Misplaced Pages

Talk:Holocaust denial: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:59, 6 September 2009 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits archive lengthy, old, confusing sections← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:26, 15 January 2025 edit undoRamos1990 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,311 edits "So-called": ref 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Talk header}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
{{Round in circles}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
|counter = 14
{{Not a forum}}
|algo = old(21d)
{{ArticleHistory|action1= FAC
|archive = Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{notaforum}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=GA|importance=High}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1= FAC
|action1date= 2004-6-6 |action1date= 2004-6-6
|action1link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2004#Holocaust denial |action1link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2004#Holocaust denial
Line 41: Line 34:
|action5oldid=225573669 |action5oldid=225573669


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

|currentstatus= DGA
|topic=Socsci}} |topic=Socsci}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
<div border="1" style="border:black solid; background-color:white; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;">
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Top}}
'''Some discussions to note:'''
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Mid}}
Some topics have been discussed multiple times on this talk page. It is suggested that editors review these previous discussions before re-raising issues and/or use the search form below, so as to save time and cut down on repetition.
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}
*If you want to argue that Holocaust Denial should be called Holocaust Revisionism, please read (not an exhaustive list): , , , , ,
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}}
* If you want to argue about the Auschwitz Plaque, please read: , , , and the appropriate section in the ] article.
{{WikiProject European history|importance=mid}}
* If you want to argue that "most historians" or "almost all historians" do not reject Holocaust Denial, please read: ,
{{WikiProject Law|importance=high}}
* If you want to argue that Holocaust denial is not antisemitic, please read: ,
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}}
<inputbox>
}}
bgcolor=transparent
{{talk fringe|Holocaust denial}}
type=fulltext
{{Trolling}}
prefix=Talk:Holocaust_denial
break=yes
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search archives
</inputbox>
</div>


{{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":}} -->
}}



{{archive box|auto=yes}}
'''Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.'''
__TOC__ __TOC__


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


{{edit extended-protected|Holocaust denial|answered=no}}
== Why is Holocaust Denial labeled as part of Antisemitism? ==
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.

This makes no sense. Holocaust Denial doesn't necessarily mean Antisemitism; it simply means you disagree with the "official" view of the Holocaust. ] (]) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:So you agree with the "unofficial" view of the Holocaust, that millions of Jews lied about the genocide, for personal and communal gain, but that's not antisemitic? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::I'm sure the OP would appreciate you not putting words in his mouth. Just because he doesn't believe the same thing as you doesn't mean he has to conform to somebody else's. He is entirely capable of forming his own opinions. ] (]) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Oh, I see. So he's going to investigate this entirely on his own then; look through voluminous German records, do archeological digs, undertake scientific experiments, etc.? Or do you think it rather more likely that he will base his opinion on some ? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

== RfC related to this article ==

For an RfC, that is obviously related to this subject, see: ]. -- ] 03:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for the note. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

