Talk:Holocaust denial

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-pages here and here to see why the nominations failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Some discussions to note: Some topics have been discussed multiple times on this talk page. It is suggested that editors review these previous discussions before re-raising issues, so as to save time and cut down on reptition.

• If you want to argue that Holocaust Denial should be called Holocaust Revisionism, please read (not an exhaustive list): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
• If you want to argue about the Auschwitz Plaque, please read: [7], [8], [9], and the appropriate section in the Auschwitz article.
• If you want to argue that "most historians" or "almost all historians" do not reject Holocaust Denial, please read: [10], [11]
• If you want to advocate Holocaust denial or discuss evidence about the existance of the Holocaust, please read: [12]

Older discussions may be found here:

Archive

• Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

[13] - Why read anything by Nitzor? Read it once, it's still junk. By the way where is David Cole, other than one of your footnotes. I don't see him on any speaking tours answering his 46 questions - they probably stumped him.

Polish Catholics

Is there a place for a section that suggests that 90% of the world unknowingly denies half of the Holocaust by completely ignoring the fact that it wasn't just Jews killed? The Catholics that were killed along with others, they all deserve recognition too. Don't give an Ameriflag 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you posted a similar comment to the main Holocaust article as well. As I stated there, Catholics were not targeted as a group for extermination, though Poles were much more targets, and indeed between 1.8 and 1.9 million non-Jewish (mostly Catholic) Poles were killed during the German occupation, though there is debate among scholars as to whether this is considered part of the Holocaust. In any case, total estimates of democide by the Nazis range up to 17 million, under the widest definitions. However, I am not sure that anyone actually denies that Catholic Poles were killed by the Nazis, it is certainly not commonly part of Holocaust denial as it is discussed here. Do any scholars or sources place ignorance of non-Jewish deaths fits under the definition of "denial" or "revisionism"? Further, Wikipedia's article on Holocaust denial certainly discusses non-Jewish victims, as it should. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My point was that there isn't enough emphasis on all of the victims of the Holocaust, it's just Jews, Jews, Jews. It's bad that it happened to them but it's bad that it happened to the Polish as well, and I didn't even know they were victims until my Polish friend told me. :/ Don't give an Ameriflag 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ameriflag, the point is that their being Catholic was incidental. Polish Catholics were not intentionally targetted as Catholics. Polish Jews, however, were. OTherwise, we would have to point out that millions of men died in the Holocaust, and not just women. And millions of children. And millions of teenagrs. And millions of craftsmen, and millions of farmers. Most of these categories overlap, as you can see. By the way, a good chunk of Polish Catholics were killed because their ancestors had been Jewish... Dietwald 07:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not they were Catholic, they were not Jewish, and that's my point - People make a big deal about all the Jews who died and completely ignore others, such as the Polish (who perhaps happened to be Catholic). Don't give an Ameriflag 02:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So, Ameriflag, you would like to list all the different categories of people who died? Farmers, craftsmen, painters, childern aged 6-12, people who had dogs, people who hated dogs. Hm... the last one sounds reasonable: Hitler loved dogs. So, I guess that those who hated dogs and died in the camps might need extra mentioning. Interesting approach. Dietwald 12:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but if you're not going to mention that non-Jews also died, then don't praddle on and on about the Jews that died. That's all. Don't give an Ameriflag 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The text mentions non-Jews, such as Gypsies, for example. What's your problem?Dietwald 08:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My problem is that they hardly ever teach in school that anyone other than Jews died, and when people talk about the Holocaust it's all about "the Jews".

What suggestions for improving the article are you presenting? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't want to improve the article, he is simply angry that it's mainly about Jews. The Poles in the death camps weren't there because they were Poles, but because the Germans arrested them for some reason.

