? Archived July 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine", JPR report No. 3, 2000. Retrieved May 16, 2007.</ref>

A hoax designed to advance the interests of Jews:

  • "The title of App's major work on the Holocaust, The Six Million Swindle, is informative because it implies on its very own the existence of a conspiracy of Jews to perpetrate a hoax against non-Jews for monetary gain." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project, July 2, 2004. Retrieved May 16, 2007.

Another belief of deniers is the death of the millions Jews was caused by sickness and disease."Holocaust Denial and Distortion". Retrieved 6 November 2013.

  • "Jews are thus depicted as manipulative and powerful conspirators who have fabricated myths of their own suffering for their own ends. According to the Holocaust deniers, by forging evidence and mounting a massive propaganda effort, the Jews have established their lies as 'truth' and reaped enormous rewards from doing so: for example, in making financial claims on Germany and acquiring international support for Israel." The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial? Archived July 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, JPR report No. 3, 2000. Retrieved May 16, 2007.
  • "Why, we might ask the deniers, if the Holocaust did not happen would any group concoct such a horrific story? Because, some deniers claim, there was a conspiracy by Zionists to exaggerate the plight of Jews during the war in order to finance the state of Israel through war reparations." Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman. Denying History: who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and why Do They Say It?, University of California Press, 2000, ISBN 0-520-23469-3, p. 106.
  • "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." Antisemitism and Racism Country Reports: United States Archived June 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Stephen Roth Institute, 2000. Retrieved May 17, 2007.
  • "The central assertion for the deniers is that Jews are not victims but victimizers. They 'stole' billions in reparations, destroyed Germany's good name by spreading the 'myth' of the Holocaust, and won international sympathy because of what they claimed had been done to them. In the paramount miscarriage of injustice, they used the world's sympathy to 'displace' another people so that the state of Israel could be established. This contention relating to the establishment of Israel is a linchpin of their argument." Deborah Lipstadt. Denying the Holocaust – The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Penguin, 1993, ISBN 0-452-27274-2, p. 27.
  • "They [Holocaust deniers] picture a vast shadowy conspiracy that controls and manipulates the institutions of education, culture, the media and government in order to disseminate a pernicious mythology. The purpose of this Holocaust mythology, they assert, is the inculcation of a sense of guilt in the white, Western Christian world. Those who can make others feel guilty have power over them and can make them do their bidding. This power is used to advance an international Jewish agenda centered in the Zionist enterprise of the State of Israel." 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.
  • "Deniers argue that the manufactured guilt and shame over a mythological Holocaust led to Western, specifically United States, support for the establishment and sustenance of the Israeli state – a sustenance that costs the American taxpayer over three billion dollars per year. They assert that American taxpayers have been and continue to be swindled...." 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.
  • "The stress on Holocaust revisionism underscored the new anti-Semitic agenda gaining ground within the Klan movement. Holocaust denial refurbished conspiratorial anti-Semitism. Who else but the Jews had the media power to hoodwink unsuspecting masses with one of the greatest hoaxes in history? And for what motive? To promote the claims of the illegitimate state of Israel by making non-Jews feel guilty, of course." Lawrence N. Powell, Troubled Memory: Anne Levy, the Holocaust, and David Duke's Louisiana, University of North Carolina Press, 2000, ISBN 0-8078-5374-7, p. 445

Antisemitic:

  • "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include ... denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)." "Working Definition of Antisemitism" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)  (33.8 KB), European Fundamental Rights Agency

{{Strikethrough*"It would elevate their antisemitic ideology – which is what Holocaust denial is – to the level of responsible historiography – which it is not." Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, ISBN 0-14-024157-4, p. 11.

  • "The denial of the Holocaust is among the most insidious forms of anti-Semitism...." Roth, Stephen J. "Denial of the Holocaust as an Issue of Law" in the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 23, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0-7923-2581-8, p. 215.
  • "Holocaust denial can be a particularly insidious form of antisemitism precisely because it often tries to disguise itself as something quite different: as genuine scholarly debate (in the pages, for example, of the innocuous-sounding Journal for Historical Review)." "The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial? Archived July 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine", JPR report No. 3, 2000. Retrieved May 16, 2007.
  • "This books treats several of the myths that have made antisemitism so lethal.... In addition to these historic myths, we also treat the new, maliciously manufactured myth of Holocaust denial, another groundless belief that is used to stir up Jew-hatred." Schweitzer, Frederick M. & Perry, Marvin. Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0-312-16561-7, p. 3.
  • "One predictable strand of Arab Islamic antisemitism is Holocaust denial...." Schweitzer, Frederick M. & Perry, Marvin. Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0-312-16561-7, p. 10.
  • "Anti-Semitism, in the form of Holocaust denial, had been experienced by just one teacher when working in a Catholic school with large numbers of Polish and Croatian students." Geoffrey Short, Carole Ann Reed. Issues in Holocaust Education, Ashgate Publishing, 2004, ISBN 0-7546-4211-9, p. 71.
  • "Indeed, the task of organized antisemitism in the last decade of the century has been the establishment of Holocaust Revisionism – the denial that the Holocaust occurred." Stephen Trombley, "antisemitism", The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company, 1999, ISBN 0-393-04696-6, p. 40.
  • "After the Yom Kippur War an apparent reappearance of antisemitism in France troubled the tranquility of the community; there were several notorious terrorist attacks on synagogues, Holocaust revisionism appeared, and a new antisemitic political right tried to achieve respectability." Howard K. Wettstein, Diasporas and Exiles: Varieties of Jewish Identity, University of California Press, 2002, ISBN 0-520-22864-2, p. 169.
  • "Holocaust denial is a convenient polemical substitute for anti-semitism." Igounet, Valérie. "Holocaust denial is part of a strategy", Le Monde diplomatique, May 1998.
  • "Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy." 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.
  • "In a number of countries, in Europe as well as in the United States, the negation or gross minimization of the Nazi genocide of Jews has been the subject of books, essay and articles. Should their authors be protected by freedom of speech? The European answer has been in the negative: such writings are not only a perverse form of anti-semitism but also an aggression against the dead, their families, the survivors and society at large." Roger Errera, "Freedom of speech in Europe", in Georg Nolte, European and US Constitutionalism, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-521-85401-6, pp. 39–40.
  • "Particularly popular in Syria is Holocaust denial, another staple of Arab anti-Semitism that is sometimes coupled with overt sympathy for Nazi Germany." Efraim Karsh, Rethinking the Middle East, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0-7146-5418-3, p. 104.
  • "Holocaust denial is a new form of anti-Semitism, but one that hinges on age-old motifs." Dinah Shelton, Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Macmillan Reference, 2005, p. 45.
  • "The stress on Holocaust revisionism underscored the new anti-Semitic agenda gaining ground within the Klan movement. Holocaust denial refurbished conspiratorial anti-Semitism. Who else but the Jews had the media power to hoodwink unsuspecting masses with one of the greatest hoaxes in history? And for what motive? To promote the claims of the illegitimate state of Israel by making non-Jews feel guilty, of course." Lawrence N. Powell, Troubled Memory: Anne Levy, the Holocaust, and David Duke's Louisiana, University of North Carolina Press, 2000, ISBN 0-8078-5374-7, p. 445.
  • "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." Antisemitism and Racism Country Reports: United States Archived June 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Stephen Roth Institute, 2000. Retrieved May 17, 2007.
  • "The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism, and for them the Holocaust is an infuriatingly inconvenient fact of history. After all, the Holocaust has generally been recognized as one of the most terrible crimes that ever took place, and surely the very emblem of evil in the modern age. If that crime was a direct result of anti-Semitism taken to its logical end, then anti-Semitism itself, even when expressed in private conversation, is inevitably discredited among most people. What better way to rehabilitate anti-Semitism, make anti-Semitic arguments seem once again respectable in civilized discourse and even make it acceptable for governments to pursue anti-Semitic policies than by convincing the world that the great crime for which anti-Semitism was blamed simply never happened – indeed, that it was nothing more than a frame-up invented by the Jews, and propagated by them through their control of the media? What better way, in short, to make the world safe again for anti-Semitism than by denying the Holocaust?" Reich, Walter. "Erasing the Holocaust", The New York Times, July 11, 1993.
  • "There is now a creeping, nasty wave of anti-Semitism ... insinuating itself into our political thought and rhetoric.... The history of the Arab world ... is disfigured ... by a whole series of outmoded and discredited ideas, of which the notion that the Jews never suffered and that the Holocaust is an obfuscatory confection created by the elders of Zion is one that is acquiring too much, far too much, currency." Edward Said, "A Desolation, and They Called it Peace" in Those who forget the past, Ron Rosenbaum (ed), Random House 2004, p. 518.