== antisemitism? ==

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

*There is a good reason for it being there: a multitude of reliable sources. ] (]) 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
**It's a lot more helpful if you would show me. ] (]) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
*I assumed that you had actually checked the sources given - apparently not. They are under citation 7; there are 17 of them. ] (]) 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
**I don't see how you can conclude that everyone who is a holocaust denier holds antisemitic feelings, from these sources. ] (]) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
*We're not here to conclude that. If reliable sources say XYZ, Misplaced Pages is entitled to say XYZ. ] (]) 00:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
**You're correct. I did not think about that and I was at fault. However, I also assume that this means Misplaced Pages does not take sides, in regard to conflicting opinions from reliable sources. I've cited the source of a prominent Jewish Holocaust scholar, who would be considered a denier. I believe this creates validity in removing the antisemitism category. Your opinion, please. ] (]) 00:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
***I would like to mention that Misplaced Pages is concluding by putting the category up. ] (]) 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
*The Institute for Historical Review is not a reliable source. See also ]. ] (]) 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
*(edit conflict) Jwh335, ] leaflets, as you linked to in , are not reliable sources. Also, you can't insert your own arguments and opinions into articles, as you also did in that edit. Which "prominent Jewish Holocaust scholar" are you referring to? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
**Raul Hilberg. ] (]) 00:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::] is not a Holocaust denier. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
*Looking at the sources, it doesn't seem like any of them mention that all holocaust deniers are antisemitic. I believe these are also grounds to remove the category. It seems like Misplaced Pages is concluding something from something else. ] (]) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::The article doesn't claim all Holocaust deniers are antisemitic, but it does provide many, many reliable citations indicating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::It is clearly inferred that all Holocaust deniers are antisemitic by being in the "antisemitism" category. ] (]) 00:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::::I think you mean "implied", not "inferred". And the article simply notes that Holocaust denial is considered to be antisemitic. It also provides saying so. I daresay there are dozens more that say the same. Do you have any reliable sources indicating that it is not antisemitic? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Ahmadinejad has stated that he is not antisemitic and is clearly a holocaust denier. I believe that his "not antisemitic" statement is absurd. However, it's apparently a valid source on Misplaced Pages's Juan Cole page. I will use that as my source. ] (]) 01:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::You need to review ]. Just because Ahmadinejad says he's not antisemitic, it doesn't mean Holocaust denial isn't antisemitic. Please find reliable sources which state "Holocaust denial is not antisemitic". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

:::::::] (]) 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:Who deems sources reliable or not, and how? --] (]) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

::I would like to know this, as well. ] (]) 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::As everything on Misplaced Pages, it is determined by consensus. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::::We have a reliable sources noticeboard where such things are discussed at ], but the bottom line is that Holocaust denial is considered to be anti-semitic. ] (]) 05:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Reliable sources are, for example, sources that originate from academics/scholarly instutions that have a reputation for fact checking. ] (]) 11:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

::I am on the "not Antisemites" side. The sources that appear to be the basis of the other sides thought process may or may not be reliable, but they don't state that HD deniers are antisemites.] (]) 07:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've , here: ] Feedback welcome. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you for that section. ] (]) 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that some articles have the category box under certain sections of articles. Would it be okay to put the antisemitism category box under the "Are Holocaust deniers antisemites?" section? ] (]) 23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
:In this case, although a couple of non-expert authors have opined that it might be possible to ''theoretically'' be a Holocaust denier without being an antisemite, in practice all reliable sources agree that Holocaust denial is undoubtedly a manifestation of antisemitism. In fact, that it is one of the most obvious manifestations of antisemitism imaginable. Thus, the category box belongs exactly where it is. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
::Entirely agree with Jayjg's statement above. ] (]) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
:::I believe we need to take a consensus. ] (]) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::::We seem to have one; everyone here other than yourself thinks the antisemitism box is correctly placed. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how reliable a source is if it's merely being used for an opinion point. We use reliable sources to get reliable descriptions of events and reliable data and so on, but they mean very little for opinions of motive, or complex subjective definitions of anti-semitism. It's impossible to make the claim that holocaust denial is ''always'' anti-semitic, since it's the rejection of popular historical record and not inherently a claim of Jewish conspiracy - the stature of the person (source) claiming otherwise does not change that. ] (]) 12:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
:Regarding your statement that "It's impossible make the claim that holocaust denial is ''always'' anti-semitic", this article does not do so. Please read the article for details on what it actually says. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

== Conceptualization issues ==

In what has been our nominal convention for the last five years, my friend User:Jayjg reverted my basic changes to the lede, in which I sought to remedy a couple obvious issues - that its conceptualization appears to me to be inaccurate, and its writing contains what appears to be an unnecessary caveat. The lede currently reads:
:''"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized."''

BTW I note that my actual edit was missing a vital transition from before the em-dash to after the em-dash. Hence a better version would be something like... (changes in '''bold''' and <u>underlined</u>) :
:''"Holocaust denial '''refers to a type of claim regarding''' <u>the Holocaust — the genocide of Jews and others during World War II </u>— in which the Holocaust did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent as historically recognized.''"

