Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Added Pseudo Scientist / Holocaust Denier

Please allow the addition of Bradley Smith to the notable pseudo scientist, pseudo historian and Holocaust Denier section.

Frederick Toben

From the history of the article

• 19:04, 11 April 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (→European Union: This is a living person his bio page does not claim he denies the Holocaust in the pasive voice, we should not do so here WP:BLP)
• 22:46, 11 April 2009 Steven J. Anderson (Undid revision 283223845 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) His bio page explicitly does call him a denier.)

...

• 23:28, 11 April 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (→European Union: rv Because the biography articles says "Töben has frequently been called a Holocaust denier" it does not say that he is a Holocaust denier)

Controversial labels ought to be attributed to a source and not used without such, This is made clear in WP:PROVEIT and WP:BLP. As the next sentence says "As there is no specific crime of Holocaust denial in the UK the German government had applied for Toben's extradition under racial and xenophobic crimes." means that the information is already being conveyed and I see no point in labelling the man in the passive narrative voice of the article in the sentence that precedes the one I have quoted unless one is trying to make a point. --PBS (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article Gerald Fredrick Töben contains the following text in the section titled "Views on the Holocaust":

Töben refuses to concede that the Holocaust as asserted by establishment historians ever occurred, rather asserting that mass killings did take place, only a smaller scale. Töben has indicated that he considers the Holocaust to be a lie ostensibly perpetuated by "the Holocaust Racketeers, the corpse peddlers and the Shoah Business Merchants"; he has further asserted that "the current U.S. government is influenced by world Zionist considerations to retain the survival of the European colonial, apartheid, Zionist, racist entity of Israel."

Additionally, the section titled "Biography" begins thusly:

In 1999 he was imprisoned for nine months at Mannheim Prison for breaching Germany's Holocaust Law, Section 130..."

It doesn't get much more explicit than that, PBS. He's been convicted of it. He's been quoted denying it. The man's a denier. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that I read that since he was in jail he has been quoted that he has changed his mind. Would this mean that he still "denies that the genocide of the jews under the instruction of the German Nazi Party happened" or that he used to deny this .I'll look for a quote. You can't go around using English Language like this.It's wrong and to quote you. "The man's a denier". It's just too random , what does he actually deny? You yourself quote him here as saying that mass killings did take place only he disagreed with the estimates of deaths. Your comment reminds me of my mother telling me I was a drug addict when she caught me smoking a joint.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

here on wikipedia page for Gerald Fredrick Töben is says that he frequently denies being a denier of the Jewish Holocaust. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

here [1]in 2008 the telegraph calls him "Suspected Holocaust denier" Dr Gerald Toben.(Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)) and here [2]the daily mail again calls him Suspected-Holocaust-denier and n the article they use,"alleged" so there does seem to be some hedging of legal bet . I'm no lawyer but it's better to be safe than sorry . WP:BLP On sky again in 2008 here [3]they call him " A revisionist historian wanted in Germany for alleged Holocaust denial has appeared in court.(Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

User:Steven J. Anderson you did not address my point about what additional information you think that label gives the article. If you want to add that the was convicted in Germany for what ever his crime was, then add it with a source but that is different from simply labeling someone in the passive editorial voice of Wikipedia. --PBS (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled on the actual charge in germany that he was convicted of and jailed for , it was something like "inciting racial hatred" or something like that , i'll have a look for the quote.It wasn't Holocaust denial. (Off2riorob (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Dr Töben spent seven months in Mannheim prison in 1999 for inciting racism.[4] I think at that time the crime of Holocaust denial didn't exist . (Off2riorob (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

User:Steven J. Anderson you did not address my point about what additional information you think "that label" gives the article.

From the history of the article "This does not breach WP:BLP or [[WP:PROVEIT" .(i) why remove "(UK)"? (ii) adding "that label" is a breach of WP:PROVEIT as there is no reliable source given for the information about a living person it is a breach of WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".

User:Steven J. Anderson is discussing the point on the talk page, he is in breach of two Wikipdia policies, so I would appreciate it if other editors would support me on this point and persuade him to comply with policy. --PBS (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• support. I agree with removing the reference to Toben catagorically being a denier of this holocaust. He has denied being a denier and there are plenty of quotes where other publications refrain from outright accusations of H. denial. I would prefer it to read something like " who has been accused of denying the H. " or something along those words. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Notable Holocaust deniers

I think the section Notable Holocaust deniers should be rewritten along the lines of Genocide denial#Notable genocide denials as this will make it a much more informative section, and for those people who are sill alive and included in the list it will comply with WP:BLP. --PBS (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, good idea. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Normal Finklestein

There should be a section in this article about Jewish Holocaust genocide deniers like normal finklestein and david cole, I see there is information on david cole, but nothing in the article about the genocide denier about Normal Finklestein and his best selling rag, "The Holocaust Industry". Markacohen (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Finkelstein does not specifically deny the holocaust in any of the ways suggested by the article. IF you can show evidence that he does I would be interested in hearing ti.

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of denial

The article should maybe explain what is specifically meant by the term denial, and not necessarily the word Holocaust. In historic Western Christian culture, the word denial is associated with inquisitions, heresy trials and witch hunts. People were accused of denying the divinity of Christ, denying the Incarnation, denying the Resurrection or denying Heaven and Hell. Of course, these are all religious accusations and they are no longer used in modern-day trials. Many so-called revisionists will therefore twist the historic language of denial in order to make it appear that the charge of Holocaust denial is not an acceptable secular accusation but is instead an illogical Jewish religious crusade against self-perceived heretics and/or freethinkers. It is in this particular context that the word dogma appears in revisionist literature when refering to the drama of the Shoah. ADM (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't mention....

....any of the arguments that deniers use to back up their beliefs. I came on here to read why they think what they think but nothing has been said. Does anyone know what 'evidence' they use? Cls14 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. This article appears to be protected by certain people that think any repetition of beliefs (or the rationale behind those beliefs) that are not part of "the Truth", as defined by "mainstream" scholarship, would be turning this article into a soapbox for the "fringe" movement. The problem is that the categories "mainstream" and "fringe" are self-defining: anyone taking a minimising position on even details is, apparently, automatically "fringe" and is lumped into a catch-all "denier" category irrespective of the merit of their arguments (we are not told of what they argue, nor why their arguments should be rejected wholesale other than they are circularly defined as "fringe").

I stand by my only other comments I made on this talkpage - of some two years ago -, that this is a highly biased article, on account of it refusing to present opinions from both sides. I have followed the discussion here regularly, despite knowing and indeed caring little for the topic itself, because it is both entertaining and a great example of what is wrong with Wikipedia when it comes to controversial topics. This article REALLY needs the main arguments from the deniers presented, and the (oh so obvious?) reason(s) given by "mainstream" scholarship for rejecting that argument. See, for example, how THIS article deals with the problem of a a topic roundly rejected by mainstream scholarship. It presents a clear, sufficiently full, two-way comparison and criticism of the points of contention. That is how this article ought to be written too, but there are too many obsessives here determined to stifle 'unnecessary' details of an 'unnecessary' debate Tobermory (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I started studying the behavior of Wikipedians inhere about a year ago and I am sad, but obliged to write that I agree with what you are saying. On a further note I think a comparison table just like the one in your article would really do wonders for people seeking knowledge about this subject. Dare to do it? :) --Kotu Kubin (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad

Why is it necessary to include several paragraphs and refs to prove that Ahmadinejad has antisemitic and anti zionist views? It verges on character assassination and is way off-topic. Holocaust denial is not equivalent to antisemitism: the holocaust can be denied on purely academic grounds if one chooses to interpret history in a particular way. Equally, an out-and-out antisemitist may rejoice in the scale of the holocaust if that suits his/her line of thinking. Speculation as to the motives of holocaust deniers is just that: speculation. I refute the suggestion that it depicts the context of Ahmadinejad's denial, because it is not in the scope of this article for editors to try to present causal links and explanations which are not themselves independently documented. Even if this suggestion were to be accepted by consensus it would not merit the undue weight given to his antisemitism compared to his holocaust denial. -- Timberframe (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Character assassination"? I think his performance at Durban this week made such assassination impossible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 09:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is important that what we present here does not confuse the issues. Whatever you and I feel personally about the man and about holocaust denial in general, we must avoid the temptation of preaching, or leading readers to make associations where they aren't independently supported. Let's keep the focus on providing evidence that he denies / denied the reality / scale of the holocaust and steer clear of diminishing these facts by confusing them with a more general slating of his wider anti-Israeli stance. To this end I've removed several refs which had been inserted in support of the statement that he has frequently denied the holocaust but which did not provide the requisite support; I hope that those refs I've left go straight to the heart of the matter without any ambiguity and so enhance the article. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, Timberframe, but I suggest you read the archives of the Talk pages of this article to get an idea of what you're up against. The Holocaust section of the Wikipedia is controlled by people who have decided what they will and will not permit in the articles controlled by them. I don't think it is constructive to reopen the debate. I suggest you spend your energies improving sections of the Wikipedia where the issues are less controversial and where your views are more in line with the editors of that section. -- leuce (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

NO David Cole Ex Holocaust Denier Wikipedia?

Why is there no article on Wikipedia about David Cole the Jewish Ex-Holocaust Denier?

Markacohen (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There was. It was deleted out of WP:BLP concerns. WilliamH (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... deleting an entire article because of content concerns is a severe step. Markacohen, if the absence of reference to David Cole concerns you, this looks like a case for being bold and creating a new page, with due attention to the demands of WP:BLP and in particular the reliability of the sources. As far as I understand WP:BLP, there is no objection to reporting controversy that surrounds a living person, provided it is reported in an accurate and balanced way. "Source X said he did/said something but in source Y he vehemently denied it" should be acceptable, if true. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Markacohen (talk · contribs) is not likely to create this anytime soon as he has been given an indefinite block called for and endorsed by a number of editors/administrators for at best disruptive editing and quite possibly being a Holocaust denier himself. As one editor said, he was given a lot of rope and hung himself, eg by edits like this one [5] about "the world famous Hollywood Glamorized historical event known as the Holocaust". Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Wikipedia "indefinitely blocks" people for questioning the Holocaust? By the way, I am also interested in David Cole. I am watching his Auschwitz video and finding it quite convincing. I also know that Wikipedia is a tool to suppress the truth on topics like 9/11 (which millions of people now know was in fact staged by the US government). 142.46.214.106 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we indefinitely block people for being excessively annoying. Holocaust deniers who follow our policies can stay as long as they want. (But they usually become excessively annoying pretty quickly.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The reasons for Holocaust deniers being blocked are usually soapboxing, and insisting on using sources that aren't reliable despite being advised otherwise. Note that David Cole is not a reliable source. WilliamH (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was also a stub, and pretty uninformative. --Kotu Kubin (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Renaming of the article

Given that the article contains almost no information about Holocaust denial, but rather nothing but a dictionary definition of it followed by arguments against it, I suggest the article be renamed "Why Holocaust Denial is Wrong" or be merged with the "Criticism of Holocaust Denial" article. 79.78.198.199 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Would links to a couple of denialist websites be suitable for you? --Lebob-BE (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's plagiarizing whom?

See this article by Ben Austin in the Jewish Virtual Library. I do not know if this article is copying language from the Wikipedia article, or if the Wikipedia article has copied the Austin article (I suspect the latter). At any rate, the Wikipedia article does not cite Austin, nor does Austin cite Wikipedia, and yet both contain almost verbatim copies of each other's language. The two examples I've found:

"The very first Holocaust deniers were the Nazis themselves. As it became increasingly obvious that the war was not going well, Himmler instructed his camp commandants to destroy records, crematoria and other sign of mass destruction of human beings." (Austin)

"The first Holocaust deniers were the Nazis themselves. Historians have documented evidence that Heinrich Himmler instructed his camp commandants to destroy records, crematoria, and other signs of mass extermination, as Germany's defeat became imminent and the Nazi leaders realized they would most likely be captured and brought to trial." (Wikipedia)

"Historian Kenneth Stern (1993:6) suggests that many top SS leaders left Germany at the end of the war and began immediately the process of using their propaganda skills to rewrite history. Shortly after the war, denial materials began to appear." (Austin)

"After World War II, many of the former leaders of the SS left Germany and began using their propaganda skills to defend their actions (or, their critics contended, to rewrite history). Denial materials began to appear shortly after the war." (Wikipedia)

Anyone care to take the initiative and sort this out? Thanks, AmiDaniel (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Some sections need better editing. For example: "...a set of theories, which through not denying the Holocaust, appeared..." is that 'through' or 'though'? Dpser (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In a venture like this there's always room for improvement; feel free to edit the article as you see fit within Wikipedia's policies, you don't need anyone's permission and it's not up to anyone else to do it. Any improvements you can make will be appreciated. Timberframe (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, since it's a touchy subject I was kind of intimidated not to change anything that might spark yet-another-post-war. I have no saying in these disputes as I was reading the article for encyclopedic reasons and would rather avoid becoming unintentionally a victim of rage :-)

--Dpser (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing criticism of holocaust denial / Biased article

The article begins "This article is about the history, development, and methods of Holocaust denial. For criticism of Holocaust denial, see Criticism of Holocaust denial."

Then, four paragraphs later, we read "For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[7] conspiracy theory.[8] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[9]"

I would like to edit the article to remove this criticism of holocaust denial, as it should appear in the Criticism of Holocaust Denial article.

I believe in the interest of fairness, the Holocaust Denial entry should present the arguments for holocaust denial. And since there is a separate topic for criticism of holocaust denial, criticism and counter arguments should be relegated to that page.

I'm not sure about the protocol for editing, so I'm introducing the topic here.

