Wikipedia

Talk:Holocaust denial

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Goodoldpolonius2 (talk | contribs) at 15:02, 25 October 2005 (→This article is scary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Goodoldpolonius2 in topic This article is scary
Learn more about this page

Older discussions may be found here:

Archive

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

RJII's changes

Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

User:RJII has made some dramatic changes. My sense is that such important changes in such a contentious article should be discussed first. I've invited him here to discuss the issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I noted the difference between holocaust denial and holocaust revisionism. And, I modified the section on the IHR, because they say point blank that they do not deny the holocaust: "Detractors of the IHR have often mischaracterized it as a “Holocaust denial” organization. This smear is completely at variance with the facts. The Institute does not “deny the Holocaust.” Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II." [1]
We've been through this before; see the very first topic in this Talk: page. No-one admits to be a Holocaust Denier - they all call themselves "Holocaust Revisionists", thus the distinctions you are trying to make are specious. This is merely a terminology issue, there are no fundmental differences between any of these groups. I re-issue my challenge from many months ago; find me a group that call themselves "Holocaust Deniers", and then we'll be able to compare them to all the other groups, which call themselves "Holocaust Revisionists". Jayjg (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
You better believe it's a "terminology issue." It's a big terminology issue. And the terminology is wrong. There is a difference between denying the Holocaust and revising some historical accounts of the Holocaust. If you can't find any groups that deny the Holocaust, then this article is simply bogus. RJII 16:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
There is no difference in their methodology, they just prefer a different name. There are no groups that admit denying the Holocaust, but there are dozens that deny it while calling themselves "revisionist". The article discusses this. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
If no groups "admit" denying the Holocaust, then no groups deny the Holocaust. (unless you claim to know something that's going in their heads that they haven't put to paper). RJII 16:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
They're not classified by their beliefs, but by their actions and statements. One doesn't need to know what is going on their heads at all to do that. Jayjg (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

RJII's argument is absurd. Chickens do not go around calling themselves "chickens" but nevertheless they are chickens. It is true -- no one, not even Jayjg contests this -- that Holocaust deniers call themselves something else. So the article should include the fact "Holocause deniers call themselves revisionists" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It does say that, in the opening paragraphs. Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
No, your argument is absurd and absolutely insane. Someone is only a Holocaust denier if they deny the Holocaust. If they don't, then they are not a Holocaust denier. Disputing certain historical accounts of some aspects of the Holocaust does not constitute denying the Holocaust. RJII 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't? So you're making up your own definition of what Holocaust Denial consists of? What is your specific definition of Holocaust Denial, then? Jayjg (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Holocaust denial is denying that a holocaust happened. This is elementary. I can't believe I'm having this conversation. RJII 19:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

And how do you define "the Holocaust"? Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I define it as Merriam-Webster defines it:
"3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II -- usually used with the."
Therefore, to be deny the Holocaust, you have to deny that there was a mass slaughter of Jews. Disputing aspects of historical accounts, while not denying a mass slaughter, is not a denial of the Holocaust. RJII 20:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
The Holocaust consists of more than a mass slaughter of Jews; it also involved intentional, organized killings, in death camps, including the use of gas. Does your definition cover that? Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Mass slaughter of Jews is a necessary and sufficient condition for a holocaust. RJII 23:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
See more accurate definitions below. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the IHR: it is rightfully called a source of holocaust denial literature, as it is a) replete with folks who deny the holocaust (or was, as it is now pretty much defunct, if I am not mistaken), b) organized a host of meetings that promoted holocaust denial (such as giving a platform to Fred Leuchter -- though I still think the dude is actually honest and still has no clue what is going on -- or David Irving -- who once was a decent historian, but fell off his rocker several years ago), and c) all it's publications -- while many claim to deal just with minor details of the holocaust -- all promote the basic agenda that mainstream Holocaust research is invalid.
Anybody who has access to IHR literature will be able to confirm this, and, of course the IHR claims it does not deny the Holocaust simply because it wants to limit the high probabilities of it's cant to be indexed by the German, Austrian, and French government again.
(as a liberal, i have some problems with the policies of those governments, but i can see where they are coming from)Dietwald 20:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Simple Test

Latest comment: 19 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

To find out whether somebody is a holocaust denier or not, simply ask this question: "do you think the historical data supports the claim that the Nazi government was responsible for the killing of millions of jews during the time of its reign?"

If the answer is anything but a clear "Yes", you have the first indication that you may have to do with a holocaust denier.

You could follow this up by asking: "do you think that the historical data does not support the claim that the Nazi government was responsible for the killing of millions of jews during the time of its reign?"

if the answer to this question is not an unambigious no, you are dealing with a holocaust denier.