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

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

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

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

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

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

:: SLR wrote: "Hi Steve, good to see you are back to your usual BS." Since we are going off topic, here Slrubenstein: Over the last year or so, by my count you've used perhaps around thirty expletives when talking about my edits, my comments, questions, and even my person.
:: I wonder, Steven, how much your academic reputation - whatever it actually was - has suffered as a result of your interactions with me - such that you have fallen a bit from the status of at least an articulate academic to one who doesn't bother at all to use his God-given intellect anymore. -]] 17:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC) PS: Please think twice about going off the deep end with the paranoia. Remember Oct. 3, 2003.

:*To go back on topic and offer not my own original research but the position of multiple reliable sources, Holocaust denial is the denial that a) the Nazi government of Germany had a ], that b) homicidal gas chambers were used to do this, and that c) the death toll was around 6 million. The destruction of Roma and other groups of people by the Nazis, however as equally tragic, is not pertinent to Holocaust denial. ] (]) 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
::Indeed. The state policy to kill '''Jews''' and 6 million figure are key here, since 6 million is the approximate number of '''Jews''' killed, not the total of all victims of the Nazis. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Well note that the one cited source for this view, Niewyk (why does the citation omit Nicosia?) is himself not quite so certain. He notes several caveats, notably that an inclusive definition of Nazi murders total perhaps 17 million. He adds that:
::::"During WWII the term was used to describe the fates of both Jewish and non-Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities. Only later, during the 1960's, was it appropriated () by scholars and popular writers to denote the genocide of the Jews in particular."
::: He further calls "essentially Judeocentric" the view that the term refers only to the murders of Jews alone. He says "scholars who limit the Holocaust to the genocide of the Jews rest their case variously on issues of motive, scale, and intent." The terms *Judeocentric and *variously are important here, as Niewyk is plain enough to state that there is a naturally ethnic dimension to this historiology, as well as a certain type of conceptual selectivity.
::: Suffice it to say the definition - one that in a certain sense "denies" the tragic fates of the other 11 million murdered people - is not a universal one, or as Niewyk puts it "not everyone finds this a fully satisfactory definition." Indeed, while the ] may refer (uncontroversially) just to the demonic attempt to destroy Jews, the term "The Holocaust" - in the current ''lingua franca'' - is not bound by particularly "Judeocentric" concerns - particularly where we lack another more general term for the mass destruction of ''Jews, Poles, Slavs, Romani, German dissidents,'' and others. Rather I should state, that is, we appear to lack a more general term other than... ''"]."''
::: With all that said, I am more than aware that words can sometimes have more than one meaning. That "The Holocaust" most often refers to the murder of Jews specifically is not controversial - along with the various nominal concepts of ''anti-Semitism, systematic apparatus, incineration'' and ''pure evil''. However, in the non-Jewish world we may have to be less ambiguous, and have no reason to favor one particular definition over another. Hence the inclusive meaning - the one that does not actually omit or ignore 11 million murders - must be understood to be just as valid.
::: I understand now why the obsequious language in the lede - "..the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust.." in a certain way its quite accurate as it employs a caveat to the definition of the term. But it does not explain itself, such that it could just as well mean 'there are other equivalent terms' as much as it could mean 'the term has a more broad, but less common meaning.' I don't see why it couldn't be restated in accord with the latter. -]] 00:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

::It cannot be reinstated because it's wrong. This article is about people who deny the destruction of the Jews, because its the destruction of the Jews that they deny, and not the destruction of, for example, Roma peoples. As a non-Jew in the non-Jewish world that you speak of - a rather nominal term I must say, I cannot think of anything less ambiguous. ] (]) 01:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::Stevertigo, as WilliamH points out, while the Holocaust affected peoples besides the Jews, Holocaust denial is a denial of the genocide of Jews. Holocaust deniers don't deny other genocides, just the genocide of the Jews. Please review the relevant literature and familiarize yourself with the topic before attempting to make further changes to the article. Thanks. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Really. This is just pointless argumentation; perhaps there's a vague possibility that this discussion might be fruitful on ], but ] is about Jews. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