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...." 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. 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." Antisemitism and Racism Country Reports: United States Archived June 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Stephen Roth Institute, 2000. Retrieved May 17, 2007.</ref>
  • Please note that I have restored the long footnotes to the article. The removal of valid reliable sources is almost never appropriate, and certainly should not be done on this scale without a consensus on the talk page for their removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, I do not disagree that the long footnotes make it difficult to edit the lede, but that's a problem which has numerous possible solutions, and removing them in toto is the least appropriate of them. Removing sources to make editing easier is something that I have literally never heard of in almost 13 years here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Most of these aren't "Valid sources" they are long quotes from primary sources that are loosely related to random words in the lede - most of them don't directly support the article content, many are unnecessary or passing mentions or the content of the quote does not directly support the statement it is cited for - it is just quotes that someone wanted to add the article and they used refs to do it. That isn't a valid use of references and I am shocked that the article passed GA like this. Restoring it is also disruptive in that I literally am not able to continue editing with these quotes in the article. No editor should have to navigate around this to make simple adjustments to the lede.Seraphim System (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It's entirely standard: please see WP:BRD. If you want to strip out large quantities of long-standing material, you need to gain consensus to do so. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Serephim System: Please point me to the policy that allows you to remove sources in order to make editing more convenient for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
How about the one about collaborative editing where you are presumably supposed to give a shit when another editor tells you that the citations are making it difficult for them to work on the article instead of just saying its entirely standard? Seraphim System (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope, that won't do it. Please provide a direct quote from a Wikipedia policy which says that removing sources is allowed in order to "mak[e] it [less] difficult to edit the article." I'm pretty certain that you're not going to able to do that, because Wikipedia wants sources a bit more than it wants to make your editing experience expedient for you. I think No More Mr Nice Guy might be heading in the right direction, but his specific changes did not work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
From WP:CITATION Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing,—something that is actually not collaborative editing—I'm not saying this to be trite, collaborative editing is a requirement. That means being considerate when another editor makes a reasonable request, like removing multiple long quotes for information that does not require multiple citations or it not likely to be challenged. The purpose of citations is for readers to be able to verify a statement—this is far in excess of what is needed for WP:V, which you are not supposed to do under Wiki's policies. If it is the majority view of reliable sources, just state in the article that "Some scholars have argued that holocaust denial is antisemitic. So and so has said x, while so and so believes y" and cite it to maybe two or three sources—with maybe one long quote, if it is needed. The long footnote also has content about "Revisionism" mixed in, which should be dealt with separately. These sources should all be separated and cited to whatever it is they are supporting in the article, and removed if they are not directly supporting anything.Seraphim System (talk)
The antisemitsm footnote has 17 bundled quotations by my count btw — please show me another (GA) article that uses this "standard" referencing format. I have always avoided adding bunches of quotes to an article because more experienced editors have told me it is not good practice to just load up articles with quotes.Seraphim System (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not opposed to weeding out some of the references, after discussion and consensus, I am not opposed to reformatting the "long footnotes" in a way that makes it easier to edit the lede. (Indeed, I took a stab at that myself not too long ago - you really should take a look at what they were like before that, and, while you're at it, you should also read the previous discussion on the same subject). I am, however, very much opposed to you removing all the references in the long footnotes, unilaterally, without discussion or consensus, to make it more convenient for you to edit the lede. That's just not acceptable behavior in any way, shape, or form.
In short, you fucked up, big time, and rather then continue to bitch about it, a good first step towards having a reasonable discussion would be for you to acknowledge your gross error -- and perhaps even apologize for it --instead of digging in your feet, per WP:HOLES. It would be nice to move on to more substantive discussions, and not have to get admins involved., Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
his notion that an editor needs consensus to remove "long standing" content is not an accurate statement of policy — you need to explain why these references should stay in the article. I am pretty much appalled by this response — this is not standard at all — I have never before tried to edit an article that was so cluttered by "long footnotes" that I could not comfortably navigate to or locate the text that I was trying to edit. This response really is not acceptable. Zero agreed below the citation was excessive, and you reverted another editor's modifications also. That is enough of a challenge that you need consensus to keep them in the article — If you don't care about the inconvenience you are causing to other volunteer editors by cluttering the wikitext with unecessary quotation that is not needed to verify or cite the text, that will make collaboration more difficult, because I think my time is valuable and I want you to respect that. I think this is a very basic and simple request, maybe you can trim down the quotes yourself based on this discussion and keep only what you think is necessary to verify the text?Seraphim System (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely incorrect, and your understanding of Wikipedia's policies and normal procedures is a bit weak. It is standard and routine for edits which remove sources to be reverted, and quite properly so, since WP:V requires sourcing of contentious or disputed material at the risk of deletion, and removing sources therefore (obviously) makes that information subject to that deletion.
I think you should float a trial balloon at WP:RSN or WP:VPP, in which you suggest that it's allowable to remove sources from an article in order to make it easier to edit, and see what kind of response you get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It is pretty disingeous to attempt tp characterize this as removing sources that are required by WP:V - i was going over it to make sure everything was cited when you restored it. There are 17 long quotations to cite "Holocaust denial is generally considered antisemitic" - that is not removing sources, it is removing 17 long quotations that have inappropriately been added to the LEDE of an article as references. at first I AGF that this was a mistake of an inexperienced editor who did not have a good knowledge of how wikipedia articlea are written or different from academic papers - i am shocked to see exerpeinced editors defendong it as standard practice, it is not. Has this happened in other articles? Seraphim System (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Took a stab at moving the stuff out of the way. Let me know what you guys think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Not really successful. I reverted. If you try again, make sure to check the bottom of the article to see if your idea was functional or not.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I did check and it worked in the preview. Weird. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, when I looked at it, it was pretty much a mess down there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I've made a change that hopefully will resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. No change to rendered page, and no change to footnotes (only the wikicode placement of them), unless I made a mistake. The hidden text dash delimiters have been left in on purpose, so you can see where the former problems were, but if everyone likes this, then those delimiters can be removed, leaving a clean lead section. Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Had a named ref problem somewhere and had to self-revert; will try again later. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, should be good, now. Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey! Looks good! Ihe hidden comments may need to be tweaked a little, but that's minor stuff. Good work, and thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mathglot: Thank you, that was really helpful ...
  • Scrolling up I see that excessive citation has been a problem on this article before. @Beyond My Ken: — instead of borderline personal attacks like your understanding of Wikipedia's policies and normal procedures is a bit weak. why don't you consider that numerous editors have pointed out the citations in this article are excessive... it is starting to look a bit like WP:IDHT to insist that the community needs to have the same discussion for every citation in this article seventeen citations for "Holocaust denial is generally considered antisemitic"?!? For another example, look at the citations for the following statement:

Scholars use the term denial to describe the views and methodology of Holocaust deniers in order to distinguish them from legitimate historical revisionists, who challenge orthodox interpretations of history using established historical methodologies.

Some of the citations in the bundle support the statement, while others are contra cites all bundled together like:

"This essay describes, from a methodological perspective, some of the inherent flaws in the 'revisionist' approach to the history of the Holocaust. It is not intended as a polemic, nor does it attempt to ascribe motives. Rather, it seeks to explain the fundamental error in the 'revisionist' approach, as well as why that approach of necessity leaves no other choice. It concludes that 'revisionism' is a misnomer because the facts do not accord with the position it puts forward and, more importantly, its methodology reverses the appropriate approach to historical investigation....

It doesn't say anything about "legitimate historical revisionists" — this is ok for an academic paper, but when contra is used it needs to be signalled as contra in any case - but in a Wikipedia article this debate actually needs to be summarized in the article and these citations need to be broken up to be placed next to text they support. It's not ok to just copy and paste opposing quotes into one "citation bundle" and everyone can just adds different quotes that they like to the references (some say denial is different from revisionism, others say revisionism is a "misnomer", etc. Seraphim System (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The hidden text "long footnote" delimiters no longer being necessary, I've removed them. I consider the citation clutter problem in the lead resolved, unless someone sees an issue. (Only addressing the clutter issue, not whether there are too many.)
Wrt to SS's comment above: it would seem to be better to separate pro and contra cites either into separate citation bundles, or else, if left in the same bundle, then perhaps triage them with mini headers inside the bundle, e..g, Generally pro, etc.
Look up revisionism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
As to some of the confusion about revisionis[t/m], that's because the word has come to have two meanings, the original, standard meaning, and a newer pejorative one. I think as long as it's clear how it's being used, we should be okay. Also, it would not be at all out of place to have a discussion about the two meanings in the article, either in a footnote, possibly in the article body or as a pull quotation or small boxed sidebar, or finally, a wiktionary call-out. Mathglot (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:V the citations should directly verify the statement they support. Imagine if everyone wrote articles this way — copying and pasting long quotes into references that dispute the content in the article? The POV for this article is a bit clearer than most and sources are in agreement about most things but the article should still be written in Wikipedia style - the definition of revisionism v. Holocaust is one of the most controversial issues in this article, and it should be added to the article by going through the normal editing process of discussing the language, summarizing the majority view of WP:RS and adding references as required by WP:V — but editors should not be required to reach consensus that each individual quote is UNDUE to remove them — the reason for WP:ONUS is common sense, you can't prove a negative—editors have to explain why each quote they want to add to the article is DUE for inclusion. The burden for long quotes like this is usually relatively high. The references section is not a way to protect the inclusion of dozens of UNDUE long quotations that are not needed for verification under WP:V and it compounds the error to accuse editors of removing legitimate references. This interpretation of policy would allow editors to circumvent the normal editing proces entirely.Seraphim System (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I have an idea about how to solve the citation overkill problem, and it involves cascading references[a] The idea is to solve the citation clutter problem by recasting a long footnote that has many bullets, say, #9, with just one bullet item at the top, and all the other bullets would be replaced with a note like, "For further info on this, see Alpher (2000), Bethe (1998), Gamow (1994)..." where the remaining bullets could be found. This keeps the original footnote relatively short, both in popup-preview mode, and in the References list, while still retaining all the additional supporting evidence that editors have worked hard to include. I may prototype this using one of the long footnotes, so we can take a look at it, and see if we like it, or not. Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I would support a topical further reading section that would preserve the valuable content from these citation bundles, but most of the quotes are not helpful and very similar to one another like The denial of the Holocaust is among the most insidious forms of anti-Semitism.... and In addition to these historic myths, we also treat the new, maliciously manufactured myth of Holocaust denial, another groundless belief that is used to stir up Jew-hatred. — this doesn't actually add additional information to the article. Extensive Topically organized "Further reading" sections are not unsusual in high quality articles but I would want to exclude some of the cites directly to organizations and advocacy groups, as these types of "fact sheets" and "announcements" usually do not cite their sources and they mostly just duplicate one another — several that I tried to follow up on were dead links. Links to these organizations would be better in the External links section.Seraphim System (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Editors above requested the specific policy that would justify removal of these quotes and it is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.. Editors need to be able to WP:V that the way it is being used in the article is not WP:OR -there are numerous places where there is unsupported interpretation - for example using euphemism as a synonym for legitimacy - the main issue in the quotes as given is legitimacy — all three of the quotes use the word legitimacy, is it ok to change this to euphemism? Not really - when three scholars all use the same word, it is safe to assume the choice was intentional. This would be more accurate stated as "Some scholars have argued that the label revisionism is used by holocaust deniers as an attempt to legitimize their work" - or something like this. I am very much put off by the level of personal attacks and disregard for policy from editors here. I wasn't really familiar with this article's history of multiple GARs before, or I would have been more careful - obviously after all this I am too involved to nominate it myself, and it has received too much attention from sysops - I've never really interacted with sysops in a content dispute before, and I didn't particularly enjoy it since it is hard to tell them something like "Uh, gee, have you read it yourself?" like you would a regular editor you disagree with, but I hope others will be willing to address these issues and meet basic standards.Seraphim System (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Cascading references: basically, big footnotes have little footnotes upon their backs to bite 'em, and little footnotes have littler footnotes, and so on ad infinitum. No more long footnotes with innumerable bullets, but all the content remains and is accessible.

Use of primary sources in this article

For a GA article this article uses a lot of primary sources - this raises questions about whether all the sources used are due or whether there is WP:OR, a lot of quotes from these sources including a long quote from a book review that is likely undue - I'm not in a rush for a messy GAR but are any editors interested in maybe cleaning some of this up? I mean, there must be secondary sources available for this that have a better reputation than Yad Vashem or ADL...Seraphim System (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what you think the problem with Yad Vashem or the ADL's reputation is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I’m a bit confused that Yad Vashem or the ADL is being questioned in regard to the subject of the Holocaust or Holocaust denial. While there are other sources possible, they are not primary sources for this subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Please don't ask me WP:FORUM type questions, a GA article should use secondary sources, but I really think editors should have known better than to rely on Yad Vashem for something as important as the definition of genocide denial - Yad Vashem in particular is thoroughly disreputable at this point and controversial even amongst Holocaust scholars - maybe it is because they have sponsored speeches with content like "Everyone thinks the Holocaust was a crime of man against man, but it was a crime of man against Jews" - I don't know why, but there has been major outcry against Yad Vashem's credibility amongst scholars of the Holocaust. But this is peripheral to the main issue which is improving the article by replacing primary sources with secondary sources. Editors may have different interpretations of how to best use primary sources or whether the quotes that editors have chosen are due for inclusion - for example, many of these quotes are different from quotes I would have chosen. They reflect the WP:OR of the editors who added them - mine would be different. Neither should be in the article - especially not a GA article.Seraphim System (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Please post some RS sating that "Yad Vashem in particular is thoroughly disreputable". This is not a FORUM type question since you're basing your edits on this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As far as I'm aware, both are considered reputable organisations (especially Yad Vashem) . Please provide references to support your contention that they are not suitable sources for the topic of Holocaust denial. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, I think you inadvertently removed @Ealdgyth:'s post. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I just restored this. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that neither Yad Vashem nor the ADL can in any way be considered to be a primary source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim System, please post some sources to support what you're saying, including one for "Everyone thinks the Holocaust was a crime of man against man, but it was a crime of man against Jews." SarahSV (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to debate about Yad Vashem, but if you are personally interested in the Elie Wiesel speech you can look it up yourself on YouTube or you can email me and I will try to find a copy for you if it is still available online - however that would be for you personally - the purpose of this section is to replace primary sources with secondary sources - Yad Vashem and ADL are primary sources. I'm not sure why there is confusion about this. Since there is a dispute about the long footnotes also, which are basically an WP:OR collection of quotes that are loosely related to random words in the lede, I think maybe this should just go to GAR.Seraphim System (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I paraphrased but the exact quote from Elie Wiesel's speech is "Those who were there won't agree with that statement - the statement is 'it was man's inhumanity to man.' NO! - it was man's inhumanity to Jews". - Elie Wiesel is not a BLP issue anymore, but since I named him I figure I should post the exact quote verbatim and not my paraphrase.Seraphim System (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting that. All Wiesel is saying is that the Jews were targeted qua Jews. You wrote that "Yad Vashem in particular is thoroughly disreputable at this point and controversial even amongst Holocaust scholars" and "there has been major outcry against Yad Vashem's credibility amongst scholars of the Holocaust". Please supply sources for those claims. Otherwise you ought to strike them. SarahSV (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I, too, would like to see the sources for those statements. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@SarahSV:, @Ealdgyth: I'm not going to strike it. I explained further below, but I am fundamentally disturbed that knowledgeable editors working on an article about genocide denial seem to be unaware of how controversial Yad Vashem's position of minimizing non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust (and other genocides) has been amongst reputable genocide scholars. The specific source, which I have pulled up, somewhat grudgingly, is Yair Auron's Banality of Denial. Yair Auron's Banality is I think what I was thinking of when I wrote "major outcry" — I thought this was a "major" and well-respected source for the topic of genocide denial? - Am I wrong about this? — "It should be emphasized that Yad Vashem is an institute of the state, and has to function according to the spirit of the 1953 law" Seraphim System (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I should have said "in the last few years significant critical literature has started to be published about Yad Vashem's Holocaust narrative" instead of "thoroughly disreputable" – I didn't really think it would bother editors this much, but if it is really that important to you guys, please accept this modification of my original statement. I found some additional sources behind paywalls on JSTOR like The Shoah as Israel’s Political Trope which is published by Yale University Press — they are serious critical academic sources:

The selective use of the Shoah by the state reflected the ideology of mamlakhtiut (statism)...clearly visible during the early 1950s...Holocaust and Heroism Rememberence Law...Knesset's discussions on the establishment of Yad Vashem he insisted that the state sponsered authority ought to 'combine all the existing (memorial) institutions in Israel...Dinur's concern that contesting memories emanating from both the extreme right and left would gain legitimization became evident when he argued against the phenomenon of multiple institutions, decentralization and separation. To avoid it, he stressed the necessity of including all commemoration efforts under one central body supervised by the state. Such hegemony was justified because the state was pronounced the supreme sovereign of the Jewish people and 'the only heir' to the victims of the Shoah

It's an interesting read, I can email it to anyone who is interested but I have to type all these paywall sources by hand so maybe it is a US centric view, and I am guilty of that, but this type of institution is generally not considered very reliable in American academics when it is controlled by the State, so I think there is some critical scholarship (this is from 2001) but maybe "thoroughly disreputable" was too strong. I don't think my choice of words makes a huge difference in terms of evaluating how reliable/unbiased the source is, but I'm willing to retract it to put this to rest.Seraphim System (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how a source is called unreliable and primary but the poster won't discuss it, and instead talks about Wiesel and a speech on YouTube. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Where is the diff of me calling it unreliable? If you don't have one, please strike that and don't put words in my mouth and the future. What obligation do I have to discuss Yad Vashem beyond how it is used in this article? Yad Vashem, it turns out, is not even the source for the definition, it is excerpted from another encyclopedia, which was not indicated in the citation — I think that is important, but I get that no one else seems to. When I figured this out, I suggested updating the dead link currently in the article at 05:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC) So how is continuing to discuss Yad Vashem relevant and why should I do it? I only answered Ealdgyth's question out of respect for her, because this is not some random thing I made up while typing, it is based on things I have read in various high quality academic sources. This should have been done then. I recommend trying to prevent link rot for this article in the future by archiving in advance, because I have not been able to fix the dead links with IABot despite several attempts.Seraphim System (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Look for the diff where you go "there must be secondary sources available for this that have a better reputation than Yad Vashem or ADL" and the one where you go "Yad Vashem in particular is thoroughly disreputable at this point and controversial even amongst Holocaust scholars". I have no interest in plowing through your contributions to find those diffs; even typing in this section is a drag already because it is so big, and I'm typing ten times faster than the screen displays. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
There is a difference between a source that is controversial and one that unreliable. I don't think I ever said it was unreliable, but if anyone can show me where I said that I will strike it. An unreliable source must be removed, a controversial source can be removed if editors agree the sourcing can be improved. My position is that controversial sources will turn some readers off, so why use them when other sources are plentiful? If I thought it was unreliable I would have removed it without starting a discussion. Editors here only seem in interested in whether they have to remove it. BMK says below here is no consensus amongst the editors on this talk page for you to make changes to the article based on Yad Vashem being an unreliable source — ok, I understand that this discussion has established a consensus against something I didn't propose — are editors really surprised that I don't want to continue discussing objections to a proposal I didn't make? This has got to be one of the Top 10 most absurd talk page discussions I have ever participated in.Seraphim System (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The ADL is a highly unreliable advocacy organization that should never be used for anything except attributed opinion. Yad Vashem is more reliable than that, but every factual citation to it can be replaced by third-party sources in accordance with policy and every opinion can be attributed. (I'm referring only to statements made anonymously in Yad Vashem's name, and not to the many articles by highly reputable scholars that Yad Vashem has published.) Also, I agree that the footnotes are excessive. Zerotalk 03:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me be more specific, in most cases organizations like Yad Vashem and ADL are primary sources in the sense that they are primary for the ideas that they have published. The definition in WP:RS is Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. - organizations like ADL usually do not cite footnotes for their analysis - they are not a secondary analysis of primary sources in the meaning of Wikipedia's policies. I am trying to check now the particular sources in this article but unfortunately some are coming up as dead links - trying to fix.Seraphim System (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Example: The Yad Vashem FAQ is cited in this article - http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/faq.asp. This is a primary source by Wikipedia's definitions. Citation 3 would be improved by citing directly to the ABC-CLIO Encyclopedia instead of The Holocaust History Project...these are all things that are usually addressed during GA review. Has this article changed significantly since then? Seraphim System (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
That is obviously not a primary source. The Yad Vashem FAQ provides a range of figures used by Historians for the Holocaust's death toll, and later provides some figures which Holocaust deniers have claimed to be the number killed (though it seems that the reference is for the former only). Primary sources in this context would be to archival German records of killings and the writings of deniers. This is a secondary source. I note that you have not responded by the requests from multiple editors for reliable sources to support your contentions. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Since we are allowed to use primary sources, and for many other reasons, I see the primary-secondary argument as a distraction from the real problem. Policy tells us to use "reliable, third-party, published sources" and whatever else Yad Vashem is it is not a third-party source for this article. It is one of the leading organizations involved in the fight against Holocaust denial, which makes it the opposite of a third-part source. It is dirt easy to cite eminent scholars directly for every statement of fact attributed here to Yad Vashem, so let's do that instead. Zerotalk 04:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The argument you're trying to make, without success, is that YV is not a neutral source, but according to WP:BIASED, a section of WP:RS:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ... Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