End of Story

Dietwald 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. To determine if a person or organization is a holocaust denier, research whether they assert that millions of Jews were not killed. If they assert that that didn't happen, they're a Holocause denier. If they don't, then this article is unjustified in labeling them deniers of the Holocaust. This article is really screwed up. RJII 19:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Is it denial if they deny a specific campaign to exterminate certain groups (Jews and Gypsies especially; homosexuals, Communists, JW's, Slavs, dissidents, etc appear to have been more "targets of opportunity")? I mean, I've seen lots of "Whoops, it was all a big accident, how was the SS to know that putting people in camps, forcing them to work at hard manual labour, and not feeding them enough might kill them?", to be a bit hyperbolic. --Edward Wakelin 20:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nizkor has a useful discussion on this[2]. The Holocaust is defined in terms of five to six million Jews killed by a central act of state by the Nazis and collaborators during the Second World War, many using gas chambers, shootings, and other forms of industrialized murder. To deny this three part-definition (either the number, the plan, or the methods), is to be a Holocaust denier, including denying that the Holocaust was centrally planned, or that it consisted of institutionalized mass murder, since it was precisely these elements (centralized decisions and efficient mass murder), along with the death toll, that made the Holocaust such a horrific event. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You mean that's HIS definition. According to his definition, if it was 5 million killed then it wouldn't be a holocaust. Absurd. RJII 23:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
No, it wouldn't be The Holocaust. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Whether 3 million or 100 million were killed, it's still The Holocaust. RJII 00:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
RJII, a similar definition is used by the US Holocaust Museum: "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." Can you please quote some historian or scholar that says that the central planning, mass killings, and around 6 million death toll are not all necessary conditions for the Holocaust? You seem to have a very strong agenda, but you are not stating it directly, perhaps it would be good to do so. How many Jews do you think were killed? How do you think they were killed? Was the Holocaust centrally planned? And, most importantly, which scholars do you see as revisionists, but not deniers?. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
My "agenda" is to make the article more coherent. To dispute specific historical claims about the Holocaust is not to deny the Holocaust. In fact, the IHR says outright that it does not deny the Holocaust, yet it disputes some historical claims concerning it. RJII 02:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
The IHR is a bad choice to defend, as its role in denial and their deceptive tactics are so very well documented. I reccomend, for example, Denial vs. Revisionism. Of course they do not claim to be deniers, as the article states clearly, denier is a label applied to people who deny the Holocaust, not a label they take themselves. I can claim to be an anarchist, but if I am in favor of pervasive socialist government my self-label is irrelevant and misleading. What do other sources say about the IHR? That they are the leading site of Holocaust denial. Allowing them to say that they are not is intellectually dishonest. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
"Intellectually dishonest."? How much more intellectually dishonest can you be than to call someone a "Holocaust denier" and then not allow them to say that they don't deny the Holocaust? Now that's "intellectual dishonesty." RJII 16:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
RJII, they are holocaust deniers, courts say so, reputable sources say so, scholars say so. One does not usually take seriously the fact that hate groups deny they are hate groups -- nobody ever says they are racist, or anti-Semitic, or a Holocaust denier. Besides, this issue is addressed in the second paragraph: "While the term "denier" is objected to by the people to whom it is applied, who prefer "revisionist", it is nevertheless the one commonly used to refer to those espousing such views, to distinguish them from the legitimate approach of historical revisionists." Can you provide me some reputable or scholarly sources, besides the IHR and related Holocaust deniers that are connected to them, that says that the IHR is doing actual research? I am not sure to what purpose you are defending them -- do you think their research is correct or their hearts in the right place? If you make it a bit clearer, perhaps this discussion will go easier.--Goodoldpolonius2 16:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
If someone says they acknowledge that the Holocaust occured (which the IHR says), then they do not deny the Holocaust. It's as simple as that. RJII 16:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
You keep ignoring all of my points, and those of the other editors on this page. The "test" you are using is of your own devising. The IHR has developed their own definition of the Holocaust, one which does not involve anywhere close to six million deaths, that does not involve gassing, or the targeting of Jews. One in which the Jews are engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover this up. One in which there was only "some scattered killings" (in the words of the IHR Director). This is clear in the IHR's own words. To quote from Rauber, who directly quotes from the head of the IHR: "the question [of whether the IHR denies the Holocaust] appears to turn on IHR's Humpty-Dumpty word game with the word Holocaust. According to Mark Weber, associate editor of the IHR's _Journal of Historical Review_, "If by the `Holocaust' you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. 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." That is, IHR doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened; they just deny that the word "Holocaust" means what people customarily use it for." They don't deny that something happened in WWII, which they call "the Holocaust", but it isn't what anyone else calls the Holocaust. Again, do you have any sources other the IHR itself? And what point are you trying to make here? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. The don't deny the Holocaust happened. Rather, they believe that the common claims of what happened during the Holocaust are exaggerated. There is not universal agreement on everything that happened, obviously. According to them, they even publish books that affirm the common opinion on what happened. There is a difference between denying that the Holocaust occured and disputing what happened during the Holocaust. This article doesn't recognize this simple bit of logic. RJII 16:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
What!? The IHR denies the Holocaust -- the intentional and centralized slaughter of around six million Jews -- happened, and I and the other editors provided many sources to show this, including their own admission. Then they use the word Holocaust to describe an entirely different thing -- "some scattered killings" -- and claim that they don't deny that THAT happened. Allowing someone to change the entire meaning of a word for propaganda purposes is what you are now calling a "simple bit of logic." Every outside source says they deny the Holocaust. Your only source is the IHR itself, which, of course, would never admit that it denied the Holocaust, since their mission is to undermine the whole idea of the Holocaust under the guise of scholarship -- have you read any of the material about this organization? You are going to have to do better than that for sources, and, hopefully, engage with some of the other comments here as well.
I saw you put a quote from Weber in the article. He's the director of the IHR, but was he relaying the offical IHR position or his own position? The IHR publishes books that offer a range of views on what happened, on how many were killed, etc. Also, at what point does one become a Holocaust denier? If they say 5 million are the a denier? If they say 1 million are they a denier? The article doesn't give any real explanation. RJII 23:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
RJII, Goodolpolonius2 is correct. IHR is a bad defendant for any 'lawyer'. They are guilty as charged. Just go to their website. It's not even research they are doing, it's plain old promotion of an idea in lots of different guises. It's a bunch of anti-semites. RJII, what 'Holocaust Denial' refers to is the implicit or explicit promotion of the idea that the Nazis did not kill millions of Jews through intentional means, including gas chambers. What is legitimate research is to find out how many Jews were killed in gas chambers -- I don't think the number is really certain yet. As far as I know, the lowest estimates for this are in the hundreds of thousands, the highest are probably two to three million. BUT, I am mere guessing here. Also legitimate research is to find out whether details of the Holocaust are as we currently believe them to be. An example of this was the idea that the Nazis made soap out of the bones and fat of dead jews. I think this claim has been delegated to the realm of legends, where it belongs. Another topic is, for example, whether there was a systematic use of the skin of Jews for the creation of lampshades and other such applications. I think this occurred only in very rare and exceptional cases. This, too, however, is a legitimate debate, and has nothing to do with Holocaust denial.
All these are legitimate topics of historical review -- but the IHR is NOT doing historical review. It is promoting a very specific agenda, no matter what it puts on its disclaimers.
Maybe one should add a section to the article defining what is NOT Holocaust denial.
Dietwald 06:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Let's not forget the point that the Holocaust was part of a greater plan... Grill the deniers on the other 5 million. If they start pulling the whole "Well, it wasn't gas chambers, it was starvation, not our fault" shtick, mention that on those grounds, the numbers of dead nearly double: This is great fun. If they deny that Jews were specially targeted, then the numbers increase. Before getting into arguing about gas chambers, point-blank ask them if rounding up people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, sexuality, whatever, is wrong. Ask them if then taking those people, working and starving them to death, etc, is wrong. If they don't say it's wrong, or in fact say it's RIGHT, then you're dealing with a hell of a lot more than a revisionist or a gas-chamber denier or whatever they call themselves nowadays! Engaging them on something other than whether gas chambers existed, or what some gloves and lampshades were made out of, brings their beliefs to a head. "There were no gas chambers" or "The gas chambers were not as used as is said" can be defended as historical inquiry (Whether real or bogus), basic disrespect for human rights can't. --Edward Wakelin 13:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Edward: Excellent addition to the discussion. Fully agree. Dietwald 17:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Another useful clue is that legitimate, non-biased historical revisionists can be differentiated from deniers and their ilk by looking at the reasons they present for why whatever they're at odds with is generally accepted: Somebody who talks about how exaggeration is natural, how memories can be incorrect, how things have been misunderstood, how things have been sensationalised, etc might well be legit. Somebody who goes into theories presenting an actual attempt to lie... Well, they're a mixed bag. At the fringes, some are pretty legit. They make good points that some people have taken advantage of an awful historical event for some purpose of their own. But then the actual deniers and loonies and anti-semites start to claim that EVERYBODY not on their side is taking advantage of it. They start to advance Jewish-conspiracy theories of different magnitudes. "Confessions were gotten through torture", for instance: They'll claim that EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT is faked. If it's an account by a Jew, "Well, obviously they're lying". If it's by a non-Jewish inmate, "they were probably bought off or something". If it's an SS camp guard or what have you, "it was obviously gotten out of them through torture". That's what they'll say. Physical evidence? "Planted after the war". If you decide to use the technique of reductio ad absurdam, their technique can be used to deny just about anything: It's fun, try it. It can become downright philosophical.

But these conspiracies have one thing in common: To some degree or another, they do what a lot of conspiracies do, which is make the "Bad Guys" out to be downright superhuman. The stereotypical "Jewish Conspirator" common in these theories is amazingly smart, incredibly good at predicting the future, sneaky, and capable of amazing feats of secrecy and propaganda. No proof? "That's just because they're so good, they got rid of it all".

So, anyway, things to look for are 1) Some justification for putting the various groups that were rounded up into the camp, and 2) Conspiracy theories. --Edward Wakelin 16:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

RJ's Question

Latest comment: 19 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Also, at what point does one become a Holocaust denier? If they say 5 million are the a denier? If they say 1 million are they a denier? The article doesn't give any real explanation. RJII 23:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think RJ DOES have a valid question here, regardless of what he trying to argue. How DOES one differentiate legitimate historical revision from denial? Just hypothetically speaking, how does one avoid labelling a legitimate historian a denier, SHOULD someone find evidence that maybe there were less dead people, or that there has been some terrible mistake in the entire understanding about the holocaust? It's an unlikely event, but -- as they say -- shit happens.
I think the point is whether the question is used to promote an anti-semitic agenda. This is something that needs to be made more obvious in the text, the link between denial and anti-semitism.Dietwald 05:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
There is no fixed number, but any significant diminution of the numbers would be viewed as denial; certainly a claim that only 1 million Jews were killed would be viewed as such. And, of course, the IHR denies various other critical aspects of the Holocaust as well. Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Then you admit there is a difference between a denier and a revisionist. This article needs to state that. It gives the message that if anyone disputes the commonly accepted figures that they're a "Holocaust denier." It needs to be made clear that one can be a "Holocaust revisionist" while not being a "Holocaust denier." Or, would making that known be too politically incorrect? And, I disagree that asserting that 1 million were killed would be "Holocaust denial." 1 million dead sure sounds like a holocaust to me. RJII 05:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have admitted no such thing - all historians know that the number of Jews murdered is not known exactly, merely that it is somewhere close to 6 million, typically between 5 and 6 million. Someone who statest that it was 5.4 million or 6.2 million would not be considered a "revisionist", by themselves or anyone else. More importantly, you still have not answered my challenge, repeated many times; provide an example of a someone who actually admits to being a "denier". And while 1 million dead might indeed be considered a mass murder, or genocide, it is certainly not "The Holocaust". Jayjg (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
So you don't admit that one can revise accounts of the Holocaust without being a denier of the Holocaust. How closed-mindedand intellectually dishonest. For the answer to your challenge look in this very article. There is a photo of KKK individuals explicitly denying the Holocaust. RJII 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Please stop trying to put words in my mouth that I obviously haven't said; doing so, is in fact, "intellectually dishonest". As for the photograph, I simply repeat my challenge; find me someone who admits to be a Holocaust "denier". Quote the source. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Then I ask you point blank: Is it possible to be a Holocaust revisionist while not being a Holocaust denier? And, why the hang-up about finding someone who admits to denying the Holocaust? I don't think it would be too difficult to find someone who says the Holocaust didn't happen. RJII 23:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Haven't you read the article? Legitimitate historians who question details of the Holocaust are not called "revisionists", they are called "historians". That is because Holocaust deniers have so tainted that term "revisionist" that legitimate Holocaust historians want nothing to do with it. As for your continual evasions, I will simply repeat my challenge; find me someone who admits to being a Holocaust "denier". Better yet, find me some group that admits to being "Holocaust deniers". It is quite apparent by now that you can't. Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Arguing that something sounds like "a holocaust to me" just doesn't make sense, the Holocaust is a defined and well-researched event, it is like saying that anarchy sounds like socialism to me. The Holocaust involves the centrally-planned Final Solution in which somewhere around 6 million Jews were killed, many by methods such as gas chambers. The IHR denies each part of this equation, not just the number, and they do not use honest historical methods, which has been very well documented. The point in identifying denial or revisionism is not just a number, it is whether one is actually engaging in honest, academic debate or trying to prove an anti-Semitic point by working backwards. In the words of McFee, "'Revisionists' depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion. Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology [...], thus turning the proper historical method of investigation and analysis on its head." The IHR was founded by a neo-Nazi to disprove the Holocaust, it does not engage in historical research, and, even though their arguments have been disproved many, many times, including in courts, they do not stop spreading obvious lies (the Auschwitz "death toll revision" lie, as one example). That is what makes them a denier, rather than a revisionist. RJII seems to keep avoiding this basic point, and has yet to provide any sources that any reputable historian or source thinks that these people are engaging in real historical research, of which honest historical revisionism is a part. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Here's a source that thinks "these people are engaging in real historical research." The US government cites a study in this report: [3]. Here is the Wyman Institute criticizing the government for calling them "scholars and researchers” and as a “scholarly association." [4] RJII 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Um, perhaps you should read the report, rather than taking the IHR's word for it. The US governemnt source you cite actually says:

In 1984 a monograph was published in the Journal of Historical Review that reviewed the published literature of wartime intelligence, including the Police decrypts, which carried information about the massacres and the concentration camps. The article called into question what the intelligence actually revealed about the Nazi’s ultimate plan for the elimination of Europe’s Jews. Unfortunately, the journal in which this article appeared was a well-known forum for that faction of scholars and researchers associated with a movement known as “Holocaust denial.” Rather than discuss the intelligence about the Holocaust and how Allied officials differed over its meaning, or review the Nazi program of silence and obfuscation about the Final Solution, the author claimed that the gaps in Allied intelligence suggested that many aspects of the Holocaust, such as the gassings at Auschwitz, were a fiction. However, the amassed evidence from captured records and the testimony of Holocaust victims and perpetrators overwhelms the article’s contention. Later releases of Police decrypts to the PRO would illustrate how the missing intelligence was attributable to greater German security measures and the limitations in the communications intelligence system.

Not too great a source for proving your point, since it says explictly that they are Holocaust deniers. Also, I noticed you have not answered the well-sourced fact that these people are repeatedly repeating disproved points or out-and-out lies, not engaging in research, and that they were founded by neo-Nazis to disprove the Holocaust. Incidentally, my new favorite quote on the IHR comes from the Lebanon Daily Star, certainly not known for a particularly pro-Jewish outlook, which called the IHR "loathsome pseudo-historians" and an "international hate group," and, in a terrific quote, said of an attempt to hold an IHR meeting in Lebanon "as one former PLO official has put it, 'with friends like that, we don't enemies'." Why are you supporting these guys again? --Goodoldpolonius2 00:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
It does not say "explicitly that they are Holocause deniers." It says they are "associated" with a movement called "Holocaust denial." That's obvious. We all know that. But that doesn't mean that they actually do deny the Holocaust. The question at issue is what constitutes "Holocaust denial." RJII 13:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
They actually deny the holocaust. And then they lie about not doing so. This isn't POV; this is fact. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
What is holocaust denial? READ THE BLOODY INTRO TO THE BLOODY ARTICLE. Hell, this is becoming BORING. Dietwald 17:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

At what point do we move on?

Latest comment: 19 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Okay, so clearly RJII supports the Institute for Historical Review, and claims that they don't deny the Holocaust, despite all the evidence to the contrary, from basically every source imaginable. I could continue to provide reams of material on the subject, but it seems somewhat pointless to repeat the work done by many others who dealt with this group, and others like it. Everyone from the courts to scholars have found the IHR to be a dishonest and anti-Semitic organization, founded to disprove the Holocaust by a man who wrote "Who is using who? Who is calling the shots? History supplies the answer to this. History tells us plainly who our Enemy is. Our Enemy today is the same Enemy of 50 years ago and before - and that was before Communism. The Communists are "using" the Jews we are told ... who was "using" the Jews fifty years ago - one hundred or one thousand years ago. History supplies the answer. The Jews came first and remain Public Enemy No. 1."[5] I don't know whether RJII really believes that he is defending a misunderstood group, or whether he believes the Holocaust never happened, but, in either case, the continued effort to defend this group as honorable scholars in the face of overwhelming evidence of how dishonest they are leaves me at a loss as to how to proceed. I can keep providing sources, but given that RJII is the only person defending the IHR, and he seems to ignore all evidence to the contrary, it seems sort of pointless to continue this. How do we move forward from here? --Goodoldpolonius2 00:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am not "defending the IHR," per se, but am making points to show how the article is lacking. At what point does revision become Holocaust denial? I had not heard of the IHR until a week ago, and have read no historical accounts from them. I'm neutral on the issue of how many were killed. But, that's not relevant. Logic tells me that revising numbers killed or methods killed does not constitute denying the Holocaust as long as enough occured to constitute a holocaust. As a neutral person that has come upon this article, I'm struck by its irrationality. RJII 13:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you are defending the IHR, to great length and despite every bit of evidence presented by every other editor on this page. You may not have heard of them before, but during the course of this discussion, you certainly have been exposed to many sources showing that these guys are anti-Semitic pseudo-scholars founded by Neo-Nazis dedicated to Holocaust denial, yet you continue to use them as an example of something you think is legitimate revisionism. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Let me get this straight. It's your position that being anti-semitic automatically disqualifies you as a scholar? If one has a POV they have nothing to contribute? RJII 14:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Do you truly not get it that completely? It's not that the IHR is anti-semitic, it's not that they have a POV -- it's that they are dedicated to proving a lie, and everything they do is to support their propagation of falsity; and their dedication to falsehood is based purely on hatred of Jews. It is utterly unencyclopedic to use a source committed to untruth. IHR is naturally going to present itself in the most favorable light; you'll have trouble finding a single source outside the holocaust denial industry that gives them any credibility whatsoever. Please note that many of us have been dealing with the IHR and other holocaust deniers for decades -- if you detect exasperation in our tones here, it's because it is a serious disappointment every time another obviously intelligent person gets snowed by them. Dealing with the foaming at the mouth Jew-haters in their ranks is a lot easier; they can be safely ignored. At any rate, presenting a neutral point of view does not require parroting the position papers of liars. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
On what do you base the claim that they're "committed to untruth"? Just because they may come to some conclusions that are untrue, doesn't mean they are lying (intentionally telling a falsehood). You may say that you're not basing your dismissal of their studies on their anti-semitism, but obviously you're still attacking their motivations, and discounting them on that account. How do you know that they don't sincerely believe that mainstream accounts of the Holocaust have been exaggerated? RJII 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Whatever they sincerely believe is irrelevant, it is clear that they claim to be, and their methods, are out-and-out lies, they are neither objective historians nor revisionists: "We reject their claims to be taken seriously as historians" -- the Organization of American Historians; "They clearly have no business claiming to be a continuation of the revisionist tradition, and should be referred to as 'Holocaust Deniers'." -- History Teacher, Vol 28. Perhaps you have not read any of the material about their methods, their history of falsehoods, and their commitment to proving a conclusion regardless of any basis in fact. That is the only charitable explaination I can come up with for your argument, that, in the light of all the sources provided here (and your lack of any sources) you think that they are honest scholars. I think this is getting pointless rapidly, since you have clearly demonstrated that absolutely no amount of evidence will convince you about the IHR's commitment to untruth and their position as Holocaust deniers. Unless you provide some impressive evidence that actually requires a response, replying to you seems to not be getting us anywhere. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Obviously my argumentation is getting us somewhere. Due to my prodding the intro is much improved. RJII 00:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I find it astonishing you would take credit for that. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I just don't know what to say. I guess we are done with this topic. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
d'accord. If RJ would not defend the IHR, but talk about this question in more general terms, he might actually have a point. But, the IHR IS denying the holocaust. So do its 'branches' in Germany and other countries, where parallel publications are circulated -- or have been circulated -- by a gentleman named Udo Walendy. He calls his publication 'Historische Tatsachen', and the publication is modelled very closely on the Journal of Historical Review. Interestingly enough, considering the names of those institutions, they are not dealing with historical review in general -- but ONLY with the Holocaust and WWII in general, commonly claiming that most of what we know about the war is not true, that the Nazis did not willfully start the war, etc. There are publications that claim that the "night of broken glass" (Kristallnacht) was actually organized by the Jews themselves, and similar such shenenigans.
I concede in the spirit of science that there always is the possibility that we all may be wrong, and that there could be some terrible misunderstanding about the Holocaust. Maybe aliens from outer space rounded up all the jews and brought them to Alderbaran. Maybe we all live inside a giant computer, and the world is run by mice. Who knows...;) But, at this point in history, however, and according to the current knowledge we have, the Nazis did kill about six million jews by various means, including gas chambers, and the world is in fact several billion years old. I find the idea about mice intriguing, though...Dietwald 09:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Dietwald, good edits to the intro, thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dishonesty?

Latest comment: 19 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

The intro says: "Holocaust deniers typically willfully misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions." Where is the evidence that "holocaust deniers" typically willfully misuse or ignore records? How do we know that it's willful? Don't most people with a POV look for evidence to prove their conclusion instead of evidence to disprove it? Isn't that human nature. If they miss something that would contravene it, that in itself is not evidence that ignorance is "willfull." So, I'd like to see evidence of this, and further, evidence that it's typical. Also, I'd like to know, does it have to be willful in order to be Holocaust denial? If not, it needs to be said that not all "Holocaust deniers" are dishonest. RJII 02:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I thought we were done. I guess not. Please see the documents above, which have been repeatedly brought to your attention, about the way that the small group of Holocaust denier "researchers" have used evidence and records. This "evidence" has been refuted many times by many authorities, and this has been brought to their attention, yet they keep repeating the same lies (the Auschwitz death toll plaque, etc.) without mentioning that these things are false or even that they have been challenged. Give us the name of an honest Holocaust denier. Really. One who engages with the rest of the academic world. It clearly isn't the IHR. And, of David Irving, Professor Evans of Cambridge wrote: "Not one of [Irving’s] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian." Your argument is strange in any case. The Holocaust happened. Denying the Holocaust therefore typically involves willful misuse or fabrication of records, and that is the proven method of the IHR and its cronies. Proven in courts, proven by scholars, proven as much as ever possible.
I am beginning to question your good faith here. This thread is full of you asking for some sort of proof, proof being provided and you never engaging with the issue again. You claim that you don't defend the IHR, but you systematically ignored every piece of evidence about how dishonest they are, repeating the same questions again and again. Most recently you mentioned that an anti-Semitic POV would be a useful contribution to this article[6]. So, I am placing the burden on you give us the name of an well-regarded and honest Holocaust denier, heck, give us any mainstream reputable source supporting any of your conclusions about the good will and honest methods of Holocaust denial, or stop playing games. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
"The Holocaust happened. Denying the Holocaust therefore typically involves willful misuse or fabrication of records..." Is circular reasoning all you have to offer? By the way I did not "mention that an anti-Semitic POV would be a useful contribution to this article." I asked you if you though being anti-semitic rules one out as being a legitimate historian. What I'm getting from you is you think that if someone is anti-semitic then all their research should be dismissed. That is an irrational position to hold, especially considering that individuals motivated by a POV can uncover evidence that those with the opposite POV would not discover. Anyway, about my question. You give an example of Irving as being dishonest. Let's say he is dishonest. Now how is that evidence that the typical "Holocaust denier" is dishonest? It seems to me you would have to go through each one and prove enough of them are dishonest to justify saying they are typically dishonest. But, all you have to offer is the circular reasoning: "The Holocaust happened. Denying the Holocaust therefore typically involves willful misuse or fabrication of records..." Your kind of mentality is exactly what's corrupting this article. RJII 13:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
"Your kind of mentality is exactly what's corrupting this article." Thanks for stating your position so clearly, I would actually say that your defense in the face of facts of dishonest organizations that every outside observer calls racist and pseudo-sceintific is a slightly bigger problem, but that's me. As to your question, the Holocaust denier "researcher" world is small, and tends to be centered around the IHR -- we have demonstrated that the IHR is dishonest, willfully misuses evidence, non-historical, and driven by a single goal that arose out of anti-Semitism, rather than a pursuit of truth. They represent the typical denier, indeed, they are an umbrella agency for most deniers. Thus let me repeat: So, I am placing the burden on you give us the name of an well-regarded and honest Holocaust denier, heck, give us any mainstream reputable source supporting any of your conclusions about the good will and honest methods of Holocaust denial, or stop playing games. This should be easy. If they are not typically willfully misusing records, there should a nice set of honest folks you can point to whose research is well regarded. Who are they? --Goodoldpolonius2 14:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I've never claimed that any "Holocaust denier" had good will. So, no the burden is not on me. The burden is on you to show that the typical Holocaust denier is acting out of bad will or dishonest. Your reasoning is circular and bizarre. It goes as follows: The mainstream account of the Holocaust is correct, therefore, anyone who disputes it is wrong. And, the non sequitur: "The Holocaust happened. Denying the Holocaust therefore typically involves willful misuse or fabrication of records." RJII 14:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
The fact is that Holocaust deniers typically willfully misuse or distort information. That is a fact. You say that this is not the case, that this is not a fact, that I (and the other editors) are wrong, and you do this by claiming exactly that Holocaust deniers "had good will" -- that some group does not willfully misuse or distort information. The nice thing about your claim is that it can be proven by finding the name of a few Holocaust deniers whose research and methods are well regarded. If these people do not exist, then your case does not hold water. Simple, no? Good luck on your continued defense of these people. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Not only is your reasoning warped, but you continue to misrepresent me after I've corrected you. I've never claimed that any "Holocaust deniers" had good will. One thing is certain now. You don't have good will. RJII 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Prove your point already or stop wasting time. If I am wrong, it should be easy to show it (and by "good will" I mean an honest effort to seek truth, not disporve it, by the way, which is exactly what "typically misuse" argues against). You have yet to provide a single source outside of an IHR press release. Stop flinging insults and provide some sources. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
It's not up to me to prove anything. I haven't made a claim. You're the one making the claim that the typical "Holocaust denier" is acting in bad faith. RJII 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and it is a 100% true claim that the typical denier is acting in bad faith, as the sources earlier in this discussion stated repeatedly. If I am wrong, or lying, or accidentally misled, you need to show the error of my ways, because everyone agrees with me. Your burden of proof is light, here, find a well-regarded exception. Prove your point or nobody will believe you. Why the inability to provide a source? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Nobody will believe me about what? I haven't made a claim. No evidence has been presented here by you, or anyone else, that the typical Holocaust denier is "willfully" misusing and ignoring information. To make that claim in the article is therefore unjustified. RJII 15:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
You have made very much made a claim that at least some deniers are not willfully misusing information, despite repeated evidence to the contrary (Holocaust denial is "at best a form of academic fraud" - The American Hisorical Association). That is, you are arguing that it is not typical for deniers to willfully misuse evidence. That is a claim. You may find it self-evident, I and the other editors do not. Prove it. If it is self-evident and the article is unjustified, proof is easy, and all you need is a couple examples. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
No I have not made a claim that any "deniers" are not willfully misusing information. You're lying. RJII 15:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Now I am totally confused, this is a binary choice -- Holocaust deniers either do or don't typically willfully misuse information. I have provided proof, including individual incidents and the words of the AHA, that they do typically willfully misuse information. You, apparently, agree. So, we can re-insert "deniers typically willfully misuse information" back into the article, because you agree that they are willfully misusing information? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't agree or disagree that they typically willfully misuse information. I'm agnostic on the matter. But, the article states that they typically willfully misuse information. To make such a claim requires evidence. RJII 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Actually, by removing "willfully", you certainly are arguing that they DO NOT typically willfully misuse information. In the IHR discussion above ("they are not Holocaust deniers"), it was clear that no standard of evidence will convince you, despite the fact that the IHR and the deniers associated with them are proven liars and frauds. I tried to make this easier by asking you to demonstrate that the claim in the article is false, which would be easy, if true. You are unable or unwilling to do that, and the consensus is against you. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm arguing no such thing. You're engaging in a desperate attempt to assign an argument to me that I haven't made. You're being dishonest. I will continue removing the claim that "Holocaust deniers" typically "willfully" misuse information, until evidence is presented to support that claim. RJII 17:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

(Moving left). David Irving is the most successful "Holocaust revisionist" historian. He was found by the British court to be a Holocaust Denier, and the judge's verdict stated that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence. That's their best historian, and a court of law has found that he is not only a Denier, but that he willfully distorts the evidence. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hm. Maybe some holocaust deniers are not dishonest after all, but, just like young earth creationists, unbelievably stupid? RJ, do you like that better? Maybe we should change the sentence from "willfully" to "willfully or out of complete ignorance of even basic historiographic methodology" :D Dietwald 19:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Some more edits

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ok, I made some more edits to the text. There are two argumens used by deniers that are actually not as untrue as others. To my knowledge, there has been no specific Fuehrerbefehl to exterminate the Jews. I tried to show that this does not make any difference and that there is ample evidence that shows that Hitler and other upper echelons of the Nazis knew about the holocaust.

The second is that there may in fact not have been an explicit initial plan to exterminate all Jews, but that it may have grown out of the policies of the Nazis. This, too, is a legitimate debate, and i tried to show that this also does NOT exonerate the Nazis - they still did the killing, and it was still organized, even if it was haphazardly done at times.

Third, there was a consensus NOT to say that the PA REGULARLY publishes and promotes denial lit, and i put that into the text. I think this was agreed upon after a short discussion some time ago.

Fourth, I changed several references to 'revisionism' into 'denial'. I think this, too, is in line with the consensus.

I hope i have not offended.

Dietwald 10:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree on the Fuehrerbefehl... It's ridiculous to believe that this all went on without Hitler knowing it, or the upper Nazi leadership didn't know. That the killing "grew" doesn't somehow make the whole thing more forgiveable... Putting people in camps is already wrong. Perhaps there should be more info about non-Jewish victims? It increases the death count, especially if they're pulling out the old chestnut of "The deaths were mostly because of disease and starvation and blah blah blah".
And another reason that the entire term "Holocaust revisionist" is often bunk is because what sort of legitimate historical revisionist focuses entirely on one topic? If they were just going through historical records, looking at things that weren't entirely true, for instance, that might be one thing. But if they devote all their time to trying to prove that there were no gas chambers? Bit one-note, eh? --Edward Wakelin 13:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

NPOV tag

Latest comment: 19 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

I'm putting an NPOV tag on the article, due to the assertion that "Holocaust deniers typically willfully misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions." There is no evidence that it is typically willful. How would one know what is going on in the head of the Holcaust denier anyway? The NPOV way to take care of this would by to say something like "It is usually claimed that Holocaust deniers typically willfully misuse or ignore historical records." RJII 16:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

RJII, I understand the impulse to make everything relative so that it sounds "NPOV", but this is a clear-cut case where the NPOV version is to keep "typically willfully". Every example we have of Holocaust denial "scholarship" involves willful misuse or ignoring of historical records. Every one. So saying "typically willful" is totally and absolutely correct. If you disagree, give us a counterexample. You have already made this case many times, and it has been rejected many times. Either put up a source showing this is indeed not true or your NPOV tag will be removed. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that they typically willfully misuse inforation. There is no burden on me. If you remove the tag you will be engaging in vandalism. You must provide evidence for the statement. All you've done is bring up opinions from people. Either state that these are opinions or remove the claim. RJII 17:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
You obviously don't understand -- it has been proven that these people typically willfully misuse evidence. Does anybody believe that these people do not typically willfully misuse evidence? No one admits to being a murderer either, but it is not wrong to call them that if they have been proven to be so by the courts and unanimous opinion, similarly, no one admits to being a fraud, but you can call them that if there is unanimous facts in your favor. For you to claim this is mere opinion, you need to show that someone disagrees with it. You are saying there is disagreement, but you haven't provided any reason to believe you, NOT ONE SOURCE. If it is not truth, show some evidence to the contrary. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have a suggestion, and it's not even tongue in cheek: "Holocaust deniers typically display complete disregard for proper historiographical methodology. In fact, several prominent Holocaust deniers have been found to willfully misuse and ignore historical records, going so far as to falsify them -- as in the case of David Irving. As a result, their research is at best tainted by a an ideological selection bias, and at worst outright fraudulent."
What do you folks think? Dietwald 18:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Great start, but I would propose: Holocaust deniers typically display complete disregard for proper historiographical methodology, changing facts and ignoring evidence in order to suit their pre-determined conclusion. In fact, several prominent Holocaust deniers have been found by courts to willfully misuse and ignore historical records, going so far as to falsify them -- as in the case of David Irving. As a result, their research is, in the words of the American Historical Association, the largest society of historians in the United States, "at best, a form of academic fraud." --Goodoldpolonius2 18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Deitwald, if you changed that to this, I think I would be fine with it: "Several prominent Holocaust deniers have been found to willfully misuse and ignore historical records, going so far as to falsify them -- as in the case of David Irving. As a result, many conclude that that it is typical of Holocaust deniers to disregard proper historiographical methodology. It is commonly held that their research is at best tainted by an ideological selection bias, and at worst outright fraudulent." RJII 18:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
RJ, it is not commonly held that their research is at best tainted by an ideological selection bias, and is at worst outright fraudulent. It is a FACT that this is so.
After all, would you agree to a wording that said "it is commonly held that the earh is a sphere"? or "it is commonly held that young earth creationism is scientifically untenable"? I doubt it, and IF -- than I don't think this discussion is of any further utility.
IF you could provide evidence that Holocaust deniers employ proper historiographical methodology, maybe we can get somewhere. BUT, that's about as likely as finding a Young Earth Creationist who employes proper scientific methodology.
And remove that 'disputed' tag already. I CAN see RJs point, but I think he is overlabouring it. Dietwald 19:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I removed the bloody tag. RJ, don't put it back in. Your position smacks of epistemic relativism. Dietwald 19:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I put the tag back in. You're not supposed to remove those without a consensus. It's vandalism. RJII 19:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
To claim that Holocaust deniers typically and willfully misuse information is making an irrational leap from the premise that a judge rendered an opinion that Irving willfully misused information. It's very difficult to make such a claim unless the great majority of "Holocaust deniers" are each studied and proved to be willfully misusing information. RJII 19:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply


RJ, there IS consensus that the NPOV tag should be removed. Consensus does NOT mean unanimous agreement. Consensus can be reached even IF one party to the discussion vehemently objects. Look it up, talk to people who make a living negotiating things.
Holocauste deniers DO willfully misuese data. Whether out of ignorance or malice is irrelavant. Dietwald 02:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and could you start responding to questions people ask you? You sound like a broken record -- is that willfull? Dietwald 02:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm going to stand on my head and suggest that "wilfully" be removed. Not because of RJII's arguments, which are reasonable but just wrong in this context; rather, it's unnecessary. Just saying they typically misuse or ignore the historical record is sufficient. There are lots of reasons they typically do this; it could be willful, or they could be stupid, they could be mentally disturbed, or they could be blinded by hatred, or some other unpleasant reason. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I would second that. BUT, no epistemic relativism, please. As I said, I CAN see RJ's point, but he is belabouring it too much. I second removing willfully, but not adding any relativations along the lines of "commonly believed" etc. That would just be wrong. AND -- there STILL seems to be consensus on this page being NPOV, and there being no need for a tag saying otherwise. And, RJ, you really should start replying to questions instead of being just a nuisance. Dietwald 06:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am another user who made the NPOV edit recently (203.211.67.238) which was promptly reverted. First of all, since mindless name-calling seems to be rampant here (anybody doing any changes is immediately labelled "holocaust denier" or "nazi"), here's a disclaimer first: I am not a national socialist, nationalist, racist, white supremacist, white separatist, or in any way associated with individuals or organisations promoting such views (it's not exactly relevant, but I am perhaps closest to being a communist). So please restrain yourself and try to keep to civilised discussion on the topic.

Now, as far as article goes - I strongly agree with RJ that it is definitely POV. Not so much on the factual side as it is on the wording, which seems to make many subtle but strong connotations stemming from personal beliefs of the authors, and certainly not backed by any sources. As I understand, there are thus at least 3 people here who believe the non-NPOV marking on the article is desired, so I put it back in - and if you believe I don't have a point, please tell just how many people disputing the NPOV-ness of the article you need. Furthermore, if anything, the long list of reverts done in the last few days shows the lack of concensus. My position on this is that, for as long as we have an ongoing dispute on the Talk page, the sign should be there. int19h 14:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply


I think this is becoming really -- strange? After RJ failed to convince the community that his POV is to be considered, he decides that this articel is not NPOV, and puts the tag on. After he is challenged that he is the only one to think this article is NPOV, Int19h appears out of nowhere, claiming he supports RJ, and also claims there are now THREE people who think this is not NPOV... 1+1=3?. Int19h NEVER wrote ANYTHING on wiki, and his page only appeared today. Check it out.
This stinks. Really, really stinks. I have no idea how to go about it, but I would like to have this checked for sock-puppeteering. IF I am mistaken, and RJ is not playing sock-puppet, I will apologise whole-heartedly. But, I would like this investigated by the administrators before we continue.
if Int19h is a bona-fide user, than this was just terrible timing, and I am sorry to have levelled this accusation at him. BUT, I DO would like to see an investigation of the matter.
Thank you. Dietwald 19:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think you might be mistaken. Int19h has had sporadic contributions since spring of 2004. They've not been substantial, but this isn't an "I just showed today!" sort of thing. I suggest politely that your dudgeon is misplaced. (PS: I checked first too.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for pointing that out. I would've thought that at least checking my edit history would be something one should do before making such accusations. Furthermore, if it is the only reason why my edit adding the NPOV tag was reverted, then it is rightly re-reverted by RJ now - or if whoever did it had other reasons, please give them. int19h 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Int19h, my Apologies. I DID check your edit history, but I did not see anything in there. But, I DO apologise for my unjustified accusation. Thank you, jp, for confirming that he's bona fide. Dietwald 03:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

What is NPOV

Latest comment: 19 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Quoted verbatim from Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute for those people who insist that NPOV warning does not belong here:

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.
There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:
The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

Bolding is mine. I hope it clarifies things a bit. If you are for removing the warning, please explain how it fits into the above on a point-by-point basis, to contain the discussion and not let it turn into another flamewar. int19h 15:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You only exist since today? How convenient. What's wikipedia policy on sock-puppets? Folks, go to int19h's user page. This really pisses me off. Dietwald 18:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
See above. I refuse to discuss anything with users who don't even bother to check my history before throwing around accusations, and furthermore, resort to attacks on my person rather than discussing the subject at hand. If you have a comment on what I posted here, you're welcome to reply in a civilised manner. Otherwise, please keep your neo-nazi conspiracy theory to yourself. Thank you. int19h 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • Int19h, please accept my apologies. I DID check your history, but I did not see anything there. That was most likely due to my technological incomptence. So, since I have mistaken your for a sock-puppet -- a most serious allegation to level at anyone -- I admit to have made a grieveous mistake. Again, I apologise without reservation. Dietwald 08:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • But sometimes one viewpoint IS more correct than another. The viewpoint that the earth is flat is less correct than the scientifically observable truth. The viewpoint that the Holocaust did not occur (or that it was trivial, or that it was unintentional) is less correct than the historically verifiable truth. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I do not dispute that. But read the quote once again. For your convenience, I repeat the relevant part: "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral". I am certainly not advocating the POV that Holocaust did not occur (nor, I believe, is RJ - though I can be wrong, and I'll let him speak for himself), nor disputing that most people who hold this POV are indeed brain-damaged - but this is also my own POV, it is not neutral, and I do not pretend it to be. I can wholeheartedly agree with your position, but the article has to be NPOV regardless. It isn't. It is fine on the factual side, but the way it is written is basically emotionally (I'm not touching the factual side here) insulting to those who happen to be on another side of the barricades regarding the issue. Furthermore, it has certain factual inaccuracies: e.g. the phrase "amateur historians" - there was already a list of non-amateur historians given here, however, when I corrected it to be "mostly amateur historians" to reflect this, my change gets reverted - erm? int19h
For me, that's not the POV issue. Whether the Holocaust was 6 million, 1 million, or 60 million dead, is not relevant for me. Either way, an attrocity occured. The issue is the assertion that "Holocaust deniers" are maliciously motivated by asserting that they "typically willfuly" misuse information. This is a highly POV assertion, as no one knows what is going on the "typical" "Holooaust denier's" head. I don't know, but I wouldn't doubt that there are many who are actually convinced by their studies that the number killed in the Holocaust has been exaggerated by a significant amount. Calling people "Holocaust deniers" who say they don't deny the Holocaust but merely think the severity was exaggerated is one questionable thing, but to personally attack the motivations of everyone who holds such a position is not proper in an encyclopedia. RJII 17:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
But their motivations are, almost without exception (hence "typically" rather than "universally"), are as described. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
How do you know what their motivations are? RJII 20:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Decades of exposure to them and study of their methods. That, of course, is OR -- which is why I'm willing to take out the "willful" word; as I said, there is a range of motivations for people to work to perpetuate anti-Semitic fraud. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
The key word here is "almost". That is why I made several edits to overgeneralising statements ("all deniers are anti-semites") to be more factual ("most deniers are anti-semites"). Apparently, it is still an issue with some other users, and I'd like to know why. int19h 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's not clear to me that the NPOV notice is reasonable, however, there is a lack of sources for the claims which are being questioned which, unfortunately, makes it's placement technically legitimate in my view. I suggest that those wishing to remove the NPOV notice see Verifiability and choose an inline references system such as Wikipedia:Footnote3. Simply adding credible sources to statements such as "it is considered to be" will improve the visible neutrality no end. Mozzerati 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the reasonablitity of NPOV notice - I wonder, what exactly seems unreasonable about it? It has exactly two lines of text. The first one states that neutrality of the article is disputed - looking at this Talk page, is there any doubt about that? The next one suggests to read the discussion, which is exactly what people who revert my edits say in the description of their edits. So, what exactly is the problem with it being there? int19h 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
You're right that a lot of the problems can be solved with minor wording changes such as "is it considered to be," etc. But the clique that has been monopolizing this article is not willing. RJII 23:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Weasel words don't help anything -- they give the appearance of NPOV without actually conveying any information or actually being NPOV. Regarding cliques -- it's refreshing, for the first time, to see an editor who is rebuffed for making changes against consensus declaring that the opposition is a clique.
Regarding Int19h's question -- just because one person has a problem with an article doesn't make it POV. Nor does a disagreement on a talk page; were this the case, disputants could pin NPOV tags on any article at any time...and there would be no way ever to remove them unless everyone miraculously agreed with everything (or shut up and went away). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Apparently, there are at least 2 users (RJ and me) having problem with the article as it is now, and there's more if you also count the ones who actively participated in the discussion earlier (as seen in the archives). Also, I'm not saying that any kind of disagreement warrants a NPOV tag; only if the disagreement is on whether the article is NPOV. You say that clear expression of disagreement on the talk page by several users is not enough; what is, then? And I will repeat my older question: what exactly is wrong with the tag being present on this article? which specific part of the warning it displays do you consider factually incorrect as applied to the article? int19h 00:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • I would also like to note that not having an NPOV tag on the article itself contradicts the "controversial" tag on the talk page (the warning sign for the latter explicitly says, "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed).int19h 00:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • My suggestion is: keep the article as it is for now (got to begin somewhere). Stick the NPOV warning on it so that people are aware of the discussion which is going on on the talk page. And protect it from edits till the issue is resolved - it is rather clear that we have a revert war here, which is not good. int19h 00:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Nah, it doesn't need protection. Protection is only for when people are being unreasonable, and as a last resort. I'd still dearly love for someone to come up with a single example of a holocaust denier who does not ignore and misuse historical evidence, willfully or otherwise; it's pretty much the definition of a holocaust denier. How much of the decades of recorded dialog with holocaust deniers, most of it wherever the logs of alt.revisionism or whatever it's called are, should we put here, as examples of the misuse? (IHR and JHR feature quite prominently there.) How much of Irving v. Lipstadt should be cited here? It is not possible to be a holocaust denier without ignoring and misusing historical evidence. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
As I said, I'm certainly not disputing the fact that Holocaust revisionism is misinterpreting historical evidence. The world "willfully" is gone from there for good, and I don't have any problems with that phrase now. It's not the only questionable one in the article, though. I've mentioned the "amateur historians" being factually incorrect already, and there are a few more cases where better wording is due - for the sake of simplicity, I will refer you to the diff for my edits. int19h 01:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Amateur historian?

Latest comment: 19 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion
I have a problem with "amateur historian" as well. What does that mean? If you're making money selling history books and speaking, it seems to me you would be a professional historian. It comes across as an obvious slight at those with a minority opinion of history. RJII 02:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
As it should, in this case, since the particular "minority opinion of history" involves denying historical factual data. But in this case, "amateur historian" means "non-academically-qualified historian". I mean, I can install a new faucet, but that doesn't make me a plumber. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
So you have to have a degree in history to not be an amateur historian? Is that what you're saying? If so, is your claim then that none of the so-called "Holocaust deniers" have an academic degree in history? RJII 03:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Is there one who has one? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Curiously enough, there is a brief list of Ph.D's who support Holocaust revisionism on this very page above (in section #17). I went through that list, and none of those degrees are in history -- which is also somewhat telling. However, unless you have information on academic career of each and every revisionist out there, so that you can definitely state that none of them hold academic degrees in history, I would argue for a more precise wording - something along the lines of "vast majority are amateur historians", or perhaps "all well-known are ..." - since the latter does seem to be true (but perhaps someone has sources saying otherwise? I sure don't know any). int19h 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
This is from the IHR website: "If the skeptical (or revisionist) view of the Holocaust was really as simplistic and indefensible as some insist, it would not have gained the support of university professors such as Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson, historians such as Roger Garaudy, David Irving and Harry Elmer Barnes..." RJII 04:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, I'm not so sure one has to have a degree in history to not be an "amateur historian." Do you have any official writings on this to back up that claim? RJII 05:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Well, after reading the David Irving article, I don't see how anyone could conclude that he's an "amateur historian." RJII 05:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ok, so why Irving specifically cannot be considered a professional historian? I think I can answer that. First of all, as said above, he doesn't have an academic degree, so this (perhaps the simplest) verification method gives a negative result. It is obviously not the only one, though, and just like the article on him explicitly states, he was at some point of his life considered a professional historian based on the importance of his findings. He basically lost his credence, and with it his status, though, after the he lost the libel suit. Just to remind, it was found that his theories not only do not have scientific basis, but that he willingly distorted facts and knowingly used forged documents as a basis for his theories. This is definitely not a behaviour compatible with being a professional historian. int19h 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure how you could come to any other conclusion. Irving has no degrees in history, nor has he taught history at a university level; this would seem to make him an amateur historian, or perhaps "history popularizer", but certainly not a professional. Jayjg (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
There is no requirement that someone have a degree in history to be a non-amateur historian. You're only placing that condition on Irving because you disagree with his historical account. Certainly there are plenty of non-amateur historians around that don't have a degree in history. RJII 14:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Can you name some professional historians who have no degrees in history? As for his "historical account", it was found to have been deliberately falsified for ideological reasons by a court of law, in a case he himself brought - it is the British court system (and apparently other historians) who disagree with it. Also, please restrict your comments to article content, not your suppositions about other editors. Jayjg (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sure, David Irving is a professional historian with no degree in history. If you need more, just go through the list of historians. RJII 15:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Could you please answer the question? Can you name another modern "professional historian" who has no degrees in history? Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel like going through the list, and there is no reason to answer the question. Irving is a professional historian that does not have a history degree. Being a "Holocaust denier" doesn't exclude him. There is no official authority requiring someone to have a history degree in order to be a professional historian. RJII 17:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
As I suspected; you made a bald assertion for which you have no evidence. Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
And what "assertion" have I made beyond: "There is no official authority requiring someone to have a history degree in order to be a professional historian."? RJII 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
You clearly asserted Certainly there are plenty of non-amateur historians around that don't have a degree in history.; I'm suprised you've forgotten that so quickly, as it was exactly what we had been talking about. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I see. I didn't mean that as an assertion, thought I agree it was a prima facie assertion. I was just stating what I think to be very reasonable speculation. I can't imagine that all profession historians have a degree in history. I'm not inclined to research it right now, but maybe I will. But I don't know what it would prove. If your position is that you have a degree in history to be a professional historian, then if I point someone out that doesn't have a degree, then naturally your response would be that they're not a professional historian. So you're engaging in circular reasoning. Unless I've mistaken your position. So, let me ask you. Does one have to have a degree in history to be a professional historian? RJII 18:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
There are a number of potential criteria for being considered a professional historian. These might include:
  • Degree in history (ideally doctoral).
  • Published in peer-reviewed historical journals.
  • Professor of history at some university.
  • Membership in a professional organization.
  • Legal accreditation of some sort.
Irving appears to have none of these. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
    • University professor does not add a lot of credibility in my mind.
    • Roger Garaudy In 1998, a French court found him guilty of Holocaust denial and racial defamation
    • David Irving Irving lost the case and was found to be a Holocaust denier by the court.
    • Harry Elmer Barnes - appears to need an article, but I don't find in a quick (~1 min search) that he said anything about the Holocaust.

Wikibofh 04:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

removal of NPOV tag

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not a regular to this article so forgive me if I'm rehashing stuff, but I happened to see the last edit and the removal of the NPOV tag, and I'm not really happy with

Holocaust deniers typically misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions.

That's certainly the view of the majority, but I think this needs (at worst) weasel words and at best proper sourcing. I'm sure holocaust deniers don't see themselves as misusing or ignoring historical records. --fvw* 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we can work from the sentence the RJII offered and come up with a compromise? 

"Several prominent Holocaust deniers have been found to willfully misuse and ignore historical records, 
going so far as to falsify them -- as in the case of David Irving. As a result, many conclude that that 
it is typical of Holocaust deniers to disregard proper historiographical methodology. It is commonly held 
that their research is at best tainted by an ideological selection bias, and at worst outright fraudulent."

I think it's too long and convulted myself. I'd prefer something much shorter. Something like: 

The common belief among the public and historians is that Holcaust deniers research is, at best, 
tainted by a selection bias and at worst fraudlent. As in the case of David Irving
it has been shown that in some instances they have ignored historical records, willfully misused others
and even falsified documents.

Hmm...only a few words shorter, so I'm not sure. Fire away. Wikibofh 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply 

Most Holocaust deniers style themselves as revisionists or historians.  
However, they have been shown to ignore and willfully misuse historical 
records and even falsify documents.  (See David Irving and 
Roger Garaudy).

Wikibofh 16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Re RfC

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I've stumbled upon this from the RfC. I've deliberately avoided reading the talk page so I'll probably only repeating other users, but anyway:

From the lead:

Holocaust denial refers to the claims of a small number of predominantly amateur historians and politically interested individuals and groups, who argue that the Holocaust did not occur as it is defined by mainstream historical science.

IMO the bolded part should be removed from that sentence, perhaps also from the lead. The statement may or may not be true, but isn't relevant to the defenition of Holocaust denial. You probably want to avoid the term amateur historian.

In general I think this article focus too much on the history rather than the claims of Holocaust denial. Even though you have a Holocaust denial examined sub page, you should at least give the major pros and cons of the various claims. Fornadan (t) 21:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The issue, though, is that Holocaust denial is false (RJII may argue over whether it is willfully false or simply mistaken, but it is false), and it is a very minority opinion which no professional historian subscribes to. Therefore, understanding who pushes this opinion is important to defining what it is, it is not just the belief, it is, in the words of the Yale Law Review a "pseudoscholarly" attempt by non-historians to push an anti-Semitic agenda. That needs to be reflected as well, it is like not mentioning that the Tabacco Insitute is funded by major cigarette companies in the lead. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Fornadan, what would you prefer those people to be referred to? You can't call them historians, since they are about as much historians as young earth creationists are scientists. Holocaust denial is quackery, plain and simple. It's nonsense at best, and hate propaganda at the worst. It IS relevant to point out that Holocaust Denial is a minority opinion of people who do not qualify as historians, even though they talk about history. You would not call astrologers scientists, after all. So, maybe one should just refer to them as politically interested groups and individuals? Because that's what it is all about really, it's not about history at all, it's about politics. Holocaust Denial is not a matter of historical science, but a matter of political propaganda.
Furthermore, since RJ's 'controversy' has been addressed, and the 'typically' removed, and the intro given a pretty damn balanced treatment, maybe we can remove the NPOV tag now? Straw-vote, please. Dietwald 17:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • Looking at the latest edits, I must agree that the article has become much better - so much so that I support the removal of the NPOV tag now. There are still a few places where I think a more correct wording could be used, but those are hardly of any importance, and can be dealt with at our leisure. I vote "remove". int19h 20:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • Hopefully, everyone's reasonable concerns have been addressed. Remove, of course. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • That's fine. Though I'm still not satisfied with one or two things in the intro, it is much improved. The main thing for me was "willfully." That was way POV. RJII 21:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
my, oh my. Ok. glad to hear this. Let' think about it for some more time, and when I come back from my weekend -- and it's still there -- I'll remove it... unless there are objections by then.... Dietwald 03:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yet another attempt to separate "revisionism" from "denial"

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Using some of the text that had previously been entered into this entry, I've taken a stab at an article describing the difference between "Holocaust revisionism" (the use of genuine historical fact to correct historical errors concerning the Holocaust) and "holocaust denial" (the conspiracy theory that the Holocaust never happened). Take a look at Holocaust revisionism/worksheet and feel free to take part. --Modemac 13:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • Well, neither of the examples you cite are anything reasonably entitled "Holocaust revisionism". Correcting mistakes in the historical record is what historians do. You are correct that Holocaust deniers twist the work of historians to their own ends -- which is exactly what the article says. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • Actually, Modemac, your current version - while I personally agree with the sentiments - has several problems:
a) it would start the whole NPOV debate again, I am sure RJ and some of the others would agree on this.
b) it would, as jpgordon correctly pointed out, obfusicate the distinction between genuine historical research and denialims.
An interesting note, by the way: has anybody ever noticed that historians actually don't use the term 'revisionist' to describe themselves? I have the feeling it is more often than not used disparingly by those who subscribe to a main-stream historical view to describe those who do not. Particularly obvious in the historiographical discussion on the Soviet Union. Revisionist is a term used to describe those historians who believe that Stalin was actually less totalitarian then most historians believe, or that he actually killed less people (though, this line of argument frequently degrades into denialism). It seems that bona fide historians try to avoid the term revisionism for themselves, while quacks like to assume it. It's just a note on the side, maybe it's useless or wrong, but it's just an observation I made over the years, and this discusson kind of crystalized the idea in my head. Dietwald 17:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Dietwald, and, although your effort is well-written, I don't think there is alot of confusion between Daniel Goldhagen (who might be termed a "revisionist" in the classical sense) and the Institute for Historical Review, so I am not sure if we need to open this can of worms. People who would be called revisionists in normal historical fields just aren't given that label in the studies of the Holocaust because of the muddying of the waters caused by Holocaust denial. And revisionist is usually an outside label in any case. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

This page needs to be moved to Holocaust revisionism

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Identity:

"Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self identification). This can mean calling an individual the term they use, or calling a group the term most widely used by that group."

Sam Spade 00:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you should quote the sentence right before that: "However, here are some non-binding guidelines that may help." I hardly think this "non-binding guideline" compels us to use a label that was designed to be purposefully misleading and which is almost universally rejected among serious scholars as an attempt to whitewash Holocaust denial. This article (and the talk page) explains in great detail why calling Holocaust denial is the most NPOV approach, and, to quote from the same section of the manual of style: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence." --Goodoldpolonius2 00:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
A separate Holocaust revisionism article could be created, instead of moving this one. RJII 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't have to direct here. RJII 01:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
No; "holocaust revisionism" could be treated as something distinct from "holocaust denial". Except it isn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. Maybe I'll create it then to see if you're right. No better incentive than being told that it's not doable. RJII 02:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Have fun. Did you look in the discussion right above here, where Modemac is trying exactly that? I didn't say it's not doable; I could do it right now. "Holocaust revisionism" -- a term used by Holocaust deniers to refer to their methodology." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I doubt that I will. The subject doesn't really interest me one way or the other. I just happened to come across some very POV stuff that needed to be addressed. Maybe if I was a "Holocaust denier" I'd be more into it. I'm probably winding down here. RJII 03:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Typical wikipedia. Just because we don't have a flat earther handy, NPOV is violated. Sam Spade 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

call-demand strategies and information-gathering

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The attention accorded this topic has been initiated from 'encyclopediast territory' and was at first the simple results from subject/respondent replies about the fires during the San Francisco [CA U. S. A.] 1906 earthquake. 'Denial' was somewhat cavalierly used to describe the reaction of people who know/knew nothing about the historical earthquake scenario; as a psychological term, it was then quite logically transferred to the topical domains of 'cremation' and 'death-during-fires'.

The effort also alludes to the use of tobacco to burn off intes-tinal effluent, and the perhaps predictable incidence of destructive fires which result therefrom. Targeted with a call-demand methodological strategy demonstrated in the manner of an inquisition, those lacking on-site experience or personal eye-witness accounts of the German concentration camp debacles truthfully denied any knowledge or participation in the events.

There is some reason to believe that camp-dwellers were being recruited and confined so as to engage in some kind of public works or product-development schemes, and that coercive pressure or inexperience contributed to digestive problems in-formally characterized as 'gas'/gastrointestinal disfunction. While historical photographs affirm the existence of crematory equipment within the German concentration camps investigated, there is no reason to believe that chloroform or some other type of gas was used to deliberately kill the in-mates. Beadtot 10/19/2005 20:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that "some other type of gas" was used to deliberately kill the victims -- Zyklon-B, for instance. This is one of the topics that holocaust deniers have been trying to assert, and despite all of of their whining they have yet to prove their case that "gas was not used to kill Jews." --Modemac 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ignore the gibberish-troll. Check the edits of beadtot (talk · contribs). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The human body when stressed produces a variety of noxious gases which are offensive to other creatures. Also, for those who believe that "Jews" may have been deliberately gassed, see the Wikipedia comment titled 'Abraham mythology', which describes the roles of the people of God sometimes opposed by the people of Abraham. Beadtot 10/19/2005 00:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

beadtot, just because you hate jews has nothing to do with the topic on hand. I can't find any comment entitled 'Abraham mythology' but Abraham lived around 2000+ years before the holocaust so it is irrelevent, if by it however you are trying to justify killing jews then why would you deny that they were indeed killed? Point is that the holocaust actually did happen and people who deny this fact are Holocaust deniers. It doesn't even matter if they were killed by gas or some other means, the fact that the nazi german military/goverment systamatically killed around 11 million (only about half were jews) is a proven fact.

And beadtot, you say that 'Jews may have been deliberately gassed' do you mean to imply that they were gassed accidentally? Also why is "Jews" in quotation marks? Do you not believe that jews exsist either? This is an encyclopedia, it is meant to be based on facts not on supporting an agenda.

The artical is not NPOV either. I really dont see what is wrong with calling people who dispute the events of the holocaust as holocaust deniers. T-rex 18:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

This article is scary

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Re: Request for comment

I do not think that Nazi hate has its place on the internet, especially a somewhat legitimate reference site such as this. My jaw nearly dropped after seeing some of this! Why is this entire article written in a casual tone? Then there is the fact that it quotes horrible neo-nazi propganda like general encyclopedic facts, and gives reference to damn neonazi literature. Links to websites denying the Holocaust? I'm wondering how the editors of this article found this hate-propaganda out? The tools that holocaust deniers use to manipulate people should not be here. The problem with wikipedia is people like neo-nazis or paedophiles are free to edit at will. Why hasn't this article been flagged?! Even looking in the talk page, there are people trying to spread hate, one guy who has apperently done thousands of edits wants this article renamed "Holocaust Revisionism"? Why does the sinister underbelly of the internet have such free reign here?

Maybe this is trivial to some people here, but some of us have relatives who died in the holocaust, and that should be respected.

This article must be deleted, or rewritten without the step-by-step guide on how to spread hate.--Sansvoix 02:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Simpy put, you think wrong. Wikipedia policy is about representing the facts and various points of view; it's not a propaganda web site and should not reflect anyone's personal view. That is why we have articles on Holocaust denial, Neo-nazism, White supremacism etc. On a side note, since you mention pedophiles - have you seen articles such as Childlover? They exist, and they are there for the same reason. If they offend you, you have a freedom of restraining yourself from reading them, which you're welcome to excercise. Free reign is the founding principle on which Wikipedia is built - as long as it is factual and NPOV, it goes in, regardless of whether it offends someone or not. If you have any specific issues with either factuality or NPOV'ness of this article, please state them. int19h 04:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sansvoix, the main difference between the principles of the Open Society and the principles of its enemies are that in an Open Society, there is no ban on information. The slogan of Wikipedia is "information wants to be free" -- and whether the founders of wikipedia know it or not, they have thereby committed wikipedia to one of the most powerful and revolutionary ideas in the world, the Open Society. You ask for something that goes against this principle. You want to limit information based on your tastes. It may come as a shock to you, but this is an attitude that is actually very similar to the people you seem to dislike so much. Think about this. Your intentions may be good, but your advocated means defy the purpose. Dietwald 06:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
This is not a 'movement'! It does not deserve to be described as such! I do not see how you people can sleep at night after encouraging the spreading of criminal messages! Do you consider that example of 'childlove' to be a casual social 'movement' as well? If someone wrote an article 'Techniques of rape' would that be OK as it is a product of the 'open socity?' This is not my personal taste, it is the simple fact that hate should not be spread, no matter what the means of communication. People have died because of the things said in this article! This article should at least focus on the criminal aspect of holocaust denial, and take a respectful tone for the millions murdered. Would you go out in the real world and say holocaust deniers deserve to spread their so-called information? You think this is a 'powerful and revolutionary', but do you want this revolution built on the filth of humanity! --Sansvoix 06:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sansvoix, as you can see in the discussions above, I agree with you that Holocaust denial is toxic and distasteful, but, at the same time, there are two philosophies for dealing with this: suppression or direct conflict. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has tried the first approach ("hate should not be spread" in your words), pushing to remove sites that contain Holocaust denial, etc. but it never seemed to work, in that there were always more sites springing up, and nobody bothered to address their lies, making them seem legitimate. The Nizkor project, as one example, takes the other, addressing the false claims of Holocaust denial head-on to show how ridiculous they are, which has generally proven effective. Wikipedia's philosophy means that it is more in the second camp, addressing rather than suppressing topics. At the same time, it is, of course, important to make sure that the article shows that Holocaust denial is false, and primarily an anti-Semitic fig leaf, but I think that the article does do that. Perhaps you can propose some language on the "criminal apsects of holocaust denial"?--Goodoldpolonius2 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

This artical exsists because some people actually are neo-nazis and deny that the holocaust ever took place. The artical itself, mainly talks about how these claims are untrue and doesn't give them much support at all (which is appropriate considering that the claims are unfounded and untrue). Yet because it is a movement that really does exsist it is worth getting mentioned on wikipedia. --T-rex 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&oldid=26447463"