(FF1234 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia should reflect the sources on holocaust denial, not provide "equal" perspectives for and against the subject. If 90% of sources on holocaust denial express criticism, while 10% regard it positively (for example), then it would in fact be biased to have an article on the subject that proposes 50% either way. Latter Day Fare (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

-- I had the exact same thought when I read the article -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.56.99.83 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:LEAD, which discusses mention of controversies in the lead, and WP:V and WPRS, which discuss reliable sources. Are you aware of any reliable sources that present the argument for Holocaust Denial? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to find reliable sources when questioning the holocaust is illegal in many countries. --Lingwitt (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But in most countries holocaust denial is perfectly legal so there should be plenty of reliable sources questioning the holocaust if it is a substantial theory. Aykantspel (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia. I don't know where to begin with a critique. However the main issues are that the so-called "holocaust deniers" are simply represented as benighted Jew-haters, who routinely falsify records. This is not usually the case. The reality is that the definition of holocaust denier is so wide that it catches just about any researcher on the holocaust, and makes debate or research nearly impossible. The concept of holocaust denial is fundamentally wrong. It is effectively one racial/religious group announcing that the world must accept their religious/historical doctrine, or else.... Imagine a Christian church announcing that the Sermon on the Mount is literal fact, and that any discussion on the subject which doesn't start with that presumption is a criminal offense. Think about it.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot redefine "holocaust denial" for you. Your sermon on the mount example fails, because the sermon on the mount was something that happened 2,000 years ago with no documented evidence of its existence outside religious records. The Holocaust happened less than a century ago and offers a plethora of documentary and photographic evidence of its existence. It's more like the Christian church announcing that gravity goes down. There's no "or else" here as far as I know. Again, I'll reiterate - Wikipedia cannot redefine things for you. If you have specific complaints about this article that can be addressed (i.e "sentence X says Y, I have a reliable source here that says it should say Z") then go for it, if you've got a generalised complaint about the definition of holocaust denial, or your argument goes"Sentence X says Y, there was this guy I was speaking to on Stormfront who heard from a mate of his that some guy in the pub said that..." we can't help you. Ironholds (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This article does not in any way present the arguments of Holocaust deniers, and really does nothing but chronicle how they are criticized. I can't even begin to imagine how it could be viewed as a "good article", since it has almost nothing to do with the subject at hand, but only with biographical notes on the people involved, coupled with examples of criticism of their ideas. A "reliable source" for the ideas of Holocaust Denial is anything written by a person engaging in it - the matter is not the accuracy of the claims, but the nature of the claims. How is this not obvious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.74.16 (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers are not reliable sources about anything, including "the nature of their claims", about which they are deliberately deceptive. This article relies on what reliable sources say on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So they are misleading regarding what they are actually saying? I suppose this means that they are not saying what they are saying - which is quite frankly nonsense. If what you mean is that they mean something OTHER than what they actually say, then this is a perfect topic for the "criticism of Holocaust denial" page. An article containing no information what-so-ever about the claims of Holocaust deniers (claims which should be possible to find quoted in your "reliable sources", no doubt) is hardly a "good article" about the subject itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.74.16 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 December 2008

Let's all try to be neutral for a second. Holocaust denial is, in-and-of-itself, criticism of the Holocaust. Instead of putting this article under the holocaust page, it's been moved to its own page. That is, I imagine, out of repect to Holocaust believers (it's a sensitive issue, to be sure). Why, then, is it ok to use this page to criticise non-believers? Where do non-believers get their fair say? And as far as reliable sources go: I would think this article would be for the presentation of arguments (like all criticism pages) not the irrefutable defense of a theory. At one point, Galileo Galilei was considered an unrealiable source for something he was correct about. This isn't about right or wrong, in an article like this, it's about opposing viewpoints. Don't censor them.Thadeuss (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's all try to be neutral for a second. Holocaust denial is not, in and of itself, criticism of anything. It's a dishonest attempt by a small group of bigots to falsify history in an effort to support their corrupt agenda of blaming Jews for all the ills of the world. Nothing is being done on this page "out of repect (sic) to Holocaust believers". The purpose of this page is to condense and digest the best information from the best reliable sources on the subject. There is no more reason to give holocaust denial a "fair say" than there is to take seriously the claims of those who insist that the Earth is flat or that the moon landings never happened. To the contrary, flat Earthers and moon-hoaxers seem to be mostly afflicted with foolishness rather than malevolence. Your analogy about Galileo having been considered an unreliable source about something he was correct about is no argument for accepting someone who is an unreliable source about something he's wrong about. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Steven, it appears you're incapable of neutrality on this issue, so you'll have to excuse me for disregarding your last statement. I come to Wikipedia for educated view points and I'm just not seeing them. Sorry. Thadeuss (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Question: User:Thadeuss asked: Where do non-believers get their fair say? - A good question, I will try to answer:

Answer: Most likely not on Wikipedia. I believe the argument goes something like this: WP:NPOV requires that all points-of-view be presented. Holocaust denial is however considered hate speech, a form of conscious communication of falsehood. It is thus not a point-of-view and does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

An erroneous point of view is a point of view. Many fallacies, error, stupid ideas, and lies (the latter are not POVs, but allegations which are falsely described as POVs) are described in WP. Whether they are, or are not, hate speech or love speech, is irrelevant. AFAIK there is no WP rule against description of lies, erroneous POVs, hate speech, or any-other-emotion-speech. Apokrif (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's how I always saw it. I mean, right or wrong, Wikipedia isn't taking a side, it's only presenting the factual presence of an argument. I personally think it's erroneous, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be presented with neutrality. On this particular issue, however, I don't think there will ever be a chance to discuss. Thadeuss (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Problems arise when what is wrong is inadvertently presented as right. This is why fringe theories such as Holocaust denial are considered wholly subordinate in encyclopedias. Ask yourself how "belief" is a determining factor in the 33 mass graves at Belzec, for instance. Does being a "non-believer" make the missing 434,500 people sent there reappear then? Exactly, of course not. Right and wrong has everything to do with this matter: that's why it's called denial. WilliamH (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is called denial by definition, not because it is right or wrong. Surely all that need happen here is for the concepts and the corresponding refutation to be stated. Some, not all, of the deniers start with "reasonable" intentions, i.e. to discover a truth. Yes, they may have sub-conscious issues around race, most people do. I'm talking here of bumblers like Fred Leuchter. Like most theorists they head along a path and soon discover contradictions, it is at this point that the good man divides from the bad. Many of the deniers (Irving included) seek to twist the evidence to suit the original concept. For instance Irving once stated (on camera) that a lack of evidence concerning Hitler's knowledge of The Holocaust did NOT mean he didn't know. Irrefutable logic. However on subsequent occasions Irving has gone further and implied that a lack of evidence is proof that Hitler did not know. This level of contradiction and bias can be found throughout his work. The same is true for other deniers. It seems to me that the holes are often so blatant as to merit refutation within the article itself, as perhaps one would contradict religious propaganda. I'd like to also point out that some of their arguments have been proved to be valid, and denial of these facts fuels their conspiracy theories. Credit where credit is due regardless of who should claim it. --Angryjames (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That does seem to be the point of the article. We present both sides (or should); what holocaust deniers say, and the refutations (is that even a word?) of their claim. "Holocaust denier says X. Sane world says Y". Ironholds (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Refutation is in the OED. Not sure about the plural. No bias then "sane world" :) Actually some arguments on the denier side are rational, as indeed there are (albeit sadly) irrational arguments (even from eye witnesses) on the other side. I would prefer a structure in which the article states the claims and then states the counter argument. Both without bias. Wikipedians (I bet that's not a word in the OED) seem incapable of doing just that on most of the controversial subjects I've had the pleasure of reading. --Angryjames (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia will never be neutral thanks to people who refuse to take a neutral stand point. As you can see, they can't even respond to educated proposals without getting belligerent. In my opinion, if you're that passionate about the article, you don't have any place editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.140.239 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware of any reliable sources that present the argument for Holocaust Denial?

I am a little new to Wikipedia and I had a quick question to ask of Jayjg, who seems to be a more experienced member of both this forum and the site in general: what are the critera for a "reliable source" in relation to Holocaust revisionism? If anyone else can provide an answer, I would also be willing to listen and learn.Barbeerh (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are surely the blogs/websites/interviews of those individuals who subscribe to alternative views on The Holocaust, e.g. The IHR website. Please be warned though that revisionists rarely sing the same song, some are clearly pro-Nazi (Zundel), others not so clear (Irving) and yet more who are simply pedalling opinions.

On the opposite side of the problem is the fact that revisionists for obvious reasons have to change their story as irrefutable facts come to light. They are often attacked based on their original position and the fact that their views have changed. Neither attack of which is helpful. The mainstream view however does not appear to change its position regardless of new information, and even when it is forced to do so it speaks in a whisper.

There also appears to be a rather grey area involving mainstream historians (e.g. Hilberg, Heath) who are not considered deniers and yet do not subscribe to the original soviet figures. --Angryjames (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, "blogs/websites/interviews of those individuals who subscribe to alternative views on The Holocaust" are not typically reliable sources at all, as they are not reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On the contrary, they are typically self-published and refuted over and over again. They may occasionally be usable per WP:SPS as primary sources about the opinion or statements of the groups themselves, but the use of primary sources is generally discouraged. We are not here to repeat claims by the deniers, but to summarize what reliable sources write about the phenomenon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You can say "No" all you like, but a reliable source (rationally, not perhaps what Wikipedian admins' think/feel) for what someone says/thinks/feels is always going to be the original source, e.g. the article/book THEY published, the interview THEY gave and was recorded. Not some newspapers biased misquotation or over simplification of a subject they know little about. Quote Hilberg directly, not some journalist's simple minded opinion. Newspapers are often forced through legal means to print retractions and to pay out large quantities of money because of the lies they print and yet it is being suggested that we trust them over the original spoken word and/or written word. This is not to mention the fact that they are in the business of selling, not maintaining and printing facts.

It is precisely this attitude that fuels their argument. If you misquote them and their interview/article was published, they can simply argue (as they do in the case of Holocaust Denial) that this is a case of conspiracy. Which in truth it actually is, if we discuss and conclude here that their own words are not an accurate reflection of their opinion and that we must rely on a 3rd party to tell us what they think and feel. If Irving says he is not a racist, quote him, if he then says he is, quote him again. No need for a 3rd party to convince me he is or is not. I apologise if this appears confrontational, it is not intended to be so. --Angryjames (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, James. In spite of the tendency for people to throw the wikipedia rule book at you, I'm glad to see some people have enough common sense to realise that a Harvard professor doesn't have to write a thesis on something for it to be accurate, reliable, and verifiable.168.158.220.3 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion regarding Irving's quote further down this page James. Your point of making sure quotes are accurate so that deniers don't play into them are certainly valid, but when the only party misrepresenting David Irving is....David Irving, it's not as straightforward as you maintain. WilliamH (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on your points below also. I agree Irving contradicts himself, twists the facts and lies. However, for the reasons you agree with me on, I feel it is important we a) make sure we show no bias and b) attempt as best as possible to give due consideration to their position. At least in that way we cannot be accused of plotting against them, nor used as fuel for their ideology. However I do think Irving is misrepresented in the press, mainly by reducing all his arguments to a purely semantic level, by ignoring the genuine work he has done and by refusing to engage him on the various questions he raises. The Nizkor project has done much to overcome this, unlike the mainstream media. --Angryjames (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is still a 'live' debate, but the article seems correctly balanced to me. There are lots of other occasions where the Wikipedia presents schools of thought which are now completely at odds with accepted wisdom in this fashion - the Earth being flat, say. Or perhaps to put it another way, surely if the Wikipedia, or the consensus that builds it, or indeed the references on which it draws actually considered Holocaust Denial a legitimate body of theory, then the correct place for it WOULD be in the Holocaust article, no matter who it offended.Cncoote (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say it's correctly balanced. Whilst it does read as "non-biased" it doesn't attempt to explain any of the rationale behind some of their claims. It cannot be denied that a great deal of the deniers work is geared towards proving their own theories, and ignoring anything that doesn't match. However some concerns that play into denial are not properly addressed. For instance the issue of soap manufactured from human fat (Nizkor offer a very good explanation of this), and the faux gas chamber built by the Russians, the seemingly made up initial figures etc. Even The Leuchter Report, which whilst flawed, did encourage doubt. What I'm talking about here is the evolution of the denial and why it may appear valid at various points in time. It would be like talking about the Black Panthers without mentioning the history of black America. For me it's an issue of context. In order for someone to understand the phenomenon they will need to be able to follow the path of logic. Even seemingly bizarre concepts such as the KKK have a rationale and a development that can be understood. --Angryjames (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article is terrible at presenting the subject at hand. I'm researching the holocaust, and after reading this page have no solid idea of what exactly the deniers are denying, and more importantly why. As a result I have to either assume they are racist/hate-mongerers, or I have to go to their websites to read what they have to say, and therefore this article is useless as it is. I would propose to you, that just because someone believes something that is scientifically invalid, does not mean it should not be presented in a fare way. For example, the page on Christianity does not criticize the various beliefs of Christians as being scientifically invalid (e.i. Creation, the Flood, etc.). While this subject is one that is no doubt offensive to the survivors, it is never-the-less a valid subject to describe in an Encyclopedia. And I must agree with James that while the sources my be self-contradicting, they are the sources. Back to the Christian analogy, many Christians have different views on Christianity, however, that does not mean their overall beliefs should be marginalized for their inconsistency If the views of the deniers are to be refuted on this page, which seems out of place to me (that's what the Criticism of Holocaust denial page is for), then at least have a paragraph describing the belief, before criticizing it, otherwise this page should be deleted from Wikipedia, as it does not serve a function.68.148.123.76 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a really good book in PDF form U can read for free online by Jurgen Graf, who is also mentioned as a "Denier" in the article. I'd like to see this book added to the article under his name. I have never seen it refuted . . . his arguement seems pretty solid. I also hafta agree, I was stunned by the bias in this article . . . a person who wants to know what "Holocaust Denial" is won't find the answer here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A person who wants to know what Holocaust denial is should read the first sentence in the article:

"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship."

