Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 9

message: I propose putting Smith under a separate article as there is sufficient material and content to warrant this, particularly recent activities. His name is currently redirected to Holocaust Denial.
:The link at the section about CODOH points onto article itself. Article must not use itself as a reference, IMHO.--Igor "the Otter" 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that self-link.--Igor "the Otter" 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bradley Smith and CODOH

message: This open sentence has generated a lot of debate. This seems a pity to me, as the article would, in my view, be far more encyclopedic and effective if anti-semitism were mentioned in the final sentence of the lead rather than the first one — and the lead at the moment does not meet WP:LEAD anyway. The problem with applying a label in the first sentence, no matter how many sources are given, is that it effects the way the reader engages with the rest of the material. They might wonder if there is an agenda, or feel annoyed by arguments from authority. It is much more encyclopedic and effective to show readers that holocaust denial is anti-semitic, than to tell them.
For what it is worth, here is how I would rewrite the lead. I would define what holocaust denial is (without the label), then, following WP:LEAD, I would summarize key points about the history, claims, methods, objections and critiques. Then I would end with a sentence like "Holocaust denial is almost universally regarded as an anti-semitic activity" (footnote to a few of the most obviously scholarly sources and a couple of choice quotes). Packs a punch doesn't it? Yet it is much more encyclopedic. By the time the reader has read what it is all about, they have been shown that it is anti-semitic, and so when the article tells them it is so regarded, the response is much more likely to be "I'm not surprised!" than "What's the agenda here?".
Good luck with the article, anyway! Geometry guy 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the label in the first sentence sets the tone for the rest of the article in a manner that distracts the reader from the substantial issues of the subject. A.G. Pinkwater 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with GG as well. The current label is not necessarily incorrect, but I find the sentence uncomfortably jarring, and the (required?) overreferencing does not help. --Stephan Schulz 14:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the structure doesn't work well. I tend to dislike opposition characterizations in the first sentence of an article, anyway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Amen... this was my contention all along.  You can make the opening much more convincing and strong without incorporating the POV.  It may be a factual assertion, but it set the tone---and everything from that point forward was read with that tone in mind.Balloonman 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Much more convincing now. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - nice work Jayjg, that should satisfy genuinely concerned editors and remove some ammunition from one or two others ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A great improvement! Without watering down the facts, you have dealt with several, if not all, of the concerns that people had with the lead at GA/R. In my view, some of the footnotes could now be shortened without the corresponding facts being challenged, and that this would also improve the article (some of the information could be incorporated into the body of the text if you feel it is important). Note that I commented earlier at GA/R (and was perhaps a little harsh) but at this rate I think my concerns will soon be addressed and I will be able to change my recommendation. Geometry guy 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Thanks, Jayjg, for boldness well applied! --Stephan Schulz 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't read the whole article since the edits have been made, but the lead is SOOO much better IMHO.  It sets a MUCH better tone and lets the facts speak for themselves.  I will re-read the article tomorrow, but if the rest of the article shows similar improvement I will be VERY HAPPY to reconsider my opposition to this article.Balloonman 06:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good. My only question would now be whether Holocaust deniers only contest the genocide of the Jews (as stated by the lead sentence) or if it follows that they also dispute the extermination of Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, etc. I think the footnotes refer only/mainly to the genocide of the Jews, but it seems odd that deniers would agree that these other groups were in fact exterminated, but the Jews weren't. A.G. Pinkwater 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is they hardly mention the latter, but I agree this needs clarification. See also below (over edit conflict). Geometry guy 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Short-circuiting the opening sentence issue

message: Since that seemed to be a success, I will attempt to continue with suggestions for improving the lead to meet the guidelines, in particular, those on overview and emphasis:
* The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.
* Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
Here are a few points from the article which I think should be mentioned in the lead, but which are not, or not in summary style.
* Aspects of the history. I would suggest: Nazi cover-ups, beginnings of the movement and key trials (e.g. Irving-Lipstadt).
* Methodology: this could be covered as part of the critique of "revisionism", i.e., that the methodology involves a preconceived theory and selectively ignores historical fact.
* Recent trends: I guess the "hoax" and "Zionist conspiracy" could be placed in this context; also Iran is worth mentioning.
* Laws against holocaust denial and reactions to them.
With regard to "significant information", the preconceived theory aspect also needs some citation in the text. Also one disadvantage of my suggestion to move the antisemitism issue to the end of the lead is that it is easy to misread the lead as a synthesis of the material in the article into an argument that holocaust denial is antisemetic. I think such an impression should be avoided.
Other issues: there has been much discussion here about the distinction between the holocaust in general and the genocide of Jews in particular, and the fact that holocaust deniers almost exclusively deal with the latter in their material. I think there needs to be a sourced paragraph somewhere in the claims section explaining the latter point. Also the first sentence now effectively equates the holocaust with the genocide of Jews, which needs to be clarified, with reference to the new paragraph. Finally, I would suggest reversing the order of the two infoboxes: holocaust first, antisemitism second. Geometry guy 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about Iran... the section on Iran is currently 1/7th of the article, but it's not in the lead.  I think the section needs to be shortened (IMHO, it is currently too long and disjointed.)  I also agree about non-jews being mentioned.  While Deniers focus on the Jews, they also have to deny non-jews were killed for the same reason.  A short sentence/paragraph explaining this would short circuit the criticism... my opinion is that if you know what the criticism is, don't ignore it and leave it to the talk pages, address it in the article.  If you know that somebody is going to object to the wording, fix it so that they can't---by being proactive.Balloonman 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing with [[WP:LEAD]] and related issues

message: Wow, the quality of the lead section of this article is vastly enhanced!  MUCH much better than it was last week!Balloonman 06:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mention it--Igor "the Otter" 18:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment wasn't directed to you. Nor was Balloonman's. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 2 Balloonman It was easy enough to do that - I've just removed the word "antisemitic" from there:)--Igor "the Otter" 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (NOTE: prior to this comment, Igor and I had been invovled in a minor edit war where he was moving Jayjg's "thanks" to after his response 3-5 times.)  Igor, you can change the wording of your statement---from you original statement, which appeared sarcastic in comparison to the original lead, "It was easy enough to do."  But the change I was referring to was the major rewrite that Jayjg did.  Jayjg placed his response where he placed it---because of some heated debate he and I had over the lead... not over your removing a single word.  A week before I made my post, the lead was IMHO horrendous and terribly POV.  The thanks isn't thanking you for your minor word smith, but rather for the acknowlegment of THE MAJOR improvement Jayjg made.  If this is an incorrect interpretation, then JAYJG is free to fix it... but it is disingenous for a person to move another persons comment in this manner.  Please leave his comment where he wrote it.  If JAYJG wants to move it, then Jayjg can move it.Balloonman 15:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I think that removing of that single word was much more important then "major" changes Jayjg made. He have inserted his comment over mine. I thought that it was Jaygj who moved my comment, sorry:)--Igor "the Otter" 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly right, Balloonman. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead still says "antisemitic", as it should. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... it's more in how and where it was said for all of the reasons that Geometry Guy expounded upon. Jayjg took those comments (and my less eleoquent comments) and wrote a lead that is MUCH MUCH stronger...without losing the fact that 99.9% of the world agrees it is antisemetic.Balloonman 16:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 99.9% of the world agrees it is antisemetic Do you really believe this? 99.9% of the world's population doesn't care at all about Holocaust. By the way, it is not "antisemitic claim" anymore (about a week). Jayjg is thinking desirable as existing.--Igor "the Otter" 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't remove the phrase "antisemitic claim", I did, as part of a thorough re-write of the lead. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't sell me that. I did it not you --Igor "the Otter" 16:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop talking nonsense. See this edit, which was the beginning of my re-write of the introduction. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is you, who talking noncences. I did that change not you. Anybody who doubts can look at my list of edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=140347199 I don't want to feed the trolls. --Igor "the Otter" 15:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Night and Day 

message: I still see some minor wording changes that I don't like (words/phrases that I don't think belong in an encyclopedic article.)  Such as "and ignores or routinely minimizes even confirmed evidence that conflicts with that premise."  I think the "even confirmed" words are POV.  Evidence is evidence, adding those words make it POV.  Another place, "The majority of scholars with credentials in the field regard it as unreasonable." Again, the inclusion of "with credentials" is unnecessary.  First, the majority of scholars WITHOUT credentials in the field undoubtably feel the same way.  Second, it is another POV fork.  The statement is strong enough to stand without those words.  Those words simply open up a ton of worms that doesn't need to be brought up---for example, "He's a recognized expert in the field, but mainstream academia doesn't accept him because he doesn't kowtow to their lies."  By getting rid of those two words, you cut the legs out from this argument. Ok, they find a dozen historians who support their position and have credentials---who cares?  The majority do not.  It's not necessary.
But the real reason why I've started this section is that the Claims and Beliefs section still needs some help.  The lead was my biggest problem with the article, but that looks great now.  But the Claims and Beliefs section still needs help.
I'll work on it this evening unless somebody else wants to tackle it before then or objects.  It has improved since every sentence doesn't start with "They claim."  But I think we need to get rid of "they claim" or "they believe" throughout the section.  The header and lead sentence indicates that these are the allegations being made by the deniers.  Bullets 4 and 5 (on the photos and Jews spreading stories) are perfect examples of how these beliefs should be written in an NPOV.  In most cases, we can simply delete the words "They claim/argue/believe" and leave the statement as the facts that as deniers believe them.  Those words, add POV to the statements. In the English language, we often use those terms as a snide comment when we know better.  "That's what you claim." Is an easy way to put somebody on the defensive.  The article should simply present their beleifs without the implied commentary---let the evidence elsewhere do that.
Also, the section would be stronger if each bullet point had a reference that included a page number.  Right now, it is a huge/important section and we have to assume that the different bullet points are in the book cited.  But were any of them added from another source?  Are any NOT in the book/source quoted?  Where would I go in the book to find those cases?  This is something that one of the regulars here would have to tackle.  IMHO, EVERY bullet point should have a citation---too many references on a controversial subject is ALWAYS better than too few...
Finally, I think the first paragraph to this section should include a piece about functionalism vs intentionalism. I would love to see this expanded upon---perhaps as it's own section before the claims/beliefs one!  What is a functionalist argument vs an intentionalist one?  How do they differ?  What are their relevances?  E.g. I can see a person ignorant of the subject accepting the intentionalism argument before the functionalist one... I would also consider moving the intentionalism to the top of this section. I think that's an important point that is lost in this section---and it makes for a jolt when you are reading it.Balloonman 19:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims and Beliefs

message: Ok, I've made some changes but I have a few discrepencies that I'd like to have resolved:
* I would love for the section on "Beliefs and Claims" to discuss functionalism and intentionalism in a little more detail.
* The History and development section has the sentence "charges that they have rarely rejected."  This clearly needs a citation---as it doesn't ring true.  The little bit that I've seen of Holocaust denial, deniers always try to distance themselves from antisemitism. It's like the racists saying, "I'm not a racist" before telling a racist joke. Sentence deleted by JayjgBalloonman 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few loose ends 

message: I moved the legal codes out of the main body of the article and placed them into the table.  I felt that this makes for an easier read and an easier review of the data.  The one thing that I wasn't clear about were some of the countries.  The way the article was written I wasn't sure if Poland, Romania, and Slovakia were all under the same code as Switzerland (Article 261bis of the Penal Code.)  It looked as if the article was saying that, but it wouldn't make sense for four geographically separate countries to have the same Penal Code section dealing with the same crime.  Thus, I didn't include that code for Poland/Romania/Slovakia.  If this is an incorrect interpretation of the data, please fix it.Balloonman 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Codes 

message: Wow, I just archived 250KB of discussion... and there is still 36 KB left on this talk page.  I archived everything that didn't have new comments in the past five days.  Hope this is acceptable to all.  If there is an archived discussion that you think we prematurely archived please feel free to get it back...  I thought about going to 3 days, but it would leave the exact same topics open.  Less than 3 days feels too short for some of the contentious issues raised on this page.Balloonman 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were you I'd get rid of the Horns (again) section as well. That discussion is over. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about archiving more... but decided that 5 days of non-activity was the least amount of time that I was willing to do on this page... the Horns discussion had conversation on it the day before I did the archive and with as contentious as this page can be, I figured a hard rule of 5 days would be better than a mere judgment callBalloonman 07:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Decided that you were probably right as the conversation was taken offline and to the individuals talk pagesBalloonman 07:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: What is the consensus about changing "The Nazis had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews." to "The Nazis had no official policy or intention of systematically exterminating Jews."? As far as I'm aware, being only peripherally familiar with this subject, many HDers don't deny that Jews died in massive numbers, but deny that this was an organised effort, instead claiming that the deaths were the result of junior officers exceeding their orders, paramilitary or partisan activity, harsh conditions in the camps etc. EyeSereneTALK 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources say the former, not the latter. And whether or not they deny that Jews died in "massive numbers" depends on how you define "massive numbers". Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their definition of 'massive numbers' being tens or hundreds of thousands, not the millions that are the actual figures. For example, I know Irving accepts that there were many deaths but, according to him, as a result of disease, poor conditions and also the einsatzgruppen operating on the Eastern front (which he admits existed, though he attempts to portray Hitler as trying to put a stop to them). It was the notion that the killing was systematic (ie organised and officially sanctioned at the highest level) that he objected to. This is backed up by fellow Holocaust denier Faurisson: "We assume that there were massacres and hostages and reprisals and so on... I don't know any Revisionist who says that there were no massacres, because there is no war without massacres, especially on the Russian front where you had Jews, and partisans, women, and children all mixed together." Professor Evans stated "Irving had a long record of blaming the high mortality rate in the camps - insofar as he conceded it at all - on epidemics rather than on deliberate, systematic killing." (both quotes from here, paras 24 & 30 respectively). However, I suppose the word policy in the current sentence implies this to a degree anyway, so I don't intend to argue the point ;) EyeSereneTALK 09:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims 

message: I have closed the Good article review discussion with the result "no consensus to delist". Hence the article retains its good article status for the time being. Note that this result was not determined by counting votes, but by considering the weight of argument on each side in the light of the current content of the article: further details can be found in the review archive. Geometry guy 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA/R discussion archived 

message: Whilst not a denier of the holocaust it does seem to me that this article in not neutral. Concentration camps were first used by the British during the Boer war and without trying to kill anyone hundreds of thousands of Boers and Black Africans died simply because living in enclosed spaces leads to epidemics and disease and poor sanitation.
From what I know of history not all concentration camps were extermination camps and one would assume that not all those who died were deliberately exterminated; many probably died of disease exacerbated by a lack of nutrition.
Indeed in many places Jews were kept alive to use as slave labour, just as captured Russian soldiers were.
Disregard for life is not the same as deliberately and systematically killing someone.
Just my two cents. RichardColgate 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you go read some more history. No, not all concentration camps were extermination camps. But how does this change the fact that there was systematic extermination? As for being "kept alive to use as slave labour", see Extermination through labour. --Stephan Schulz 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were five to seven million '''systematically''' killed? 

message: A version of "holocaust revisionism" was common in Soviet historiography -- quoting a more or less random article:
"It is a generally accepted fact that East Germans never experienced the same confrontation
with the Holocaust that their West German counterparts did prior to the reunification
of Germany in 1990, in large part because the official state anti-fascism celebrated almost
exclusively the suffering and struggle of the communist resistance fighters. When official
state discourse did engage the Holocaust, it was interpreted almost exclusively through the
lens of Marxist class analysis, which stated that antisemitism was only a diversionary tactic
of the ruling class to distract the workers from the class struggle and revolution." 
Mark A. Wolfgram, "The Holocaust through the Prism of East German Television: Collective Memory and Audience Perceptions", Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol 20, No 1, pp. 57-79. 
Wolfgram refers to the following book in this context: Mary Fulbrook, German National Identity after the Holocaust (Cambridge: Polity Press 1999), p. 65. Lebatsnok 09:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet version of holocaust revisionism 

message: In the section "Laws against Holocost Denial", the 2nd paragraph is not rendering correctly in IE6 or Opera; althouh it's fine in Firefox. It's supposed to be underneath the table of laws; but in both IE & Opera it appears partially underneath (IE) or overlayed with the 1st column (Opera). I don't know enough about how Wiki works to correct it myself.
--80.7.160.249 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical problem with this page 

message: I don't know what happens, but everytime I come here the word "peoples" is always in the article. It appears two times and I've edited it to "people" a few times already. That "s" is not needed, as the word "people" is the plural form of "person". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetbitchness (talk • contribs) 
* I think the problem comes from the fact that people is both the plural form of 'person' and a singular noun in itself. - Alison ☺ 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your contributions, Sweetbitchness. I've left a note on your talk page explaining what's going on here - we're honestly not being difficult ;) EyeSereneTALK 09:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Understood. Sweetbitchness 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never ending mistake? 

message: I have temporarily protected the page to fix the ref tags, that have somehow got to be a mess. Tom Harrison Talk 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you undone change I made. Can I ask you, why? --Igor "the Otter" 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Denialism and conspiracism are tightly linked in the literature Agree. But the reason, pointed in the article in not correct, IMHO ("a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary")--Igor "the Otter" 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How about this: "Denialism and conspiracism are tightly linked in the literature, for this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory"?--Igor "the Otter" 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Which evidense HD/HR ignores? I don't see. Deniers/revisionists speaking reasonable things, their opponents speaking nonsenses. Conspiracy theory is not nesessarily predeterminated conclusion, but the theory, which doesn't accept mainstream opinion. Most conspiracy theories are wrong, but HD/HR is right conspiracy theory. --Igor "the Otter" 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Once the theory that Earth is the planet orbiting Sun was considered almost like conspiracy theories now. Like heresy.--Igor "the Otter" 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is an article about Holocaust denial, not a platform for Holocaust denial It must be based on Deniers/revisionists materials to accord facts.--Igor "the Otter" 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it must be based on reliable sources, to accord with the WP:V policy If your sources claim nonsenses, they aren't reliable then. Or may be I've missed something?--Igor "the Otter" 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're exactly correct. That's why holocaust denier websites are not considered reliable sources. Now it's time for you to go away. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go away yourself--Igor "the Otter" 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a problem then trolls become admins.--Igor "the Otter" 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no reason to consider "denier" websites "not reliable sources", because they speak reasonable things unlike some admins here.--Igor "the Otter" 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know reading is not your strongest skill, but try reading WP:RS and in particular WP:SPS. Random websites are not reliable sources at all. And "reasonable" and "true" are, of course, different concepts. --Stephan Schulz 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deniers/revisionists have published books. And not only self-published, like you trying to say. For example, those of David Irving.--Igor "the Otter" 09:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Iranian government consider Deniers/Revisionists trustworthy enough. Authoritative? The senior palestinian historian shares revisionist/deniers position. So they are reliable sourse. --Igor "the Otter" 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief protection 

message: Hi,
I wanted to start a separate discussion on this as I don't want my point to be confused with the discussion conducted above under the heading "Predetermined conclusion".  I am NOT a Holocaust denier nor do I have any sympathies for that POV.  Nonetheless, I am a bit uncomfortable with using the phrase "predetermined conclusion" in the lead without further explanation.  It "seems" a bit too POV although it's obvious that the mainstream POV is that the Holocaust deniers haven't a leg to stand on.
So, what I'd like to ask for is a quote from the cited source which justifies the use of the phrase "predetermined conclusion".  Based on what the quote says, I'll re-evaluate my position and follow up accordingly.
--Richard 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have that source, but I added another that says the same. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that "predetermined conclusion" should be controversial, it's the standard model of all the pseudosciences like pseudohistory see here. In any case, it's been cited. <<-armon->> 02:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predetermined conclusion 2 

message: Ugh.  So I've done some very superficial research into the "6 million" number and it appears to be an estimate based on a "population balance" computation.  Without diminishing the horrific tragedy that this number represents, it is important to recognize that there are problems with using the "population balance" methodology.
Now, I could be wrong.  I've only looked at a few websites and half of them were HD websites.  This is the best table I could find providing a breakdown of the 6 million number.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-statistics.htm
Note that over 4 million of the deaths were in Poland and the Soviet Union.
One of the HD sites argues that 2 million Polish and Soviet Jews were deported by the Soviets.  I can't attest to the accuracy of the 2 million figure but I believe that it is true that the Soviets deported Poles from Poland between 1939 and 1941.  Even assuming that the number of Polish Jews was 0.5 to 1 million instead of 2 million, that reduces the 6 million number somewhat.  
Also, because the population balance figure necessarily includes non-combatant deaths due to warfare, we cannot assign responsibility for all 6 million deaths to the Nazi "Final Solution" campaign.
Now, I'm not disputing that European Jewry lost 6 million souls (although the HD sites do hint at the number being too large and even have the unspeakable whatever to claim that the number of Jews actually went up during the period in question!)
Nor am I saying that this loss was anything less than a horrific tragedy that is a stain on humanity.
However, it does seem that there is a failure to distinguish between "population balance loss of 6 million" and the "number killed as a direct result of the Nazi Final Solution".  
Because my research has been very superficial, my off-the-cuff guess is that the number killed as a direct result of the Nazi Final Solution could arguably be in the range of 3-5 million.  Still a horrific number but something less than 6 million.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert in either the Holocaust or European history in general.  However, I have experience as a major contributor to [this article] on estimating the number of deaths caused by the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe.  
Now I confess that the referenced article is not the greatest article.  It started out as a collection of notes in support of the Flight and expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe during and after WWII article.  Nonetheless, it is our best effort to document the debate that exists in academia over the estimate of "2 million German deaths".
My experience in researching that article with other editors is that big numbers are often bandied about and assumed accurate when they are often just "best guess" estimates that are susceptible to criticism.
I'm not saying that the 6 million number is wrong.  However, I think there is encyclopedic value in clarifying what the 6 million number represents and how it was arrived at.  I would like to see an article like [this article] that digs into the methodology behind the 6 million number.  The table in  has some "big, round numbers" that should be looked at more closely.
--Richard 14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 million