Jump to content

Talk:Institute for Historical Review/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Proposed changes

The wording of the lead para, as is (23:50 GMT, 22-01-2007), says:

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is a controversial American organization. It describes itself as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." Its critics in the United States, Europe and elsewhere claim that it is, among other things, an anti-semitic "pseudo-academic body" linked to Neo-Nazi organizations and to Holocaust denial.[1] Editor Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center stated in a 2002 CNN segment that the IHR is the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization."[2] IHR publishes the non-peer-reviewed Journal of Historical Review.

This seems to me to describe the IHR accurately, with cited comments. What problems do people have with it? What improvements do you suggest? User:Camberwell's idea that the IHR's view of itself and no other should be in the lead para is unreasonable IMHO. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

My principle argument was that the description of the IHR as it stood gave no clear indication of its agenda. I was enquiring as a new user of Wiki as to why criticism had to be in the intro. I would prefer to see critical citations stated elsewhere as with other Wiki articles I have read (style/format).

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American organisation that publishes diverse theses from many authors which, the IHR states, speak "...factually and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more." Its critics in the United States, Europe and elsewhere claim that it is an anti-semitic "pseudo-academic body" linked to Neo-Nazi organizations and to Holocaust denial.[1] Editor Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center stated in a 2002 CNN segment that the IHR is the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization."[2]


IHR publishes the non-peer-reviewed Journal of Historical Review.

Camberwell 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason criticism needs to be included in the introduction is that the IHR is a controversial organization. On the topic of Holocaust Denial, most groups pro and against are controversial in nature. To whom they're controversial and why they're controversial is a different issue, but regardless, the omission of criticism from the title paragraph is an implicit sponsorship of a group.
I do think, however, the criticism should be summed up generically, as with the example of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
As for what the IHR does, I found the title block to be pretty clear.
However, I'm rather unclear as to one thing. Camberwell, I noticed that the only change you made in the example paragraph was more quotes by the IHR. Is that what your proposing, or do you propose removal of the criticism as well? .V. -- (TalkEmail) 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
most groups pro and against are controversial in nature. No, not really. Most groups fighting holocaust denial aren't in the least bit controversial except to the loony fringe group they're fighting. There's no controversy, any more than there's a controversy about the earth being round. There are some doubters; that's not a controversy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If that was the case, then there would be no need for anti-groups. You don't see a myriad of large organizations set up to disprove those who believe the Earth is flat. Anyway, that's all beside the point. My point was that to remove the criticism is a silent endorsement of the organization. .V. -- (TalkEmail) 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, .V., I have kept the criticism in the proposed introduction. I'm saying the entire introductory summary I've posted just above in this section with the quote from the IHR web-site stating it: "speaks "...factually" and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more." Shows exactly what it is that gives rise to the immediate criticisms of being anti-Semitic, denialist, etc., than the current insipid quote: "describes itself as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." That quote does not say anything of the real IHR agenda or why it provokes controversy. The IHR are claiming they "speak factually" about blah, blah, whereas the charge is precisely the opposite: they do not "speak factually". At the moment I read the IHR intro summary as CENSORED and CENSURED. I abhor censorship. Camberwell 11:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Help anyone? I've now read every aspect of WP:Undue weight. Can someone help with specific breaches User:Jpgordon states as I believe my proposed intro above does not break WP:Undue weight. Camberwell 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I see anything specifically wrong with elucidating the position of the IHR with further quotations from them. I personally understood what the IHR was when I read the introduction for the first time, but I could see how that might not give a comprehensive summary. However, before I can say anything, where exactly is that quote on the IHR website? .V. -- (TalkEmail) 09:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

.V., The full quote is found on their "about" page: Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll see a section called "Peace and Understanding". Fourth paragraph down in that section you'll find it. The URL is http://www.ihr.org/main/about.shtml Camberwell 12:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for my absence. Though, in my defence, I was held at gun-point in my house last Thursday evening by burglars and only released from hospital yesterday. Anyway. Can I change the introduction/summary to more accurately reflect the agenda of the IHR? I'll take silence as a nod if no reply is given to this editorial request. Camberwell 11:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the first sentence should say 'American organisation, founded 1978,' and then the IHR's self-description, which is a very minority view of them. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked with WP:Undue weight which states" * "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them" * "...and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." This page is specifically devoted to IHR and ought therefore to reflect all their salient views. If you visit their website their front page through to the old JHR theses cover all the areas in the intro/summary I have suggested which I believe to be a true reflection of their past and contemporary agenda. My revision does not take anything away from what critics in the summary say of them; they are juxtaposed to equal weight. An encyclopaedia deals (as far as possible) with truths in as neutral a manner as possible. I cannot think of any logical reasons as to why their opinions which summarise their agenda cannot or should not be used. Camberwell 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that you miss the point of WP:Undue weight when you write "My revision does not take anything away from what critics in the summary say of them; they are juxtaposed to equal weight."[1] Even in this article, about the IHR, we are not conforming to NPOV if we give their (extreme minority) views 'equal weight' with the views of academics who have expressed an opinion of them. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Many of the topics covered by the IHR concern major news stories of interest to the majority of politicised educated middle classes across the world. The fact that some of these news stories reproduced or linked to in the IHR show Israel and Israeli Zionists in a poor light reflect the fact that much of the World also sees Israel in this way, including the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and many Human Rights groups. So to this extent the IHR provides a useful resource in that if you want to see a collection of mainstream stories showing Israel (and Jews in positions of power) in the US in a poor light, then you know where to go! Some people can't take criticism so prefer censorship to debate!

What you are suggesting is that the topics the IHR currently claim to cover are of extreme minority interest.I think my local Rabbi and a few news editors known to me at the the BBC together with a number of respected journalists, prominent writers and academics would be inclined to strongly disagree with you. Check what topics the IHR currently cover. Contrast that with old archived Journal of Historical Review theses - the JHR ceased to be in 2002 we are now in 2007. It is not for you to determine that such contemporaneous issues the IHR allude to speak of "factually" are of extreme minority interest. You may not be interested, I may not be interested, but the millions and millions of hits they get to their site suggest there is a marked public interest. Some topics they cover are fringe, others less so. Again, it matters not what I or you think of this organisation. It is, however, incumbent upon us as editors to report fairly and impartially on what the IHR organisation currently is. I miss no points. Nor do I miss the twisting of words or an intent to interpret them disingenuously. The bias in this article worries me enormously Camberwell 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

'What you are suggesting is that the topics the IHR currently claim to cover are of extreme minority interest.' I said nothing of the kind. I merely said that your proposed changes violate the NPOV policy. See also Chewbacca defense. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)

Please will you explain exactly why and how mentioning current (not ancient) IHR policies breaks NPOV?

I'm curious, Squiddy: Is it your belief as of this time that because a few people with vested interests state the IHR is "among other things, an anti-semitic "pseudo-academic body" linked to Neo-Nazi organizations and to Holocaust denial." it is?

  • How may of the old JHR papers have you actually read?
  • How great a weight of their old output is to be placed on the "among other things..." list?
  • How does the old JHR compare with current IHR editorial direction?

If you're going to describe an ongoing organisation honestly then do so...don't beat about the bush. The IHR front page has little to do with holocaust denial - References to it can be found here and there - but these are usually on matters pertaining to free speech, proposed legislation and the intervention of thought police.

  • The IHR today indulges in providing what some would describe as contentious links and occasional editorial updates. Lipstadt, the ADL etc., (cited) really need to update their facts and scrutinise their own political agendas before castings stones. I think a few people here ought to as well. I was a tad miffed you chose to side-step the issues I raised above.

I don't see how Wiki editors/arbitrators, etc., have the effrontery to call themselves such so proudly when they use terms like "scum" to describe human beings. This smacks of equally hateful intolerance of another's point of view. Opinions such as those lead to a break down of acceptance and understanding which, history tells us, invites genocide. Camberwell 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your proposed changes do not conform to NPOV, as myself and others have pointed out at excruciating length above. They have not gained consensus. If you now want to change the wording of the article to suggest that the IHR has become an organisation which campaigns for free speech you will have to provide some kind of reference (other than themselves) and propose different wording. In the meantime, I am off for a long weekend (not paid for by the International Zionists you mention above). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of confused. Camberwell's edits seem like a non-issue to me. I don't really have an opinion on it either way; they don't seem to be favoring any side (pro or anti IHR.) So I don't quite get what the NPOV issue is. I don't particularly care if it's in for that reason. Adding information about the explicitly stated stance of the IHR doesn't seem like it would be controversial in itself. I heard an "undue weight" argument, but that doesn't apply in this case; this is an article about the IHR. Can someone clarify this for me? .V. [Talk|Email] 07:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Squiddy, I trust you had a good break.... If you would kindly answer both .V. and me after reconsidering your statement:

"If you now want to change the wording of the article to suggest that the IHR has become an organisation which campaigns for free speech you will have to provide some kind of reference (other than themselves) and propose different wording."

because I'm not suggesting anything. I want the IHR article introduction changed to reflect what the IHR explicitly say of themselves and their sociopolitical agenda as of this time. Like Ms. Lipstadt I have to swallow hard and accept what some would consider uncomfortable risks of free speech. I do not have to accept anything the IHR say under the privilege of free speech; yet an encyclopaedia should openly state what it is they say of themselves which elicits such censoriousness. This way the reader is not forced to circumnavigate what looks like deliberate obfuscation from the off. As far as I can ascertain from going over and over the Wiki rules my proposed intro does not break undue weight nor NPOV guidelines. Camberwell 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting a rewording of the lead para, which gives the IHR's view of themselves more prominence than the view taken by academics in the field. The existing version is not 'deliberate obfuscation' but the cited view of reliable sources. Your suggested changes have not been met with enthusiasm, as various contributions above show. V's comment that undue weight doesn't apply here is mistaken. The article is about the IHR, and should reflect an NPOV view of the IHR. That is not the same thing as giving the IHR's point of view, because that is an extreme minority point of view. It would be 'undue weight' to start the article with the IHR's self description. Sorry to spell this out so painstakingly, but the same points have been made over and over again, above, and you keep coming back with rewordings of your view that the current lead para is not NPOV. If you want to seek help taking it further, that is your business. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
NPOV says: "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." Even if the IHR is a minority opinion about themselves, the policy is clear that we can give them as much attention as we can give them as long as we don't express it as unequivocal truth. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph says basically "they say this, their critics say that." That approach seems completely sensible to me. It's the way I'd write it myself. Wjhonson 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Squiddy,

"You are suggesting a rewording of the lead para, which gives the IHR's view of themselves more prominence than the view taken by academics in the field."

No, I am not. I am proposing it be changed to reflect a more salient and succinct appraisal of the IHR agenda as stated by itself...how do you determine that to be "more prominent" than what its critics say? What would you write that tells the reader precisely and comprehensively what the IHR is?

"The existing version is not 'deliberate obfuscation' but the cited view of reliable sources."

I was, of course, referring to the second sentence of the introduction. Please read the current intro (second sentence only at this point) and tell me that description of the IHR is from (other/or) reliable sources and describes, in a nutshell, what the sociopolitical IHR agenda currently is. The third and fourth sentences, ending the article summary, comprise opinions/quotes from IHR critics. As currently stands the critics get to say more about the IHR than the IHR get to say of themselves. That is not an editorial NPOV, it gives undue weight to the critics and represents a bad opening summary for an encyclopaedic article.

My proposal is to create a balance by changing this one vague introductory sentence: "It [the IHR] describes itself as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." Which indicates nothing "controversial" about the IHR.

With this more revealing sentence quoted from their web-site: "that publishes diverse theses from many authors which, the IHR states, speak "...factually and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more." Which indicates precisely why the IHR is "controversial".

All other aspects of the introductory summary would remain exactly as they are now.

"Your suggested changes have not been met with enthusiasm, as various contributions above show."

I do have the ears of some though thankfully not the brains of others. I do not see many obstructionist barnacles. You are the only persistently vociferous naysayer who, furthermore, refuses to answer editors pertinent questions. Let's not forget objections may possibly arise and tongues fall silent because my proposed changes are contentious (though within Wiki guidelines) and will no doubt already be misconstrued by imbeciles as anti-Semitic.

"V's comment that undue weight doesn't apply here is mistaken. The article is about the IHR, and should reflect an NPOV view of the IHR. That is not the same thing as giving the IHR's point of view, because that is an extreme minority point of view."

Wiki states minority views can be quoted if the quote pertains to the article subject. The IHR self description is the IHR self description and is perfectly valid within this article about the IHR. I really do not see how that breaks NPOV or undue weight...and why do you keep adding "extreme"? Before I discovered the IHR existed I had no point of view. That would hold true for anyone without prior knowledge. It is true to say that some people who do have prior knowledge do vocalise their criticisms of the IHR and its agenda. However, you and I have no idea as to what proportion of IHR web-site visitors regard them in a critical or positive light. How many scholars chose to use the IHR resource (archived or contemporary) for their work? Can you answer questions such as these authoritatively? You seem to be claiming you can. If you cannot then you have no right to bandy diminutives.

"It would be 'undue weight' to start the article with the IHR's self description."

As I pointed out earlier in this laborious discussion it would be far from unique to have a self description of any organisation (including the IHR) within the opening summary of said organisation. It is a very common method of introduction here on Wiki (I even gave a few precise examples). So, why these changes to the rules and abandonment of stylistic precedents when it comes to the IHR introduction?

"...your view that the current lead para is not NPOV."

Is only the beginning...it's where I began and is what caused such alarm and indignation; the whole article is seriously lacking neutrality.

You may think such obvious bias is an acceptable state for encyclopaedic articles. I do not. Camberwell 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're clearly wrong, Jpgordon, if no scholars have ever used the IHR or read JHR articles they can't authoritatively reference it. Lipstadt? How many JHR papers has she read? I was referring to scholars who may have or may do use IHR/JHR resources without cause for citation because they use it primarily for research. I have found interesting correspondence on there from Hugh Trevor Roper (for one). Do you know what is and isn't in the IHR archives that may be of some interest to historians? ( BTW, I also meant "and may choose" but that doesn’t change the premise). Camberwell 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Camberwell, as you said, " Again, it matters not what I or you think of this organisation." It matters, however, what professional historians think about the organization and its articles. In 1993 there was a debate within the Organization of American Historians about publishing or not a Call for Papers from the IHR. The OAH made clear that the ONLY disagreement among historians was on the basis of free-speech--not about the lack of scholarly quality of the IHR. In a official note from the Executive Board, they wrote explicitly: "All of us, however, agree on several important things. Our debate was never on how we evaluate the arguments of the IHR. We all ahborr, on both moral and scholarly grounds, the substantive arguments of the IHR. We all reject their claims to be taken seriously as historians. We also all agree on the importance of defending free speech, even if we do not always agree on the best way of do that." (Letters to the Editor, The Journal of American History, Vol. 80, No. 3. (Dec., 1993), pp. 1211-1215. ) There has been no change in the policy, opinion of the Organization of American Historians regarding the IHR since 1993. the only interest I can in the IHR archives for historians are for those who write on conspiracy theories and holocaust denial. And yes, Lipstadt read several of those, as did Michael Schermer--not because they were studying the holocaust, but because they were studying holocaust denial.--Ninarosa 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ninarosa, I know of the debate to which you refer. It is also already cited within this IHR article. Your comments do not alter the fact that this article is biased and lacking neutrality. As it stands, the IHR exists, has its history (to include the now defunct JHR), has its agenda and can be utilised as a resource by professional historians or laypeople of all shades for better or worse. Wiki is not the final arbiter; it should not be exploited as such. Camberwell 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Camberwell, I understand your point. What I am trying to say is that although I may agree with you that the references to connections to Neo-Nazis and the like could go to the body of the article, I think it is misleading to use the self description of the IHR in the initial paragraph. They present themselves as an organization dedicated to historical research (including in their name)--historians do not recognize them as such. A child abuser may describe himself/herself as a person interested in education of children throush self-sacrifice and estoic tolerance to beating. A physician specialized in infibulation may see himself as the defender of a pragmatic morality that helps women and families to be together. But the rest of the world would see otherwise. So the self description, particularly when contested by most observers, would be misleading in the open paragraph--if hte goal of wikipedia is to offer authoritative and reliable information. It may, however, be included in the body of the text.--Ninarosa 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear as to why it would be misleading, because it's directly and explicitly attributed. .V. [Talk|Email] 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

revisionism is not denial

it just simply is a different point of view. Keltik31 18:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


That's far too deep a concept for wiki. Revisionism is also an attempt to ensure/improve accuracy - not always welcome. If anyone wants to know what IHR is about I suggest setting aside some time and reading a few of their articles. Some are goofy but some, even if you may not like the tone, are good and accurate. Never use wiki, and particularly any editor,etc on this and similar pages as an authority on historical matters.

And definitely don't use the IHR as an authority on historical matters. It's quite hilarious that people would call this a "hit piece". Calling something ahistorical and a denial organization when that is the truth is not ad hominem, nor it is a personal attack. GreatGatsby 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing this article from a biased pov to nonbiased. Keltik31 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this claim. Holocaust "Denial" is an expression used by those seeking to paint with a broad brush. The IHR themselves does not use that phrase, rather they use perhaps the ultra-positive phrase of "Historical Review". So we, as wikipedians should seek the *middle* ground. We are not here to champion the cause of the enemies of the IHR, and we are not here to support the IHR unquestioningly either. "Revisionism" seems to me to be a middle, neutral, position. Wjhonson 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Scholars who have looked at the IHR's output, such as Richard Evans and Deborah Lipstadt, regard them as deniers, and other sources such as Channel 4 describe them as such. It is not the case that there is a spectrum of expert opinion:
Reviewers <--- Revisionists ---> Deniers
and we can take a mathematical average to get an NPOV view. "Revisionism" is not a middle, neutral, position. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are sources that call the IHR "deniers", but branding the IHR "deniers" at every turn is taking a source and representing it as fact. The most neutral wording is "revisionist", since they don't actually deny the Holocaust. That would be like saying "All these people call Howard Stern a slimebag, so we can call him a slimebag everywhere in the article about him." .V. [Talk|Email] 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's always a spectrum of opinions. If you can't find a spectrum you're not looking hard enough. Wjhonson 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the fact you refer to comes from the opinion of a source that's negative about the IHR. Objectively, they do not deny the Holocaust. At least, I've never see anything done by the IHR that says "the Holocaust didn't happen." Just because a source says it doesn't make it fact, and misrepresenting that as such would be against the neutrality policy. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


revisionism is not denial. Keltik31 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence from reliable sources that the IHR are regarded in as revisionists, rather than deniers, as Richard Evans, Deborah Lipstadt, and the sources cited in the denial section say they are. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The IHR has never actually denied the existence of the Holocaust at all to my knowledge, but some (many?) consider the minimization of the Holocaust to be a part of Holocaust denial. In fact, there are laws which state that very concept. However, when the lay person decides to read up about the topic, they're not going to know that. Of course, we know what is included by the term "Holocaust denial" and we know that some academics include Holocaust minimization or low-balling of numbers in that definition. People unfamiliar with the subject will interpret "Holocaust denial" as "Denying the Holocaust happened." We're first and foremost an encyclopedia, and using jargon such as this is unencyclopedic. It's jargon because it has a different meaning than what it literally means (or figuratively means) to most average people. An average-joe type person isn't going to know what Deborah Lipstadt means when she says holocaust denial or what Richard Evans meant when he said Holocaust denial. In all likelihood, they've never even heard those names before and they probably don't care. People come to Wikipedia looking for information; they don't want to have terms with a broad and inclusive spectrum of specialized meanings thrown at them with no explanation as to why it's in front of their face. To some, Holocaust denial can range from saying there were no gas chambers outside of Germany to outright saying the Holocaust didn't exist.
Now, there are several sources claiming the IHR is a Holocaust denial organization. However, most people are not going to know where that definition comes from. There's no footnote next to the "Holocaust denial" section that says "According to X, Y, Z, this is a Holocaust denial organization." Even if there was, it would be confusing to readers. They'd be thinking, "Who are these people? Why are they saying this? Where did they say it?" and so forth. "Holocaust denial" is, by connotative definition, extremely inclusive and absolutely subjective. Objectively, there's no way that saying (for example) there were no gas chambers outside of Germany is denying the Holocaust. From that perspective, the Holocaust certainly did occur, but differently than stated.
The only solution would be to use accurate wording. "Revisionism" is not a particularly loaded word. It has a plain definitional meaning that applies here. The main debate between the IHR and its opponents is not really about whether they're revisionists, but more about their agenda. Objectively, they are working on revision. Whether their intent is to ultimately deny the Holocaust is a different story, but to this date, they haven't come right out and said "The Holocaust never actually happened." Even if scholars use a particular jargon term for the IHR, we need to be clear and direct in the definition. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think your analysis of the problematic usage of "denial" is fair and accurate. Thank you for expressing it in such a clear manner. Wjhonson 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


could you imagine as much hoopla if someone or a group said that 9/11 didnt happen? or if someone said that slavery in america didnt happen? but in germany, france and austria if you question the "official" story of gassings and such in the camps you are thrown in jail with theives and child molestors. god bless america. Keltik31 14:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my concern is 99% the clarity issue. I see no benefit to calling it a term which the majority of readers will misunderstand. If there was some greater good being served by using that term in the headers, I suppose it wouldn't be a problem, but I see none. I suppose I just don't understand "why not". .V. [Talk|Email] 18:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't denial Jpgordon. Denial would be "it didn't happen". Not partially, not somewhat, not as-bad-as-they-are-saying, just "it didn't". Can you point to some place where the IHR says, no one was killed, no Jews were killed by the Nazis? Wjhonson 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what IHR says. It matters what reliable sources say. IHR, being dedicated to falsehood, is going to promulgate falsehood -- that's what makes them an unreliable source, even about their own positions. Further, Holocaust denial does not mean anyone says "no Jews were killed". What gives you that idea? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does matter what each side says. Extremists in the opposite side are no more reliable as sources than the IHR. The fact that we have an article about Holocause denial, does not hold weight in the argument about whether this subhead should use the word denial or revisionism. Wikipedia is not a source for itself, you know this. Wjhonson 18:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You're confused. "Extremists" are the only ones who would fight to use the term "holocaust revisionism"; common scholarly practice, entirely middle of the road and not by "extremists", is to refer to IHR and other falsehood-propagators as "holocaust deniers". Wikipedia uses generally accepted scholarly and academic terms when possible; and "denier" is that term in this instance. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be too unusual to have a footnote explaining what denial is understood to mean in this context? I think it would be appropriate, given that denial is used here in a way that's contrary to its standard use. You must admit, the average reader will read denial and think there's an outright denial of all Holocaust events. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That's kinda what wikilinks are for. Interested readers will click on Holocaust denial and learn what it means. For example, I've never encountered anyone, online or elsewhere, who thought "Holocaust denial" means an outright denial of all Holocaust events. Have you? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think just having a wikilink is not enough to explain to people that this is a non-standard term. As for who thinks that, I've never actually asked. It would be logical to think, though, that someone would read "denial" and understand it as the dictionary definition of denial. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that's exactly what wikilinks are for -- and this isn't a non-standard term. We also don't put a footnote every time "antisemitism" is used to explain to those who might be confused that no, it does not mean "opposition to all people whose ancestry includes speakers of semitic languages". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust deniers can call themselves Holocaust potatoes if they wish, but they are still deniers, and not potatoes, and it would be a disservice to our users to pretend otherwise. Gzuckier 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A Holocaust denier is someone who denies a significant amount of the historical evidence known collectively as "the Holocaust." I don't think any Holocaust denier denies that none of it ever happened (i.e. that there was no such person as Hitler, the European Jewish population did not significantly decrease after World War II, the Nazis never used any anti-Semitic rhetoric, etc.). --GHcool 21:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The word is contentious and in dispute. Making no attempt to arrive at any sort of compromise position is not going well. Perhaps another approach might be productive. Wjhonson 08:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you take the approach of providing some evidence, from reliable sources, that the IHR are regarded as revisionists, rather than deniers? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, in “Denying History: who says the Holocaust never happened and why do they say it?” (Berkeley/Los Angeles, London, University of California Press, 2000), have a “Note on Terminology: Why Holocaust “Revisionists” are Really Deniers”, pg xv. They wrote they have given this matter considerable thought “and even considered other terms, such as ‘minimalizers’—but decided that ‘deniers’ is the most accurate and descriptive term for several reasons”: 1) “so-called Holocaust revisionists are in effect denying the Holocaust, since they deny its three key components—the killing of six million, gas chambers, and intentionality…2) Historians are the ones who should be described as revisionists. To receive a Ph.D. and become a professional historian, one must write an original work with research based on primary documents and new sources, reexamining or reinterpreting some historical events—in other words, revising knowledge about that event only. This is not to say, however, that revision is done for revision’s sake; it is done when new evidence or new interpretations call for a revision. 3. Historians have revised and continue to revise what we know about the Holocaust. But their revision entails refinement of detailed knowledge about events, rarely complete denial of the events themselves, and certainly not denial of the accumulation of events known as the Holocaust”…. Thus, in this book, “Holocaust denial” is a descriptive term that allows for clear and accurate communication about who is being discussed.”
Regarding specifically the Institute for Historical review, from its foundation by Willis Carto, it points out to holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. It is not only its critics that say it has connections with new Nazi groups. Mark Weber described the American Mercury, another Carto’s magazine as “ultra-conservative and mildly anti-Jewish”. Weber himself was once the news editor of the National Vanguard, from the neo-Nazi organization National Alliance. Carto’s Popular Party ran former KKK leader David Duke for president in 1988. This is NOT only the word of critics. David Cole (another former denier) also said that that after the break with Carto, “to keep the IHR in the black they have had to cater to the far right. … There are a lot of elderly people with money saved or with social security checks, who want to spend the last years of their life fighting the Jews. Bradley [Smith] can get checks for 45,000, $7,000, $3,000. … There is lot of money to be made by getting a really good ideological mailing list and the IHR has one that caters mainly to people of the far right.” (Shermer and Grobman, 47)--Ninarosa 18:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And not everyone agrees with that viewpoint. Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make people agree. Wjhonson 07:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You have yet to provide a reliable source which says that the IHR engage in revision rather than denial. The section whose header we are discussing is about their denial activity, using quotes from people other than random wikipedians. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think "Holocaust Denial" is already a compromise--I could think of stronger words. But let me suggest another title: how about leaving the question in the section title? Instead of neither Denial or Revisionism, the section title could be "Holocaust Denial or Historical Revisionism?" In this case, however, I will want to be sure that the section explains that a) historical revisionism is not a neutral term but a descriptive concept for an academic type of inquire with peer-review analysis, which is NOT what the IHR does, and b) that Holocaust Denial does not need to refute the death of every single Jew to be characterized as Holocaust Denial-but as long as it denies the key elements that constitute what we understand for Holocaust, it can be defined as Holocaust Denial. (By the way, the sentence by Mark Weber in Paul Raber's quotation is so typical of Holocaust Deniers! "But if one says that the 'Holocaust' means the systematic extermination of six to eight millions Jews in concentration camps, that's what we think there's not evidence for!" Of course! Nobody says that six to eight million Jews died in concentration camps! The state of current research is that five to seven million Jews died in concentration camps AND in ghettoes, open air shootings, death marches, etc. It is this kind of intellectual dishonesty that really bothers me.--End of ranting--).--Ninarosa 04:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Holocaust denial is not and never will be historical revisionism. A heading such as this one would be like having a heading for Earth titled "Flat or Spherical?" --GHcool 05:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh. Yes, you are right. Bad idea, sorry.--Ninarosa 07:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced some of the weasel-wording pretending it was only the ADL which "accused" the IHR of Holocaust denial with some cited fact instead. There's plenty more where that came from, if you want it. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument is not convincing. Wjhonson 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Both sides have a compelling argument. On one hand, "Revisionism" is probably the most accurate word when it comes to objective definition. However, it has been claimed that "denial" is used more (I'd be hesitant to make such a claim in full, given that all the sources cited are critics.) On the other hand, many do in fact call it "denial." The problem is, both terms could apply; it is revisionism, but that revisionism is called denial due to a fairly broad (yet often accepted) definition of denial in this particular case. Revisionism and denial are not mutually exclusive. For example, in the course of the revision of history, if an author believes the Holocaust never happened, this would be both revisionist history and Holocaust denial. Because of this, edit warring is certainly not going to be a solution here, so the only logical step would be to describe the actions of the IHR in a neutral fashion without saying "denial" or "revisionism"; the reader can analyze the text and decide. That's why I proposed the subject header entitled "Editorials regarding the Holocaust". It seems to me like the most neutral way to describe that section without getting into editorializing. .V. [Talk|Email] 14:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Calling it what it is universally called by scholars and other authorities is not editorializing; it's properly using reliable sources. What's "editorializing" is whitewashing the propagation of lies with neutral-sounding terms. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Denying something happened, i.e. the holocaust, will automatically include denying that you are denying it, so the self-serving statements of the denialists aren't evidence so much as symptoms. Gzuckier 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's editorializing when it's in a section header and therefore uncited. I'm not sure what the opposition is to my title rename. Why must it read "Denial" when it could be talking precisely about the actions which the IHR takes that create the judgment of denial? .V. [Talk|Email] 17:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you just answered your own question. "Why must it read 'Denial' when it could be talking precisely about the actions which the IHR takes that create the judgment of denial?" If its IHR's actions create the judgement of denial, than it would necessarily follow that the subsection's title must read "Denial." --GHcool 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I already stated that it would be improper to have such a judgment in a header as it would be uncited. As I said before, what's the problem with just calling the section the action by which the IHR is being judged? That way, we don't have to worry about which term we call it (at least in the header, anyway.) It seems like a neutral solution that would avoid this entire argument. I am unsure as to why we absolutely must have "denial" in the name of that section. It seems very uncompromising to have it as such. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's better to describe things by what they are than by deliberately misleading euphemisms. Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You should know by now that there is no such thing as "what they are". Truth is subjective. Wikipedia is not about "Truth" with a capital "T". Deliberately branding the organization with a label which they deny, and which is perjorative is one thing. Trying to force all editors to editorially agree to that subjective term as a sub-heading is an entirely additional and unneccessary step. I'm sure you can figure out *some* way to propose a compromise solution. Wjhonson 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not about 'Truth', its about what is reported in reliable, verifiable sources. That is why I keep asking you to provide evidence that some scholar of the Holocaust regards the IHR as a body of serious revisionist scholars. You have ignored this request so far, preferring to edit-war, for reasons which elude me. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bumping into this page, I was rather disappointed. I've just tried to neutralize some language in the second section in a way that seems far more NPOV. I don't necessarily see a reason to use "revisionism" or "denial" exclusively, as both have been used extensively in the discussion here. Veritek83 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was very similar to mine. Mine was instantly reverted as well... anyway, I agree with you entirely. I see no reason to use either term. .V. [Talk|Email] 00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

JPGordon, I'd like you to specifically identify what you think was wrong with my edit. By changing the section header, does that mean that people coming to this page won't realize that Holocaust denial is what the IHR is doing? By moving sentences around, do you really think we run the risk that people will be confused about the nature of the IHR? Or were you just reverting out of habit, because you saw one less use of the word "denial" and didn't actually look at what the edit was? Veritek83 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We're just describing what they do, as outlined by numerous reliable sources. That's what we're supposed to do. Euphemisms and roundabout prose are not required. Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how saying "Editorials regarding the Holocaust" or "Editorials about the Holocaust" or something along those lines is roundabout prose. In fact, it's as direct as can possibly be; the section is about the IHR's writings regarding the Holocaust. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Which are pretty much the definition of holocaust denial. There's no reason to whitewash it except for discomfort with the accuracy of the label. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Saying "Editorials regarding the Holocaust" is more accurate than saying what's "pretty much" correct. In fact, saying "Editorials regarding the Holocaust" is exact and informative, unlike the vague and specialized "Holocaust denial". It seems like the only reason given to keep "denial" as the subject header is to prevent "whitewash", but I'm not sure what's being whitewashed here. Granted, it's not using the often-pejorative term "Holocaust denial", but that is not an endorsement of the IHR's actions. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the accuracy of the material in the encyclopedia than anything else? Do we want an accurate encyclopedia or a "pretty much" accurate encyclopedia? .V. [Talk|Email] 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
None of the sources refer to "Editorials regarding the Holocaust"; where did you get that from? Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Because they are editorials which are in regards to the Holocaust? .V. [Talk|Email] 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Organizing Holocaust denial conferences, publishing pseudo-scientific papers, those are all "editorials"? Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case, the changes proposed by Veritek would be acceptable. .V. [Talk|Email] 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the action that they are criticized for and the criticism of that action. We should represent the first as fact, not the second. .V. [Talk|Email] 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thus, if the action that they are criticized for is Holocaust denial, then we should represent that as fact. Its almost comical that no matter how many times .V. rephrase his/her argument, its logic always seems to point in the opposite direction of which he intended. --GHcool 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
GHCool, perhaps you would be wise to review WP:NPOV. Might I direct your attention to the section entitled "Let the facts speak for themselves". The idea that the facts should speak for themselves runs contrary to your argument, and thus, contrary to policy. Reliable sources may claim the IHR is a Holocaust denial organization, but keep in mind that a reliable source is a source. Headers, by their nature, are unsourced. Instead, the header should describe (without labels) the actions of the IHR which merit the label.
I believe I can explain the confusion you're having regarding this topic. The IHR does an action (has a conference, publishes something, etc.) Then, a reader interprets it and judges it to be Holocaust denial or revisionism or whatever they happen to judge it as. The problem comes in the interpretation. While I'm certain many of the sources which call it denial are reliable, that still cannot be taken as immutable fact. Contrariwise, there is no dispute over the IHR's actions as actions; that is, if the IHR holds a conference, nobody disputes that they held a conference. That's why entitling the section "Stance on the Holocaust" (or something similar) is both more accurate and more neutral. It's more accurate because it directly informs the reader as to the most basic nature of the IHR's actions. It's more neutral because there are no judgments, whether those judgments be "reliable" or otherwise. It simply provides the simplest explanation of the IHR's actions; that is, this is their stance on the Holocaust. The place for judgments like "Holocaust denial" come in the body of the text, not in the header. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The section isn't about its conferences, it's about IHR's Holocaust denial, and denial of same. The topic is Holocaust denial, so the heading reflects that. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Conferences are but one example. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Good encyclopedias reflect facts, and the simple fact is: if you "revise" the scope of the Holocaust, you are a denier, even if you try to hide it behind misleading names and misleading arguments. "Reliable sources may claim the IHR is a Holocaust denial organization, but keep in mind that a reliable source is a source. " - typical wikilawyering nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you've missed my point entirely. You say it's a "simple fact", but the simplest of facts are those that need not be defined. Why do we need to worry about leading or misleading when we can simply state a neutral summary of the IHR's actions in a header? That would be the simplest way to put it, and by far, the most factual. As for your other comment... it's really nonsense that you would call that Wikilawyering. It's a "simple fact" that a source is a source and as headers are inherently unsourced, those type of comments should belong in the body of an article. I find it hard to believe that people would disagree with that. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a simple fact that everybody here seems to understand except .V. That fact is that Holocaust denial is not a POV term in and of itself (the way that, "terrorism," for example, is a POV term). "Holocaust denial" is the perfect subject heading because IHR participates in Holocaust denial by the definition of the word. No "interpretation" is needed. The sources reflect this. I understand .V.'s argument, but there is a serious logical flaw in it that is obvious to everyone else except him/her. This is the gist of his/her argument:
(1) Holocaust denial is, by definition, is denial of the reliability (in part or in whole) of the overwhelming evidence that together make up a event in history commonly referred to as the Holocaust.
(2) Reliable sources claim that IHR actively participates in Holocaust denial (as defined in Premise #1).
(3) Wikipedia's NPOV policy dictates that articles should be written in such a way that the facts speak for themselves and allow the reader to determine controversial labels for him/herself.
Therefore, (4) We should not call IHR a group that engages in Holocaust denial on Wikipedia.
Now, consider this counterargument:
(1) Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations are, by definition, the denial of the reliability of the overwhelming evidecne that together make the event in history commonly referred to as the Apollo 11 mission (the first moon landing by a human).
(2) Reliable sources claim that Bill Kaysing actively participates in Apollo moon landing hoax accusations (as defined in Premise #1).
(3) Wikipedia's NPOV policy dictates that articles should be written in such a way that the facts speak for themselves and allow the reader to determine controversial labels for him/herself.
Therefore, (4) We should not call Bill Kaysing a person that engages in Apollo moon landing hoax accusations on Wikipedia. --GHcool 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Edited the conclusions to both argument and counterargument for qualification. --GHcool 04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, I'm not the only person who thinks this way. There are at least 2 others. Anyway, what you presented above was not my argument at all, rather some sort of straw man. The straw man element comes in element 4. I never say (nor have I said) that the IHR shouldn't be called a Holocaust denial organization at all. In fact, my argument has nothing to do with whether the IHR are deniers or not, so please don't make it out to be such. I'm saying the section entitled "Holocaust Denial" should not be called that for several reasons I outlined above; one of several reasons is that while reliable sources claim the IHR is a denial organization, headers are naturally unsourced. As a result, the header should be named for the action that the IHR does, not the interpretation of that action. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the straw man in #4. You simply repeated the same weak argument you've been saying this whole time. The action of denying at least part of the Holocaust and the interpretation of that action as Holocaust denial is not original research nor is it POV. It is stating an undeniable fact with ample sources. By the logic of your argument, the action of accusing that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax is different than the "subjective interpretation" of that action as an Apollo moon landing hoax accusation. --GHcool 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I just explained it. You left out key words: "In the header." You claim that my argument is that I don't think the IHR should be called Holocaust deniers on Wikipedia, but that's not at all what I said. As you say, there are ample sources. But answer me this; does a header have footnotes? .V. [Talk|Email] 04:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
A header should not have footnotes, but a header should accurately and succinctly summarize the contents of a section in roughly 4 words or less. The single most accurate and succinct way to summarize the contents of the disputed section is "Holocaust denial." Something along the lines of "Holocaust revisionism" would be succinct, but not accurate. Something along the lines of "All reliable sources say that IHR engages in Holocaust denial even though IHR's supporters object to that name because of its negative connotation" would be accurate, but not succinct. In my opinion, and the opinion of almost everyone else here, the sole phrase that satisfies both the accuracy requirement and the succinct requirement of headings is "Holocaust denial."
Again, by your logic, the article title of Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations is not fair because it doesn't have a citation to a source saying that the subjects discussed in the article are indeed cases of accuasations of the Apollo 11 moon landing being a hoax. You know what, .V.? From now on, every time you feel the need to argue about this, I recommend applying your same argument to the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations and accusers yourself and seeing if it makes sense to you. If it doesn't make sense to you, it certainly won't make sense to anybody else when the argument is applied to IHR. Perhaps then we won't have to perform The Argument Sketch. --GHcool 06:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
GHCool, I've been using logic to further my point here. It's frustrating when a response to a logical post consists of nothing more than an insistence that the post was wrong. Additionally, you've repeatedly misrepresented my statements and then wrote your response to answer those misinterpretations. I sincerely hope it's only due to a misunderstanding of my position rather than an intentional attempt to create a straw man. I believe you'll find that nowhere have I claimed anything about article titles, as you have asserted in the first sentence of your post. In fact, my argument has nothing to do with that (I'm talking about section headers), so I'm rather confused as to where you're getting this. Section headers are different than titles, so it would be rather inappropriate to go off about titles when that's not the issue at hand.
I think the misunderstanding here comes in the definition of judgment. You seem to think that because the IHR's actions fit the label of "Holocaust denial", then no judgment is required. However, the actions are being checked against the definition; and thus a judgment is being made. How can that judgment possibly be more accurate than describing the actions of the IHR itself? It can't, by definition. .V. [Talk|Email] 13:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, article titles and section titles have virtually identical naming rules when NPOV, OR, and RS is concerned. Secondly, actions that fit an NPOV dictionary definition and then labeling those actions in accordance with that definition is not a case of OR or POV. Again, your argument does not hold water when applied to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. Would it be a subjective judgement to label Bill Kaysing's action of accusing the at least part of the Apollo moon landing to be a hoax as a case of an Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusation? Certainly not. Therefore, it would certainly not be a subjective judgement to label IHR's action of denying the at least part of the Holocaust to be a case of Holocaust denial. I am not using straw man tactics. The logic of your argument simply does not work. I urge you to either stop arguing using this logic because you will be wrong every single time you try, or, alternatively, think of an argument that works in the context of Holocaust denial as well as Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. --GHcool 17:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it strange that you keep bringing up the Moon Landing hoax accusations article. This is for several reasons. Not to mention the fact that this is an article that has nothing to do with the Apollo landing, but your analogy is flawed in several ways. For one, the proponents of that hoax theory call the Apollo moon landing a hoax. The IHR does not call themselves a denial organization. That's flaw number one; where the header/title originates from is different in both cases (in the apollo case, the proponents created it. In the IHR case, the critics created it). Flaw number two is that the hoax accusations, therefore, are hoax accusations; they are, literally, people saying "This is a hoax." The IHR does not stand up and say "We deny the Holocaust." Because of this, calling the section "Holocaust denial" is not akin to the Apollo article. This is because in the Apollo article, it's stated as simple as possible; that is, describing the literal actions of that group. Conversely, the IHR's actions are interpreted as "Holocaust denial." As for any statements by Bill Kaysing... well, I'm not that familiar on the subject. However, if he's saying part of it was a hoax, that's still a hoax allegation.
The logic of my argument simply doesn't work... if it's the logic that you make it out to be. Of course I'd be wrong every time, if you change what I say every time. Your example (the Apollo Landing Hoax Accusation article) doesn't even run parallel to this article as I explained above, so I'd suggest you get a different one. Perhaps that's why you think my logic doesn't work; you're trying to apply the logic here to a wholly different case. Try applying my logic to this article, and I think you'll see the difference. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I accept your premise that Holocaust denial is a word used by critics whereas hoax accusation is a word used by both critics and proponents of the Apollo hoax conspiracy theory. I do not, however, accept your implied conclusion that the two concepts (denying at least part of a well documented and internationally recognized historical event) are different enough to justify changing the heading drastically. At best, one could argue that the heading should be "Accusations of Holocaust denial" rather than simply "Holocaust denial," but I (and I assume other Wikipedians) would prefer simply "Holocaust denial" because it is more succinct and because they actually do engage in Holocaust denial independently of whether or not critics accuse them of Holocaust denial. --GHcool 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be fine with "Accusations of Holocaust Denial." This is because there are two kinds of fact: simple fact and complex fact. It's a simple fact that they write editorials, hold conferences, and so forth. It's a complex fact to take a particular term ("Holocaust Denial") and then check that definition against the actions. One problem Wikipedia has is the transformation of complex fact into simple fact, and this is one of those cases. That's basically what the NPOV policy is all about; the clear deliniation of commentary, the separation between what someone does and what people think of it. When nothing is cited, like in a header, it's Wikipedia speaking. As a result, that header should rely on the most basic of facts; that is, the formal actions of a group, without applying any interpretation to those actions. Perhaps the IHR's actions really are the actions of a Holocaust denial group, but that doesn't matter at all. Only the actions themselves - without interpretation - belong here in this header in this case. Of course, the section is free to go into the summary and interpretation of the IHR's actions at length (and it should.)
"Accusations of Holocaust Denial" is a simple fact as well as "Stance on the Holocaust". There are accusations, and they consist of claims of Holocaust Denial. It's all very literal. It's also pretty succint in itself. Saying "Holocaust Denial" may be shorter in word count, but longer on vagueness. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"Holocaust denial" is a simple fact. It's what they do. The complicated fact is that they don't like their work being called that, and that some people disagree with the terminology. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Its even more simple than that because nobody (at least no reliable sources) disagrees with the terminology. --GHcool 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's rather disappointing that you disregarded my entire post. I explained clearly why entitling the section "holocaust denial" is not a simple fact. As a response I get the same reply, practically copy/pasted from earlier. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. How about, "Your argument is not at all persuasive"?" --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Care to back that up? If the discussion is simply going to be baseless assertions of opinion, I don't really see a reason to participate in it. .V. [Talk|Email] 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Then don't. --GHcool 05:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's rather disappointing. It would be nice if there was actual discussion taking place. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Snide and snotty doesn't win the day. I find the argument persuasive obviously. And I'm not going anywhere. So I would suggest that we attempt to find a compromise solution. I cannot see any alternative to that. It's the way wikipedia works or is supposed to work. The way it is not supposed to work is to beat up on any dissenting voice. Wjhonson 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, for the Nth time, would you provide a ref to a professional historian who says that the IHR are not deniers, but revisionists. Why do you ignore this request? Your case would be stronger if you addressed it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by citing reliable sources and by consensus. Both agree that the issue with IHR is Holocaust denial. Please accept this gracefully and move on. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As said above, headers are not cited. When something isn't cited, it's Wikipedia talking and not a specific writer or author or whatever. As a result, even if we use what "reliable" sources say, this would be taking a stand. Even if plenty of scholars agree with that stand, it's still not cited and instead, a neutral assessment of the facts should be given (e.g. "Stance on the Holocaust.") Wikipedia's policy isn't "Say it now and cite it later." I'm not sure where you get that this idea is against consensus. By a rough count, there seem to be as many users here in favor of changing it as there are in favor of keeping it. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
.V.'s argument has long been disproven and its repetition has become tiresome a long time ago. For the Nth time, see Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations for precedent. "Stance on the Holocaust" doesn't work because it suggests more than one valid approach to the question "Did the Holocaust happen as the historical evidence discovered and publicized by the international community indicates?" If I were to say that 2+2=5, this would be a case of distorition and not a case of a "stance on addition" different from most people's "stance." As for the claim that "By a rough count, there seem to be as many users here in favor of changing it as there are in favor of keeping it," here are the facts:
The users that think "revisionism" or some other weasel word should be used in the headline are: Keltik31, Wjhonson, .V., and Veritek83. That's four users.
The users that think "denial" is the one and only word appropriate for the heading are: GreatGatsby, Squiddy, jpgordon, Gzuckier, myself (GHcool), Ninarosa, Jayjg, and Humus sapiens. By my own rough count, that's eight users, or double the number of users that are in favor of chaning the the heading. Feel free to deny or "revise" these empiricle statistics if it doesn't suit your argument. --GHcool 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work based on vote counting, for starters. Secondly, your arithmetic analogy is invalid logically, as arithmetic is a self-defined, internally consistent (to a degree) system. The reason that 2 + 2 = 4, follows from the initial conditions of the set. That is not the case here. Here we have editorial opinions battling each other. Wjhonson 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Er... by "it suggests more than one valid approach to the question" you're basically saying that because it doesn't say that the IHR is wrong, it shouldn't be allowed. WP:NPOV clearly states: "We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible." Your reason for inclusion is the complete opposite of policy. Also, you imply that we should only say "Stance" when it's the majority stance, which is puzzling to say the least. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, you should probably review what Wikipedia considers a weasel word. I don't see "Revisionism" anywhere on the list. BTW, Veritek and I want it to read "Stance on the Holocaust." Our change doesn't say "Revisionism" anywhere. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you are saying that there are two "stances" one can have on the overwhelming evidence for the historiocity of the Holocaust (that it exists or that it doesn't exist) and that both viewpoints should be given equal weight. If that's what you are saying and that is what you believe, then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree and keep the article as it stands because your opinion is only verified by radical anti-Semitic sources that have no historical reliability or validity. --GHcool 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You oppose the idea that "both viewpoints should be given equal weight." But policy says "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." The policy says this may not apply to "tiny minority views", except on the pages dedicated to those views. This is such a page. You're arguing for the ability to write in a POV, but that's definitely and clearly against policy. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not a "page dedicated to those views". This is a page about an organization dedicated to those views. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing yourself. The IHR has never said that persecution of the Jews did not happen. So saying "the Holocaust did or did not occur" is a great red herring. "Revisionism" is not saying "*it* didn't occur", it's more akin to saying "We should be allowed to investigate the sources in more detail". The word "Revisionism" is used in the context of something like "it wasn't as bad as portrayed", not in the sense of "nothing happened at all". Can we please stay on-topic? Extreme arguments hold no sway whatsoever. Wjhonson 03:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to read that section again; these is the "Humpty Dumpty" word games referred to, where IHR says "we don't deny the Holocaust happened, we just mean something completely different by the word Holocaust". Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Taking one quote out of context doesn't help the argument. One reviewers opinion doesn't discredit all the rest of the evidence. Butz himself states in his books that "hundreds of thousands" of Jews died. The main contention is whether it was 6 million or far less. That is not denial. Denial would be "no one died, no one was harmed". Extreme viewpoints on the extremists have no place in an encyclopedia. We are supposed to be striving for balance here. Wjhonson 19:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"Out of context"? This is exactly the context in which is was made. As for your point about Butz saying "hundreds of thousands of Jews died", did you bother reading Richard J. Evans point in that section? I'll repeat it here:

Like many individual Holocaust deniers, the Institute as a body denied that is was involved in Holocaust denial. It called this a 'smear' which was 'completely at variance with the facts' because 'revisionist scholars' such as Faurisson, Butz 'and bestselling British historian David Irving acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed and otherwise perished during the Second World War as a direct and indirect result of the harsh anti-Jewish policies of Germany and its allies'. But the concession that a relatively small number of Jews were killed was routinely used by Holocaust deniers to distract attention from the far more important fact of their refusal to admit that the figure ran into the millions, and that a large proportion of these victims were systematically murdered by gassing as well as by shooting.

Saying "hundreds of thousands died" is Holocaust denial, because the Holocaust is about many millions of Jews being deliberately killed by gassing and other methods, not hundreds of thousands dying because of difficult conditions, disease, "well, there was a war on, after all". Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm baffled by such statements as "Denial would be 'no one died, no one was harmed'." That's not what "Holocaust denial" means, even if it's what "denial" might mean. This is the same sort of specious argument that doesn't want the term "antisemitism" used to mean hatred of Jews because Arabs are semites too. It doesn't matter what "denial" by itself means; the phrase "Holocaust denial" is the generally accepted term for the practices of this organization, and there's no reason not to use it. Assume our readers are not blithering idiots. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason not to use it, is because it's not the "generally accepted term". It the term accepted by those who seek to polerize the argument by painting with a broad brush. Wikipedians should not be putting themselves in that category by repeating that fallacy. As to Jayjg's point that saying hundreds of thousands died is Holocaust denial, no. Your mere opinion that that represents Holocaust denial is not sufficient to carry the weight that it does in fact represent Holocaust denial. I'm sure you have been an wikipedian long enough to know this. Wjhonson 07:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not my "mere opinion". Please see the section "What is Holocaust Denial" below. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You are simply wrong about this. 'Holocaust denial' includes denying Hitler's personal responsibility, denying that there was a deliberate attempt at extermination, minimising numbers killed, and attributing the deaths solely to typhus/malnutrition, and that is the sense in which historians who talk about the IHR & co. use the phrase. Defining it as 'no one died, no one was harmed' is a strawman position no-one actually holds. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It baffles me that we must put a judgment in the header. It makes me wonder as to why there's some imperative to have "Holocaust Denial" put in the subject header, especially given the complex and specialized nature of the term. As Squiddy stated above, Holocaust denial includes quite a few very specific elements. GHcool has already stated that his reason for inclusion is so that the article won't suggest "more than one valid approach" to the issue of Holocaust denial.[[2]] This is a grave contradiction to our neutrality policy. A compromise would be to title the section in a way that makes no judgments, e.g. "Stance on the Holocaust." As we've seen, though, some editors are arguing for the inclusion of this judgment so that there cannot be "more than one valid approach" and make no attempt to hide such a goal. (Compare with the policy given in WP:NPOV: "We should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.")
Regardless of all that, though, there are policies other than the neutrality policy that contradicts the inclusion of the "Holocaust denial" header. Take, for example, WP:CITE. "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." This material is challenged, is it not? And headers are uncited, are they not? There's been great care taken to establish that historians use the term Holocaust denial in this manner, but unless there is a source provided, it fails WP:CITE. (Note that one of my compromise attempts was to include a footnote which cited this, but it was reverted on sight.) Given that it's a header... well, that's obvious. So far I've seen no policy that backs up the inclusion of this phrase in a header, only several policies that exclude it. .V. [Talk|Email] 16:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation of the NPOV policy was wrong before, is still wrong now, and will always be wrong forever and ever. If you are curious as to why it is wrong, I recommend reading the arguments above that explained it. As for your newest pathetic argument by using WP:CITE, your logic once again folds back upon itself. The header accurately and succinctly summarizes the contents of the section and the contents of the section abides by NPOV, RS, NOR, and especially CITE. If someone wishes to challenge the header (i.e. claim that Holocaust denial is an inappropriate header), what one must do is challenge all of the facts in the contents that yield that header. Therefore, I recommend that instead of challenging the header, .V. and others might get their way easier if they challenge the information in the contents. The question is if they are ready to take that next step by offering proof from reliabile sources that challenge the assertion that IHR engages in Holocaust denial. We are waiting for a real challenge, not for more pathetic, poor, and illogical rhetorical word games. But so far there has been no serious challenge to the header. --GHcool 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You are claiming that this complies with NPOV and WP:CITE, yet you give no reasoning. Can you please say why? If it's been explained before, then provide diffs. (Ah, and by the way, please try to stay civil. Calling other people's posts "pathetic" is really frowned upon.).V. [Talk|Email] 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There is some reasoning presented above, if you read closely. Experts on the subject (professional historians) regard the IHR's activity as 'Holocaust denial'. No-one wishing to retitle the section 'Holocaust revisionism' has provided any expert sources which say differently. There is therefore no reason to title their activity as 'revisionism', which would take a POV stance, compared to what they actually are, according to various expert sources. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we title it "Revisionism". In fact, I don't want any stance in the header. I would like it to read "Stance on the Holocaust", so that the reader can interpret and judge for themselves. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't call .V.'s post pathetic. I called his argument pathetic. A debate (such as this one, which, by all reasonable standards, my side has already won) relies on the evaluation of arguments. .V.'s arguments have been pathetic and becoming increasingly so. I have never met .V. and therefore I have no opinion about him personally, but I have read and considered his arguments and can say with full certainty that they fit the description of "pathetic." --GHcool 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It annoys to keep having to ask this, but... can you actually provide substance to your arguments? In both this post and your last one, you've claimed that you are correct yet there is no justification in either. This is especially troubling considering that I asked you to explain this in your last post, yet you have not. Why is this? .V. [Talk|Email] 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like to see the arguments behind the conclusion I came to in my last two posts (that "Holocaust denial" is the correct heading and that all opposing arguments have so far been pathetic), feel free to re-read this entire talk page section. --GHcool 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Diffs trump blind insistence any day. .V. [Talk|Email] 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:KETTLE. --GHcool 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see any diffs to the arguments to which you refer, nor do I see the justification I asked for several posts ago. This is kind of tiresome. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Raber

I think the change in the quote is not correct. Paul Raber and Paul Rauber are two different people. I will try to find independent corroboration of hte quote.--Ninarosa 06:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's correct. Paul Rauber was a columnist at the East Bay Express for around 10 years, and he's the one who said it: [3] [4] Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then. Thanks for the explanation.--Ninarosa 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is Holocaust Denial?

Holocaust denial is not the claim that no Jews were killed, but rather:

  • "Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term "Holocaust denial." Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." (Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition, The Holocaust History Project, July 2, 2004. Retrieved Dec 18, 2006).
What an odd use of language for an allegedly scholarly work. "... they dispute the intentionality of such murders"? Murder is intentional by definition. Perhaps what is meant is "... dispute the genocidal intention of such murders".
"... supposed deservedness of these killings". Deservedness?! Who ever suggested that?
Nevertheless this quote and the following one do make the point clearly that the term "Holocaust denial" is a (purposeful?) misrepresentation.

89.242.96.251 (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • "In part III we directly address the three major foundations upon which Holocaust denial rests, including... the claim that gas chambers and crematoria were used not for mass extermination but rather for delousing clothing and disposing of people who died of disease and overwork; ... the claim that the six million figure is an exaggeration by an order of magnitude - that about six hundred thousand, not six million, died at the hands of the Nazis; ... the claim that there was no intention on the part of the Nazis to exterminate European Jewry and that the Holocaust was nothing more than the unfortunate by-produce of the vicissitudes of war." Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman. Denying History: : who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and why Do They Say It?, University of California Press, 2000, ISBN 0520234693, p. 3.

Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you drop your fixation on that 3 questions? Revisionists just have another definition of the Holocaust. There are many definitions of it. ADL, for example, define it like "industialized mass murder of 6,000,000 Jewish men, women and children" (I can find a link if you like). If we accept this definition, then all historians (both mainsteam and revisionists) can be called "deniers". Because nobody of them accept that 6,000,000 of Jews were industrially killed (in gas chambers). No one of historians says that were more then 3,000,000 of gassed Jews. So IHR are exactly revisionists. --Igor "the Otter" 16:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What is Holocaust denial? It is an artificial term, invented in 70ths of 20th century to justify suppression of free speech. --Igor "the Otter" 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


This argument about whether or not to call them "Holocaust deniers" here, is completely ridiculous. Why is that not a neutral statement? They deny the Holocaust happened therefore unarguably they are, by definition, Holocaust deniers. If they don't want to be called such then there is only one thing they can do; stop denying. "Revisionism" is simply a euphenism. Call it what it is. The concept doesn't offend them, so why does the acurate description of it bother them? Simply because it is an acurate description. Their whole principle depends on dishonesty and distorting truth.212.84.122.28 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations for being wrong in almost every respect! There is indeed a large and substantive difference between "Holocaust denial" and "Holocaust revisionism", even if you're unaware of it. And yes -- "they" often ARE offended if you use one term to apply to the other. "The Holocaust", as a supposedly accurately described phenomenon, is a product of the 1970s; the term had not been used to refer to the treatment of Jews in WWII before then. It very quickly became something that, although the details were unclear, was sacrosanct and unquestionable. Well, that's not the way that history works. There are legitimate questions about death tolls, death causes, intent, chain of command, etc., that have NEVER been satisfactorily settled. Did the Nazis intend to "get rid of the Jews"? I've never seen any disagreement with that point, from even the most skeptical revisionist. Did they kill a huge number of them, and enslave/confine an even larger number in places (concentration camps) where disease and malnutrition killed a huge number of them? Absolutely; no question. But the devil is in the details, and the details as claimed by the Holocaust orthodoxy have little factual foundation. THAT is why "revisionism" is actually a good thing, so long as it's not driven by political agenda. We need to know the details; to be sure of them. Simply parroting the "6 million" figure won't do. Until the '80s, it was claimed that 4 million were gassed at Auschwitz. Then it was claimed that 4 million died at Auschwitz. Now it is claimed that about a million died there. And all of these figures are coming from the Holocaust camp! So how can we say that it's wrong to question the details when the details being claimed from the Shoans are themselves constantly changing?! Consider "The Rape of Nanking", another term that was applied long after the historical event. Virtually everyone agrees that the Japanese military raped, maimed, killed many innocent Chinese civilians in the Nanking capital in 1937. But how would we view Chinese claims that no one can dispute their poorly-supported death counts, or their view of the way things happened? What if some Japanese people said "we'd like to see your proofs that the claimed 300,000 people died, because the information we've seen suggests the number was closer to 175,000". Is that "Rape of Nanking Denial"? Hardly. It's "revision". Well, it's the same situation with "the Holocaust" and "Holocaust revisionism". Skeptics reserve the right to question claims, and no quantity of victims or magnitude of atrocity provides a valid pretext for shutting them up. Bricology (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Very well expressed, Bricology. "Denial" is the weasel word, not "revisionism". Call someone a "holocaust denier"; and the general perception will be that he is either stupid or malicious, he will be vilified and any consideration of his viewpoint will be ruled out, either by law or taboo, depending on the country. In reality, if we take the conventional three criteria, Hilberg and Reitlinger are deniers: both estimated total deaths at under 6 million, and Hilberg at least (not sure of Reitlinger on this) does not support intentionality.
While many polemical supporters of the revisionist position are unpleasant racists, neo-Nazis and deniers, the actual revisionist writers set out a generally dispassionate and factual analysis and back their arguments with figures and masses of references. This is not to say they are right (I don't have the knowledge to form a judgement) but they do present a case to answer. Instead, they are jailed. For reference, the revisionists I have personally read and am thus basing my remarks on, are Germar Rudolf and Jurgen Graf. (I've also read Arthur Butz, but while he makes interesting points he clearly has an agenda.)
This said, the background of the IHR people seems to be pretty racist and white supremacist (Why has the Mark Weber article been deleted and replaced with a redirect here?). But a lot of the articles on their site are reasonable presentations of a view of events generally more favourable to the Germans than most (which is why they call it revisionism). They argue for example that Barbarossa was not an unprovoked attack, but that both Germany and Russia had been preparing for war for years and that Hitler made a pre-emptive strike. I have no problem with this. The victors write history, and I am quite capable of reading IHR content critically.
Objective history is a myth. Macaulay and Trevelyan were Whig historians, A J P Taylor was a socialist historian and Niall Ferguson is a neocon historian (and a "revisionist" defender of imperialism). And surely Lipstadt et al. are at least as agenda driven as the revisionists? 78.151.121.184 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the best place to have this debate. Look at Holocaust denial:
Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized. Key elements of this claim are the rejection of any of the following: that the German Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews for extermination as a people; that more than five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers.
Holocaust deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holocaust revisionism instead. Scholars use the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies.
Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory. The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.
If you feel that the title (or article) is not a WP:Neutral Point of View, you should discuss it on Talk:Holocaust denial or bring it up at the WP:Village Pump. The article claims that historians use the term "denial" because Holocaust deniers do not use established historical methodologies and often seem motivated by goals other than historical accuracy. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm adding to a sub-heading "What is Holocaust Denial?", and half of what I wrote relates directly to the IHR.
As for moving discussion to "Holocaust Denial", the subject has been done to death over there and I'd be banging my head against a brick wall.
The text you quoted above is pretty unobjective; most revisionists do not refer to a hoax, though that was the unfortunate title of Butz's book, and appears to reflect his view. A more moderate view would be that it started as propaganda, which was widely believed, and thought to be confirmed by the atrocious conditions found in the Western camps when these were liberated by the Western allies. This belief was encouraged (and probably genuinely believed) by the propaganda services who needed to paint the darkest possible picture of the Nazis to support the essential de-Nazification, and to justify their own targeting of civilian populations, including bombing cities and the mass expulsions of Germans from the Eastern territories. The Soviets, whose own atrocity record was appalling, needed it even more. Please note that I am describing a viewpoint, not advocating it.
I really think jpgordon should withdraw from any editorial role on this topic, if he has not already done so. Anyone who refers to the subjects of the article as "utter scum" is clearly not objective. 78.151.121.184 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that Holocaust denial says it refers to Holocaust revisionists as well. The real question, though, is what WP:Reliable Sources have to say about the situation. We don't do WP:Original Research, so if IHR is called a Holocaust denier by WP:NPOV reliable sources, that should be noted here, if it is defended as not a Holocaust denier by NPOV reliable sources, then that should be noted. There are two sources cited for calling them the biggest Holocaust denier in the country, but looking at them, they don't seem like great sources. We should probably get some better citations. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty here, of course, is defining what constitutes a reliable source when one side of the polemic is able to exclude the other from all access to the normal channels of communication and to vilify them in the public mind to the point where in many countries they are jailed for expressing themselves. There is no other topic in the whole of history where this applies. It tends to be a circular definition: a reliable source is one which supports the orthodox view.
I certainly don't think that partisans like Lipstadt can be considered reliable. Even Nizkor, which is entirely partisan and set up to fight the revisionists, gets cited. 78.151.121.184 (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any changes you wish to make to the article? If so, what are they? Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I presume you mean the present article. I'll reread it and have a think and come back in the next 24 hours.78.146.64.211 (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, here goes:
First a technical point. For some reason, the article on Mark Weber has disappeared and has been replaced by a redirect to this article, which in fact contains almost nothing about him. Clicking on the link to Mark Weber in this article brings you back to the same page. The Weber article should be re-instated. It is from that article that I know of Weber's white supremacist background.
“Commentators have argued...”
a)The comment from Paul Rauber is not NPOV. He takes a perfectly reasonable statement of Weber's where Weber clarifies what they accept and do not accept and then accuses Weber of confusion, when the confusion arises from the ambiguous use of “Holocaust” by the mainstream, which Weber's statement seeks to clarify. This is Alice-in-Wonderland territory. Why not just use Weber's statement alone?
b)Richard Evans is not an NPOV source. He is a combative Marxist with a long record of attacking personally and aggressively anyone he considers to be promoting ideas he disagrees with. In this context he has often appeared as a (very well-)paid witness, most notably in the David Irving case, and also in the case of Joel Hayward. I class him as one of the agenda-driven “et al” whom I associated above with Lipstadt. His specialist area is in the social history of Germany, not the concentration camps. I therefore think the extensive and wholly POV quote from him should be removed. At the very least, the partisan nature of the source quoted should be acknowledged. In fact, almost all the references quoted are not NPOV.
“The United Kingdom's Channel 4 describes the IHR as...”. No. This is not a policy statement from the management of Channel 4. Change this to: “An item on The United Kingdom's Channel 4 web site describes the IHR as...”. (I've looked at that site and the entire section on the Holocaust is strongly POV. I can defend my view with examples but it would take too long and be off-topic.)
Having said the above, I think it is fair to describe this group as racist and anti-Jewish based on the backgrounds of the members, and more of this should be given. Antisemitic I am less sure of, since it implies an irrational hatred of all Jews, whereas it is as legitimate to make reasoned criticism of actions and policies of Jewish organisations, establishment and individuals as of any other group, and indeed many Jews do. But if hard evidence can be produced, I'll go along with “antisemitic”. Evidence of the political backgrounds of the leadership would help. Bring back the Mark Weber article.
The main issue I have goes beyond just this article. It is the broader one of the use of the expression “Holocaust denial”, throughout Wiki and in general. It is (purposefully?) ambiguous: it implies blanket rejection but is then used to qualify any departure from the authorised version. It is also used as an excuse not to address any of the arguments brought, however reasonably they might be framed. The illogical assumption is encouraged that any “denier” must be an antisemite and actually approves of the Holocaust. 78.146.64.211 (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
First, an explanation. Editors new to wikipedia often think that WP:NPOV requires all sources to be "neutral". This is not the case. Wikipedia understands that few, if any, sources, are truly 100% "neutral". Instead, WP:NPOV requires that sources be reliable and presented fairly, and that positions be represented in proportion to their adherence in the expert community. Rauber, Evans, Channel 4 are considered reliable sources, and their views are presented fairly. They also represent the consensus of expert views on the subject. Regarding the material from Channel 4, it is, in fact, material presented as fact on the Channel 4 website. The fact that it is unsigned means that it represents the editorial view of the channel. Next, regarding the claims that there is an "illogical assumption is encouraged that any “denier” must be an antisemite and actually approves of the Holocaust", this is not actually the case: see Holocaust denial#Are Holocaust deniers antisemites? for a neutral presentation of the reliable views on this. Finally, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "address the arguments" brought by Holocaust deniers; Wikipedia is not a discussion board or debating forum. Rather, Wikipedia's mandate is to present what reliable sources say regarding the topic. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The old circular definition of a reliable source again, though you do acknowledge that objectivity is very difficult to assess. I'm sure these "reliable" sources will tell you reliably what is generally believed, but this is hardly surprising since most people have never had exposure to a differing view, are subject to a propaganda blitz and are encouraged to think that the only alternative view is total denial of any Nazi brutality against the Jews and is only propagated by disgusting knuckle-dragging neo-Nazis. I would say that a source is not reliable if it dismisses the arguments without examining them and vilifies and misrepresents the persons making them. A "reliable source" says they are scum but doesn't seek to address their arguments? Even says it would be evil to as much as look at them? In what other context would you accept this?
Treat that question as rhetorical. A waste of time trying to get any sense here.
Evans is not a reliable source as he is known to have a partisan view and has been employed as a paid witness. Rauber is not a reliable source because, as I demonstrated above, the argument he employed was to project on to Weber an ambiguity that Weber was in reality trying to clear up. (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS. Richard J. Evans, for example, not only meets the requirements of WP:RS, but exceeds them by a huge margin. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I already did and it confirms my contention that he "is not a reliable source as he is known to have a partisan view and has been employed as a paid witness". Also his area of expertise is German social history, not the holocaust; not that it is of course impossible to be prejudiced in one's specialist area. Channelwatcher (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS again, which indicates quite clearly why Evans is considered a Reliable Source. Experts often serve as witnesses in trials; this does not make them unreliable. In addition, experts on 20th century German history would almost inevitably have to be experts on the Holocaust. If you disagree, feel free to bring him to WP:RS/N for an assessment of whether or not he is a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll give a bit more thought to this, first. I'm not happy with the choice of "reliable sources" because I think both are partisan. But I'm also concerned by the content of this section that hinges round the rather Alice in Wonderland argument of what constitutes Holocaust denial. I think Weber makes a valid point that use of this term implies (and I suspect purposefully) total rejection of the persecution of the Jews. I'm prety sure that's what most of the public understand, but if a revisionist tries to explain that they don't reject it all, they are told they are deniers because they question part of it.
Another point: David Irving is only a partial revisionist, and, specifically he does accept that millions of Jews died, so Evans's statement here where Irving is named is not accurate. I can give a reference for this, though it is a radio interview, not text.
I'm no Mark Weber fanboy. I have already said I think his White Supremacist background should receive more emphasis. Why don't we bring back the article on him? And the link?
Thanks for entering into this discussion. I think we started off on a possible conflict course, but we are now understanding each other's position better. Channelwatcher (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm OK with keeping Evans there now. Though I don't consider him a reliable source of objective opinion, he is a reliable source of what critics say. Before we began this edit the section was heavily one-sided. Now we have taken out the madrevisionst and I have added a comment from the IHR I think we have a balanced view of criticism and answers to criticism, with links that will help people form their own opinion. On that basis I say let's leave it as it now stands.Channelwatcher (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the section on the Madrevisionist spoof should be removed:
1. It is not encyclopedic. It was a deliberate windup and set up a straw man picture of the IHR suggesting among other things that they promoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They did not "show" that the methods of the IHR were same as they were advocating in their spoof, they simply asserted it. In any case, the suggestion that the Irish Potato Famine, while natural in origin, was severely aggravated by British policy is one that has been seriously addressed by historians.
2. It is peripheral to the topic of the article. It is a spoof, a little like those mounted against corporations by the Yes Men. You would not include the Yes Men spoof in, say, an article on Union Carbide; you would look for more objective and reasonably argued criticisms.
3. It is highly POV.
Pending removal I have changed "showed" to "asserted". 89.242.96.251 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be an interesting and amusing exposé of the inconsistencies in the IHR's alleged interest in truth and historical revisionism. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Ergo, it is unencyclopedic. It is a satire, windup, spoof, whatever. It uses straw men and false, inaccurate or exaggerated analogies. These are legitimate in satire, but not for inclusion in Wiki.
I have a suggested compromise. Keep it as an external link, but remove it from the body text, where is, totally inappropriately, cited as an argument. Channelwatcher (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Its analogies are accurate and spot-on, and clearly expose the IHR's inconsistencies. Nevertheless, I have removed it from the body of the article. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
That's really just an unsupported opinion; I think I already demonstrated strawmen etc. But thanks. :) Channelwatcher (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WIhr.jpg

Image:WIhr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tax status

I think the referenced info that this is a Holocaust denial organization is much more important than its tax status. Most "think tank"s are non for profit, nothing notable in this. Thus, I have reverted the IPs changes Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First Refernce is Stupid

A jew calling an antizionist Crime site Pseudo scholarly, that's just Biased, if it was a third party then it would be understandable, it's not a fresh Perspective, thus not neutral.--AntiMarxist (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:V and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"non" peer-review

How is the journal of historical review "non" peer reviewed? It is ideologically fringe, but certainly peer reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.251.220 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Peer review" in academic publishing refers to a very specific, formal process for reviewing academic work prior to publication. It doesn't just mean that some other people have seen the work. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why state opinion

That's first sentence in the article is nt what written on IHR website, it's the in fact the opinion of the one who wrote this, I think that's completely unfair and biased assumption for Wikipedia to allow that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.156.9 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Institute_for_Historical_Review/Archive_2&oldid=1037696805"