I take that as an attack. Let me just spell this out for you. Ask anyone on the street, "who died in the Holocaust?", and 90% of them will say, "Jews". My problem is people saying "Jews died in the Holocaust", because others died in the Holocaust too. I don't know how to improve the article based on this. All I know is that something needs to be said about it because I'm sick of Jews whining about how unfairly they've been treated. Don't give an Ameriflag 21:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reflection of current human knowledge, and *not* an accurate portrayal of fact, logic, or reason. If the current sum of human knowledge believes that "Jews" were the target of the holocaust (a blatantly wrong understanding in my book, "genetic Jews" (a fallacy in it's own right, as we no know there is no such thing) were targeted because of their "genetic inferiority", regardless of their faith or culture), then wikipedia will reflect that gross error in public thinking.

As far as the "whining" comment, perhaps that comes from a mis-understanding of Jewish culture. Many rites and rituals of Judaism focus not on things that happened within the last 50, or 100 years, but on things that happened thousands of years ago... much like christians constantly "whine" about their god-dude being nailed to some pieces of wood some 2000 years ago, and even wear daily symbols to complain that their man-god was killed. I suppose one big difference is that while Jews commemorate and "make a big deal" out of *all* jews being killed, many christians only seem to care about one dude being killed.

So, to improve the article, and public knowledge, perhaps some better verbiage could be suggested to point out that the holocaust wasn't about religion, race, ethnic customs, etc... Jews weren't killed because they were jewish, Poles weren't killed because they were Polish, *people* were killed because they were thought to be üntermenschen. Ronabop 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new Intro

Much of the current intro properly belongs in the article itself. I suggest the following redacted version as an alternative, while most of the valuable material excluded from it should be put into the appropriate article sections.

Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism as it is referred to by its supporters, is the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography. Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection that, in the Holocaust:

• The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews and the Gypsies for extermination as a people;
• Over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies.
• Tools of efficient mass extermination, such as gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews.

In addition, most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the current mainstream understanding of the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy created to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other nations. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Because of this, Holocaust denial is also illegal in a number of European countries, as their governments hold that it is motivated by an anti-Semitic and anti-democratic agenda.

Holocaust Deniers themselves do not accept the term as an appropriate term to describe their point of view, preferring the term "Holocaust Revisionism" instead. They are nevertheless commonly labeled as "Holocaust deniers" or "negationists" to differentiate them from historical revisionists by those who consider their goal to be not historical inquiry using evidence and established methodology, but rather to try to prove that the Holocaust did not exist, regardless of historical evidence.

Dietwald 14:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

IF next time I drop by there are no objections, I'll make the change, ok? Dietwald 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an improvement. But it's still longer than it should be, I think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding a new definistion of Holocaust Revisionism -- Rather than use the IHR's definistion, why not use the term to define the work of Finkelstein and others, who do not deny that the Holocaust happened, but try to marginalize its significance and denigrate the experience of survivors. 68.5.64.178 08:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Replacement of Old Intro

The following text of the intro was replaced by the one suggested above:

Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism as it is referred to by its supporters, is the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography. Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection that, in the Holocaust:

• The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews and the Gypsies for extermination as a people;
• Over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies.
• Tools of efficient mass extermination, such as gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews.

In addition, most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the current mainstream understanding of the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy created to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other nations. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Because of this, Holocaust denial is also illegal in a number of European countries, as their governments hold that it is motivated by an anti-Semitic and anti-democratic agenda.

The Holocaust is generally considered by historians to be one of the best documented events in recent history, and is the subject of thousands of books and articles. Most historians and scholars therefore reject Holocaust denial as "grounded in hatred, rather than any accepted standards of assertion, evidence, and truth" and a "pseudoscience" that "rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence," and is instead based on a "blatantly racist" ideology.

While a few Holocaust deniers have training as historians, some of their most prominent representatives have been shown in court to have a pattern of falsifying historical documents (David Irving) or deliberately misrepresenting historical data (e.g. Ernst Zündel). This history of Holocaust deniers distorting, ignoring, or misusing historical records has led to almost universal condemnation of the techniques and conclusions of Holocaust denial, with organizations such as the American Historical Association, the largest society of historians in the United States, stating that Holocaust denial is "at best, a form of academic fraud." Similarly, Public Opinion Quarterly, summarizing the work on the subject done by a range of historians including Jaroff, Lipstadt, Riech, Ryback, Shapiro, Vidal-Naquet, Weimann, and Winn concludes "No reputable historian questions the reality of the Holocaust, and those promoting Holocaust denial are overwhelmingly anti-Semites and/or neo-Nazis."

Many Holocaust deniers insist that they do not deny the Holocaust, preferring to be called "Holocaust revisionists". They are nevertheless commonly labeled as "Holocaust deniers" or "negationists" to differentiate them from historical revisionists by those who consider their goal to be not historical inquiry using evidence and established methodology, but rather to try to prove that the Holocaust did not exist, regardless of historical evidence. -- Dietwald 18:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ustaše genocide denial

I deleted the line about Franjo Tuđman and Croatians denying the Ustaše genocide. Tuđman never explicitly denied the Ustaše genocide. He was accused of doing something else - reducing the estimated number of those killed in Jasenovac, and one cannot be too sure if he was right or wrong since the estimated number of Jasenovac victims is a very debatable issue. Some have reduced the number to mere two thousand victims, others have exaggerated and claimed that over million people had been killed there. He could have been right, but even if he wasn't and did reduce the number on purpose, that's not the same thing as completely denying a genocide. To tell you the truth, I never liked Tuđman at all and I have no intention of justifying his rather controversial moves. My father's firm almost went out of business due to Tuđman's privatization in Croatia. I'm just not happy when I see things written that, I assure you and believe me, are not true. I'm not saying there aren't Croats who deny the Ustaše genocide, but I assure that they are just a minority compared to Croats who never supported or glorified the Ustaše.

Rather than deleting it outright, let's correct the text to say that he was more of a revionist, if that's the case. There are gradations of denial. -Will Beback 01:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism

Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism as it is referred to by its supporters

Given that I have just added a reference that all four London based broadsheet newspaper and the BBC uses the term revisionist when referring to David Irving and his Austrian adventure, is this introduction correct as not one of the papers or the BBC is a supporter of Holocust revisionism? Perhapse this is a difference of the use of an expression on the different sides of the pond.

It is not just British press, for example here is an Australian article Ratbag now a martyr in the Herald Sun. Articles have also appeared in the New Zealand Herald which are wire copies of articles published in London which include the term revisionist and historical revisionist. None of these media would usually be considered supporters of Holocaust revisionism. As the page historical revisionism (negationism) says

This usage has occurred because some authors who publish articles that deliberately misrepresent and manipulate historical evidence (such as David Irving, a proponent of Holocaust denial), have called themselves "historical revisionists". This label has been used by others pejoratively to describe them when criticising their work.

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We might perhaps say that some ignorant newspapers continue to use the term "revisionism". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it is lucky for us then that we have a policy on this Wikipedia:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

Do you have a source which says that the four London broadsheet news papers and the BBC are "ignorant newspapers [to] continue to use the term "revisionism""? If not, I put it to you that the introduction to this article needs fettling --Philip Baird Shearer 11:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Genocide Denial

Since "Holocaust denial" is inteded to be a synonym for "antisemitism" the later term should be used for clarity. If "Holocaust denial" has separate meaning then the term and related laws should be expanded to include "Genocide denial", "Democide denial", "Politicide denial" and "Theocide denial". If the later were crimes then large numbrs of people and many countries would be among the criminal states. --LPfeffer April 30, 2006

Removed section

Following comment was removed by me from the article. It's an interesting topic in and of itself, but does not -- in this form -- add much to this article. It would fit nicely in an article on the German Holocaust Denial Law, if there were such an article.

Mr Ahmadinejad would enjoy diplomatic immunity and some lawyers doubt that his denial of the Holocaust breaches German law as his comments were made abroad.[13]

Dietwald 09:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, his Foreign Minister would have diplomatic immunity, but Ahmadinejad wouldn't necessarily have it.

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Holocaust denial has failed, for the following reason:

This article is far too long and far too controversial for the single-person review system at WP:GA to be effective. Worldtraveller 19:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Article not a Controversial Historical Topic

Holocaust Denial itself is not a historical topic, though holocaust deniers deny history. The Holocaust could be a controversial historical topic -- but holocaust denial is not historical. I am not sure what else to call it but political. Maybe it's just a controversial topic? Dietwald 10:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep the Website

There is no reason to delete (<weblink removed by admin> ←Humus sapiens ^ну?). It is in the appropriate section, and it is indeed a website with a message board that denies AND discusses the Holocaust. Keep your pro-jew agenda away. Thetruth566

• Wikipedia is not a web directory. And don't worry, people with pro-jew agendas will stay away from your website. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that I listed the website under "Websites that deny the holocaust or parts thereof." It would appear it's very apt, accurately placed, and among OTHER websites. You have a Jewish surname, so I can understand your bitterness, but move on. Thetruth566

Your website appears to be down, and please avoid discussing other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he just doesn't remember what he called the website, which is kinda funny, since he created it just today. He named it accurately in the article, just not here on the talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thetruth566 (talk · contribs) switched to openly antisemitic language. Even though I dislike reverting talkpages, I had to clean it up and blocked him indefinitely. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy to Deniers and Revisionist

What is the policy of Wikipedia to Deniers and revisionists of Holocaust? Do they get banned by admnistrators for being anti-semtic.I raised this doubt as i found atleast two instances on WP where Admns banned editors for being anti-semtic...Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article

Biased Article

This article from plain reading shows it is biased to one point of view. i think Wikipedia has failed completely here to maintain even an iota of neutrality. From the talk page archives i see that there is an hardline Admn behind this, no less to the famous 'Holocaust denier/revisionist'of recent times 'Mahmood Ahmednijad'. i would like to see a 'neutrality' disputed tag on the article. Ultimately it is 'Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales' who'll have to decide what he makes of this piece of bigoted trash?This article proves WP is a 'closely controlled organistation' and is not yet neutral as it claims it to be its Objective...Anon ALleged vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

Why is Holocaust denial a crime?

It is a violation of free speech!

Dear anonymous. I have reverted the deletion of your comment, because you make a valid point -- however, it is not revelant to this article. Why some countries consider it a crime has been explaiend in the article already. Whether that's a violation of free speech is besides the point. I hope this helps. Furthermore: please sign your entries, preferrably with a wiki account name. Dietwald 08:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

...I think the anons comment are relevant and are well within the scope of discussion on the talk Page. A talk page is not the same as an article and therefore the rules of relecancy must be very liberal and flexible if some wants results out of the talk. And it is very sad that they delete comments against Holocaust here on WP as they do in some european countries. These acts by whoever show amply that this article is biased and is being protected vehemently on one side. This article can be nominated for most biased,bigoted, protected article of WP if there is any such nomination. ..BTW, Dietwalddon't expect anons to sign because they don't have one (as they are not registered). And it is not mandatory to sign in username for posting the message. ..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.187.139 (talk • contribs) 17:54, June 15, 2006 (UTC)

• It's not mandatory, it's just polite; it means I don't have to go in and add the {{unsigned}} template. (Having the timestamp there is real helpful for following the flow of a conversation. At least putting in the timestamp, with ~~~~~ (that's five twiddles) would be polite.) Now, what suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JP. It's about politeness and the ability to make sense of things. Many things are not mandatory, like keeping your music at room-level volume during the day instead of blasting the neighbourhood with it. The law may not require that, but it's just civilized. There is no need to sign with your own name (few of us do), but just keeping the identity of posters clear helps. Sources do matter in practice. IF you are ashamed of what you have to say, don't say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietwald (talk • contribs) 05:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OOPS!!! Dietwald 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Other genocide denial

Surely this section should be moved to another article (linked to under See Also). Other genocides are not the Holocaust and so don't belong in this article. 84.70.132.186 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)