Talk:Holocaust denial: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:40, 1 May 2004 editDelirium (talk \| contribs)Administrators51,625 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:30, 11 January 2025 edit undoWikieditor662 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users537 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2024: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	User talk:66.2.156.75
			{{Talk header}}
	.
			{{Round in circles}}
			{{FAQ\|collapsed=no}}
			{{Not a forum}}
			{{ArticleHistory\|action1= FAC
			\|action1date= 2004-6-6
			\|action1link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2004#Holocaust denial
			\|action1result= failed
			\|action1oldid= 4302108

			\|action2= FAC
	Please study our Neutral point of view policy. RickK 02:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			\|action2date= 2004-10-11
			\|action2link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/September 2004#Holocaust denial
			\|action2result= failed
			\|action2oldid=

			\|action3= GAN
	You are the ones that need to study the NPOV policy. This article is strictly Jewish and Kosher POV lying and hypocritical WWII propaganda. No one is a "Holocaust denier"? Historical revisionists are NOT Holocaust deniers.
			\|action3date= 2006-12-27
			\|action3link=
			\|action3result= listed
			\|action3oldid= 96706924

			\|action4= GAR
	-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
			\|action4date= 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
			\|action4link= Misplaced Pages:Good article review/Archive 23#Holocaust denial
			\|action4result= kept
			\|action4oldid=

			\|action5=GAR
			\|action5date=July 15, 2008
			\|action5link=Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 11#GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
			\|action5result=Kept
			\|action5oldid=225573669

			\|action6=GAR
			\|action6date=01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
			\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Holocaust denial/1
			\|action6result=Delisted
			\|action6oldid=974441173

			\|currentstatus= DGA
			\|topic=Socsci}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|collapsed=yes\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Jewish history\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative views\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Germany\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject European history\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Law\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=High}}
			}}
			{{talk fringe\|Holocaust denial}}
			{{Trolling}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\|counter = 22
			\|minthreadsleft = 3
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archive = Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Politically motivated historical revisionism) ]. <!-- {"title":"Politically motivated historical revisionism","appear":{"revid":12819523,"parentid":11662539,"timestamp":"2005-03-29T21:42:57Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":459514452,"parentid":459353566,"timestamp":"2011-11-07T20:51:09Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
			}}

			__TOC__

			==Soft Holocaust Denial should be added?==
	Is it fair to single out the Middle East for publishing works? Quite a lot of stuff being done is European and North American - David Irving, for example, and Zundel or whatever the name is. I think this needs to be said for NPOV. ]
			https://www.thetower.org/article/the-rise-of-soft-holocaust-denial/
			The matter with JK Rowling because the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany
			points here, but this article doesn't mention Rromani, LGBT, who were part of the Holocaust, even though they were not the most public.
			https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/deborah-lipstadt-historian-donald-trump-advisers-soft-holocaust-denial
			There are plenty of articles to support it. There are examples that can be pulled too. Addressing the arguments that it's more prevalent v. hard denial should also be addressed and added.
			--] (]) 14:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

			:@] Maybe first try creating an article about this (], I guess)? Is this term used in academia? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 11:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	:While I agree with this sentiment in principal, it seems that the material being published in the Americas and Europe is still relegated to a fringe element, while books and pamphlets published in the Middle East have a semi-official status in some of these countries and are used within the context of the larger dispute between Israel and many of the Arab states. Nevertheless, I agree that Ernst Zundel and others like him should be mentioned. ]
			::The article here is too long to add the soft denial, I think to add the soft part, though I think an insertion of "soft denial" as a header would still be wise, rather than an addendum. There seems to be enough articles to support making it, but I have to admit I don't particularly want to do it alone. ] (]) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2024 ==
	----

			{{edit extended-protected\|Holocaust denial\|answered=no}}
	The article states: " Saudi Arabia used to put a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in each hotel room. The Protocols are not used or taken seriously by Holocaust Revisionists." If they're not used by Holocaust revisionists, then what's the point of even mentioning it here?
			My suggestion is to add an additional section for the middle east category to include Israel. In 2015, Benjamin Net. voiced his opinion that Palestinian leaders persuaded the Nazis to commence the holocaust. This denial denigrates the Nazi decision to carry out the mass killing and is a way to condemn Palestinians today.