Seems pretty straightforward to me. - Eron^Talk 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also the logistics & forensics of the alleged murder weapon, cremating or disposing of the dead (up to 10,000/day at Auschwitz during the Hungarian evacuation), the necessary amount of fuel to cremate corpses (every crematory manufacturer says how many kilocalories their retort consumes/hour . . . where are the requisitions for this amount of fuel?), the necessary amount of time to cremate a body (is it 20 minutes, as alleged or an hour, which is more realistic), the type of gas allegedly used (Hydrogen Cyanide ZyklonB louse disinfestant at Auschwitz; diesel exhaust at Treblinka), the practicality or possibility of useing louse disinfestant or diesel exhaust (i.e., diesel exhaust does not have toxic amounts of carbon monoxide; some "witnesses" say the Zyklon was "swept out the doors" and dumped through holes in the ceiling), aerial reconnasiance photos, which contradict eyewitness testimony of smoke & flames belching from crematoria chimnies and shows no huge piles of coke necessary for mass cremation above those that died during typhus epidemics or other causes; tortured confessors, malicious and absurd "eyewitnesses" (the reliability of witnesses or confessions and hearsay); the reliability, translation and context of the evidence/documents; demographics (were 6,000,000 killed?), the practicality or possibility of cremating bodies in pits, the lack of evidence that any pits were dug (can't see 'em in the aerial reconnasiance photos) . . . etc. This is what H-denial is. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This article does not exist as a forum for Holocaust deniers to promulgate their lies. It exists to explain what Holocaust denial is, what its proponents claim, and how mainstream historians respond to their claims. It does that. If you are interested in the history of the Holocaust (and the ample, convincing, overwhelmingly accepted evidence for it) I suggest you start by reading Holocaust and going from there. If you are interested in using this talk page to deny the Holocaust - as your reply to me seems to indicate - then I suggest you save your breath. - Eron^Talk 01:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote does explain what H-denial is (better than the article), what it's proponents claim (which U call "lies") and, the book I cited by Jurgen Graf is a "denier's" response to a mainstream historian, Raul Hilberg. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the VHO, an extremist organization, is not a reliable source. WilliamH (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's Ur POV that it's an "extremist organization," WilliamH. (Aren't Zionists and fundamentalist Christians "extremists" too?) IMO, VHO critically examines the sources mainstream historians, like Hilberg use . . . I have read both Hilberg (the 19-pages & footnotes on the logistics & forensics of the alleged murder weapon and disposal of the dead, entitled, "Killing Center Operations," in his book, "The Destruction of the European Jews") & Graf, as well as many other primary sources (such as the International Military Tribunal documents and science behind asphyxiation by diesel exhaust), Shermer's, Lipstadt's, Evan's, Butz's books (mentioned in the article), etc. and consider myself an expert in H-denial. I'm willing to reference all of my statements to primary sources and to the "denier's" works -- many of which are available on-line in PDF-form for free and should be referenced and linked in the current article, under, "References: By Holocaust deniers". Have U or Eron read any of the denier's books? As it stands, this article, is redundant to the Criticism of Holocaust denial article and doesn't answer the question: What is Holocaust denial? Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship."

This article describes in general terms what Holocaust deniers claim, outlines mainstream historical response, and describes the development of Holocaust denial from WWII to the present.

You seem to be suggesting that this article should detail the specific claims of Holocaust deniers - that it should lay out their case for claiming the Holocaust did not take place. That is not going to happen. The claims of Holocaust deniers do not meet Wikipedia criteria for verifiability and the use of reliable sources. Holocaust denial is academically dishonest and disreputable pseudo-history. Wikipedia should not be used to put forward its thoroughly discredited claims.

As to bias, this article is biased against Holocaust deniers in the same way that the article Earth is biased against the Flat Earth Society - and appropriately so. - Eron^Talk 18:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"As to bias, this article is biased against Holocaust deniers in the same way that the article Earth is biased against the Flat Earth Society - and appropriately so."

This parallel you draw is just plain illogical. Be this an article on Holocaust, there would be no problem. But, this is not an article on Holocaust, but on the Holocaust Denial. Therefore, it is just biased in its own way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerinci (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the 2004 report by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, the Verfassungsschutzbericht, VHO is indeed an extremist organization.

Incidentally, I did read Butz's book about what he maintains is the hoax of the 20th century, though I must have missed the bit where he explains how the alleged hoaxers and forgers managed to forge the entire workings of the German government for around 4 - 5 years, to quote The Holocaust History Project, who also point the myriad of non-existant individuals one of VHO's closest assosciates Germar Rudolf uses. To say the least, that falls far short of WP:RS, and Wikipedia will not present fringe theories as fact. WilliamH (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Citing a German government document stating that VHO is "extremist" is like stating that the US Government's conclusion that 9/11 was NOT a controlled demolition after the airplanes struck or the Warren Report that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. This discussion is a classic case of how brainwashing, Thought Control & propaganda works! Raquel Baranow (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove the biased introduction from the article. The article should present a neutral discussion of the controversy stating the arguments and counter-arguments and citing appropriate sources. With statements like "The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary" is judgemental and not appropriate for a encylopedia. I am changing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.45.129 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The purpose of this article is to explain what Holocaust denial is. It does that. This article is not here to present "arguments and counter-arguments" in favour of whether or not the Holocaust occurred. Holocaust denial is a fringe theory that is rejected by all mainstream historians. It is a referenced and verifiable fact that "the methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary." That is one of the fundamental criticisms of Holocaust denial - that it starts from the premise that the Holocaust did not occur, and then seeks out evidence to support that premise. Evidence that does not support the premise is rejected, ignored, or distorted. It's just bad historical practice. - Eron^Talk 04:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ppl that come to this article wanna know what the H-deniers believe. I did NOT study this with a predetermined conclusion. H-deniers points of view should be presented here and the counter-arguements should be on the Criticism of Holocaust denial page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

People who read this article will learn that "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II... did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by current scholarship." They will learn that Holocasut deniers believe that the Nazi government did not have a policy of targeting Jews for extermination; that between five and seven million Jews were not systematically killed; and that genocide was not carried out at extermination camps. They will learn this in the first two paragraphs. That is the point of view of Holocaust deniers, and it is presented here.

What you seem to want is an article that uncritically lays out the case for Holocaust denial. That will not happen. See guidelines on dealing with fringe theories for some information as to why. - Eron^Talk 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore the article contains no less than six links to denialist websites. Which is more than enough for any person who wants to know what deniers believe to do so. There is therefore no need to make this article becoming one more platform for denialist garbage. --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"There is therefore no need to make this article becoming one more platform for denialist garbage."

There's just as little need for this article to become a platform for propaganda or an attempt to spread one's own beliefs on others (who are just not interested in one's beliefs, but who came here to learn about what the Holocaust Denial is from the objective and neutural point of view).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katerinci (talk • contribs)(UTC)

Where is the evidence in the citation to support the overreaching claim "Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies." Where are the percentages of all scholars worldwide to support this claim? I assume when you say "Scholars" there is at least a 50% consensus. You need to back it up or lose it. When you make this overreaching claim that "Scholars" support this or that it automatically adds officiality to a side of the argument without providing the necessary detail of the consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 March 2009

There are copious references supporting this statement. No reputable historian accepts Holocaust denial as a legitimate form of historical revisionism. - Eron^Talk 05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I can find more than 8 Iranian scholars which disagree. Are they disreputable by default? You need stats if you're going to make such bold controversial claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement that scholars prefer to call Holocaust deniers Holocaust deniers is neither bold nor controversial. I don't need stats to support it. What I need are reliable sources. Which this article has. The statement is supported by the references and it will stay in the article. - Eron^Talk 05:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement does not make it apparent that the citation only supports the 8 authors cited and does not make a broad claim over the proportion of scholars that believe the holocaust story. In the United States the belief of the holocaust is fairly universal, in other parts of the world it is not. You need to either disambiguate that citation, or cite an article with some statistics that support the view that most scholars worldwide support that view. Otherwise the statement, like much of the rest of this article, reads like propaganda -- Yes, it can still be propaganda even if the holocaust deniers are wrong. Please ensure the integrity of Wikipedia instead of preserving the integrity of your own personal bias. Here's a good rule of thumb for determining whether or not the article is propaganda: If I can easily tell what the author believes on a controversial topic it's propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again: reliable sources support the sentence. The references do not just state their own opinion; they speak to the broad consensus of historians. As to bias, I am rather proud of my own personal bias towards the truth. - Eron^Talk 06:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about the truth; It's about presenting the controversy from an unbiased point of view. Apparently you miss that very important fact. Now which one of those sources specifically provides the statistics that supports the consensus statement that you are claiming so I may backcheck the validity of your statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 06:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "controversy". The Holocaust is an accepted historical event. Holocaust denial is a fringe theory with no mainstream support. The references support that statement. Your demand for one particular kind of support is a red herring.

Can I suggest that you follow some of the archive links at the top of the page to review previous discussions on this topic? The "it's not denial, it's revisionism" debate has happened again and again, with the same result. - Eron^Talk 06:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen most of the archives and I can rest assured that none of those valid points were really addressed properly. You said those citations support that statement and I looked and didn't see any to suppor the claim, and then when I ask you to tell me exactly where it is you say it's a "red herring." Good job working the propaganda machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 06:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This Eron fellow is a stubborn propagandist that contually reverts valid changes which attempt to make the article appear more neutral. Someone else needs to step in.Malv (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Discuss the content of the article, not the contributors. - Eron^Talk 07:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I did state my gripes and you did not adequately address them. My attempts to make the article more neutral and to make the statements more reflective of their citations were reversed. You sir, are a propagandist and I take issue with that. You've already affirmed your bias and I feel that those small edits designed to neutralize the article are in stark contradiction to your own strongly held personal beliefs and personal biases. Please explain to me why those minor edits were reversed. This is an article that is not neutral one bit, as all the comments on this talk page reflect this observation and such an important article needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts? According to your contribution history, as at this time you have only made one edit to this article, here. I did indeed revert that as it changed a referenced statement to say something other than what the references said. I also reverted these three edits from an IP editor: here, here, and here. These edits also made changes to referenced content. Were those your edits? If they were, I recommend you read policy on sock puppets once you've finished reading up about personal attacks.

I am not here to "adequately address" your "gripes". I am working to make this encyclopedia a good resource with verifiable information from reliable sources. The content I restored meets that standard, and I will restore it again if need be. Continued attempts to change verifiable information from reliable sources may be treated as vandalism.

If you are concerned that this article is biased or that my conduct as an editor is inappropriate, feel free to take it up with one of the many Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms. Perhaps the NPOV noticeboard, or maybe a request for comments. - Eron^Talk 08:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with Wikipedia. Not worth an ounce more of my time trying to wrestle with the idiot propagandists that control these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.45.129 (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally, something productive has been accomplished in this discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a mechanism to review this article as biased, redundant (of the Criticism of Holocaust denial article) & NOT answering the question: What is Holocaust denial?

Should I start a topic 4 conensus: This Article is Bias, Rendundant and Doesn't Answer the Question: "What is Holocaust denial?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raquel Baranow (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of dispute resolution systems available in Wikipedia. For this sort of content dispute, there are a few options you could use. One suggestion is to take it up at a subject-specific WikiProject talk page. This page is within the scope of both WikiProject Jewish history and WikiProject Alternative Views so you could raise it there. Another option is to take it to the Neutrality noticeboard. You could start a request for comments, though that is usually used for editor conduct rather than article issues.

Before you do any of that, I strongly urge you to review the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There are pointers to various of them in the above discussion, but I'll point out the key ones here: Reliable sources, Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Fringe theories. - Eron^Talk 04:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx Eron, I'll think about it . . . I'm kinda new to Wiki, don't know html very well or the Rules & procedures . . . very interesting Talk pages (archive too) . . . I read about half the archive so far. Anyone studying Wiki as a project or process -- to write a book about it -- should study this article . . . it's articles like this that give Wiki a bad name. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As an independent, this article does seem quite political. There is a definite political bias on wikipedia whether the regular editors notice it or not (quite liberal, even if I am one myself - honest!) and how people have said 'we won't use this page to propagate their arguments' it's almost like we are choosing what knowledge / ideas / concepts is acceptable and what it not. Wikipedia need not attach a positive or negative spin to the arguments and can easily refute them in the same sentence if there is the necessary scientific evidence, but all the same if there is a significant number of holocaust deniers then it is notable and as such should be included. Anyway, I expect to be ignored, just as I have been on other pages (I don't edit anymore, because my edits get reverted by people who insist on inserting their bias) for example on another page instead of calling people Germans they were called Nazis. This made the article more sympathetic to Israeli foreign policy. Hope you all have fun resolving this, but I think there are some issues that wikipedia is unable to deal with because the editors lack the required detatchment to just write about the subject. I mean even these days there are wikipedia editors trying to get encyclopaedia dramatica removed from wikipedia for the sole reason of not liking a spoof website! Fundamentally flawed. :( (87.194.144.173 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

"for example on another page instead of calling people Germans they were called Nazis. This made the article more sympathetic to Israeli foreign policy." Say what?!? No wonder your edits have been reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.106.41.232 (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just the frequent use of "indisputable," "clearly," "obvious," "claim," etc. shows how biased this article is. In fact, throughout the years I used and adored Wikipedia, I never got so disappointed. I never thought of denying Holocause, but seeing the clear difference between this article and the rest of Wikipedia, I'm really beginning to believe there is something fishy going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.225.30.101 (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to throw my opinion in here on the subject of the article. I looked it up because I read a passing reference on a blog to th subject, and I figured this would be a good place to look to find a concise list of arguments against the holocaust. What I read was a blatant criticism of holocause denial. This article is highly POV, poorly written, and grossly uninformative. There really does need to be a rewrite of the article, and I would agree with the sentiment that if you have a strong opinion on the subject, then you should abstain from editing the article. This is not the place to refute denials of the holocaust. 32.174.21.172 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be pov if it didn't. Wikipedia is, like it or not, an encyclopedia reflecting main stream sources. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As Dougweller states, Wikipedia is a resource designed to reflect the mainstream sources on holocaust denial, not provide "equal" perspectives for and against a subject. If 90% of sources on holocaust denial express criticism, for example, while 10% regard it positively (these are imagined percentages plucked out of thin air), then it would in fact be biased to have an article that places equal emphasis on sources either side of the argument. Latter Day Fare (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

New section

I really don't understand the discussion above. Isn't the official Holocaust version actually and undeniable hate speach agains the people accused of committing it, the German people, even the unborn ones? Germans have been blamed as a whole for more than half a Century, and if someone wants to deny this statement, first have in mind that a German person born in 1970, for example, TODAY is forced to pay extra taxes that are for Holocaust reparations.

Nope. The official holocaust version only "accuses" those people responsible for the war crimes themselves, most of whom were put on trial and executed. It does not put any blame on the Germans, and especially not unborn Germans. As pointed out by somebody else below, there are no two sides to the argument of whether the holocaust happened and whether the Nazis committed those terrible crimes, any more than there is a valid and sustainable argument, in the face of overwhelming scientific and historical evidence, that the world is flat. Latter Day Fare (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If WP doesn't allow hate speach, it shouldn't allow to even talk about any war, because a war involves two or more sides killing each other and usually commiting excesses and war crimes. Exposing those actions for sure is hate speach, because it generates hate against one or even both of the sides in a conflict. So really, what the Holocaust issue is about, is if it is correct to generate hate against certain people and not againt other people. What generates more hate: 1) Saying the Germans killed defensless people, even kids, in a horrible manner? 2) Saying the Jewish people invented or exagerated what happened to receive cash reparations and a genocide excuse to claim their right of a State of their own?

The latter is more offensive, given the suffering that many of them faced in the concentration camps and with the loss of their own people in the death camps. Nobody is placing blame on the German people, but historically, factually, several countries cooperated with the Nazis by deporting their Jews during this time. Latter Day Fare (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Censoring, persecuting, harassing and jailing people for talking about Jewish conspiracies, just makes the conspiracy theory stronger. If I deny that Cristians where killed in the Roman Colliseum, no one dares to call me a racist or a lier nor a hate speaker against Cristians. My point of view would start a fair, polite discussion with anyone that doesn't agree. Why then this hysteria when we come to the Holocaust. Jews worth more than other people? (Sorry about my spelling, English is not my mother tongue).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.157.168 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 July 2009

The holocaust was unique in our history and its events must not be repeated. The most respectful point of view is to acknowledge the events of the holocaust and pass them on so that they never happen again. To open up debate with people who deny them with the logic you suggest is nothing short of absurd. Latter Day Fare (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is concerned with collecting knowledge, not with passing judgement. One of its fundamental principles is that of maintaining a neutral point of view, meaning that where there is more than one interpretation of history, Wikipedia reports that multiple opinions exist and attempts to present a balanced survey. Wikipedia doesn't allow hate speech, but it certainly allows the existence of hate speech to be reported, provided that it is notable and verifiable. That answers your first point; I'm afraid that the rest of what you wrote has no direct bearing on improving the content of the article and is more appropriate to a forum elsewhere than to an encylopedia. Regards -- Timberframe (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Timberframe, I am the author of the above text. Sorry I don't agree with the passing judgement statement. There is a discussion, one side say one thing, the other side say another thing. The official side tries to discredit the other side calling them "deniers" and Wikipedia titles the article "Holocuast DENIAL", so WP have already made a judgment an passes it since the title. Even though, the "denial" word in itself says a lot about the issue, since a "denier" is a terms more appropriate for a religion discussion based in faith, than for historical, cientifical fact based study. Are official historians unknowingly telling us that Holocaust must be "believed" just as Jesus resurrection? My name is Gustavo (don't like to be anonymous :-P ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.137.85.200 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no more two equal sides to the Holocaust than there are about the flatness or roundness of the Earth. Everybody has a right to an opinion, but not the right to be taken serious in the face of overwhelming historical evidence. See WP:UNDUE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gustavo! What inferences you read into "denial" depends on your own context as well as the context in which the term was coined. Wikipedia's policy on naming articles favours the use of the term which a would-be reader is most likely to enter into a search field. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorses, say, "Holocaust denial" rather than "opposition to Holocaust history". On the contrary, if Wikipedia were to consider the suitability of the title in terms of who coined it and for what possible reasons, Wikipedia would be entering into the emotional issues instead of reporting on them from a neutral standpoint. The fact is that "Holocaust denial" has entered into the vernacular language as the usual term to descibe the subject and Wikipedia neutrally reports on it. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point the original poster makes; how a Jewish life has become more important than a Gentile life. How the Jewish heterodoxy is absolutely unquestionable. To question this, even slightly, has become ensconced in the psyche as almost being on a par with being a child molester. Just reading what people wrote in the above discussions, it is quite shocking the hatred that spills out of people on this subject. People should be able to discuss, question or deny ANYTHING. Isn't the USA foundered on the Principle of Free Speech ? Nikos Kazantzakis can write Last Temptation of Christ, Salman Rushdie can write Satanic Verses, but an author/scholar/anyone is fucked for all eternity and his family stigmatized if he/she ever even +slightly+ questions the Jewish heterodoxy. Even by using the word 'Jewish' I am going to get labeled anti-semitic. Why ? It's so weird. We should all be able to question and criticize ANY religious heterodoxy without fear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.35.171.73 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 August 2009

Documentary Video

I searched the archives and have seen nothing on this mentioned. I think the film, The Alternative Tour of Auschwitz: An Independent Investigation of the Holocaust [6] does a good job of presenting evidence that suggests that the holocaust did not exist, including showing a document that states:

Allied Military Police HQ. Vienna 1.10.1948 MEMO NR: 31/48

The Allied Committiee of inquiry has to date proven that no posion gas was ever used to kill prisoners in the following concentration camps Berger-Belisen, Buchenwald, Dachau Flossenburg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and satellite camps Natzweiler, Neuengamme Niederhagen (Wewelsburg), Ravensbruck, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Theresienstandt.

In all cases where gassings were alleged, it could be proven that torture had been used to extract confessions and witnesses have lied. Any former inmate who, during their debriefing continues to allege that poison gas was used to murder people (in particular Jews), are to be reported to this office and if they insist on lying further, they are to be charged with perjury.

signed Major Miller Commanding Officer Allied Military Police Vienna:

witnessed by Lieutenant Lachout MP

How about including some of these since most of the article seems to be biased against those who say that the holocaust did not exist? Trentc (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is for the discussion of holocaust denial as a phenomenon, not the examination of the validity of denialist claims. Gerald Fredrick Töben has a DPhil and a decade's experience as a secondary school teacher, which doesn't qualify him to be considered a reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "This article is about the history, development, and methods of Holocaust denial." The very first sentences seems to contradict your claim. Inclusion of such thing I have mentioned would fall under all three of the above. Trentc (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom recently came to the conclusion that the scientologist should be banned from Wikipedia. I wonder whether the same decision should not once be taken with respect to the Holocust denialists. By the way you (unreferrenced) citation very convenently forget the death camp of Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Maidanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau where poison gas was used to kill people. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

People shouldn't be banned for their beliefs, and ArbCom didn't ban scientologists - they blocked IP addresses resolving to Scientology buildings, because nothing came out but POV dross. That isn't the same as banning scientologists, and certainly can't be applied here. Ironholds (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am still waiting for the first positive contribution of an Holocaust denialist on Wikipedia. This being said, as far they only post on the talkpages, this is not too disturbing, provided to the discussion pages do not become a forum. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that like saying you are still waiting for someone you completely disagree with to say something you completely agree on? --Kotu Kubin (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe holocaust denial is as much a myth as the holocaust supposedly is to these so-called holocaust deniers? Latter Day Fare (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC related to this article

For an RfC, that is obviously related to this subject, see: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#RfC: Should Holocaust denial be replaced by Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. -- Rico 03:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the Antisemitism category bar be moved to the "are deniers antisemitic" section?

Consensus. I vote yes. Jwh335 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus is not a vote. There is no consensus, i.e., level of mutual agreement among editors to do this, ergo, it's not happening. WilliamH (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote; one or two people clamoring for changing something that has been stable for ages does not indicate a change in the consensus. While it is (intentionally) difficult to pin down an exact number for when consensus weakens, it is usually pretty obvious ala the Stewart test. There is clearly no indication that consensus has changed here, and this section should be closed. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with WilliamH and Avi. Consensus has already been established. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for the proposed change and certainly no consensus for it. The only consensus I see is that this should remain as it is. --Lebob-BE (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the only consensus I see too. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We also have consensus against consensus being established by simple voting. Feel free to vote otherwise. :) Ronabop (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If this article is confined to the topic of anti-Semitism, the box deserves top placement. The context to a large degree defines the concepts therin. Again, the word "denial" itself has comprehension (or lack thereof) aspects, which need some coverage here. But even then, I don't see how the topic box in question should belong any lower than the second section. In fact I don't see how the move makes much sense, given the general context. -Stevertigo 22:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

antisemitism?

I'm removing this from the antisemitism section unless someone has a good reason for it being there. Jwh335 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is a good reason for it being there: a multitude of reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a lot more helpful if you would show me. Jwh335 (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I assumed that you had actually checked the sources given - apparently not. They are under citation 7; there are 17 of them. WilliamH (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see how you can conclude that everyone who is a holocaust denier holds antisemitic feelings, from these sources. Jwh335 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• We're not here to conclude that. If reliable sources say XYZ, Wikipedia is entitled to say XYZ. WilliamH (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You're correct. I did not think about that and I was at fault. However, I also assume that this means Wikipedia does not take sides, in regard to conflicting opinions from reliable sources. I've cited the source of a prominent Jewish Holocaust scholar, who would be considered a denier. I believe this creates validity in removing the antisemitism category. Your opinion, please. Jwh335 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I would like to mention that Wikipedia is concluding by putting the category up. Jwh335 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• The Institute for Historical Review is not a reliable source. See also Wikipedia:Weasel words. WilliamH (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Jwh335, Institute for Historial Review leaflets, as you linked to in this edit, are not reliable sources. Also, you can't insert your own arguments and opinions into articles, as you also did in that edit. Which "prominent Jewish Holocaust scholar" are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Raul Hilberg. Jwh335 (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul Hilberg is not a Holocaust denier. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at the sources, it doesn't seem like any of them mention that all holocaust deniers are antisemitic. I believe these are also grounds to remove the category. It seems like Wikipedia is concluding something from something else. Jwh335 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim all Holocaust deniers are antisemitic, but it does provide many, many reliable citations indicating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly inferred that all Holocaust deniers are antisemitic by being in the "antisemitism" category. Jwh335 (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean "implied", not "inferred". And the article simply notes that Holocaust denial is considered to be antisemitic. It also provides 17 reliable sources saying so. I daresay there are dozens more that say the same. Do you have any reliable sources indicating that it is not antisemitic? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad has stated that he is not antisemitic and is clearly a holocaust denier. I believe that his "not antisemitic" statement is absurd. However, it's apparently a valid source on Wikipedia's Juan Cole page. I will use that as my source. Jwh335 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to review WP:NOR. Just because Ahmadinejad says he's not antisemitic, it doesn't mean Holocaust denial isn't antisemitic. Please find reliable sources which state "Holocaust denial is not antisemitic". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I will let you remove reference 43 from the Juan Cole page because I will not. I've added a new reference. The section that mentions the relevant information follows:

It is not anti-Semitic to make a fool of yourself in public about a historical fact. It is anti-Semitic to preach or promote a dislike of Jews because they are Jews, which is what Bishop Williamson has not done.

Jwh335 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Who deems sources reliable or not, and how? --169.232.173.23 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know this, as well. Jwh335 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As everything on Wikipedia, it is determined by consensus. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a reliable sources noticeboard where such things are discussed at WP:RSN, but the bottom line is that Holocaust denial is considered to be anti-semitic. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are, for example, sources that originate from academics/scholarly instutions that have a reputation for fact checking. WilliamH (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am on the "not Antisemites" side. The sources that appear to be the basis of the other sides thought process may or may not be reliable, but they don't state that HD deniers are antisemites.60.229.36.164 (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section discussing the issue, here: Holocaust denial#Are Holocaust deniers antisemites? Feedback welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that section. Jwh335 (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that some articles have the category box under certain sections of articles. Would it be okay to put the antisemitism category box under the "Are Holocaust deniers antisemites?" section? Jwh335 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, although a couple of non-expert authors have opined that it might be possible to theoretically be a Holocaust denier without being an antisemite, in practice all reliable sources agree that Holocaust denial is undoubtedly a manifestation of antisemitism. In fact, that it is one of the most obvious manifestations of antisemitism imaginable. Thus, the category box belongs exactly where it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Entirely agree with Jayjg's statement above. WilliamH (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe we need to take a consensus. Jwh335 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have one; everyone here other than yourself thinks the antisemitism box is correctly placed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how reliable a source is if it's merely being used for an opinion point. We use reliable sources to get reliable descriptions of events and reliable data and so on, but they mean very little for opinions of motive, or complex subjective definitions of anti-semitism. It's impossible to make the claim that holocaust denial is always anti-semitic, since it's the rejection of popular historical record and not inherently a claim of Jewish conspiracy - the stature of the person (source) claiming otherwise does not change that. 94.197.64.58 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that "It's impossible make the claim that holocaust denial is always anti-semitic", this article does not do so. Please read the article for details on what it actually says. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Conceptualization issues

In what has been our nominal convention for the last five years, my friend User:Jayjg reverted my basic changes to the lede,[7] in which I sought to remedy a couple obvious issues - that its conceptualization appears to me to be inaccurate, and its writing contains what appears to be an unnecessary caveat. The lede currently reads:

"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust[1]—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized."

BTW I note that my actual edit was missing a vital transition from before the em-dash to after the em-dash. Hence a better version would be something like... (changes in bold and underlined) :

"Holocaust denial refers to a type of claim regarding the Holocaust — the genocide of Jews and others during World War II — in which the Holocaust did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent as historically recognized."

To explain each of my edits in typically unnecessary detail, the first change is conceptual. The main reason Jayjg gives for his revert appears to be that "Holocaust denial" constitutes a specific thing, rather than a type of thing. However note that the lede sentence itself offers some variance in its descriptions (from "did not occur at all" to "or.. in the manner or extent.. recognized"), hence this article is not about a specific claim, but rather a type of claim - one in which the facts of the Holocaust are rejected and substituted with notions devoid of factual basis.

Taking that a step further, we deal then with the general concept of a phenomenon - that all the various different "denials" constitute not just a type of claim, but an "ism": A general type of "denialism" that manifests itself not as "Holocaust denial," but "Holocaust denialism." The latter term I suggest may be a better title for this article.

The second change was elementary - the language "usually referred to as the Holocaust" is rather fishy and obsequious. Its not "usually referred to" - in English its always referred to as "the Holocaust." It reads like a caveat that's not only unnecessary, but one that seeks to make inaccuracy itself a kind of necessity.

A third edit involved the simple addition of "and others" to the line describing the Holocaust and its targeted victims. Jayjg in his revert comment appears to make the point that Holocaust denialism is specifically about Jews, hence another reason for his revert. But even if that were true, and I'm not so sure it is - for example in cases where the entire Holocaust is denied - it still does not change the fact that the phrase in question was simply describing what the Holocaust itself was, hence the disinclusion of the Roma and others is inaccurate. -Stevertigo 07:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, good to see you are back to your usual BS. At best, you just want to add words that make th elead wordier and no clearer, indeed, less clear. At worst, it is your typical pattern of violating WP:NOR. Steve, pleease go to your local library and fill out the form for a library card. Then you can read books, and do research and perhaps contribute to Wikipedia. In the meantime, please don't waste our time with crazy edits that have no virtue except that they are not backed by any research. Have philosophers argued that Holocaust denial should be considered a "type of claim" rather than a claim? Has any significant verifiable source claimed that it is an "ism?" Well, please share your sources with us. But you are not a source for Wikipedia articles.

I guess at least we can thank you for being almost clear about your compulsion to side with anti-Semites whenever the chance appears. The article is about people who deny the genocide of the Jews. The introduction ought to introduce the article. Therefore the introduction has to make clear that Holocaust deniers are denying the genocide of the Jews. The lead phrasing does that, your edit changes it. You claim that it is required for conceptual clarity but so far the only conceptual muddiness I can see is somewhere betweenyour ears. Holocaust denial is directed towards Jews. That is what this article is about. If you want to discuss other Holocausts or meanigns of the Holocaust do it at the appropriate article, not here. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

SLR wrote: "Hi Steve, good to see you are back to your usual BS." Since we are going off topic, here Slrubenstein: Over the last year or so, by my count you've used perhaps around thirty expletives when talking about my edits, my comments, questions, and even my person.

I wonder, Steven, how much your academic reputation - whatever it actually was - has suffered as a result of your interactions with me - such that you have fallen a bit from the status of at least an articulate academic to one who doesn't bother at all to use his God-given intellect anymore. -Stevertigo 17:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC) PS: Please think twice about going off the deep end with the paranoia. Remember Oct. 3, 2003.

• To go back on topic and offer not my own original research but the position of multiple reliable sources, Holocaust denial is the denial that a) the Nazi government of Germany had a state policy to kill Jews, that b) homicidal gas chambers were used to do this, and that c) the death toll was around 6 million. The destruction of Roma and other groups of people by the Nazis, however as equally tragic, is not pertinent to Holocaust denial. WilliamH (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The state policy to kill Jews and 6 million figure are key here, since 6 million is the approximate number of Jews killed, not the total of all victims of the Nazis. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well note that the one cited source for this view, Niewyk (why does the citation omit Nicosia?) is himself not quite so certain. He notes several caveats, notably that an inclusive definition of Nazi murders total perhaps 17 million. He adds that:

"During WWII the term was used to describe the fates of both Jewish and non-Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities. Only later, during the 1960's, was it appropriated ([and capitalized]) by scholars and popular writers to denote the genocide of the Jews in particular."

He further calls "essentially Judeocentric" the view that the term refers only to the murders of Jews alone. He says "scholars who limit the Holocaust to the genocide of the Jews rest their case variously on issues of motive, scale, and intent." The terms *Judeocentric and *variously are important here, as Niewyk is plain enough to state that there is a naturally ethnic dimension to this historiology, as well as a certain type of conceptual selectivity.

Suffice it to say the definition - one that in a certain sense "denies" the tragic fates of the other 11 million murdered people - is not a universal one, or as Niewyk puts it "not everyone finds this a fully satisfactory definition." Indeed, while the Shoah may refer (uncontroversially) just to the demonic attempt to destroy Jews, the term "The Holocaust" - in the current lingua franca - is not bound by particularly "Judeocentric" concerns - particularly where we lack another more general term for the mass destruction of Jews, Poles, Slavs, Romani, German dissidents, and others. Rather I should state, that is, we appear to lack a more general term other than... "WWII."

With all that said, I am more than aware that words can sometimes have more than one meaning. That "The Holocaust" most often refers to the murder of Jews specifically is not controversial - along with the various nominal concepts of anti-Semitism, systematic apparatus, incineration and pure evil. However, in the non-Jewish world we may have to be less ambiguous, and have no reason to favor one particular definition over another. Hence the inclusive meaning - the one that does not actually omit or ignore 11 million murders - must be understood to be just as valid.

I understand now why the obsequious language in the lede - "..the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust.." in a certain way its quite accurate as it employs a caveat to the definition of the term. But it does not explain itself, such that it could just as well mean 'there are other equivalent terms' as much as it could mean 'the term has a more broad, but less common meaning.' I don't see why it couldn't be restated in accord with the latter. -Stevertigo 00:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be reinstated because it's wrong. This article is about people who deny the destruction of the Jews, because its the destruction of the Jews that they deny, and not the destruction of, for example, Roma peoples. As a non-Jew in the non-Jewish world that you speak of - a rather nominal term I must say, I cannot think of anything less ambiguous. WilliamH (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, as WilliamH points out, while the Holocaust affected peoples besides the Jews, Holocaust denial is a denial of the genocide of Jews. Holocaust deniers don't deny other genocides, just the genocide of the Jews. Please review the relevant literature and familiarize yourself with the topic before attempting to make further changes to the article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Really. This is just pointless argumentation; perhaps there's a vague possibility that this discussion might be fruitful on Talk:The Holocaust, but Holocaust denial is about Jews. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(To WilliamH and Jayjg) I know you both are keeping your replies simple and detail-free, but follow along with me here. I don't necessarily agree, and I say this without being argumentative. Again, Neiwyk pointed out that even the term "The Holocaust" was "appropriated" to refer specifically to the Shoah. It (the definition you promote as absolute) excludes 11 million deaths, and therefore it cannot be considered the universal or absolute definition, even it is the more common of two legitimate ones. Thus the term "Holocaust denial" - if it means only exactly what you two suggest - is likewise based in an "appropriated" definition - one that ignores or excludes not only 11 million other murdered human beings, but other plausible causes and reasons by which people generally reject bad news about old events.

While certainly the largest and most notable, anti-Semitism is only one dimension within the overall concept of "denying" the Holocaust. Denials all share similar characteristics - denials follow culpability, as well as extreme incrimination. In plain point of fact, dealing with a social, ethnic, cultural, and even familial association with an unspeakably evil culture - one that needed to be destroyed - certainly "shame" and "guilt" can be considered as related - if not altogether contributing factors - to "denial."

These different aspects perhaps fit better under a Holocaust comprehension article. Now, I'm certain these psycho-sociological tangents have been written about somewhere - why are these not covered here? If it's because the article is constrained by a noticeably artificial fixation on anti-Semitism, then this oversight needs to be corrected. Noting the caveat in the definition of "the Holocaust" is half of the solution. The other half is in dealing with the subjective aspects of "denial" - distinguishing the term as one of "appropriated" meaning - and touching on other non-anti-Semitism aspects (such that Holocaust comprehension covers) is required to satisfy NPOV. -Stevertigo 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "Holocaust denial" hasn't been "appropriated" from non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, just as the definition of "antisemitism" hasn't been "appropriated" from non-Jewish "semites". Both are activities directed solely at Jews. To quote Kenneth S. Stern from his 2006 book Antisemitism Today (p. 80) "...Holocaust denial is about Jews, not about the Holocaust". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the definition of "Holocaust denial" rest somewhat on the definitions of "The Holocaust" and "denial?" The latter term has subjective elements, and the former term, as stated before, has a larger, more inclusive, definition. Why then the limitation? Is it because the limitation is imposed by the "essentially Judeocentric" view mentioned by Niewyk/Nicosia?

Further, does not this definition exist largely to deal with only the anti-Semitic definition? Keep in mind that it wasn't anti-Semitism that made the Nazis particularly notable - it was their egomaniacal embrace of death and destruction that made them finished. -Stevertigo 06:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the definition of Monster truck rest somewhat on the definitions of "Monster" and "truck"? The latter term has subjective elements, and the former has a larger, more inclusive definition than that used in the phrase "Monster truck". And yet, the "Monster truck" article doesn't actually discuss trucks in relation to monsters, or trucks that are driven by monsters. As for the "limitation" in the definition of "Holocaust denial" is indeed "imposed" by the "essentially Judeocentric" view of those who deny the Holocaust. As explained, they are only interested in the Jews, and only interested in denying the genocide of the Jews. Now, what do you mean by "only the anti-Semitic definition" of Holocaust denial? What is the "non-anti-Semitic definition"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(Response below) -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-semitism didn't make nazis particularly notable? Do you mean that all the scholars that have written thousands of pages on nazism where they emphasize that anti-semitism was one of the main pilars of the nazi theories are completely mistaken? --Lebob-BE (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(Response below) -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lebob, Stevertigo habitually tries to see how far he can brush up against anti-Semitism in his remarks, without actually presenting himself as an anti-Semite. Obviously if you do not care about genocide against Jews, the Nazis were more notable for other things, like their fashion sense. I suggest you not rise to the bait. Stevertigo loves pissing Jews off. Just don't rise to the bait. Let's instead look at his sytematic attempts to violate Wikipedia policy. "Doesn't the definition of "Holocaust denial" rest somewhat on the definitions of "The Holocaust" and "denial?"" Well, no, Steve, no more than "A slow comfortable screw on the beach" depend son the definitions of these words. Sure, bartenders know what each individual word means - but the phrase all together has nothing to do with these words. Buddy, trust me on this, but a "blow job" is not what you must think it is!!

The definition of Holocaust denial depends on how people use the term. People use it to deny a genocidal campaign against the Jews. If you have a significant view from a verifiable source that says that the term means something else, by all means share it with us. Oops, that would require you to do actual research! I forgot that you prefer to sit on your chair thumbing through your dictionary looking for ways to violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite have time at to moment to respond adequately, but I can deal with a couple points. For one, I would never have had the insight to compare The Holocaust, or any aspect thereof, to a "blow job." But as he has more than sufficiently demonstrated before linguistics is not one of Slrubenstein's fields of actual expertise. Allow me to demonstrate:

"Holocaust" ----> "blow" (!)

"denial" ----> "job" (!)

I don't mean to embarrass Steven too much, in fact not only do I hold a tremendous respect for him, but he's probably as close to an actual friend I have here on en.wiki. (Yes, this is the same person who 'habitually tries to see how far he can brush up against' making explicit accusations of "anti-Semite" against me).

For future reference, though, it would behoove all of us to learn from SLrubenstein's mistakes, and not make comparisons between literal concept terms - such that "Holocaust denial" reportedly is - and highly idiomatic ones like "blow job" and "a slow comfortable screw on the beach" (I would probably be too self-conscious to be comfortable). Likewise comparing aspects of the most terrible events in human history to some of the most wonderful is not... appropriate.

Let us note though, that the substance behind Slrubenstein's inexact metaphor is a concession - that the term for which this article is named has some idiomatic distinctions that set it apart from the actual term "Holocaust." I agree, and I'll let Slrubenstein go about filling in the holes. Again, the issue I am more interested in is comprehension - which on the surface doesn't seem like a particularly easy subject to tackle. Regards, -Stevertigo 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, do you have any reliable sources that corroborate your theories? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Jayjg - from a few notes above) I meant to write "non-anti-Semitic dimension," not "definition." The answer then to your question (rephrased) "what is the 'non-anti-Semitic dimension?' is simply 'any not Jewish-related reasons for why some people might disbelieve, reject, or else deny the facts about the worst crime in the history of the planet.' -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(Response to LeBob above). One point to consider here is that Europe was plenty "anti-Semitic" for a long time, little of which is generally notable. Anti-Semitism's relevance is not in question here - but it is only one dimension within the story of how Germans became Nazis, and consumed themselves in destruction. Granted, in Jewish contexts, other possible aspects of history's worst crime just might not be as interesting as the specifically Jewish ones, and I concede that point. I happen to like it however when any ambiguities, such those regarding the other 11 million, are reconciled upfront in the article. -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Jayjg - previous question) If there is any "theory" is its that there is an aspect to terrible events that we call "comprehension." In the case of Jews, Germans and other humans, we all have a natural difficulty in comprehending the Holocaust, such that there have been debates about it at every level ever since. If we can, we can try to start the comprehension article here, and fill things in as we do here via collaborative development. (Other academic circles might do things differently).

Of course, all articles here are based in a concept of fulfilling "comprehension," but I'm suggesting that we deal with "comprehension" as a meta topic - such that looks at how different people have tried to "comprehend" a thing that defies just about any attempt thereof. It should be workable. There are a lot of dimensions to the subject, one of which of course being the way some people deny the facts. Others perhaps don't deny the facts, but rather deny its meaning. The aspect I'm most interested in is the religious one - have people to some degree become atheistic or agnostic because of the Holocaust? So, there are a lot of things to cover, and, to answer the routine component in your question - there are far more sources out there than we can possibly include. -Stevertigo 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case I've got some better "comprehension" pages in the pipeline (heck maybe we can even set up a category or portal). How about 'Schrodinger's cat comprehension', or 'American health policy comprehension', or 'God comprehension'. Any of these are far greater sources of confusion and misinterpretation, and would lead to more interesting and useful reading than the syntactical semantics that can be thrown at 'holocaust denial' to try and warp it into your 'holocaust comprehension'. The point is moot. The vast majority of people "know" that 'holocaust denial' means Jews, and unless you were someone as powerful as Rupert Murdoch and were bent on a crusade to convince the world otherwise it will remain that way, whether it is "true" or not. 1812ahill (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's official

Based on his various comments above, it is clear that Stevertigo has come to this talk page only in order to disrupt and meaningful discussion. Since it is clear that he will not provide any sources, I suggest we just ignore Tigo and move on to whatever discussion, if any, may improve the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am inclined to agree. I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that someone so articulate can be so involuntarily obtuse. WilliamH (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Will, I don't quite know what you mean here by "obtuse," but maybe that's itself just a symptom of the syndrome you mention. What I do understand is that by "articulate" you must mean that something was articulated. I'm therefore wondering if it wouldn't be less obtuse for others to just deal with the articulations, and put aside any of my alleged obtuseness. (Slrubenstein is obviously off the hook as far as articulation goes). -Stevertigo 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that there aren't sources that contend that "the Holocaust" should encompass more than just the destruction of the Jews by the Nazis. But, Stevertigo, what has been outlined to you at least half a dozen times is the following: let's take the all the peoples, Jews, Roma, Political Prisoners, etc, etc, that died through Nazi persecution.

Now, let's take "certain individuals". They form pseudoscholarly institutions. They crawl the ruins of the crematoria at Auschwitz and do pseudoscientific analysis on the material they collect. They ignore and misrepresent historical documents, as well as people who have good reason to completely disagree with the conclusions they come to.

The conclusions that these "certain individuals" come to is that the Nazi government of Germany did not have a a) state plan to kill Jews via b) methods such as gas chambers, which resulted in around c) 6 million dead Jews.

The denial that these "certain individuals" engage in is not the denial of the destruction of Roma people, of political prisoners, or anyone else. Of the destruction perpetrated by the Nazis, it is the destruction of the Jews that they deny. Repeat: nobody is disputing that some sources have slightly wider goalposts when they define "the Holocaust", but if the lead section of this article is amended so that it implies that the deniers of NSDAP-perpetrated genocide deny the destruction of Roma, political prisoners, etc, etc, then the article is wrong.

Slrubinstein's blowjob remark, even if perhaps crude, is in fact an excellent lexical analogy and your comments regarding it are perhaps more of a reflection of you (i.e. your failure to grasp the matter at hand) than him. The verb "to blow" has more than one use, but "sharply exhaling" has nothing to do with the sexual act of a blowjob itself. To amend the blowjob article to imply that it does would be wrong. WilliamH (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

1. WilliamH: "but if the lead section of this article is amended so that it implies that the deniers of NSDAP-perpetrated genocide deny the destruction of Roma, political prisoners, etc, etc, then the article is wrong" - Did I propose such a thing? Read each of my comments again. I did not. What I did say is that as this term uses "The Holocaust" for only the most common of its two accepted definitions, it needs to disambiguate "Holocaust denial" as being based in the more common definition that deals specifically with the Shoah, and not the more inclusive one that deals with 11 million less important gentiles. That way, this article is keeping step with the main article, and not serving the function of "appropriat[ing] by scholars and popular writers" the term "The Holocaust" for its less inclusive definition. In fact the current version tries to do this, albeit quite clumsily.
2. WilliamH said: "nobody is disputing that there aren't sources that contend that "the Holocaust" should encompass more than just the destruction of the Jews by the Nazis." - My issues are plainly encyclopedic: 1) it's a case of needing preemptive, upfront disambiguation between the two valid definitions. That way Serbs and Poles who read this article aren't surprised when the see it use a definition of "The Holocaust" that does not include them. Furthermore it makes it more plain that the denialists are actual anti-Semites with Jewish fixations, and not just wannabe revisionists. (Which is quite interesting actually - one would think the guilt would extend to crimes against others as well..).
3. WilliamH: "..has been outlined to you at least half a dozen times is the following..." - No such "outline" has been given. You three have repeated an oblique statement about this subject as dealing with denials specifically in regard to the crimes against Jews. Fine - just do a better job of disambiguating that upfront.
4. WilliamH: "excellent lexical analogy..." - I understand that Steven was trying to make a point about lexical differentiation: Certainly it exists! But this is not an article about "cutting the cheese," or "throwing a hotdog down a hallway." I understand that Steven, like the rest of us, reads Urban Dictionary just to unwind, but I didn't like his general flippant disregard for my articulations and found his inaccurate usage of sexualized lexical examples to be entirely out of place here, and that's why I had to deal with them. -Stevertigo 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, if I understand you correctly, you are now saying that you do not object to the definition of Holocaust denial, but rather to the definition of Holocaust used by an extremely reliable source in a footnote of this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, contrary to what you imply by your words "now saying," I have not said anything different nor have I changed my suggestions for this article - I've simply confined myself to dealing with substantive and responsive points (in this case WilliamH's). I repeat - the issue is that there is some ambiguity in the Holocaust term itself (ref: Niewyk/Nicosia), hence this article needs to disambiguate itself as one rooted in the common, non-inclusive, exclusively Jewish definition (WP:LEDE). -Stevertigo 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you disputing that the genocide of the Jews in World War II is referred to as "the Holocaust"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not disputing that the genocide of the Jews in World War II is *commonly referred to as "the Holocaust." Are you denying that, in addition to over 6 million Jews, another perhaps 11 million Goyim were systematically murdered, and that the term "The Holocaust" *may just as well also include the destruction of these other human beings, as it commonly did for nearly two decades after WW II? -Stevertigo 03:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever does that have to do with "Holocaust Denial", a phrase which (in the absence of reliable sources indicating otherwise) is generally accepted to mean denial of the Shoah, not the more general destruction of life by the Nazis? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot determine relevance, please start at the beginning of the "#Conceptualization issues" thread, and work your way down. Forgive me, but at the moment I am far more interested in what Jayjg has to say. -Stevertigo 03:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Doing a little re-reading above - here's a little quote from Jayjg (stars* mine): "while the Holocaust *affected* peoples besides the Jews, Holocaust denial is a denial of the genocide of Jews." Note Jayjg uses a word like "affected" instead of something even remotely accurate like "mass murdered." And his language "peoples besides the Jews" also seems fishy, but I won't go further. Anyway, according to Jayjg, "peoples besides the Jews" were "affected [by the Nazis]." Funny. -Stevertigo 04:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care who you're interested in hearing; if you want a private conversation, use email. Now, if you don't have specific suggestions to improve this article, that have any chance of gaining consensus, you really should move on. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Who are you? -Stevertigo 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One of several editors who have suggested it's time for you to move on. Never mind, I'll take Slrubenstein's advice and ignore you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good advice for you. For others - ie. those here who pretend to know what they are actually talking about - I require actual intelligent responsiveness. They who want to be gatekeepers of knowledge have to also deal with how the human intellect processes and reflects that knowledge. -Stevertigo 05:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd echo jpgordon's advice. If you want to discuss the Holocaust, find another website; although we traditionally allow some laxity in these areas, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. This has been going on for a while now, and I've seen no sign of concrete suggestions for improvements to the article. You might like to look at WP:TALK for guidance on the use of talkpages, and WP:DISRUPT for the possible consequences of abusing them. EyeSerene^talk 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's clear from your comments that at the time of writing, neither you nor Jpgordon had actually read the above discussion. I know what those policies are about, and not just what they say. For example your mention of DISRUPT in the context of this discussion and TALK shows that you don't know its scope is limited to articles, not talk pages. As far as "concrete suggestions" go, I've said a number of times already what those are. Please read them for yourself.

At issue here is the two above regular editors know better than to ignore valid issues, but also know they cannot directly deal with the issues that I raised, and that's why the sudden silence. That this issue of "essentially Judeocentric" (Niewyk/Nicosia) terminology creates a conceptual quandry among scholars who shape history is not my concern. That Wikipedia should endorse only one particular meaning of "denial" and reject another meaning - one that gives some small regard to 11 million more people - is of course getting into issues of our own scholarship and editorial capacity. But real scholars of course could directly answer my questions and suggestions without resorting to personal attacks and avoidance. -Stevertigo 05:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, do you have any reliable sources backing your claim that there is another "meaning" of "Holocaust denial"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The points you raised have been considered by other editors, and your failure to supply reliable sources - thereby making an apparent synthesis - has led to them being rejected. To support your position you have moved to semantic debate about the scholarly use of the term "Holocaust", which has gone away from improvement suggestions and beyond Wikipedia's remit; while your arguments may well have some validity, this is not the place for them. Your refusal to accept this means that it becomes a user conduct rather than a content issue, and if appropriate, WP:DISRUPT (which goes across all Wikipedia spaces) will be applied. EyeSerene^talk 10:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To EyeSerene

1. EyeSerene wrote: "The points you raised have been considered by other editors.." - I don't see how my "points" have been even called "points" yet, by "other editors." Only you thus far have had the civility and intelligence to understand these as "points," even if you don't quite understand what they are. And how have my points "been considered by other editors?" I see no evidence of this "consideration." If you have been in private communication, and thus are privy to secret knowledge about this "consider[ation]," please share. How many? Who? How are these "considerations" being expressed?
2. (Also to Jayjg) EyeSerene wrote: "..failure to supply reliable sources" - The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, (Chapter: "Defining the Holocaust") by Donald L. Niewyk and Francis R. Nicosia [8] is the sole source I've referred several times to in the above discussion. (I didn't have to buy it either). It is coincidentally the sole source in the lede of this article with regard to this article's definition of the Holocaust, and second cited source in The Holocaust article itself, as well as being the main source in the Victims and death toll section. It is cited seven times in the Holocaust article, and twice here. Moreover, my references to the source have been more accurate, and my issues with this article flow to some degree from this article's apparent inaccurate usage of this source, which, for starters only credits Niewyk and not co-author Nicosia.
3. EyeSerene wrote: "..thereby making an apparent synthesis" - WP:SYNTH is defined as "[to] combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." a) I've already established that the source I've cited is unequivocally "reliable." b) I've also already established that I've cited only one source. c) (It occurs to me that by "failure to supply reliable sources" you may instead be placing the emphasis on the word "supply," such that I have not brought any new ones. No, just the old authoritative one). d) These ruled out, that leaves only the interpretation that you must mean I have "fail[ed] to supply [any] sources," which obviously isn't true, per above. Hence, all that is left of your statement about SYNTH is a contradiction to your own above allegation of -RS: If I have "fail[ed] to supply reliable sources," be they truly reliable ones, new ones, or else any ones) then how can I have "combine[d] multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicity stated by any of the sources?"
4. I should stop here, at least to give us both a break, if not just to let it all sink in. Ok, break over.
5. EyeSerene wrote: "To support your position you have moved to semantic debate about the scholarly use of the term "Holocaust"." - This isn't accurate. I have no "position," for one, and my entire issue here began with a simple edit to correct in the article the very same issues I have discussed above. Further, if this allegation of "ambiguity" in how we are "Defining the Holocaust" constituted a "position" of some sort, it rests entirely on the above source and its nuanced treatment of the subject. Hence my issues have less to do with the subject matter, rather more with our universal necessity for a conceptual approach. In addition this article is misusing its source, by misrepresenting what the Columbia guide actually says.
6. EyeSerene wrote: "...which has gone away from improvement suggestions and beyond Wikipedia's remit" - I am suggesting that the source above - the article's first source - be cited accurately. Would that not be somewhat of an improvement?
7. EyeSerene wrote: "..while your arguments may well have some validity, this is not the place for them." I note the courtesy you give in regarding my "points" as "arguments," though they somehow qualify as -RS and SYNTH. As far as this being "not the place" for them (whatever "them" are), I am not so certain. Are you?
8. EyeSerene wrote: "..Your refusal to accept this" - By "this" you perhaps mean the issue of "place?"
9. EyeSerene wrote: "..means that it becomes a user conduct rather than a content issue" - It's hard to disagree with something so inaccurate. But this inaccuracy was largely dealt with in my responses to your above statements.
10. EyeSerene wrote: "..and if appropriate, WP:DISRUPT (which goes across all Wikipedia spaces) will be applied." - Again, you've inaccurately cited policy - this time the DISRUPT policy (again), which (again) refers to "disruptive editing:" Discussion comments are not generally referred to as "edits." This also sounds like a threat, and as with most threats its natural that the threatened (me in this case) will try to identify the source of the threat to determine its.. threat. Let me put this in the nicest way possible: I am not convinced your statement is a threat. -Stevertigo 13:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, it's really not my intention to take up a debate with you and become a contributory factor to the issue here. You're right however that I used WP:SYNTH when I should have used WP:OR. I was thinking that you seem to be taking a valid point - that the term Holocaust (capital "H") has a 'weak' definition that refers to the wider atrocities that took place under the Nazis, as opposed to its 'strong' definition referring specifically the persecution of the Jews - but you are then extending this to propose a non-standard definition of Holocaust Denial. I agree that the word "Holocaust" can be used ambiguously; "Holocaust Denial", on the other hand, is pretty unambiguously defined, and you are apparently using the ambiguity of "Holocaust" to come to a novel conclusion about "Holocaust Denial" that doesn't seem to be supported in those terms by the sources. Continuing to advocate such changes when they've been rejected by other editors is disruptive. I intend my post as a notification, not a threat, that the spirit of WP:DISRUPT will be applied if it becomes necessary to prevent ongoing unproductive debate on this page. EyeSerene^talk 14:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. EyeSerene wrote: "..it's really not my intention to take up a debate with you and become a contributory factor to the issue here." - I accept your apology, but don't quite understand what you mean "contributory factor to the issue here." If the "issue here" is not about substance, then to what are you referring that I should be the least bit concerned with?
2. EyeSerene wrote: "You're right however that I used WP:SYNTH when I should have used WP:OR." - I am not "right" in the way you suggest, because your summary is not accurate: I did not say you "used WP:SYNTH" (rather you referred to it), or that you "should have used WP:NOR," I said your usage of -RS and SYNTH in the same breath showed that you a) apparently didn't know what one or both of these policies actually say, b) you appeared to not know what I had actually wrote or else didn't understand it, and c) you got yourself a little bit confused there, and this sometimes happens with newbies.
3. EyeSerene wrote: "I was thinking that you seem to be taking a valid point - that the term Holocaust (capital "H") has a 'weak' definition that refers to the wider atrocities that took place under the Nazis, as opposed to its 'strong' definition referring specifically the persecution of the Jews" - Well, please note again that your terminology is inaccurate: Its not just "Holocaust" but also "The Holocaust" that fall under the actual variance you just acknowledged. Contrary to the way Columbia source is used here, Niewyk and Nicosia do not simply settle on a single definition, rather what they do is break it down for us by defining four variant concepts and explaining each of them (underline mine) [9]:
   1. "First, we may hold to the traditional definition that it was the genocide of Jews alone. Because no sane person will deny that the Germans killed members of other groups, too, one will have to be satisfied that they belong to a different category.. not in any substantial way in the history of the Holocaust."
   2. "A second definition might recognize several parallel Holocausts, one for each of several victim groups (the exact number being debatable), and each displaying special characteristics."
   3. "A third definition would broaden the Holocaust to embrace Gypsies and the handicapped along with the Jews."
   4. "A fourth definition would insist on seeing Nazi racism whole, and describe the Holocaust as an inseparable complex of policies and events encompassing all racially motivated German crimes and their victims."
4. They then state upfront that they are working with only one of them.
   1. "The authors of this volume have adopted the third approach to a working definition: The Holocaust - that is, Nazi genocide - was the systematic, state-sponsored murder of entire groups by heredity. This applied to Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped."
5. Interestingly, the one they choose is not the "traditional definition." This raises the question as to why they are cited as a source for the definition of "The Holocaust" in articles like this one that consider, without explanation, only the "traditional definition?"
6. EyeSerene wrote: "I agree that the word "Holocaust" can be used ambiguously; "Holocaust Denial", on the other hand, is pretty unambiguously defined, and you are apparently using the ambiguity of "Holocaust" to come to a novel conclusion about "Holocaust Denial" that doesn't seem to be supported in those terms by the sources." - I understand this point and to a certain extent agree it has some practical, if not scholarly or linguistic validity. I will get into that shortly, but firstly I appreciate your precision and care in stating this point accurately. The issue I raised is simply that the "traditional definition" cannot be assumed to be the dominant one, even though the term "Holocaust denial" might only refer to anti-Semitic and anti-historical rejectionism. The reason being is that this article's scope rests on a definition of "The Holocaust," and its main source, the Columbia Guide, states quite upfront that its own definition was itself selected from some variant definitions. Likewise, the working definition they choose for their book is not the "traditional definition," but the one that includes "Gypsies and the handicapped," based on "heredity" as the subjective scope. (Note, "genetics" might be more precise than "heredity," but even that is not entirely accurate where considering mentally ill, and in any case Nazi concepts were never reliable to begin with).
7. The point is that the sources we use undergo their own vetting process for selecting particular working definitions for their essays, and make this vetting process upfront, we must also do so. Our articles also undergo to some degree a similar selection, such as to define what they mean, but this selection process is not apparent here. My term "disambiguation" here refers not to distinguishing "Apple" from "Apple Inc." or even "Holocaust denial regarding Jews" from "Holocaust denial regarding non-Jews," but to the fact that the fundamental concept, The Holocaust, embodies some scholarly subjectity and always will, regardless of how many paperbacks are published in accord with only the "traditional definition."
8. Note also this general disambiguation-explanation concept (to disambiguate this term from the disambiguation policy) applies to other concepts as well. An article on auto racing, for example, will need to be explanatory such as to explain what it means by "auto." While we need not bother with interpretations like "self racing" (such as the Latin might literally suggest), we also cannot assume that "auto" just refers to stock cars or else open-wheel cars. Inclusivity is required by explanationism. Nor can it rest on an idea that "auto racing" means "NASCAR," just because NASCAR happens to be the most popular in certain self-absorbed parts of the world. Even if NASCAR is widely considered the "best" definition of "auto racing," in accord with various subjective criteria (what might in extreme focus be called "objective" or "quantifiable" criteria), we can't write an article about auto racing without treating the variance. If there is variance in the root terms, we must explain these, even if "open-wheel cars" are on their way out, and even if "nobody" uses "The Holocaust" to refer to Gypsies.
9. If the substance behind the "traditional definition" was without question, and not instead highly subjective, or else largely rooted in concepts defined by the Nazis themselves, then there would be less of an issue. But there is an issue, because it gets deep into subjective territory, "essentially Judeocentric" concerns, and the terminology of "popular writers," who reshaped an existing general concept that had existed for over twenty years into a specialized one. Note also that, as Niewyk and Nicosia define the "traditional definition" above, its quite circular: (paraphrasing): the definition is exclusively limited to crimes against Jews, so we are "satisfied" that "others" belong in a different "category," hence they don't satisfy the definition.
10. EyeSerene wrote: ".. but you are then extending this to propose a non-standard definition of Holocaust Denial." - Your term "non-standard" is ambiguous, and strange. If the term was "Jewish Holocaust denial," then the "standard" definition would naturally be confined to the Jews. As there is variance in the definition of The Holocaust, we need to treat this variance. This article does try to do this upfront, but with the briefest of notation, and thus fails to both explain the variance and its lack of applicability to this term, and likewise fails to accurate cite its own source, which is explicitly upfront about the variance. (Note, "denial" is not generally capitalized, AIUI.)
11. EyeSerene wrote: "Continuing to advocate such changes when they've been rejected by other editors is disruptive." - The first part of this statement is correct. The second is not: It's not "such changes" that have been "rejected by other editors," its "NPOV" and "LEDE," along with my own very participation here, that are "rejected by other editors." I've had to deal with Steven and Jay for a long time now, and they most certainly have had to deal with me.
12. EyeSerene wrote: "I intend my post as a notification, not a threat, that the spirit of WP:DISRUPT will be applied if it becomes necessary to prevent ongoing unproductive debate on this page." - I see, so I'm on "notice" that you will apply not the actual policy called DISRUPT, but your own misinterpretation of the "spirit" behind it, with a modulus of some subjective concept like "unproductive debate"? - Ostensibly, you are violating your own made-up concept here with your interjections. Perhaps you are trying to mediate the situation by helping the now-silent parties, and are in touch with them. If that's the case, you should be aware that the usefulness of passive intervention has its limits - particularly where things otherwise are generally quite open and straightforward, or where openness and straightforwardness gains respect. The CIA is learning this, as are others. -Stevertigo 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, as has been explained many times now, this article is about "Holocaust denial", not "The Holocaust". Again, to quote Kenneth S. Stern from his 2006 book Antisemitism Today (p. 80) "...Holocaust denial is about Jews, not about the Holocaust". Do you have any sources that indicate that Holocaust denial is about anything else? If so, please produce them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already stated that the Columbia Guide does not support the definition of "the Holocaust" that you claim to be operant for this term, and it is this divergence between article-concept (as you claim) and its own first source that makes my criticism here relevant and valid - not the issue of terminology. That there is no other generally accepted meaning of "Holocaust denial" at this time is not relevant to the way in which articles must define and express their fundamental concepts upfront and with clarity.

It has nothing to do with presenting a source which claims that there is some variance in "Holocaust denial," simply that this article explain that its omnibus usage of the term "The Holocaust" resides exclusively in the "traditional definition." Clarify the definition this article does use, and do so in accord with the sophistication that the source cited first in this article actually employs.

Of course the source you offer is not a scholar, but an activist, promoter, and writer. The sources I cited are at least actual scholars, if not good ones. Theirs is not just some Tel Aviv coffee table book, and in fact its citation twice in this article suggest you don't disapprove of it. Why then do you dislike the concept of citing it accurately? Note its current citation here doesn't even mention the co-author. You always talk about "reliability." Rather than trying to game the system here like you typically do and gloss over your own POV, why not just simply do as I suggest and make it more clear that this article resides in only the "traditional definition?" -Stevertigo 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I don't know why you keep bringing up the definition of "the Holocaust", much less claiming I think it is "operant for this term". We're talking about the definition of "Holocaust denial" here, not the definition of "The Holocaust". Please do not make any further posts about the definition of "The Holocaust" here; save them instead for the relevant article, The Holocaust. Now, do you have any reliable sources that indicate that "Holocaust denial" is about any group other than Jews? If so, please produce them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I was assuming that the meaning of this term had some actual relevance to "The Holocaust" - the general term for Nazi mass-murders (of humans) in accord with some deviated and unholy concepts. Forgive me then if this article refers to some other "The Holocaust" - one so different from the one mentioned above that the terminology here is, like you say, completely unrelated (just as "lighter" (more light) and "lighter" (cigarette flame) are). Indeed, if your point is that the term "Holocaust" here is only a homonym to the other term "The Holocaust," then indeed I understand my comments here, and indeed my very place here, are entirely out of place! -Stevertigo 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC) PS: "Indeed."

In this article, "Holocaust" refers to the genocidal campaign against the Jews by Nazis and their allies. Now you are suggesting that "Holocaust" in this sense is as unrelated to "Holocaust" in the sense of the mass murder of other groups by Nazis and their allies as lighter (cigarette) and lighter (less heavy)? How can you possibly say this. Are you unaware that of this historical connections between the two sets of events, and between the ways the word has been used to refer to one and then the other? Or are you just saying that for you Jews are not humans? Are you an anti-Semite, or just a moron? Either way, you have no business editing this article. Please take your venomous filth elsewhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will let you retract your above comment by erasing it whole. You (Slrubenstein) also have my authorization to remove this comment along with your above comment. If you like you can replace these with a comment fitting your stature and assisted by your better angels. If the above vile spew is not gone shortly, lets say by 8pm UTC, I will most certainly make you regret having even logged in this morning. Otherwise, good day, Steve. -Stevertigo 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly responding to an uncivil comment with a threat is a Good Idea^TM. Both of you, keep it cool and collected. lifebaka++ 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka, please let Steve think, and authorize the removal of these lower comments as well. (I do this one). -Stevertigo 16:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have thought it over. I am glad to leave it stand as it expresses my view. And please, Stevie, hurt feelings and all, do not delete what I wrote. So much of your trolling offends me but have I ever deleted anything you posted to a talk page? By the way, 0:00 has past and I have to say, I am still pretty glad I logged on this morning. Yup. pretty damn glad! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Stevertigo, you have highlighted a reliable source (Niewyk and Nicosia) which outlines several different possible ways of conceiving of the Holocaust. Can you cite reliable sources on the matter whose stance would give us reason to discuss anything other than the conventional definition in the article? If not, this discussion should be brought to a swift conclusion. Thanks,  Skomorokh  19:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with a question (or two): Can you provide a reliable source which explains to us why writing clearly and stating any relevant ambiguities upfront should be regarded as original research? Or, why one should assume, without explanation, that this topic is confined to just the "conventional definition," when the ambiguities within the actual supercategorical definition are notable? -Stevertigo 19:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll make it easier and cite a policy: WP:WEIGHT. Neutral point of view does not mean giving coverage to all perspectives in articles, it means giving coverage to perspectives according to their prominence in the relevant literature. As an uninvolved administrator with no horse in this race, I am going to close this thread unless there are sources forthcoming indicating why the multi-definitional approach ought to be taken seriously.  Skomorokh  19:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. That's an interesting angle, and certainly very very not similar to previous callers who've tried various others including V/RS and NOR. I should point out that by citing WEIGHT, you are in fact contradicting the NOR and V/RS arguments: Issues within the scope of WEIGHT only deal with statements that have passed V/RS and NOR or else are not in conflict with them.

So, without even dealing with the issue of WEIGHT, I've already demonstrated how your change-up of cited policy here represents a deeper flaw in your angle of approach.

I will ignore your claims to authority here such that would permit you to close this thread. For one, your claimed "uninvolvement" is now nullified by your questions and comments on the substance of the debate. You claim of "no horse in this race" is nullified by the partisan angles you have taken. -Stevertigo 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all; WEIGHT in this instance is a stricter inclusion requirement than V/RS or NOR; content that is original or not supported by reliable sources at all has no place in an article, and only some reliably sourced information does. Your behaviour on this page has been called tendentious, and frankly for an editor who is not being tendentious, your reticence in providing supporting references is discordant to say the least. Patience is not limitless.  Skomorokh  20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got to run to the store. Hold that thought. -Stevertigo 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Back. Hm:

1. Skomorokh wrote: "WEIGHT in this instance is a stricter inclusion requirement than V/RS or NOR;" - Is it now? I do remember the WEIGHT policy being formed, and IIRC its place is directly subordinate to NPOV. "NPOV" itself has rarely been called "strict," it fact its actual application required more actionable sub-policies to be developed. WEIGHT is one of those sub-policies, formed to explain how certain concepts might, in context, be less relevant to the subject matter than others. Through deliberation and trial, we then decide on the proper place new material belongs - provided of course people agree that the new material is substantive (as a couple of you have admitted here with regard to how the main source defines the main concept in this article. Otherwise, of course I agree that dealing with the definition of the Holocaust is irrelevant here).
2. (continued): The first case I can remember having to do with WEIGHT was one of the Creationism-related articles, but in any case its general usage is to keep the FRINGE theories out of the substantive articles, while still satisfying NPOV by giving them appropriate inclusion via a mention. WEIGHT has a place in FRINGE articles as well, wherein such topics the critics need a place, but should not dominate the article just because they are the mainstream view.
3. Skomorokh wrote: "..content that is original or not supported by reliable sources at all has no place in an article.." - Certainly. Now please provide a source for the claim that "The Holocaust" refers only to the "conventional definition." I only seek to remove this claim that by default there is no variance, or else that the mainstream view dominates - both of which are original research not supported by reliable sources. Removing the unreliable sources is not actually required, if I can simply put this article into the context of the "conventional definition," wherein its various statements, reliable or not, can be said to be within its limited scope.
4. Skomorokh wrote: "..and only some reliably sourced information does [have a place in an article]." - Is this actually true? I suppose you're working with the whole spectrum of absurdities here: At the one hand that every. single. statement. have a citation, and on the other hand that we confine ourselves to certain reliable information and not others. So, in this case this view would mean what? That the promoter that Jayjg referred to has a prominent, foundational place here as a "reliable source," while an accurate usage of the scholarly Columbia Guide does not? The burden is not on me to provide a second reliable source, when your side has yet to provide one for the view that treatments of this topic should avoid referencing an extra-"conventional definition." Sorry, but if even the Columbia Guide itself chose a different working definition from the "traditional" one, and this article cites it for its basic definition, then how can you say the topical ambuguity is irrelevant, when theres ambiguity even between the "conventional definition" and source used to support it? Anyone who actually reads this first source in this article will find a contradiction to what this article says.
5. Skomorokh wrote: "Your behaviour on this page has been called tendentious, and frankly for an editor who is not being tendentious" - I appreciate the fact that know they are wrong.
6. Skomorokh wrote: "..your reticence in providing supporting references is discordant to say the least." - Discordant! Just the word everybody's been looking for. Note, again you've switched back to citing WP:RS. I guess that means your reference to WEIGHT still somehow valid, in spite of the direct contradictions?
7. Skomorokh wrote: "Patience is not limitless." - True! Relevance? -Stevertigo 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I asked you a simple and straightforward question, and you've responded with obfuscation and wikilawyering. Congratulations, you've succeeded in convincing me that you are editing here tendentiously.  Skomorokh  21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I do recall asking you for a source to backup your claim that limited scope equates to an omission of explanation - a claim that violates guides like WP:LEDE. I don't see how I can be any less obfuscative than that. -Stevertigo 21:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, how exactly would you amend this article? Perhaps you could forward us a suggested edit made in your sandbox, for example. Then this discussion might move to some sort of conclusion depending on what you suggest. WilliamH (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, an acutal question about substance! A few sentences or less will be enough, and I will deal with that after dinner. I would prefer not to use a "sandbox," since the text will be quite short (here will be fine) and I have had some bad luck with using my own "sandbox" space lately. Be back in a bit. Regards, -Stevertigo 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Before making any changes, please discuss them here first. In particular, please make it clear exactly what sources you are planning to use. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't always do either, but then neither do I always expect you to AGF. Shouldn't I anyway, in spite of all evidence - anecdotal and experiential - to the contrary? -Stevertigo 03:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede revisionism

The salient points in pseudo-lede form with discrete notation. Obviously noone can deal with these things alone, but I fully expect my critics to be on their best behaviour anyway. Note, many of these claims are taken at face value from existing text or from statements above. -Stevertigo 03:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a term[1] for pseudo-scholarly claims[2] that dispute and reject the historicity of The Holocaust[3], along with any relevant historical evidence.[4] Though accepted definitions of the "The Holocaust" itself may include[6] up to 17 million both Jewish and non-Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities[7], all notable "Holocaust denials" thus far have only attempted to refute the systematic Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews[8].

The Nazi genocide of the Jews is an incontrovertible fact[9], and as such, claims to the contrary are identified not only as unscholarly and inflammatory,[10] but ultimately anti-Semitic in origin, association, intent, purpose, and character,[11] The term "Holocaust denial" was thus itself coined for[12] and is widely understood to refer specifically to pseudo-scholarly "revisionism" that is rooted in anti-Semitism,[13] and is engrossed in attacking what it perceives to be a "Jewish" version of history.[14]

Due to a belief that similarly "revisionist" claims can promote anti-Semitic ideology and sentiment,[15] and thereby inflame local, regional, and even international tensions,[16] the very act of formulating and promoting distorted accounts about Nazi genocide is regarded as a crime in 13 countries — mostly in European countries that were adversely affected by the Nazis [17]. These crimes themselves are often regarded collectively, with the typical shorthand translation being "Holocaust denial."[18]

---

Earlier comments

It should be "that reject the historicity of the holocaust" - otherwise you imply that "rejecting the holocaust" (for example rejecting taking part in it, ot rejecting that it was a good thing) is holocaust denial.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Good catch. -Stevertigo 03:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC) What is your source that supports point 8? It is clearly at odds with Maunas' comments below. WilliamH (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Hm. Good point. I hadn't the energy to get into Maunus comments here, and anyway I had been told over and over again that "Holocaust denial" is "about Jews" - with 'exclusively' being strongly implied - but I understand their focus was on anti-Semitism. Of course if some particular "denial" claim also throws some Gypsy rejectionism in there too, that doesn't seem to change the anti-Semitic dimension aspect in the least. Will take a look at those in a bit. Note of course that Slrubenstein, Jayjg and others work quite hard on putting things together. We can't overlook the work they've already put into the article thus far, and naturally any changes should be focused and limited to just those extremely few things which they may, in their humanness, have overlooked. The conceptual/perfected writing approach helps at least to get the right overall balance among the essential points. After that, its just a simple matter of getting whomever here has read thirty-two books on the subject to start plugging in the citations. ;-) -Stevertigo 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Without any assumption of bad faith, I'd take some of Maunus' suggestions with a pinch of salt. Ward Churchill was found guilty by a University of Colorado faculty panel of repeated, intentional academic misconduct. I'd say that pretty much removes him from the realm of reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Hm. I didn't know anything about that defrocking. According to his article, the jury found in favor of Churchill, and the only reason that this finding was overturned was due to something called "quasi-judicial immunity." (Sounds sort of like "..Whitney Young being run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process."). I took a read of the Committee findings, and noted an interesting passage about how they disregarded the political context: "To use an analogy, a motorist who is stopped and ticketed for speeding because the police officer was offended by the contents of her bumper sticker, and who otherwise would have been sent away with a warning, is still guilty of speeding, even if the officer’s motive for punishing the speeder was the offense taken to the speeder’s exercise of her right to free speech. No court would consider the improper motive of the police officer to constitute a defense to speeding, however protected by legal free speech guarantees the contents of the bumper sticker might be." They are wrong, even if they a legally correct. Institutional dickage is never irrelevant, not because the allegations are exaggerated, but because the fine is. When a fine itself is a crime, treating the second, greater, institutional malady as just an issue of status quo is irresponsible, even if there's little a court can effectively do about it otherwise. Anyway, the validity of particular sources is not something we can ascertain ourselves here in the context of one article. Even if the accusations are substantial (seems like if a jury doesn't think the charges rise to the level of even a firing, then..), we will need to clarify how we treat that particular source in a clear way. -22:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Then let's clarify: he isn't a reliable source. He has engaged in a "pattern of deliberate academic misconduct involving falsification, fabrication, and serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research." He completely misrepresented his military experience and his family background: he isn't even a reliable source on himself. A writer, yes. A reliable source, absolutely not. WilliamH (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not disagreeing that he's less than reliable. I am simply saying that it would help if we kept a central record of how we interpret source reliability. Maybe WP:EFL/WC can serve this purpose for now, and we can sort of work on developing a more formal system. -Stevertigo 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I have seen no attempt at Wikipdia to exclude Roma or other groups from articles on 20th century genocide. The issue here remains Stevertigo's peddling his bogus "concept approach" to writing articles which basically means we write articles on whatever Stevertigo is thinking about, rather than building up articles from significant views from notable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Hm. Why start up with the ethnic angle again, SLR? The Gypsies do not belong in some generalistic "20th century genocides" category, nor even in the "bad stuff that happened between 1938 and 1945" category. Nor do they need to be sorted in accord with another ethic group's subjective concepts of relevance or scope. Putting aside details about "motive, scale, and intent," "The Holocaust" simply refers to all deliberate human destruction perpetrated by the Nazis that wound up getting them thrown in hell. The conceptual approach is our approach, and all I've done is conceptualize it with some degree of exposition and formality. I've done so for the reason that Wikipedia cannot become Wikinfo, by diversifying our articles in accord with various subjective conceptualizations, while failing to work together on objective ones. Just as the database makes it possible to edit discrete articles, the conceptual approach makes it easier for me and others to plug in our suggestions into the precise place. Also, dealing with only discrete points makes it easier to tell which new suggestions are actually redundant with existing statements, and which new statements are sufficiently valid, (and thus may be being opposed for only POV reasons). The conceptual approach simply serves to give an outline of the most relevant points, and to sketch these out in some order and with at least some pretense of good writing. If the included points are essential, complete, and properly weighted, then the only issue is to merge these into the existing article lead through a similarly conceptual process: Pick the most salient points from the current and proposed versions, put them in a kind of order, and write the text with these in mind, leaving the sources to be added by people who's deep, learned, interest (if not talent for explanation), might make them less than suitable for objective writing, but still altogether necessary to sign off on each salient point with a signature of topical literacy. Hence my only issue here was in covering in the lede the points others missed and removing perhaps one or two that maybe belong in the terminology section. The point, for example, about the genocide of the Jews being incontrovertable is essential, but for such an essential point, it is missing from the article lede. Likewise the point about "deniers" (for lack of a better term) being "engrossed in attacking... Jewish history" is also essential - after all we all know that anti-Semitism exists and that its awful, but these points don't go anywhere toward explaining why it is expressed. Likewise is my whole point that though "The Holocuast" itself may include 3 million Soviet POW's, 300K German dissidents, some mentally ill, some homosexuals, a considerable number of Slavs and Poles, and don't forget the Gypsies, the term "Holocaust denial" is de-facto limited in scope. One last point, the term "The Holocaust" naturally may have particular definitions that limit its scope, in accord with particular conceptual frameworks - subjective, objective, or otherwise. As Niewyk and Nicosia point out, its acceptable for academics to put limited scope on a subject for which "the most expansive conceptualization would further complicate an already complex subject and place additional burdens on scholars and students." Our project carries a prominent disclaimer about accuracy, which says essentially it makes no claims to such. There are also no "scholars" nor "students" here, (just "writers" and "readers"), nor is this an actual "academic" context. This is not to say that we don't need to strive for high "academic" standards, but it does mean that we are not bound by the same practical concerns as academia, in which context people typically act more independently and thus naturally must follow a modality of limited focus and greater depth. And if that wasn't enough, NPOV itself demands that we extricate our articles into an abstract form that minimizes the overweight influence of particular frameworks. This is not for example, the "Gypsypedia," and thus a definition fitting for such a resource alone will not typically suffice here, unless put into explicit context. -Stevertigo 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lede is an unnecessary diversion into the definition of the term "The Holocaust", and contains unsourced assertions. What sources were you planning to use for footnotes 1 to 18? Start with the sources, and build from there. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You are taking issue with matters of substance, right? Please then take a couple minutes to rank each of the numbered statements (1 to 18) for their accuracy. You could say for example something like "statement 9 is a 7" (of 10). That way I can prioritize my sourcings in accordance with your conceptualizations, which I know to be somewhat accurate. -Stevertigo 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The current lede is just fine. It explains what Holocaust denial is, what its primary elements consist of, why it is called Holocaust denial, and what Holocaust denial is generally considered to be. You appear to want to change that, for reasons that remain obscure. Start with what the sources say, please, rather than writing your own opinions, then trying to find sources that match them. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. WilliamH (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)