Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 13 May 2008

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

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.

Template:Notpropaganda

Jewish history GA‑class Top‑importance

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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Holocaust denial has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
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 Current status: Good article

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 repetition.

• If you want to argue that Holocaust Denial should be called Holocaust Revisionism, please read (not an exhaustive list): , , , , ,
• If you want to argue about the Auschwitz Plaque, please read: , , , 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: ,

Template:Archive box collapsible Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

Archived

It looked like time to archive the talk page, as no new discussion was occurring. --jpgordon 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

no use for discussion

The one-sidedness of this article is that obvious that there would be no use for any kind of scientific discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.220.137 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Blatant bias on this page

This page is riven with bias against holocaust denial. Misplaced Pages is a place to go for reasoned analysis of topical subjects. It confounds me that it was even nominated as a 'good article'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkerb (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

it's because these ideas are generaly frowned upon. i do agree that all article should be un-biased, no matter how distasteful the subject matter is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.226.101 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there should be a support for holocaust revisionism or denial as many editors insist on it being called in addition to criticism. Both a critcism and support page for these ideas should exist, with each side arguing against, debunking, or critically examining the arguments of the other to present a MORE COMPLETE picture of holocaust revisionism/denial. Of course third party sources as well as other wikirules should apply. I humbly submit that in certain historical contexts, it was once (and may still be) thought blasphemous, unfaithful, and downright evil to believe the world was round or that minorities deserved equal rights or that abortion should be a right of all women. Not that holocaust revisionism/denial is anything approaching 100% correct - but that if a notable debate exists, it should be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable sources do not negate the existance of the Holocaust and its occurance, so accordingly, Misplaced Pages has no obligation to appease the unreliable ones which do. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it the case that as soon as a scholar (self-professed or otherwise) or institution (like IHR) begins to question or undermine certain parameters like the the 5-6 million figure that they become ostracized and disreputable? If the flat-earth society majority discredits and ignores any dissent as unreliable, untrustworthy, unscientific, etc. does that mean that wikipedia should not have an entry about those institutions or persons' views (no matter how incorrect they may be) even if those views are published, numerous, noteworthy, and relevant to the article? For example look at the page on Intelligent Design in wikipedia - although "scientific consensus" appears to stand against "creation science" - and the article definatively and clearly expresses this point numerous times, there is also a page http://en.wikipedia.org/Intelligent_design_movement that explores (in detail) the viewpoints and positions of the supporters. For example this passage - "Though not all intelligent design proponents are theistic or motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the principal intelligent design advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in their view the intelligent designer is clearly God. The response of intelligent design proponents to critics and media who discuss their religious motivations has been to cite it as proof of bias and part of a hostile agenda. The Discovery Institute provided the conservative Accuracy in Media a file of complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the media, especially by National Public Radio." Perhaps a Holocaust Revisionist/Denial page? Although I believe information in the parent to begin with is necessary about documenting the "movement/group/whathaveyou." Still I feel that a "Support for Holocaust Revisionism/Denial" section to this article would immediately be taken down - is this incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources of questionable verifiability should only be used as sources pertaining to them and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then, scantly. You may suggest both critical/analytical views of something, but only with reliable sources and it is for this reason that there is no Revisionism/Denial dichotomy of pages here, and will not be either. I do not seek to discuss the facts of the Holocaust on this talk page as its purpose is for discussing the article at hand only, but sources which negate things which would otherwise contradict them are hardly reliable - like individuals and institutions which ignore/fail to explain why approximately 6 million Jews in occupied Nazi territories disappeared, for instance. WilliamH (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please do not restore that edit. As described below, there already is a reliable source that describes the contentions and claims of Holocaust denial and it has been established that the David Cole citation is both unreliable and superfluous. If you are interested in being a contributor to Misplaced Pages, consider registering for an account. WilliamH (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that parts of this article shows a strong bias and a non-neutral point of view, namely the first 3 or 4 paragraphs in the introduction. I'm not well versed in anything being disputed, and I'm not here to dispute any of it. But to anyone who wants to fix the point of view problem you might want to consider the motives of those with the bias. Having dead family members, and also dead family members of many people you are close to or identify with can make you pretty passionate about something - it's a very touchy subject with a lot of emotion involved. Have a little finesse and realize this may be a very personal issue for some people who are editing and your points will not be shouted down. On the other side of the coin, there's some stuff that should be worded differently. Very plain bias, and that's not cool. Regardless of the facts and sources given, some of it reads like propaganda, and as such probably adds fuel to the whole Holocaust denial thing. It makes me uncomfortable that manipulative wording is being used, and makes me feel less confident in the facts provided in the rest of the article. --75.95.95.227 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This page ignores the definitive 'debunking the holocaust' work

There is a video documentary which describes the flaws and outright deception in the official holocaust story. It is located on the web at http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com It needs to be listed in the Holocaust Movies section. How is it that you can disagree with just about any other official historical account and not be labeled a 'denier'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.34.135 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is simply unfair that this article on Holocaust denial assumes that all revisionists are anti-semitic

Here is a link to a one hour documentary by a young Jewish revisionist's trip to Auschwitz: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/link.asp?ID=5249&URL=http://vho.org/dl/ENG/DavidColeatAuschwitz.wmv Llichtveld (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• David Cole's 'scholarship' can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of actual reliable sources and he has since recanted his views on Holocaust denial anyway. If you wish to contribute, please use reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the denier claim of "no gas chambers" is already accounted for in the claims section, so Cole's reference isn't necessary. WilliamH (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources about claim that soviet union supported a theory of zionist conspiracy

Reading through the article, I came across this: "Since 1960s, the Soviet Union promoted the allegation of secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist leadership." which I have now tagged with {{Fact}}. I come here to request some kind of source for this allegation. Cheers. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 21:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Clicking on "promoted the allegation" would have taken you to the Zionology article, which documents the phenomenon well. I've restructured the sentence to make it more clear (and to take the link out of the cookie jar.) --jpgordon 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers bud. With the layout I use links are sometimes hard to see. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight edit suggestion

Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory. The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.

This is the third paragraph in the article, I would suggest changing it to this for POV reasons

Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory. The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.

I think accusing the Jews of a conspiracy theory to advance our interests in the third paragraph is a bit rich, what do the rest of you think? Would like it if someone changed this for me :) Hebrewpridehebrewpower (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You would be erasing an important factor in Holocaust denial; that Holocaust deniers accuse the Jews of falsifying the Holocaust for purposes of furthering their own interests. Note that the article doesn't accuse Jews of actually doing that, it just states what Holocaust deniers state or implicitly suggest, and is backed up by the commentary of eight independent reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following: Many Holocaust denial claims openly state that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples. For this reason, most forms of Holocaust denial are generally considered to be antisemitic conspiracy theories. The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.

Most changed to many because of the grey area where the term revisionism is misused, and the fact that there are plenty of denial claims that state exaggeration or partial inaccuracies rather than hoax, which is stated clearly in this article. Imply removed for POV reasons. Better to deal in facts rather than stating what it seems people are implying.--74.93.118.129 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But why do they say that the Holocaust is an exaggeration? WilliamH (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Small Issue

I found the paragraph that claims that Holocaust Deniers are traveling to the Middle-East and meeting with "terrorist" groups a little fishy (the tone was that of a government drone rather than a living person) so I looked into the reference. It's number 30, and it links to a completely unconnected page, and offers no validity to the claim. I have no opinion on the subject of Holocaust Denial, other than that I believe it DID happen by default. I DO think that trying to tie the Holocaust Denial Wikipage to the pathetic propagandist methods of the current Western governments ("Just SAY terrorist a lot and the people will believe you") actually makes me a little suspicious of the page, and begins to discredit it. 65.94.184.162 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't inherently mean the paragraph is false, the most likely thing is that the link may have simply died. If you can find a better source/citation/link, by all means add it, but please don't misconstrue a problematic link to jump to the conclusion that the whole thing is a slur campaign, that's not what we're about. WilliamH (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

References to Hitlist magazine and to the relevant information can be found by searching, but they're all references, mostly in blogs (including the author's own); we might just need to take the link away but keep the source. --jpgordon 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement should be removed unless someone can actually find an accurate source for this claim. I can't.65.94.183.213 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the dead link with a convenience one. It doesn't need a link at all, it's properly sourced regardless. Jayjg 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead deterioration

The lead to this article appears to have deteriorated since last summer when it was reassessed, and I find I am partly to blame for not adding the reassessment discussion to the article history. I've added it now. The lead at the moment is not, in my view, encyclopedic neutral point of view.

The key to achieving the latter is "show, don't tell". At the moment, the lead implicitly tells the reader what to think rather than showing the reader the issues, and letting the reader decide. The worst point is the transition to the third paragraph, which suddenly states: "A common theme of antisemites is that Jews are organized as a group dedicated to world domination, and use their power to control world events. It has been suggested that those with this belief understand that it is incompatible with the Jews having been victimized to the degree claimed in World War II, leading many to resort to Holocaust denial in order to maintain the consistency of their claim about Jewish power." These sentences are almost certainly true, but they are not encyclopedic and they are not neutral. They effectively tell the reader that holocaust deniers are antisemites, which was one of the main issues at the previous GAR.

The conclusion of the GAR was that the article should show the reader that holocaust denial is an anitsemitic activity, rather than simply name-call: the resulting article was not bad at doing that, in my view. The lead has deteriorated since: can it be fixed? Geometry guy 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(For further info on my view, see my comments in the GAR discussion, which still apply.)

This isn't a case of the "lead deteriorating since last summer", it's a case of new editor making an inappropriate insertion a month ago that wasn't noticed. You could have removed it yourself, instead of this lengthy comment about GAR etc., but since you didn't, I've done it for you. Problem solved. Jayjg 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. Geometry guy 08:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved "Terminology: Holocaust denial or Holocaust revisionism?"

I moved the section to the near the bottom of the article. I'm not saying that it's not important, but I think the article would read much better if the general information on the topic was up top, and more "refined" stuff closer to the bottom. Please revert if it causes any problems.Squid tamer (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hm. The only argument I can see for having it near the top is that for deniers, it's very important to called revisionists, so it makes sense to dispose of that issue quickly. --jpgordon 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Having the paragraph at the top immediately disambiguates a fundamental part of Holocaust denial. It makes absolute sense to start off addressing the terminology before going into detail. WilliamH (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you dissagree with moving it to the bottom, revert it. this is wikipedia. Personally, due to my personality, I like to see the facts first, then the gramatical issues later. I didn't think about the denier's point of veiw. Whatever. I just wandered onto this article and thought that it would read better with that somewhere else. I thought for a bit, and realized that the title was already Holocaust denial, and I read the section, and deemed that it wouldn't hurt anything to move it. Squid tamer (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminology is a big issue with Holocaust denial, so it's best to get that out of the way up front. Jayjg 01:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem Squid tamer, thanks for being bold. I would have indeed moved it to where it originally was, I just figured it was appropriate to post my comments and wait for some other editors' opinions before doing so. WilliamH (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Omissions

This article, as well as others, constantly references the "six million jews" killed in the Holocaust. However, about twelve million PEOPLE were killed, all told, including Gypsies, homosexuals, slavs, and other ethnicities. The constant omission of the OTHER six million people that were murdered is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I am aware that much of the current debate on this topic centers around the issue of anti-semitism that underlies much of the current discourse, but omitting six million people from the total death toll of the Holocaust, (a trend that is mirrored on other articles, mind you,) is a simple factual omission that should be rectified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.72.87 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While more people than just Jews were killed in the Holocaust, Holocaust denial is about denying that Jews were killed. Jayjg 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

Koenraad Elst is pretty much the definition of fringiness. I spent some time hunting for the perfect quote to replace him; IIRC at the time there wasn't even a mention of Rousso in the article. I would suppose Derrida is good enough for anyone. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you expand on why you think he's "the definition of fringiness"? He seems to have published 15 English language books, and the quote itself is spot on the topic of the section. Derrida, while good, doesn't actually mention "Holocaust denial" - the Elst quote really pulls it all together. Jayjg 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where all the rather extensive discussions have gone. What I can say without trying to locate those discussions is that Elst is largely published by Voice of India, which is openly fringe; he himself has never published in any peer-reviewed journal or by any academic press except for one paper that was part of a collection Routledge India did of Indian historical revisionists; he is the major online supporter for dotty Out of India theories of pseudohistory; this particular reference was probably added first either by a SPAs that spammed various Voice of India quotes a few years ago, or by User:Hkelkar; and the only time mainstream historians or academics of any sort are likely to engage him is as a source for the rhetoric of Hindu nationalism in India. Not to mention his close ties with the Vlaams Blok would make him closer to the subject of the article than I would like. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The quote itself was particularly apt, I'd hate to lose it. Do reliable sources share your views of Elst? Jayjg 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You know how it is with fringe writers. Reliable sources hardly ever address them directly. Most of the statements at the Voice of India page can be taken to refer to Elst; he has been called "eccentric" and his work "selective archaeologies and fanciful speculations" Bhatt, Chetan (1997). Liberation and Purity: Race, New Religious Movements and the Ethics of. Routledge. p. 306.; Here is Irfan Habib on the sort of claim he specialises in; I don't have access to Pirbhai, M. Reza (2008). "Demons in Hindutva: Writing a Theology for Hindu Nationalism". Modern Intellectual History. 5 (01): 27–53. doi:10.1017/S1479244307001527. Retrieved 2008-05-09. at the moment, but I suspect, if you do, it will be relevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Historical revisionism (revisionists)

I would like to inform the community that I have started the above WP:List. Note, however, that these people are not to be labeled under the Category of Holocaust denial because the do not call themselves that. Nevertheless, their names overlap, I think, with the names in this article. So I do not believe I need to seek a WP:Split. However, one editor I've communicated with, thinks otherwise. I think the list will be very useful both for Misplaced Pages and its community and may help us avoid some comfusions regardint Revisionism and related Articles. I would welcome very much the views of the community of dedicated Wikipedians who have developed this page and therefore have some expertese un the project I have commenced. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable Holocaust deniers (currently merely a subsection of our article)

More particularly, I would like to commence a related, but more extensive list of such indivduals than the one we have at the moment in this article under that heading. Certain indivduals now seem to distance themselves from HD and call themselves Historical Revisionists. I would like us to have the more inclusive list, in a List article. How does the community fee about that? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Holocaust revisionist" is a euphemism for "holocaust denier"; consensus at Misplaced Pages, backed up by numerous and sufficient reliable sources, has consistently been to use the term "denier", regardless of how the deniers may happen to style themselves. Historical revisionism, on the other hand, is legitimate scholarship, and not covered except briefly in passing by this article. --jpgordon 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The current list of Holocaust deniers can become more inclusive by adding any documented Holocaust deniers that may be missing. Boodlesthecat 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Such inclusion would be too burdensome - would make the article lengthier than necessary. Misplaced Pages provides for all sorts of lists. Also, such a list would support this Main article on Holocaust denial.--Ludvikus (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • PS(1): Such a list will also help to show that the Main Article sould be Historical Revisionism - currently named Historical revisionis (negationism). It is also to be noted that some HRists distance themselves from HD (as they do not want to go to jail for it in Europe). The point is - the {{Main|X}} article should be "Historical Revisionism" --Ludvikus (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • PS(2) The current HR articles is really about "Revisionist historians."

--Ludvikus (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus I think you are confused there are currently two articles historical revisionism and historical revisionism (negationism). The former about legitimate historical revisionism the latter illegitimate historical revisionism (and a term that is often used by the news media in Britain as a pejorative description of historical falsifiers). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I understand you 100%. What you call legitimate, however, is really about Revisionist historians. The confusion is on your part because you haven't read the reference very cartefully. The reference there is James M. McPherson, President of the American Historical Association. The title of the article cited is "Revisionist Historians." Never does he use the two-words juxtaposed like so: historical revisonism - not once. I think you are the inocent victim of the propaganda campaign of Historical Revisionism. Please, please, please - examine the source with extreme caution and skepiticism. If you do I believe you will immediately side with me that that artical - about the "legit" Historical Revisionism" should be re-named and Moved to "Revisionist Historians." --Ludvikus (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• PS(1): Here's their reference (read it very, very, carefullly): http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm --Ludvikus (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• PS(2): It's like FLOWERS IN THE THE SPRING. There's a way to write it so no one sees the double "the." I would love to see the look on your face if and when you say I'm right!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• PS(3): President Bush has also been a victim of this misunderstanding because he used McPherson "legitimate" expression "Revisionist Historians": . --Ludvikus (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There you go again. In fact, what McPherson wrote in that article includes the following:

"For many of us, the term "revisionist historians" recalls distasteful memories from the 1970s of Holocaust deniers who called themselves "revisionists." One hopes that in resorting to this phrase now, the president's associates are not seeking to falsely and maliciously link present-day critics of the administration to those who misrepresented the past for nefarious ends. But even if they are not guilty of such an insinuation, by misusing the term "revisionist historians" to derisively deflect criticism, Condoleeza Rice and her cohorts are denigrating a legitimate and essential activity of historians."

Your word games notwithstanding (i.e. the argument that "revisionist historians" have absolutely nothing to do with the process of "historical revisionism), it is very clear that you are promoting a classification that McPherson sees (and opposes despite your sugestion that he supports your position) as equating "nefarious" Holocaust Deniers with mainstream historians. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist historians

We really need badly a DAB page on Revisionist historians. Here's the legitimate usage (--Ludvikus (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)):

"No Honor on the Left

It explains well why not one Revisionist historian, including Gabriel Kolko,

... But its colors are fading, and the New Left hopes the horrors will soon be ...

www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3818ef992f43.htm - 39k

• To call the revisionist historian Gabriel Kolko a historical revisionist is to insult and disparage him. These are the historians associated with the New Left. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Check out this Diff: .
  • I just stopped its REDIRECT because it was mistaken. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And here's a reference for the legitimate usage ("New Left revisionist historians"): . These are NOT at all Historical Revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Two other New Left "revisionist historions" were William Appleman Williams and James Weinstein. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So we need to do some DAB & Merging. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the point you are trying to make. And as this is a discussion page for the development of the article Holocaust denial I do not think you should be cluttering this talk page up with discussions about other pages that might or might not need to be created. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Based upon this discussion I'm going to propose a Merge. Historical Revisionism & Holocaust Denial are one and the same. I am disappointed that you do not understand my argument. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

1. There is just one illegitimate movement/school here - and it is called Historical Revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Some of its members - not wanting to go to jail - be imprisoned in Europe - have disavowed Holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
3. We should not be the victims of their propaganda: Revisionist historians are not Historical revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Here's the only reference & it's about revisionist historians & not about historical revisionism . And if your confused, don't blame me or yourselves. It's how propaganda works. Look to the top of this page with its Warning. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being dense here, but what discussion are you referring to? I think it might help if you (a) clarified what you are after; (b) gave a little more time for other editors to comment; and maybe (c) waited for responses before posting multiple serial comments and postscripts (it's confusing the hell out of me!) EyeSerene 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Your confused because the Propagandists have succeeded. Let me try to make the complexity involved clearer:

1. Holocaust denial & Historical revisionism (negationism) are one and the same thing - even though we have 2 articles about the subject matter. The only argument that can posssibly be made for 2 separate article is that some Historical revisionists no longer publicly deny that the holocaust never happened. So what? That does not justify 2 articles on the same subject, people, school, movement.
2. Historical revisionism is supposed to be something legit. That's only because these propagandists succeded in confusing us about something quite different, namely Revisionist historians.
3. Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages itself has allowed this to happen by letting credence to the phrase "Historical revisionism." There aint no such thing - no scholar calls any legitimate historian a "Historical revisionist" - not one. The 2 word phrase is a pejorative .
4. The legitimate school of though related to these 2 words is .

• I hope this clarifies things. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet again you distort the meaning of the McPherson article. Note the following from that article:

Whatever Bush and Rice meant by "revisionist historians," it is safe to say that they did not mean it favorably. The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes.

McPherson pretty much moves back and forth between the terms revisionist and revisionism, doesn’t he?

You really should ease up on using a perjorative term (propogandist) for those who disagree with you -- especially since despite carrying this case to at least six different articles and any number of proposals you have yet to get anybody to agree with you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Right. And here's one book about 7 Revisionist Historians our President Bush was talking about: "The New Left and the Origins of the Cold War by Robert James Maddox Princeton, $7.95 Professor Maddox's book is a critical analysis of the work of seven revisionist historians. None of them - not one was a Historical Revisionist". It is an insult and a hoax to call them that. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• The propaganda trick is absolutely brilliant! Take "revisionist historicans" and call them instead "historical revisionists." And with one more step you've got "historical revisionism.' And that way you've not only got James McPherson, President of the American Historical Society expounding your philosophy - but even the second President Bush. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Can anyone else please help me out in distnguishing the New Left historians from the "Holocaust denial variety? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling a legitimate historian an historical revisionist will only be an intellectually accurate insult when Holocaust Deniers are successful in getting themselves classified as revisionist within the meaning given the term by the historical profession. I suggest you check out "Reconstruction: An Anthology of Revisionist Writings" edited by Kenneth Stampp and Leon Litwack. It has articles by twenty three historians, including at least three Pulitzer Prize winners. Neither the editors nor the contributors consider the term historical revisionist as "an insult and a hoax".

As far as "distnguishing the New Left historians from the "Holocaust denial variety", that is exactly what the status quo you are attempting to change accomplishes -- the former belong in the Historical revisionism article and the latter in Historical revisionism (negationism)Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. I will refrain from the use of the word "insult." However, I request that you Disambiguate the two phrase. Let me write about Revisionist Historians and you can write whatever nice things you wish to write about Historical Revisionists. But don't confound thev two. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, despite the fact that nobody else agrees with you, you would like for me to acquiesce while you create a POV Fork? I think not. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't demand that editors do anything on Misplaced Pages, dude. Boodlesthecat 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand - or I do - Tom North Shoreman. What exactly are you against? Arev you say that there is a difference between Negationism and Holocaust Denial? What's the difference? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WHAT is being debated here and WHY?

Can we sum it up in 2 sentences, and put closure on it? This page is being turned into another unreadable monstrosity. Boodlesthecat 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I'm requesting that we distinguish clearly between Revistionist historians and Historical revisionists. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is that here. This is the holocaust denial discussion page. Boodlesthecat 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See the archives of Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism) if this subject is to be discussed I think it should be discussed on that article's talk page and not this one! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we agree to move it there (for better or worse) and collapse this discussion. Boodlesthecat 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Haven't you noticed the Merge posting at the front of the page? There is a proposal that the One be merged into the Other. Look at the top of the Article. This is that Merge discussion. I've been arguing - as User:Jpgordon himself said - if I understood him correctly, that Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism are one and the same - therefor they (the articles) should be merged. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Historical revisionism (negationism), Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism are three distinct topics. It's Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionist that are essentially the same.Boodlesthecat 17:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you think, perhaps, the disruption that you've been complaining about is caused by this ridiculas plurality that Misplaced Pages tolerates? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No. You seem to be the only one concerned. And you also seem to write huge swaths of commentary before you actually research the subject at hand. For example, most of the morass of discussion above seems rooted in your failure to understand the meaning of the basic concepts. Yet you propose moves, mergers and countless other disruptions without even a basic understanding of the dfefinitons, meanings, and histories of the subjects you are trying to merge and move. THAT is the source of the disruptions. Boodlesthecat 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your generalization is useless. And your characterization of me Disruptive and Provocative. Once again - please stop! Discuss the issues at hand instead. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, you've made yourself the issue at hand. --jpgordon 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? Please explain so I can correct myself - as I particularly respect what you have to say. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Returning to your proposal (!), I understand it now, thank you, and although I think I follow your reasoning I believe you may, as others have pointed out, not be entirely clear about the differences between the terms. Although Holocaust Denial is an example of Historical Revisionism (in it's perjorative sense), it's not the only example. Holocaust Denial (called Holocaust Revision by it's practitioners) is a subtopic of Historical Revisionism, and is already mentioned on that article's page (with a link to this, the main article). To try to merge the two would be extremely unhelpful. EyeSerene 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I beg to differ: the lack of clarity is now on your part - but it's certainly not entirely your fault. Please observe what we have: (1) Historical revisionism, and (2) Historical revisionism (negationism). I submit - without wishing to offend you - that it is you who appears confused by the fact that these are two are distinct articles. I propose that #2 (no pun intended) be merged into this article. That does not appear inconsistent with what you just have said, anyway, or does it? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you are propsing is a merge between Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism (negationism)? That is what I understood you to be proposing (and I'm not offended) ;) Let me clarify my earlier post:

• Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism) are two separate articles because they are two different, although distantly related, topics.
• Illegitimate Historical Revisionists (ie those described in Historical revisionism (negationism)) try to use the name and academic credibility of legitimate Historical Revisionists (per Historical revisionism) to disguise the fact that their methods and motives are unsound. Thus we need two articles to describe the two topics.
• One group (not the only group) of illegitimate Historical Revisionists are the Holocaust Deniers. Other examples are given in the article.
• Attempting to merge Historical revisionism (negationism) and Holocaust Denial would therefore be a counter-intuitive move, since there would also have to be mergers with all the other articles about other examples of Historical revisionism (negationism). Alternatively, attempting to bring everything together into the Historical revisionism (negationism) article would create an over-long, unbalanced and unwieldy article.

I hope that makes my view clearer? EyeSerene 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Historical revisionism (negationism) → Holocaust denial — The two are one & the same. —Ludvikus (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Strong support. -- The two are one and the same, as stated above. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Actually, the names need to be appropriately adjusted. But that's a minor point. The content is the same, although the movement subscribes to other outrageous policies besides it's most notorious one, namely, the denial of the Holocaust. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• PS: Historical revisionism is currently occupied by the so-called "legitimate Historical Revisionism". --Ludvikus (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this is coming across as stubborness verging on WP:POINT. You have now contradicted your proposal with your first comment, and you've had a few explanations of why this is a bad idea (it's like wanting to merge Prime number with Integer because all the primes are also whole numbers). There's no support for this, so it might be wise to drop it gracefully ;) EyeSerene 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The content of both articles are the same - therefore the two articles should be Merged. In fact, the articles constitute WP:Forking, which violates WP policy. The articles should be merged. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Ludvikus, Historical revisionism (negationism) and Holocaust denial are not the same, they are clearly two entirely different articles. The subject matter of this page and others that you continue to debase and disrupt are serious subjects, and your increasingly delusional disruptions are offensive. This is the last time I am going to ask you to knock it off, Ludvikus. I guarantee if you don't, you will undoubtedly be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Boodlesthecat 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) Stop your threats now please. (2) The "negationism" article says it a "pejorative" subject matter. (3) holocaust denial is an established "pejorative." (4) Make the distinction between the two "illegitimate" subjects in the two articles. Tell me why there is no WP:Forking. I want to know. What is the difference besides you saying that there it one. I fail to see any difference. please be specific. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not arguing with you anymore. That would be insanity. You are a pathological troll who shall no longer be fed. Boodlesthecat 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• No matter where this conversation is going or how it concludes, comments like that will not advance it. WilliamH (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

True that, struck. Boodlesthecat 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I truly am sorry I upset you. That is and was not my intent. I have training in both philosophy and law & therefore am trained in logical debate and writing argumentative papers to be submitted into court. I use this method here to demolish my oponents' arguments. I do not think that is "trolling." I sincerely apologize for the pain I seem to have caused you. However, we must get back to the issue - no one has shown any difference between the two articles which on their face assert that they cover pejorative subject matter. So I'm simply asking for distinctions which will demonstrate that we do not, in fact, have here a clear instance of WP:Forking. So far no one has shown any of that. I also want to point out that there appear to be perhaps two or three other editors who seem to disagree with my view here. But I'm told that we do not go by majority voting here. Ultimate each one must make his or her own judgment. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone seen this movie?

The Memory thief. About this seriously disturbed and twisted non-Jewish kid who is obsessed with antisemitism and the Holocaust. Discussion made me think of it for some reason. Boodlesthecat 21:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• GA-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles