Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Anyone know when this became a GA?

This article showed up on a list of improperly listed articles, but I can't seem to easily find any GA review, and for all I know, it may of been passed before reviews were necessary. Anyone happen to know when this became a GA? Whoever passed it apparently never listed it on the main GA page, and i'm not just going to list it in case somebody just randomly stamped this as a GA. Homestarmy 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that it was a GA nominee, but then someone replaced that template with the GA template. That's probably the reason it was never listed; the edit summary for the change included "also, this is a pretty good article" [[1]] which seems to indicate that it was a matter of personal preference, but I can't be sure. .V. _[Talk|Email] 03:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think V is correct. Perhaps a GAR is called for? -- Avi 02:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am myself submitting this article for a GA review and I hope that it is given a fair, unbiased analysis by people more concerned for fairness than the people who have routinely added "anti-semitism" to it. I hope that this notice is good enough for the one required before adding, and if it isn't, please show me what is.Vissario 19:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Soft-core denial"

I've removed this paragraph from the article:

Jimmy Carter accused of "Soft-core denial" of the Holocaust

In the first week of February 2007, Lipstadt used a neologism "soft-core denial" at a public rally in London. Referring to such groups as the Muslim Council of Britain, reportedly she stated: "'When groups of people refuse to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day unless equal time is given to anti-Muslim prejudice, this is soft-core denial.'" According to Paul, "She received huge applause when she asked how former US President Jimmy Carter could omit the years 1939-1947 from a chronology in his book"; referring to his recently-published and controversial book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, she said: "'When a former president of the United States writes a book on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and writes a chronology at the beginning of the book in order to help them understand the emergence of the situation and in that chronology lists nothing of importance between 1939 and 1947, that is soft-core denial!'"

Main article: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

See also: Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

Reasons:

• No source other than Lipstadt is cited as having used this term. It strikes me as unusual for us to report the use of a neologism by one author as representative of a "recent trend".
• Sources other than Jimmy Carter are cited in the article, yet Jimmy Carter alone is mentioned in the header. Does this accord with basic fairness?
• Lipstadt was speaking at the Zionist Federation's annual fundraising dinner, not a "public rally".
• There is no exclamation point at the end of Lipstadt's "Carter" sentence in the JP article. I can only imagine its inclusion here was made for political purposes.

I suspect that someone is trying to score political points against Carter by adding a dubious paragraph to this article. I can't help but think this reduces the quality of the piece.

I have some doubts about including any reference to the term "soft-core denial", unless it can be shown that other authors have used the term. At minimum, the paragraph should be rewritten to focus on the term, rather than on Carter. CJCurrie 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a neologism and border-line libel. Give it the boot. — MichaelLinnear 00:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "self-hating-Jews", there are plenty of authors for that. Fourtildas 05:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ECHR

I made an edit to the text regarding the ECHR.

• "There are reported cases of Holocaust deniers seek to rely upon Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression, when faced with criminal sanctions against their statements or publications. The European Court of Human Rights however consistently declares their complaints inadmissible. According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right. Holocaust deniers claim that these laws are a form of censorship."

• I have mainly added the cite needed tags. I dunno if the uncited comments are POV, given the nature of the topic. But don't want to start an edit war, so will just give whoever put it up a few days to cite the cases. I will have a quick look myself and try to find them - I tried just now but don't have much time so will try again tonight hopefully. If the mentioned case law from the European Court of Human Rights does in fact exist then could someone cite it. One of the comments regarding Art 17 was incomplete nearing to misleading so I altered it.

--*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There may be one case. I will try and cite and update the text to reflect the same when I get back tonight. If anyone else has time in the meantime then feel free to fix it and put the cites in ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have now added cites:

^ Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 1998-VII, no. 92 (European Court of Human Rights 23 September 1998)

^ Faurisson v France, 2 BHRC UN Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993, 1 (United Nations Human Rights Committee 1996)

I have asked someone from the Law project to check them over for correct format. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC); Edited: 20:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC); Edited: 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly POV article?

I believe that the Holocaust existed, but I see this article as strongly anti-Holocaust denial in much of its language. It's much stronger, for example, than the article on modern geocentrism. As WP:NPOV says, 'Let the facts speak for themselves,' noting that it's for this reason that we don't say '"Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over'. Let's ensure that this page doesn't favor such an odd and erroneous idea as Holocaust denial, but let's also ensure that it speaks the truth in the right way. Nyttend 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether the article is POV or not, it is an accurate statement of the current ( 2007 ) politically correct position. That, in a way, makes it a valuable piece. Noone who reads about the holocaust, WW1,etc believes much of what they read in school trextbooks, wiki, etc. With time most of the current politically positions will be quietly relinquished - of course too late to be of any historical good ( except for ancient history buffs ). History always arrives too late to be of much help - only the current lies are in fashion in time. ( Doesn't it gall you to know that long after you are gone the history books will brush this aside as political trivia )159.105.80.141 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The section on Zundel looks bad. Someone finally added - it must have hurt to do it - that all convictions of Zundel in Canada were declared unconstitutional. However, the second paragraph makes his current situation look like an illegal ( to say nothing of immora/highhanded/..) conspiracy between US/FBI - CanadaRCMP/Seagrams - Germany - Israel? Of course that is true, but I think that probably is what you would want to call vandalism. To make wiki more consistent you could rewrite the second paragraph or edit/falsify/self-vandalism? the first paragraph (ie forget that he won all the cases against him ). As is the section sounds odd.159.105.80.141 11:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

R. v. Zundel found that the prohibition in Section 181 of Canada's criminal code on knowingly publishing false information that is "likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest" was too broad. However, the court also found that Zundel "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities." That is to say, the court did not find that Zundel was not a holocaust denier: it simply found that Canada's laws against holocaust denial, circa 1984 when he was originally tried, violated the freedom of expression provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As to any conspiracy theory you might have regarding his deportation from Canada, as always you are free to add whatever information you have to this article, as long as it is verifiable, comes from a reliable source, and is not based on original research. - Eron ^Talk 13:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're claiming that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Zundel should never have been charged or tried, the gratuitous conclusions usually carry less weigh if the trial was unconstitutional. The comment about the opinions of the peer reviewed historians(ie judges) on the court seem moot seeing as how it comes from an illegal trial. Of course the trial transcript is of some interest - - you may like short exerpts, I love the whole thing ( particularly when witnesses were crossexamined - wikians should read it all and link to it so future readers can get the whole story from an original source - the Hilberg stuff is classic, along with Felderer( you should have an article on him, or at least mention him) etc. The testimony is great - I am surprised that any knowledge proholocaustian would want to debate the trial ( except maybe try to red-herring the affair with the judge's learned opinions on history) . PS I believe the article has links to Zundel's site , CODOH, etc that are probably sufficient for most - the legalish maneuvers that led to Zundel in solitary confinement in Germany ( probably for life - he is an old man ( but Canada wouldn't even let him have a chair while in a solitary cell for years? so maybe Germany is an upgrade, if they have chairs that is) make for some interesting - often dry and intertwined). Thanks for having a link to some reliable sources of this information, I couldn't suggest better ones.159.105.80.141 14:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what they're claiming at all. Reread it again and try to get a grip. Darkmind1970 13:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get a grip on all the changes in the article - I believe the second Canadian trial was also declared unconstitutional - but not until Zundel had been deported to Germany. I thought this was in the article at one time - maybe not. 159.105.80.141 11:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So? What are their arguments?

Ok, so here is Holocaust Denial, but where is the case for it? the denier's argument? the article is very poor at that, I was very disappointed while scrolling over and over to read strong anti-denial rhetoric, THAT'S NOT what I wanted to read about, I already KNOW that the deniers claims are bogus, the article seems so desperate at disproving and casting the deniers in the worst possible lights, without even properly citing their claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.11.115 (talk • contribs).

Hmm, can you point to specific examples of bias? I see a section enumerating the claims of Holocaust deniers, and the second paragraph seems to say outline (in an introductory manner) the same. --TeaDrinker 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That whole section (which begins with "main article: criticism of Holocaust denial") has only one source, and it's to a book called "Denying History", which (Amazon's review says) refutes point by point the Holocaust-deniers' arguments. I agree with .115 that Holocaust denial is balderdash by the ignorant, but the best way to deal with that is to shine a light on it. Compare to similar nonsense at Young Earth Creationism, where they link to sources by actual proponents of the theory (showing triceratops wearing saddles and so on), rather than critics. This page is so biased that it obscures, rather than elucidates, how bankrupt Holocaust denial actually is. --TotoBaggins 01:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is wiki's version of denial. There are some good links to denial at the bottom - these are good and they will lead to most of the rest. If you already KNOW something then this article should be more than sufficient - unless you are just writing a school paper and want a simple list to copy and paste. Reading the original sources - denial sites only as a rule( they are nasty that way)- may change the KNOW to know to ? to BS.159.105.80.141 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A minor/major point - Rassinnier and Buchenwald and gas chamber. The article makes it appear that there was no gas chamber at Buchenwald so therefore Rassinier is not crediable. There is now known to have not been a gas chamber in Buchenwald ( and other camps ) because of the work of Rassinnier. After the war the standard story for years included gas chambers in almost all camps ( ie Buchenwald ). Without Rassinier et al that historical error would still be on the books. 159.105.80.141 17:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research regarding "Holocaust revisionist"

I've removed the following original research to the Talk: page:

Despite the best attempts of some to make a distinction between the terms Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism, the jailing of the discredited self-taught historical author David Irving in Austria in February 2006 shows that the British news media frequently use the term revisionist when referring to a Holocaust denier.

The material is an argument being made by a Wikipedia editor that "some" people are making "best attempts" to make a distinction between the terms Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism, and yet are failing. It's classic original research; the Wikipedia editor has used primary sources to find people who use the term "Holocaust revisionist", and then constructed an argument countering the previous material in the section (various scholars saying that the term "Holocaust revisionist" is deliberately misleading). I encourage Wikipedia editors to review WP:NOR: something is OR if it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Exactly who makes the argument that the the British media commonly uses the term "Holocaust revisionist", despite the "best efforts" of some to reverse this? Please name the person who makes this argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

N.B. The issue isn't with the specific wording, but with the fact that this material is included in order to counter other material; it is an argument without a source for the argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-worded to this:

Despite the best attempts of some to make a distinction between the terms Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism, the four British national London based broad sheet newspapers and the BBC use the term revisionist when referring to a David Irving, the discredited self-taught historical author[11] when he was sent to jail in Austria in February 2006 for Holocaust denial.

What do yo think is the original research there? --Philip Baird Shearer

It's an argument that attempts to differentiate between "Holocaust denial" and "Holocaust revisionism" have failed, based on primary sources (various articles in the British press). Who, besides Philip Baird Shearer, makes this argument? The comments I made above equally apply to this re-wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not understand what you have written. "It's an argument that attempts to differentiate between "Holocaust denial" and "Holocaust revisionism" have failed,". please could you explain it in another way. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that wasn't clear, though it's clear enough in the previous comment. I'll explain again. You are attempting to make an argument. The argument is as follows:

Attempts to by various scholars insist that Holocaust denial be called 'denial', and not 'revisionism', have failed, because here are example of the British press using the term 'Holocaust revisionism'.

Your argument is an interesting one, but it cannot be inserted, because it is original research; you have used primary sources to find people who use the term "Holocaust revisionist", and then constructed an argument countering the previous material in the section (various scholars saying that the term "Holocaust revisionist" is deliberately misleading). You have introduced an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the NOR news papers are not primary sources they are secondary sources, which is . So lets try again:

The four British national London based broad sheet newspapers and the BBC use the term revisionist to describe the discredited self-taught historical author David Irving when reporting on his Austrian trial and subsequent conviction for Holocaust denial in February 2006.

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A source can be a primary source or a secondary source depending on how it is used, including newspapers, which are also listed in WP:NOR as primary sources. When one analyzes secondary sources, they become primary sources for the purpose of that analysis. As an analogy, a commentary on the Bible is a generally a secondary source. However, if one were to write a paper about Bible commentaries, then those commentaries would become the primary sources. So it is here; you have done an analysis of British news sources, and come to the original research conclusion that they have disregarded the "best attempts" of those who want people to use the term "Holocaust denial" exclusively. Now, please respond to the substance of the point this time. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The words above do not analyse the sources or draw a "conclusion that they have disregarded the "best attempts" of those who want people to use the term "Holocaust denial" exclusively.", because I had already modified it to take those concerns into account. Do you have any concerns over the lastest wording? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW From the NOR A primary source is "newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, rather than analysis or commentary of other material;" The artcles cited are not one that contain much first-hand material they are "analysis or commentary". --Philip Baird Shearer

Rather than citing snippets from the NOR policy, which can never be exhaustive in any event, take the point that you are using those articles as primary sources, because you are analyzing those articles, and move on. Now, regarding the current formulation, please explain why this seemingly random factoid about 5 articles that referred to Irving in 2006 is relevant and significant to the topic of Holocaust denial, and explain why you have placed it in that spot in that section. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted the new text in an appropriate place. BTW at least this text carries citations which was not true of the sentence into which this text was inserted. --Philip Baird Shearer

It's still, original research, and now it's also WP:POINT. Find sources discussing the phrase "Holocaust revisionism", don't bring original research based on examples of its use. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You think it is a point. I do not. It is also not original research, because it is not advancing an idea it is reporting a fact. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you t hink that by moving it around or slightly re-wording it you can get around the fact that it's original research? You're trying to make an argument here, that the British press still commonly used the term "Holocaust revisionism", despite the fact that scholars object to it. That is your argument, and you have made it based on some research you did into articles you found on the internet. That's fine if you want to publish a paper or article somewhere on "Use of the term 'Holocaust revisionism' in the British press". Universities, academic journals, and magazine all encourage original research. On the other hand, Wikipedia forbids it. Original research is original research regardless of slight re-wordings of the argument, or slight changes to its placement in the section. If you want this argument in the article, find someone who makes it; look for sources which discuss the term "Holocaust revisionism", not sources which use it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the text inserted

– for example the four British national London based broad sheet newspapers and the BBC used the term revisionist to describe the discredited self-taught historical author when reporting on his Austrian trial and his subsequent conviction for Holocaust denial in February 2006 –

It is a report where is the original research? If you object to this addition to the sentence what about the rest of the sentence that is already there? "Technically, the term Holocaust denial fits the description at the beginning of this article, while the term Holocaust revisionism does not. However, because the latter term has become associated with Holocaust deniers, mainstream Holocaust historians today generally avoid using it to describe themselves." It has no source and it makes a claim. All this text does is give an example of the claim so adding example sources for that claim. Do you think that this sentence should be removed as it makes an unsubstanciated claim? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a very good paragraph; the first sentence is confusing, and the second sentence, while true, is unsourced. Your insertion was problematic both for the reasons mentioned above, and because it did not make the point that was intended. It would have been a better sentence had it referred to Irving as "the Holocaust denier David Irving", rather than " the discredited self-taught historical author David Irving". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that rewording information and moving it around is a valid way of meeting your objections that it is original research. That is a perfectly correct way to behave when someone has raised objections to something. As I said before I am trying to accommodate you concerns, but it should also be noted in this article that perfectly respectable news organizations, that in no way are themselves denying the Holocaust, use the term revisionist to describe people like Irving. I am not sure why you do not want this mentioned, because if someone comes to this page at the moment and reads what is here they are could draw the conclusion that the when the BBC says that someone like Irving is a "revisionist", that he is not a fraud because if he were they would use the word "denier". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have done some original research intended to support an argument, then how can various moves or re-wordings fix that? It fundamentally violates a core principle of Wikipedia. You have finally come clean about the argument you are trying to make - "that perfectly respectable news organizations, that in no way are themselves denying the Holocaust, use the term revisionist to describe people like Irving." That has been your argument all along, and the reason for the inclusion of this text. You need to find someone else that makes that argument, though, you can't cobble it together using primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It has come up several times in the Historical revisionism/negationism pages. There is a different usage on different sides of the pond. In Britain "revisionist" is commonly used by the new media to describe what in America seems to call a denier. This article is doing no one any favours by trying to hid that. We are not debating that though, you have to show how the sentence I have written does not comply with the WP:NOR statement: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." --Philip Baird Shearer 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". That's straight from the policy page. You are trying to build the case that the term "revisionist" is perfectly innocuous in Britain, and that "perfectly respectable news organizations, that in no way are themselves denying the Holocaust, use the term revisionist to describe people like Irving." WP:NOR explicitly forbids that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, when you insert those "fact" tags in the article, is that just because you're annoyed with me, or do you really not think those statements are true? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg I am never annoyed by you why should I be? Generally our dissagreements are very constuctive in the long run and usually create a better article. In these cases the statmets make general assertions which are not backed up by facts. The citations you have given do not cover them in all cases but I'll come back to that later. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I came here via the Wikipedia:Third opinion request. I have read through your discussion, and I appreciate the coolness and good will both of you have displayed so far. On the issue, though, I have to agree with Jayjg. Even in the latest version (for example the four British national London based broad sheet newspapers and the BBC used the term revisionist to describe the discredited self-taught historical author when reporting on his Austrian trial and his subsequent conviction for Holocaust denial in February 2006 ) the original argument is implicit. The context it is placed in makes it original research. The argument is also fallacious, as Irving can be/could be both a revisionist and a denier, even if the terms are not equivalent. The conclusion of the argument is, as far as I can tell, correct, but it would be more productive to find an independent reliable source for it, rather than to imply it from primary usage. --Stephan Schulz 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well win some loose some. Stephan just for my education what is the original research in the statment "Four British national London based broad sheet newspapers and the BBC used the term revisionist to describe the discredited self-taught historical author when reporting on his Austrian trial and his subsequent conviction for Holocaust denial in February 2006 "? It is not drawing any conclusions, it is only reporting a fact that XYZ said ABC which is quite acceptable under NOR. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you attribute that statement ("4 newspapers and the BBC")? If not, where is it coming from? You take a)+b)+c)+d)+e) and synthesize the new fact. Moreover, it's used to support "the latter term has become associated with Holocaust deniers". But we don't know if these 5 cases are typical - maybe the BBC used it once among 50 reports on the case. Maybe 300 other newpapers didn't. --Stephan Schulz 21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in four news papers and the BBC. Usually people do not count simple addition as OR but if you do then: "The Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, the Times, (all Britis London 'Serious' national newspapers] published in London) and the BBC used the term revisionist to describe Irving when reporting on his Austrian trial and his subsequent conviction for Holocaust denial in February 2006." No new fact has been created only a report that these publication use used the term revisionist when describing a Holocaust denier. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Stephan's cogent point above, as he pointed out in his previous comment, in this case a lot has to do with the context in which it is placed. Every piece of information placed into an article must have a reason to be there, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Why would we care that 5 British news sources described David Irving as a "revisionist"? It is a random factoid. However, the original wording, your placement of the statement in the section it is in, and your statements on this page, have made the implicit argument here explicit; the information is intended to make the case that usage of the term "revisionist" for Holocaust deniers is actually innocuous in British usage. When making arguments about usages of words or phrases, it's best not to use original source documents, but instead find sources which discuss usage.

Let me give another example. Let's say I believed that the term "Jew" is offensive, and the term "Jewish" should be used instead, and inserted that claim into the Jew article, sourced by linking to a bunch of antisemitic sites that use phrases like "Jew lawyer" or "Jew you down" or "the Jew Wolfowitz" etc. You might them come along and want to counter that argument, by linking to a whole bunch of other sites which use the word "Jew" in a completely innocuous way; "he was the first Jew admitted to Oxford", "because he was a Jew, he was fired from his job in 1935" etc. So who is right? We're both wrong; instead of trying to construct arguments based on how we interpret various usages we have found, instead we need to refer to third parties who have discussed the usage of the term "Jew"; so, we say that according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000:

"It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun."

Now we have an attributed argument which is actually more nuanced than either position. But what if you still strongly believe the term "Jew" is used by antisemites, and want to point that out? Well, you could link to a bunch of antisemitic sites and note their use of the term "Jew" in antisemitic ways; but this would be an implicit argument. Better would be to link to other sites discussing the term; for example this or this, keeping in mind, though, that a Dictionary is a more authoritative source when it comes to English usage than opinion columns or Google explanation pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that your analysis is wrong. There is nothing in the sentence I have added that is original research over and above the collating of information which is the raison d'être for this project. To save time I am going to try a different formulation. (see the edit to the article). BTW I've been looking at the OED, trouble is it does not report on the pejoratives use of the term. The closest is this one:

1977 Time 30 May 4/3 The recent cluster of ‘revisionist’ books on Nazism, which would soften the frightening teachings of this maniacal movement.

And I know you will want to point out the quotes around the word revisionist. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How many times must we go through this? You are trying to make an argument, that lots of people who are not Holocaust deniers still use the term "revisionist", despite various scholars insisting that only the term "Holocaust denial" should be used. Different ways of wording this argument will not change the fact that it is still an argument, intended to counter the views of those aforementioned scholars, and it is your argument. Not only does the wording and placement make it clear that it is an argument, but you have made it clear on this talk page that it is an argument. Stephan Shulz was kind enough to come here via your Third Opinion request, and he said the exact same thing. Original research "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" - this is exactly what you are doing. And yes, there's a reason your source uses scare quotes around "revisionist". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not written "lots of people". I have witten "are also used by people" and given two example as reported in a third party article. It is you who are reading in "lots". I also note that the current article say "scholars" and not "various scholars" or "most scolars" or "some scholars". It is not my argument it is a report on a report that mentions that two people directly involved with the subject use the term revisionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) -- 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would we care about these two people and their use of the term? Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Is there something significant about these people and the way they have used it? Some point you wish to make with it? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It does look OK now, even if it is making a point. The way, the truth, and the light 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Even if it is making a point" = original research. Your edit summary describes it as a "relevant argument". Indeed, even you see it as an argument; but who makes this argument? Philip Baird Shearer, that's who. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to read the section above and my head almost exploded. I've found a way to try to resolve these things is to try to find COMMON ground. Regarding the section above is there ANYTHING that you guys can agree on? I would start there with baby steps and take one point at a time. Good luck :) --Tom 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Philip really needs to get his point across, and he's willing to try any wording he thinks will do that. I'm opposed to original research, no matter how important Philip thinks it is to get his point out. There's not much middle ground. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg I am reporting or a BBC report that two people who work for organisations that present the Holocust to the general public use the term revisionist. You will think what you like and you may think I am making a point and we can discuss that here on the talk page. BUT you have to take the words written on the article page at face value. I am trying to address you concerns. This is a completly new construction to try to address your concerns, althought as I said before I think my previous construction was not in breach of OR. Now you have not yet explaind what it is in the words I have introduced in the last few hours that build a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.":

Revisionism and Holocaust revisionism are also used by people, other than those such as the Holocaust denier David Irving, who describe themselves as revisionists, to describe Holocaust denial. (sources: Raffi Berg. The fight against Holocaust denial, 14 April, 2005. Richard Evans, Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial,ISBN 0-465-02153-0. Page 145.) In 2005 Raffi Berg for the BBC reported that Kate Taylor, of the anti-fascist publication Searchlight said "Holocaust revisionism is spreading, and not only among neo-Nazis," and also that Kay Andrews, of the UK Holocaust Educational Trust said "With the Internet, you've got to be fairly well-educated to see through what revisionist websites are trying to do" and that she went on to say "So as a result kids put the Holocaust into a search engine, which comes up with all of this stuff, and at 14-years-old they are not mature enough to make that distinction between a denialist site and a more legitimate site." (sources: Raffi Berg 'The fight against Holocaust denial and Holocaust Educational Trust)

Both of the people mentioned are considered to be important enought to be inverviewed by a BBC reporter when writing an article "The fight against Holocaust denial". I will take the BBC as a source on who is notable in this field. Both of them used the words to a BBC reporter writing an article on "The fight against Holocaust denial", That I think that makes who they are and what they say notable. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You've started the paragraph with your argument, the "Revisionism and Holocaust revisionism are also used by people etc.", i.e. non-Holocaust deniers. Then, you bring as evidence, your original research; you have found two people using the term. Are they discussing the use of the term "revisionism"? No. Is the article that mentions them discussing the use of the term "Revisionism"? No. If you want to make this argument, you need to find sources that actually discuss this. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The words in the first sentence are not an argument, they are a simple statment of fact back up with a verifiable source. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they're an argument: Revisionism and Holocaust revisionism are also used by people, other than those such as the Holocaust denier David Irving, who describe themselves as revisionists, to describe Holocaust denial. Who supports that claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As an outside voice, I have to agree with Jayjg here that Philip's additions continue to be original research. Philip has collected some quotes and is deriving a "statement of fact" from them. What you need to do, Philip, is to find a reliable source that makes the actual, specific point that the term revisionism etc are used more widely, including by non-deniers. If it is an important point, a notable somebody, somewhere will have made it before you. Then you can quote them and their analysis without difficulty.Slp1 21:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, their arguments are the same whether they are called 'denier' or 'revisionist'; the fact is, both names are used, and his argument (or whatever it is) merely points that out. It's an overly strict definition of OR that would include that, I think - that kind of edit would pass without comment at most articles. The way, the truth, and the light 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A number of scholars have stated that only the term "denier" should be used, not "revisionist", because "revisionist" is a term deniers use to deliberately mislead. Philip wants to counter that by stating "even so, many people who are not deniers also use the term". He's tried to make that counter-argument in four different ways now. The problem is, WP:NOR explicitly forbids that. It doesn't really matter that you've seen other people get away with it on other articles. When something is explicitly forbidden by policy, it's not "overly strict" to point that out, and reject the violating text. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholars don't control the English language any more than you or I. Look, that every statement have a direct source is an impossible standard that leads to endless pettifogging. The plain truth is that a somewhat useful addition is being removed by people that don't like the term 'Holocaust revisionist'. We ought to record what terms actually are used, not what some people think ought to be used. The way, the truth, and the light 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not OR to write "people other than deniers use the term revisionist to describe deniers". It is a statment of fact with a verifiable source attached. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

a) which reliable source has said "people other than deniers use the term revisionist to describe deniers", and b) why is it important for the article to say that? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's OR to take facts A, B, and C and conclude D. That's what you're doing, Philip. It's really pretty simple. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If I understand this right, all this strikes me as a somewhat silly either way - I don't see what the real point of including or excluding it is. But that scholars say term A (denial) should be used is different from them saying that it is the only one which is actually used, that term B (revisionism) is never used.. In fact it basically means the opposite - the scholars' injunction shows they believe term B is sometimes used, which is what I understand to be the point Philip wants to make.. Seen in that light, ORishness diminishes or disappears.. Why not just a couple of words - much less space than now, which does smack of OR - to that effect, with what Philip gives as an illustration? After all, synonymy claims are made all over Wikipedia without being construed as OR. If they were, every redirect would need a citation.Cowardly 22:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the point. Holocaust deniers use the term "revisionist" in order to give their activities a false veneer of respectability. Scholars have objected to that, pointing out that they aren't really historical revisionists at all, they're just pretending to be. Philip in turn has objected to that, and wants to insert a counter-argument saying "Even so, many people who are not deniers use the term revisionist." I don't know exactly why it's so important to Philip to include this argument, whether because he thinks innocent people are being smeared when they use the term "revisionist", or because he thinks that "revisionism" is actually what Holocaust deniers do. It doesn't really matter though, it's still an original argument, and it can't be included. As I've told him time and again, he needs to find other people making that argument; look for people who discuss the use of the term, not who use the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the scholars are making Philip's case, not the opposite, so it is not really OR.Cowardly 23:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At risk of another edit conflict, one of which I somehow blanked the page with, what appears to be confusing in my remarks above may be that scholars believe term B "Revisionism" is sometimes used by sane people.Cowardly 23:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• "It is not OR to write "people other than deniers use the term revisionist to describe deniers"". Sorry, but it is OR. Direct from Synthesis "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article" which is precisely what many people have tried to explain here. Slp1 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Slp1: There is only one source involved. What are the two facts which have been synthesised together to advance to position C? -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: It is important for the article to say that because not everyone who use the term Holocaust revisionist is a closet Holocaust denier. If this Wikipedia article does not do this, it can causes one of two reactions. To a more knowledgeable person it reduces the credibility of the article and to a less knowledgeable person, they may go away thinking that if the BBC or the Times (or whatever) that calls a man like Irving a revisionist, then he is not a Holocaust denier -- because the article on Wikipeida say that no respectable person would call a denier a revisionist. I am sure that is not the conclusion you would want drawn. By not mentioning common British media usage -- that honest respectable people and organisations may use the term revisionist in a pejorative way -- then as Kay Andrews of the UK Holocaust Educational Trust said "With the Internet, you've got to be fairly well-educated to see through what revisionist websites are trying to do. ... 14-years-old they are not mature enough to make that distinction between a denialist site and a more legitimate site",) this article is in danger of helping to confuse those who Kay Andrews thinks are likely to be confused.

As I think I mentioned previously, this seems to be in part a difference on the two sides of the pond. The term revisionist is frequently used in the media in Britain as a derogatory way. Indeed it is used so frequently that I don't know if anyone has bothered to write an article on it. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Philip, the article doesn't make the argument you attribute to it, and are working so hard to counter with your own argument. It's not up to you to counter what these scholars have said; find someone else who has done it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter that there is only one source involved. You quote Raffi Berg quoting two people using the term revisionism/revisionist and make your "statement of fact" based on that. You need to find someone notable saying something like "Interestingly enough, non-deniers also use the term revisionism/revisionist". Then you wouldn't even need the examples.Like I said, if you find it interesting and if it is important someone notable will have said it too. Slp1 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm also leaning towards Jayjg and Slp1 - its just that the BBC quote is the equivalent of a primary source, something which is a redlight for OR. The best thing to do would be to find some discussion, though perhaps we can deal with whatever misconceptions you think the reader might get by rewording without adding an original synthesis. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Slp1 you agree there is only one source. What are the two facts A and B that have been synthesized together to produce C ? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's ages since I've done maths! A=Kate Taylor's comment B=Kay Andrew's comment C= ergo non-deniers use the term. Though of course the disputed section is actually formatted C=A+B. See I haven't forgotten all my algebra after all!--Slp1 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Slp1 It is stating a fact not synthesizing an argument. If that is original research then so it much of Wikipeida. Let me give you an example from close to the start of the current article: 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. not one of the sources at the end of the sentence directly support the sentence "Most Holocaust denial claims ...". If the sentence I have introduced is OR (Which as you know I do not think it is) then why do you not think that the sentence that starts "Most Holocaust denial claims imply ..." is not OR? If Wikipedia is to be more than a collection of quotes, then I do not think that the sentence "Most Holocaust..." is unreasonable, but AFAICT by you definition of OR unless a source is found that specifically supports the use of the words "Most Holocaust denial claims imply..." it is OR and should be removed (because the closest any of the citation comes to stating "Most Holocaust denial claims" is "According to the Holocaust deniers" which implies "most", but does not state that it is. It also mean that the rest of the ctations should be removed because they do not directly support the current Wikipeda sentence). Likewise the next sentence that starts "Scholars, however", the citiations given list a number of people who argue for the use of denial, but it is not all scholars, (which is what the sentence implies by not qualifiying the term Scholars with "some", "most", or what ever). Again I have no particular problem with that sentence because I do not think it is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" to make from the sources given. But it would seem to me that you should have a problem with those two sentences if you think that "'Revisionism and Holocaust revisionism are also used by people, other than those such as the Holocaust denier David Irving, who describe themselves as revisionists, to describe Holocaust denial."(source: Berg, Raffi. The fight against Holocaust denial, BBC 14 April, 2005) --Philip Baird Shearer 14:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Philip, give it a rest. There is lots of opposition to your edit, and the way I see it, there are only two possibilities (1) you think your edit is making a very important point, which supports Jayjg's claim that it is original research because it is your point, or (2) you admit it is not making a very big point in which case, for the sake of wikiharmony, you should just accept what most people are saying and let it drop. If this does not sound like a reasonable resolution to the situation to you, I would love for you to explain to me why this is so important to you that you keep fighting for it. In the meantime, I will tell you why I think what you are doing is original research. You ask, what is wrong with the sentence, "Four British national London based broad sheet newspapers and the BBC used the term revisionist to describe the discredited self-taught historical author when reporting on his Austrian trial and his subsequent conviction for Holocaust denial in February 2006" since newspapers and the BBC are secondary sources. Well, here is the root issue: they can be primary or secondary sources - the difference between a primary and secondary source lies in how it is used. If you use these sources in order to make a claim about David Irving, - specifically, "According to four UK newspapers and the BBC, David Irving is a Holocaust revisionist," well, then you are indeed using them as secondary sources and I think there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. But I do not think this is what you are doing. I think you are using the four newspapers and the BBC to make a claim about the media - that some elements of the media use the words revisionist and denier interchangebly. In this case, you are indeed using the newspapers and BBC as primary sources and the argument you are making is your own, your own point. And we all know that whether right or wrong, editors' views do not go into Wikipedia. I think that this is clear in the sentence I quote above, but in your original formulation it is even clearer when you used the word "despite" - that word can only function to contrast one kind of account to another. That is an argument. If it is an argument that comes from a reliable secondary source (e.g. an article in the Columbia Journalism Review or a book on media and history or whatever), then you can provide a source that makes this "despite" claim and it is not original research. However, you have provided no such source. The "despite" claim seems to be based on your own interpretation of different ways different people use the words "denial" and "revisionism" 0- in other words, your own argument. That violates NOR Slrubenstein | Talk 12:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of primary sources is not prohibited, anyway. The use of the term 'Holocaust revisionist' is a matter of fact, not just his opinion. Philip's wording may not be perfect, but the solution isn't to remove the whole thing. The way, the truth, and the light 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein I think you were looking at an earlier formulation of the words. Although I do not think that they are not OR, I have moved on to new wording to try to find a compromise. Please see the paragraph "Jayjg: It is important .. " that I wrote above, as it explains why I think it is important to include this information. As to you analysis , please do not analysis what I have written previously instead have a look at my most recent word formulation and explain to me why it is OR as all it is doing is stating a fact that people who are not Holocaust deniers use the term revisionist to describe Holocaust deniers with a source that provides examples. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Philip, you keep trying to make the same point, using different words. It is the trying to make the point that is the OR; thus any wording you use will suffer from the same problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. OR requires an original synthesis, not simply making a point. All sources make a point, after all, and in the case of his paragraph, it's letting the facts speak for themselves which is what we should endeavor to do anyway. Now his addition may be biased (though I don't think so) but classifying it as OR is just wrong. The way, the truth, and the light 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's not an original synthesis, then I'm sure you can find someone else who has made this argument. Philip has been quite clear that he is trying to make an argument here, to counter other material in the article. And, by the way, you need to review WP:NOR, which forbids material that "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" the bolding is in the original. I've pointed this out several times already; I wish people would either read the policy pages or my comments before commenting on them. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it may have gotten lost in the shuffle, partly caused by my accidental blanking, but I would appreciate some comment on my observation that Philip is not really doing OR because what he is saying is basically the same as, or implied by the scholars who say that 'you should use "denial" instead of "revisionism." ' Saying that implies that (these reliable sources believe that) there are sane people, non-denialists, who use the deprecated word "revisionism" to mean "denial". Philip is supported by and is supporting what the scholars say. So if we said something like: Noting the problem that deniers try to make themselves look good by using the word "revisionism" scholars say that you should use "denial" not "revisionism" for them (cite), but this hasn't completely taken hold yet (Philip's cites), isn't doing OR, it is giving a kind of example for the scholars' points.Cowardly 02:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The scholars do not make the point you ascribe to them; the point they make is that Holocaust deniers deliberately mislead when they use the term "revisionist". Their point is directed entirely at Holocaust deniers. They do not comment on what terms non-deniers use, which is what Philip would like to do, because it's important to him to make the argument that people can innocently use the term "revisionist" without being a Holocaust denier. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the list in the footnote, you have a good point for most of them, but take Pierre Vidal-Naquet. He "urges that denial of the Holocaust should not be called 'revisionism' ". Plainly, he is addressing himself to normal, sane, logical people, and speaking of the terms non-deniers should use; his point at least is not directed entirely at deniers. Unless he is crazy, and saying something like " I urge you to not call 'coconuts' by the name 'ostriches' " he is a source on Philip's side. I think he is enough to support some kind of compromise text for now, further exploration of his work and the one that cited it might help Philip even more. Cowardly 07:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The context of Vidal-Naquet's statement is unclear, and unfortunately I don't have more of it, so I can't assess whether he was addressing himself to Holocaust deniers, or others, or both; frankly, I don't think you can either. I'll try to find out more. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The context is not really given, and finding out more would be great.. You made me look at the other quotes more carefully, I was mistaken about them. Thanks for both. But if Vidal-Naquet is being quoted accurately I have to disagree. The meaning and the audience (non Holocaust deniers) is clear. Does he make any sense if addressing an audience made up of or including holocaust deniers / self-styled "revisionists" ? He would be making a rational argument to persuade people who he believes are impervious to reason. He says one should make the distinction because "to deny history is not to revise it." The deniers call themselves revisionists because they think or maintain they are not "denying history", they are correctly revising it. Vidal-Naquet knows this, knows they don't think of themselves as "denying history" but as denying a fairy-tale made up by the evil Jews, so he wouldn't use "denying history" as an assumption in an argument addressed to them. If he were addressing them, he would say something more like the other scholars, like "You aren't revising history, you are denying it! Don't use the word "revising" for "denying"! " He would have "denying history" as a conclusion, not an assumption. Would he use (or be described as using) words like "urge" or "should not" instead of "demand" if addressing deniers? Cheers, Cowardly 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You probably know already, but it looks like the full text of Assassins of Memory is available here: [2]Slp1 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Vidal-Naquet says in section 3 "denying history is not revising it". He, like the other sources mentioned here, is addressing the "revisionists" and their methodology and claims, not the ordinary person in the street, and he also uses that term in inverted commas, or scare quotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting indented too much. Thanks Slp for the text. Since it was only cited from another citation, I didn't bother too look. Oh, well, that's life. My reasoning was correct I believe, but the assumption was wrong. If Roth is being quoted correctly it looks like he has misused Vidal-Naquet. Vidal-Naquet does not make the argument that Roth has him making. I can't find him urging that denial shouldn't be called revisionism, or using that quote as a basis, although I may have missed something. Probably, we should cite Vidal-Naquet directly and get rid of Roth. Roth might be usable as a source for Philip, if he states that belief elsewhere. Too much confusion if we used him as is. Still, Philip is not countering the scholars, but saying something that one, Roth, appears to say, and Philip's stuff is consistent with the other scholars.Cowardly 07:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's POV, and you are trying to get that POV to determine what we may have in the article. The way, the truth, and the light 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That 'Holocaust deniers deliberately mislead when they use the term "revisionist"' - that's the POV. The way, the truth, and the light 04:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what scholars say. Do you have any reliable sources who dispute that POV? If so, what, exactly, do they say on the matter? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than inventing our own arguments, we need to find reliable secondary sources who have made those arguments in relation to this topic; anything else is OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

SV have you read my latest wording that I added to the article page, because in it I am not making an argument, I am reporting a fact that is sourced, in an article that is directly relevant to this topic. Also please see my last paragraph addressed to Slp1, as those who argue that my last addition to the article page is OR, have yet to explain why sentences in the article mentioned in my paragraph to Slp1 are not OR. Jayjg has been beating the drum about OR, (I think he is wrong in his analysis. I think this is partly because he is analyising the sentence in the context of this talk section no on what was written into the article), but there is also the very important consideration of a neutral point of view, which I think is being not being addressed in this section. (see above where I wrote "Jayjg: It is important for the article to ...") --Philip Baird Shearer 10:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Philip, Stephan Shulz has explained why it is OR. Slrubenstein has explained it. jpgordon has explained it. SlimVirgin has explained it. Slp1 has explained it. Tewfik has explained it. jossi has explained it. I have explained it ad nauseam. Even Cowardly has admitted that it is an argument; he has simply said that it is not an original argument, because he felt this argument was implicit in the statements of all the scholars who insisted the term "revisionism" should not be used. You have rejected the explanations of every single one of these people, insisting that they have all misinterpreted the NOR policy. In all this you have failed to address two critical points from the WP:NOR policy; that your insertion, in whatever wording:

• introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.

You cannot deny that that is what your insertion does; indeed, you have been quite open about your reason for inserting it. Your placement of the material in that section is intended to counter the arguments of scholars that the term "revisionist" should not be used. You feel it is important to let the world know that, regardless of what scholars say, lots of ordinary, non-holocaust denying folks use the term "revisionist" anyway. That is the case you are trying to build, and you are synthesizing primary sources to do so. You cannot deny that this is the case, and you must respond to this point, which you have so far evaded doing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not introducing an argument, it is introducing a statment of fact with a verifiable, relevent reliable source to back it up. If you are going to argue that it introduces an argument what is the actual argument, not the implied argument that you are reading in to the two sentences? Further if you still think that it " introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument " Then please answer the questions in the paragraph I wrote above "Slp1 It is stating a fact not synthesizing an argument ..." (Also what about this sentence "However, because the latter term [Holocaust revisionism] has become associated with Holocaust deniers, mainstream Holocaust historians today generally avoid using it to describe themselves." is it not saying what I am saying but without any source?) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's not introducing an argument, then it's just a couple of random sentences inserted into an article that aren't relevant to the topic, and disrupt the flow. Why would you want to have those specific sentences in that specific spot? What does it add to that section? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use denier, revisionist, antisemite, ... whatever. I personally like antisemite, easier to spot the intellectuals in the crowd.159.105.80.141 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)I remember when the term "Nazi" was popular - got so overused that "denier" came into vogue. An ad campaign has be constantly changed to not get stale. I wonder what the next term will be once "denier" gets boring.159.105.80.141 11:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A Manual Approach

I have to play devil's advocate for once. I do not agree with the concept of calling it "Holocaust Revisionism", BUT, I do need to raise an important point that has not been raised in any of the linked discussions at the top of the page under "If you want to argue that Holocaust Denial should be called Holocaust Revisionism, please read (not an exhaustive list):"

The Wikipedia Manual of Style, under Identity, reads as follows:

• Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.

This would require that, according to the Manual of Style Guideline (which is admittedly a guideline, and thus trumped by policies, but there is no policy against making this article Holocaust Revisionism with a redirect at Holocaust denial), anyway, it would require that, since the majority of Holocaust deniers, as has been brought UP in those discussions linked at the top of this page, refer to themselves as revisionists, it is a more appropriate name for this article. Personally, I don't like the Self Identity policy as it reads on WP:MOS right now, but it's because many people feel that it makes articles confusing and is an odd standard for those who want truth and facts to determine nomenclature, that it's currently contested. If anyone else feels, as I do, that it's an odd guideline, there's discussion on the talk page, but I felt it wise to bring this up. 24.224.195.30 00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me what the article is called. They are two terms that are used to refer to the same thing. Given the situation that its advocates call themselves 'revisionists', while most other people label them 'deniers', it seems clearly POV not to allow both names as legitimate. The way, the truth, and the light 12:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That Holocaust deniers refer to themselves as revisionists is documented in the article and is not an issue. What is an issue is that the term revisionist is frequently used as a derogatory term used about Holocaust deniers by people who disapprove of their methods and false conclusions, but that is not mentioned in the article and I think is should. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was referring to the removals of your addition's attempting to diminish the term 'revisionist'.

To respond to your second point, your section did not actually call 'revisionist' a pejorative. I agree that your quotes imply that, but to say it outright would indeed be OR. I don't see that just presenting the quotes is, though. The way, the truth, and the light 13:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that holocaust deniers/revisionists ( take your pick) really don't care much about which term wiki uses. They tend to smile and ask what facts would you like to discuss. This is a subject that can be politicized for the public ( all that a true believer actually cares about it appears ) but once you move into the realm of factual history the denier/revisionist label really loses its usefulness. Of course the factual arena eventually wins - but enjoy for now discussing denier/revisionist minutia.159.105.80.141 11:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)I guess that this minutia has lots of use in the public arena - called grabbing the definitions or something like that. More of a propaganda/politiical ploy - not of much use in factual debate, etc. Good hint as to the trouble/trickiness/... of your opponent, like a twitch in poker.159.105.80.141 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"What is an issue is that the term revisionist is frequently used as a derogatory term used about Holocaust deniers" ?? Do we have any reputable sources that make this point, or is this just an editor's opinion?. What is evident from the looong discussion above, is that the politics involved in this are quite significant, and these should be explored in the article, that is, if editors can find good sources that describe these politics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The generic term "historian" is what you use when you want to have a civil debate, etc. Holocaust denier/revisionist - or Jewish historian, etc - is a good opening when you want to ad hominem the guy before you get to the argument. The title you can give your opponent is far more important than your argument - Propaganda 101. It's part of the "Big Lie" technique. 159.105.80.141 12:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Much the same way people who believe that Elvis Presley is not dead should be referred to as "Elvis Historians" because Wikipedia wouldn't want to give folks the impression that nobody in their right mind believes that nonsense, would you? Gzuckier 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

The article claims that Holocaust Denial is anti-semitic. Holocaust denial OFTEN may carry connotations of anti-semitism, although one's denial of the Holocaust can be based solely on factors outside of prejudiceness. This appears obvious to me. Therefore, I simply propose removing "the fact" that Holocaust denial is anti-semitic. -Meilander

Would that also involve removing the supporting citations? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. These two quotes are used as sources:

1)"When I turned to the topic of Holocaust denial, I knew that I was dealing with extremist antisemites who have increasingly managed, under the guise of scholarship, to camouflage their hateful ideology." 2)"The denial of the Holocaust is among the most insidious forms of anti-Semitism..."

These are editorial opinions. This article incorporates them as factual truths. -Meilander

You know, I think he has a point here. It seems inappropriate to flatly say that all holcaust deniers are anti-semitic, even with sources - since the sources can only say that that's the opinion of many academics. I personally think, while they are usually anti-semitic, there are a small group that get into it for other reasons. The way, the truth, and the light 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, then it's on the two of you to present properly attributable sources showing this. It's not Wikipedia's opinion that Holocaust denial is anti-semitic; it's the opinion of the reliable sources that we attribute the adjective to. We get to do that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. The link between Holocaust denial and antisemitism is well established and referenced in the article. Let's see reliable sources disputing this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither of the quotes provided in support actually state outright that implication. Perhaps we can simply rephrase it to avoid implying that all holocaust deniers must be anti-semitic, while keeping the references. The way, the truth, and the light 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. No personal opinions, please; our research must be source-based. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have offered compromise wording consistent with the sources. TerriersFan 00:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is an unsourced statement in the article:

"Anti-Semitism has been an important part of the revisionist philosophy since the very beginnings of the movement. With few exceptions, charges of anti-Jewish bias have been levelled against many deniers over the years – charges that they have rarely rejected."

Since there is no source, the identity of these Holocaust deniers who rebuke being labeled anti-semites remains unknown. Nonetheless, the article is somewhat funky because it flat-out states that Holocaust denial is anti-semitic and then goes on to say that at least some deniers (hence the use of the word "rarely") reject being labeled as having an anti-Jewish bias. Therefore, the article is accusatory because it makes factual assertions about the beliefs of others in which these people deny.

I also propose re-wording. Can we say something like, "Several scholars attribute Holocaust denial to anti-Semitism" instead of flat-out saying that it's ant-Semitic. (Meilander 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Sorry; 'Several' is weasel wording. I think my version, in conjunction with the source, does the job. TerriersFan 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the trial judgement for Irving vs Lipstadt the Judge rules that Irving can be correctly labelled as racist because he is anti-semitic; and anti-semitic because he is a holocaust-denier. An argument could therefore be made that all holocaust deniers are indeed anti-semitic, since the only ones denying it (such as Irving) still exhibit the behaviour of an anti-semite whilst resisting the label. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well we can't support a statement that holocaust denial is inherently anti-semitic, that's why it was changed. The way, the truth, and the light 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course we can, as that's what all reliable sources says. If you have a reliable source that says Holocaust denial is not antisemitic, please bring it forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There are sources out there (eg "Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy." from Conspiracies: Real Grievances, Paranoia, and Mass Movements, Eric Ward (ed), Seattle: Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment, PB Publishing, 1996). Personally I think that had the article asserted that holocaust denial makes one inherently pro-Nazi, it would have been harder to support ;) EyeSerene^TALK 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that last bit...

"Those propagandists who seek to rehabilitate Nazism are perfectly aware that what marks it indelibly is the infamous genocide of the Jewish people. They take advantage of the credibility of the public and the more or less unconscious desire of the latter that this nightmarish mass murder had never taken place. That is why the Neo Nazis have during recent years launched an offensive which has had a certain success. Their principal themes are the following: that Hitler was not responsible for the "final solution," that the gas chambers as a means of exterminating the Jews never existed, that the number of Jewish victims has been very considerably exaggerated.

"This propaganda is internationally coordinated, and the most virulent of these Neo Nazi publications appear in the major languages. In the following pages, we shall give striking examples of this propaganda which seeks to weaken the cause of the Jews in general as well as that of Israel. "Beate and Serge KLARSFELD

Another for instance: the German law against Holocaust denial is part of a set of laws which include laws against wearing Nazi insignia.Gzuckier 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the original wording, which was more accurate and simpler. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is routinely regarded as antisemitic by reliable sources, both in terms of motive and consequence. It would be obtuse of us to pretend otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never been sure what "obtuse" means. But we get to call it anti-semitic because, well, it is, and we can present and we do present all the attribution Wikipedia requires. That Holocaust deniers don't like having it pointed out that Holocaust denial is intrinsically anti-semitic is their problem, not ours. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence - defines anti-semitism as disagreement with current scholarship. As scholarship changes does anti-semitism change? The scholarship, as espoused by Yad Vashem, etc, has changed so much that most deniers are getting to be less anti-semitic every year, or are believers in danger of becoming anti-semitic?159.105.80.141 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This first section much more suits for composition in the school for the retarded children then for serious article. Only troll can defend such illiterate statement like "Holocaust denial is the antisemitic claim...", IMHO. If author don't even respect people who will read it? Ladies and gentlemen, don't make people laught at Wikipedia as you made me, despite I like Wikipedia! I thought this article could not be worse then last time I've read it. I was wrong. There was written, as I remember, "belief", not "antisemitic claim", but somebody changed that. What about me, that I prefer the term "expression of an opinion". Because that is actually what is called "Holocaust denial" in most cases. Holocaust denial can be supported by antisemites and can raise antisemitic sentiment, but it doesn't make Holocaust denial (revisionism) itself "antisemitic claim". Just because there are antisemites who are not Holocaust deniers, understood?--Igor "the Otter" 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Something from the Vermont Library Guy about the Luther Memo

Article update - If anyone is familiar with the Luther Memo it would certainly be a denier item. Some editor could add it to the main article ( this is the memo that tells Nazi to put off any solution to the Jewish question until after the war. This must be somewhere in the deniers bag of tricks.159.105.80.141 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe - from browsing - that it may be the Schlegerberger memo, Irving found or first used. Luther's memo confirmed Schelegelberger it appears. A group of a dozen or so memos used in the NMT, confirmed the Wannsee, Luther, Scheel, Schlegelberger, Goering link ( ie memos all discussed emigration). These seem to be ignored in most places - Andrew Mathias has an analysis of the memo. It seems they are all non-forgeries ( ie no one has brought that up ). These memos have to be one of the bulwarks of any denial theory - section in the article?? ( Hitler and several layers of SS appear to put the Jewish question on the back burner till a future date ). These memos also seem to be the origin of much of the "code word" concept. There is what appears to be little use of these memos - maybe the code word argument ( with or without merit ) effectively hamstrung them until more conclusive evidence is found in other arenas - ie forensics, etc. Change of tactics?159.105.80.141 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article is heavily lacking in sources. If more of the material is not sourced, I will have to seek a GA review.--Sefringle 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I see 71 cites, of which a bunch are multiple cites and a ton of references -are you being ironic? <<-armon->> 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first line is POV

Sorry, im not antisemitic, and I believe the holocaust definetly did take place and ramifications for the Jews and the world still exsist. However I think it is very POV to make out that even, for some intellectual or factual reason, the reality of holocaust can never be criticised because if it is anti-semitic, even, as the first line suggests, to a slight degree, or partially. I mean honestly I thought wikipedia was meant to stay out of politics and branding people anti-semitic or anti-anything because of their personal theories of belief. One day, if there really is any evidence for it, perhaps the idea that there wasn't a holocaust may seem less taboo, and it is not really at all helpful brandin g someone anti-semitic simply because they don't choose to believe in what the mainstream believes in. Despite my own opinon that the holocaust happened some people may believe it didn't happen simply out of ignorance or because they didn't know all the facts, even if they show no anti-Jewish tendancies or speech, they are anti-semitic mearly for implying the possibilty that the holocaust didn't happen. Im no expert on Jewish theology but I didnt think you had to go through the holocaust to be Jewish, or that it is a religious part of Judaism. Possibly in the future here may even be some Jewish criticism of the scope of the holocaust, or theories that perhaps even it din't happen, would that make that Jew anti-semitic? I haven't bothered to read the rest of the article because the first line really says it all about the writers opinion of holocaust denial, if your against the holocaust your anti Jewish: FACT. I mean there have been some pretty dam bad things the Israeli army has done (with or without sponsorship of the government) e.g. (Im quite young and wasn't around at the time, I also am not an expert on the contempory middle east) the time that the Israeli army (alegedly, though there is strong evidence to support it, like the holocaust in fact) got a christian militia group to attack a palestinian refugee camp during the Lebanese civil war because the Israelis cannot enter them (neither can the chrisitians but the militia group didn;t really care about legitimacy), the Israeli army allegedly blocked all the exits to the camp using tanks and the entire populac eof the camp was massacred (2000 around about). Now although there is pretty firm evidence to support this as truth, does the fact that someone denies this (incidentally genocidal, because the christian militia directed its attacks against arab/muslims) mean that they are anti-islamic or a facist? No? Then why does someone (maybe possibly just on a strange theory) experessing even some partial doubt of the holocaust constitute this person being labeled as anti-semitic? I didnt think the essence of being Jewish was that you had to believe in the holocaust anyway.172.207.67.140 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh sh** I just saw there was a big discussion about it above this, anyway ill write whht im going to say anyway, I just wanted to suggest that although the majority of people (including myself) attribute holocaust denial with anti-semitism, it dosen't need to be definitive. I suggest a sentence like- 'Most people..' (or the majority of people) '..view holocaust denial as a form of anti-semitism because to many it seems to suggest actions that revealed the extent of anti-semitism in Europe at the time did not happen, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Holocaust denial is also often seen as a way to discredit the suffering of the Jews caused by Europeans at the time, and in particular in Germany.'

Sorry if anyone has problems with the spelling or grammar, I have spelling/dyslexia issues.

reliable sources describe Holocaust denial as an antisemitic claim. Do you have any reliable sources that say it is not an antisemitic claim? Also, weasel words are never a good idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because some people say that holocaust denial is GENERALLY anti-semitic, it dosen't mean everybody who speaks is bound to the rules of what are some people's opinions on the matter, although holocaust denial maybe attributes to anti-semitism, the two are not always (and even if they were) dont have to be synonomus. There is nothing stopping me from saying I love the Jews and the Jewish people and then saying 'I deny the scope of the holocaust', if I said this I would obviously not be anti-semitic because I said I loved the Jews. Likewise a Jewish person (as one is mentioned in this article) could deny the holocaust or at least the scope of the holocaust but I doubt a Jewish person could ever be accused of anti-semitism, unless of course they didn't know they were of Jewish origin (or denied it, as possibly Hitler did). It is simply ridiculous to state that you need sources to prove that denying the holocaust isn't anti-semitic, its a fact that you can take just as you know you don't need sources to prove that you can eat, or excrete, holocaust denial and anti-semitism are not the same word (or is my thesaurus out of date?) just because a few sources claim this to be the case it dosen't mean anyone, or myself (even though as I said I dont deny the holocaust) cannot say that I am not anti-semitic but I don't believe the holocaust took place, I didnt think sources from wikipedia had the power to prohibit freedom of speech. It may be strongly, and in most cases, linked to anti-semitism, but it is not definitive as anti-semitism by any strech of the imagination. I mean you don't need sources to tell you what you can and cannot say, anyone could say they are not anti-semitic but are holocaust deniers and there would be nothing to stop them from being this, as being anti-semitic is purely based on a person's viewpoint of the Jewish race in general. Its not stiched into to jewish people that to be a Jew you have to accept the holocaust as having happened, you can take a number of stances, personally I dont see anything inherently anti-Jewish by saying that the holocaust didn't happen, its just challengin facts, its the things that go along with holocaust denial that are anti Jewish.

You're right about this; the first line is obviously wrong, no matter how many sources you have, it's logically impossible to assert that every holocaust denier is necessarily anti-semitic. The way, the truth, and the light 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's logically impossible to assert that every Nazi is necessarily anti-semitic. This does not detract from the fact that Naziism is inherantly anti-semitic, any more than that an individual supporter of holocaust denial might not be a Jew-hater cancels the inherant Jew-hatred of Holocaust denial. That's why we have WP:Undue weight. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are analogous. Nazism is inherently anti-semitic because anti-semitism is one of the core components of Nazism. Holocaust denial is based on believing that the Holocaust - which I define for this purpose as an organised plan by the Nazis to exterminate Jews in their territory - did not happen. I don't see how that includes anti-semitism . The way, the truth, and the light 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-The article gives a list of "Notable Holocaust deniers." Looking through the list, I can't find evidence that Michael Hoffman II and Carl O. Nordling are anti-semitic. Hoffman labels Judaism "the crime syndicate that calls itself a religion" although this appears to be a criticism of Judaism as an institution, much as how one would criticize the Catholic Church but not Catholicism. Don't know if this is still considered anti-semitism, there are anti-Zionist Jews afterall, much as there are Catholics who oppose the Pope. Nording seems to have re-analyzed the Holocaust on a directly statistical level so it's difficult to assert that his doing so is based in prejudice. Gerald Fredrick Töben denies being an anti-semite. Is it safe to assert someone is an anti-semite even if he denies being one? Although it's obvious that the majority of Holocaust deniers are indeed anti-semitic, there are still a lot of gray zones out there so I think it would be best to simply write, "Holocaust denial is the claim that..." Meilander 21:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article did say that a few days ago, until Jayjg reverted. I don't know about Nordling - it seems by our article he might not even qualify as a holocaust denier. Hoffman may be anti-semitic, but he's more of a general crank/loony/conpiracy theorist, I think - I've encountered his work elsewhere on the internet. The way, the truth, and the light 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How many more sources than the nine that are currently there do we need to establish that, by Wikipedia standards, Holocaust denial can be asserted to be antisemitic? I'm not concerning myself here with the list of holocaust deniers -- I never particularly cared for that list in the first place, and it's pretty circular to use the people on the list as proof or disproof of the characterization. Holocaust denial is generally (not universally -- nothing about opinions is universal) held to be anti-semitic. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the quotes establish what would be needed for that, which is that 'anti-semitism is a core tenet of Holocaust denial'. Yes, Holocaust denial is generally considered anti-semitic, and the other wording, I think, sufficiently stated that in a neutral way - see this diff where Jayjg changed it. The way, the truth, and the light 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally? Universally, by Wikipedia standards. There are no reliable sources that I know of denying the anti-semitic nature of Holocaust denial; feel free to come up with some. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't shown any sources affirming it, either, given my explanation above. The way, the truth, and the light 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"No reputable historian questions the reality of the Holocaust, and those promoting Holocaust denial are overwhelmingly anti-Semites and/or neo-Nazis."p. 270 Smith, Tom W. (Summer 1995). "The Polls--A Review:The Holocaust Denial Controversy". Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 59 (No. 2): pp. 269-295. ISSN 1537-533171.227.123.187 00:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I know this is a sensitive topic for some people and what I have said may be considered insenstive and offensive to some Jewish people, however I would just like to affrim in no way was I trying to be anti-semitic by these comments, I just want to give a fairer termanology of including people who may wish to challenge the (generally overwhelming evidence) that the holocuast happened, or it happened to the extent that it did, without them neccessarily being branded as anti-semitic because they follow that view (even though generally this amy be the case), if someone wishes to criticise a concept for scientific reasons (and not prejudiced reasons) they shouldn't be silenced as simply anti-semitic. this isn't anything about the holocaust in particular, its just a matter of principle that although most evidence may suggest something otherwise, there is always an option of rational debate that dosen;t need to be racist.172.207.67.140 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what says even the unreformed UN: "We must reject the false claims of those who say the Holocaust never happened or has been exaggerated. Everyone must speak out." [3]

I strongly support Jayjg's edit and agree with jpgordon here. Please refrain from cheesy comments like "Sorry, im not antisemitic" and try to compact your thoughts in a few lines. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The UN quote doesn't show anything about holocaust denial, only people's opinions of it. I can't see how the present statement can be defended - it is at least questionable, and the other version is definitely NPOV and accurately reflecting the sources (and common sense).

If holocaust deniers are anti-semitic, let them convict themselves by their own words. The Nazism article doesn't start by saying 'Nazism was evil' - even if all reliable sources would agree that it was, there's no need to say it; the same applies here. The way, the truth, and the light

Oops sorry it rreally was a bit cheesy, but in reply to your statement about the UN I have two objections 1. The UN dosen't define academic principles, or what is right or wrong academically, although it may have some official opinion on the matter 2. The UN's opinion on the matter seems to suggest that it rejects any denial of holocaust as justifiable and encourages the rejection of holocaust denial as it as mainly anti-semitic (as I agree with, though IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE) it does not say anything about whether holocaust denial is always anti-semitic, just that it always should be rejected (since it may lead down a slippery slope? Or because the plight of the Jews should not be forgotten? I assume its one of either these two, which I totally agree with, although my opinions dont come into the matter of defining the denial of the holocaust). 172.207.67.140 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

--Sources that suggest Holocaust denial is not universally anti-Semitic:

1) From Andrew E. Mathis' essay "General Semantics and Holocaust Denial" at http://www.holocaust-history.org/gen-semantics/gs.pdf

"Almost from the beginning of the discovery of this widespread destruction of European Jewry before and during World War II, Nazi apologists, anti-Semites, and selfstyled “skeptics” have tried to discredit the accepted history of this period." (Anti-Semite is sub-categorized as ONE of a few groups that deny the Holocaust.)

2) From Prof. Daniel McGowan's essay "A Visit in Prison with Ernst Zuendel" found at http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec06/McGowan30.htm#2

"In many ways the term [Holocaust denial] is used as an epithet to discredit and demean those who question facts surrounding the Holocaust. Nor is Holocaust denial anti-Semitic; there are many Jews who question facts about the Holocaust and many more who object to its being used to elevate Jewish suffering above that of others. [2] Meilander 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If we were to cite those sources, where do you suggest they be put? The way, the truth, and the light 23:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

--I'm not sure we should put these sources in the article, although we definitely could. I'm just looking to use them as evidence right here amongst us users so we can "cancel out" the loaded first sentence. Meilander 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah I just got one more (possibly uneccessary) argument, I just want to say If someone is a really great anti-semite they would have no reason to deny the holocaust as they would view the holocaust as 'good', it dosen't always make that much sense that an anti-semite would deny the holocaust as I would have thought many of them would have accepted the idea of a holocaust (if they are truly THAT anti-semitic). Also I just wish to make out that sometimes holocaust denial can be confused with anti semitism, when it may simply be anti-Zionism (as I think someone else mentioned). In some arab countries and perhaps one Persian one there is denial of the holocaust simply because those who deny it view it as a way Zionists gain sympathy to occupy Palestine and excercise control of other nations (even a Jewish person mentioned refered to its possibility somehwere, ' A holocaust industry'). In a sense the denial of the holocaust in some middle-eastern countries maybe simply 'wishful thinking' that the holocaust never took place and therefore there is no moral responsibility for the other nations in the middle east to care for the Jews. In fact it may show a lack of anti-semitism as they obviously care enough about the Jews to feel if they had been objected to the holocaust they would have some responsibility for caring for them (as islam dictates to some degree)but they feel it might be neccessary to either use teneous facts or deny-facts about the holocaust in order to shed moral responsibility for the Jewsih people. In my opinion that does not constitut anti-semitism, perhaps misinformation (as I believe it is indeed such, unless someone can prove otherwise) or perhaps a kind of 'enforced ignorance' by some in these areas as to the suffering of the jews.172.207.67.140 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh just wanted to add about the 'Sorry' part at the beginning, I wasnt trying to be clever or anything and act as though I was writing a rebuttle, I just meant I was sorry for bringing the topic up.

The first sentence is fine as it stands. Holocaust denial is an intrinsically antisemitic behaviour, and it really doesn't matter what spin is put on it by people who don't like the label. It also seems to bring out some really peculiar arguments that are the product of, at best, seriously sloppy thinking (akin to Irving's "Hitler was really the best friend the Jews had"). It has been repeatedly proved that the only reason anyone would maintain that the Holocaust (as defined in the article) did not take place is from political and/or racist motives - not genuine historical ones as the evidence is irrefutable (this is very different to genuine research into details of the Holocaust). There is invariably an underlying antisemitic agenda. Thus we can justifiably say that Holocaust denial is antisemitic... which is backed up by the preponderance of sources too. Let's not fall into the trap here of debating a non-issue. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and is open to this sort of abuse because we feel that we should justify our edits - in most cases, rightly so. However, we do not need to justify statements like "black is black" and "white is white", no matter how many editors might want to argue their "black is white" theory. EyeSerene^TALK 08:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with "the only reason anyone would maintain that the Holocaust (as defined in the article) did not take place is from political and/or racist motives". You are implying, I think, that "holocaust denial" is an all-or-nothing phenomenon - in reality you will find that there are very few crackpots indeed that that hold a "nothing" position. One might argue, say, that X million died instead of Y million, and of course this could be a perfectly valid academic exercise carried out with no racial motive. The problem arises from the fact that, as the aricle is worded at the moment, HD is an all-or-nothing anti-semitic position. There is no recognition of a "grey-area"; revisionists are all lumped together as "deniers", and any whiff of questioning commonly held beliefs is thus branded "denial" and from there "anti-semitic".

Secondly, quoting the OPINIONS of secondary sources on the matter is still just that - quoting OPINIONS. No amount of quotation of agreeing opinions is going to turn that opinion into fact. It can never be a fact that all HD is anti-semitic, for the simple reason that such an asserion must always be an opinion as it is neither a part of the term's definition, nor logically exclusive of other motives.

Secondary sources are useful as sources of fact where primary sources are not available. They are, however, worthless when people start to cite their interpretations of fact as indisputable actual facts in their own right. And that is exactly the type of thing happening here on this discussion page and throughout this terrible, terrible NPOV article.89.240.186.117 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As is typically the case, defences of Holocaust denial revolve around semantic wordplay - "What if I said it was only 5 million killed, would that be Holocaust denial?". Read the article to understand the definition of Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say just because every act of holocaust denial is anti-semitic (which I don't believe it is, as I mentioned above, possibly more an act of 'enforced ignorance')it dosen't mean to say someone right now could write they loved the jews but they didn't believe in the holocaust. Its a matter of definition, you cant change the defenition of a word by consesus, its liek saying the consensus is that pigs have the ability to fly so therfore they can fly, it makes no sense. the definition of holocaust denial is denial of the holocaust, there is nothing that links anti-semitism and holocaust denial at a base level, although this is the most common way holocaust denial is used in. Just because most people who fall into the category of holocaust denial are anti-semites there is absoultely nothing to stop someone who wished to challenge the facts (perhaps indeed with some crackpot theory, though not neccessarily anti-semitic) about the holocaust and doing so without having any resentment to the Jewish people. As I say the definitions of holocaust denial and anti-semitism are not linked inherently at all, I would not dissaprove by changing the first sentence to 'holocaust denial is the generally anti-semitic claim...' and I think GENERALLY is the key word here, as there is nothing about holocasut denial in the dictionary that HAS to link it to anti-semitism. I don't aoubt that maost holocaust deniers, if not all, are anti-semites, but as the two words refer to different things to link them together straight away at the beginning is simply incorrect, you cant have a consensus that changes the definition of a cat to that of a dog and still say its a cat. Also, i dont really see how the consensus is that against me anyway, its 3v3 isn't it? Maybe not Im just looking at this section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.214.9.67 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 31 May 2007.

The idea that holocaust denial is anti-semitic is counterintuitive. One would think that a person who hates Jewish people would be glad that the holocaust happened and celebrate that fact, not deny it. --Afed 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This would surely imply that accepting the Holocaust as something that happened is anti-Semitic, even though believing in a fact isn't anti-Semitic. --Jacj 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One must also keep in mind the far-right agenda of many Holocaust deniers, which is the "rehabilitation" of the Nazi regime, since they hope to become electable again one day on a similar platform (after which point, presumably, any further elections would be put on hold ;) ). EyeSerene^TALK 10:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an minor variant on a statement Holocaust deniers often make in their own defence: "You should be happy that the death toll has gone down, it means fewer Jews were killed". But reducing the death toll by denying their deaths doesn't actually bring any people back to life, it just negates their existence. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a good point, obviously there are anti-semites who simply dont wish to accept the gravity of what antisemitism has done to the jewish people, the main reason of course that Europe became significantly less antisemitic after the war was the shock factor of the holocaust, some deniers are probably anti-semites who dont wish to accept where this line of thought took NAZI Germany. On the other hand the real bad holocaust deniers, the real neo-NAZI supporters would not deny the holocaust as they would view it as something 'good', not bad as how most people (most sane people at least) see it, and so they would see no moral reason to deny it. That isnt quite the same as anyone who accepts the holocaust is anti-semitic, but it might be the same as saying SOME people who accept the holocaust are either slightly anti-semitic or on the extreme side of anti-semitisim. I think much holocaust denial isnt neccessarily anti-semitic, (its just common for it to be used in this way)is based on a kind of denia;l of the gravity of what had happened, nto neccessarily totally anti semitic, as I say some arab ocountries and people deny the holocaust probably to help alleiviate themselves f any responsibility of making a Jewsih state. Oh and below just something to say to the section below, although I agree the president of Iran is ignorant and his comments have some traces of anti-semitism in them, personally (although its purely my opinion from an non-western standpoint) I think he says most of what he says (and does what he does) to piss poff the Israelis and the Zionists in Israel. I wouldnt really call him an A calss anti-semite, he just likes to try and anoy Israel as much as humanely possible, though the croud he hangs out with are generally anti-semitic. I think he personally just dosent wish for a jewish sate in the middle east, and dosent really have any huge resentment agains tthe Jes as a whole, he just likes to hit Israel where it really hurts. However he did make one good point, if we Brits 9and Germans etc) were to blame for anti-semitism in Europe why are we not dealing with the consequences instead of the arabs, people make this sound like an outrageous idea, but (I know this os off-topic, just wnna say why I think branding him a simple anti-semite is a way the west gets around the few good points he makes) it isnt outrageous that 700,000 arabs have been displaced. I dont think being a holocaust denier neccessarily has to be anti-semitic, it can more simply just be denial, a feelng of guilt for your countries part in the holocaust (etc.). Oneday it is possible someone will challenge the gravity of the holocaust using actual facts (or percieved to be actual facts, if they havent done already), or at the very least some crackpot may suggest that the Jewish people has been 'duped' into believing they underwent the holocaust, and the 6 million of them that died really just went to an undergorund illuminati temple somewhere, this may just be stupid, but it dosent make it anti semitic.172.206.28.229 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So do we have the clear to reformat the article's first paragraph, removing 'anti-semitic' and the sources that claim it's anti-semitic? Meilander 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• No. Not even close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV policy seems to make it fairly clear that we can't assert as fact that Holocaust denial is antisemitic, just as we can't assert as fact that the Provisional Irish Republican Army is a terrorist organisation, or that UFO believers are kooks. If multiple reliable sources make the accusation of antisemitism, then say that, but you still need to make it clear that you're quoting an opinion rather than stating a fact. 217.155.20.163 21:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to make sense to me. The way, the truth, and the light 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the difference would be that all reliable sources state that Holocaust denial is antisemitic, and none state that it is not antisemitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a matter of opinion. Looking at the quotes provided, I can see how someone that already thinks that holocaust denial is inherently anti-semitic (ludicrous as that is) could think that the quotes support it, while it seems to be that none of them could: precisely because it is so illogical, I wouldn't consider a quote to support it unless it were quite explicit. But the real issue seems to be that there's two versions of the first sentence we're dealing with - one that seems biased to many readers, and another (mine) that should be acceptable to everyone (even holocaust deniers). The way, the truth, and the light 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources explicitly described Holocaust denial as an antisemitic belief. Please stop obfuscating. And we're not here to re-write the article so that it's acceptable to Holocaust deniers. Find a reliable source saying that Holocaust denial is not antisemitic. That's the bottom line. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My version does not require any such sources. And you just implied that I am a holocaust denier, didn't you? The way, the truth, and the light 05:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You specifically stated that an advantage of your version was that it would be acceptable to Holocaust deniers. Now please respond to the points made above and below this, that, contrary to your obfuscatory claims, the sources explicitly describe Holocaust denial as antisemitic or antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity says "Holocaust denial is a new form of anti-Semitism, but one that hinges on age-old motifs." You can't get much more explicit than that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

'Holocaust denial is the claim, widely regarded as antisemitic,[1] that the Holocaust - the genocide of Jews during World War II - did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship.'

I think the first statement is fine. It is not stating that HD is antisemitic, but that HD is 'widely regarded' as evidence of antisemitic sentiment. It would be hard to deny that as a fact. It appears from the above discussion that we are perhaps not reading the phrase as it stands but reading too much into it. We perhaps also need to come back to a definition of antisemitism. To my understanding, antisemitism is a sentiment, philosophy, act, intention, mode of discourse or desire, individual or corporate, that negatively distinguishes the Jewish peoples from the rest of humanity. So even if antisemitism is derived from ignorance or cultural upbringing, it is still antisemitism. Now someone may deny the Holocaust from ignorance, lack of education or cultural upbringing, as well as from a barbarous philosophy such as Naziism and Neo-naziism. But anyway you slice it, from whatever cause it is derived, it is reasonable to report that HD may be reported 'widely accepted' as antisemitic. In fact I would argue that it 'is' objectively antisemitism. But I am not suggesting the phrase be changed. It is fine.--Gazzster 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Which statement are you referring to? Are you saying that either is acceptable? The way, the truth, and the light 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the statement as I quoted it. Someone has since edited it. But at a cursory glance the edit is good too.--Gazzster 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The way, the truth, do not force people to keep on adding more and more sources. Your reverting of this is unreasonable and disruptive. Produce some non-denial, mainstream sources that say Holocaust denial is not an example of antisemitism; if you can't, kindly cease and desist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not forcing anyone to add sources. I stated right away that the problem I had with the article could not be fixed with more sources. Furthermore I was not the person that originally raised this issue. The way, the truth, and the light 05:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a source-based encyclopedia. We use and describe terms and issues the way reliable sources do; we don't come up with our own opinions. Therefore, if you want to argue that Holocaust denial is not antisemitic, please produce some reliable sources who back you up, and we will read them. Until you do that, please do not revert again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as SlimVirgin has stated; the people who object to the term have all done so using their personal opinions and arguments, not based on sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to return again to the concept of antisemitism. It is such an emotionally and politically sensitive word that it is very difficult to deal with it objectively. Justifiably so. But I was attempting to argue, not very well I grant you, that we ought to treat the idea objectively, abstracting (if we can) from subjective considerations. In this sense any act, thought or word that deals with the noble Jewish people negatively is antisemitic. So it is perfectly reasonable to call HD antisemitic, because HD harms the Jewish people. Does everyone who commits antisemitism in this sense have an explicitly antisemitic intent? Not necessarily.But given the widespread public knowledge about the Nazi hate crimes, it would be difficult to argue that there would be no such intent. My apologies to any Jewish editors if this is sensitive; please offer us your insights.--Gazzster 05:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

--The dozen or so sources used to claim- as a fact- that Holocaust denial is anti-semitic are ALL opinions. What are the guidelines for a reliable source? These are critiques of Holocaust denial. These aren't historical examinations of the "Holocaust denial movement." We need to find NEUTRAL articles that explore Holocaust denial and its history. Since these are difficult to find, the Wikipedia article needs to become one itself, not become part of the vast group of editorials that it cites. Meilander 06:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you measure the difference between an "opinion" about antisemitism and a "fact" regarding it? What makes you think those sources are unreliable or non-neutral? Finally, have you found any reliable sources that state Holocaust denial is not antisemitic? We're still waiting. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, while we're at it, why have you been editing the article as an IP, why have you added yourself to Wikiproject Judaism, and why are you pretending to be an admin? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you implying by bringing up these details about me? ;) Meilander 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to the questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, we can measure antisemitism objectively by its effects, abstracting from (but not negating the importance of) sentiment and opinion. We can then call any deed that harms the Jewish people antisemitic, regardless of sentiment. HD can then be classified as antisemitic, as it harms the dignity of the Jewish people. To use a somewhat trite analogy, scientific research could be reasonably called 'anti-creationist', but the intent behind that research is not necessarily anti-religionist. But the effect of that research is objectively anti-creationist.--Gazzster 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. So we're interested in the 'formatting of previous comment' and scoring points off one another, but not in addressing the issue in hand? --Gazzster 07:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Meilander - who is on my side on this issue - put his previous comment in the wrong place, that's all. I'm hardly 'scoring points' off him. As to your point, yes, if anti-semitism is defined that way, HD qualifies. But I don't think that's a useful definition of anti-semitism. The way, the truth, and the light 07:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I apologize 2) Why don't you think it's useful? (genuine question)--Gazzster 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of a response I suggest that anti-semitism, at least in the opening statement, be treated in the sense I have explained.And Meilander and Jayjg- perhaps you could settle your dispute on your own talk pages.--Gazzster 09:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, you can't expect me or anyone to be on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. So the lack of a response after an hour and a half tells you nothing. In any case, our article on Antisemitism defines it as 'discrimination, hostility, or prejudice directed at Jews' - that's reasonably close to my working definition. Your proposed definition is just strange, and in the absence of sources I'd assume it was devised ad hoc. The way, the truth, and the light 00:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The current text is fine and is supported by enough refs. The correlation between HD and AS is established and a reader can read the refs and follow the link to learn more on the phenomenon of Jew-hatred. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is people dont realise there IS a difference between an opinion and a fact. Just becasue several sources may point to the fact that holocaust denial is 'always' anti semitic this does not mean it has to be so. these sources dont dictate human thought or the brain, or human opinions. At the moment the first lien reads that it is a FACT that hlocaust denial is always anti-semitic, but to be honest isnt that FACT up to the indivdual who denies the holocaust? If they choose to deny the holocaust yet still be sympathetic or even pro-semitic there is nothing to stop them doig this and proving this 'fact' wrong. Just because most notible cases of holocaust denial (or possibly all so far, but it is usuallly only the radicals who attract attention) have been with anti-semites this would not stop someone from just proving you wrong with forming their own opinion on the spot. Wkipedia's sources, as I said before, don't dictate the human mind or human opinions/decisions and so it is completly possible for a random individual to deny the holocaust and not be anti-semitic whenever they want. At the end of the day I dislike the term anti-semitic (no not because I am one, in fact I totally agree most holocaust denials are probably neo-NAZI antisemites) because it is thrown about and put on people like a tag, why is it up to wikipedia to say that someone else is anti-semitic because they deny the holocaust? Why is it up to wikipedia to say someone is anti-semitic full stop (unless of course they have admitted this themselves, or have actually taken an obvious standpoint against the entire Jewish race directly in their words). I understand to nmmany Jewish people this may be a very sensitive issue, and Im no way am I trying to deny this personally, but sensitive or not wikipedia has to have ioits articles written in a correct way. Basically despite having no sources to the conntrary you cant use sources to define ALL human opinion which is subject to change whenever that person feels like changing it.172.141.140.178 13:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC) you can call me bub

Oh and another thing, as unlikelly as it is, what if a person came to this site who was a sceptic on the holocaust (uneducated or whatever) and had doubts as to whether the holocaust happened that he/she maybe would like to set straight. As soon as he/she looks at the first lien he/she is isntantly dubbed an anti-semite because they had doubbts (for education reasons or wahtever). Now this could do twp things, it could either make them very pissed off and become anti-semitic (you know the usual crap, Jews rule the world, Jews rule wikipedia) or it could simply insult them which was not why they came to find out whether holocaust denial has any credebility or not. In fact I dont really care if the rest of the article is written in aPOV against holocaust denial, but the fact that the first line's termanonolgy is so definitve could actually put people off(e.g. they think ti wil simply be crap/biased all the way through) finding out why holocaust denial in reality isnt that credible.13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)you can call me ron

Just curious; in your view is it an "opinion" or a "fact" that Hitler was antisemitic? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you had read what I had said (yes I admit it is a lot) then you woudl know that wah tI was saying was that anyone who calls themself anti-semitic, or expresses explicit feelings againt 'the Jews' as a general race, is an anti-semite. If they personally admit to being anti-semitic (as was common in Hitler's day as it was 'trendy' to be an anti-semite, not that its relevant, but worryingly I think its becoming the same with anti-islam/arab sentiments in todays world) then they are anti semitic FACT, wikipedia doesnt have the right to name an entire group of people anti-semitic especially if some of them (as shown in these examples) do not consider themselves to be anti-semitic, and do not express explicit hatres against the entire Jewish race. Now the only exception to this rule of being an anti-semite (FACT) only if the anti-semite in question expresses general, explicit, hatred against the entire Jewish race, or just calls themselves anti-semitic, is when somebody physsically proves their anti-semitism by phyuysical expression or making a law (e.g. Jews should be segregated) or actual physical violence without a motive against several Jews but no memebers of other races. Otherwise all anti-semites in question, who hold questionable beliefs, should be treated as the 'accused' and not the 'guilty'. It is not wikipedia's place to deem an entire group of people (some whom are maybe simply sceptics of everything, including reliable facts) anti-semitic based on Wikipedia's opinions of who is anti-semitic or not. If someone does not consider themselves anti-semitic (which many holocaust deniers have said they dont, even if this is a little dubious in reality) then you cant say that they are anti-semitic FACT. This was not the case of Hitler who expressed explicit hatred (not subversive hatred like many accussed anti-semites/holocasut deniers) against the entire Jewish race, and on more than one occasion called himself anti-semitic. Apart from times of physical proof (not supposed intellectual proof) anyone who claims anyone else is anti-semitic, when they themselves dont consider themselves to be, is merely expressing an opinion and this cannot be proven to be a fact, the first line is merely an opinion in this article. The sad thing about this article is that most of it is very well written, but the first time I read the first sentence I thought (and I know I dont speak for anyone) 'there is no point in reading the rest of this article because it wont include factual evidence against holocaust denial it will simply shout deniers down as anti-semites'. Now this didnt seem to be the case when I bothered to read it (as I have to to properly comment on it) but I cant be the only one who thought something along these lines (thats an opinon for you). Its purely wikipedia's opinon on who is anti-semitic, and whether all holocaust deniers have to be anti-semitic, there is nothing to stop someone who is pro-semitic forming a theory that the holocaust was faked right now and proving that first sentence wrong, it is merely an opinon. Also refering again to your mention fo Adolf Hitler, he wasnt a holocaust denier so He is kind of irrelavant anyway to this discussion.172.141.140.178 20:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So you've come up with your own definition of how we can discern a "fact" antisemite from an "opinion" antisemite? A complicated series of rules based on whether or not, in your opinion, they have expressed "general, explicit, hatred against the entire Jewish race", or called themselves an antisemite, or by "physical expression" or "making a law"? Please review WP:NOR; Wikipedia is a source-based encyclopedia. Rather than making up our own rules for things, we just quote what reliable sources have said about something. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question for everyone on both sides of the argument: Is it safe to claim that National Socialism is Antisemitic? Meilander 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, anti-semitism is a fundamental tenet of National Socialism (Naziism). The way, the truth, and the light 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is, if reliable sources say it is, and if no reliable sources say it is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your twisting what Im saying, you asked for my opinion, I gave it to you, you dont have to accept it, In truth anti-semitism conducted by another person is only an opinion unless that person has admitted/boasted that they are anti semitic, as the NAZIS did, these are not 'my rules' this is just logicall, you can accuse anti-zionists of being anti-semitic, but many of them are not, in this case it is just an opinon. When a person claims that they are atni-semitic, or use words to that affect (e.g. I hate all Jews) it isn't an opinion that they are anti-semitic as they have SAID they are anti-semiitic and they are the only ones who can KNOW that they are personally anti-semitic, its logical, sources cant 'prove' anyone is amnti-semitic if they do not claim to have any hatred against all Jews. If you dont want my opinion on the matter then dont ask it of me, stop trying to cause argument, the truth is someone ca only be 'proved' to be anti-semitic if they personally claim to be anti-Jewish, (or for that matter anti-aabic, as I believe arabs are semites? Although I think the term no longer refers to prejudice against both races.) because no one else can 'know' that they are. Thats not my opinon, that is a fact. On the subject of 'the rules' I made, those are possibly my opinions (though they are not complicated, I simply said if someone has shown unprovoked violence multiple times against Jews then they can be called anti semitic in my opinion) but if someone is convicted in a court of law (i dont know if a law exsits, but it would presumably in Germany) of being anti-semitic, then I think (although its dubious as it could still be a matter of opinon) that wikipedia can safely call them anti-semitic. If its just your POV (see WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA if your intrested) that someone is anti-semitic because theyve done something, it is not a FACT because the only person who can factually say they are personally anti-semitic is themselves, (or dubiously a court of law).172.141.140.178 09:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, your views are interesting, but it appears that all reliable sources say Holocaust denial is simply antisemitic, and no reliable sources assert it is not antisemitic. We have to go by policy here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay I understand what your saying, and by consensus most people seem to disagree with me, it just seems illogical to me that holocaust denail is treated as a category of anti-semitism (I wasnt aware it had categories) when in fact in terms of wording it is a completly different 'act' although it may have connotations. I see your point, and accept that the sentence dosent neccessarily need to be changed (although I personally would like it to be), as nowdays most people would immediately attribute holocasut denial to anti-semitism, and all holocaust deniers that I have known of have not based their views on facts but more on clear anti-semotism, or anti-semitism lurking under the surface. I supose the only time when the article would 'have' to be changed was if some holocaust denier (or critic) found actual legitimate evidence to support his views (which seems very unlikely). Personally I feel that it dosent really make sense that anti-semitism and holocaust denial are treated as though they are the same word, but the consensus is they are basically, and as there ar'nt really any sources showing something to be the contrary and practically no one would argue against the fact that there always has been holocaust denial based on at least some degree of dislke to the Jewish people, there is no point in arguing my point any further unless something really big changes. Just bear in mind what Iv've said. PS. Soz it took so long to come to this conclusion =P it took up quite a lot of talk page.172.142.152.117 18:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How about Noam Chomsky?

This is from the wikipedia page on the "Faurisson affair", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work." (quoted in Noam Chomsky's Search for the Truth)

He later elaborated: "In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue." [10]

The whole page is strikingly parallel to this heated discussion here on this talk page. 24.60.182.59 05:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

This is something that goes beyond just reliable sources. We're going to have to come to some sort of interpretation here through community consensus. While it's certainly true that not every single person who questions some aspect of the Holocaust is antisemitic, it's a fairly reasonable claim that most are. It's virtually impossible to distance Holocaust denial from antisemitism, and any attempts to do so are downright silly. We don't even need all those references at the beginning; the claim can survive on notability alone. Keeping all of this in mind, I propose adding "generally" before the antisemitic part, as I'm sure others have proposed (I haven't read everything here).UberCryxic 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Your argument doesn't support this. The lede says Holocaust denial is the antisemitic claim that.... It does not assert that all holocaust deniers are antisemitic; rather, it says that holocaust denial itself is antisemitic. People profess holocaust denial for all sorts of reasons, ranging from Jew-hatred (the main reason, as far as I can tell) to iconoclasm to cynicism to a legitimate heartfelt belief that The Truth Hasn't Been Told; but holocaust denial itself is inherently antisemitic, per the sources provided. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Except that it doesn't make sense to call Holocaust denial itself anti-semitic, as I've explained above. Given that holocaust denial doesn't make any explicit anti-Jewish claims, that could only be sustained by using a non-standard definition of anti-semitism; doing so is inherently biased. It is probably true that 'people profess holocaust denial for all sorts of reasons', and sweeping them all together as 'anti-semitic' is silly. That denying the Holocaust is usually associated with anti-semitism is doubtless true; that that makes it an anti-semitic idea is nonsense. The way, the truth, and the light 19:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Feel free, then, to provide some contradictory reliable sources. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To posit HD as 'an anti-semitic idea' is not nonsense. No-one has a window into another's soul; and so we cant say all HD deniers are explicitly anti-semitic. We can however say that the idea of HD is inherently (that is, per se) anti-semitic. And the reason for this is simple; it makes the assumption that the Jewish testimony is fraudulent or at least mistaken. To do so is clearly to prejudice the universal testimony of the Jews. --Gazzster 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

it makes the assumption that the Jewish testimony is fraudulent or at least mistaken. Why do you think this can not be true? If this is a fact, it can not be prejudice. Facts are neutral. They can't be antisemitic.--Igor "the Otter" 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Behaviour defines the label

Looking at some of the posts above, maybe it would help if we took a step back from this before anyone violates WP:CIVIL ;) As I posted earlier, I support the "hardline" Holocaust denial is antisemitic approach, but for the sake of wikiharmony I am prepared to accept Holocaust denial is universally regarded as antisemitic or some similar variant... It is true that the given sources can be challenged if people have a mind to - it's a subject where it's almost impossible to find a completely unbiased view (ie one not written by someone with a interest, unconsious or otherwise, in taking sides). However, they all stack up to the same thing: that common usage and understanding attributes the act of Holocaust denial as an antisemitic behaviour, regardless of the motives of the denier. To take an analogy, the motives of those who took part in the African slave trade were primarily economic, but the behaviour, as we see it today, was racist - Africans were regarded as inherently less human than white Europeans, which made slavery acceptable in the eyes of many at the time. We could justifiably label anyone who advocated such an activity today as racist, even though they might argue that their motives are not. It is the behaviour that defines the label. EyeSerene^TALK 09:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is what I was trying to say, and you do it more eloquently than I.--Gazzster 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I am new to Wikipedia as a member (not so much as a viewer) and that assertion (and this article) simply reek of sweeping assumptions and blanket labels. Anti-semitism is not analogous to holocaust revisionism as the two do not have the same goals.

Holocaust revisionism is concerned with finding the 'truth' behind what happened in the 1940's. It asks the conventional community whether or not the 'myth' of the holocaust was simply a fabrication by the victorious Allies to justify their war against and occupation of Germany, the new movement known as Zionism, and to cover up the attrocities done by the Allies themselves. Within it, Holocaust revisionism does not have any provable basis consisting of anti-Semitism. It is an academic movement at heart, not a social/political/religous movement. Anti-Semitism, as its name implies, is a political movement by certain people to destroy the "world conspiracy" they seem to see everywhere. And if you haven't gathered, Holocaust revisionism is a quest for the truth.

However, I will concede that several extremist groups have, in fact, supported Holocaust revisionism along with many of their other views which (among others) include anti-Semitism, but this is not a fair basis for judging the movement as a whole. If we were to judge democracy as a government based on the French Revolution, would we view it in the same light we do today? I highly doubt it.

I hope I did this first post right, but if I didn't, please tell me.Vissario 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Holocaust denial is focussed on Jews, not on historical inquiry, and specifically on re-writing history so that Jews become the villains, not the victims. In any event, the debate is irrelevant; many reliable sources state explicitly that it is antisemitic, nor reliable sources state that it is not antisemitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We must ask ourselves, 'what would motivate someone to ask 'the conventional community whether or not the 'myth' of the holocaust was simply a fabrication by the victorious Allies to justify their war against and occupation of Germany, the new movement known as Zionism, and to cover up the attrocities done by the Allies themselves'? In the face of the mass of evidence and popular understanding, why? In the face of the testimony of the Nazis themselves, against the evidence at Nuremburg, why? It is almost certain there is a motive which is not altogether scholarly. And I would have thought the only justification the Allies needed was the invasion of Poland, the invasion of France and Russia, the attempted invasion of Britain. It was hardly necessary for the Allies to invent or exaggerate anything.--Gazzster 08:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Vissario: firstly, thank you for the message on my talk page. I hope you don't object to me responding on here - I mean no offence, but I feel that with such a contentious subject, it's best to keep the debate completely transparent ;) Secondly, you may or may not be aware that, as per the warning at the top of the page, this talk page attracts a fair bit trolling. I would therefore not normally respond to comments such as yours, but (assuming good faith) I'll add my 2p worth to Jayjg and Gazzster above (both of whom express themselves perfectly eloquently without needing my input!). Thirdly, I have no intention of rehashing the article. If you are really serious about the "truth", do your own research, follow up on the links, read documents like the Irving Trial transcript, and come to your own conclusions. To briefly summarise what I understand the mainstream position on this page to be:

• We do not need to "find the 'truth'"; we already know the truth, and have done since at least 1945. No credible research has challenged this yet, nor ever will... although details change, and errors get corrected, the historical existence of the Holocaust is beyond dispute.
• Whilst antisemitism may not always equal Holocaust denial, a few of us believe we are justified in saying that Holocaust denial does equal antisemitism (in behaviour if conceivably not in motive). This does not mean that (real) historians investigating the details of the Holocaust are antisemitic, or that we have a pro-Jewish agenda. We just believe in telling the verifiable truth. After all, this is an encyclopedia.
• We cannot (note: not merely "do not") trust the scholarship, research and writings of the figureheads and champions of the Holocaust denial movement. They know as well as we do that they are lying through their teeth - their hope is to plant doubts in the minds of people who come across their scientific-looking publications and take them at face value. Not one of these deniers is taken seriously by anyone (scientist or historian) who knows their stuff, because they can spot the lies for what they are - deliberate attempts to mislead those of us who are not so well informed.

If you genuinely believe 'Holocaust revisionism' has anything to do with truth at all, you have seriously misunderstood what's going on ;) EyeSerene^TALK 11:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies.

I still do not, however, understand why this is such a problem. I am not asking for you to say Holocaust revisionism is correct as that would not be a fact; it would be an opinion. What I am asking for you to do is stop labeling Holocaust revisionists as anti-Semites. There is no "proof" that Holocaust Revisionists are all anti-Semites. What there are, however, are opinions from professors and intellectuals which, even though their credentials are many, ARE STILL OPINIONS. If anything, the slandering of holocaust revisionists (by blanket labeling them as anti-Semites) is in its self far more political than you claim holocaust revisionism to be. Why you ask? Because it ignores their arguments and uses the Hitlerum ad reducto argument in pursuit of criticize a certain supposed political goal.

It is almost certain there is a motive which is not altogether scholarly.

Certain? To you perhaps? You know, scientific data and concepts only become unscholarly when people attempt to apply them to scenarios to prove a political point. Holocaust revisionism, at its heart, is a conspiracy theory claiming that the holocaust was either fabricated or exaggerated by the allies to justify their carving up of the world into two packs. Now, it is true that anti-Semites have used the theory to promote their paranoia of the Jews, but what is also true is that anti-Semites hijacked the theory from other people not so concerned with that, but more concerned with finding the 'truth'.

But anyways, just to be certain, do you have anything which conclusively shows Holocaust revisionism is, in its self, anti-Semitic? Because after rereading the article, all it has are opinions which are easily very subjective and biased towards a 'certain political agenda'.

In fact, Holocaust denial is focused on Jews, not on historical inquiry, and specifically on re-writing history so that Jews become the villains, not the victims. In any event, the debate is irrelevant; many reliable sources state explicitly that it is antisemitic, nor reliable sources state that it is not antisemitic.

These are little more than opinions. Once again, wikipedia, as far as I have seen, is based on facts, not political opinions which are aimed at achieving some type of goal. Our job is supposed to be to provide fair, unbiased, and nonpolitical facts which do not attempt to achieve a particular political goal.

Once again, I challenge anyone to provide some type of factual proof, not a scholarly opinion, as to how, exactly, holocaust revisionism is in itself anti-Semitic.

They know as well as we do that they are lying through their teeth - their hope is to plant doubts in the minds of people who come across their scientific-looking publications and take them at face value. Not one of these deniers is taken seriously by anyone (scientist or historian) who knows their stuff, because they can spot the lies for what they are - deliberate attempts to mislead those of us who are not so well informed.

And how do you know that? Because it is so obviouse to you that they are?

In my opinion, wikipedia should be without the opinions of its authors; it should be a factual analysis of a people, a thing, or an idea without any of the posturing you are likely to find when you ask a person. I realize this may be hard for most people, but just because you don't believe in something does not mean it isn't "real". For clarification, I am not asking you to say the holocaust didn't happen, I am asking you to provide a concise analysis of the movement and its theories without criticizing in the web Page which is supposed to bring light to them. Because, you already have a page to criticise them with.

a few of us believe we are justified in saying that Holocaust denial does equal antisemitism (in behaviour if conceivably not in motive).

That's your opinion, not the truth.

We do not need to "find the 'truth'"; we already know the truth, and have done since at least 1945. No credible research has challenged this yet, nor ever will... although details change, and errors get corrected, the historical existence of the Holocaust is beyond dispute.

I understand your opinion, however, that is more properly included on the page devoted to Criticisms of Holocaust Revisionism, not the page describing the movement.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to me and I hope something about this page gets done. Thanks! Vissario 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vissario, some of us might be asking ourselves why you are so keen to defend the integrity of revisionist ideas. But I restrain myself. The only thing I will say is, as Eye Serene and myself have already said, that HD is antisemitic, even abstracting from intention, because it denies or demeans the suffering of the Jewish people under the Nazi regime. The Jewish people certainly see it as an affront.--Gazzster 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But the article isn't stating that actual investigation/study/research/asking questions re the holocaust is antisemitic behavior. To quote the first sentence: "Holocaust denial is the antisemitic claim that ... did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship." (emphasis mine). "Current scholarship" on any topic tends to have a variation in opinion, usually including some outliers. In any field, even those out there in the distant orbits of the far outliers are regarded as legitimate researchers, albeit often loosely described as nuts, but there is a reasonably sharp division between strongly dissenting scholars, and cranks. To my reading, this article hasn't in any way identified folks involved in what is generally regarded as legitimate scholarship as deniers, even those whose thrust is mainly to reduce the estimates of victims. But I think in any field, Wikipedia is remiss if it does not give a clear indication of where "the extent described by current scholarship" ends and full fledged crankhood begins. And holocaust denial crankhood doesn't exist in the absence of explicit or implicit antisemitism any more than belief in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion does, despite the theoretical possibility that somebody might be able to believe that the protocols are an actual document, yet still have no grudge against the Hebrews. Similarly, the article isn't asserting that those who question the Holocaust purely from lack of information and are not prejudiced against such information when it is provided are driven by antisemitism; as distinct from those who become familiar with "current scholarship" and reject it outright.

After all, on what grounds does a person reject "current scholarship" which, by definition, includes the amassed data and interpretations on any topic, other than raw irrational bias? And further, how can anyone maintain that the Holocaust is greatly overblown, inescapably implying that literally millions of Jews now alive are engaged in a vast conspiracy to lie to the world, and paint themselves as "not antisemitic"? What is their position? "Love those Jews, despite their successful and profitable defrauding of the human race"? Gzuckier 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And further, how can anyone maintain that the Holocaust is greatly overblown, inescapably implying that literally millions of Jews now alive are engaged in a vast conspiracy to lie to the world, and paint themselves as "not antisemitic"?

In the 1940's, Joseph Stalin convinced millions of his own people that the capitalists were actively plotting the invasion of the Soviet Union and its allies. If I asked them all to sit down and write a history and they included that, would I be a Russophobe by saying they all lied? No, because they were all telling the truth; the truth they knew was not the truth the world knew. Capitalist never were in control of nations nor were they actively plotting the destruction of the Soviet Union. But, in the minds of them, that it what was happening and that was what was relevant.

Not believing what was said by the people of that time period does not equate to having some type of deep-seated bias against them. Because, after all, millions of people in the 20th century BC would swear up and down that evil spirits and monsters existed, but we know better now.Vissario 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

so you're saying that holocaust denial may include the belief that millions of Jews aren't lying when they say they were imprisoned in concentration camps, they are merely mistaken? Gzuckier 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

whoever said that millions of Jews were not imprisoned? FarFromCrowd 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as FarFromCrowd said. The "Holocaust", as it is generally referred to, was the supposed systematic genocide of "undesirables" by the Nazi regime (and to a lesser extent the Japanese and Italian regimes). Most moderate holocaust revisionists will not say that Jews weren't imprisoned or even that they weren't put under bad conditions at the end of the war, but they will say that there was no program directly aimed at their annihilation as a race.

To go directly to your question, the main contention is that the Jews were indeed mistaken about what they saw in the concentration camps. They saw poor sanitary conditions, body piles, and smoke stacks, but what they did not see was the havoc the Allies were creating with German supply lines (railroads, highways, train depots), national infrastructure, and the industrial base. They could not take into account the fact that Germany was rapidly losing its ability to feed its soldiers, much less concentration camp prisoners. So, when they allies marched in asked them if Germany was trying to destroy them, is it not natural for one to assume as so when in a closed in environment with limited information? It was truly terrible what happened to those people in that era, but it wasn't quite what they made it out to be either by mistake or intention. Once again, moderate holocaust revisionists probably do not have some bone to pick with Jews just because they doubt what they saw was the actual truth behind the matter.

Seriously, what would anyone have to gain by proving conventional history wrong? A vindication of Hitler and Nazism? Those ideologies are now a part of history and won't come back so long as the conditions of 1934 aren't met. If the Holocaust turns out to be a hoax, the only one with anything to lose is all of those Holocaust documentaries and "researchers", not the Jews, not Germany, and most of all, not the human race as a whole. The the Western world has already learned the lesson of what happens when you let totalitarian regimes come into power through democratic means.Vissario 17:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying sickens me. You have called the holocaust survivors liers. Go and write an article about it, and see how far you can source it and how much support you get.This page is not a forum for your revisionist @#-+%@. Its an insult to history, common sense, and the people who suffered.--Gazzster 21:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand you disagree with revisionism, but I don't think you know exactly what I am saying. I am asking the community to make this article a fair, unbiased analysis of Holocaust revisionism and its foundation (including the people who commonly associate with it), not to promote the ideology. Wikipedia is about giving factual, comprehensive coverage about people, places, and ideas without passing on any personal beliefs about the subject not substantiated by factual documents. In essence, by saying "Holocaust revisionism is an anti-Semitic belief" and then basing this claim on the opinions of other people, not any real factual basis, this article fails to uphold the impartial standard of Wikipedia. By doing so, it compromises both the integrity of Wikipedians as fair and balanced curators and discredits the Web site as a whole.

You don't have to agree with me on the Holocaust to agree that this article is unfair and fundamentally biased in favor of the stance opposed to revisionism. If you like, simply restate the sentence and remove the glarring biases and I will not have a gripe with it.Vissario 23:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't attempt to find out "The TRUTH"; instead it repeats what reliable sources have to on a matter. Reliable sources (and many of them) have said that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. No reliable sources say the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is your definition of a "reliable source"?

A scholarly opinion from a person or organization obviously opposed to the movement and professionally obligated to criticizing it? Tell me, if I were to post an opinion from a prominent member of CODOH, would you accept it based on the same criteria you have apparently applied your own favored authors?

Look, once again, I am not asking for anyone to support holoaust revisionism, I am simply asking for the article to put on more even grounds.172.193.86.11 05:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(to Vissario) I understand exactly what you are saying. That is why I defy it.--Gazzster 07:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Like he said. If this is genuinely not an attempt at trolling (and I'm still sceptical, because I can't belive an obviously intelligent person can even try to support a position based on faked documents, falsehoods and wilful blindness to 60+ years of corroborated evidence), then there is no sense in discussing this further. To do so would be to legitimise a viewpoint that has no merit. Unfortunately, for some things there really is no "both sides of the story" ;) EyeSerene^TALK 22:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Vissario was not trolling. And neither am I, though you're probably not going to agree with what I'm about to write :) Vissario, just like may other people before him on this talk page, has a reasonable point to make. He is not attempting to defend his opinions here regarding the "truth", but is making a general point that opinions - irrespective of who makes them - remain opinions. There is no such thing as a "reliable source" when it comes to subjective opinion.
I commented on this article about six months ago, and it is infinitely better now than what it was back then. Perhaps in another six months this problem too will be fixed. Its pages like this that make me wish wiki had some sort of vetting process, impossible that it would be, to weed out those who become all emotive and incapable of seeing the difference between fact and opinion whenever a controversial topic is discussed. Is anyone here capable of dispassionate, objective writing? Tobermory 04:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[blockquote]To do so would be to legitimise a viewpoint that has no merit. Unfortunately, for some things there really is no "both sides of the story" [/blockquote]

Its not our job to decide what other people who read this article should think. It is our job as editors merely to add the facts regard a person, place, or idea, not our personal opinions and biases for or against them.

As Tobermory said, my point is not to have the entire community support Holocaust Revisionism, it is to rectify the fallacy that all holocaust revisionists are by default anti-Semites. Unless any of you can provide some type of evidence which actually proves statistically that all are anti-Semites, my point remains valid. This isn't about "proving" Holocaust revisionism is correct, it is about saving Wikipedia's general reputation as a supposedly unbiased and factually based encyclopedia.

[blockquote]Its pages like this that make me wish wiki had some sort of vetting process, impossible that it would be, to weed out those who become all emotive and incapable of seeing the difference between fact and opinion whenever a controversial topic is discussed. Is anyone here capable of dispassionate, objective writing? [/blockquote]

I like to think I am, but the idea is to have many different people all contributing different opinions on a topic and finding the middle ground between all of that which satisfies the neutrality of an article. Personally, I would like to see Wikipedia have nearly all of its claims backed by factual information which can be verified as being correct by the viewer, not quotes from intellectuals and notable people who may or may not have given out correct information. If anything, this page is a poster child for that.Vissario 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

'This isn't about "proving" Holocaust revisionism is correct'? No? But this is precisely what you have attempted to do in your discourse above. And you conveniently ignore any of the quite obvious observations about your bizarre theories that I and other editors have made. You ask for facts. Let me give you some facts: 1) People who survived the holocaust gave testimony to the Final Solution. 2) The Nazis themselves gave testimony to the Final Solution. 3) German records give testimony to the Final Solution. 4) EVERY historian of any repute says IT HAPPENED. And please do not hide behind the Wiki policy of objectivity. Yes, editors need to comment objectively, but surely, they can also show some feeling when discussing sensitive issues. It creeps me out that you can talk about these things without any apparent emotion or sympathy.--Gazzster 22:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are still missing the point.

I am NOT asking that this article claim holocaust revisionist are correct.

I AM asking that it take out the claim that holocaust revisionism is anti-Semitism incarnate until it can find a credible, factual report proving it to be anti-Semitic. Not an opinionated quote which is based only on the ideas and feelings of the quoted.

This isn't a forum to discuss the pro's and con's of Holocaust revisionism, this is a discussion over whether or not information can be put on wikipedia when it lacks any real factual backing. And no, an opinion is not a fact.Vissario 23:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Then you better go on a crusade to remove every cited opinion from Wikipedia. You won't succeed, because history and philosophy are about opinions about facts. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you better go on a crusade to remove every cited opinion from Wikipedia. You won't succeed, because history and philosophy are about opinions about facts

So you basically think it is okay to pass off opinions as facts?

In light of this, would you oppose me using CODOH's opinion in place of the ADL's or JVL's when it comes to the Holocaust revisionism? Of course not, because those opinions are biased and self-serving. My point is that if you make pages which rely on opinions, you also make pages which sell out to the bias behind those opinions. And unless that is your agenda - to see Wikipedia become an outlet for political idealogues - I don't see what would be so wrong with removing unsubstantiated opinions as sources. Vissario 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

CODOH is not a reliable source. Wikipedia relies on the opinions of reliable sources. In this case, all reliable sources say that Holocaust denial is antisemitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, speaking of the "other sources" as reliable, what makes them "reliable" on whether or not Holocaust revisionism is anti-Semitism? The fact that you like them?

I could understand them being reliable sources on whether or not the Holocaust happened, but what makes them reliable in this scenario? Go down the list and see that they provide no actual statistical evidence proving their point. Instead, they give opinions and conjecture which leads to logical assumptions, not real facts. How can this be passed off as "reliable" when it is so blatantly self-serving and baseless?Vissario 05:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to imagine that antisemitism is something decided by "statistics", and you have invented a straw man argument regarding what the article says. The sources used are specifically discussing Holocaust denial, not the Holocaust, and consist of respected academics, reference works, or experts in the field. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A. Proposition1 : An antisemitic act is one which negatively distinguishes the Jewish people from the rest of humanity. Proposition2: The organised persecution and attempted annihilation of the Jewish people by the Nazis distinguished the Jewish people negatively from the rest of humanity. Conclusion: Therefore, the organised persecution and attempted annihilation of the Jewish people by the Nazis was an antisemitic act. (So far, I HOPE, no argument.)

B. Proposition: People who deny the 'Final Solution', an antisemitic act, generally do not deny the imprisonment and murder of other groups, such as Gypsies, gays, Slavs, the disabled. Proposition: Distinguishing between the treatment of Jews and other groups distinguishes Jews in a manner detrimental to the repute of the Jewish testimony (to the Final Solution). Propsition: Such distinction is negative in character (QED) Conclusion: Therefore, denial of the truth of the Final Solution is an antisemitic act.--Gazzster 08:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

1st You may be shocked, but where no deniers/revisionists who actually deny that Nazis persecuted Jews.

2nd Original Nazi documents say that "Final Solution" mean "expulsion". So question about what is truth about Final Solution may have another answer then you think.

Conclusion: Try to learn little bit more about that deniers/revisionists actually claim before making such conclusions. --Igor "the Otter" 18:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AEB

1st - I concede there may be some, or perhaps many, who do not deny the persecution of the Jews.But you are apparently ignoring the addition of 'and attempted annihilation'. 2nd - Expulsion?! Where, may I ask, were the Jews to be expelled? I have heard this claim before. It makes no sense whatsoever. To Europe? But most of mainland Europe was under German rule. It would not solve 'the problem'. To Britain or the US? Come on- do you really imagine Hitler would send European Jews to countries he was currently at war with? And if he was prepared to rob them of their citizenship, livelihood, possessions, and force them to work till they dropped, don't you think the next horrible step was logical to him? And, as I say, if he was murdering gays, gypsies and the sick, why not Jews as well? But above all, you conveniently ignore the most important testimony to the truth of the Final Solution- THAT OF THE VICTIMS!--Gazzster 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But you are apparently ignoring the addition of 'and attempted annihilation' Do You mean "annihilation of all Jews they could kill"? If so then please prove this. Where, may I ask, were the Jews to be expelled? To the ghettoes, for example. Mainly located in the Poland. But above all, you conveniently ignore the most important testimony to the truth of the Final Solution- THAT OF THE VICTIMS! Many of the former concentration camp prisoners still claim that Nazis made soap of human bodies despite even Yad Vashem agrees that those were false rumours. --Igor "the Otter" 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that article talk pages are here for discussion of the article, not for discussions of the subject itself, and in particular not for original research. There is a large number of reliable sources attesting the reality of the Holocaust, and none that deny it. If you want to do so on Wikipedia, write an article and get it published in a serious historical journal. --Stephan Schulz 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to transfere discussion in emotional way, I just responded. Discussion goes about the same, about that, must HD(HR) be called antisemitic claim, or not. I believe it must not, because

1.neither HD is a part of antisemitism, nor antisemitism is a part of HD. Because there are large number of antisemites who are not Holocaust deniers, and there are Holocaust deniers/revisionists who are not antisemites.

2.Holocaust denial/revisionism is not a claim. That is a theory. What about me, that I prefer the term "the expression of an opinion".--Igor "the Otter" 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot quite parse your last claim unambiguously. Assuming the most likely interpretation: No, Holocaust denial is not a (scientific) theory. A theory has to be self-consistent and agree with all known facts. Holocaust denial typically fails the first and always on the second. The best word we have for it is usually "lie". --Stephan Schulz 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot quite parse your last claim unambiguously So study English. No, Holocaust denial is not a (scientific) theory. I've been over this already. Once I've thought too that deniers/revisionists are crazy. But "lie" is wrong word. "Truth" suits there much more. Which fact contradicts with HD/HR? There are no such facts. So stop call deniers/revisionists liars.--Igor "the Otter" 19:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"That is not a theory" above gramatically refers to the whole previous sentence, not to its subject. That creates an ambiguity between the gramatically correct and the semantically more plausible reading. Learning more English will not resolve it. Anyways, I haven't called Holocaust deniers anyhing yet. I've called Holocaust denial a lie, i.e. a wrong claim intentionally promulgated. A Holocaust denier with normal access to the literature is either a liar or a gullible fool (or both, of course). The Holocaust is one of the best documented and analysed events in history. As I wrote above, this is not the place to discuss the Holocaust. Go read a book or something, or just our article.--Stephan Schulz 20:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read article about Holocaust. It's link to Wannsee conference doesn't contain any proves of that Nazis intended to exterminate Jews. Where the documents you are talking about? There are only unsupported claims and nothing more. I have normal access to the literature. I don't believe in official version of WW2 history because I didn't seen good proves of that. Do you call me liar or gullible fool? Choose your expressions.--Igor "the Otter" 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you deny that the Nazis pursued a systematic policy of extermination against Jews and several other minority groups, and as a consequence killed about 12 million victims, then yes, you are either a liar or a gullible fool. I have insufficient information to determine which case is true. --Stephan Schulz 21:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Nazis had no policy to extermination Jews as a people and you, guys are spreading here the crap from the Nizkor site. Nizkor are the proven liars. Do you have enough infornation now? So do you still want to make a personal attack against me? --Igor "the Otter" 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to make a personal attack. However, I've made a statement of fact, and I stand by it. If you feel it applies to you, and if yes if you feel attacked by it, that is your problem. You, on the other hand, make demonstrably wrong claims. --Stephan Schulz 22:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You did not proved that my opinion is demonstratively wrong and trying to infer that I'm a liar. That is exacly what is called personal attack. If you have a wish to call somebody a liar without reason, that is your behavioral problem. Adult person must respond for one's words. --Igor "the Otter" 10:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First, neither do I wish to call someone a liar, nor did I do so. You might still fall into the other category. However, I have no compunctions about stating the truth, as, to quote Richard Dawkins, "I deeply care about the truth". And no, I don't have to prove anything to you. Trying to do so would obviously be a waste of time. The points in question have been proven over and over again. If you choose to ignore the work of thousands of qualified historians, of eye witnesses (from various sides), of documents and physical evidence, what's the likelyhood that you will be swayed by me in a 200 word talk page contribution? If you shut out the truth, you're welcome to your own little world. Just don't try to impose it on us. --Stephan Schulz 10:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First, neither do I wish to call someone a liar, nor did I do so. If those are your amends, then they are accepted. And no, I don't have to prove anything to you. No, you have to prove your words if you want people to take you seriously. I can prove mine.--Igor "the Otter" 06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope I have made my position clear. As written above, I stand by my statement. As to who of us is taken serious, that's for "people" to decide. But I strongly reccomend that you publish your "proof" in a scholary journal, e.g. in the Journal of Genocide Research, the Journal of Modern History or the Journal of Holocaust Studies. I'd be delighted to belong to a species that did not invent industrialized mass murder... --Stephan Schulz 08:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep referring to the Nizkor site. Of the over 100 footnotes on this page, I don't believe any are from Nizkor. It appears you are using a rather typical technique of Holocaust denial, ignoring actual facts, and tilting at straw men. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article Final Solution for links to documentation. I am concerned that Igor the Otter, Vissario, and others, appear to be using this talk page to expound revisionist crap, under the guise of objectivity.While agreeing with Stephan Schulz that there own views are irrelevant to the discussion, I would ask on a more personal note, why they are so damned convinced that the FS did not happen? They seem extraordinarily ready to believe the studies of a small number of pseudo-historians, against the accepted consensus on the subject.--Gazzster 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Igor, is this a genuine NPOV objection? From some of the comments on your userpage, I suspect not. Honestly, it would help if people would read some of the discussions on this page and the article itself before plunging in with their own interpretations of "historical facts". The article is about Holocaust denial; that is, the behaviour of claiming that the systematic, organised, officially-sanctioned extermination of European Jews did not happen. People who do this are called "Holocaust deniers". These facts might be unpalatable to some people, but facts they remain. This page is about improving the article, not attempting to convince its editors that Holocaust deniers are actually correct - which, because we are all intelligent, independent-minded people, is unlikely to happen. If you can't contribute to Wikipedia in a neutral, unbiased and constructive way because of your own beliefs, maybe you should find somewhere else to go. EyeSerene^TALK 09:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Holocaust denial; that is, the behaviour of claiming that the systematic, organised, officially-sanctioned extermination of European Jews did not happen. People who do this are called "Holocaust deniers". Absolutely agree. Problem is that some statement of this article seem to me illogical. I've explained my position in NPOV dispute.--Igor "the Otter" 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)sorry, Neutrality dispute.--Igor "the Otter" 15:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable Holocaust Deniers

First off, I hope I spelled Holocaust correctly. Second, it's neat that we have a list of famous people that deny the Holocaust, but I just wanted to confirm whether or not we have sources to prove that they deny the Holocaust. President Ame... Ahme... Ahma... The President of Iran I'll give you; I remember him hosting a summit on the subject, to which he invited only the most anti-semitic people on the planet. But do we have a source for the others? 71.136.254.103 06:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't you go down the list, read each of the articles for the alleged deniers in question, and tell us which ones don't belong on the list? You won't be the first to make such an examination. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

According to your user page, you are one of the gods of Wikipedia I've heard about! I shall do as you will, my lord! 71.137.3.181 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I finished. Most are entirely accurate, but the way the David Irving article described it, I can't help but think that he didn't actually believe in Holocaust denial; he changed his mind so much it made my head spin. I'll also need to do more research on Fred Leuchter; it looks like he might have reverted to Holocaust admiter. 71.137.3.181 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmz I couldnt find a mention of Stalin anywhere in the article referring to those who had denied the holocaust, maybe I was looking at the wrong sections or maybe his case isnt as widely recognised (it could be a matter of opinion, though I think he did actually state the holocaust didn't happen) to be added. I read about it in a book 'Koba The Dread' it may not be a realiable source, although it is historical and written by historian and the son of a well known historian (unfortunately his name slipped my mind wrting this right now =P). It calims Stalin was the first of the holocaust deniers, and that (partly due to some anti-semitism expresed by him) he denied the claims of genocide expressed by Jews who fled to Russia (it was probably so he could freely round them up and put them in some death camp/gulag or other).172.143.244.218 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I just remebered the surname, conquest, I think the father was named Robert Conquest (cant be sure), I think the son was named Robert as well (but I cant be sure), I know one or both of them is/are.172.143.244.218 19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'Koba the Dread' was written by Martin Amis, who is a novelist not a historian. After WWII, the Soviets portrayed the war as a struggle between Fascism and Communism, and downplayed the Nazi's racial ideology. AFAIK they didn't actually deny the Holocaust, but didn't distinguish between Jewish and Non-Jewish victims as much as modern/western historians do now. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry its a long time since I read it, I have a bad memory and get confused easily also this is not my main intrest, please forgie the error, I got Amis confused with some historian or other (or who I think is a historian), I think Conquest was frequently refrenced to in the book thats why I got confused.

Fair use rationale for Image:Denying the holocaust.jpg

Image:Denying the holocaust.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

List of forms of Holocaust Denial

How is this:

• They claim that what the Nazis are believed to have done to European Jews was part of a grander plot intended to facilitate the Allies in their intention to enable the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They claim that the Holocaust was ultimately intended to garner support for the policies of the state of Israel, especially in its dealings with the Palestinians.

Holocaust denial? Every other item on the list denies that a holocaust took place; this does not. Jd2718 14:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make; is this something you'd like to add to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's already in the article. I think the word Holocaust has to be in sneer quotes here, to represent the meaning of the claim (e.g., there wasn't a Holocaust; rather, the concept ws concocted to garner support for the policies dot dot dot.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. As far as I can tell the first half is often claimed, that the Holocaust was invented to get sympathy and money from Western countries in order to support the creation of Zionism. The point about the Palestinians isn't as common, and in any event is just a recently tacked-on bid for popular support. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should consider deleting this from the list, or modifying it. When an author says that Begin's group had discussions with Nazis about getting Jews out of Europe, I am pretty certain that that does not make the author a Holocaust denier. But it would seem to be what this category is discussing. And I think you'd agree, even people such as Lenni Brenner whom I assume you disagree with 100%, you wouldn't mean to include him as a Holocaust Denier, which this language really does. Jd2718 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, you wrote "no, it's a claim explicitly made by most Holocaust deniers" but we have Brenner (not a holocaust denier) making the claim, and, um, no holocaust denier sourced making it. Further, as the claim explicitly acknowledges that the Holocaust occured, it makes no sense here. Are you really claiming that people who acknowledge that the Holocaust occured can be Holocaust deniers? Jd2718 03:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not the most logical people. In fact, they claim that the purpose of the hoax was to create support for Israel; Lipstadt describes this as "a linchpin of their argument". I've restored this linchpin claim, along with a half dozen sources supporting it. I would have added more, but I only noticed you reverted me a couple of minutes ago, so I didn't have much time. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference you added is clearly good, but the point in the article didn't really match it - the point cast a wider net than it should have. I see that someone tried a rewrite - it more or less addresses my objection, though the writing is a bit awkward. Does the point still say what you meant it to? Jd2718 11:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

More or less. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is another form of holocaust denial which is more insiduous because it emanates largely from the very process of the criticism, itself. By the very focus (and ardency) of the criticism, as well as the attention given to the issue, to the exclusion of the even bigger holocaust that took place concurrently in Europe, the latter is effectively denied by the time-honored tactic of ignoring it and distracting attention, instead, on the lesser evil. This, of course, refers to the mass murder perpetuated by the Soviet Union before, during and after the war under the rule of Stalin. It is any less revisoinism to erase history by avoiding its discussion, blotting it out by the obsessiveness of the attention on Hitler?

Hitler was not the greatest evil of that time. To focus on one indignity, even to the point of endowing the term "Holocaust" with a singularity of reference, in the context of a deafening silence on the other even larger one, completely undercuts the sincerity of the very premise behind the criticism. This needs to be addressed in greater depth, with the term "Holocaust" (as well as the larger context, purveyed here, of the term "Holocaust denier") brought more fully out. The accusing finger that points against the anti-semitic inspired revisionism comes only with the tap on the back of the accuser of an even bigger finger pointing to him or her. Were the focus to be placed in proportion to the deaths that resulted, then at least 3/4's of the dicussion in this and related contexts would be on Stalin and the Soviet Union, with the acts of Hitler paling in comparison almost to the point of insignificance.

"Holocaust" does not mean Nazi Germany. The association of the two that seems to make it self-evident to any passer-by that this page would or ought to have been exclusively about Nazism is wrong. The term "Holocaust" when referring to the events during and surrounding World War II means BOTH Nazi Germany AND the Soviet Union, whose ideologies at the time were collectively referred to as the common evil of the "isms".

Though you may wish to use it that way, "The Holocaust" refers to exactly what we say here: the Nazi's destruction of European Jewry, and to a lesser extent, the Nazi genocide of other groups. The Soviet Union's depredations are not generally included under the rubric "The Holocaust". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

True, though the last poster makes a point that may be pertinent to our discussion. Firstly, I would say that Hitler certainly was the greatest evil of his time. After all, he had the explicit intention of oppressing the rest of humanity and the means to do it. He almost accomplished his aim.But in a wider context Hitler was the embodiment of an ideal that was prevalent even in the liberal democratic nations of his time. Hitler was for a time admired in France, Britain and other countries. Even the United States had a not insignificant Nazi party. Antisemitism had always been strong in Europe and seemed to rise to new heights in the years before and after the First World War. After all, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion come from this period. Eugenics was spoken about freely in the middle class dining rooms of Europe, and they had no qualms about calling the white races superior.Then, as now, Zionism had its feirce opponents. Social Darwinism was accepted doctrine. And for anyone who cares to search, antisemitism, almost always associated with racism, is very strong today. I say this may be important to our discussion because holocaust denial would seem to indicate a like intellectual state of mind. So we can call holocaust denial, of its nature, antisemitic.--Gazzster 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute: Millions of non-Jews killed

Why does this article gloss over the millions of people who were NOT Jewish who were killed? I am sure that the gay people and disabled people, the Slavic people, the Poles, and the Roma people suffered just as terribly in the gas chambers as did the Jewish people. Joie de Vivre 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a few minutes later; User:Tom harrison deleted the mention I included. Why is this? Joie de Vivre 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think adding a long list enumerating the victims is useful in the lead of Holocaust denial. Holocaust or one of the daughter articles is a better place for that level of detail. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of Nazi atrocities toward particular groups of human beings is, alas, endless. But this article concerns the Jewish Holocaust. There is an article, History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.There is also Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, Nazi Eugenics, etc.--Gazzster 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the "Jewish Holocaust" and the "everybody else Holocaust" are the same Holocaust. Joie de Vivre 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the primary focus of modern Holocaust denial is on the Holocaust as it affected the Jewish population of Europe. Zundel's pamphlet, for example, asks "Did Six Million Really Die?" - six million being a commonly used figure for Jewish victims of the Holocaust. While I agree that many groups were victims of the Holocaust, and they should definitely be covered in the main article, the peculiar focus of deniers on the Jewish victims and the clear anti-Semetic tone of much denial means that this page primarily addresses the Holocaust in that context. - Eron ^Talk 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about the Holocaust - there is a whole article for that, called The Holocaust. This article is about Holocaust denial, an antisemitic movement directed specifically at Jews. Holocaust denial does not deal with other groups who were killed by the Nazis, as deniers are not interested in them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I'd agree with the above, "Holocaust denial" is a term generally/popularly accepted as referring to Jews and antisemitism. That does not lessen the importance or significance of non-Jews who where exterminated as well, but this article just really isn't the place for it. Tarc 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure. A lot of the denial is as you say but there is also a significant strand based on trying to revise Hitler as a sweet chap and great leader. Hence the books about "the hitler we loved " (exact title escapes me) and also Irving who seems to accept that many died but said it wasn't under Hitler's orders and was perhaps just an innocent misunderstanding. If you are recasting Hitler as a posthumous saint I don't see how this is possible without denying everything, not just the Jewish bit? --BozMo talk 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Read their claims about the Holocaust; they focus solely on Jews. Even their claims about Hitler focus on the claim that he never issued a direct order to kill Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Which as they know very well is disengenuous - the man never committed important orders to paper as he preferred to give verbal orders in his "Under Four Eyes" meetings. People like Irving who go around saying that they'll give out X amount of money to the first person who can bring them ink on a page orders by Hitler to start the Holocaust know that full well. Darkmind1970 08:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that most if not all Holocaust deniers are interested in the Jews killed, they would presumably also deny that other groups were systematically exterminated. There should be therefore some mention of this, probably in the first sentence. The way, the truth, and the light 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"The would presumably also deny that other groups were systematically exterminated"? We should put something in the first sentence based on your presumptions? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Most holocaust deniers deny the holocaust in general and its conotations, they often would not accept that ethinic cleasing or Eugenic ideas were practices in this way of systematic exterminationa s they were. Therefore something about these people generally denying the murder of others whoudl be added, and if this is added then the first sentence 'Holocaust denial is the anti-semitioc claim..' would have to be revised because it could also carry connotations of trying to show the NAZI party in a better light in general. However I am willing to accept that the holocaust is mainly in reference to the killing of the Jewish people simply because dosent the frotn of the holocaust article claim tjht the word holocaust comes from the Hebrew meaning to be ;completly burnt' and therfore if its Hebrew it would more likely be refering to the Jewish people. However something about holocaust deniers generally denying the genocide or extermination of other peoples should probably alos be included.172.189.191.159 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial Examined

Why does this section exist in the Holocaust denial page?

It seems to me that the critiques of Holocaust revisionism are already thoroughly covered in the Criticism of Holocaust denial page, and because of that, this just serves as unneeded posturing. Maybe we should take it out or better integrate it elsewhere?Vissario 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that. It's a summary of the Criticism of Holocaust denial article. They could probably be better integrated. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have submitted this article to the GAR with the intention of seeing it degraded from its status as a GA.

I did this because, quite frankly, the article fails to uphold the factual integrity required to make the claim that anti-Semitism is a defining trait of Holocaust denial/revisionism. Instead of using factual sources such as actual data, it relies upon opinions from people who write books/essays and have a product to sell. Also, I felt the article was fraught with bias and irrelevancies in the introduction so I have also mentioned that. Hopefully someone will decide what to do with this article in a fair, concise manner.Vissario 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you imagine is a "factual source" regarding anti-Semitism, versus an "opinion"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And I challenge the 'factual integrity' of what Vissario haqs expounded above. His ideas seem to be based on assumptions and interpretations. I hope he is not proposing edits based on them. --Gazzster 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you imagine is a "factual source" regarding anti-Semitism, versus an "opinion"?

A set of data scientifically collected and represented through a chart or graph which conclusively shows that all holocaust revisionists are also anti-semites.

YOu will be hard pressed to find this though, as one does not exist. The closest researchers got was to say that being a holocaust revisionists suggests that one might also be an anti-semite. But, they took care not to in any way imply that being a holocaust revisionist automatically makes you an anti-semite. I will look for the study in the mean time. Vissario 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are setting up a straw man. The article doesn't make that claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is the antisemitic claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II - usually referred to as the Holocaust - did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship.

Clearly, the article does make the claim that all holocaust revisionists are anti-Semites. Thus, without sources statistically proving this to be 100% true, it can not do so with any factual integrity.Vissario 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It says that Holocaust denial is an antisemitic claim, not that all Holocaust deniers are antisemites. They are not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, holocaust denial is an antisemitic claim. It clearly makes a distinction between the suffering of Jewish people and those of others under the Nazi regime.--Gazzster 08:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is anti-semetic when analysed on its own terms. Denial of the Holocaust- not revising facts but outright or almost outright denial- implies that Jews (or a select group of Jews) have managed, somehow, to lie, to deceive and to corrupt thousands of politicians, academics and other great thinkers ie: Jews have supernatural powers which they use for demonic purposes. This is an antisemetic idea going back to the Middle Ages. Further, to assert that it is not being anti-semetic to simply "search for the truth" is circular logic: why start on the presumption that the Holocaust may not be true? One would have a pre-existing suspicion that Jews are liars. ps: I am aware that this constitutes "original research" so I'm arguing for it to be part of the article. But it does seem to me an important approach ie: to see the internal and clear Jew hating logic of Holocaust Denial as a proposition (ie: the person asking the question may not hate Jews but the question itself is antisemetic and is the historical equivalent of "do you still beat your wife?")

I have closed the discussion at GA/R. The result was "no consensus" and hence the article retains its Good Article status. Geometry guy 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

what they claim

Do we have any sources from "revisionists" stating what they believe? Or is our information about them strictly from the point of view of their critics? I think including this would strengthen the article and help out with the POV.Balloonman 17:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

They're not reliable sources. You need to quote what scholars of the Holocaust denial movement have said about it; the two main works are Denying the Holocaust by Lipstadt and Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why do they Say it? by Shermer and Grobman. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the group being described isn't a reliable source! Wow... that really says a lot about objectivity of the article. Basically not only does this article state that anybody who holds this position isn't worth listening to, but it goes one step further to state that they can't even speak for themselves! They can only be listened to through the filters of people who describe them with a stated objective of discrediting them.Balloonman 19:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are inherently and deliberately deceptive, so we have to rely on what scholars have said about them. In fact, that's what one should do in general on any topic, quote secondary sources, not primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately from the perspective of trying to write an unbiased article about them, they are really not a reliable source. We have the problem of distinguishing what they represent themselves to be from what the overwhelming weight of evidence says they are. That said, the section entitled "Claims of the Holocaust deniers" lays out their position in a factual, NPOV way - no rebuttals are given, opinions quoted or commentary added. I can understand why phrases like a clearing house for Holocaust denial propaganda in the description of the Institute for Historical Review can lead to POV accusations (personally I think it could be worded better), but I think the article as a whole gives a fair treatment to the subject. This is not a subject where one can find properly neutral sources - mainly because every neutral historian (such as Evans) that examines it seems to become very anti-'revisionist'. EyeSerene^TALK 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Much of what holocaust deniers state is unsourced, faked or apocryphal. It would be unprofessional to present such sources as reliable. And such sources are almost always associated with the wider genre of antisemitic and antifreemasonic literature.--Gazzster 22:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I generally express it as, "Holocaust denial is dedicated to proving a falsehood; ergo, anything published by a holocaust denial site is on its face unreliable." Essentially, it's like quoting a compulsive liar on the topic of compulsive lying. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

well put! high five!--Gazzster 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Balloonman would be correct if the article was called "Claims of Holocaust deniers," but that is not the title of this article. An article called "Holocaust denial" should deal with the study of Holocaust denial. David Irving and his ilk have not written extensively on Holocaust denial, but rather on their unsourced, faked version of what they claim to be history. If Balloonman or anyone else could find material from Holocaust deniers that discusses the concept of Holocaust denial, it might be worth taking a look at. --GHcool 17:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. I hadnt thought of it that way. So you're saying that if we examine holocaust denial, we have to refer to commentators other than the holocaust deniers themselves?.--Gazzster 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gazzster, you seem to understand my point, but I disagree with your analogy in practice. Nazi sources are invaluable to the study of Nazism because they explain in detail the ideology and practice of Nazism from the point of view of its founders and supporters. On the other hand, nobody admits to being a Holocaust deiner and (to my knowledge) there is no book or article by a Holocaust denier or supporter of Holocaust denial that explains in detail the ideology and practice of the denial of the Holocaust, although if there were such a source, it would be invaluable to researchers of Holocaust denial. For example, if David Irving wrote a book titled Why I Deny the Holocaust or My Struggle with Historical Evidence (astute readers will get the joke contained in this imaginary book title), I would strongly support the inclusion of content from these works because it would explain Holocaust denial from the point of view of Holocaust deniers. History from the point of view of Holocaust deniers is, by definition, bogus and unreliablem, but Holocaust denial from the point of view of Holocaust deniers is something the world is waiting for. --GHcool 17:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean, if we wanted to examine Naziism we would be foolish to rely solely on Nazi sources to be objective

Just as foolish as, say, relying on the critics of Nazism to supply you with all of the information?

Instead of letting Nizkor and its most "unbiased and objective" interpretation of Holocaust Denial explain everything, why can't we let organizations like CODOH and IHR have air time to represent their views on the Holocaust? This page isn't the criticism of Holocaust denial, it is supposed to be an overview of the movement and what it is about. Or is there some big alterior motive to not allowing them to at least illustrate, fairly, their views?

I already know your rebuttal though: "They are not historically accurate sites and it isn't Wikipedia's job to report 'false information'."

To that, I ask, is it really Wikipedia's job to decide what is false and true? If we are make judgements on all topics like this one, we should make all of the theology pages from the stance of a bombastic atheist who points out all of the incongruities of religious thought. Or we should make the communism page one preached from the stance of a laissez fare capitalist. Wikipedia's job should be purely to report the facts associated with any place, person, or idea, not imply any type of superiority of any entity above another in the page. Vissario 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved Vissario's strange posting so that it reflects the chronological order of when he/she posted. My rebuttal is not what Vissario pretends to think it is (I wouldn't actually say he/she actually thought that would be my rebuttal because I assume good faith and basic intelligence in Wikipedia editors). For a response to Vissario's post, read no further than my earlier post directly before Vissario's. In the Holocaust denial article, we only quote people who study, define, or analyze Holocaust denial. If someone can find an article from IHR that studies, defines, or analyzes Holocaust denial, feel free to put it in. Nobody would or stop you. --GHcool 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vissario, very little of the article is sourced to Nizkor; in fact, the majority of it is sourced to academics and scholars, so it's not very helpful for you to bring up this red herring. As for your characterization of our "rebuttal", wrong again - Wikipedia doesn't decide what is "false and true", it reports what reliable sources have said about a topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

a bit more on what they claim would be nice but than again i just like to get angry at people befor bed time so whatever.--75.42.92.157 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GA/R pt 2

I read the rest of the article on my way home from work today, and it is actually a pretty good article... once you get past the first third of the article... I definately think it is salvagable... but the first third of the article is what turns people off. I couldn't read the last 2/3rds of the article last night because the first third was SOOO POV... It is a real shame that the first third is so bad, people don't read the good part. I'll take another look at it and see what specific recommendations I can make... my two big criticisms are still the POV at the start and the lack of citations (This is a 27 page article---and needs a lot of citations.)Balloonman 00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This article, IMO, has a lot of work to be done before it can be a good article. For one, citations need to be taken care of... not just in places without citations, but where citation needed tags are placed but not filled. A good example of this is the "History of holocaust denial" section, which contains quite a bit of information but very few citations. The subsections of the "History" section are also unclear as to their significance to the topic at large. Finally, the article vaguely mentions a "modern" Holocaust denial movement (was there an ancient one?) There are also a few synthesis issues. For one, there's plenty of uses of the term "scholars" as if it refers to all scholars, but only cites a couple people. Those sort of things really need to be attributed; imagine if all Wikipedia articles would adopt that phraseology. It's not only troublesome in terms of the philosophy behind citing, but also it's incredibly nonspecific. As a result, the citations should read "According to X and Y..." This is in accordance with WP:CITE, which states that: "Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." It's puzzling that this type of attribution is used in some areas of the article but not others: for example, it's used in the "Holocaust denial examined" section but not in the lead. There are also some instances of bias. For example, "They [Nizkor] address the arguments and claims made by Holocaust denial groups by pointing the errors of their evidence" - the sentence assumes that errors exist and that Nizkor is successful at pointing them out. Both are biased assumptions. It's also bothering that the "claims of the holocaust deniers" section has "criticism of holocaust denial" listed as its main article. Other than that, the article is pretty good. .V. _[Talk|Email] 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of GA status

Hey .V., could you explain why/how you determined that the article never went through the GA process? Also, I am going to reinstate the GA status as I believe the proper way to delist the article is through the GA/R process---since that has already started. I believe it should be delisted, but I also believe that we should adhere to the process.Balloonman 03:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no GA review present for the article, so it didn't go through the GA process. Additionally, the edit changing this from a GAN to a GA did not follow the process for promotion; it simply contained an edit summary that was something to the order of "I think this is a good article." You can see the link to the edit at the top of this talk page. .V. _[Talk|Email] 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that is more of inditement on the GA process than on the article. The person who promoted the article was not invovled with the article (3 edits on holocaust articles in his last 3000 edits---two of those there were when he promoted it.) And the GA process is done by one person---anybody who isn't involved with an article can promote it---and this is clearly not a case of puppetry---the editor has TONS of edits unrelated to the subject at hand.Balloonman 06:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Scholars and journalist"

One of the many POV edits I had to revert just now changed the statement "Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial"..." to "Most scholars and journalist, however, prefer the term 'denial' or 'deniers'...", which also involved moving the sentence. On top of mixing references for two different points, and including redundancy ("denial" is enough), it referred to a "journalist"; where did that "journalist" come from? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you just reintroduced all the POV back into the article. I tried to help out, but I'm not going to edit war. This is too POV to be a GA and I strongly suspect that when it is reviewed that others will agree.Balloonman 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok, but can you explain where that "journalist" thing came from? Who were the journalists? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought I had seen a discussion in the Archives that discussed that, and provided sources, but I couldn't find it again..Balloonman 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

List Fritjoh Meyer as a denial point. He is a believer who published a paper inadvertently destroying much of the holocaust story. I am sure most of the regulars on this site know of him, he can be sited with a link to his paper and any level of discussion about it from many "reliable" sources.159.105.80.141 14:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fritjof Meyer, that is. Here is a pretty good discussion of his work (one of the few not in Vermont Library Guy's apparently favored sources such as IHR, Codoh, VHO, and Stormfront). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

...bearing in mind of course that Meyer not only mixed up his dates but also got his maths wrong. I don't think he qualifies as a denier though, just unlucky ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jump to the end of that interminable article ( Meyer et al ) and see his statement. They never used the gas chambers they built but the nasty boys were going to do it someday but the war ended before they could gas anyone except for a relative few in some farmhouse - this is a mini-denial statement article I guess ( intent but no followthrough). If this helps your cause then please put it in the article. I check back occasionally over the next few years and see if the Schlegelberger memo, Meyer, Felderer, etc make it to the big time.159.105.80.141 14:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Nizkor has some good ad hominem stuff on Felderer - personal and maybe even true ( doubt it but who cares ) - the danger would be having to include his research I suppose or even mentioning his name - but there is good and bad in everthing. 159.105.80.141 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This article - and denialist literature - neglects the historical basis of the movement. A review of "believing" holocaust literature would be of interest. The claims have changed drastically over time. Dachau originally was "the" gassing center. Auschwitz was a minor player at the time - now it is the key of the believers hopes. A more methodical approach would be informative as an article - 1. first few years 2. next few years ... interpersed with the major changes that occurred ( quantum leaps ) and techniques ( ie when ad hominem became popular and/or neceassry - if it ever was different ). There was a time when deniers believed a lot of this nonsense too - they were surprised themselves at the unfolding of much of the evidence, only a handful - Staglich,Faussison, Rassinier, etc - were true denialist from day one. The article would be more understandable in a chronological manner.159.105.80.141 12:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

'Nonsense'? By the way your list of 'true denialist's are themselves ludicrous. Darkmind1970 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I understand what the last poster is saying. On the face of it, it does make sense. It seems theoretically possible for someone to deny the holocaust without an antisemitic motive. But does that actually happen? I would argue that, given the almost universal acceptance of the holocaust as a fact, by all kinds of people, educated or not, it would be almost impossible. To make a decision that the holocaust did not happen, one would have to make a conscious choice to reject the established historical record, the testimony of survivors, the testimony of Jewish communities and others, and of course, of the Nazis. And as someone has already noted, one would not fly in the face of all that, and accept revisionist history like Irving's, unless one already had a pre-disposition to do so.

And there is a problem with this statement: 'anyone who calls themself anti-semitic, or expresses explicit feelings againt 'the Jews' as a general race, is an anti-semite.' Not that I deny it; it is certainly true. But it does not encompass antisemitism. It does not explain what antsemitism is. Christianity teaches that the Jews reject the Messiah; that they crucified Jesus; that their religion is no longer acceptable to God. There is in an inbuilt prejudice against the Jewish religion. Does that make Christianity antisemitic? But do all Christians have 'explicit feelings' against the Jews? No. Have any of you heard a Jewish joke? More likely, our parents or grandparents would have told them. Were those jokes antisemitic? I leave you to judge. Did they have 'explicit feelings' against the Jews? We hope not. My point is that antisemitism, like racism, sexism and sexualism, can be a subtle thing. Associating it with explicit intentions throws us off course. After all, it is possible that a Nazi could be perfectly courteous to a Jewish person without any ill feeling, and then sign an order for his murder.I suggest, as I have before, that, for the purposes of the first line, we take antisemitism in an objective sense. Objectively, there can be no doubt that HD is antisemitic.--Gazzster 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is an 'anti-semitic motive'? To be honest, I don't know why people deny the holocaust, I don't assume they all do so for the same reason. The way, the truth, and the light 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Try to answer your own question then; Why would anyone deny the holocaust?--Gazzster 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly someone might deny something that is obviuosly false. Like human soap - but of course you would have only been a denier through the 1940s,50s,60s,70s,80s,... eventually you stopped being a denier when the truth came out. If you believed in gas chambers in Germany ( not Poland ) you were a denier up until about 1960 then you became an historian. Of course in many circles, who hadn't kept up with their own historians, you were/are still a denier. ( Of course you might remain a denier because you had the gall to question a claim even if, or especially if, you turned out to be correct. ( ie if David Irving, Rassinier, etc were discovered to have been absolutely correct in all details would they still be deniers? ). ( more interesting is the major historians - Jewish leaning - who have changed their beliefs on various issues - ie gas chambers in Germany, human soap, transit camp status, etc - and not been called deniers. How they manage this is beyond me - much of the definitive denial work has come from these holocaust historians. Their slips/honesty have usually been tolerated. It must be more of a style, attitude, ..... thing - content of an argument seems to matter little. Does a person who denies a fact - and is proved correct - ever become a non-denier?159.105.80.141 11:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw im the IP as the guy who argued what Gazzster was arguing against at the beginning of this section. To be honest I see what you mean, I am not saying that someone cannot be anti-semitic without being overtly so, I am simply saying it is not really appropriate for someone to claim someone else is anti-semitic as a 'fact' or their motives are anti-semitic as a 'fact',, without that person either claiming personally that they were anti-semitic, or them expressing hatred agianst the entire Jewish race, which I wouldnt deem the same as someone making humour out of one other person for being Jewish (though I think that would have to be in context,and how explicitly the humour is based on that persons semiticism). Being a NAZI I would claim to be anti-semitic (as well as many other organistaions), simply because part of being a NAZI is being anti-semitic its in its foundign pinciples, like to be a capatalist you have to believe you should have money. I dont think thats just 'my' defenition, I jsut think that it is factually mpossible to actually 'prove' someone is anti-semitic otherwise (unless of course they have been tried for such in a court of law and foudn guilty, then it could be factual if the court was fair). Another thing, the example of Chrisitinanity isnt really a good analoy (in my opinion at least), because if anythign things were the other way roudn to begin with, there was no persecution against Jews or basis for such being permitted in the New testemant, seeing as at first the majority of converts were Jewish, and in fact all of the Apostles (I think) were Jews and not gentiles. Anti-semitism was something that came up later usually to be used as a way to get the balme of a governemtn or other, and this anti-semitism was based on thinking that was not put forward either by the New testemant, simply that people concluded the Jews must have been the ones to kill Jesus, becuase in the bible some of the Jewish hierachy was meant to have conspired against Jesus. No where in the bible I think that it claims that all Jews sould be persecuted, and the bible isnt an anti-semitic text, though it does criticise some aspects of Judaims at the time, so in fact some chritians are anti-semitic not based on the bible but by ignorance or traditional hatred of a certain group. Actually, if Chrisitianity was inherently anti-semitic, persoanlly I would claim that all those who follow its teachings would therefore be anti-semitic, but its not definitevly, even if some use areas of it to condone anti-semitic philoshy.172.189.191.159 21:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I certainly agree that not everyone who does or says something that could be judged prejudicial to the Jewish people has antisemitic motives. How many of us have been angry and shocked by the behaviour of the Israeli government and army in the Middle East? But do we hate the Jews? No. My use of Christianity as an example of antisemitism may have been ill-judged. But I was trying to make the distinction between an anti-semitic intent and an antisemitic action. One doesnt have to call themselves anti-semitic to commit an anti-semitic action. To restate an example which I think is a valid (and true) one: an otherwise perfectly good and decent German soldier is ordered to arrest a Jew, or take him to an extermination camp, or release the gas that will kim him. Does he hate Jews? Does his soul wither as he carries out the order? But he still does it. Not all Germans were monsters but they still committed monstrous acts. In fact, it makes us scared, because if they, ordinary guys like us, could do those things, we could too.HD is itself ant-semitic, regardless of intent, because it calls the Jewish people liars or at least mistaken.--Gazzster 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please prove that deniers/revisionists claim that all Jewish people are liars or at least mistaken. Or may be you mean that Jews at all can not be liars and can not mistake? According to such logic, official historyography is anti-german and, therefore, racistic. Right?--Igor "the Otter" 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously if the Jewish people as a multinational authority (including in their number Holocaust survivors and their descendants) say the Holocaust happened, and Holocaust deniers say it didn't, one or the other is wrong. Of course Holocaust deniers have to say the Jews are either liars or mistaken or both. QED.--Gazzster 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm understand. You mean that everybody who call some Jews liars are therefore antisemites. Where are Holocaust deniers of Jewish origin (Bobby Fischer, for example). Do you mean that Bobby Fischer is liar or mistaking? If so, then you are an antisemite too, according to your logic. But HD can not be called antisemitic claim not for the reason that your statement has logical mistake. Only that claim can be called antisemitic, which is accepted by all, or, at least most antisemites. There are large number of antisemites, who are not Holocaust deniers.--Igor "the Otter" 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(In the first point, you are the one who inserts the word antisemitism. I merely stated that either the Jews or HDeniers r right. They both cant be right. Yes, a Jew can be an antisemite, just as an Australian citizen can be anti-Australian or a Catholic can be anti-Catholic. 2nd - Your reasoning is nonsensical.)

Mu on the first claim. The second is just nonsensical. "All red things are coloured" does not imply "all coloured things are red".--Stephan Schulz 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that some claim doesn't even need to be accepted by most antisemites to be antisemitic?--Igor "the Otter" 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way logic works. For example, it's an antisemitic claim that Jews have horns. Most antisemites don't believe that nowadays, I suspect, but that does not make the claim less antisemitic. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you again. Interesting enough, where did you studied logic? That is may be some special logic - like women's logic or maybe, trollish logic.--Igor "the Otter" 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(So, not only does Igor take a stab at the Jewish people, but women as well. Who else do you intend to malign? I'm gay, if you'd like to have a swing at me.--Gazzster 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

I beg pardon, ladies, no offence was meant:)--Igor "the Otter" 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I strongly suspect that this claim you invented yourself. Are you an antisemite?--Igor "the Otter" 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to suspect whatever you want; in this case, it just demonstrates your ignorance of the history of anti-semitism (among other things.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I will. But frankly, who did invented claim that jews have horns? Just interesting.--Igor "the Otter" 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And why do you consider claim that Jews have horns antisemitic? I think that is just untrue claim and nothing more.--Igor "the Otter" 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of the claim, which is antisemitic indeed - that is if somebody says: "I hate Jews". S/he can hate Jews for some fact, like, for example: "Jews are the people of the semitic origin". But that doesn't make fact that "Jews are the people of the semitic origin" antisemitic itself. Or s/he can hate Jews for hearing something wrong about them. But having or not having horns have no relation at all to the antisemitism. Understood?--Igor "the Otter" 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you drop your fixation on Jewish horns? The English idiom 'to have horns', means to be malevolent, devil-like. To refer that to Jews is certainly anti-semitic. 'I hate Jews' is certainly an antisemitic statement. But then, so are these: 'The Jews are mistaken about what happened to their people in the extermination camps' 'the Jews are lying about what happened to their people in the extermination camps' 'the Jews have much to gain in spreading false intelligence about the 'Final Solution.' To the disgust of most editors, we have heard all three opinions being expounded on this talk page. Of course, some gentiles have much to gain by propping up shaky revisionist diatribe. They can shift the blame for evils in society from themselves to the Jews. Called scapegoating. Its alive and well today, as, regrettably, it ever was. And I wouldn't mind betting that some of these editors also dabble in Jewish conspiracy theories, Freemasonic conspiracy theories, white supremisism, etc. Holocaust denial usually goes hand in hand with this nonsense, which, unlike the Jews, does indeed have horns.--Gazzster 08:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"To have horns" not exacly means "to be devil-like". Many animals have horns, and nobody call them devil-like. "To be devil-like" has negative sense only in cristian interpretation, not in devil-worshipers' one. An antisemitic statement is a statement, which expresses hatred, or, at least dislike to the Jews. Such statements like: 'The Jews are mistaken about what happened to their people in the extermination camps','the Jews are lying about what happened to their people in the extermination camps','the Jews have much to gain in spreading false intelligence about the 'Final Solution' doesn't do it, because that who expressed them may be just don't care about that what Jews say at that. Only claim, which expresses hatred to the Jews is antisemitic one, not any claim, expressed by antisemite. For example, the sentence "the sky is blue" can be told by antisemite. --Igor "the Otter" 11:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am fast losing my natural sense of reserve, Igor. If you lived in an English-speaking culture, which I suspect you don't, you would realise that 'to have horns' does indeed mean what I say it does. And actually, the goat, a horned animal, is associated with the devil in English-speaking culture. You have a strange idea of what antisemitism is. You seem to believe that you are only an antisemite if you harbour murderous intentions toward Jews. I would rather say that antisemitism is any action, speech, thought or intention prejudicial to the Jews based on narrow-minded intellectualism such as revisionism. And I notice you did not care to comment on the scapegoating point, etc.--Gazzster 11:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"To have horns" have more then one sence - between others "to wear horns" means "to be cheated husband/wife" - the same that in other languages; there many sences can be invented. I just meant horns as the horns. Like those of animals. Goat is assotiated with the devil, but cow isn't. My idea about antisemitism is absolutly normal. I would rather say that antisemitism is any action, speech, thought or intention prejudicial to the Jews based on narrow-minded intellectualism such as revisionism. You are wrong. Antisemitism is much older then revisionism. In the medieval time it already existed despite there weren't any revisionists. So how can you differ who have "an antisemitic thought", from that who doesn't care about Jews? Can you read thoughts? Your definition of antisemitism is too broad. Anybody can be called antisemite then. That reminds me Holy Inquisition. --Igor "the Otter" 14:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Prejudicial" is to broad. Anyone have prejudices. Anything can be called "prejudice". "Openly Hostile" is more right, IMHO. If it is not openly hostile, then it is not antisemitic.--Igor "the Otter" 15:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And only their opinion may be antisemitic, not facts revisionists are appeal to. Facts are always neutral. --Igor "the Otter" 15:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I have to say, I do not have a dog in this fight. I think people who deny the holocaust are idiots. But I have to agree with the people above who state that this article is full of POV. I've added my reasons on the GA/R page. But this is excessively POV.Balloonman 03:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I find such excessive tagging bordering on disruption, but let's try WP:AGF. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't find placing 5 tags on an article of this length disruptive---especially when those facts need to be there. I find this article to be very NPOV and tagged places to demonstrate facts not in evidence and/or statements that reak with POV. Again, as I mentioned in my review, I find people who deny the holocaust to be idiots, it happened it is a fact. But in an encyclopedic article, NPOV has to be present... and I don't feel that it is here.Balloonman 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If this was an article about the Holocaust I'd have to agree with Baloonman - it's not our place to present anything but the verifiable facts. However, this article is about the phenomemon of Holocaust Denial -- and all reputable opinion says that Holocaust deniers are idiots. The article just reflects the facts. If the facts are POV (which, given the subject, I don't believe applies in any case) that's not Wikipedia's or the article editors' fault. I'll comment along these lines on the GAR. EyeSerene^TALK 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'll point to other contoversies such as Global Warming, Evolution, and Flat Earth Soceity. People who object to those three subjects are in the distinct minority---people who argue creationism on a scientific basis are often ridiculed and Flat Earth Soceity is full of idiots---but neither of the articles on those subjects argues that. The articles that discuss them don't universally discard the subjects. When you start to argue that objections to a position are "BY DEFINITION" not scholarly/reputable, then you are engaged in POV. Now it may be true that the research done is not scholarly nor reputable, but the notion that such research is by default such is POV. It says, "Here is the fact and if you challenge this fact you are by definition wrong." It is a simple way of discrediting the opponent without addressing the questions. To differ with EyeSerene, I would have less problem with a strong statement in the Holocaust main article where this would be small section consisting of a paragraph at most. In an article discussing something that is controversial, where both sides are to be presented, NPOV is much more difficult to maintain and much more important to strive for. I will point to the creation-evolution debate controversy and flat earth soceity page as examples of how you can present a controversial subject in a more NPOV position---and still get the message across that the positions are rejected by mainstream academia. This article attacks the people who hold a position, not the position itself. When you engage in ad homimem attacks you loose POV.Balloonman 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I genuinely don't believe the article does attack individuals - hopefully the purpose of this article is not to defend a position but to accurately reflect what exists in the sources. It's a potential problem that most of these sources do indeed "by definition" regard Holocaust denial as completely daft ;) Explaining alternative viewpoints where that alternative is at least plausible (however unlikely) is one thing, but giving weight to viewpoints that are the result of deliberate lies, and intended to deceive, seems to me to be turning Wikipedia into a propaganda organ. If you can suggest any improvements though, I'm sure they'd be welcome. EyeSerene^TALK 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Having reread the article, I believe that an encyclopedic article on the subject has to be more in the Nizkor Project motiv... the article is taking the approach of we don't want to legitimize the opposition thus we will point out at every opportunity how they are daft and not worth listening to. I'll take a look at it this evening and see if I can give an example or two of some changes that I think can be made to make this less POV while not legitimizing the position.Balloonman 18:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no "ad homimem attacks" in the article. Holocaust denial claims are inherently antisemitic, as the multiple sources show. That's a statement about the claims, not about people. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

While the sentence in question is no longer here, I did want to repeat what I wrote on the GA/R... This stems from the Catholic notion of a mortal sin. No action, regardless of how grave or offensive to God, is by definition a mortal sin. In order for a mortal sin to exist, the action has to be done willfully with full knowledge of what it means and why it is wrong. Likewise, a claim/action cannot be inherently antisemetic/racist. In order to be antisemetic/racist, you have to have motive/intent and knowledge. Since a person can make a denial statement without knowledge/intent/motive, it is impossible to say that the action/claim itself is by definition antisemetic. One can do/say things without knowledge or intent... We've all said or done something that has offended somebody, but the actions were not intended to offend. While an action cannot be anti-semetic/racist by definition, it can be perceived as a racist/antisemetic by definition. It is a fine line, but an important one. I hope this clarifies my position.Balloonman 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Qualification Again

The opening sentence is again in dispute; the fact of the matter is that the Holocaust was not simply the extermination of Jews, but also included the extermination of Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, communists, etc. As long as we are describing Holocaust denial as anti-Semitic (which is a description I contest), then the opening sentence must also characterize denial as homophobic, antiziganistic, etc.

The issue as it was raised earlier of whether or not Holocaust denial can be something other than anti-Semitic has, to my knowledge, been addressed elsewhere, not only on Wikipedia, but in scholarly works as well. For example Chomsky describes a scenario in which someone denies the Holocaust on grounds that they don't believe human beings are capable of such atrocities--this, clearly being a counter-example to the claim that H-denial is always anti-Semitic has to be reflected in the opening description in some capacity. I had tried changing the sentence to "Holocaust denial is the (often anti-Semitic) claim that..." but that obviously wasn't taken seriously.

I'm open to more discussion, though (as long as it doesn't devolve into something about Jews and horns...) A.G. Pinkwater 00:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Show me some substantial Holocaust denial material that mentions those other groups as part of their philosophy. And better yet, provide some reliable sources describing Holocaust denial as homophobic, antiziganistic (great word), etc, and we can add them in. Right now, we have reliable sources describing the belief system as antisemitic. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is based on inference (yes, I realize that doesn't amount to anything more than original research), as the literature on the Holocaust is in all indications dominated by the suffering of the Jews. However, it shouldn't take much effort to realize that when a large swath of Holocaust denial literature argues that there was no chemical extermination of Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau (based on the assumption that there were no chemical agents employed), then there must also have been no extermination of the Gypsies, for they were also interned there.

However, my argument is only that as long as we aren't going to allow the article to reflect the controversy surrounding the consideration of denial as anti-Semitic, then it follows by extension that these other groups are also being biased against. Personally, I don't think connotations of anti-Semitism, homophobia, or any of them are universal in Holocaust denial, but other editors seem reluctant to let that view into the article. A.G. Pinkwater 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you're wrong about the first, and your inference, though vaguely interesting, lacks foundation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A.G. Pinkwater, you are confusing two things, The Holocaust, and Holocaust denial. Whatever the Holocaust was about, Holocaust denial is about Jews; that's what all the Holocaust denial literature talks about, that's what Holocaust deniers focus on, and that's what all the reliable sources say that Holocaust denial is about. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I don't let you just kill the issue Jpgordon, but I'm not sure what you think I'm wrong about or why I should take your word for it.

As I said, I'm not advocating that we redescribe the Holocaust as anti-homosexual and anti-Gypsie, because I also don't think it is necessarily anti-Semitic; that there should be consistency is my argument.

Please address the problems of rephrasing the opening sentence as "Holocaust denial is the (often antisemitic) claim that..." (or some such formulation) with a note discussing the controversy. As I said above, there are examples of Holocaust denial that needn't be motivated by anti-Semitism (reference here ) so it is not only misleading to leave the opening as it is but patently false. A.G. Pinkwater 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I also don't think it is necessarily anti-Semitic -- luckily, it doesn't matter what you think or what I think; what we get to record in Wikipedia is what our reliable sources think. Chomsky, in this instance, is a fringe view. "Holocaust denial is the overwhelmingly antisemitic claim" would be more appropriate, if you want an adverb there; non-anti-Semitic holocaust denial is rare enough to fall under WP:UNDUE. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky is also not an expert source on Holocaust denial. He may think he's qualified to comment about everything, but in fact, he's an expert source on linguistics, and a popular polemical writer on political topics. That's it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Horns (again!?)

(1)You seem to be fixated on the horns issue for some reason. Have it your own way, because it is unimportant.

(2) You are not reading what I said. I would rather say that antisemitism is any action, speech, thought or intention prejudicial to the Jews based on narrow-minded intellectualism such as revisionism. So I am actually saying that antisemitism is based on 'narrow-minded intellectualism', and I am using revisionism as an example.Of course antisemitism is older than revisionism. That is what I have been saying. And it has always been based on flawed intellectualism. In the Middle Ages, it was believed that the Jews killed Jesus. If they killed Jesus, then they must want to kill the followers of Jesus too. There is a certain bizarre logic to that, flawed as it obviously is. Your idea of antisemitism is too narrow. Is a person who refuses to employ an Australian Aboriginal or a black person on racial grounds being racist? Of course. Are they 'openly hostile' towards those races? No. You seem to be opening the door to condoning prejudicial behaviour toward Jews so long as it is not 'openly hostile.'

(3)Again, I note, you do not comment on scapegoating and conspiracy theory culture.--Gazzster 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(1)I'll gladly drop the matter of Jewish horns, but you don't allow me to do this. That is not my invention. Copyright belongs to JPGordon.

(2)I've readed that you said. Medieval Christiandom hardly seems to be intellectualism-like. Neither narrow- nor broad-minded:). Rather it must be called antiintellectualism IMHO. But it was strongly antisemitic, do you agree? If somebody refused to employ colored person on racial ground, that person is certainly racist. But that racial ground can't be proved if this person denies that racial ground. Because nobody can read thoughts. Therefore nobody can be called racist for such unprovable things. And you can't know, is racist this person or not until open epression of hostility. S/he did not expressed open hostility to colored people in this case, but if s/he can freely express it, s/he will certainly express it. And then s/he express it, s/he can be called racist. What about me, that I believe, it is matter of taste, whom to employ.

(3)What do you want to hear about conspiracy theory culture and scapegoating? That Jews were suitable scapegoats to charge them in all deadliest sins in middle ages? I believe it would be offtopic. Conspiracy theory culture arised because many people can feel that their voice decides nothing. And this is mostly true.--Igor "the Otter" 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

1) agreed

2) The Middle Ages may be perceived as backward in modern eyes, but mediaeval scholars were masters of logic, even though they argued on the basis of what we might call false premises. Consider Thomas of Aquinas, John Scotus, William of Okham, Maimonides,the Arabic schools, etc. But we're not discussing mediaevalism.

3) this is where we strongly diagree: you believe that anti-semitism, and now, I suppose, racism, requires the expression of an explicit intention. No! Action, or lack of action, is evidence of it too. Because you see, antisemitism, racism, etc, is an objective action which can be judged as such without reference to any intention. And in the case we discussed, the law would certainly consider the action alone.

4) Conspiracy theory culture arised because many people can feel that their voice decides nothing. And this is mostly true I think you have just answered my question. That is very simplistic. Its quite a complex phenomenon. Some subscribers are uneducated and cannot understand the complex problems of society; blaming the evils of society on one or two groups gives them a sense of understanding and security. They may be fed propaganda by their governments. Others have a world view circumscribed by fundamentalist religion; conspiracy theory involving Jews, freemasons, gays etc) makes sense in their limited world. And religion often uses people's fears to maintain control on a population. Governments are quite willing to use these fears as well, even in parliamentary democracies. Others enjoy the power trip of having knowledge which others don't.--Gazzster 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

2,4)no objections

3) Anyway, to be called an antisemite, anyone must express some hostility toward all Jews in disambugiated way, so must do the claim. Most deniers/revisionists are the living persons not abstract ideas. Even "having prejudices" in common case cannot be considered as atisemitism because prejudices are just wrong opinions. Here is an example of the prejudice: "All Jews have green eyes". Is this prejudice antisemitic one? --Igor "the Otter" 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

'All Jews have green eyes' is not a prejudice. It is simply an absurd statement. Prejudice comes from the Latin prae iudicium, literally meaning, 'before judgement.' It is a judgement formed without assimilating all the facts, or deliberately ignoring all the facts. An example of a prejudice would be (in pre-war Germany), 'the Jews are responsible for the degradation of Germany'.Or one we unfortunately still hear in some circles nowadays, 'the Jews are avaricious; the Jews are controlling world affairs.' These are statements which are not prima facie absurd, but are obviously ill-informed, and arrived at by sieving out certain pertinent facts and exaggerating others. They are, in the sense of the word prejudice, pre-judgements. They are certainly not simply 'wrong opinions', but wrong opinions formed by a certain level of pre-judgement. Such an opinion does not necessarily need to be accompanied by, as you put it, some hostility toward all Jews, although it tends to. I think youre maaking dangerous distinctions. Your argument leads to the possibility that the Nazi regime was not antisemitic until it began to persecute the Jews.The Nazi attitude toward the Jewish people had however been openly declared from the very beginning of the National Socialist Party.--Gazzster 07:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Any absurd statement can become prejudice if somebody believes it is good enough. For example: if somebody will use statement "all Jews have green eyes" to define, who is Jew and who is not, it will become prejudice. It is a judgement formed without assimilating all the facts, or deliberately ignoring all the facts. So are most opinions. Or, at least large number of them. I disagree that can be drawed strict borderline between prejudice and wrong opinion. Anti- means against, so nothing can be called antisemitic if it doesn't express any hostility to the Jews. Your argument leads to the possibility that the Nazi regime was not antisemitic until it began to persecute the Jews.The Nazi attitude toward the Jewish people had however been openly declared from the very beginning of the National Socialist Party. Surely Nazi ideology was openly antisemitic from the very beginning, and expressed itself openly. I don't understand, how my argument can lead to the possibility of another. --Igor "the Otter" 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1) There is nothing about the statement, 'all Jews have green eyes', that is prejudicial in the true sense of the word. For it is not formed on any judgement whatsoever, but simply on an absurdity. A prejudice, as I have said, is a pre-judgement.But there is no judgement, simply a statement.

2) No.Opinions are reasoned statements. True, they may be flawed on account of poor information, but they are honest. A prejudice is, as I have said, an opinion formed by a pre-existent state of mind.

3) You are right, the Nazi attitude 2ward Jews was always openly hostile. Poor example. But my point is still valid. You said that someone refusing employment to another race, on racial grounds, is not committing a racist action until he declares himself to be hostile. By analogy, you imply that a person similarly treating a Jew unjustly on racial grounds is not an antisemite until he declares himself to be hostile. But the action itself is a declaration of hostility. I disagree strongly about this idea that an explicit declaration makes someone an antisemite. It is dangerous. How many would actually do that, do you think?--Gazzster 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the way which hostility have been exressed doesn't matter. But it still must be an expression of hostility. Not "any prejudice". You seem to call prejudices only those which express negative attitude. That is not right, IMHO. --Igor "the Otter" 07:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC

(discussion continued on talk page)--Gazzster 23:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

For example: Nobody likes to be swindled, still less where considerable sums of money are involved (Since 1949 the State of Israel has received over 90 billion Deutschmarks in voluntary reparations from West Germany, essentially in atonement for the 'gas chambers of Auschwitz'). And this myth will not die easily: Too many hundreds of millions of honest, intelligent people have been duped by the well-financed and brilliantly successful post-war publicity campaign which followed on from the original ingenious plan of the British Psychological Warfare Executive (PWE) in 1942 to spread the world the propaganda story that the Germans were using 'gas chambers' to kill millions of Jews and other 'undesirables'. (David Irving, Preface to The Leuchter Report, London: Focal Point, 1989). (emphases mine)Gzuckier 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not going to respond to Irving's diatribe. Stating this bizarre tirade doesn't make it true.--Gazzster 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)