So a non-neutral source is not ruled out -- and good luck finding a reliable source that is neutral about the Holocaust. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
No, I didn't make an argument on neutrality at all. The adjective "third-party" is in the policy in addition to the word "reliable" for a reason. I think it is completely impossible to argue that YV is a third-party with regard to Holocaust denial. It has nothing to do with reliability. Zerotalk 05:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't seem very sensible. As far as I'm aware, Yad Vashem is well regarded for providing factual information regarding the Holocaust. Declaring that because it is involved in pushing back against the falsehood that is Holocaust denial means that it can't be used is a bad argument. The same could be used to dismiss any scholar of this topic. Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The definition of a primary source is much broader than contemporary historical documents. Any original idea/opinion is primary—a good example is: a scholar could out of no where decide that the Holocaust is unique. This is not a fact-based matter - it is a philosophy/original idea and unless it is cited by someone else, the scholar who authored it is primary for it. You could, I suppose, argue that the Yad Vashem FAQ is a reliable tertiary source but even as a tertiary source it is a low quality tertiary source - they don't provide an author name, they don't cite any sources, they don't include any type of reference list - there are too many sources like this used in the article to respond to combative requests and argue about each organization's merits individually, thus,I have responded to requests by asking editors to focus on improving the article and I have no intention of responding further to requests that would turn this discussion into an off-topic WP:POLEMIC about Yad Vashem in particular, so please do not clutter this section with off topic arguments about a particular source, if you can not be neutral about take a break - this this discussion is about improving the sourcing of a GA article — the sources used in a GA article on Wikipedia should really be referenced themselves as high quality secondary sources ... All of the "weak" sources (if you prefer this to primary) in this article should be replaced with high-quality sources - high quality sources - for editors who don't already know this are those that cite their sources and the author is known. It is not helpful, I think, to debate or fight to keep low quality sources in the article when they can easily be replaced with higher quality sources which would indisputably improve the article.Seraphim System (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The Yad Vashem FAQ actually cites multiple sources. Yad Vashem is a centre of scholarship on this topic, and its website can be assumed to have been written/edited by experts in the field. It's a perfectly fine source and doesn't need to be replaced. Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you tell me where it cites "multiple sources" - I am looking at it and it says, for example:
  • In the context of the Nazi policy of the systematic mass murder of all Jews under their control, Jewish resistance to their assault took many forms. The very acts of trying to stay alive and to maintain at least a remnant of human dignity constituted resistance to the Nazi effort to dehumanize and ultimately annihilate the Jews.
  • But it does not cite a source for this, which is clearly a creative statement about what "resistance" means. The FAQ is full of examples like this — Wikipedia's standards, which you should know having been trusted by the community to enforce those standards Nick, are clearly stated in our policies — I do not have to assume anything about the expertise of an unnamed author of a website FAQ based on nothing more than your say-so. But Yad Vashem is not the only issue, there are multiple sourcing issues like this in the article and I am not comfortable with a GA-status article having these types of sourcing problems.Seraphim System (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Could you kindly provide some sources to back up the claim that "Yad Vashem in particular is thoroughly disreputable at this point and controversial even amongst Holocaust scholars", which you made at the beginning of this section? Just a couple of Holocaust scholars saying Yad Vashem is controversial or disreputable? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nick-D: Ok so I found the section you were talking about— I was referring to a different citation "What is genocide denial" which is buried in the long footnote — this should be cited directly to the encyclopedia which is quoted verbatim in the FAQ, or it should be "as quoted in Yad Vashem" ... usually this type of stuff is caught at GA review but would you object to updating these indirect cites to cite directly to the encyclopedias themselves? As I said earlier, Yad Vashem is not specifically the issue — I posted this mainly after reviewing the section on "holocaust denial and antisemitism" ... would you consider this this a high quality source? Beyond that, several of the links I have tried to JPR and ADL have been dead links so I have been unsuccessful in following up on those, and these would preferably be updated.Seraphim System (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yad Vashem is not a PRIMARY source in most cases - this is a very well respected research institution on the Holocaust. The ADL is also well respected, however in most cases its releases (like the SPLC) would be PRIMARY. However - in the vast majority cases there is SECONDARY coverage of ADL releases.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I confused myself EUMC is a primary source which is what I tagged it as — but I would consider removing it entirely as its tenure seems to have been short-lived [1] We are not aware of any official definition [of anti-Semitism],” Blanca Tapia of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency told JTA on Tuesday. and I would propose updating it and reviewing the article closely for any other problematic or misleading use of primary sources like this which may have made it into the article.Seraphim System (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy: Are you asking because you are personally curious? I don't really want to debate it because I never intended to remove all the Yad Vashem sources from the article—but if it will put the matter to rest ... I believe there has been a lot of well-covered controversy about Yad Vashem's statement that the Holocaust was unique — maybe disreputable has made editors more defensive than warranted, but I thought this controversy had harmed their reputation? I don't think it is really necessary to resolve this to improve the article but I think this has been a big enough deal that Yad Vashem can be treated as a controversial source at this point. Also, isn't their work state funded? That would make it a completely different type of source than an independent academic publisher, but I'm not sure about the details of this.Seraphim System (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
But if it is more important to you to use Yad Vashem and you think I am lying to you then keep using Yad Vashem, I can't find the articles I read right now, and I don't want to spend more time looking for them. What Yad Vashem is used for in the article (holocaust figure) is not a big deal if you think that is one of the "best sources" available for the Holocaust denial article, whatever. Some of the other issues like the now defunt FRA definition of antisemitism should be removed though - this is a GA article and it should not include outdated information like this.Seraphim System (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I asked because the idea that Yad Vashem is "thoroughly disreputable at this point and controversial even amongst Holocaust scholars" is, let's call it an "unorthodox" view. When someone with such views starts gutting an article like this, I tend to get worried. But now I see there are plenty of experienced editors with more mainstream views monitoring this article, and that you (unsurprisingly) can't produce a single source to back up your claim, I can move on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so — I don't have to produce sources so you approve of my editing the article. How is this line of questioning related to improving the article? — it's not ok to derail talk discussions over something like this when you can easily look up yourself on Google. Headline "Genocide Scholar Blasts Israel's 'Racist' Teaching of the Holocaust" From the article:

Prof. Yair Auron's thesis is clear: Israel prefers to avoid, repress and minimize the suffering of other peoples in the Holocaust and other circumstances, to perpetuate victimization and isolationism.

The rest is behind a paywall. I think this is enough to call Yad Vashem's reputation into question for this article since the main thing they have been criticized for is denial or "minimizing" of non-Jewish victims of genocide because that is not within their "sphere of responsibility". This is from Yair Auron's book—as far as I understand, Auron is a very well respected genocide scholar. I should not have to spend a lot of extra time digging through databases and hard to access sources just to satisfy you or other editors with strong POV or what you are calling "more mainstream views" — When someone with such views starts gutting an article like this is not something that has to do with improving this article, it is more about whether you approve of my editing the article, and I don't need your approval to edit this or any other article.Seraphim System (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
So a quote that doesn't use the name "Yad Vashem" is proof that it is "thoroughly disreputable at this point and controversial even amongst Holocaust scholars". Gotcha. I will bow out now since like I said, it seems there are enough experienced editors here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The story says that Prof. Yair Auron's criticism of Yad Vashem is that it only covers the Holocaust, and not other genocides. It appears that he has wider criticisms of how the Holocaust is taught in Israel. That hardly seems to support claims that Yad Vashem is not considered a reputable centre of expertise on the Holocaust (I note in passing that the story also states that Yad Vashem's chief historian at the time was "one of the world’s leading Holocaust scholars"). I think we're done here. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the consensus seems very clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I would have chosen my words more carefully but I mistakenly assumed that editors working on this article would already be familiar with this issue regarding Yad Vashem. Yair Auron's book Banality of Denial which I provided as a reference above discusses the same thing and it does name Yad Vashem and it also quotes Yad Vashem "out of our sphere" including "other victims of WWII, such as the Gypsies" — as far as I am concerned the fact that large numbers of Holocaust victims are "out of (their) sphere" by their own admission is a clear indication that "Holocaust denial" is not their primary area of experise — they are a national Israeli organization with a specific legally mandated sphere of operations — they use language like "This is not a domain that the law directs and authorizes us to deal with and represent" — they only work on the Jewish Holocaust — that is not the consensus defintion of "Holocaust" on Wikipedia, and it is not a widely accepted or mainstream definition of Holocaust. As a source, Yad Vashem absolutely requires attribution on Wikipedia. They have themselves chosen to excerpt outside writers for this topic in their FAQ answer to "What is Holocaust Denial?" and it would be good form to cite those writers directly so readers know accurately where the information is from, in the form of "So and so as quoted by Yad Vashem" Seraphim System (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you believe there is a consensus of editors in this discussion supporting your view about Yad Vashem? That's a really simply question, which it would be nice if you could answer in a really concise way, because if there is a consensus in support of your position, then there's no particular reason for you to keep on posting about it, and if there isn't a consensus in support of your stance, I believe you've made your position quite clear to any incoming editor reviewing the discussion. Either way, continuing seems unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not proposing to add anything about Yad Vashem to the article, when I said controversial even amongst Holocaust scholars that is what I meant - my understanding is attempts to limit the definition of Holocaust and genocide recognition only to Jews is controversial. I am really beginning to feel uncomfortable and pressured to discuss my personal views after multiple efforts to steer the discussion back to improving this article - I think Yair Auron is an RS for this topic, I don't think he is FRINGE or anything like that. If there is something wrong with the source I provided, then please discuss that instead of attacking me for some "view" that you think I have. Right now, I am only proposing to improve the messy referencing problem in this article by modifying the citation to the Yad Vashem FAQ for an excerpt - this is a tricky type of citation but readers should know where the information is from see this guidence Seraphim System (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No, right now what you are doing is totally ignoring my question, so I'll answer it for you: there is no consensus amongst the editors on this talk page for you to make changes to the article based on Yad Vashem being an unreliable source, so all that's left is to remind you that editing against a clear talk page consensus can get one intro trouble, and suggest that you not do so.

Now, that being done, I suggest that other editors previously involved in this discussion not respond to Seraphim System's continuing avoidance of the fact that the issues he raised have been more then sufficiently answered, but that new editors, not previously involved, should be welcomed into the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not tell me what I am proposing No, right now what you are doing is totally ignoring my question, I'm glad that we have managed to reach a consensus on something that I clearly said I was not proposing, but I am still waiting for input on what I actually did propose which is to correct the citation to indicate that it is an excerpted source.01:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal by Seraphim System

  1. I think Yad Vashem is widely used for factual information, but not all of its primary definitions or ideas are necessarily widely accepted by academics, so I did originally dispute its use for the definition of Holocaust Denial. Unfortunately, the link in our citation is a broken link (http://www.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/faqs/answers/faq_35.html), but I was able to find out this was excepted verbatim from Robert Rozett and Shmuel Spector (eds.), The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, New York: Facts on File, 2000. I propose updating the citation to fix the broken link and to reflect that Yad Vashem has excerpted it from another source
  2. More generally, someone should attend to the maintenance of broken links on this article in general. It doesn't have to be me as I prefer to step back after this much drama, which I think was not a very productive use of energy, but I am concerned this article seems to be poorly maintained for a GA article. Please consider tagging the broken citation links and replacing them where possible. I would also suggest reviewing the article just to make sure all information sourced to primary sources is, in fact, current and up to date (like the EUMC definition that was corrected earlier) Seraphim System (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Relevance, Eisenhower

"Immediate post-war period In 1945, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, anticipated that someday an attempt would be made to recharacterize the documentation of Nazi crimes as propaganda and took steps against it:[26]"

What relevance has Eisenhowers general opinion on "horror camps" to the topic of "Holocaust denial" defined as "act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust"? Eisenhower does not say anything about Jews in the quote that follows. It’s not even clear - from the article - "the victims of the death camps" found were Jews and not prisoners of war, Romani, Poles, Serbs, communists, homosexuals or any other group persecuted.

What I miss is a source for Eisenhowers alleged prediction "an attempt would be made to recharacterize the documentation of Nazi crimes as propaganda". I presume it is to be found somewhere in "Dear General: Eisenhower's Wartime Letters to Marshall" but I don’t have access to the publication. 80.153.21.131 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Mike S. Lee

Did you not read the sourced quotes from Eisenhower which followed that statement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing Pat Buchanan's Name

There were a few references that seemed to indicate that Pat Buchanan believes that the Holocaust happened. This from 2006 contains this sentence: "War ended Nazi Germany, though the cost was high: the Holocaust, the collapse of the British Empire, the Stalinization of 11 nations of Eastern Europe, 50 million dead and half a century of Cold War." The controversial aspect was something he stated in the 1980s, in defense of John Demjanjuk. In addition, the ADL has quotes of his concerning the Holocaust here, that could explain his attitude more accurately; "Perhaps this endless search for Nazi war criminals, these endless re-enactments, on stage and screen, of Hitler’s concentration camps are good for the soul. To what end, however, all this wallowing in the atrocities of a dead regime when there is scarcely a peep of protest over the prison camps, the labor camps, the concentration camps operating now in China and Siberia, in Cuba and Vietnam." It seems clear that his goal is to not see the Holocaust as an absolutely unique event.

The quote "The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." seems to be what has him labeled as a Holocaust denier, and, while it certainly could be used that way, it was in defense of Demjanjuk as an individual, and I have found nowhere where he has directly stated that he does not believe around 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. If someone can provide proof that he did, it would be appropriate to re-ad him to the list. Alex (Talk) 21:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose removing the section on "Notable Holocaust deniers"

There isn't any consensus on removing the list. A list with prose appears to be the consensus for the purpose of having context for each name, and generally support was for a one line blurb or so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:32, 20 May 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.

Let's see. Most entries there are not referenced. Selecting who goes in and who doesn't is subjective editorializing. This is material for a category and/or a list, not a section of the article. Imagine if article on, hmmm, Nazi Germany had a section on notable Nazi Germans, on United States, on notable Americans, on phones, on notable phones, or on Pokemon, on notable Pokemon. Right. We don't have such sections in good articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Without people denying the Holocaust, there is no holocaust denial. Notable deniers should be in - either in the current list form or in prose.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: Prose does make a bit more sense, one would expect to find names of Irving and few others. My problem is the subjectivity of the list. We need to find a source that discusses notable deniers. We should not decide ourselves who gets to be featured here, and who doesn't make the cut. Such in-article lists are a terrible place for people to push their favorites (if this is the right term here). What are the criteria here? Imagine if people start fighting over a denier of some Fooinan nationality, accusing one another of pro- and anti-POV, etc. PS. On second hand, various names are already present in the history section and others. I don't see the need for a section that just list names. If someone is important, they will be discussed in relevant section. If they are not, they should not be in what is de facto a POVed, subjective see also list. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Certainly selective inclusion (in prose or in list) involves editor discretion (and subjectivity) - however that isn't necessarily a "bad thing". A list of all wiki-notable people who are documented Holocaust deniers (with the cat) could be quite wide (though I'll note that due to BLP concerns the cat is perhaps too selectively applied) - a list of every 2-movie actress who denied the Holocaust in a Facebook post (or some other tangential setting) - is certainly wider than notable deniers - e.g. Irving - people who are noted for their sizable contribution to the field of denial.Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of the section. What we need to do is clarify the criteria for inclusion on the list to avoid any unfair or irrelevant inclusions. Starting with some obvious stuff:
  1. If there is no linked article about them then they do not qualify as notable.
  2. If the linked article does not have well referenced content unambiguously describing them as a holocaust denier then they can not be included. (Of course, if that content has been removed from the linked article without a good reason then it should be put back in. That is not a good reason to remove them from the list here.)
  • The problem is knowing who is notable enough to be included here out of those who remain? We don't want a big list of every ignorant bozo who ever casually denied the holocaust, even the ones with Wikipedia articles due to them being notable for other things. I think we want to read "notable" more like "notably notorious" here. I'd also be inclined to exclude most people who once denied the holocaust but have since seen sense. If a few are so notable that they have to be included then we should note that they have recanted in their list entry. The sort of people we do need on the list are people with convictions for holocaust denial related crimes, people who have written notorious publications denying the holocaust and notable people who have made holocaust denial a prominent and prolonged part of their shtick. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that a good rule of thumb should be "people primarily notable for holocaust denial" plus "people whose holocaust denial is particularly noteworthy" (with the latter case meaning eg. people who have had entire books written about it, or at least entire chapters, academic papers, other stuff that indicates importance - not one or two op-eds.) Improving the sourcing (which I think is by far the most important thing that needs to be done here) will help us judge that, too, since then we'll have a better picture of what degree of sourcing is getting people into the section currently and can discuss if it's good or needs to change. A very rough rule of thumb is that if holocaust denial isn't mentioned in the lead of their Wikipedia article, they're probably not useful here; but that's just a rule of thumb, and we absolutely cannot actually rely on their Wikipedia article as a source - we need sources here (although we can, and probably should, copy-paste sources over, of course, which will probably be the simplest way to fill out sources here.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of section. The question of who should, and who should not, be on the list is purely an editorial one, and, like all editorial decisions on Wikipedia, any dispute about it can be solved by a consensus discussion.
    There are lists of notables in very many articles, and one standard often used -- which could be adopted here -- is that anyone on the list must either have an article which says (sourced) that they are a Holocaust denier, or the entry must be accompanied by a citation which confirms that they are (1) notable and (2) a Holocaust denier.
    But that's just one often-used model for keeping lists of notables from growing like Topsy. The editors here can come up with another one, or it can be handled on a case-by-case basis, but I see no reason to remove the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It needs to be rewritten into prose; giant lists serve no purpose and make it impossible to provide context (especially in terms of the relative notability of each or what aspect of the topic they're notable for for - eg. originating a particular anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, say, or someone whose holocaust denial is important for historical reasons) Additionally, it should be limited only to people who are primarily notable for holocaust denial, or whose holocaust denial is specifically notable in and of itself due to eg. being the focus of a massive high-profile debate or something; those are the ones that provide the most useful information on the topic. Famous people whose holocaust denial isn't discussed much in the sources don't belong here, since talking about them doesn't individually provide much insight into the topic. Finally, and absolutely most importantly, any living figures on the list must have a specific cite directly after their name (or the sentence where they're first mentioned, if the section is rewritten into prose) - this one is a WP:BLP issue and is IMHO non-negotiable. Relying on their linked article is insufficient; Wikipedia articles get copied and used elsewhere, linked articles change, etc (especially over something as potentially-controversial as this), and we need to ensure the source for such a serious designation is immediately available. --Aquillion (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree vigorously about being converted to prose. Some things are just better in lists, and this is one of them.
    :In BLP cases, if the linked article has a citation, that can be copied over to the entry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Copying citations over will be good, but it needs to actually be done. Do not remove the tag again until after the citations are complete - the other parts of this discussion aren't as important, comparatively, but the lack of citations for something as serious as calling someone a holocaust denier is an unequivocally a serious WP:BLP issue. I feel that in light of the fact that I believe citations for most of these can definitely be found in the linked articles, I'm being generous in not removing every uncited name from that list instantly (or at least every living individual); but at a bare minimum the section absolutely must be tagged to indicate the lack of vital sources until they've all been provided. Again, I feel that this is clear-cut and unequivocal enough that I was shocked to see the names present as is. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Since you've reverted again, I want this to be completely clear: Do you dispute the need for citations in this section? Do you deny that it is a WP:BLP issue to call someone a holocaust denier without a citation? That is the only way I can interpret your removal of the tag. --Aquillion (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry, but you don't get to say both "this one is a WP:BLP issue and is IMHO non-negotiable" and that it'[s an "unequivocal BLP issue" in your edit summary. It's either one thing or the other, either your humble opinion or a BLP issue that everyone agrees on. Well, everyone does not agree on it. So please do not restore the tag until you have a consensus to do so here from the editors on this page. What is unequivocal is that consensus is required for dsiputed edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What I dispute is the need to tag the section. What I dispute is that there is a BLP problem in listing someone here when their article calls them a Holocaust denier and that statement is supported by citations. Requiring that the citations be copied over is quite possibly best practice, and consensus here may agree to it, but until then, your tagging is not necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
So, you're committed to edit-warring over your interpretation of BLP, when you have no consensus for your tagging? That's really not very good behavior, Aquillion. Please remove your tag until you have a consensus for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on WP:BLPN; feel free to correct my summary there if you think I have things wrong. To answer your question, obviously I can only provide my interpretation of WP:BLP; but I feel that a huge part of the point of BLP is to err on the side of caution in disputes of this nature. I believe this is a clear-cut WP:BLP issue, that citations are absolutely required for assertions of this nature on each page making them, even if they're also available elsewhere on the wiki; and that, therefore, the section needs to be tagged. But in any case this is a broader issue that it seems like it's important to resolve, so I suggest weighing in there with regards to sourcing, WP:BLP, and lists. --Aquillion (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to update, there's a clear consensus at BLP/N in favor of your position. You'll note that I began adding citations even before that became apparent (in fact, before I commented there). Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose removal of this section. However, Aquillion has a point. Calling someone a Holocaust denier is certainly a very serious accusation and one that must be properly referenced per BLP. The fact that this has not been done before is most regrettable, but now that this issue has been raised it needs to be corrected. Tagging the section for ref improve seems a fairly reasonable act given the serious deficiencies in that department. And it is certainly less in your face than carpet bombing the section with {{CN}} tags. I have no issue with the tag and think it is entirely justified until we get the section up to scratch. Hopefully that should not take more than a day or two. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: In adding citations, per Aquillion, I have come across some non-BLPs whose articles don't have citations for their being "Holocaust deniers". In all the cases of this I've so far come across it is extremely likely that they are indeed deniers, but I've been tagging them as "citation needed" anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

  • Assuming that the section stays, we need to think about criteria for inclusion. I do not believe that all names in the list have been discussed, and even the ones discussed were added (or rejected) based on subjective views of very small (and changing) group of editors. In other words, the list composition is subjective, de facto WP:OR, based on "you get included in that list if some random Wikipedian feels you should be in it and nobody else objects". Ditto for getting removed. This is highly problematic. I think we should look for sources that list 'most (in)famous Holocauust deniers", and for references that call a person such, ex. "X, one of the best known HDs", or "X, a notable HD", etc. Just being described as a Holocaust deniar is, IMHO, not sufficient to be in that list - we have a category for such people, and we can have a separate list (I don't like them, but they are allowed per MoS, so...). But a list present in here should not be based on our subjective views of who is important and who isn't. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions about criteria for inclusion have already been raised in the discussion above, so I don't think it warrants a completely new section. I'm going to move it up to join it with the previous discussion, so the ideas already offered there aren't separated from responses to your comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC:List or prose?

Should the current section "Notable Holocaust deniers" [2] remain a list, or be converted to prose? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • List - As I mentioned above, some material is better presented as a list, while other information is best presented as prose. If the current section was converted to prose, it would inevitably be simply a list in prose form, which is inherently much more difficult to read and extract information from. I see this as a sub-adequate way to present the information and as a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 1st choice: delete. 2nd: prose. As I explained above, this section is bad style, subjective and should go. While it is here, prose is preferable, to explain why selected examples are notable. If there are sources, for example "Foo (2016) listed ten most famous Holocaust denials: A, B, C..." this is the format that would be at least avoiding the subjectivity of choosing our 'favorite' HDs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to note, the discussion about deleting the section is above. This RfC is about the choice between list or prose. Should the consensus of the above discussion be to delete the section -- which, at least at this moment, appears to be unlikely -- then this RfC would, of course, be moot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Prose. This is something sensitive enough to require context. David Duke, Pat Buchanan, Maurice Bardèche, Bobby Fischer, and Mahmoud Abbas may all be holocaust deniers, but lumping them together in a huge alphabetical list with no further information adds nothing useful to the article. I would suggest instead dividing people up into the different strains of holocaust denialism and identifying the important figures in each, with the appropriate context to indicate why they're important. This would provide much more useful information to the reader and would let us emphasize the figures that are most vital over the ones who are more tangential. And the context is also important because the sources we have aren't uniform in how far they go in establishing these people's denialism as unambiguous fact; while I was copying sources over to here, I was especially struck by the difference between the extremely cautiously-worded, in-line-attributed description on Pat Buchanan's article vs. the flat, unambiguous designation of him as a holocaust denier here. I'm indifferent to how we describe him in particular (I didn't dig that deeply into the sources on him), but I think the sharp difference shows why lists are almost always a terrible idea for any designation that is potentially controversial; we probably should mention him here, but I think we need to reflect any nuances in the sources rather than implying, as a flat list does, that he's basically equivalent to David Duke and Maurice Bardèche. In any case, WP:PROSE is pretty unambiguous that prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not, and this seems like a situation where detail and context are particularly important, not just out of a need to get it right but because those details and context ought to be an important part of the article's content. -Aquillion (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • List with short one-liner blurb explaining who each one is (but am OK with prose or list - oppose exclusion). I'm striking the middle ground here - I don't think we need pargraphs on paragraphs where each one of these gets a line. But I do think that listing them ordered per some categorization and similarity along with a short blurb (less than 1 line) on why each of them is notable for being a holocaust denial - would be better than a list of names.Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • To me, the important thing is to get the sources on the names. I'm disappointed that an edit war developed over a tag, and that the second this RFC had two people saying "prose", the tag was added. That's not very collaborative to folks who want to weigh in. Let the discussion develop before we start edit warring. I know this is a contentious topic, but gees, folks, lets not take out our frustrations with the idiots who deny the Holocaust on our fellow editors. (Once I dig out from getting home after a very unexpected trip, I'll try to source a few more of the names). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • List with the minimum criteria that the named individual must be notable, have their own article which indicates their Holocaust denial has been the subject of significant RS coverage and is properly referenced with citations to independent reliable secondary sources. Citations are also required for each entry on this list because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So a link to their article, even if it is well sourced is not by itself adequate. Beyond which a line or two of prose may be desirable if the named individual is well known for their holocaust denial. However we need to be careful with the prose given the length of the already existing list.This article is already quite long. Better to give people a short line or two and let them follow the link to the relevant article if they want more information. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Prose and add independent secondary sources. SarahSV (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the list and add some prose. There is no reason to remove the list, but adding some prose would definitely help. My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • List with a column for a brief explanation of the person's views as some denial is more complete than others and needs stating. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. List/table with short explanation does seem like a reasonable compromise, but it doesn't address one major issue: how do we chose who goes in and who doesn't. That said, this is an issue discussed either above or in a separate section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 1st choice: delete. 2nd: prose. Just showing a bunch of names that did not make the cut of being significant enough to be in the history section seems bad. Showing names is already done by the first line
    See also: Category:Holocaust deniers
    . Manually duplicating it adds nothing informative and just clogs the article. If the name is important enough to want to show then showing text to explain why that is should be equally important -- so delete or do prose. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Lists and categeories are not mutually exclusive, and the existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other. WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates says specifically:

    The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems. Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others.

    The specific advantage that embedded lists have over categories is that the list is in the article which covers the subject matter. I know very few people who say "I want to know more about Holocaust deniers, so I'm going to open Wikipedia and key in "Category:Holocaust deniers" in the search box." No, they look for the relevant article to get that information, so it's a disservie to the reader not to provide that information in the article. (If truth be told, most readers don't even know about the existence of categories. They're here to use an online encyclopedia, and that means consulting articles. It's editors who care about categories, not readers.)
    Also, once again, this RfC is not about whether to delete or not, that discussion is taking place in a section above this one.
  • Prose: failing that, prune the list to those whose primary notability is that as holocaust deniers - i.e. authors writing holocaust denial publications; those convicted of holocaust denial and related offences; etc. The list should not include those who at one time were accused of holocaust denial or said something that could be perceived as holocaust denial, etc. In other words, I would expect that the lead of each article, preferably 1st para, would identify the subject as a holocaust denier explaining their views. Adding a one-sentence descriptor of each linked subject to indicate how they came to be known as holocaust deniers is a good idea and would eliminate questions about why the person is included. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Prose (1st) or both (2nd) agree that contextualization is important, however don't see anything wrong with a list as long as sourcing is A-grade and there are no red links or non-notables on it. Edaham (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • List-table with a short explanation/blurb as other editors have suggested OR spin out to a list article and link to it from this article, if editors think a list like this is a style faux-pas for a GA article — (which it arguably might be under criteria 1b). Seraphim System (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • List with prose if it needs to be kept at all. This is essentially a glorified see also section, and per MOS:SEEALSO, explanations should be provided when the connection is non-obvious, which in this case, it's always going to be. GMGtalk 12:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • List with footnotes and prose in the footnotes Every name should have a RS and within that footnote you could make a comment. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I think we should pay attention to what our general Manual of Style recommends:

Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Lists of people, specifically the section "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group."

Food for thought. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the MOS is an editing guideline, and not policy. As it says right there at the top of WP:MOS

[MOS] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but it, too, is food for thought. We should do what's best for the article, and what's best for the reader, according to consensus on this page, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 12 April 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.

Jewish Sonderkommando

Hello. I deleted the Jewish Sonderkommando part from the article. There weren't any Jews that sided with the Nazis. It was a lie propagated by the Holocaust deniers themselves, to make Jewish people look as bad as themselves.

Also, I've added a line in the lead, because Wikipedia policies make it completely clear that Conspiracy theories and Fringe theories must be clearly described as such. 190.173.175.155 (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel

Your edits have been reverted. There is ample, cited evidence (see Sonderkommando) for the use of prisoner labor at the camps, and that many of the prisoners pressed into this service were Jews. The current content doesn't suggest that they did so because they "sided with the Nazis". And denial of the Holocaust is denial of the Holocaust whether or not it contradicts the historical record. General Ization Talk 16:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Footnote consolidation

In an attempt to improve the situation with multiple non-named references all citing the same underlying item, I did some minor cleanup where the lead and the body pointed to the same book. But there's a bigger issue that could be attacked, namely, the proliferation of citations all over the article body, which could be consolidated. As one example, I count a couple dozens citations of Lipstadt's, Denying the Holocaust in various editions (Penguin, Plume, Simon & Schuster, Free Press). These could be consolidated to four (because accurate page refs require keeping each one) using named references (and use of {{rp}}) which perhaps could be ident-bundled in the Bibliography to reduce apparent clutter. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"RP" is terrible for references for the reader, since it leaves the page numbers in the text, while the reference is below, so the reader has to go below to find the name of the reference, then go back up to the text to find the page number. It's very un-reader friendly. As an alternative, the different editions could be listed in the Bibliography, and then each reference can refer in some way to the particular edition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, perhaps some editions use the same printing plates, so the pagination is the same, and the number of separate editions can be whittled down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Okay, if RP is not desirable, then {{sfn}} avoids this problem, keeping the page number in the footnote, not the body. Another possibility would be to use the proposed book referencing refinement. A discussion is open about this now, and ends on June 3rd. Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Views of the IHR

I removed some text from the article which User:Beyond My Ken restored, so I've brought it here for discussion. The main part of the material removed is:

One example of a Holocaust denialist's view that was published by the IHR is the transcript of the speech made by the Lutheran pastor Herman Otten at the Ninth IHR Conference (1989), in which he says

There is no dispute over the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to concentration camps and ghettos, or that many Jews died or were killed during World War II. Revisionist scholars have presented evidence, which "exterminationists" have not been able to refute, showing that there was no German program to exterminate Europe's Jews, and that the estimate of six million Jewish wartime dead is an irresponsible exaggeration. The Holocaust – the alleged extermination of some six million Jews (most of them by gassing) – is a hoax and should be recognized as such by Christians and all informed, honest and truthful men everywhere.

The text was originally added years ago as being an example of the IHR's stated beliefs. It was later modified, in an apparent attempt to defend the IHR, to indicate that it was actually just the view of a single individual who stated it in a speech at the conference. As such, I don't think it's actually a strong presentation of the IHR's beliefs, and the article would be better off without it. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection(s) to removing this material)? If so, can you say what it or they are? Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"Typically" vs. "Often"

User:Beyond My Ken reverted an edit I made which changed

Holocaust denial often includes the following claims: that Nazi Germany's Final Solution was aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich, but that it did not include the extermination of Jews; that Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews; or that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million, typically around a tenth of that figure.

to

Holocaust denial typically includes the following claims: that Nazi Germany's Final Solution was aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich, but that it did not include the extermination of Jews; that Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews; or that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million, often around a tenth of that figure.

In my view denial of these three elements is actually typical of Holocaust Denial claims, whereas stating the actual number was "a tenth" as much is actually unusual, as Holocaust deniers are loathe to admit any deaths at all. I therefore think "typically" more accurately describes the three points denied, rather than the number killed. Other views? Jayjg (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My view: if you're making a stink about this, you've got more free time on your hands than is good for you. See WP:MOLEHILL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
That's possible. Given my reasoning above, do you have any objection to this change? Jayjg (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
If I didn;t have an objection, I wouldn;t have reverted your change. I believe it makes more sense in theoriginal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've explained my reasoning, but don't understand yours yet. Can you explain it? Jayjg (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
"Often" means that the listed criteria are in affect with frequency, wile "typically" means that it one was to select one at random, it's likely to be that case. "I often take walks by the river, typically at night." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. There's still a problem with "often" though; the sources seem to indicate that these are, in fact, the "key" claims of Holocaust deniers, rather than just being "often included". At least, that's what the sources said when I first added this material (and sources) to the article many years ago. I propose changing the wording back to something which actually aligns with the sources, as it used to; something like "The key claims of Holocaust denial are:". Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to the change I proposed in my previous post? If so, can you say what it or they are? Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"Key claims" is a definitive declaratve statement and would need to be specifically sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been wanting to nail their beliefs with bullet-points and references: "Holocaust deniers believe:".
"Typically" and "often" are weasel words. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Baloney. Are you planning on banning all adverbs? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Really? Read WP:WEASEL, why don't we nail what they believe with bullet-points? Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I know what WEASEL says. I also know that "often" and "typically", like "frequently", do not fit the definition. Things are not always absolute, and if they are not, it's perfectly acceptable to point out their general attributes, as opposed to what they must always be. This is especially true when it comes to human opinions, ideologies, beliefs, faiths, etc. Throw out the adverbs, and we have no way of being as precise as we possibly can. Anti-semitism or holocaust denial aren't always one thing: different believers express different views, as is not unusual in humans. If we try to pigeon-hole the complexity of these ideologies instead of describing it as accurately as we can, we do a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's how the sources used in the article describe the three claims/points

  • "Holocaust deniers, or 'revisionists', as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust..."
  • "In part III we directly address the three major foundations upon which Holocaust denial rests..."
  • "Holocaust Denial: Claims that..."
  • "Among the untruths routinely promoted are the claims that..."

So two sources refer to the three as "major", one uses no adjective, and one says they are "routinely promoted". Other sources that could be used:

  • "In general, Holocaust denial consists of four central points: minimization of numbers killed, denial of use of gassing, denial of the systematic nature of the genocide, and claims that the evidence was fabricated, above all after the war." Mark M. Hull, Vera Moynes. Masquerade: Treason, the Holocaust, and an Irish Impostor, University of Oklahoma Press, 2017, p. 181. ISBN 9780806158365
  • "According to the deniers, the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, the notion of homicidal gas chambers is a myth, and any deaths of Jews that did occur under the Nazis were the result of wartime privations, not of systematic persecution and state-organised mass murder." Deborah Lipstadt. "Denying the Holocaust", History, BBC website. Last updated 2011-02-17

There seems to be general agreement that Holocaust denial consists (at least) of minimization of the numbers killed, denial of homicidal gas chambers, and denial of an intentional plan to exterminate Jews. What phrase summarizes that? "Main claims"? "Key claims"? "Fundamental claims"? Something else? Whatever we use, it should be better than "often includes", a phrase which fails to indicate that these three claims are fundamental to Holocaust denial. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not that simple. Look at Ewa Kurek, who some have accused of denial, e.g. "Silberklang had a similarly unsparing verdict on Kurek’s work. “She doesn’t deny that Nazi Germany wanted to kill the Jews and that Jews were killed. She’s not a Holocaust denier in that sense,” he said. “But she distorts things so radically and so egregiously that she’s basically in the realm of Holocaust denial, or at least extreme distortion.”"[3] or David Icke who some allege to be such due to his claims that "reptilians" run things behind the scenes (though as far as I can tell he has not denied what happened, the question is of who is responsible e.g. "the guy behind the guy").[4]. I would go with often, not typical.Icewhiz (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
While I agree that individuals might make various specific claims, in order to avoid original research, we have to use sources that actually summarize what the key/major/typical/fundamental claims are. And in particular, regarding people like Icke, we really shouldn't be considering such edge cases at all; Icke's views regarding extraterrestrial shapeshifting reptiles mating with humans are sui generis, and tell us nothing about the phenomenon of Holocaust Denial. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the sources that summarize this, I propose changing "It often includes the following claims:" to "The primary claims of Holocaust Denial are:". Any objections? Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No objection to changing it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I object to "primary" which is a judgment or evaluation which cannot be made in Wikipedia's voice without a source to specifically support it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
BMK, what do you think of "major"? It's the same word one of the sources used. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
MPants, I believe there are actually two sources that use "major". That said, BMK, I don't think we need a source to specifically use the term "primary" before we can use it; we're allowed to summarize what various sources say in slightly different ways. I don't see any of the sources using the term "often", but that's what's currently in the article. The sources use various terms: "major", "routinely promoted", "in general". Two of the sources do not use any modifier, stating "these are the claims", so a strong argument could be made to simply state "Holocaust deniers claim that: ..." Perhaps that's the best wording of all; it's simple and accurate, captures the most important elements, and doesn't preclude the fact that some of them make additional claims (e.g. that Anne Frank's diary was forged). Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Given the reasoning directly above, does anyone object to the wording "Holocaust deniers claim that: ..."? Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm okay with it. Although, to be fair, I'm also okay with "Holocaust deniers should be beaten for claiming that:..." but I can see where that might not work for this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"The primary claims of..." ➜ "The chief claims of Holocaust Denial are..." No assertion of primariness, major/minor judgment, etc. Mathglot (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
How is "chief" different from "primary" or "major" or "key"? Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not. The best suggestion in my opinion is "Holocaust deniers claim that...". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

One response in Canada to denier Monika Schaefer

Interesting but also surprising: A civil liberties group is urging the Canadian government to end the "unjust and immoral" imprisonment of Monika Schaefer, a German-Canadian woman on trial in Germany for publishing videos denying the Holocaust.

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association says it's concerned about Canada's apparent unwillingness to come to the aid of Schaefer, who it describes as a Canadian "political prisoner" who was charged under a German criminal law that does not exist in Canada and is contrary to international law. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/canada-should-help-holocaust-denier-monika-schaefer-1.4750063 Peter K Burian (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I note that there is no article Ontario Civil Liberties Association. At first I thought that CBC made a mistake and they meant an Ontario branch of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association but that is not the case and the CCLA does not seem to have anything to do with this. It is a separate and much less notable group: http://ocla.ca/ . My first thought was that maybe it was a far right front organisation doing a bit of astroturfing but I have not found anything to support that. Another interesting point is that there seems to be a genuine dispute over the actual facts in this case, not just over the rights and wrongs of the facts. OCLA seem to be arguing that the videos were made and uploaded in Canada (where this is presumably legal and not in Germany's jurisdiction) but others are saying that the videos were made and uploaded in Germany (where this is illegal and where German law does have jurisdiction).
While this is interesting, I'm not sure it is worthy of inclusion in the article as the coverage of Schaefer is already quite bulky. I don't like the "Recent developments" section anyway. It seems like a bit of a dumping ground for news stories many of which are far from recent. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at the OCLA advisory board [5], where you'll find a Truther Girls vlogger (great for when you want to infiltrate the Illuminati and check out their civil liberites status), political non-entities and also-rans, non-notable professors and the editor of a literary magazine. Look at their executive staff [6] and you'll find another non-entity non-lawyer as the executive director, and a dietician as treasurer. As far as I can tell they don't even have any lawyers on staff -- a ridiculous state of affairs for a civil liberties organization. This entire organization is, essentially, a non-entity. Check the Google search results here No decisions about this article should be based on the actions of this barely-existent non-notable group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, they don't look right-wingish to me at all. If anything they're out there with the lunatic fringe of the far-left. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Type-o in the intro

Hi all, there's a type-o in the intro (a double "the"). It says "Holocaust deniers do not the deny the very fact of mass murder of Jews" Awareness-kindness (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now I realized the article isn't actually completely locked but changes can be proposed. So I submitted the change. Awareness-kindness (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. And welcome. Just keep in mind that very soon, after you become an autoconfirmed user you will be capable of editing this article directly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

I thought there could have been more written about Poland, and how the implementation of the Holocaust Bill effectively excuses the Polish government for blame for their involvement in the facilitation of the Final Solution Dshah515 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Caption dispute

An editor changed the caption on one of the images from:

  • "April 12, 1945: Generals Eisenhower, Omar Bradley and George S. Patton inspect, at Ohrdruf forced labor camp, an improvised crematory pyre"

to:

  • "April 12, 1945: Generals Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton inspect an improvised crematory pyre at Ohrdruf forced labor camp"

I did not think this was an improvement, and reverted. The editor restored their change, with the edit summary:

  • "[C]hoose full names for all, or none, no mixing and matching"

Since Eisenhower is so much better known -- having later become the President of the U.S. -- then the other generals, I was not bothered by the "mixing and matching", however, after another round of reverts, I accepted the editor's premise and converted to using the full names of all the generals:

  • "April 12, 1945: Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley and George S. Patton inspect, at Ohrdruf forced labor camp, an improvised crematory pyre"

my theory being that given the choice between using only the last name, or using the full name, the full name is more informative to the reader. Unfortunately, although the editor had reiterated their premise that

  • either ALL Generals [should be] named in full, or ALL Generals named only by last name"

they now rejected using full names for all, and reverted to their original edit, using only last names.

So, the question at hand is, is it better that the caption use the full names of the generals shown in the image, or to use only their last names? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Use only their last names. The reader will already know who they are by clicking on their page. Generally it's best to keep image captions concise and not include more than what's necessary, this being an example.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Obviously, I disagree. I do not think we should ever force a reader to click through to another article when we can easily present them with the information they need in a trivial fashion. Remember, 1945 was 73 years ago. We're at the point where only historically-minded readers are likely to know who Bradley and Patton are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    • If only historically minded readers are likely to know who they are, then listing their full names doesn't really help with that because they'd still have to click on their page either way. Saying "Omar Bradley and George S. Patton" isn't any clearer simply saying "Bradley and Patton" because the non-historically minded reader is still going to think "Who is Omar Bradley and George S. Patton?" since they're not mentioned anywhere else in the article. It doesn't add anything descriptive that wouldn't still require clicking on their page. While I understand your intention to add more clarity to the article, I just don't think this will, but that's just my two cents.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The proposed phrasing in #2, removing the unnecessary clause order that necessitates commas, is superior: ...inspect an improvised crematory pyre at Ohrdruf forced labor camp. Unfortunate that that seems to have gotten lost in the trivially avoidable drama. I'd prefer removal of the piping on all three, using full names; but I do not feel particularly strongly about that point. VQuakr (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Your point concerning rephrasing to avoid the comma is a good one, regardless of which version of the names is used. I will make that change, since the other editor (who initiated it) is unlikely to object. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with either full names or last names only. I would note that most readers aren't going to know much of anything about any of those generals, including Eisenhower. So we should definitely link all of the names, regardless. That being said the change from:
...inspect, at Ohrdruf forced labor camp, an improvised crematory pyre
to
...inspect an improvised crematory pyre at Ohrdruf forced labor camp
was a clear improvement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Which I didn't notice at the time, being focused on the names, and which I have now restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing "Penalty Phase" and Punishment for James Keegstra's Conviction(s)?

The section on James Keegstra talks about convictions and appeals, but never mentions punishment or potential punishment. It leaves open the possibility that the law he was convicted of violating may carry no punishment. The section mentions he was fired from his job after the last appeal was upheld for conviction, but does not directly tie the conviction to the loss of his job. It would improve the Article if the punishment aspect of the law was mentioned right up front, so the Reader has some context of what's at stake, and also whether or not the termination of his employment was somehow mandated by the government, or a discretionary action by his employer. It's Canadian law, and so there may be some weirdness that an American reader might not intuit.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_20&oldid=935037296"