			From BBC
	:The point is that Holocaust Revisionism is different from Arab anti-Semitism. --] 14:06 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)
			https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34594563

			From AP news
	-----
			https://apnews.com/general-news-61ead35a427a408e9d93d43f41cfa064 ] (]) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

			:The sources are good, though it can be argued to be not exactly "denial". A sentence like "Historians said that Israeli PM BN served the interests of HD-ers when he claimed in 2015 that..." is not unreasonable IMO. I note that this thing is well covered in ]. ] (]) 18:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	This paragraph is a recounting of historical fact: "Due to the extremely rapid collapse of the Nazi forces at the end of the war, attempts to destroy evidence were for the most part unsuccessful. After their defeat, many tons of documents were recovered, and many thousands of bodies were found not yet completely decomposed, in mass graves near many concentration camps. The physical evidence and the documentary proof included records of train shipments of Jews to the camps, orders for tons of cyanide and other poisons, and the remaining concentration camp structures. Interviews with survivors completed the picture. Therefore, these revisionist views are rejected by virtually all serious historians of the period. "
			::As in mentioned in the intro as part of holocaust denialism, "Nazi Germany's "Final Solution" was aimed only at deporting Jews from the territory of the Third Reich and did not include their extermination.", Which even without an explicit comment from a historian or commentator from the articles stating that is in explicit service fellow HD-ers, it matches the definition as provided in the intro. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal. ] (]) 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Point, per the WP-article's definition, this does seem like a version of HD. I've ]d in a couple of places, we'll see if other editors can be arsed to have an opinion. For the interested, the coverage in the BN-article is at ]. ] (]) 05:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Also, there is , '']'', 2015, , , etc. ] (]) 05:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I would like to suggest adding the following under the middle east section.
			::::=== Israel ===
			::::Israel's Prim Minister, Mr Netanyahu, at a speech to the World Zionist Congress in 2015, insisted Adolf Hitler did not want to exterminate jews but had only wanted to expel them from Europe due too the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini request. This has been seen as a means to reduce Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust by Angela Merkel and chief Israel Holocaust Historian, Yad Vashem. ] (]) 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Could you include the exact quotes from the sources? (Like what the article said exactly in regards to this)? ] (]) 07:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Section on Germany ==
	First of all, it is not a statement of opinion, it is something that actually happened. Bodies were found, documents were uncovered, survivors told their stories. Edward R. Murrow gave a radio account that was famous in itself when he said, "Murder was done at Buchenwald." It is also a fact that revisionist views are almost universally rejected.

			In the German section, the terminology of "Volksverhetzung" is explained and translated twice in mostly the same way. I think it should be possible to remove one of those (preferrably the second one) to make for more fluent reading. --] (]) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	I will repeat this: It is not an opinion, it is a fact. It is also something that Holocaust revisionists have repeatedly tried to deny, disprove (with no success), and discount. In fact, the historical evidence is so strong that the revisionists have proactically given up trying to argue against it. This very article on Holocaust revisionism includes two major instances where, instead of trying to disprove historical evidence, the revisionists have reverted to libel, slander, and abuse of the legal system to attack their perceived enemies -- the ''alt.revisionism'' newsgroup affair and the Lipstadt lawsuit.
			:Done, thanks. ] (]) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

	The evidence debunking Holocaust revisionism is important and relevant, because it shows that Holocaust revisionism is made up of little more than lies and conspiracy theories. It is therefore necessary, if not essential, in this encyclopedia entry. And this is furthermore used to support the article with this statement: ''Therefore, these revisionist views are rejected by virtually all serious historians of the period.'' -- ]

	:The facts that you present are excellent material for debunking the Holocaust Deniers. However those particular facts don't get at the heart of the revisionist argument at all. They are great at SOUNDING like they debunk the revisionists, but they don't. Come on, I know you can do a better job of debunking than that. The facts you present as debunking the revisionists are in fact items that the revisionists themselves do not deny or take issue with. When you just wave your hands around instead of presenting real debunking evidence, you just lend credibility to what the revisionists say. I can't let you lend them that credibility. --]