:: These different aspects perhaps fit better under a ] article. Now, I'm certain these psycho-sociological tangents have been written about somewhere - why are these not covered here? If it's because the article is constrained by a noticeably artificial fixation on anti-Semitism, then this oversight needs to be corrected. Noting the caveat in the definition of "the Holocaust" is half of the solution. The other half is in dealing with the subjective aspects of "denial" - distinguishing the term as one of "appropriated" meaning - and touching on other non-anti-Semitism aspects (such that ''Holocaust comprehension'' covers) is required to satisfy NPOV. -]] 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::The definition of "Holocaust denial" hasn't been "appropriated" from non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, just as the definition of "antisemitism" hasn't been "appropriated" from non-Jewish "semites". Both are activities directed solely at Jews. To quote ] from his 2006 book ''Antisemitism Today'' (p. 80) "...Holocaust denial is about Jews, not about the Holocaust". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

:::: Further, does not this definition exist largely to deal with only the anti-Semitic definition? Keep in mind that it wasn't anti-Semitism that made the Nazis particularly notable - it was their egomaniacal embrace of death and destruction that made them finished. -]] 06:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Doesn't the definition of ] rest somewhat on the definitions of "Monster" and "truck"? The latter term has subjective elements, and the former has a larger, more inclusive definition than that used in the phrase "Monster truck". And yet, the "Monster truck" article doesn't actually discuss ]s in relation to ]s, or trucks that are driven by monsters. As for the "limitation" in the definition of "Holocaust denial" is indeed "imposed" by the "essentially Judeocentric" view of those who deny the Holocaust. As explained, they are only interested in the Jews, and only interested in denying the genocide of the Jews. Now, what do you mean by "only the anti-Semitic definition" of Holocaust denial? What is the "non-anti-Semitic definition"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

::::: (Response below) -]] 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Anti-semitism didn't make nazis particularly notable? Do you mean that all the scholars that have written thousands of pages on nazism where they emphasize that anti-semitism was one of the main pilars of the nazi theories are completely mistaken? --] (]) 10:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::: (Response below) -]] 07:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Lebob, Stevertigo habitually tries to see how far he can brush up against anti-Semitism in his remarks, without actually presenting himself as an anti-Semite. Obviously if you do not care about genocide against Jews, the Nazis were more notable for other things, like their fashion sense. I suggest you not rise to the bait. Stevertigo loves pissing Jews off. Just don't rise to the bait. Let's instead look at his sytematic attempts to violate Misplaced Pages policy. "Doesn't the definition of "Holocaust denial" rest somewhat on the definitions of "The Holocaust" and "denial?"" Well, no, Steve, no more than "A slow comfortable screw on the beach" depend son the definitions of these words. Sure, bartenders know what each individual word means - but the phrase all together has nothing to do with these words. Buddy, trust me on this, but a "blow job" is ''not'' what you must think it is!!

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

::::::: I don't quite have time at to moment to respond adequately, but I can deal with a couple points. For one, I would never have had the insight to compare The Holocaust, or any aspect thereof, to a "blow job." But as he ] linguistics is not one of Slrubenstein's fields of actual expertise. Allow me to demonstrate:
:::::::: "Holocaust" ----> "blow" (!)
:::::::: "denial" ----> "job" (!)
::::::: I don't mean to embarrass Steven too much, in fact not only do I hold a tremendous respect for him, but he's probably as close to an actual friend I have here on en.wiki. (Yes, this is the same person who 'habitually tries to see how far he can brush up against' making explicit accusations of "anti-Semite" against me).

::::::: For future reference, though, it would behoove all of us to learn from SLrubenstein's mistakes, and not make comparisons between literal concept terms - such that "Holocaust denial" reportedly is - and highly idiomatic ones like "blow job" and "a slow comfortable screw on the beach" (I would probably be too self-conscious to be comfortable). Likewise comparing aspects of the most terrible events in human history to some of the most wonderful is not... appropriate.
::::::: Let us note though, that the substance behind Slrubenstein's inexact metaphor is a concession - that the term for which this article is named has some idiomatic distinctions that set it apart from the actual term "Holocaust." I agree, and I'll let Slrubenstein go about filling in the holes. Again, the issue I am more interested in is '']'' - which on the surface doesn't seem like a particularly easy subject to tackle. Regards, -]] 22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Steve, do you have any ] that corroborate your ]? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus is not a vote; one or two people clamoring for changing something that has been stable for ages does not indicate a change in the consensus. While it is (intentionally) difficult to pin down an exact number for when consensus weakens, it is usually pretty obvious ala the ]. There is clearly no indication that consensus has changed here, and this section should be closed. -- ] (]) 16:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:Agree with WilliamH and Avi. Consensus has already been established. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::There is no need for the proposed change and certainly no consensus for it. The only consensus I see is that this should remain as it is. --] (]) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::That's the only consensus I see too. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::::We also have consensus against consensus being established by simple voting. Feel free to vote otherwise. :) ] (]) 06:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

== It's official ==

Based on his various ] above, it is clear that Stevertigo has come to this talk page only in order to ] and meaningful ]. ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ], I suggest ] just ignore Tigo and move on to whatever discussion, if any, may improve the article. ] | ] 08:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
*I am inclined to agree. I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that someone so articulate can be so involuntarily obtuse. ] (]) 12:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
* Will, I don't quite know what you mean here by "obtuse," but maybe that's itself just a symptom of the syndrome you mention. What I ''do'' understand is that by "articulate" you must mean that ''something was articulated.'' I'm therefore wondering if it wouldn't be less obtuse for others to just deal with the articulations, and put aside any of my alleged obtuseness. (Slrubenstein is obviously off the hook as far as articulation goes). -]] 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


From BBC
:Nobody is disputing that there aren't sources that contend that "the Holocaust" should encompass more than just the destruction of the Jews by the Nazis. But, Stevertigo, what has been outlined to you at least half a dozen times is the following: let's take the all the peoples, Jews, Roma, Political Prisoners, etc, etc, that died through Nazi persecution.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34594563


From AP news
:Now, let's take "certain individuals". They form ]. They crawl the ruins of the crematoria at Auschwitz and do ] on the material they collect. They ignore and misrepresent ] ], as well as people who have ] ] ] ] with the conclusions they come to.
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)
:The conclusions that these "certain individuals" come to is that the Nazi government of Germany did not have a a) state plan to kill Jews via b) methods such as gas chambers, which resulted in around c) 6 million dead Jews.
::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)
::::::Hello Wikieditor662, the exact quote from the AP Article goes like, Mr. Netanyahu said “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews, and Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here.’ ‘So what should I do with them?’ he asked. He said, ‘Burn them.’” The quote is a bit long and can be found in the attached article, but it could provide greater context? ] (]) 14:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you, I have the sources for the first part, but I couldn't find any that stated that Merkel or Yad Vashem accused Netanyahu of being a holocaust denier. Could you point me towards that? ] (]) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::For Merkel, I could find only where she denounced Netanyahu Statements and Yad Vashem in the BBC article, , stated that what he said was factually incorrect. The opposition leader, Isaac Herzog, mentioned that the statements "play into the hands of holocaust deniers" and the MP Itzik Shmuli made a similar statement . Though not explicitly a hardcore holocaust denier, the statement Netanyahu made did reduce the role of Hitler's decision and Germany's responsibility, per leaders and scholars views. ] (]) 16:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::If it's not explicitly about holocaust denialism, then why should it be in the Holocaust denial article? ] (]) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


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


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)
:Slrubinstein's blowjob remark, even if perhaps crude, is in fact an excellent lexical analogy and your comments regarding it are perhaps more of a reflection of you (i.e. your failure to grasp the matter at hand) than him. The verb "to blow" has use, but "sharply exhaling" has nothing to do with the sexual act of a blowjob itself. To amend the blowjob article to imply that it does would be wrong. ] (]) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:Done, thanks. ] (]) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== "So-called" ==
# WilliamH: ''"but if the lead section of this article is amended so that it implies that the deniers of NSDAP-perpetrated genocide deny the destruction of Roma, political prisoners, etc, etc, <u>then the article is wrong</u>"'' - Did I propose such a thing? Read each of my comments again. I did not. What I ''did'' say is that ''as this term uses "The Holocaust" for only the most common of its two accepted definitions, it needs to disambiguate "Holocaust denial" as being based in the more common definition that deals specifically with the Shoah, and not the more inclusive one that deals with 11 million less important gentiles.'' That way, this article is keeping step with the main article, and not serving the function of "appropriat by scholars and popular writers" the term "The Holocaust" for its less inclusive definition. In fact the current version tries to do this, albeit quite clumsily.
# WilliamH said: ''"nobody is disputing that there aren't sources that contend that "the Holocaust" should encompass more than just the destruction of the Jews by the Nazis."'' - My issues are plainly encyclopedic: 1) it's a case of needing preemptive, upfront disambiguation between the two valid definitions. That way Serbs and Poles who read this article aren't surprised when the see it use a definition of "The Holocaust" that does not include them. Furthermore it makes it more plain that the denialists are actual anti-Semites with Jewish fixations, and not just wannabe revisionists. (Which is quite interesting actually - one would think the guilt would extend to crimes against others as well..).
# WilliamH: ''"..has been outlined to you at least half a dozen times is the following..."'' - No such "outline" has been given. You three have repeated an oblique statement about this subject as dealing with denials specifically in regard to the crimes against Jews. Fine - just do a better job of disambiguating that upfront.
# WilliamH: ''"excellent lexical analogy..."'' - I understand that Steven was trying to make a point about lexical differentiation: Certainly it exists! But this is not an article about "cutting the cheese," or "throwing a hotdog down a hallway." I understand that Steven, like the rest of us, reads Urban Dictionary just to unwind, but I didn't like his general flippant disregard for my articulations and found his inaccurate usage of sexualized lexical examples to be entirely out of place here, and that's why I had to deal with them. -]] 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::Stevertigo, if I understand you correctly, you are now saying that you do not object to the definition of Holocaust denial, but rather to the definition of Holocaust used by an extremely reliable source in a footnote of this article? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::: Jayjg, contrary to what you imply by your words "now saying," I have ''not'' said anything different nor have I changed my suggestions for this article - I've simply confined myself to dealing with substantive and responsive points (in this case WilliamH's). I repeat - the issue is that there is some ambiguity in the Holocaust term itself (ref: Niewyk/Nicosia), hence this article needs to disambiguate itself as one rooted in the ''common, non-inclusive, exclusively Jewish'' definition (]). -]] 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Are you disputing that the genocide of the Jews in World War II is referred to as "the Holocaust"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
::::: No, I am not disputing that the genocide of the Jews in World War II is *commonly referred to as "the Holocaust." Are you denying that, in addition to over 6 million Jews, another perhaps 11 million Goyim were systematically murdered, and that the term "The Holocaust" *may just as well also include the destruction of these other human beings, as it commonly did for nearly two decades after WW II? -]] 03:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Whatever does that have to do with "Holocaust Denial", a phrase which (in the absence of reliable sources indicating otherwise) is generally accepted to mean denial of the Shoah, not the more general destruction of life by the Nazis? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::: If you cannot determine relevance, please start at the beginning of the "]" thread, and work your way down. Forgive me, but at the moment I am ''far'' more interested in what Jayjg has to say. -]] 03:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::: PS: Doing a little re-reading above - here's a little quote from Jayjg (stars* mine): ''"while the Holocaust *affected* peoples besides the Jews, Holocaust denial is a denial of the genocide of Jews."'' Note Jayjg uses a word like "affected" instead of something even remotely accurate like "mass murdered." And his language "peoples besides the Jews" also seems fishy, but I won't go further. Anyway, according to Jayjg, "peoples besides the Jews" were "affected ." Funny. -]] 04:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:I don't care who you're interested in hearing; if you want a private conversation, use email. Now, if you don't have specific suggestions to improve this article, that have any chance of gaining consensus, you really should move on. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:: 1) Who are you? -]] 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
::: One of several editors who have suggested it's time for you to move on. Never mind, I'll take Slrubenstein's advice and ignore you. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: Good advice for you. For others - ''ie. those here who pretend to know what they are actually talking about'' - I require actual intelligent responsiveness. They who want to be gatekeepers of knowledge have to also deal with how the human intellect processes and reflects that knowledge. -]] 05:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I'd echo jpgordon's advice. If you want to discuss the Holocaust, find another website; although we traditionally allow some laxity in these areas, ]. This has been going on for a while now, and I've seen no sign of concrete suggestions for improvements to the article. You might like to look at ] for guidance on the use of talkpages, and ] for the possible consequences of abusing them. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


The article says "so-called" ] when referring to ways holocaust deniers try to minimize the holocaust with a false comparison. However, using "so-called" about something that historically happened doesn't make sense; it would be more fitting to use "so-called" for the false equivalency. For example, if they tried to minimize the holocaust by comparing it to the slavery in the US, you wouldn't say the "so-called slavery", you would say "so-called" about the comparison. Does that make sense? Are there any objections to removing so-called from that part? ] (]) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
It's clear from your comments that at the time of writing, neither you nor Jpgordon had actually read the above discussion. I know what those policies are about, and not just what they say. For example your mention of DISRUPT in the context of this discussion and TALK shows that you don't know its scope is limited to articles, not talk pages. As far as "concrete suggestions" go, I've said a number of times already what those are. Please read them for yourself.


:What phrasing do the cited sources use? ] (]) 00:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
At issue here is the two above regular editors know better than to ignore valid issues, but also know they cannot directly deal with the issues that I raised, and that's why the sudden silence. That this issue of "essentially Judeocentric" (Niewyk/Nicosia) terminology creates a conceptual quandry among scholars who shape history is not my concern. That Misplaced Pages should endorse only one particular meaning of "denial" and reject another meaning - one that gives some small regard to 11 million more people - is of course getting into issues of our own scholarship and editorial capacity. But real scholars of course could directly answer my questions and suggestions without resorting to personal attacks and avoidance. -]] 05:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
::By removing "so-called", it would look like it there was allies were the ones committing atrocities (similar to concentration camps?). Seems like the issue is "allied atrocities".] (]) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Stevertigo, do you have any ] backing your claim that there is another "meaning" of "Holocaust denial"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 19:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
:::@] I don't have access to that specific source, but on the ] page you can see it's definitely not speculative that they committed the atrocities.
:::@] the allies did commit atrocities, but nowhere on the page is it said that it's similar to the concentration camps. If the holocaust deniers said it's similar to concentration camps, then adding "so-called" there would make sense. However, saying "so-called" to an event that actually happened doesn't look right to me. ] (]) 01:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It is best resolved by citing and summarizing how the academic sources on Holocaust denial phrase the issue, per ] and ]: "{{tq| When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements.}}" ] (]) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The source says ''"The leading Holocaust denial institute is the German-Austrian Institute for Contemporary History. Its role is similar to the American Institute for Historical Review and there is interaction between them. Most of its scholarship is devoted to proving that the Holocaust was a hoax concocted by Jews to win financial support from Germany. Another Holocaust institute is the Research Institute for Contemporary History (Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle). Alfred Schickel founded this institute in 1981. He has remained head of this institute that is headquartered in Ingolstadt, Germany. Schickel has been careful to avoid German legal restriction against attacking the Holocaust, so he has concentrated on so-called Allied atrocities against the Germans during and after the war. He has also frequently written in the extreme right journal Young Freedom (lunge Freiheit). Schickel has cautiously incorporated the Auschwitz lie thesis in his writings."'' (Atkins, Holocaust denial as an international movement, 2009, pg. 105) ] (]) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] @] So looks like they do use "so-called" in this source. However, this does seem to conflate with the numerous other sources which state that the allied atrocities definitely happened. ] (]) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:26, 15 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.
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.
Former good articleHolocaust 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
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 11, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 5, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
July 15, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 6, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
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.
WikiProject iconJewish history Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGermany Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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 trollDo 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.

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

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)
Hello Wikieditor662, the exact quote from the AP Article goes like, Mr. Netanyahu said “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews, and Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here.’ ‘So what should I do with them?’ he asked. He said, ‘Burn them.’” The quote is a bit long and can be found in the attached article, but it could provide greater context? 71.229.52.174 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I have the sources for the first part, but I couldn't find any that stated that Merkel or Yad Vashem accused Netanyahu of being a holocaust denier. Could you point me towards that? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
For Merkel, I could find only where she denounced Netanyahu Statements and Yad Vashem in the BBC article, Netanyahu Holocaust remarks: Israeli PM criticised, stated that what he said was factually incorrect. The opposition leader, Isaac Herzog, mentioned that the statements "play into the hands of holocaust deniers" and the MP Itzik Shmuli made a similar statement Anger at Netanyahu claim Palestinian grand mufti inspired Holocaust. Though not explicitly a hardcore holocaust denier, the statement Netanyahu made did reduce the role of Hitler's decision and Germany's responsibility, per leaders and scholars views. 71.229.52.174 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If it's not explicitly about holocaust denialism, then why should it be in the Holocaust denial article? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:01, 14 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)

"So-called"

The article says "so-called" Allied atrocities when referring to ways holocaust deniers try to minimize the holocaust with a false comparison. However, using "so-called" about something that historically happened doesn't make sense; it would be more fitting to use "so-called" for the false equivalency. For example, if they tried to minimize the holocaust by comparing it to the slavery in the US, you wouldn't say the "so-called slavery", you would say "so-called" about the comparison. Does that make sense? Are there any objections to removing so-called from that part? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

What phrasing do the cited sources use? Llll5032 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
By removing "so-called", it would look like it there was allies were the ones committing atrocities (similar to concentration camps?). Seems like the issue is "allied atrocities". Ramos1990 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Llll5032 I don't have access to that specific source, but on the Allied atrocities page you can see it's definitely not speculative that they committed the atrocities.
@Ramos1990 the allies did commit atrocities, but nowhere on the page is it said that it's similar to the concentration camps. If the holocaust deniers said it's similar to concentration camps, then adding "so-called" there would make sense. However, saying "so-called" to an event that actually happened doesn't look right to me. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
It is best resolved by citing and summarizing how the academic sources on Holocaust denial phrase the issue, per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and WP:BESTSOURCES: "When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." Llll5032 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The source says "The leading Holocaust denial institute is the German-Austrian Institute for Contemporary History. Its role is similar to the American Institute for Historical Review and there is interaction between them. Most of its scholarship is devoted to proving that the Holocaust was a hoax concocted by Jews to win financial support from Germany. Another Holocaust institute is the Research Institute for Contemporary History (Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle). Alfred Schickel founded this institute in 1981. He has remained head of this institute that is headquartered in Ingolstadt, Germany. Schickel has been careful to avoid German legal restriction against attacking the Holocaust, so he has concentrated on so-called Allied atrocities against the Germans during and after the war. He has also frequently written in the extreme right journal Young Freedom (lunge Freiheit). Schickel has cautiously incorporated the Auschwitz lie thesis in his writings." (Atkins, Holocaust denial as an international movement, 2009, pg. 105) Ramos1990 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Ramos1990 @Llll5032 So looks like they do use "so-called" in this source. However, this does seem to conflate with the numerous other sources which state that the allied atrocities definitely happened. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: