Jump to content

Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Denier vs. Revisionist

The issue is similar to the one outlined by "freedom fighter vs. terrorist". In very few areas of human endeavor is a label attached to a group over the vociferous and vehement objections of the group itself. If you call an African-American a "nigger" or a Jew a "kike" then those people have the right to object. If you call al Qaeda a bunch of terrorists and they object, you say you don't have to bother with their objections because they are the loathsome enemy. Effectively, using the term "Holocaust denier" to describe someone who wants a free and open discussion of the evidence is tantamount to an ethnic slur, which you feel you have the right to commit with impunity because, again effectively, you admit you consider the group to be your loathsome enemy. You "deny" them equal status as human beings. It is a game, one which you know you are playing and continue to play, all the while "denying" you are playing it.

It is also a game you can play here because you have administrators on your side, some of whom probably agree with revisionists but are unwilling to get involved. Proskauer 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not true at all. Jtpaladin 16:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Buh? In what way is it tatamount to an ethnic slur? Whatever opinions administrators have or have not on the subject is irrelevant. Remember, there is no cabal. We are not able to represent material that fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Holocaust "revisionism" (i.e. Holocaust denial) fails those two absolute tests and therefore cannot be regarded as legitimate in Wikipedia by any article. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is a matter of opinion, not fact. Holocaust revision/denial fails those absolute tests in your eyes, but not in other people's eyes. What we have here is failure to comunicate. We have a difference in opinion. Only your side is preventing my side from expressing its opinion, which is something like the actions of a repressive regime.Proskauer 22:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no "sides" here, unfortunately. There is history, and there is an attempt to minimize or deny history. And no one is preventing revisionists from using their freedom of expression. Changing the name of the Flat earth society to "Revisionist earth science foundation" won't change the fact that they are advocating that the world is flat. It also won't change the fact that most people will call them "flat earthers".
Repressive regimes are usually characterized by massive political arrests and "opponents" being held without trial. Summary executions, the murder of innocents and even violations of the Geneva convention are not unheard of. Having (what you think) are your opponents characterize you by your actions, rather then your preferred moniker is in no way "repressive". Cantankrus 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This is, quite frankly, the STUPIDEST statement I have ever heard. So, HOW do you "minimize" or 'deny" "history", HOWEVER YOU define it? If I said that Napoleon lost 100,000 men in his invasion of Russia, not through bad weather, but because of the heroism of the Russian peasants, HOW is that "denying' or 'minimizing" "history"? Can't you see the STUPIDITY of your position?
Ad hom and a straw man, good show. Don't blow a gasket over there, and we might actually be able to discuss this article. Cantankrus 05:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no 'difference in opinion' here. There is either the acceptance of fact or the denial of it. Wikipedia is (or aims to be) a collection of facts. We are not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information. We only allow verifiable content to be inserted into the wiki because things which are true are always verifiable by some means whereas things which are not true are never so. We rely on our community assuming good faith so that disputes can be dealt with in a fair and discussional fashion.
I'm sorry if it bothers you, but Wikipedia does not exist to be a forum for the publishing of information which is historically inaccurate and based on hate of a particular group of people rather than on verifiable information. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies, either propose changes to the policies or don't edit, it's that simple. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 01:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What "fact" are you talking about? You mean BLIND acceptance of the VIEWS of one group by everybody else at the point of imprisonment? Remember Gallileo? Precisely. "Flat earth"? LOL. Don't you goons understand irony?
It's ironic that you'd call the acceptance of empirical evidence such as pictures, movies, eye-witness accounts, and Nazi records, otherwise known as facts, blind. Seriously whatever dictionary you're reading, throw it in the fire. 152.15.102.86 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The Catholic support for geocentricism should not be confused with the idea of a flat earth, which the Church never supported. Yes, it seems some of us understand it very well. Yet, others who throw around unqualified statements (without support) seem not to so much. Cantankrus 05:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. However, may I suggest that in those areas where one finds oneself to be the most rigid, one may find the richest veins for exploration. Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I will return here and read it at least two more times so that I may take it in better. Proskauer 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

One person's opinion removed by a Wikipedian from this spot:

After reading through this entire article, I have judged it to be extremely biased against Holocaust revisionists. This needs to be changed. If someone denies the Holocaust, they are NOT anti-Semitic. Such a claim is ridiculous. -Everyday Wikipedia user

I do not believe the kind of censorship that takes place here. Shame on people for editing out other people's opinions. Proskauer 01:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember, talk pages are not a general discussion forum; they are here to try and improve the article. What are they saying that actually helps the article? Unless some wikipedians are more equal then others, what this user has "judged" based on their opinion isn't really relevant. Supporters of a flat earth might think that round earth articles are "extremely biased", and should be changed too.
While there are lots of broad complaints about the "treatment" of revisionism, there isn't a lot of discussion on this article. While I'm sure the article isn't perfect, are we here to discuss it, or here to discuss politics and the first amendment? Cantankrus 02:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No one said anything about a "general discussion forum." Are you in any way shape or form articulating the issues in your comments above? Are you able to? I mean, literally, are you capable of articulating the issues at hand? If so, would you please do so in order that the discussion may move forward. Your comments directly above are general irrelevancies on this point and saying that another Wikipedian's opinion doesn't count is alienating to that person and quells further conversation. Do you personally have any substantive remarks to make about the article or my remarks on it? You say, There are no "sides" here. Yes there are. All history is constantly under review. HOW DO YOU RECONCILE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED VIEWPOINTS OTHER THAN BY CALLING YOUR INTERLOCUTORS OBJECTIONABLE NAMES?

What is the difference between a "repressive" regime and an "oppressive" one? Do you think there is any? I happen to think "repressive" refers more to limiting freedom of thought, expression, movement, and economics rather than outright terrorisation of the citizenry.

You say:

Changing the name of the Flat earth society to "Revisionist earth science foundation" won't change the fact that they are advocating that the world is flat. It also won't change the fact that most people will call them "flat earthers".

It also won't change the fact that it is an intentional put-down or slur. Having a Wikipedia article titled "Flat-earthers," not using their chosen name, deriding them, and not allowing their viewpoints to be stated with particularity and precision would be intellectually dishonest, wouldn't it?

Are you a believer in Wicca? Would it be right from a Jewish perspective to repress the explanation of their beliefs in a WP article?

Are you a believer in Judaism? Would it be right from a Hindu perspective to repress the explanation of their beliefs in a WP article?

Are you a believer in Hinduism? Would it be right from a Christian perspective to repress the explanation of their beliefs in a WP article?

Are you a believer in Christianity? Would it be right from an Islamic perspective to repress the explanation of their beliefs in a WP article?

Are you a believer in Islam? Would it be right from a Buddhist perspective to repress the explanation of their beliefs in a WP article?

And so on.

(Notice, however, that no anti-revisionist is actually denying that revisionists' viewpoints are being repressed or withheld, they're justifying it instead.)

Proskauer 05:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proskauer, is your denial or revision of the Holocaust a religious belief on your part? If not, you are making an invalid analogy.
Simply put, the title of the article is the mainstream usage for people who fulfil the activities in the article. If you find that term offensive, then your issue is with the English language as a whole. We do not define the language--we simply report on the usage thereof. Justin Eiler 06:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an analogy, not a direct parallel; by definition, analogies do not contain 100% identical features. I'm referring to different systems of belief. Simply put you haven't refuted my points at all. Show me an example of what you're talking about and maybe I'll understand it. Show me another case where mainstream usage overrides the group's chosen name in an encyclopedia entry. Proskauer 08:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"It's an analogy, not a direct parallel"--It is a False analogy. The only way it could be a valid analogy is if holocaust denial was held by you as a faith-based position--and if that is the case, your Holocaust denial is not "revisionism," but religious belief.
"Show me another case where mainstream usage overrides the group's chosen name in an encyclopedia entry." Holocaust deniers are not a coherent group, but disparate individuals or small groups who exhibit common behavior. The point is not to "override name choice," the point is to accurately label the behavior. Again, "liking" or "disliking" the accurate description is irrelevant. Justin Eiler 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple things. First, I agree with you that the removal of that comment was improper; you've copied here so I won't replace it. (Don't delete non-abusive comments from talk pages, please, even if what they are saying is total crap. It's bad manners -- and you never know when your own non-abusive comments might be mistaken for total crap by someone else. Doesn't feel good.) Second, I agree with you that deniers' viewpoints are being repressed. That's because deniers are dedicated to propagating falsehood, and as such, are intrinsicially unreliable sources. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for being reasonable about it. Proskauer 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In History, there are no "sides", I'm very sorry to tell you. There are FACTS, and then there are the interpretation of those facts. While Historians endlessly argue over what an event means, what caused it, who it affected, etc etc, there is little debate over whether a paticular event HAPPENED at all. History is always being revised, but not the way that "revisionists" attempt to.
If the anonymous contributor had a specific point, then there would be something to discuss. I welcome such discussions. But, showing up and "judging" the article? This seems to suggest that their opinion should be more highly regarded. And that is what I objected to.
While you've argued a number of times about "paticularity and precision", I'm not sure which points of revisionists are being "left out". As far as intellectual dishonesty goes, it would be so if we became a propoganda vehicle for any extemist or fringe group. If we had an article called "Revisionist earth science foundation", which gave weight to the fact that the earth was flat, without pointing out that the vast majority of scientists support the theory that the earth is spherical, that would be intellectually dishonest, and not much of a service to the users of Wikipedia.Cantankrus 07:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

From each according to his/her abilities, I suppose. That person was of the opinion that his/her opinion mattered. However, as far as my articulating the viewpoints of revisionists, it's a very big job and an impossible one if my edits and contributions get instantaneously reverted. As to "facts" let me assure you that facts are extraordinarily slippery little items and they just come and go at will sometimes. Suppose you have a document signed by Adolf Hitler. Is it a forgery? Is it a real document from the era but the signature was a forgery? Was it a real signature but part of a wartime disinformation campaign? Does that misspelling indicate thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit a non-German wrote it? Was the non-German a Latvian Nazi in the employ of Hitler? What about gross grammatical errors that only a Slavic speaker would make? What if the paper and ink were manufactured in 1947? Those are questions about one document. There are millions of such questions that never will be asked and never can be answered.Proskauer 08:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your 'viewpoint' (if it can even be called one) fails the all-important requirement of verifiability. Is your 'view' being actively repressed? Absolutely. It fails the criteria for inclusion and thus is not permitted to be inserted into the wiki. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 13:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Facts aren't as slippery as you'd have us believe, I have to say. While your examination is quite on par with what most "revisionists" attempt, it does nicely show the stance that is taken with respect to evidence. Your theoretical document signed by Hitler must say something (the content). What it states can be cross-checked with what members of his staff said, what persons in the recieving agency said, and by looking at other evidence that might flow from such a document. That is how historians examine evidence, they look at ALL of it, and in context. And, in this context, there isn't one single document that all of the facts hinge on.
To persue your document strawman to the end -- a document not for general publication might have spelling or grammatical mistakes, especially if it was "top secret" and could not be proofread. There were lots of non-German Nazis, and all were in the theoretical employ of Hitler. Could one have been on his staff? Could a non-German have prepared a document that Hitler signed? Both are possible, of course. As for paper and ink, there are tests that can be done if a document is of really doubtful provenance to see if it is from the correct era. Are we to take it that since you have doubts about documents originating from Hitler's HQ, that ALL such documents are questionable? By your reasoning, all actions by Nazi armies during World War 2 are in doubt of having occured. It's this "coulda, shoulda, woulda" logic that seperates most revisionists from Historians, and it is why their work isn't considered "historical revisionism". Cantankrus 15:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You've both outlined rather admirably the exact processes which historians use to arrive at the "facts" and the "truth." Indeed, this is the very process so utterly lacking in mainstream treatment of the Holocaust for the last 60 years.

BTW, no one has answered my query above, Show me another case where mainstream usage overrides the group's chosen name in an encyclopedia entry. Eiler's response ids not an answer but an attack on the validity of the question. I suggest there is no other example. And I'm not about to quibble over semantics, thank you very much, it's a VERY old trick. Proskauer 18:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Almost 100% analogous. See my opening remarks at the beginning of this section. Proskauer 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This from the German Wikipedia article on the National Socialist (Nazi) Party:

Der Begriff Nazismus ist die eingedeutschte Version des englischen Wortes nazism, die in Deutschland jedoch kaum verwendet wird. In Deutschland wird häufig der negativ konnotierte Begriff Nazi für einen Anhänger des Nationalsozialismus verwendet.

The point is, JP, you basically proved my point. You can't find any other examples of such treatment on Wikipedia. Proskauer 02:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What process has been lacking in the "mainstream treatment" of the Holocaust, exactly? Are you saying that Historians haven't been using the Historiography process for the Holocaust?
And there are lots of extremist groups that try for a veneer of respectability and therefore cast off the labels that their groups are known for. A good current example is White Supremacists, who are now mostly advancing themselves as "White Nationalists". While many deny they are supremacists, their racial theories, books, activism etc. is almost identical to the white supremacist movement. Cantankrus 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the German quote? No major relevance other than to point out that it in fact there are different legitimate viewpoints and that self-determination would argue that, like "Nazi", the term "denier" is foreign to the group. The WP article in German doesn't use the word Nazi, they use the native terminology. Your usage of "denier" is a foreign word basically. Interesting that you are fluent in German. I used to be OK at German but that was a long time ago. Do you think the Germans had a legitimate reason for fighting WWII, I mean from their standpoint?

BTW, I should change my screen name. It's no longer amusingly cynical to use the name of a somewhat unfortunate Holocaust survivor to engage in this argument. Proskauer 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Historians haven't been using the Historiography process for the Holocaust? Precisely that, only I'm merely suggesting rather than proclaiming it since of course I don't know the truth either. Proskauer 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you've misread that German article. It says that the term nazismus -- Nazism -- is hardly used at all. It goes on to say "In Germany, frequently the 'negatively connotated term Nazi for a follower of National Socialism is used." So I think I could have used Nazi as a better example than "nazism".

My opinion of the propriety of Germany's role in WWII is not relevant -- and not something we need to talk about here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Proskauer, I am ... of mixed opinions on this. Yes, like many in the West, I do have a "knee-jerk" reaction of hostility towards those who deny the Holocaust. My grandfather was in one of the American units who cleaned up one of the camps, and it's a deep and bitter subject with me.
At the same time, I can understand someone saying "Hey, I've heard this from this source, and that from that source, and I honestly don't know." But the problem is, you're coming at us like "You're all wrong, and I'm right." That kind of approach is not going to win friends and influence people, I don't care if ou're talking about the Holocaust or underwater basket weaving.
Truth to tell, Wikipedia is not the best format for such discussions. However, if you like, I frequent two forums. On one, we can set up in a private subforum where nobody (including me) will shout, call names, or rail at you, and we can discuss the isues of Holocaust historiography until you are satisfied of the facts, one way or another. On the other, we can still restrict the discussion to the two of us, but it will probably be out in the open where people can see it (I may be able to persuade the admin to closet it off, but I'd have to ask them). The only disadvantage of the first is that I am an admin there, and you may not want to have me have access to even so much as your IP address.
If you find either of these offers to be acceptable, you can email me from my userpage, and I will set that up as soon as possible. Justin Eiler 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm merely suggesting -- Unfortunately, History isn't written by suggestion. All of history is written by looking at and assessing different pieces of evidence. The History of World War 2 in general, and the Holocaust in paticular, was written the same way as any other piece of history. While the Historigraphy of the Holocaust is under focused challenge, almost no other part of World War 2 has been similarly challenged. (There are different schools of thought, but I'm referring to the basic established facts). Why aren't there "suggestions" for review on any other event of the War, or even of the 20th Century?
I note that you didn't respond to my suggestion that "White Nationalists" are also not referred to "by their chosen name". Just wondering what your thought on that was. Cantankrus 05:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Cantankrus, I missed that comment. I was in a hurry. "White Supremacist" versus "White Nationalist" to me is pretty much the same thing. (Please understand that I'm not a big fan of name engineering for PR purposes.) Names can be used to condemn or marginalize certain groups, such as here. If somebody's name is James, and they accept Jamey as a nickname, but you insist on calling him Jimmy (or Jimbo if you like) knowing that he doesn't accept it, then it's a put-down. You are inherently saying "You are not worthy of my respect." If that's what you intend, as jpgordon apparently admits he does, all well and good. Just be honest about it. Just state in the article, "We believe Holocaust deniers are full of crap and they're just lucky we didn't name the article 'Holocaust shit-heads'. And furthermore we're not about to allow anyone to reason through their arguments because there are some morons out there who will believe it."

I grew up hearing about lampshades, bars of soap, etc. Now, many of those stories have been debunked. Sensationalized stories parading as fact, designed to tug at my heart strings are anathema to me. I want to know the facts. Do you understand that for sixty years people have believed that the Nazis used the fat from dead concentration camp inmates (dead from starvation no less) to make bars of soap? To suggest otherwise would automatically label you an anti-Semite. What do you think about confessions of crimes from a person who has been beaten within an inch of his life and had the lives of his family members threatened by people who had every intention of carrying out those threats? Would you recommend that system of justice where you live? As it happens, there is credible evidence that such tactics were used to obtain 'confessions' at the Nuremberg trials. Are those confessions valid?

Thanks for asking my opinion. My fundamental opinion is that the real Holocaust crime was in rounding up millions of Jews (and many others), disrupting their lives, tearing child and mother asunder, and then leaving them to die of disease and starvation. Death by willful negligence is murder, and I'm fairly sure no tears were shed in Berlin. I mainly would like a fair and accurate accounting of what did happen. Whether or not gas chambers were used would be a good starting point.

BTW, sorry to suggest a different word gloss to you again. My "theoretical document" is actually a "hypothetical document." A theory is something put forward to explain a known set of previously unexplained phenomena (as I understand it). I only learned this within the last 5 years, so if you're under 45, feel fortunate. ;-) This isn't intended to alienate you. I truly appreciate your thoughtful questions and answers, and they've made me think quite a bit as well.

Justin -- It's an interesting proposition. I think this forum has been overstretched by this discussion, fomented somewhat by me. I'll leave a message on your talk page.

Jpgordon -- I saw that bit about the derogatory use of "Nazi" by Germans and of course it must be a post-war innovation. (Didn't totally understand it before -- just now had to look up "häufig".) What isn't clear to me is whether the "National Socialist Party" members were called "Nazis" in Germany during the war (affectionately or not). My question about the German people's understanding of their role in WWII isn't totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you're writing an article on the subject are you obligated to present both sides?

Proskauer 07:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Proskauer, I'm glad your not in favour of PR name changes. While the two cases are "the same to you", any White Nationalist would be just as offended as revisionists are when they are labelled "deniers". So, the analogy is a close one.
The lampshade and soap stories have not been debunked; they are single incidents which did recieve play out of proportion with their occurances, however. Soap was made on an experimental scale, and in one camp the commandant's wife did have items made from human skin. Many camp survivors recall stories about "Jews being made into soap", but these were all rumours that seem to originate from SS or German civilians who were taunting the Jews. (The soap experiments didn't involve Jewish victims).
As far as "beaten confessions", for the most part I don't think that is what the evidence shows.
Interesting observation about starvation. I'm guessing that you yourself accept part of the Holocaust then, the part where millions of Jews were rounded up and left to die of disease and starvation in the Ghettos? (and by extension that at least some Nazis were guilty of this Murder of Jews?) I don't think you'll find that "millions" of Germans died; but, even if only a few thousand died wrongly of starvation or disease that could have been prevented, then it is a tragedy.
To be as vocal an advocate of revisionism as you are, I would be surprised if you have only reviewed the revisionist "side" of the story. And if you have reviewed the History texts on the Holocaust, the only way you could come up with a question like "were gas chambers used" is by dismissing or ignoring evidence that was presented. Cantankrus 08:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, Cantankrus, you are attributing attitudes to me which do not belong. I did not "dismiss" any evidence. Nor is anything in history an 'all or nothing' proposition. I'm attempting to give somewhat equal weight to evidence that has otherwise been dismissed by other people. Even if one confession was derived by a life-threatening beating, isn't that a crime and doesn't that call into doubt the 'confession'? I simply don't know about the gas chambers. What I have read is that there isn't a single one currently in existence where I personally could go and inspect it. Can you give me a source for the soap and lampshade histories? I'll spend some time looking on my own.

Do you find it odd that there were so many suicides in prison cells by otherwise sane Nazi 'criminals' at Nuremberg and other trials? Suicides where potassium cyanide was the death-dealing agent, even where the prisoner had been strip-searched, moved, watched, showered, interrogated, etc. for months? How did they ever get hold of a cyanide capsule? Proskauer 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This Proskauer likes to waste people's time saying that there is a real debate about the shape of the Earth. If he pops up on talk pages, I'd ignore him, if he puts distortions into articles I'd remove them, but I wouldn't bother with point-by-point arguing. Proskauer, feel free to use the space below to call me a censor and say you are only interested in balance. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

JP -- Thanks for displaying your gullibility in public. You know what they say about alcoholics, they can always find a legitimate reason to drink. I suggest that similarly you can always find a legitimate reason to believe.

OK, let's assume the Stivers story is true, i.e. that Mr. Stivers is factually reporting what he knows to have happened. WHO provided the capsule? Die-hard Nazis who didn't want Goering to get on the stand and testify to ... what? What did Goering know that he had to be shut up about? Or was it Holocaust promoters who didn't want Goering to get on the stand and dash the whole Holocaust story. Either way, why would Goering willingly take the pill? Guilty conscience? Give me a break. Do you expect me to believe a Nazi ever had a conscience?

Squiddy -- Yes, I snookered you once by my seemingly false sincerity. Well, appearances can be deceptive. But don't be fooled, sometimes I actually am sincere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.165.196 (talk • contribs) 15:55, November 9, 2006

  • Good to see such an obvious view of what sort of handle deniers have on history. Goering had already stood trial, had already taken the stand, had already been convicted. There was no reason to shut him up; the hangman's noose was going to do that the very next day. He committed suicide rather than be hanged like a common criminal. By the way, I don't particularly believe Stivers' story -- and the article I cited also suggests other ways Goering may have gotten the pill. I tend to think it more likely that it was secreted in the jar of pomade. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, JP. I never said I was passing judgment on that historical snippet, so, no, you didn't trick me into displaying my ignorance. Nor have I ever claimed to be an expert on the Holocaust. I simply like having my questions answered. I certainly didn't take several hours to go research it while I was in the middle of other things. It just seemed like interesting but obvious tripe. Proskauer 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(Remove personal attack per WP:NPA

Folks, we are supposed to be discussing the ISSUES, not the people. Please remember WP:NPA. JP, I'll be talking to Proskauer off-site and we'll be walking through the evidence, both for and against. I give no guarantees that I'll "change his mind," as the purpose is to discuss and examine evidence, but I want to hear his side of things as well as offer my own. In the mean time, this discussion has gotten heated enough that we are all treading really close to the edge of Wikipedia policies. May I recommend that ALL parties involved in the dispute (myself included) take a 24 or so hour "cooling off" period. Justin Eiler 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

JP, it most certainly is a personal attack when you imply that another person is engaging in less than productive thought process. Please do not revert my comments, and please do not make personal attacks. And please consider my "24 hour cooldown" suggestion. Justin Eiler 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Proskauer, I didn't attribute any attitude to you. But you are either dismissing the Historical record, or ignoring it completely if you can ask the question above.
Evidence needs corroboration to become historical fact; the reason some evidence is "dismissed" is that it doesn't fit this criteria. Historians don't write history by consipiracy theory.
A life threatening beating is of course a crime. But even the police, as a matter of course, don't take voluntary confessions at face value. There needs to be corroboration. (As an aside, "tortured" confessions extracted out of several accused are usually remarkable in their similarity.)
As for not being able to visit a gas chamber, I can't visit the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall of China. Should we have doubts here too?
See Techniques of Holocaust Denial - Soap for the info on Soap, and Techniques of Holocaust - Lampshades for the human skin atrocities.
Am I to assume that you think the Nazi regime was guilty of the Murder of Jews by starvation and disease, given that you haven't responded on point to that? Cantankrus 15:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to JP, I did call him "gullible", which I apologize for and would retract, if I may. It was rude and uncalled for and furthermore I doubt seriously that it has any basis in reality. I'm attempting to watch my mouth lately. It's way too easy to put people down with this anonymous on-line stuff, so given that, I'd say JP has been exercising admirable restraint so far.

Cantankrus: Well, "attitude" may have been the wrong word. But more importantly, I'm not strictly advocating a denier/revisionist viewpoint. I'm advocating for a more detailed account of those viewpoints in the Wikipedia article that is in fact about those viewpoints. Yes, there are many details which need to fit together in order to make a history factual. My original attempt here in this article was to add details which deniers/revisionists find highly compelling. The response to this was to have those details edited out by any one of several people with what to my view was a fixed agenda on this subject. However, I remain open-minded.

With regard to your question:

Interesting observation about starvation. I'm guessing that you yourself accept part of the Holocaust then, the part where millions of Jews were rounded up and left to die of disease and starvation in the Ghettos? (and by extension that at least some Nazis were guilty of this Murder of Jews?) I don't think you'll find that "millions" of Germans died; but, even if only a few thousand died wrongly of starvation or disease that could have been prevented, then it is a tragedy.

(Sorry, saw the question but failed to answer. FWIW, I lived in Holland thirty years ago and one of the family members had been hauled off to Germany to a camp as punishment for participating in the resistance movement. He survived, but I never met him to hear his experiences first hand.)

Yes, I do accept that part. I think the numbers may be a bit skewed since from what I've read the entire Jewish population of the German occupied area didn't quite reach 6 million, but let's just agree it was somewhere in the millions. What I've seen done elsewhere is to respond to this argument by inflating the number of Jewish victims to 11 million, which is obviously idiotic. But it's also idiotic for deniers/revisionists to make a big deal out of the number, as if killing only 2-3 million is somehow exculpatory. One way or the other, however, I'd like to see an intelligent and knowledgable debate on the subject in which one is allowed to question the exact number without being accused of being an anti-Semite. Not that this has been done to me per se, I've just had my contributions peremptorily removed, with attendant comments like trash, garbage, butt-wipe, hogswill or some such.

I haven't had time to look at the links you provided, so thanks, I'll get to it this evening.

Proskauer 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What sources have you been reading? The German Jewish community didn't number 6 million before WWII, but combine it with Poland, Austria, France and the other countries Germany took over during WWII and it totals to over the 6 million that were killed. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You and I may be agreeing here in part. What I meant was the Jewish population in the areas occupied by Germany during the war. Not really trying to get into a numbers game. I was using it to illustrate my other points. I don't have a decided opinion right now on the number 6 million other than that it should be open to discussion. My sense is that if the pre-war population was six million, then it would require the Germans to have achieved a 100% kill ratio to reach 6 million. Thanks.Proskauer 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. Go read a book on the holocaust before theorizing though. Its easy to see problems when you don't know what you're talking about. --Havermayer 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You might make your point more effectively by showing me the error of my reasoning or knowledge. Can you recommend a particular book? I'll buy it and read it. Proskauer 02:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect hideous straw-manning in your argument in regards to jewish pre and post-war demographics, and in regards to kill-ratio. Finding books discussing demographics from an non-holocaust denier standpoint shouldn't be too hard. Many books and links could even be found on this very wikipedia page.
Also, the extreme consensus opinion among historians would point to a strong probability that the 6 million figure is correct. Some of the evidence that they cite:"... records on the number of people sent to the larger death camps, which were built and used primarily for Jews; reliable demographic studies of the number of Jews in Europe before and after the war; and progress reports from death camps and from organized killing squads in the conquered territories." I'm pretty sure that looking into this further would confirm that they're right. --Havermayer 06:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Havermayer -- I googled the quote you provided and found this on the same page by Gordon McFee, someone cited as an anti-revisionist authority in this very article:

Most statistical breakdowns I have seen list the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The estimates vary from around 4.1 to 6.0 million, with more recent research supporting an even higher figure. Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews gives a detailed breakdown of Jewish deaths. It is estimated that another 5-6 million non-Jews (Gypsies, homosexuals, prisoners of war - especially Russians - were killed during the Holocaust period.

So there is not "exreme consensus opinion" but room for variation. The movement of the figure upward ... ? I guess I'll go buy Hiberg's book and read it. My point remains that even to discuss the figure 6 million without endorsing it invites charges of anti-Semitism. Proskauer 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In the link Cantankrus provided regarding the soap made from human fat:

In reading Mark Weber's article, it is clear that he is deliberately overstating the belief in the soap allegations among what he calls "exterminationist" historians, so as to make his debunking of it seem that much more important and dramatic.

They seem to agree, however, that there was once widespread acceptance and that it has since been largely debunked except, as they claim, for one "experiment". I was born 11 years after the end of WWII and I certainly heard the story repeated as established fact for a great long while, in fact till the invention of the internet.

Regarding the human skin lampshades, another story I once received as absolute gospel, Nizkor quotes General Clay on Ilse Koch:

Among the 1672 trials was that of Ilse Koch, the branded "Bitch of Buchenwald," but as I examined the record I could not find her a major participant in the crimes of Buchenwald. A sordid, disreputable character, she had delighted in flaunting her sex, emphasized by tight sweaters and short skirts, before the long-confined male prisoners, and had developed their bitter hatred. Nevertheless these were not the offenses for which she was being tried and so I reduced her sentence, expecting the reaction which came. Perhaps I erred in judgment but no one can share the responsibility of a reviewing officer. Later the Senate committee which unanimously criticized this action heard witnesses who gave testimony not contained in the record before me. I could take action only on that record.

Nizkor can offer no actual evidence of any such human skin objects, other than rumor or objects 'examined' but never photographed. Apparently there are no existing photographs, but I remember seeing film footage from directly after the war showing a lampshade from a distance. The film was made by American forces who had taken German citizens on tours of the camps, probably as part of the de-Nazification program.

It was traditional in many parts of Europe to make lampshades and book covers out of goatskin, sheepskin, or kidskin. I've actually seen such a bookcover here in California. This was a typical use of parchment or more likely rawhide. Unfortunately, nothing exists post-war which could be examined for DNA evidence.

I know you're trying to help me out, Cantankrus. I'm still with you on this, and I've edited out my gallows humor. Further on Nizkor, I didn't find the "experiment" account very well represented and frankly I find the Nizkor rhetorical style in presenting their points insufficient at times. Similarly, the denier/revisionist articles can be annoyingly obtuse and off-point.

Proskauer 11:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Proskauer - you say I'm advocating for a more detailed account of those viewpoints in the Wikipedia article. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a 10,000 word guide to revisionism. A few details about a subject is fine, but an encyclopedia should be an overview of a subject, not an overly detailed treatment. Are there any revisionist "claims" that we are leaving out?
As for soap - there was once widespread acceptance and that it has since been largely debunked is a strange statement. Revisionists claim that historians widely accepted the soap story, and that is clearly not the case. Now, were there widespread rumours that were believed? Maybe, but what does that have to do with History? You had asked for a source on soap and lampshades (human skin artifacts), and the Nizkor ones are a good starting place. I'm sure there is lots of further research you could do from them.
My point remains that even to discuss the figure 6 million without endorsing it invites charges of anti-Semitism. Then any serious Holocaust historian must have had charges of anti-Semitism peppered on him/her. The total number of victims of the Nazi regime will never be known with exact certainty, and thus any approach to any death toll will be an estimate. Even in Germany, that bastion of jail for revisionists, it is not against the law to engage in a scholarly discussion of the numbers. Cantankrus 06:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
THE REAL NAZIS ARE HERE AT WIKIPEDIA. They are trying to remake the world into ANYTHING they say it is, and they will fight anybody who calls them on their bullshit. Wikipedia is a JOKE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.4.177 (talk • contribs)

Holocaust Denial Websites

Okay, so I tried to add a Holocaust Denial website twice, and my edits were reverted. I'd like an explanation. As far as I'm concerned, this whole page is all about Holocaust denial, therefore, there should be external links to websites that actually deny the holocaust, or is that an inconceivable idea to everyone here? After all, the section does clearly state: Websites denying the Holocaust or parts thereof, so how exactly is my inclusion not worthy? How is it that, on the other hand, a website entitled "Revisionist Photos" (which doesn't have anything to do with holocaust denial) actually merits an inclusion? Thanks. PS. It was pointed out to me just moments ago that 88 stands for "Heil Hitler". Just so you know, in my case, it stands for my year of birth. Drew88 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. We describe the phenomenon and may even give an example or two, but we are not going to keep a directory promoting them. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

HUH? So, HOW COME the "al qaeda" page has pictures of Bin Laden? The Hezbollah page has pictures of Nasrallah? The Nazi page has pictures of Hitler? WHAT is it about "deniers" that you are so afraid of "promoting", the fact they MIGHT influence some people against your religion? This is SUPPOSED to be a DICTIONARY. There shouldn't be anything you should be afraid of "promoting".

In that case, how come there are 15 websites listed debunking Holocaust denial but only 9 websites actually debunking the Holocaust? Drew88 09:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, 9 is too many. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making your biasses clear to everybody. Drew88 10:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter what side of the divide, h.sapiens. Proskauer 10:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how exposing and refuting deniers is a hypocrisy. Unfortunately this page is a magnet for all kinds of trolls and 88-ers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You're being hypocritical again: "I don't see how exposing and refuting deniers is a hypocrisy". You are not allowing anybody to expose holocaust deniers because you're deleting the links for no reason. Hmm, I wonder if the fact that you're Jewish has anything to do with this? I need an explanation: Why are there 15 websites debunking holocaust deniers and only 8 actually debunking the holocaust. This page is about Holocaust Denial not about Debunking Holocaust Deniers. Therefore, I need an explanation. Thanks. Drew88 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
We're not letting deliberate propagators of falsehoods control the dialogue. We keep a small handful of the best known denier sites here -- IHR, Zuendelsite, a couple more. Just because someone puts up a page with some Jew-hating holocaust denying crap doesn't mean we need to list it here; Wikipedia isn't a web directory. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The verifiable view of the Holocaust is that it occurred. While this article exists to offer information about the subject of the denial thereof, the information it contains must be verifiable. We are not a web directory, as said above. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You are still not answering my question: Why are there 15 websites debunking the Holocaust deniers listed then? Is Wikipedia a directory in that case? Drew88 17:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia gives more space to truth than to lies? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making your biasses evident to everybody. It's because of people like you that there are morons denying the Holocaust. Drew88 19:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. Biases towards truth are generally accepted biases, and I'm quite proud to be biased in that fashion. How this makes morons deny the Holocaust is beyond me; I think perhaps you have the causality backwards: morons denying the Holocaust strengthen intelligent people's bias towards truth. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Drew88 20:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)You still haven't answered my question: Why are there 15 websites debunking Holocaust deniers and only 8 actually debunking the Holocaust when this page is about HOLOCAUST DENIAL? Your response, "Because Wikipedia gives more space to truth than to lies?" is ridiculous, and you know it. I am going to file a mediation case soon. Drew88 20:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do, and soon. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) "Why are there 15 websites debunking Holocaust deniers and only 8 actually debunking the Holocaust?" Parity of numbers does not equate equality of views: NPOV is satisfied by equal representation of the arguments presented. Holocaust denial websites are quite repetitive, and including more sides would be rendundant.

You might also wish to consider that there is a line between "representing a position" and "actively promoting that position." Wikipedia does have adequate representation of the claims of Holocaust deniers, and a representative sample of their sides. To insist on numerical parity between pro and con is nothing more than wikilawyering, and frankly I get enough back-chat from my two-year-old grand-daughter. Justin Eiler 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


JPGORDON gives more space to truth than lies. Good for you - odd though, the truth is usually easier to defend. Only a nutjob would dispute an historical event that had rational eyewitnesses, unforged documents, forensic studies, etc. Got any good unforged documents? Any eyewitnesses who can get their story straight - two who can match stories? Any forensic studies that don't make a scientist cringe? When you do give us a link. Both sides of this debate are going to end up in one article and on one page when the ruth finally comes out. Where are you betting your 25 cents?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

Truth is, indeed, usually much easier to defend ... but when truth has been under a concerted attack by those who deny the truth, then defense becomes more difficult. The general facts of the Holocaust are, indeed, true--though there has been a considerable increase in precision. The actions of holocaust deniers are a concerted attack on the truth, as is documented in the article. One tactic used in holocaust denial is Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt marketing--which sounds remarkably like what you are doing. Justin Eiler 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Truth is easy to see when you are following the evidence where it leads, as opposed to trying to inject a political agenda into the mix. Interesting how your criteria for eyewitnesses is "two who can match stories". When police interrogate witnesses and their accounts match exactly, alarm bells go off. (Usually this is rehearsed testimony). Any two witnesses to any event will give slightly different accounts; in fact, sometimes two accounts from the same witness can exhibit this. And this is why court verdicts need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not any doubt whatsoever.
159.105.80.92, you have lots of rhetoric, but do you have a link to a reputable historian who is engaged in this debate on the revisionist side? If not, maybe you can explain what other events in history you have under similar scrutiny. Cantankrus 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
What "political agenda" are you referring to? As for the witnesses point, no two witnesses will have exactly the same story, but there will be more similarities than differences. If I lived in a box, I'd have a lot of trouble knowing what color the sky is on a sunny day if the five witnesses I asked said "blue", "green", "purple", "orange" and "maroon". Blue is, of course, the correct answer, so what of the others? They're either misinformed or they have a point to prove. And if they have a point to prove, it's usually because they have an axe to grind. Holocaust 'revisionists' have an axe to grind with Jews and reflect this in their attempts to rewrite history to vilify them. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Kari, I was referring to the political agenda of many revisionists. We agree in large part on the witness bit, but actually, real witnesses remember an event differently; it's human nature. My Analogy: Someone 5'2 will see someone 5'8 as "tall", while someone 6'4 will see them as "short". And estimating exact height is horrible. But just because witnesses disagree on someone's height, doesn't mean they can't give a positive ID and doesn't mean they can't describe what they saw. Because of the minor inconsistencies that human memory introduces, our justice system requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, not any doubt whatsoever. Sorry if there was confusion on that point. Cantankrus 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hence, my point is that Holocaust witnesses vary in terms of their experiences and have slight deviation in terms of their perception of those experiences, but none deny that their experiences ever occurred. Holocaust 'revisioners' are not witnesses, they're people who have completely ignored witness testimony and historical evidence in order to vilify Jews. It's Antisemitism, plain and simple, and Wikipedia does not exist to promote the hatred of any given ethnic or cultural group. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


To expand on the "matching witnesses" concept which seems difficult for many to grasp ( probably I worded it badly, but I doubt that badly ps I love your ability to redirect the argument though)). If you could it would be helpful if you could show 1 or 2 or more witnesses who could give some evidence that matched each other in major details - like where is this gas chamber located ( or was located ). From there scientists could wrap this up quickly.

Jtpaladin 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Eye witnesses

I'm sorry to sound simplistic, but the Soviet army liberated some 7,600 prisoners from Auschwitz towards the end of the war; some 45,000 prisoners were marched away from the liberating armies by the SS, and an uncounted but significant number survived; and about 300 prisoners succeeded in escaping from Birchenau during the war. A large number of these eye-witnesses have given evidence, written, verbal and on video, relating to the deaths in the camp. Does their testimony count for nothing? We are not talking here of minor diagreements on heights or whatever - these people saw their frinds and families being gassed and burnt. It really is not open to argument--Anthony.bradbury 00:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the Soviets made the Holocaust possible by being allied with Nazi Germany up until 1941 by invading Poland and other Eastern European countries, the fact that the Germans learned how to construct concentration camps from the Soviets, the fact that the Soviets are the prime butchers of humanity of the 20th century, the fact that the Soviets lied as a matter of policy, I wouldn't take one iota of information from these murderers. Jtpaladin 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I've pretty much accepted the fact that I'm a pariah on this discussion board, so I will just say that making as many of those eye-witness accounts available in as close to their original condition as possible would be extremely helpful and desirable. At the very least it would educate people about history. Proskauer 02:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the holocaust killed the Jews. So. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliensPhD (talk • contribs)

There were not that many eyewitness reports recorded. Most are admittedly not accurate. ( If they saw the gas chamers then they should - at least one should - be able to point out the exact location of the foundation, pit, etc - so far not one has been able to do this. Before the last survivors pass away it would be useful to have the location of these sites verified( not with a story, but with a surveyors stake))Eyewitness accounts that deny gas chambers etc are unwelcome but I believe a few are available - these folks didn't make themselves very popular so I suspect there are many more to be had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)

"Not many" eyewitness reports depends on what paticular event you are considering. I'm not sure who claims "most" are inaccurate; some are, to be sure, but many are very accurate, if not most. At Auschwitz, we do know exactly where the various types of killings (and paticularly the gassings) took place, so it seems your claim that "no one" has been able to identify them are false.
I'm not sure how one becomes an eyewitness to an event that you claim didn't happen. I know there are concentration camp inmates that claim they never saw a gas chamber, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. By this logic, if a paticular camp inmate didn't see anyone murdered, we should conclude that no one died in the camps. Cantankrus 16:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If any of these "eyewitnesses" were Soviet or prisoners who had family still living in the Soviet Union, I wouldn't accept the validity of these witnesses because of the history of Soviet deceit and the threat that Soviets used to force confessions out of anyone that could support their version of "facts". Jtpaladin 16:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When famous advocates - ie Wiesel - forget to mention gas chambers in their books then don't be surprised that us non-witnesses are perplexed. Churchill, etc in the memoirs also seem to not have heard of these events ( even as heads of governments etc) in their lifetimes. As a matter of fact I can't think of a witness who came directly out of a camp saying "they have gas chambers in here". Their memories seem to get better some time later.

Bullshit straw man. There's plenty of witnesses to them, including sondercommandos, and every bloody nazi and ss man there. --Havermayer 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

BS h-mayer, Not one witness ran out and dragged a US soldier to the gas chamber. Any SS,etc who confessed to anything seems to have ( witnesses say - US witnesses ) had his testicles crushed first and his family threatened. Please at least remove the SS and Nazi from your list of believable witnesses. You can keep the sonderkommandos and the delayed memory witnesses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)

Please tell us where the evidence is that every SS, etc had his testicles crushed and family threatned. (I wonder if the female SS/Nazis also had their "testicles crushed" by those innovative Allies). We should remove SS and Nazis (I'm guessing you mean any perpotrator here) because they support the documentary, physcial and other eyewitness accounts, on the basis of mysterious "US witnesses", not one of which you name?Cantankrus 22:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the report of torture of SS etc prisoners and the state of their testicles is well documented by the US army reports from Nuremberg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I googled "testicles" and "Nuremberg" (now there's a sentence I never thought I'd type!) and the results were interesting. Many of the hits were, unsurprisingly, references to testimony or reports on medical experimentation and torture carried out by the Nazis during the Second World War. However, there were references to torture of German prisoners by Americans after the war - although many of these were posts on revisionist web sites of dubious academic rigour.
The most solid, reputable reference I could find was to a report titled "American Atrocities in Germany," published in 1949 under the name of Judge Edward L. Van Roden, a member of an American judicial commission investigating the conduct of war crimes trials which took place at Dachau. (The report was apparently written an anti-war activist named James Finucane, who got his information the German attorney for the accused. Van Roden gave Finucane permission to use his byline.)
This report details the mistreatment of 139 Germans accused of a variety of war crimes including crimes at Dachau, the execution of downed American fliers, and the murder of American prisoners of war. The report's author also states, "I believe the crimes for which these Germans were tried actually took place, and that some Germans were guilty of them." (Emphasis added.)
So, what does this tell us? It tells us that some German prisoners were mistreated, quite possibly to an extent that would be considered torture. It also tells us that even in the immediate post-War period, this was considered unacceptable. It wasn't covered up; there were judicial reviews, reports, appeals, etc. What it doesn't tell us is that all German prisoners were tortured or that all confessions were coerced. As far as testimony at Nuremburg is concerned, it doesn't tell us anything at all.
I'm quite prepared to accept and believe that there was misconduct on the part of some of those involved in investigating and prosecuting war crimes. But none of that subtracts from the fundamental truth of the Holocaust's existence. A coerced confession from a murderer doesn't mean that the murder didn't actually happen. In court, that confession may be thrown out, but if there is sufficient evidence without it, a conviction will still occur. There is ample evidence for the Holocaust. Eron 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

sir winston churchill

Denial by not mentioning it???? Winston Churchill apparently never mentioned the mass gassing of 6 million people in the six volume book he wrote about the second World War. Interesting. Actually amazing that he never spoke of theses horrible deaths. Could it be because British Intel knew there were no mass executions? Could it be because they did know there were mass gassings and just never mentioned it to him? Keltik31 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevent. Meant to be a red herring. Whether Winston Churchill mentioned it or not, doesn't affect its factualness, since its based on a lot of other evidence. If he doesn't mention every single civillian death (I'd guess that his books would focus more on battles and britain) I guess that means that they never happened? What if he didn't mention some battle? Does it suddenly cease to exist then? --131.104.139.117 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Very relavant - autobiographies of actual leaders - who have access to far more information, intelligence, etc than anyone else - are major historical sources. If none of the Allied leaders every mentioned the holocaust - nor the wartime or postwar army records - then it at the very least raises suspicion. ( If Churchill didn't mention it, well maybe an oversight, but if noone mentioned it then appears more suggestive. If Churchill et al had known about the holocaust I can not see him not using it as a reason for the war - his silence would be too much for him to bear.) Why isn't the holocaust denial article written by deniers and the current authors could then be on the discussion page ( not hogging both). Learning about denial from the ADL,JDL, etc seems unproductive when there must be deniers who know their arguments at least as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)

The Churchill lie comes up again and again, but only a small amount of research needs doing to expose this fraud. From this site about Churchill- Churchill knew about the Holocaust; and contrary to popular belief, he tried to do something about it. Never heard of these events, you were saying? Cantankrus 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Related somewhat is the current move to relwase Arolson files ( I'll believe it when I see it). The Red Cross made a 1600 page report on their WW2 activities - inspected camps, etc - and failed to mention anything ( facts, witnesses, rumors, etc) about gas chambers. Churchill, et al and the Red Cross all seemed to come to the same conclusion - actually they all seemed to have never heard of a holocaust. What rumors were treated as tall tales that were not corrected after the war was over - Curchill et al or the Red Cross could have releaesed an addendum anytime they wished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 12:21, November 20, 2006

  • See how the lie continues? Classic denier methodology: a lie is put forward ("Churchill didn't know about the holocaust"); the lie is refuted; then the lie is repeated with more added lies (or deliberate ignorance). Thanks for the example. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, the six million is untrue. Raul Hilberg has made it clear it were "only" 5.1 million. RCS 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This would be the same Winston Churchill that believed in an Intrnational Jewish Conspiracy? Just because one anti-Semite, who happens to be politically powerful, denies The Holocaust it doesn't mean it never happened. 10:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Cantankrus that site is somewhat unreliable as it tries to paint churchill as a perfect human being, even to the extent of trying to deny he was an alochol something he would have been the first to admit. As for churchill omitting the holocaust, i'd point to 3 key points, one churchill was an egotist and would seek to emphasis his own and Britain importance and thus would focus more heavily on the blitz, two churchill like war and battles and would focus on these rather than the more contempory historians who look more at socio economic factors than battles and troop movements, three all of Britain's information that he would have been privy to but had not already enter the public knowledge would have been garnered through briefings and reports of the British Intelligence and as such it would have illegal for him to discuss them since it would have a breach of the official secrets act. JD

Again

Wouldn't it be responsible to call these people "revisionists" and not "deniers"? Isn't "denier" a strong term and could be perceived as a misconception which would spread to all wiki viewers? This isn't really a debatible question as all serious Holocaust revisionists are indeed revisionists and not deniers?

Maybe you could make the name of the entry "Holocaust Revisionism" with a subsection called "Holocaust Denial" specifying the difference here?

-Dan 206.172.139.115 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't neutral

I don't understand, why this article isn't marked as not neutral. I beleive, it contains a kind of brainwashing in worst soviet traditions. Such articles make wikipedia a soapbox. That's shame. In any case, what it "right" or "not right" must not be subject of such article. The "facts" this article is talking about are crystalazed opinions, so high temperatures and pressures make them meld. Igor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 November 2006

No, indeed. this article is not neutral. It is held under the iron thumb and iron fist of Jpgordon and must conform to his will primarily, foremostly, completely, and uniformly. Please check your critical mind at the door before entering. Once entering you will be at peace with yourself and not question any statement herein. OOOHHMMMM MANI PADME OM Proskauer 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should add this to the box at the top of this page? (since the non-neutrality of this article comes up, oh, every 200 hours or so it seems).
Let's go to the tape and see what "neutral" means - All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source
So, if we drop the personal attacks and the information-free opinion of the article, can someone explain how this principle is violated? Cantankrus 07:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
the article represent a theory that is opposed the majority of the facts, and represents this as such, an encyclopedia reflects the accept wisdom of the age unless some evidence come to light to disprove it and it seem that the article reflect the proponents of such theories in a fair and balanced way, rather than as the mainstream view that such people are best paranoid conspiracy theorists, or at worst mentally deficient anti semite rightwing nazi apologists. as for "Iron Thumb" wikipedia is not a forum to argue a personal viewpoint. JD

Only significant question is who is lying - deniers or their opponents. I don't know, how many jews were killed during WWII, but after reading such articles I'll rather believe deniers, and I can explain, why. They getting too little profit from their "lie". Igor.

As User:Cantankrus asked, perhaps you can point to some specific examples where this article violates neutrality? --Modemac 12:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The article meets NPOV because it fairly and neutrally represents the majority of scholars on this issue.--Cberlet 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean the part "Holocaust denial examined". Examined by whom? By their opponents. That part is strongly biased agaist deniers, in my opinion. Igor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Deniers are strongly biased against reality.--Havermayer 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And really, who would you have examine Holocaust denial? One would assume that those engaged in it wouldn't think it in need of further critical examination. That leaves those who hold the opposite view (sometimes referred to as "reputable historical researchers"), and those who have no opinion one way or the other (sometimes referred to as... hmmm, are there any of these?). By any measure, Holocaust denial is a fringe historical movement that is broadly rejected by the mainstream and that postulates a historical "truth" that varies wildly from what the preponderance of evidence suggests. As such, it is not surprising that its claims will be examined, critically. Eron 21:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

2 Eron

In fact, an opinion, that Holocaust DID happened in scale that official european history claims is'nt even most accepted in the world. In muslim world, for example, deniers' position prevails. Muslim world is more populated, then Europe and North America. Holocaust denial is illegal in most european countries, so I am not surprised that majority of european historians are not deniers. Nobody wants to go in prison. So the majority of european historians' opinion can't be considered as neutral in this matter.

Holocaust denial in Muslim contries is a more recent occurance fueled by anti Israeli feelings, however the most populus muslim nation Indonesia has not great scholarly tradition of holocaust denial, further these nations were not party to first hand knowledge of these events as to a great extent they were not part of this theatre of the second world war. JD

2 Havermayer

What do you mean as reality? Police? Verdicts of court does'nt prove that deniers are not right. Igor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Holocaust DID happened in scale that official european history claims is'nt even most accepted in the world."
Please prove this.
"In muslim world, for example, deniers' position prevails."
Please prove this.
"So the majority of european historians' opinion can't be considered as neutral in this matter. "
Which is a common denier tactic, as the article itself points out: dismissal of all of the evidence. Testimonies, physical evidence, Nazi documentation, existence of the gas chambers...we've been over this already. Also, I should ask again: perhaps you can point to some specific examples where this article violates neutrality?--Modemac 12:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Please prove this" "In a December 2005 speech, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the Holocaust was a "fairy tale" that had been promoted to protect Israel" - that is from article we are talking about. May be it does'nt prove, how much accepted ideas of denial are in whole muslim world, but if Ahmadinejad was elected as president, that proves that majority of iranians support him.

I talk about neutrality, not about evidence. Which evidence did I dismissed? Please prove this. Deniers and their opponents talk about the same evidences, as I know. They can examine each other endlessly. This article is written not from neutral position, but from anti-denier position. I already pointed example. That is part of article named "Holocaust denial examined" as I print before. Igor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 22 November 2006

What, specifically, in that section, do you consider to be non-neutral, and why? Eron 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Igor, you haven't shown any problem in neutrality. You've tried to drag in a bit of politics (with Iran and some European laws), but try and focus on what is wrong with THIS article. You seem to be offended that the article isn't a piece purely on revisionism. As an encyclopedia, should we then also have tracts on the flat earth, on creationism, etc, without any critical comment? This actually isn't very neutral, but rather is biased towards advocacy of those things. Cantankrus 18:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've told You that I think. Decide yourself. Igor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to Popularity is a fallacy. Even if true, that more people in the world think that the holocaust didn't happen is irrelevent to whether it did in fact happen. However, it isn't even true, since Holocaust Denial is probably popular to some degree, but isn't the only viewpoint in, say the muslim world.

Also take notice of Undue Weight. This is the same crap that I have to mention on Young Earth Creationism page, over and over again. This article does conform to the No point of View policy at wikipedia. --Havermayer 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be more specific: "A third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust denial head-on, debunking invalid arguments and false claims of Holocaust denial groups."

Non-true information can not debunk anything. Example: Nizkor Project: (http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar13.html)

"13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?

The IHR says:

Great Britain -- on 11 May 1940.

Nizkor replies:

The town of Guernica in Spain was bombed by the German Luftwaffe in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. (The Luftwaffe honed its bombing skills during World War I - see the Recommended Reading note, below.)"

That isn't true. In fact British RAF used this tactic in 1924 in Meadle East. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_bombing)

And even that was'nt first civilian object bombing. True is that germans did not bomb british civilian objects during WW2 until british used this tactics against them. That is that deniers are talking about.

So Nizkor project are proven liars. At least double liars. May I continue? Igor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) .

Ummm, we asked you to provide specific examples of where this article is untrue or biased, and you've given us a rant against Nizkor. You're wasting our time unless you can show us where this article on Holocaust denial is untrue or inaccurate. --Modemac 14:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, again: "A third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust denial head-on, debunking invalid arguments and false claims of Holocaust denial groups." That is from THIS article. From the section "Holocaust denial examined". Where are proves that they are really DEBUNKING INVALID ARGUMENTS? I've proved another. Who is thinking they are really debunked something? Everybody?

From the same section: "independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, or even deliberately falsified evidence." Unreferenced. Who made this independent research? Who consider it as independent? Igor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) .

A minor point -- the IHR claimed the British used "mass civilian bombing" for the first time on 11 May 1940. To disprove this claim, Nizkor show the bombing of Guernica. Unless there is more to the quote that you've omitted, Nizkor isn't saying this is the first such bombing, but simply that there were previous bombings. (And your finding other bombings just strengthens this arguement).
Now, your example is what is known as a "straw man", so we're on the same page. You are trying to claim that Nizkor says something (that Guernica was the first mass civilian bombing), you then "prove" this is false, and thus Nizkor are "liars". What they seem to be doing was disproving the IHR's claim, which by presenting more evidence show the IHR's claim is false. Now, I think you've demonstrated that whichever IHR paper has the "11 May 1940" claim is based on flawed research, as no one can claim you are not a supporter of denial, but you have independently shown that this statement is false. However, to be liars, Nizkor has to assert that Guernica was the first such bombing, something you haven't shown, and that they continue to assert this in the face of credible independent evidence that shows it is not.
Returning to this article, I think the description of Nizkor is accurate. Is there a policy we're not adhering to in the content? Cantankrus 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any record of this attack on May 11, 1940, the first attack by the RAF against a target in Germany was on May 10th 1940, but that was against a commnication target. Area affect bombing didn't become a target in the RAF to much later after Bomber Harris took over Bomber Command. a longtime after the Blitz and the German bombings in Poland and France. JD
Your example of Nizkor's failure to debunk an invalid argument is taken from their response to the claim, made in the IHR pamphlet 66 Questions and Answers about the Holocaust, that on May 11, 1940, Great Britain became the first nation to practice mass civilian bombing. Leaving aside the relevance of this question to the Holocaust, the IHR's statement is clearly wrong. Nizkor correctly replies that the bombing of Guernica by the German air force occurred earlier. You respond that Nizkor is wrong, because Britain conducted bombing in Iraq even before that. (I note in passing that this would still mean that the IHR's claim was a lie.) If we are going to look for the earliest examples of the bombing of civilians, we need to go all the way back to January 19, 1915, when two German Zeppelins bombed England. This whole line of discussion would then devolve into an argument over what "mass civilian bombing" really means, and which act of bombing was the first to qualify.
All of which would neatly sidestep the fact that the whole question arose from an irrelevant straw-man argument set up by IHR. As does your singling out of only part of Nizkor's response to it - which goes on to say "But what does this have to do with the Holocaust? It is true that the Allies had massively bombarded civilian population -- as had the Germans. Does the fact that atrocities were committed against the Germans mean they did not commit any themselves? Some weird logic."
For proof that "independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, or even deliberately falsified evidence," I refer you to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. vs. Zundel. The court found that the Holocaust denial pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die? "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities." Eron 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Right! That were german Zeppelins, but not Nazi Zeppelins. German and Nazi are not the same. From Nizkor reply only two conclusion may be done: "Deniers claim that were british who first used mass civilian bombing in world history" and "Indeed that were Nazis". Both are not true. That means they misuse an information. So they are proven liars. May be, there must be made a trial agaist them? I don't know. I have another interests in this life.

Supreme Court of Canada is not a kind of research organization and its decision proves nothing except that denial is illegal in Canada.

So how about this article? I like Wikipedia and it is first so brain-washing article I've read in it. It would be sad if it become a kind of "Truth ministry". Igor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) .

And so we go from an on-topic discussion of the validity of denier claims to an irrelevant sidebar about the political ideology of First World War Zeppelin pilots. Thank you for demonstrating so clearly my point about straw-man arguments. Let's break this down: The IHR says "England was the first country to bomb civilians, in 1940." Nizkor shows that this is false, as Nazi Germany bombed Guernica before that date. Therefore, the IHR lied, QED. Nizkor said nothing about who was the first; they only said (and proved) that the IHR was wrong in its own claim. Your statement that Nizkor claims Nazis were the first to bomb civilians is demonstrably untrue.
As to my source, your opinion that it "proves nothing" is not really relevant to this article. I am fairly confident that a finding of the Supreme Court of Canada would pass Wikipedia standards for reliability and verifiability. Eron 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Deniers are talking only about WW2 history. That proves that not they are who is lying about bombing, but Nizkor. In any case, I don't belive that deniers are lying. Guernica and Iraq are another thing. Not nothing, but nothing except it is illegal in Canada. Read attentively, please. Is Wikipedia a kind of courthouse? Can You tell me, which sources do You mean? Answer me something about neutrality, please, and I'll go to sleep. Igor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) .

2 Eron You seem offended that I'm caught Nizkor on direct lying, but article will not become neutral from this.

Question: "What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?"

Nizkor answer: "The town of Guernica in Spain was bombed by the German Luftwaffe in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War."

Lie proved. Igor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not offended. I just think you are either failing to understand what Nizkor wrote, or are deliberately misrepresenting it to further your own agenda. Rather than play duelling quotes, let's see exactly what is published by Nizkor on their web site, here:
13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?
The IHR says:
Great Britain -- on 11 May 1940.
Nizkor replies:
The town of Guernica in Spain was bombed by the German Luftwaffe in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. (The Luftwaffe honed its bombing skills during World War I - see the Recommended Reading note, below.)
But what does this have to do with the Holocaust?
It is true that the Allies had massively bombarded civilian population -- as had the Germans. Does the fact that atrocities were committed against the Germans mean they did not commit any themselves? Some weird logic.
The last few questions may only have hinted at it, but the IHR does openly suggest elsewhere that the imprisonment of European Jews was justified. See their Web page, The Encampment of the Jews: Might It Have Been Justified?
Recommended reading, for those who do not truly appreciate the duplicitous nature of Holocaust denial: The Luftwaffe : Creating the Operational Air War 1918-1940, by James Corum (Modern War Studies)
Nizkor never claims that Guernica was the first civilian bombing, only that it happened before 1940. In fact, they explicitly refer to even earlier bombings.
I find it intriguing that when you try to prove that Nizkor's refuation of the IHR's claims are wrong, you choose one question (out of sixty-six) that has no direct bearing on the truth of the Holocaust.
In the end, what you or I believe is not relevant to the neutrality of this article. This article is describing the claims and activities of both sides - the IHR and Nizkor, among many others. Please explain how this is not neutral. Eron 19:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand them right. They give wrong answer on simple question. They are researchers so they know right answer. Thereby they are lying. Everything is very simple. They are lying, threby they are liars. Their lie is proved. Rest I've allready explained before. Do You want me to choose every question? Sorry, but I have no time to do this. The problem is HOW this article describes their activities (both sides IHR and Nizkor). Describes it from position of Holocaust belevers, not from neutral position. It still can be information source, of course, but not neutral source. I've pointed examples, did'nt I? Igor.

No, "Holocaust believers" is bad term. For that such people like Nizkor grop probably don't even believe in it. Because they are lying sometimes. That is possible, of course, that some deniers are lying sometimes too(I didn't read everything they wrote). So what? That is unjust to restrict talking about this. And call all of them some kind of scum. If they are talking Nazis were angels? No. But nazi's enemies were'nt angels too. And that is not truly known, who was worser. That is unjust to fix such attention only on Nazis so long time after that war is over. I don't believe that was war of Evil and Kind. Igor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) .

Igor, it is clear in the text of the Nizkor arguement they are not advocating they know when the first mass civilian bombing is. You are misrepresenting their position, to show that "they" are lying.
You say that "some deniers are lying sometimes", and that "Holocaust believers" shouldn't be given undue influence to make the article "non neutral". Are Historians classified as "holocaust believers"? Since it is they, and not deniers, who have written the History of the Holocaust, and indeed, World War 2?
Neutral POV means describing all of the facts; it doesn't mean we have to describe a person in the way that they would prefer to be described. Cantankrus 22:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've did'nt misrepresent anything. Your example with "straw man argument" shows that You at least don't understand that I find. I find that Nizkor group misuse facts, and so proved that they are liars. I still believe my eyes. If even me, simple user, can catch them, then specialist will be able to find much more. Non-neutral article becomes of that proven liars from Nizkor group still looking heroes there. That is not neutral and must be changed. There are some unproved claims there, as I pointed. If You don't have to decsribe them so don't describe them like heroes. That is enough to tell that Nizkor group opposing deniers. But there are claims that they "debunking invalid arguments". That is not neutral. Because they are cought with direct lie.

If I agree that it is possible that SOME deniers CAN lie that does'nt mean I think they are liars. That's different. I've allready agreed that "Holocaust believers" is bad term. Probably, "Holocaust claimers" is better. There must be some term to different deniers from their oponents. Some deniers are historians. So there are at least two points of view on Holocaust between historians. Not all historians must be classified as "claimers", but only those who claims that official point of view is only possible and 100% true. That is rather belief than science, do You agree? Thus historians divides into claimers, deniers and indifferent to this matter.

Igor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) .

The only thing you've proven is the way Holocaust deniers shape the argument as it suits them. First, the "proof that Nizkor is lying" ("British RAF used this tactic in 1924 in Meadle East" -- long before the Nazis rose to power) has already been disproven by Nizkor itself ("The town of Guernica in Spain was bombed by the German Luftwaffe in 1937" -- as the Nazis were fully in power and already engaging in their expansionist policies) and by User:Eron ("the political ideology of First World War Zeppelin pilots"), so you simply dismiss it. Second, the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada is only one of *many* examples of Holocaust deniers lying and fabricating evidence (as the article notes, see David Irving and Fred Leuchter for other examples), so you simply dismiss it ("Supreme Court of Canada is not a kind of research organization"). This is why legitimate historians don't even bother trying to argue with Holocaust deniers: no amount of proof, no amount of testimony, and no matter how many times their (your) arguments are debunked and disproven, they (you) will never abandon their wild conspiracy theory that the Holocaust never happened. More importantly, if you're so determined to prove that Nizkor is lying, then go over to the article about Nizkor -- or try posting to alt.revisionism and see how far you get. --Modemac 12:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is that deniers really claim: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p381_Wesserle.html

"3. Both Germany and Britain initiated air raids on naval and military targets as of 3 September 1939. However, when the British attacks on port installations in Northern Germany ended in disaster, with a devastating majority of bombers downed -- the Battle of the German Bight -- Britain switched over to less costly night air raids on civilian targets such as Berlin and the Ruhr industrial region. By contrast, Germany replied in kind only in the winter months of 1940/41, a year later."

This is the second prove of that Nizkor are lying, not mistaking. That is they who use "a straw man argument". So claimers charge another people in things they do themselves. For this too many things must be changed in this article to make it neutral. It is non-neutral in whole.

Igor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) .

Obfuscation piled on top of misdirection. Holocaust deniers "really claim" many things. Your quote of one such claim proves nothing about Nizkor's rebuttal of a completely different claim. And all of it is totally irrelevant to the subject of this article. If you want to argue about who started bombing civilians first, take it to Terror bombing. If you want to discuss the neutrality of this article, I recommend you provide a direct quote from this article and demonstrate how it violates the neutral point of view policy. Eron 14:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like RCS was right. The words and deeds of claimers and officials even better prove that deniers are right then deniers themselves do. Thank You for your replies, I'll not harass You anymore about this matter.

Igor.

Holocaust denial in Estonia

This article of mine may not conform to the neutral viewpoint or its tone may not be appropriate for an article of an encyclopedia. Please make suggestions and help change it better. Here it is:

In Estonia, the only country marked as judenfrei in the Nazi maps, there are many neo-nazis and Holocaust deniers. One reason is that, during the World War II, about 80,000 Estonian men decided to defend the independence of Estonia, which the Soviet Union had annexed in 1940, and, because of the lack of weapons and munition, they fought in the Nazi army. Now the veterans celebrate often their partial success in fighting against the Red Army, for instance the victory in 'Blue Mountains' (Sinimäed) where 30,000 Estonian men in German uniforms fought against 130,000 Soviet soldiers and won the battle (120,000 Russian warriors were killed). And, as those veterans are defamed by zionist organizations, they all hate Jews and therefore deny the Holocaust. There are also two well-known Estonian Holocaust-deniers who have published books in which they reveal an extreme revisionism and Holocaust-denial. Jüri Lina published a book Skorpioni märgi all (Under the Sign of Scorpion, 1996) and Tiit Madisson three books: Maailma Uus Kord (New World Order), Lihula õppetund (The Lesson of Lihula) and Holokaust: 20. sajandi masendavaim sionstlik vale (Holocaust: The Most Depressing Zionist Lie of the 20th century).

It is also possible that the hate of Jews which many Estonians express is actually the hate of the half-century's subjugation by Soviet Russia; for many of these Holocaust deniers think that Jews are connected with the supposed war crimes which the Red Army brought about in Estonia during the World War II, and after that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.196.80.44 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that would need to be fixed in this section, I think. Looking at it in detail:
In Estonia, the only country marked as judenfrei in the Nazi maps,
Unreferenced. Which maps? What does this mean in the context of the article?
there are many neo-nazis and Holocaust deniers.
Unreferenced, possible POV. How many? Who are they?
One reason is that, during the World War II, about 80,000 Estonian men decided to defend the independence of Estonia, which the Soviet Union had annexed in 1940, and, because of the lack of weapons and munition, they fought in the Nazi army.
Speculation, possible original research, unreferenced. Is there a source for the numbers? How do we know their motivation for joining the German army?
Now the veterans celebrate often their partial success in fighting against the Red Army, for instance the victory in 'Blue Mountains' (Sinimäed) where 30,000 Estonian men in German uniforms fought against 130,000 Soviet soldiers and won the battle (120,000 Russian warriors were killed).
Unreferenced details.
And, as those veterans are defamed by zionist organizations,
Unreferenced, speculation - which organizations? Who says they are Zionist? What form does this defamation take?
they all hate Jews and therefore deny the Holocaust.
This sentence, along with the previous one, appear to be pure speculation and original research. A conclusion is drawn ("Estonian veterans are mad at Zionists for defaming them, so they deny the Holocaust") which is original research, and which is based on two premises ("Zionists defame Estonian veterans" and "Estonian veterans deny the Holocaust") that are not supported by references.
There are also two well-known Estonian Holocaust-deniers who have published books in which they reveal an extreme revisionism and Holocaust-denial. Jüri Lina published a book Skorpioni märgi all (Under the Sign of Scorpion, 1996) and Tiit Madisson three books: Maailma Uus Kord (New World Order), Lihula õppetund (The Lesson of Lihula) and Holokaust: 20. sajandi masendavaim sionstlik vale (Holocaust: The Most Depressing Zionist Lie of the 20th century).
Unreferenced.
It is also possible that the hate of Jews which many Estonians express is actually the hate of the half-century's subjugation by Soviet Russia; for many of these Holocaust deniers think that Jews are connected with the supposed war crimes which the Red Army brought about in Estonia during the World War II, and after that.
More speculation and original research based on unreferenced suppositions.
I don't know enough about Holocaust denial in Estonia to tell how true or supportable any of this section is, but as written it needs to be either cleaned up or deleted. Eron 15:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Do Holocaust Deniers really believe that it never happened?

I've always wondered if Holocaust Deniers are lying so that they can rehabilitate fascism and Nazism, or if they're crazy conspiracy theorists and really believe what they're saying like 9/11 Conspiracy Theories people. --Havermayer 05:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe truly that Holocaust is a fiction of Jews. Are you pleased with my question? Duce2 --81.90.232.246 08:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, since its impossible to really know what you think. Some evidence of comments made by holocaust deniers when they didn't think that they'd be heard would be useful. --Havermayer 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange ideas You've got. Why do they risking one's careers then? In my opinion, more likely that is mainstream research who is lying. Deniers' position seems well-proved. Igor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.17.208.227 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

But mainstream's position even better. RCS 09:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny enouth, somebody edited previous sentence an my response on it. Igor.

Yes, I did that, to remove a personal attack (made against you) and your response to it (which repeated the attack, and which would have made no sense without it). This is an acceptable response, as detailed in Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse." It's still available in the history for anyone who really wants to see it, but there's no need to clutter up this talk page with that sort of thing. Eron 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

the term 'the holocaust' wasn't around until it was popularised in the 1970's.

  • Not that it matters one way or another, but that's not true. From The Holocaust: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word was first used to describe Hitler's treatment of the Jews from as early as 1942, though it did not become a standard reference until the 1950s. By the late 1970s, however, the conventional meaning of the word became the Nazi genocide. Standard reference in the '50s; conventional meaning by the '70s. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust was real

How dare you people deny the Holocaust! Six million Jews died in the hands of the ruthless dictator Hitler. They still live in fear due to widespread anti-Semitism across Europe, considering most of the world is against the State of Israel, which the Jews deserve. Israel was for the Jewish people and they have suffered so much under the hands of the Romans, Hitler and now the Europeans and Arabs. Only America and Britain are the only hope for the Jewish people. 222.154.54.11 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

- i dare because of lack of evidence. scientists and historians who bring up evidence disputing the official story are locked up and silenced for daring to even question the official story. it's very suspicious. as 85% of 'jewish' people (do you really believe in noah's ark?) are non-semitic and seem to hate arabs so much, i think it's time to correct the term 'anti-semitism'. palestinians, iraqis, iranians.. they're the semites.. and israel, british and usa policy is plainly anti-semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.163.176 (talk • contribs)

While not relevant to this article in the least, anti-semitism is a term coined to mean hatred of Jews. So, it matters not that their are other semitic people, the term is very clearly defined.
As for evidence, real scientists and historians don't "bring up" such things; they write about them in credible, peer reviewed journals. There are plenty of disputes about the Holocaust. However, contrary to revisionist dogma, these disputes don't involve the underlying events, but rather the consequences and causes of the events. And no one, even in countries where denial is illegal, is "locked up for daring to question", but rather for publicly advocating such views.
I'd dare say that the vast majority who deny the Holocaust do so for political, rather then reasons of logic or evidence. Cantankrus 23:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


see, the problem includes the holocausts of stalin.. who had concentration camps too; and of the allies.. the dresden holocaust, the hiroshima holocaust, the nagasaki holocaust.. but because the allies are 'the good guys' so they aren't as bad. and look at today, the us and israel are acting as bad as the nazis or stalin.. did the nazi philosophy get defeated? we have the bushes, the rothschilds, the oppenheimers, still wealthy off of war.. of past wars and current wars. we, the public, deserve accuracy and honesty from our media and our representatives in politics.. and the iranian president should be commended for holding a conference to find out the details. it is a damn shame that the truth is covered-up in europe.. locking up historians and scientists.. you see, the truth doesn't need laws to protect it.. it is a lie that need laws to protect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.163.176 (talk • contribs)

Your first arguement here is equivalency. "Well, this was done too...". Unfortunately, two wrongs don't make one right. Atrocities are criminal, no matter who is responsible.
Did the Nazi philosophy get defeated? I would say yes. While there are pockets of this philosophy even today, it is a fringe movement.
If you think the Iranian president is interested in "accuracy and honesty", or even basic human rights, you are mistaken. Iran's conference has little to do with "truth", and lots to do with political posturing.
The countries that feel they need laws actually lived through the "Nazi philosophy". Amazingly, in the US, where there are no such laws, historians also write about the Holocaust as part of World War 2.
So, is it your contention that the Nazis prosecuted NO atrocities in Europe? Because, often, the laws in question carry restrictions on denying ANY National Socialist crimes, not simply the Holocaust. Cantankrus 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that the poster who claimed holocaust denying 'scientist' unlike other historians bring evidence also managed to mix such basic stuff and claim that Iranians are semitic (theyre Indo-iranian , that is, ethnic group that was previously called aryan). wonder what educated guess he might give on whats real science... --83.131.131.54 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This comment is directed at user 210.49.163.176, whoever it is. The reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not considered as atrocious as The Haulocaust is because my country, the U.S.A. wanted to get the war over with, we wanted to stop fighting. In contrast, killing 6 millon Jews for no other reason then they are another religion, that is another matter altogether. We were fighting a war, they were killing their own people. Tarryhoper 17:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tarryhoper|Tarryhoper this is a comment to you. Throwing 2 nukes at inisent people isn't ending a war is genocide. Also it has to be noted that the scientist that were the builder of those nukes told the government about not using against civilians, but it is not non that if what they sad ever came to the president. Also they main reason why Japan attack Pearl Habor is because they believe that Asia should be ruled by Asian's in this case them. I do hope you now how Azia was before WW@, most country's except Japan were almost compilty onder European and American control and that's why most of those county's rebbeld against them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.106.216 (talk • contribs)

User 85.147.106.216 - Not that this has much relevance to the article here, but Japan had been waging an aggressive war since the 30's. This was no war of liberation - it was one of enslavement and destruction. The intention was to build an Imperial Empire which rivaled the British. And the reason Japan attacked the US at Perl Harbor was to strike a decisive blow early in the war, as the Imperial Navy knew that once US industrial might was brought to bear, that Japan could not prevail.
Remember, a tragedy is a tragedy, and they don't "cancel" each other out. Cantankrus 06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I dare doubt in Holocaust scales because I don't like impudent liars. Understood? Igor

No, but that's ok -- it's clear that you feel that revisionists/deniers are telling the truth and simply aren't being given a fair shake. I'm guessing you are implying that historians? (eyewitnesses?) are liars, and that the "scale" is simply wrong. Even if we disregard all the evidence and suppose that the death toll is off by an order of magnitude (it's not), would 600,000 innocent dead by "acceptable"? Cantankrus 16:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Is "impudent liar" a euphenism for "Jew" in your dialect? Please remember to be civil. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

2 Kari Hazzard: Impudent liars are those who tell that nazis were greatest monsters in world history, regardlessly are they jews, irish or somebody else. You have good sense of humour thinking I call jews the people of impudent liars. That is spread point of view about jews, of course, but I first look at person, not origin.

2 Cantankrus: I've heard that IHR offered large reward for blueprints of gas chambers, and it remains untaken. It tells much more about price of "evidences" against nazis then any words. First known example of the genocide described in Bible in that part there jews conquer Promised Land, as I know. So nazis were'nt first genocide-makers if even was genocide there. I think winning powers in WW2 described nazis as monsters to hoodwink people about their own war crimes. Such like destruction of whole cities, massacring PoWs and so on.

Igor


The IHR offered a "reward", which was claimed by way of a lawsuit, that anyone had been gassed. This speaks volumes about how much you know about the IHR and their claims -- let's hope you've reviewed history with a little more depth before coming to your conclusions.
BTW, you are still arguing that two wrongs make a right. "Allies did this, but said Nazis did this to justify what they did." Nope, doesn't wash. Any Allied crime is just that, a crime.
You state that the Allies "[destroyed] whole cities, [massacred] PoWs". While there may be actions that can be argued to be such, this wasn't Allied policy. However, there are cases where towns, far behind Nazi lines, and not critical to the supply of the Army, were destroyed (Lidce being the most famous). And what of the Commisar and the Commando orders? Or the massacre of 50 escaped PoWs? These are clear examples of the brutality of the Nazi regime, which you claim the "winning powers" cooked up.
Not that this justifies any Allied crimes; but it does substantiate labelling the Nazis as monsters. Cantankrus 19:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Do You want to tell me that Mermelstein has shown the blueprints of gas chambers? Come on. Mermelstein doesn't counts.--Igor "the Otter" 11:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your original claim was mistaken -- the IHR offered a large reward for proof that anyone had been killed in a gas chamber. That reward was claimed.
While revisionists/deniers aren't happy about it, the IHR did loose the case in a court of law, which ruled that Mermelstein had proven what the IHR asked.
There are blueprints which would cover Auschwitz available, but I'm confident you'll just say they "don't count" too. Gladly, history isn't written by ignoring the evidence. Cantankrus 23:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"In the Muslim world"

This section title should be changed or deleted, mainly because it implies that Holocaust denial is rampant in the "Muslim world", which it is not. Instead why not just leave specific references, like the rest of the article - i.e. Hamas and Holocaust denial, Ahmadinejad and Holocaust denial, etc.??? Same thing should also be done with Japan Scott 110 23:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed some things around. One thing that people need to keep in mind is that the "Muslim world" is not the "Arab world". Yes, most Arabs are Muslim, but most Muslims are not Arab. See Image:Muslim World.png. Koweja 22:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


Opinion on article PoV from an 'outsider'

Now, I realise there have been other people questioning NPoV (I have read the non-archived material above). Perhaps the frequency of such discussion should be a warning that something is not quite right about this article?

My academic field is in quite a different area, and am not inclined to form opinions about something I know really very little about (albeit I know rather more now - I think?! - having read the articles here). However, irrespective of factual accuracy or otherwise, I am very uneasy about the tone of this article in general. Let me give some examples from the introduction alone :

1. It strikes me that a compromise position reducing the scale of the Holocaust would be a far more common belief than total 'denial'. Yet, after the opening paragraph that states this as a secondary possibility, most of the rest of the article ignores what I assume is the majority of 'deniers'. Certainly it should be mentioned that the term itself has perjurative connotations, given that it is an inadequate descriptor of those who may hold less extreme beliefs than total denial.

2. To state, without qualification, that that 'Holocaust Denial' (HD) "is similar to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" must be due to the latter being a recognised 'hoax'. Such a comparrison can be made for no other reason than to discredit HD by association (for the similarities are presumably otherwise not great), and as such that line should be removed.

3. "Key elements" - but surely its possible to hold one element without believing the rest, yet remain under the opening definition of an HD, thus rendering the rest 'non-key'? These are not 'key elements' therefore, but 'common elements'. This is not just a comment over semantics - to state that deniers (must) subscribe to three (because key) views is not the same as saying that they will hold some of a selection of certain views. This is important when certain opinions may be considered less 'extreme' than others (it is surely less extreme to argue for, say, 4m as opposed to 6m deaths, as opposed to arguing that there was no deliberate policy).

4. "most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the Holocaust is a hoax which is the result of ...". Yikes. Most HD (in the broad sense defined in the first line) surely does not 'openly state'? (and, if so, a citation please!). And surely if 'most' does not openly state then it will only 'imply' such to those who are minded to hold a negative opinion of HD. I think this is a case of Weasel Words, and badly needs rewording.

5. "Holocaust deniers, on the other hand, try to prove that the Holocaust did not occur, regardless of historical evidence" This may be referenced, but a citation to an opinion of an author is not the same as citation to a fact (ie. numbers, dates, primary material, etc), and even cited opinion remains non-NPoV (by definition) and thus should be presented as opinion, not fact. As it stands, the inclusion of this line creates generalisations in the article - a) 'on the other hand' - contrasting good method with bad method, but I'm sure there has been good academic work supporting an HD position by some individuals on occasion (which is not the same as stating that their conclusions are accepted : It is possible to do worthwhile research on whether the moon is made of cheese, if such research prompts further academic discussion! For that is the nature of academia ...). b) Not all HD 'try to prove that the Holocaust did not occur' - see above. Total denial is the most extreme part of a spectrum of views, a spectrum already acknowledged in the first line of the article. This is therefore self-contradictory or a generalisation. This line should simply be removed. How about rewording it? "Holocaust deniers, by definition, advance arguments that play-down the scale of the Holocaust, but their arguments and evidence have seldom been accepted as valid by mainstream scholarship."

I could continue to wade through the article, but I think my point has been made. I shall leave changes to a more knowledgable editor. Suffice to say, I have seldom read an article on Wiki which screams POV! quite so loudly. Tobermory 07:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tobermory, you make some good points, but a few things stand out to me. You mention the frequency of POV discussions, and imply that something might be POV because of them. I've only been here a little while, but ignoring the rhetoric behind most of the POV accusations, any attempt to nail down anything that is POV goes nowhere. I'd be the first to admit that the article might not be perfect, but most discussions on POV turn into discussions on HD in general, and not the article.
You also mention that there may be a difference between "total" denial and scale reduction. Deniers/Revisionists try to restate what the Holocaust is in many cases, so that they can say they aren't denying the Holocaust, just challenging one or two aspects.
Lastly, you state that there has been "good academic work" at times. While I agree that academic discussion is important, as an academic you'll agree that the method is important. Just because some revisionist, at some time, did some work that could be considered "good academic work", that doesn't mean that they follow the scientific method. Academics try to do "good academic work" every time, and they follow a specific method, which allows other researchers to follow what they did. They also try to explain all of the observations, and while they have a theory, if their research points in a different direction, they have to come up with a new theory. Cantankrus 16:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Tobermory. SCREAMS POV. Every paragraph drips with it. It is amazing that this article would be taken seriously as "NPOV" by anyone. I have no position on the whole argument (the substance of it, whatever there may be), but this article is right over the top. And you will find, as you dig about in Wikipedia, that on contentious topics this is not unusual. Sadly, the great Wiki idea is foundering. Really a shame.

Most Scholars Contend...

Previously, the article read "most scholars contend..." I changed it to "the scholar Omer Bartov contends..." because that was the source cited. The change was then reverted back to how it was previously by User:SlimVirgin. I'd like to have a discussion on why this occurred.

The reason I made these edits is because "most X contend..." is a [Weasel word]. Specifically, the usage of "most scholars contend" is similar to the examples given on that page, namely: "many people say...", "critics contend...", "Critics/experts say that...", and so forth.

So I did as the weasel words policy says and made it more specific. Namely, "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts."

I went with a, namely because "b" is so vague in this case. There's no real way to find out what "most" scholars believe because scholar is such a wide-ranging term. Just because it's claimed in a book doesn't mean it's true. So therefore, I followed the example which follows:

Consider, for example, this weaselly sentence: "Some people have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." Or the equally weaselly, "His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." If a source for the opinion is cited, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability, e.g.

"Author Ed Jones, in his book John Smith is an Idiot, wrote an open letter to Smith asking, 'John, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'"

I basically did exactly as this example is given by saying exactly which scholar is alleging that the term "holocaust revisionist" is misleading.

I think I've followed the weasel word policy to the letter, so what exactly was the problem with my edit? .V. 02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • We know most history scholars consider the use of the term "holocaust revisionist" by the people being described in this article. What we need is a cite for that fact; it would be more accurate to add {{fact}} to the sentence, rather than to imply that one particular scholar has this particular idea. Of course, it's the responsibility of whoever inserted the "most scholars" to back up the claim with a source, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My concern is that there really is no way to know what "most scholars" think. That seems to be the intent behind the Wikipedia article of "weasel words"... that you can't make wide-ranging generalizations about a group. I feel that until a reliable source can be found for this... which I doubt even exists (I've yet to see anyone survey all scholars and then find out what most believe)... I think it should be brought in line with the example given on the weasel words page. Perhaps it could be made clearer, as in, that this guy in this book asserts that most scholars believe in a certain way... but it's kind of reckless to make a sweeping generalization like that without proper explanation where it's coming from. .V. 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we don't have to know what most scholars think; we just have to find a reliable source that states that that's what most scholars think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely. I just think that if we're going to say that, it should be done as per the weasel word example. I mean, stating "most scholars think this" and then giving a source as a footnote implies that this is a hard and fast fact (it's also against Wikipedia policy.) It's much better off if we say that this guy in this book said this, so we avoid violating the weasel word policy. .V. 02:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The view of "most scholars" should be self-evident if you read most any history textbook. There should be a citation, but it would be flagrantly incorrect to imply that the view is isolated to one scholar when it's essentially ubiquitous among people who have even a cursory understanding of European history. Do we need to cite that George Washington was the first President of the United States too? Yes per WP:CITE, but it's not something any person with even a basic background in American history needs a source to confirm the validity of. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 02:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
For one, George Washington being the first President is a fact you can look up. As far as I know, there hasn't been any surveys of scholars world-wide on this topic.
Please keep in mind that this is not the question of "do most scholars believe the holocaust never happened?" but rather "do most scholars believe that the term revisionism for the holocaust is misleading?" They're two wholly seperate things.
Is there any way to reach a compromise here? I understand that you believe this is the prevailing view, and perhaps if you do read history textbooks, it would seem like that. But there is a growing field of historical revisionism that would disagree.
However I do agree with your concern that it shouldn't imply that it is limited to only one scholar. However, my concern is that it would be taken as apparent fact when it is, in actuality, no way provable and a weasel word.
So perhaps we can change it to read
"The word is derived from the French term Le négationnisme, which refers to Holocaust denial. This is objected to by the people to whom it is applied, who prefer "revisionist". Omer Bartov in his book (whatever the title was) contends that most scholars believe that the latter term is deliberately misleading."
If that doesn't work, how would you edit it to create a better compromise? It is a difficult thing to word, because I'd like to convey that the assertion is rather unofficial, but I also don't want to dismiss it. .V. 02:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Historical revisionism is defined as "the hypercritical reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards rewriting histories with newly discovered information. The assumption is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate." Holocaust deniers have not found any "new information" with which to reinterpret historical facts and thus the process fails the definition and is therefore a sham. Moreover, being that the "Holocaust revisionist" literature is virtually identical content-wise to past Antisemitic literature, it would be factually incorrect to claim that it is anything but Antisemitism of the Ku Klux Klan and White Supremacist variety.
It's important that WP:NPOV does not require (and, in concert with WP:V, explicity condemns) advocating points of view in articles which are not published by reliable sources. There is, as near as I can tell, no problem with the way it is presently worded, except the lack of a citation per WP:AWW. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
... yes. That's what I'm saying. I don't care what the definition of Holocaust Denier or Revisionist is. My only concern is the issue regarding weasel words. All I want is for this opinion to be out there, but I don't want it to be misleading. So can we please just sit down and find some way to word this without having it be weasel-y? I don't really want to argue this, I just want some compromise. If you really think compromise is impossible, please say so, and possibly assist in finding some kind of reliable source for the majority opinion of scholars. Because weasel words really bug me. Personally, I think that if we can't reach a consensus, the statement should just be removed until a proper citation can be found. .V. 03:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible grammatical errors

"For example, one film of supposed Holocaust victims, shown to Germans after the war, in fact depicted German civilians being treated after Allied bombing of Dresden." This is probably a subjective issue, but the "in fact" makes the sentence awkward. See Strunk and White, 4th ed. 05:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • What would you recommend? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just removing the "in fact" should do it. But it is a personal stylistic choice. 05:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, sure. And usually I'd agree -- I tend to remove things like "in fact" and "notably" as a matter of principle, if not pride...Question. Do you think "Actually" might be better? (I hate introducing adverbs.) We're trying to express someone else's point of view here, and that point of view would be emphasizing the contradiction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I tend to prefer "in actuality" when it's a case like this (i.e. where something is said to be one thing, and is actually another). .V. 06:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bartov

Does Bartov actually say that most scholars believe the term to be misleading, or does he say that he believes it to be misleading? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure on this. I'd actually have to find a copy of that book and check it out. The way I interpreted the original edit was that he believes that most scholars think the term is misleading, but that's on the assumption that the original author was citing it properly. I'll see if I can get a copy of the book. Also, I like the current edit, except we should probably get a better source for the author's credentials. The current reference provided is from his own institution, so if there was confirmation from a third party, that would be really good.
Can I assume that this edit issue is pretty much resolved then? .V. 06:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't add material without checking the source. I'll change it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
How did I add material? I said that this guy states in his book that most scholars think the term is misleading. That's pretty much exactly what it said before, except I said that he noted it in his book. There was no actual material added, just a clarification on where he said it. .V. 06:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It said before "most scholars contend that the latter term is deliberately misleading" and offered Bartov as a source or as an example: it was unclear which. You changed that to Bartov said that most scholars contend that the term is misleading, even though you don't know what he says. I have therefore changed it back and offered him as an example, until we can establish what he wrote. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Simple. If Bartov was offered as an example, it wouldn't be acceptable, as he is not "most scholars." .V. 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of ((fact)) references for EITHER claims against, or for, denial

I've added some {{Fact}} tags for claims, that are largely unreferenced. I don't think any of them can be allowed to go unchalllenged, and find some of the denial claims in particular very offensive. Reillyd 09:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the facts of the Holocaust need to be referenced in this article. This is an article about Holocaust denial, not about the Holocaust itself. What needs to be referenced is the fact that Holocaust deniers have made certain claims, not the claims themselves. Equally, the facts of the Holocaust cited by those who rebut deniers are well-sourced elsewhere; what needs to be cited here is the fact that these rebuttals have been made. - Eron Talk 13:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Eron, I goofed. I should have read the talk page before editing :) Reillyd 09:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bartov Ref

Because the contents of this ref is disputed, I propose that the section of the sentence in question be removed until the source can be found. .V. 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I left this for three days and nobody seemed to have a problem. So until somebody finds out what this author actually said, I'll put it here: "although most scholars believe that term to be deliberately misleading. <ref>For example, see Bartov, Omer. ''The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation and Aftermath,'' Routledge, p.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]] ([http://www.watsoninstitute.org/contacts_detail.cfm?id=97 "Omer Bartov"], The Watson Institute for International Studies).</ref>"
I checked my library and didn't find this book. Hopefully others might be luckier. .V. 16:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored with more detail. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How does this quote apply to the "most scholars contend"? It still looks like this is what Bartov contends. .V. 20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added another source, and re-worded. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, this version is even worse. Now it says "scholars believe", which implies all scholars believe in such a fashion. It's the same thing but without the word "most", and without the "for example" in the ref. Perhaps we should follow the example given in the NPOV policy and say "X contends that...", or phrase it in a more specific manner? .V. 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
How many sources will you need before you concede that scholars think "revisionism" is double-talk masking antisemitic Holocaust denial? Jayjg (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I would need to hear from at least 51% of scholars before I can conclude that most scholars believe in this manner. There's a reason why there's a weasel word policy -- it's because we (usually) can't survey all of a group, especially a group as vague and inclusive as "scholars." .V. 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, but I took out any weasel words, specifically the word "most". Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Aye, that makes it worse. Let me give you an example.
Some Romans thought they should invade Carthage. - This implies that a number (we don't know who) of them thought this. It's a weasel word because it's not specific.
Most Romans thought they should invade Carthage. - This implies that a majority of them thought this. It's weasely because you obviously can't survey all Romans.
Romans thought they should invade Carthage. - This implies that all -- or at least an absolutely dominant majority -- of them thought this. You still can't say this, because it seems like all Romans thought this.
The Roman government thought they should invade Carthage. That's specific enough.
Keep in mind the section of [[WP:AWW] which states:
"Sentences like Some people think... lead to arguments about how many people actually think that. Is it some people or most people? How many is many people?"
Given the policy above, we should be very specific. Even with the removal of the word "most", it still fits the examples of weasel words given in the policy. Take this example:
"(Critics, detractors, fans, experts, many people, ...) (contend, say that, ...) ..."
It's currently "scholars contend." It's exactly in the form given in WP:AWW, so we need to make it very specific as to -which- scholars believe this. .V. 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"Few"? Which relevant scholars do? I'm not talking about KKK chapter founders or former public school teachers. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That's still against the weasel word policy. Can't we just use as many specifics as possible? Why do we need to "tilt" things a certain way? It boggles the mind why we can't just follow the AWW policy and say specifically what the current Bartov reference means. It's clear that this is a textbook example of that. I can't think of any reason why we need to keep dancing around specifics and favoring generalities. What, exactly, is the problem with phrasing the current quote as per the clarification example in AWW? If it was rephrased as per AWW, it would not only be clearer, but would be as specific as possible. .V. 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any relevant scholars who feel differently; perhaps you know of some? Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Please respond to my questions above. .V. 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe I already have; please respond to mine. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how asking another question is somehow an answer to my questions, but it seems to me like every attempt is being made to skirt the weasel word policy. The fact of the matter is, it's currently phrased in a weasel word form. Saying "few scholars believe" or "most scholars believe" or "scholars contend" is still a weasel word phrase. There are only very few exceptions as to when a weasel word phrase can be used, and those are in cases where there is definite and undisputed proof. There is no such proof in this case. Even if you could list 50 sources that believe in this fashion, it doesn't make it true, because you can't know what all scholars are thinking. The current idea of "I have all these sources, so I can avoid Wikipedia policy" is absurd. It's still a weasel word, and it's still against Wikipedia policy. My question is, why can't we be specific? Why can't we say "Bartov contends"? It's just like the example given in WP:AWW. You still haven't answered this question. .V. 01:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it's simply not important that Bartov contends blah blah blah. Scholars as a class contend blah blah blah; Bartov is offered as one example. What we actually need is a WP:RS asserting that scholars as a class reject the appellation "revisionists" for Holocaust deniers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It's actually very important. Let's say you found a source by an author who is generally regarded as reputable. The source says that "most scholars contend... (and so forth)." It would still be a weasel word phrase to state that "most scholars contend" and then cite the book. It would be appropriate to say "Person X, in his book Y, claims that..." It says this in WP:AWW. .V. 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Focus is being lost in this discussion. I think the intention of the sentence is to convey that the large majority of scholars (historians? Holocaust scholars?) don't believe "revisionism" is properly applied to what revisionists/deniers do. I don't believe that this is in contention.
The guideline that is being wrestled with is "Avoid Weasel Words". Going to the source, it states - "Avoid "some people say" statements without sources." Now, we have a statement, backed up with a source.
My concern is that we want to be able to support general statements. "The majority of Mathematicians say 1 + 1 = 2" should be a statement we can write in Wikipedia, and support. However, it's being argued that we could NEVER say this, as it's too "weasel-ly". Indeed, even sources from 10 or 20 math profs don't seem to be sufficient in this case. What to do? Let's go back to the guideline.
``As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity``. We should remember that WP:AWW is a rule of thumb, and that we can have exceptions to it. This might be such an exception, but I'm offering a point of view. What does everyone think? Cantankrus 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You have a point, but 1+1=2 is a verifiable fact. Saying how many scholars believe a certain way is unverifiable, even if a "reputable source" claims it. Just because a published author may claim that most people believe a certain way, it doesn't make it true. Because of this, there are two options
1) Find something verifiable, such a survey.
2) Say that "most scholars believe", but be specific about it. That is, say "X, in his book Y, says that..."
Otherwise, there's a misrepresentation. If neither of the two above are used, it seems as if an unverifiable claim is made verified... and unless that particular author took a survey of all scholars, there's no way it can be verifiable true. Because it's not verifiable, great care must be taken not to mislead people into thinking that this is the cold, hard truth. .V. 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, it does say "some people say" and asks for a source. However, we're talking about an assertion that a "majority" believe a certain way. In the "some people say" example, the source shows that some people say a particular thing. That's inherently true -- you say that some claim a certain way, then you show the claim. But to say "most people believe", you'd need to cite something that shows that "most people believe" in a certain fashion. See above for my comments on that. .V. 03:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The scholars who discuss this say that denial is not "revisionism". I've added another source which makes this clear, along with sources in other areas. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the quotations provided say that all or most scholars believe this way. These are simply examples of this position, which don't constitute support for the phrase that directly precedes the citation. The usage of "scholars contend" is misleading -- yes, scholars do contend this -- but who? That's where the need for specifics come in, and that's why these questions are at the start of WP:AWW. Using the term as it is in the article is misleading because it doesn't answer the question of "who" believes this. The current ambiguity may mean just the scholars cited, or it may mean all or most scholars, depending on how it's read. Please re-write the preceding sentence to be more specific, as per the example in WP:AWW. .V. 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
V, what makes "1+1=2" verifiable fact, and not say, the earth is round? It is fair to say that "a large majority of scientists believe the earth is spherical in shape". I just can't see how we could ever make a statement about things that are generally accepted without taking a survey on every one.
Misrepresentation implies we are overstating the importance of a few individuals; but "revisionism", as practiced by revisionists/deniers is widely rejected by academics. Similarly, a flat earth is widely rejected. Do we need surveys in each case to conclusively say that most respectable academics don't subscribe to such theories? Cantankrus 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
But the Earth isn't round. It's an imperfect oblate spheroid. Just like 1+1=2, you can verify this through objective means. That's the difference here. You say we don't need to take a survey on every idea, and that's correct. Issues which are objectively obvious don't require surveys. For example, you can take a measuring stick and measure out a foot. You don't have to say "Most of the people who look at this agree that it's a foot", because you've used an objective measure. We can state this as a fact because facts are objective in nature. In Wikipedia, there's a consensus reality, but in the real world, it's an objective reality. What we know as 100 degrees Celsius is 100 degrees Celsius because we can use an outside mechanism to tell us that.
When it comes to ideas, there's little in terms of objective measure. Other than a survey, there's no real way to understand how many scholars believe that revisionism is a mask for denial, nor is there any way to discern subtleties (such as, "do they think it's always this way or just most of the time?").
So if we can't know objectively (read: survey-type thing) how many scholars believe this way, we can only know it subjectively... which means, someone is asserting it to be true. Now, it may seem true to you, and to certain "reputable academics" (the definition of which, by the way, can vary greatly depending on where you go.)
However, the inclusion of subjective material as undisputed fact is anti-encyclopedic. In this case, the subjective material is the assertion that most or a vast majority of scholars believe in a certain manner. While plenty of subjective information is included, it needs to be properly worded as not to be confused with cold, hard fact.
Let's pretend for a moment that all the proper nouns were edited out of the phrase. "Group X believes that Y is true." If you go by the WP:AWW standard, you'd have to ask "who believes this?" The best place to go is to the group. For example, if it was the government of the United States, you'd go to the White House website. If it was the ADL, you'd go to the ADL website. However, there's no organization that all scholars are a part of. So, we need to go to individual commentary on it. But you can't assume that these individuals can speak for the whole world, so then you would phrase it "Individuals A,B,C contend that Group X believes that Y is true." After all, you need to ask "who believes this", and if you're getting a few to represent the whole, you should state precisely where this viewpoint is coming from. To do otherwise would mislead the reader.
Also, because this statement uses no objective means of calculating what scholars believe, it also promotes a point of view. It would cease to be a point of view if there was objective support for this... but then we're back to square one.
So if we don't have objective support, we need to make it clear that this assertion is subjective... or at least, not definitive. That's why we have WP:AWW, and the example given there shows this process. A proper way to phrase this would be, "Scholars X, Y, Z, believe that..." because currently, the citations do not contend at all that most scholars believe in a certain way -- they are just examples of this belief. That's another issue with this phraseology... four Western scholars, even if they are "respectable", are not enough to make generalizations for the entire world. .V. 06:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems a stumbling block to this is scietific vs. historical facts. We should also be able to say "historians generally agree World War 1 took place between 1914 and 1918". Here, we have a simple statement, not easily objectively verified, but which is true. (Historians might argue over lots of things regarding World War 1, but dates aren't generally in contention). You seem to be saying that we have to attribute this to specific historians, which creates the false impression that some (many?) historians contend that the first world war took place at a different time.
I think we are abiding by the spirit of AWW here -- it's not trying to spin a small group's opinion into a majority. The wording could be a little more specific (Historians rather then academics, say), but to point to a small subsample of historians and write "a, b, c say...." misleads the readed by implying that only these historians believe as such. I'm starting to feel this fits the exception rule quite nicely, as writing "a, b, ... z say" would hit the guideline's brevity exception. Cantankrus 16:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The example of the WW1 dates is, I think, an oversimplification. You can objectively verify those things. What differs is the idea of when war begins. To some, it's when the first bomb drops. To others, it's when hostilities are proposed. In these cases, naming terminology tends to reach a "common usage" standard; that is, dating it in a certain way simply becomes a convention. I would hardly think that this issue has come a convention, and is no way similar to the start or end dates of WWI.
Anyway, you cite the concern that a minority is being spun as a majority... but then you go on to state that (for the sake of brevity), we should make it looks like there is consensus among scholars. Making misrepresentations, even for brevity, is a bad idea. Consider the fact that saying "most scholars contend" is always going to be more brief than elucidating the meaning of that phrase. Unless the name of the scholar is less than four letters, this weasel-wordy phrase would certainly be shorter. However, we also need to make sure to tell the truth. The concern for brevity occurs when it's unduly long, which it would not be in this case. After all, this case would be exactly like the WP:AWW example... and if it's not too long in the policy, why would it be too long here? It would probably be around the same length, so brevity is not a concern here.
Another issue is the problem of examples. We have four sources to that sentence, and not one of them claims that most scholars believe in a certain way. We only have four examples. This is entirely unacceptable. To contrast this, let's say we took comments about religion from George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeze Rice, and some other US cabinet member. They'd say they were Christian. But is it enough to say that most of America is Christian? Certainly not. The sources given here don't even address the cited statement.
Try working backwards, like in Jeopardy. Let's say someone gave you those four quotes in the citation without showing you what was cited. The content is four scholars saying that Holocaust Revisionism is a mask for denial. The logical conclusion wouldn't be that all or most scholars believe this... because there's only four guys here, and none are claiming any kind of consensus.
Keep in mind from WP:AWW - "Objectivity over subjectivity. Dispassion, not bias." If a sentence needs to be biased to be brief, perhaps the sentence shouldn't exist at all. I think it should simply be removed from the article, if no attempt will be made to make it specific. However, given the fact that it won't be unduly long (about as long as the example in AWW), there is no reason not to make it specific. AWW is very clear about reporting the facts in a dispassionate manner. We're not here to make judgments, like "most people believe this." We can only show claims that this is true, we can't go around saying things are true if we don't have objective proof of it. .V. 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
But these "four scholars" are actually experts in the fields, and the sources indicate that they are, or refer to, the leading treatments of the subject. In other words, these people represent the academic consensus on the matter, unless you can find other relevant scholars who have given an opposing view. Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Just because they're experts in the field does not mean they can speak for everyone. Four experts cannot speak for the countless numbers of scholars world-wide. What if the article was written, citing four Iranian experts? Could they speak for the world? That case would be different, right? In actuality, it's the same problem; you can't have a small group speaking for a massive group. In fact, none of them address how many people believe this, they only give their opinion. There is no claim actually being made in these citations that most scholars believe this way, so the citations don't even match the sentence that they're contained in. .V. 00:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I can only deal with the real world, not the theoretical. I'm aware of experts on Holocaust denial and genocide, and they all concur that the term "revisionism" is, in the case of Holocaust denial, a misleading attempt to hide a different agenda. Bartov, Lipstadt, Shermer, Grobman are all experts who have written books explicitly on the subject of denial. Bartrop was a lecturer in racism and comparative genocide at the University of South Australia who published 3 books on the Holocaust. I've now added Vidal-Naquet, the famous French historian who wrote specifically about revisionism (of all sorts). They all seem to agree. If you can find "four Iranian experts" on Holocaust denial who feel differently, then you'd have a leg to stand on. Jayjg (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd invite you to look over the content of what you cited. You have collected several experts who think in a certain manner. However, how does that relate to "most scholars believe"? None of these scholars claim that this is the case, and thus the cited material do not reflect the sentence it is in reference to. I know that you're trying to build a case for saying "most scholars believe", but until you get a citation that actually states that most scholars believe in a certain way, the current citations do not apply.
Now you might say, if four (or even five!) experts think this way, surely most scholars must? After all, these five or so people have written whole books on the subject, so they have to speak for everyone -- even people from foreign countries that have probably never heard of them. Well, forgive me for saying, I think you need a few more than five sources to make such a judgment.
Think of it this way: you have five scholars claiming it. To say that most scholars believe in this way (or that scholars believe in this way, which is ambiguous and basically means the same thing if read the wrong way) is original research. It's original research because none of the material cited claims what you say it claims. You're making the inference that, if these five scholars believe it, it must be the most common belief. You can't make that inference. Keep in mind the Wikipedia policy that states that you present the facts, then you let the reader decide. It's not your place to decide for them. They can read all the credentials which are laid out in that footnote and decide for themselves if this a representative sample. To do otherwise would be to force a POV.
If you want to cite this material, you need to be specific about it's contents. Don't say that it supports the weasel-word phrase "scholars believe" and have the material contain nothing except the opinions of individual scholars, with no reflections on mass appeal. The sentence must be written to make it clear. Maybe you can say "Western experts on holocaust revisionism believe..." or something like that, but be specific about what's being said. Otherwise, it's misleading, and it seems deliberate. .V. 06:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop making strawman arguments for me. I specifically removed the word "most" from the description, long ao. I've gone and found subject-matter experts who've actually discussed this issue, and they all agree; that is scholarly consensus. You keep claiming that that this is a "non-representative sample", that somewhere there is a subject-matter expert who disagrees, some "eastern expert" or perhaps some "Iranian expert" on Holocaust denial. Fine. Find that expert who disagrees, and we'll re-examine statement. Jayjg (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one, I've made no strawman arguments. I know you removed the word "most", and I explained in my last post and the one before this that the current phrasing is ambiguous; it could mean anything from the scholars cited to all scholars or most scholars.
Anyway, I did find some experts. Much of the information I found was in Arabic, Swedish, or some other language I don't speak, however. I found some English-speaking experts, though, so I'll place that in a later post. I'll discuss it later because I'd like to say that whether we have an "expert war" or not, that is immaterial to the discussion.
If I may, let me take an example from WP:AWW.

"Peacock terms are especially hard to deal with without using weasel words. Again, consider the sentence "The Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." It's tempting to rephrase this in a weaselly way, for example, "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." But how can this opinion be qualified with an opinion holder? There are millions of Yankees fans and hundreds of baseball experts who would pick the Yankees as the best team in history. Instead, it would be better to eliminate the middleman of mentioning this opinion entirely, in favor of the facts that support the assertion:

"The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships -- almost three times as many as any other team."

...The idea is to let the reader draw their own conclusion about the Yankees' greatness based on the number of World Series the Yankees have won. Objectivity over subjectivity. Dispassion, not bias."

So what does this tell us? It says, even if there are "hundreds of experts", we should "eliminate the middleman of mentioning this opinion entirely" in favor of the facts that support the assertion.
I contend that no matter how many scholars you or I put together, it would still be per Wikipedia policy to eliminate the opinion and just state the facts. It's editorializing to assume a scholarly consensus, and if it was just plainly stated, there would be no problem. I fail to see the problem with just stating things as they are. What, exactly, is the pressing motivation to assume a scholarly consensus? What is the harm of just stating the facts as they are, instead of editorializing it? In Wikipedia, there's nothing more basic than in a dispute such as this, to just lay the facts out on the table and let the reader decide. Why is that so difficult in this case? .V. 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Then we can say "no serious scholars support use of the term 'revisionist'". We don't have to assume a scholarly consensus; there IS a scholarly consensus -- you're just setting impossibly high barriers to demonstrate it to your satisfaction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What, saying that five scholars isn't enough to generalize for all scholars the world over? That doesn't seem right to make such a sweeping generalization based on only a few. Answer for me, please, why must we editorialize this? Can't we just display the facts and the let the reader decide? .V. 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
To begin with, I highly doubt that any experts on the topic of the Holocaust or Holocaust denial are writing in Arabic. Next, every expert that has discussed it has reached the same conclusion. If I were to find 20 sources, would you insist that the article say "according to Bartov, Lipstadt, Shermer, Grobman, Bartrop, Golden, Smythe, Walker, Silverman, Hassan, Fordham, Wells, Benatar, Mairen, Gottschalk, Noiret, Wang, Toyoda, Basmajian, and Schirmer, the term 'revisionism' is deliberately misleading"? No, of course not. The article states simple fact, well attested by expert sources. If you do not agree that it is fact, find other expert sources that disagree with it. I'm not going to keep repeating myself either, find other expert sources that disagree, then we'll talk. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
``you cite the concern that a minority is being spun as a majority... but then you go on to state that (for the sake of brevity), we should make it looks like there is consensus among scholars.``
My point was to avoid what Jayjg is showing above, and what this is snowballing towards. There ae a substantial number of scholars that dismiss the use of "revisionism" by revisionists/deniers. You seem to be suggesting that we list them, but the list would quickly outweigh the content and the reader would get lost in a sea of names.
Would this be better stated as "At least 20 scholars, in various fields ..."? (I don't think there are many serious scholars that wouldn't hold this opinion, but as a survey isn't at hand, and since trying to find sources for more then a couple dozen seems a waste of effort, this might be an acceptable compromise) Cantankrus 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd be 100% fine with what Cantankrus proposes as a compromise edit. .V. 00:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It's neither encyclopedic language nor necessary. The facts are displayed simply, per policy, and backed up with citations from several subject-matter experts, per policy. If you think it's not factual, then present your subject-matter experts who disagree. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What, so you're saying that being as specific as possible in the encyclopedia non-encyclopedic? I believe policy states that if you have a particular assertion, you must back it up with fact.
In this case, the proper citation would be a scholar or series of scholars asserting that there's a majority opinion that holocaust revisionism is a mask for denial. Even then, it would still be noted in the encyclopedia that this particular scholar or group of scholars is giving that opinion.
What we currently have: Sources saying that rev is a mask for denial. Turning that into scholarly consensus is a judgment on your part. It may seem obvious to you, but it still is a judgment you're making, and it's against the policy that facts should be presented and the reader should interpret. It's a judgment because the sources say rev is a mask for denial, but they don't say anything about consensus. So where's the consensus comment coming from? Certainly not from the sources your citing, so it has to be from the editor.
What we should have: Sources saying that most scholars believe rev is a mask for denial. In that case, you wouldn't need to editorialize the consensus because you'd have a source that says there's a consensus.
See the difference? .V. 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be the universal opinion among subject matter experts, though, so it's simple fact, and Wikipedia doesn't weasel around with simple fact. Of course, if you can find a subject matter expert who disagrees, then we will have to re-examine the text. Good luck. Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be the universal opinions... it seems to whom? To you? That's what we call editorializing. We have WP:OR for a reason -- so that WP editors don't decide what "seems" to be right, but rather, what experts say on the subject.
In this case, I don't require any citations. What would be required, though, is for you to show of an expert stating that there is such a consensus, or that the consensus seems to exist. Otherwise, you're not citing properly. As I said above, if you make a claim and provide a source, that source should actually talk about the claim. To cite several sources and then have yourself judge that it is a consensus is original research. And even if an expert said there was a consensus, we'd still could not list it as incontrovertible fact.
Maybe I could put it this way. If you go to an article, and you see a statement. Then you look to the cited material and see that it says nothing about the statement... then that's original research. .V. 21:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The cited material says that "revisionism" is misleading, that the proper term "denial". All the sources say that, so there is no original research here. Moreover, every subject-matter expert I have found who discusses this says exactly that; apparently it is a simple fact, universally held by experts. If you have any reason to doubt it is a fact, please bring a subject matter expert who states a differing view. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, I don't think an opposing expert, or even 20, is what is needed here.
Really, the question is how many experts are needed to make a certain statement, to be able to say "most", "many" or "a majority" with confidence? We've danced around this a bit, but what you (still) seem to be saying is that if 100 scholars say something, we have to state "100 scholars say" to stay faithful to AWW.
We could turn the tables and say something like "Almost no reputable academic disputes", as I do think it'll be hard to find more then a handful who think revisionism is being "true" to mainstream historical revisionsim.
Or, we could bite the bullet and see that while we should try to Avoid certain statements, this is only a guideline and there are exceptions. This issue seems to fit the bill perfectly. Cantankrus 06:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, WP:AWW is a policy. I don't see how this case would be any exception. I mean, there's probably thousands of issues like this. When you boil it down, it's a case of "can you state consensus if you have enough opinions?" This is a common issue across many different articles, and this issue is no exception. I think that "biting the bullet" in this case would be to just delete the phraseology that's contested, if no settlement can be found. If no adequate compromise can be reached, it seems like it would make more sense to remove the offending material rather than keep material which violates Wikipedia policy in the encyclopedia. (Note: Due to moving-around of comments, my comment below was addressed to Jayjg, not Cantankrus.) .V. 07:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
When a citation or several citations are given for a particular phrase or sentence, it is expected that those citations reflect the content of the sentence. The sentence phraseology is current "scholars contend." As I said before, it's not only non-specific, but it (could) imply that all or most scholars contend. It -could- be read as "these scholars contend", but when scholars is referenced as a single body, it implies uniform opinion across that body. The vagueness alone of that phrasing is grounds for its removal or rephrasing, but that's beside the point.
All the sources you've cited say that revisionism is a mask for denial. So you apparently have a consensus among the people you've cited. But do these people, at any time, state the wide-spread scholarly consensus you're asserting? Last time I checked, none of the sources you have provided state that there is a scholarly consensus. It doesn't matter how many sources you get. Until one of them says there's a scholarly consensus, there's no grounds for saying that in the article.
You might say that all the people you've researched agree and that makes a consensus. However, because none of the people you're referencing state there's a consensus, that's original research -- this issue of consensus is not coming from a source, but rather from your own opinion. I'd like to make this perfectly clear: the part that I'm calling original research is the assertion that there is a scholarly consensus, because there is no mention of a scholarly consensus in your cited material.
Just answer me this simple question... because there is no mention of a consensus in the cited material, from whom is the claim there is a consensus coming from? .V. 06:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your off on your point about Original Research here. If that was true, stating "most math scholars believe 1+1=2" would require one of the scholars to state that, which I'm doubtful would ever happen. Similarly, "most scholars believe the earth to be sphere like" would also be OR, as it's unlikely a scholar would state something so broad. (Also, they may feel it's not needed, as it's "obvious" to any non-conspiracy theorist).
I added a comment about AWW above - any comment on that? Cantankrus 07:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Both your examples involve things which are verifiably and demonstrably true using objective means. They don't illustrate contentious issues, which, like ZOG, are in a gray-area of provability. I also made a reply to your comment above. .V. 07:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about ZOG, or "gray areas of provability", though, so this is a strawman. In fact, using your arguement, this issue exactly fits your criteria ... the said statements are "verifiable and demonstratably true using objective means". The fact that the statements are opinions is where the strawman comes in here.
To clarify, AWW is NOT policy, it is a style guideline. NPOV is a policy.
Going back to the AWW guideline page, it states: Exceptions - As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. [...] When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify.
Again, my question comes back to when we consider a number big enough to use this exception; and this instance seems to fit exactly. Cantankrus 20:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
And, equally importantly, there are no subject-matter experts who say anything different. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be just as clear as to say "many" scholars, and it would not be misleading. .V. 20:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
When stating simple facts, one doesn't not use the term "many scholars". We don't say "many scholars believe Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" introduced the special theory of relativity", even though, as it turns out, there are some cooks and cranks who argue that others actually came up with the theory. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This is hardly as non-controversial as that, so don't make it out to be so simple. No matter what, if your sources don't claim consensus, well, you can't say it in the article. .V. 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It is exactly as non-controversial as that, and the article doesn't "claim consensus" for that simple fact, it simple states it, and provides footnotes which back it up. Until you provide us with a subject-matter expert who states something different, there is no reason to believe it is anything but simple fact. Still waiting. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
A footnote that backs up consensus would include consensus. None of your references mention that. Stating consensus as a "simple fact" is original research, because I certainly don't see anything about consensus in those sources. The idea that I have to provide a source that contradicts it is beside the point. The issue is the wording and the cited material, not a race to find scholars.
How about "Most leading Western experts believe..." as a compromise edit? That's more accurate. You have your assertion of majority there, and it clearly shows what majority. All the experts you cited are Western. It also makes clear that we're talking about experts here, not scholars (a scholar is so broad that you can't clearly define it.) .V. 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Or, "Most mainstream experts believe..." is fine as well. .V. 21:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Still not seeing the words "many" or "consensus" in the current article. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If I'm going to have several editors vying for a phraseology that's against WP:AWW, we might as well have that "exception" be as accurate as can possibly be. I personally believe that the entire thing should be deleted, but if there is going to be absolutely no spirit of compromise, I might as well propose something. So far, I haven't seen any other attempts at compromise beside my own actions, and I frankly don't want to be arguing this for two weeks.
In this case, the logical solution would be to delete the claim. For one, it's not necessary to the article. Two, there's no way to phrase it that doesn't contradict WP:AWW. So we're either going to have to delete it or compromise. It seems to me like deletion is out of the question for some of the editors here, so I might as well offer some kind of compromise edit. If I don't, nobody will. .V. 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi .V. I still haven't seen any subject-matter experts who contradict this simple fact. Until you come up with one, I won't be repeating myself, or responding to further comments on the same topic. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I find your request for subject-matter experts to be beside the point, and you still haven't addressed this. My concern is that the phraseology is against WP:AWW. The reason why it's against WP:AWW is that it's uninformative and vague. Saying "most scholars" or "scholars believe" does not indicate sufficiently who is asserting this, and WP:AWW states this explicitly. That is my problem with this phrasing. I have no doubt that the people you have cited are experts in their fields, and I see no reason as to why I need to provide any subject-matter to the contrary.
Throughout this discussion, it seems like you're thinking that I challenge the "simple fact" that most scholars believe so on and so forth. I do not have any claim to whether this statement is actually true or not, and as such, I see no reason for me to give contrary sources. My concern is that such a statement of consensus does not belong in Wikipedia unless in two cases:
  • The consensus can be objectively proven. For example, if you wanted to survey all Scientologists, that would be relatively easy considering they have a centralized organization. A representative and statistically sound survey of a large group would be acceptable as well. The consensus cannot be objectively proven in this case because you just can't survey all "scholars". So this instance is out of the question.
  • A source explicitly states there is a consensus. If you had a guy saying there was a consensus among scholars, that would be acceptable. But even so, you'd have to explicitly state in the article that he's saying this. This is what I'm asking you for... if you say there's a consensus, you should have some source to back it up. Otherwise it's coming from you, and it's original research.
Over the course of this discussion, I have proposed several compromise edits and changes of wording that have been rejected. If there can be no rephrasing of this in such a way as to comply to WP:AWW, then perhaps it should be gone from the article entirely. It's not essential to the content of the article, and if it can't exist in any other form than a weasel-word, then the statement is inherently misleading. If it's not inherently misleading, then please suggest an accurate phrasing that will comply with the guidelines.
These are all points you have failed to address, in favor of asking me for sources that contradict your sources. But what good would that serve? That's another question that needs to be answered as well. I'm talking about phraseology here. The only concern with sources that I have, is that the sources say what's in the article. At the moment, the sources do not say what's in the article, and that's original research.
It seems like you're trying to bring me into a discussion about whether this consensus exists in actuality or not. I can't see any other reason why I'd need to bring in sources when my concern is simply a wording issue. If I think something is too vague, that has nothing to do with providing sources to the contrary. The proper response to vagueness is to make the wording in question more accurate, and weasel words are essentially too vague. If it cannot be done, then such vagueness should be erased out of the article.
Because my concern has nothing to do with the actual content of the sources (except for the idea that, if you're going to claim consensus, the sources should say there's a consensus), I fail to see why I need to provide sources to the contrary. It would only be a distraction. .V. 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Laws against" list

The long list of countries and their penalties is interesting data but real ugly to read. I've made a stab at a table: yeah or bleah? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lubomyr Prytulak

This fella is known for making incredible statements, such as the number of Jews killed by NAZIs is actually much smaller, that there is no proof of Treblinka murders, etc.

He, as many deniers do, claims himself to be merely a "revisionist". Where does he truly fit? Goliath74 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless he actually "denies" the Holocaust (as in, he doesn't believe it happened at all), I'd be reluctant to call him a denier. .V. 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Depends on what numbers he claims are real. If says it was 5 million instead of 6 million, then no he isn't a denier since the exact number is unknown. However, if he says it was only 500 instead of 5 million, then yes it would be a denial. Koweja 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese denial Web site

This text showed up in the article, but even a cursory glance suggests that it is little more than a plug for a Japanese Web site:

A “The Study Group on Historical Revisionism”[1] is the leading study group of Holocaust denial on the Internet. The website “The Upset Suit of Miss Sofia”[2] explains Holocaust denial in a relaxed but elaborate manner with a number of manga-like illustrations directed mainly at the youth market.

"Leading study group of Holocaust denial on the Internet?" How can one Web site be the "leading" site on the Internet -- especially when it has never been referenced by anyone else, ever? A Google search for this Web site shows absolutely no links to it whatsoever, other than the site itself. This seems more like blatant advertising than anything else. --Modemac 12:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Jtpaladin 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Study Group on Historical Revisionism[2] [3]
  2. ^ The Upset Suit of Miss Sofia [4][5]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_6&oldid=1037685936"