	:Rather than taking this personally, Clutch, perhaps you can show us what a "better job of debunking"; is supposed to be. Quite frankly, there is no better way to debunk a bad argument (such as Holocaust revisionism) than by using the truth. This is hardly lending credibility to revisionism; indeed, it shows revisionism to be little more than lies and propaganda (as I have already said). Oh, and how about stating your opinion here on talk before wiping out things you don't agree with, instead of after? - -- ]

	::I don't know what the best approach is to debunk the revisionists, except on a point by point basis. But I don't like seeing a debunking being done wrong, and lowering the tone of the Misplaced Pages. I could be at a party and say afterward "Fred wore a green lampshade". The facts you presented are equivalent to a debunker coming along and saying "There were a hundred people at that party, and they drank all the punch, therefore what you say happened is wrong!" --]

	:By the way, kudos go to ] for trying to present a balanced view of the matter. -- ]

	:I have added a framework for point-by-point debunking, which is important here. ''We'' know these claims are nonsense, but this does not mean we need not present an argument against them.

	:This entire entry is a joke, no? At least you are honest that your goal is to "debunk" the revisionists, but can someone explain to me how trying to "debunk" what you are explaining satisfies the ] principle? This entry is nothing but one-sided, ignorant propaganda and as such is a disgrace to intellectualism and those who truly care about the truth or knowledge (for example, someone coming to read this entry to find out what in fact Holocaust revisionism is, will be completely misled and otherwise thoroughly disappointed). If this entry were to have any non-propaganda (i.e., truth value), then it would try to explain Holocaust revisionism, not debunk it. After all, just to pick one example, the entry for ] does not try to disprove a virgin birth, but rather simply sets forth the doctrine, without "debunking" it. Why is such (properly) neutral treatment not afforded here? -- ]

	I would say it should be the other way round: ] should include facts about the likelihood of such an event. -- ] 18:03, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

	-------

	"20:54 Nov 7, 2002 . . Clutch (reply to Modemac, and removing unattributed comment)" -- Clutch, Misplaced Pages does not have any bias against anonymous contributions or comments, especially on Talk pages. However, it is considered very rude to "remove"/delete others' comments from Talk pages, even when they are anonymous. Please don't do this.

	:I have a bias against it. When people stick in comments without attribution, they all get jumbled together, and I can't make out the narrative flow, or even tell when "voices" change; I can't tell whether it was one person that wrote two consecutive paragraphs, or two different people. This has an impact on how I reply to them. I'm sure others share this bias, or there wouldn't be so many people who DO politely attribute their comments. If you are going to reinsert unattributed comments, please at least be kind enough to add in their proper attribution while you are at it. --]

	:You mean the way "63.231.52.76" did when he/she repeatedly deleted the contributions everyone else was putting into the Jehovah's Witnesses article? -- ]

	Clutch, I often agree with your reasons. However, the Misplaced Pages community as a whole permits anonymity. Personally, I think it's very important to respond to ideas on their own merits, rather than to who is stating them. Unless Misplaced Pages as a whole changes the standard for anonymous posting, many people (including me), will continue to be "anonymous". But again, please don't delete comments on Talk, even when anonymous. Thanks.

	Yeah, Clutch, not for nothin' but ''it's not about you!'' No one cares what you think or I think. We are trying to make an encyclopedia here, and if you want to help: all is well and good. Same goes for RK. --]

	----

	I know we want to be NPOV here, but Holocaust denial is such a peculiar thing, "the belief that Germany did not kill millions of Jews, but certainly should have for making up a lie that Germany killed millions of Jews". I state the position crudely because I have never been able to understand what is the '''sense''' or '''function''' of Holocaust denial in the overall anti-Semitic scheme of things. ] 08:37 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

	It's hard to understand the reasons associated with hatred. I suppose hatred is, at bottom, completely irrational.

	But Jews seem to have attracted a lot of hatred. This hatred has taken the form of discrimination, segragation and genocide.

	Often people feel a need to justify their attitudes or actions. So, after doing something "bad" we either say it was really "good" or deny having done it at all.
	*He hit me first.
	*We were just playing
	*I was only kidding.
	*Fight? What fight?

	As for as making restitution for past misdeeds, if the deed never occurred, how can I be required to make restitution? If Jews weren't nearly wiped out in Europe, why should anyone requite that injustice by giving the more fertile land in Palestine?

	I know this is awfully simplistic, but I daresay much of the rhetoric about these issues aren't entirely rationally based.
	]

	Oh God. This is the sort of article I dread. I agree with its premise, that Holocaust denial people are a bunch of neo-fascist apologists and nutters. But how do you write an NPOV article on this rubbish? Certainly this isn't it. Facts should convince people, not rhetoric and this article is too POV to be of any use in undermining the 'deny the holocaust' industry. It has all the subtlety of a 'brick through the window', overplays terms (kill, murder, genocide - yet they all happened, but if you lay it on this thick, readers are going to dismiss the article as biased and so worthless.) and throws up all sorts of irrelevances; when it comes to the holocaust, petty flame wars on net talks are irrelevent. It needs pruning, rewriting and toning down. When toned down, it stands a far better of chance of actually convincing people about just how loopy holocaust deniers really are. ] 04:32 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

	----

	Removed the following

	With the advent of the ] in the ] and early ], a small number of Holocaust deniers found a worldwide audience for their writings. Certain supporters of Holocaust denial made names for themselves by repeatedly (critics say "endlessly") re-posting their writings over and over in many ] newsgroups, sparking vicious ]. These online arguments appeared to be eternal and unending, because the supporters of Holocaust denial refused to particiate in logical discussions and repeatedly stated that the Holocaust was a hoax, refusing to admit the existence of the considerable evidence disproving their statements. In the end, the holocaust denial faction was largely ignored and ] online.

	# Internet rows are irrelevent to this article, certainly when written like this. If it should be covered, it needs to be NPOVed.

	# When it comes to the issue of holocaust denial, flame wars are about as irrelevant to the serious issue of the article as it can be. So what if there are flame wars? There are flame wars on just about everything on the net, from the war in Iraq to Kylie Minogue's bum size. Bringing in flame wars to an article like this trivialises the top (though the person who added in this no doubt never meant to)

	# the last line is POV. That doesn't mean it isn't right, but NPOV means showing the evidence and letting the reader see for themselves, not have the author state something as gospel.

	# 'critics say endlessly' - another POV piece that simply undermines the NPOV the article should have.

	This paragraph throws up largely irrelevant information in an emotive form and a clear POV that undermines whatever chance the article has of undermining the nutters who deny the holocaust. Show the evidence, don't state things as fact. ] 04:43 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

	----

	:''The revisionists claim that their assertions cannot be as easily refuted. Most historians disagree with them, saying that the evidence clearly disproves their assertions.''

	Well, yeah. The first sentence says "holocaust revisionists believe in the claims they are making. The second sentence says "most historians don't", which is already covered in another paragraph. ]

	:'' not supported by any officially approved, tenured, or government funded historians.''

	What's an "officially approved historian" when she's at home? ]

	There is a ''major'' problem with this article. Someone wrote a paragraph, and has substantially misunderstood the very topic. The article currently states that "Holocaust revisionism is distinct from Holocaust denial, the assertion that the Holocaust never happened at all. Holocaust revisionists see themselves as part of a tradition of historical revisionism - the reexamination of widely-accepted historical theories."

	No, this is totally wrong. The author is confused by what the term "revisionism" means. In normal use, "revisionism" refers to a very normal and well-accepted part of historical scholarship. It is the revisiting of old topics to look at them in a new light. In this sense of the word, all mainstream historians, and all Jewish groups, totally approve of new research on the Holocaust; some of this can fairly be called "historical revisionism concerning the Holocaust." The problem is that anti-Semitic ''Holocaust deniers'' have been trying to appropriate this term for themselves. They refer to all of their Holocaust denial as "historical revisionism". What this article currently is in gross error on is the fact that all mainstream historians agree that these so-called "historical revisionists" are not practicing legitimate historical revisionism at all, but are rather using false advertising to promote Holocaust denial. The good news is that our article on ] already makes this distinction. We just need to make this same distinction here, and then merge the pages on holocaust revisionism and ]. ] 19:31, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	----

	I suggest the material on "Holocaust revisionism" be reverted back to the "revisionism" page, because the term "holocaust revisionism" is more prevalent and widely used than "holocaust denial." The latter may be more accurate, but "revisionism" is the term most often looked for when people do research into this subject. --] 00:11, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	:A Google web search showed me that "Holocaust denial" shows up 26,400 times, while "Holocaust revisionism" only shows up 5,200 times. This ratio is also about the same when doing a Google newsgroup search for these terms. ]

	---

	Not wanting to be too controversial, Holocaust denial is part of a much larger phenomenon of "denial of genocide" that can be discerned nearly every time an act definable as genocide occurs. For instance, the Armenian genocide, the massacre of Native Americans, and the ] all have detractors in certain circles. Deborah Lipstadt has written on the general topic and found certain common features of all denials of genocide. Personally, I think it would be a fascinating article and would like to write it, but I can see how some people might be upset by it. Is there anyone who would resent such an article. If so, please give your grounds so that they can be discussed. If not, I intend to start working on it over the weekend. ] 00:29, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	:Sounds interesting. But be careful about bringing in the issue of Native American Indians. The vast majority of them died out from contact with European germs long before most Europeans got greedy about taking their land. The few cases of provable genocide were very small scale (which doesn't make them any less heinous) and these took place over a century after most Native Americans had already died. At the time that most Native Americans were dying from European diseases, the vast majority of North America was totally unknown to Europeans. They didn't even know about the existence of most Native American villages that were wiped out! European germs travelled far beyond the footsteps of any European explorer. Also, there was no plan by any european nation for the extermination of the Native Americans; we now know that none of them even had the faintest idea of how many millions of American Indians there were. Of course, there was a nationwide policy by the USA against Indians that included theft, occupation, attacks, massacres, etc., and those government sanctioned actions certainly were done on purpose. (BTW, I am not at all opposed to describing the known instances of germ warfare against Indians. But those come from a much later time, after the American Indians were already over 90% gone.) ] 00:38, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	:: ] is junk, but it purports to be on that topic. ] 00:48, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


	::Suggested readings on this new topic:
	::''The "Unique" Intentionality of the Holocaust'', in ''Post-Holocaust Dialogues'', Steven T. Katz, New York University Press, 1983
	::
	::''Quantity and Interpretation - Issues in the Comparative Historical Analysis of the Holocaust'', in ''Historicism, The Holocaust and Zionism'', Steven T. Katz, New York University Press, 1992

	Some responses:

	:RK: There were plans by the Americans themselves to eradicate complete peoples. As for European nations, Bartolomeo de las Casas gives a chilling contemporary account at the time of Spanish conquest. And genocide, no matter the scale, remains genocide, even if only 10 percent are left. Deloria and Stannard both provide detailed accounts of genocide against Native American peoples (they are ''not'' a homogeneous group), but these are generally glossed over in American textbooks, if not entirely ignored.


	::True. I am working on stressin only a finer point: Americans did not plan to eradicate the original Native Americans Indians of North America. It was just impossible, as the vast majority of them were already dead long before the United States ever existed. (This fact wasn't known until the 1970s, but it is well established now.) No nation, European, let alone the USA, attempted genocide on the combined Native American Indian tribes. However, as I said before, the USA did engage in horrible policies against the remaining Native Americans, but this was over a century, in some cases two centuries, after most Native Americans were dead. Also, I agree with you that the Europeans did horrible things and killed many, many Native Americans. It certainly belongs in the topic being discussed here. Further, I certainly have never imagined that the Native Americans were homogenous. Finally, I also agree with you that most American high school history textbooks shamefully gloss over this subject. I think we are in agreement on these issues. I just want to avoid the common historical anachronism. ] 01:06, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


	:Martin: I do not understand your comment.
	Meanwhile, Turkish denial of genocide resulted in the refusal in Hollywood to film Werfel's ''Musa Dagh''. President Tudjeman of Croatia wrote books denying Croat complicity in the massacre of Serbs. The question is, then, why are people so hesitant to accept genocide as a historical phenomenon? Are there common features in each instance, beside a need to defend one's own nation against charges of a horrific crime? It can be a fascinating, if also a disturbing topic. ] 01:02, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	: The ] article purports to be on "the denial of historic crimes", including genocide. But, as far as I can tell, it's junk. However, if you write a decent article on ], you might want to redirect that article to it. Also, you might care to skim through it to check whether or not it is in fact junk, since I'm no expert. ] 01:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	Okay, Martin, I agree with you. RK, here is some information, and I am leaving out Central and South America for the moment:
	* 1607: Powhattan Confederation of contemporary Virginia exterminated by Jamestown settlers in a series of "total wars". Population reduced from and estimated 200,000 to just 3,000.
	* 1637: The Pequots of New England fell victim to a war of extermination, followed by the Wampanoags, Narrangansetts, Abenakis, Mohegans, and Niantics. Yes, these people were already decimated by disease, but in all instances, the wars were against the survivors.
	* 1641: Dutch governor Willem Kieft offers a bounty on any Indian scalp brought to him.
	* 1729: The Natchez nearly exterminated in a war against the British.
	* 1730: The Fox ... ditto.
	* 1763: 100,000 Ottawas died of smallpox, from intentionally infected blankets.
	After the Revolution, the American Army maintained the British bounty system, supported by state governments (i.e., Texas) and private individuals (i.e., California). Bounty was awarded for proof of a dead Indian.
	1836: 100,000 Mandans die of smallpox from intentionally infected blankets.
	I am intentionally leaving out the "little" massacres (Wounded Knee comes to mind, as do Bad Axe River and Sand Creek), and I am leaving out the Trail of Tears, with 50 percent fatalities for the Cherokee (the Chickasaws and Creeks faired slightly better with 25 and 35 percent respectively). I am also avoiding most of California, where the native population was decimated during the Gold Rush. The fact that many also died as a result of "unintentional infection" (and even that is questionable, given the cases of the Mandan and Ottawas) does not make these any less cases of genocide. The problem is that denial of genocide is pervasive. That is what I would like this new article to be about. (And notice that I have not mentioned the Jews once...) ] 01:31, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	:All fine points worth discussing, especially since American high school history books gloss over this. I look forward to seeing an article on all this. ] 22:06, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	== Zundel ==

	:''Zündel established his own Web site to publicize his revisionist viewpoint. In response, the German government blocked off access his site for all German citizens.''

	This seems to be wrong. Access to the site is available in Germany. -- ] 09:13 25 May 2003 (UTC)

	: Based on JeLuF's comment, I removed this sentence. ] 11:08, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

	== The Soviet policy of denial ==
	Should this article also mention that the Soviet post-WWII policy was not to acknowledge the Shoah was directed against the Jews, as this word has been avoided until the mid-1980s. See the ], the ] and related. ]\|] 02:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

	== Allowing revisionists their say ==
	The last revert to this article blew through a lot of text, which, while it could be considered vandalism, could also be starter text to allow more of an NPOV flavor, however disagreeable, and to at least be accurately stated points made by revisionists. Perhaps the author of the reverted text could help to expand the revisionist/denial belief section. ] 05:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

	:It's hardly NPOV to start blathering silly accusations about "Jews! Zionists! Jews! Zionists!" again and again and again in lieu of actual facts. Unfortunately, that's what about 2/3 of Holocaust revisionism consists of. That's also why refuting of Holocaust revisionism is NPOV - because it's the truth and it's backed up by facts and evidence. That's not a statement of personal opinion, it's just the truth. --] 12:07, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

	::Hm, I just went to a bunch of the revisionist sites, and found a very different flavor of what revisionism consists of. Rather than 'silly accusations about "Jews! Zionists!"'... 'in lieu of actual facts', I found tons and tons of facts. Sure, the facts presented have often been painfully contorted to fit a certain hypothesis, or painstakingly selective in nature, but revisionism seems to championship the use of facts as a bludgeon. Nizkor seems to handle this by pointing out what is wrong with the way certain facts are used, or handled, or in some cases, by agreeing with revisionists when they get it right. Then again, we don't need to turn a single wikipedia article into Nizkor. ] 02:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


	==Revisionist's "arguments"==
	"Another point of great debate by Revisionists is, "What happened to the ash after the bodies were cremated?" Some speculate that some ash could have been used in fertilization experiments in crop fields, by the Germans."

	I have never heard of this speculation. Any evidence, any literature for the "fertilization experiments"? In Auschwitz e.g. the ashes simply were thrown into a nearby river (see http://www.hagalil.com/shoah/holocaust/greif-0.htm ). ] 13:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	----

	== User:Ezra==

	]: Polite notice: Try one more time to paste a non-Misplaced Pages article, and I will give up reverting you. Someone else will take care of you. -- ] 21:06, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)


	The statement of death threats and personal, libelous attacks being made by revisionists against Ken McVay is not only true, it is well-documented. He has received death threats, and documented them at his Web site. He has also had to take action to get unquestionably libellous accusations against him taken down from several web sites that smear him and accuse him of everything excent masterminding the Holocaust himself. --] 23:33, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	1. Implicit permission from the author to post the article about revisionism is given. It isn't a copyright infringement.
	2. There's a huge difference between revisionism and denial. Only biased people think otherwise.

	regards,
	--] 23:52, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)

	<i>The statement of death threats and personal, libelous attacks being made by revisionists against Ken McVay is not only true, it is well-documented.</i>

	Those aren't the claims of which I was speaking. These were:

	<i>by proving them to be based upon misleading evidence, false statements, and outright lies.</i>

	There's nothing in the article that backs it up. It's all hyperbole.

	regards,<br>
	--] 00:08, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

	:The links to Leuchter and Nizkor do an adequate job in proving that statement. "Misleading evidence" -- the Leuchter Report (which was rejected in court). "False statements" -- David Irving (who lost his libel suit against Lipstadt). "Outright lies" -- the IHR (who backed away from their claim of a reward for proof that gas chambers existed at Auschwitz). --] 00:21, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

	Finkelstein proved Lipstadt to be a plagarist. I'll get back to you on IHR's suit. --] 00:27, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

	:] Linking revisionism with denial isn't neutral. --] 00:42, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

	----

	A request for commentary has been posted to ]. Ezra, this seems to be my opinion versus yours, and I am not happy with that. But I also don't appreciate being called a censor in your insistence that the article is not NPOV. --] 00:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

	Page has now been reverted and protected--] 00:49, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

	The internet is a big place. You commissars can have this site.

	later,<br>
	--] 01:47, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

	I think the linking of ''revisionism'' and ''denial'' is problematic as well. It is quite possible—even likely—that some of our current understanding of the Holocaust is incorrect. We may have gotten some stories wrong, and may be completely missing others, as is the case with most historical events, especially complex ones. The claim that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that it was much smaller in magnitude than 6m deaths, on the other hand, is a much different claim, and according to most historians untrue beyond a doubt. --] 02:40, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:30, 11 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holocaust denial article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Important: In order to save editors from repeatedly answering questions which have already been asked, as well saving you the time from asking them, it is strongly recommended that you view the following FAQ section, which contains responses that represent editorial consensus on the following issues which have frequently arisen on the Holocaust denial talk page. In addition, the links given to related archived discussions are not necessarily exhaustive, and it is recommended that you use the search tool as well.

To view an item, click the link to the right of the question.

1: Holocaust denial is not necessarily antisemitic. Response: One item that has been raised here several times is the contention that Holocaust denial is not inherently antisemitic, and/or that Misplaced Pages should not conclude that everyone who is a Holocaust denier harbors antisemitic feelings.

Misplaced Pages is not here to conclude that, and its editors' opinion on the matter - whatever those opinions are and regardless of who they belong to - are irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is here to present what reliable sources say. In this case, there is a preponderance of reliable material stating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic, and therefore the article notes that Holocaust denial is considered to be antisemitic, and why the antisemitism template is legitimately included.

Related archived discussion: , .

2: The antisemitism template should be removed. Response: Please see the response to Item 1 as to why the antisemitism template is legitimately placed. 3: Holocaust denial should be renamed Holocaust revisionism Response: No. Per numerous reliable sources, the correct terminology is Holocaust denial/denier.

Related archived discussion: , , , , , .

4: Not all historians reject Holocaust denial. Response: Yes, they do. As is already stated in the article, according to the oldest and largest American association of historians and history teachers, "no serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place", and that Holocaust denial is a form of "academic fraud". Misplaced Pages must avoid using vague or unspecific terms, and words which do not accuractely reflect what reliable sources say.

Related archived discussion: , .

5: The 4 million Auschwitz plaque Response: One issue relates to the death toll plaque at Auschwitz, which was amended following the collapse of the Soviet Union to read 1.5 million Jewish deaths, instead of 4 million victims of no specified ethnicity or background.

The Soviet authorities estimated the death toll not via historical methodology, but by working out how many people could have been cremated during the entire existence of the camp, taking 20% off to account for crematoria down-time, and using that number: around 4 million. They did not, for example, examine how many people were sent to the camp versus how many did not return, but used the 4 million variant to purposely overstate non-Jewish deaths, and diminish the fact that 90% of those that disappeared following their deportation to Auschwitz were Jewish. Once the Iron Curtain fell, communist pressure to keep the original Soviet estimate ceased and the more accurate estimate replaced it.

In any event, reputable historians did not use the 4 million figure in their calculations of the overall number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Rather, they used numbers of 1 to 1.5 million, figures which are still used today.

Related archived discussion/items: , , and the appropriate section in the Auschwitz article.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Holocaust denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Holocaust denial at the Reference desk.

Holocaust denial was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 6, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 11, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 27, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 5, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
July 15, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
June 6, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Jewish history Top‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read before starting

Misplaced Pages policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents Holocaust denial in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:

Also of particular relevance are:

In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Misplaced Pages deals with fringe views.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (#Politically motivated historical revisionism) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Soft Holocaust Denial should be added?

https://www.thetower.org/article/the-rise-of-soft-holocaust-denial/ The matter with JK Rowling because the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany points here, but this article doesn't mention Rromani, LGBT, who were part of the Holocaust, even though they were not the most public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/deborah-lipstadt-historian-donald-trump-advisers-soft-holocaust-denial There are plenty of articles to support it. There are examples that can be pulled too. Addressing the arguments that it's more prevalent v. hard denial should also be addressed and added. --KimYunmi (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@KimYunmi Maybe first try creating an article about this (soft Holocaust denial, I guess)? Is this term used in academia? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The article here is too long to add the soft denial, I think to add the soft part, though I think an insertion of "soft denial" as a header would still be wise, rather than an addendum. There seems to be enough articles to support making it, but I have to admit I don't particularly want to do it alone. KimYunmi (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2024

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Holocaust denial. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

My suggestion is to add an additional section for the middle east category to include Israel. In 2015, Benjamin Net. voiced his opinion that Palestinian leaders persuaded the Nazis to commence the holocaust. This denial denigrates the Nazi decision to carry out the mass killing and is a way to condemn Palestinians today.

From BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34594563

From AP news https://apnews.com/general-news-61ead35a427a408e9d93d43f41cfa064 71.229.52.174 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources are good, though it can be argued to be not exactly "denial". A sentence like "Historians said that Israeli PM BN served the interests of HD-ers when he claimed in 2015 that..." is not unreasonable IMO. I note that this thing is well covered in Benjamin Netanyahu. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As in mentioned in the intro as part of holocaust denialism, "Nazi Germany's "Final Solution" was aimed only at deporting Jews from the territory of the Third Reich and did not include their extermination.", Which even without an explicit comment from a historian or commentator from the articles stating that is in explicit service fellow HD-ers, it matches the definition as provided in the intro. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal. 71.229.52.174 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Point, per the WP-article's definition, this does seem like a version of HD. I've WP:APPNOTEd in a couple of places, we'll see if other editors can be arsed to have an opinion. For the interested, the coverage in the BN-article is at Benjamin_Netanyahu#Fourth_term. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is Under-fire Netanyahu criticised over 'a form of Holocaust denial', Irish Independent, 2015, , , etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to suggest adding the following under the middle east section.

=== Israel ===

Israel's Prim Minister, Mr Netanyahu, at a speech to the World Zionist Congress in 2015, insisted Adolf Hitler did not want to exterminate jews but had only wanted to expel them from Europe due too the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini request. This has been seen as a means to reduce Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust by Angela Merkel and chief Israel Holocaust Historian, Yad Vashem. 71.229.52.174 (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you include the exact quotes from the sources? (Like what the article said exactly in regards to this)? Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Section on Germany

In the German section, the terminology of "Volksverhetzung" is explained and translated twice in mostly the same way. I think it should be possible to remove one of those (preferrably the second one) to make for more fluent reading. --131Platypi (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks. JimRenge (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: