| Revision as of 04:43, 9 April 2003 editJtdirl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,275 edits explanation for paragraph removal← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:30, 25 August 2003 edit undoMartinHarper (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,927 edits move some talk from Talk:Holocaust revisionismNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| This paragraph throws up largely irrelevant information in an emotive form and a clear POV that undermines whatever chance the article has of undermining the nutters who deny the holocaust. Show the evidence, don't state things as fact. ] 04:43 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) | This paragraph throws up largely irrelevant information in an emotive form and a clear POV that undermines whatever chance the article has of undermining the nutters who deny the holocaust. Show the evidence, don't state things as fact. ] 04:43 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| :''Zündel established his own Web site to publicize his revisionist viewpoint. In response, the German government blocked off access his site for all German citizens.'' | |||
| This seems to be wrong. Access to the site is available in Germany. -- ] 09:13 25 May 2003 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :''The revisionists claim that their assertions cannot be as easily refuted. Most historians disagree with them, saying that the evidence clearly disproves their assertions.'' | |||
| Well, yeah. The first sentence says "holocaust revisionists believe in the claims they are making. The second sentence says "most historians don't", which is already covered in another paragraph. ] | |||
| :'' not supported by any officially approved, tenured, or government funded historians.'' | |||
| What's an "officially approved historian" when she's at home? ] | |||
| There is a ''major'' problem with this article. Someone wrote a paragraph, and has substantially misunderstood the very topic. The article currently states that "Holocaust revisionism is distinct from Holocaust denial, the assertion that the Holocaust never happened at all. Holocaust revisionists see themselves as part of a tradition of historical revisionism - the reexamination of widely-accepted historical theories." | |||
| No, this is totally wrong. The author is confused by what the term "revisionism" means. In normal use, "revisionism" refers to a very normal and well-accepted part of historical scholarship. It is the revisiting of old topics to look at them in a new light. In this sense of the word, all mainstream historians, and all Jewish groups, totally approve of new research on the Holocaust; some of this can fairly be called "historical revisionism concerning the Holocaust." The problem is that anti-Semitic ''Holocaust deniers'' have been trying to appropriate this term for themselves. They refer to all of their Holocaust denial as "historical revisionism". What this article currently is in gross error on is the fact that all mainstream historians agree that these so-called "historical revisionists" are not practicing legitimate historical revisionism at all, but are rather using false advertising to promote Holocaust denial. The good news is that our article on ] already makes this distinction. We just need to make this same distinction here, and then merge the pages on holocaust revisionism and ]. ] 19:31, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I suggest the material on "Holocaust revisionism" be reverted back to the "revisionism" page, because the term "holocaust revisionism" is more prevalent and widely used than "holocaust denial." The latter may be more accurate, but "revisionism" is the term most often looked for when people do research into this subject. --] 00:11, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) | |||
| :A Google web search showed me that "Holocaust denial" shows up 26,400 times, while "Holocaust revisionism" only shows up 5,200 times. This ratio is also about the same when doing a Google newsgroup search for these terms. ] | |||
Revision as of 23:30, 25 August 2003
I know we want to be NPOV here, but Holocaust denial is such a peculiar thing, "the belief that Germany did not kill millions of Jews, but certainly should have for making up a lie that Germany killed millions of Jews". I state the position crudely because I have never been able to understand what is the sense or function of Holocaust denial in the overall anti-Semitic scheme of things. Ortolan88 08:37 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)
It's hard to understand the reasons associated with hatred. I suppose hatred is, at bottom, completely irrational.
But Jews seem to have attracted a lot of hatred. This hatred has taken the form of discrimination, segragation and genocide.
Often people feel a need to justify their attitudes or actions. So, after doing something "bad" we either say it was really "good" or deny having done it at all.
- He hit me first.
- We were just playing
- I was only kidding.
- Fight? What fight?
As for as making restitution for past misdeeds, if the deed never occurred, how can I be required to make restitution? If Jews weren't nearly wiped out in Europe, why should anyone requite that injustice by giving the more fertile land in Palestine?
I know this is awfully simplistic, but I daresay much of the rhetoric about these issues aren't entirely rationally based. Ed Poor
Oh God. This is the sort of article I dread. I agree with its premise, that Holocaust denial people are a bunch of neo-fascist apologists and nutters. But how do you write an NPOV article on this rubbish? Certainly this isn't it. Facts should convince people, not rhetoric and this article is too POV to be of any use in undermining the 'deny the holocaust' industry. It has all the subtlety of a 'brick through the window', overplays terms (kill, murder, genocide - yet they all happened, but if you lay it on this thick, readers are going to dismiss the article as biased and so worthless.) and throws up all sorts of irrelevances; when it comes to the holocaust, petty flame wars on net talks are irrelevent. It needs pruning, rewriting and toning down. When toned down, it stands a far better of chance of actually convincing people about just how loopy holocaust deniers really are. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:32 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
Removed the following
With the advent of the Internet in the 1990s and early 21st century, a small number of Holocaust deniers found a worldwide audience for their writings. Certain supporters of Holocaust denial made names for themselves by repeatedly (critics say "endlessly") re-posting their writings over and over in many Usenet newsgroups, sparking vicious flame wars. These online arguments appeared to be eternal and unending, because the supporters of Holocaust denial refused to particiate in logical discussions and repeatedly stated that the Holocaust was a hoax, refusing to admit the existence of the considerable evidence disproving their statements. In the end, the holocaust denial faction was largely ignored and killfiled online.
- Internet rows are irrelevent to this article, certainly when written like this. If it should be covered, it needs to be NPOVed.
- When it comes to the issue of holocaust denial, flame wars are about as irrelevant to the serious issue of the article as it can be. So what if there are flame wars? There are flame wars on just about everything on the net, from the war in Iraq to Kylie Minogue's bum size. Bringing in flame wars to an article like this trivialises the top (though the person who added in this no doubt never meant to)
- the last line is POV. That doesn't mean it isn't right, but NPOV means showing the evidence and letting the reader see for themselves, not have the author state something as gospel.
- 'critics say endlessly' - another POV piece that simply undermines the NPOV the article should have.
This paragraph throws up largely irrelevant information in an emotive form and a clear POV that undermines whatever chance the article has of undermining the nutters who deny the holocaust. Show the evidence, don't state things as fact. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:43 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Zündel established his own Web site to publicize his revisionist viewpoint. In response, the German government blocked off access his site for all German citizens.
This seems to be wrong. Access to the site is available in Germany. -- JeLuF 09:13 25 May 2003 (UTC)
- The revisionists claim that their assertions cannot be as easily refuted. Most historians disagree with them, saying that the evidence clearly disproves their assertions.
Well, yeah. The first sentence says "holocaust revisionists believe in the claims they are making. The second sentence says "most historians don't", which is already covered in another paragraph. DanKeshet
- not supported by any officially approved, tenured, or government funded historians.
What's an "officially approved historian" when she's at home? Martin
There is a major problem with this article. Someone wrote a paragraph, and has substantially misunderstood the very topic. The article currently states that "Holocaust revisionism is distinct from Holocaust denial, the assertion that the Holocaust never happened at all. Holocaust revisionists see themselves as part of a tradition of historical revisionism - the reexamination of widely-accepted historical theories."
No, this is totally wrong. The author is confused by what the term "revisionism" means. In normal use, "revisionism" refers to a very normal and well-accepted part of historical scholarship. It is the revisiting of old topics to look at them in a new light. In this sense of the word, all mainstream historians, and all Jewish groups, totally approve of new research on the Holocaust; some of this can fairly be called "historical revisionism concerning the Holocaust." The problem is that anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers have been trying to appropriate this term for themselves. They refer to all of their Holocaust denial as "historical revisionism". What this article currently is in gross error on is the fact that all mainstream historians agree that these so-called "historical revisionists" are not practicing legitimate historical revisionism at all, but are rather using false advertising to promote Holocaust denial. The good news is that our article on historical revisionism already makes this distinction. We just need to make this same distinction here, and then merge the pages on holocaust revisionism and holocaust denial. RK 19:31, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I suggest the material on "Holocaust revisionism" be reverted back to the "revisionism" page, because the term "holocaust revisionism" is more prevalent and widely used than "holocaust denial." The latter may be more accurate, but "revisionism" is the term most often looked for when people do research into this subject. --Modemac 00:11, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- A Google web search showed me that "Holocaust denial" shows up 26,400 times, while "Holocaust revisionism" only shows up 5,200 times. This ratio is also about the same when doing a Google newsgroup search for these terms. RK