Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 3

message: I'm not a regular to this article so forgive me if I'm rehashing stuff, but I happened to see the last edit and the removal of the NPOV tag, and I'm not really happy with
:Holocaust deniers typically misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions.
That's certainly the view of the majority, but I think this needs (at worst) weasel words and at best proper sourcing. I'm sure holocaust deniers don't see themselves as misusing or ignoring historical records. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of NPOV tag 

message: Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Identity:
:"Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self identification). This can mean calling an individual the term they use, or calling a group the term most widely used by that group."
Sam Spade 00:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should quote the sentence right before that: "However, here are some non-binding guidelines that may help."  I hardly think this "non-binding guideline" compels us to use a label that was designed to be purposefully misleading and which is almost universally rejected among serious scholars as an attempt to whitewash Holocaust denial.  This article (and the talk page) explains in great detail why calling Holocaust denial is the most NPOV approach, and, to quote from the same section of the manual of style: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence." --Goodoldpolonius2 00:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A separate Holocaust revisionism article could be created, instead of moving this one. RJII 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to direct here. RJII 01:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No; "holocaust revisionism" could be treated as something distinct from "holocaust denial". Except it isn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Maybe I'll create it then to see if you're right. No better incentive than being told that it's not doable. RJII 02:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have fun. Did you look in the discussion right above here, where Modemac is trying exactly that? I didn't say it's not doable; I could do it right now. "Holocaust revisionism" -- a term used by Holocaust deniers to refer to their methodology." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that I will. The subject doesn't really interest me one way or the other. I just happened to come across some very POV stuff that needed to be addressed. Maybe if I was a "Holocaust denier" I'd be more into it. I'm probably winding down here. RJII 03:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs to be moved to [[Holocaust revisionism]] 

message: The attention accorded this topic has been initiated from 
'encyclopediast territory' and was at first the simple results from subject/respondent replies about the fires during the San Francisco [CA U. S. A.] 1906 earthquake.  'Denial' was somewhat cavalierly used to describe the reaction of people who know/knew nothing about the historical earthquake scenario; as a psychological term, it was then quite logically transferred to the topical domains of 'cremation' and 'death-during-fires'.
The effort also alludes to the use of tobacco to burn off intes-tinal effluent, and the perhaps predictable incidence of destructive fires which result therefrom. Targeted with a call-demand methodological strategy demonstrated in the manner of an inquisition, those lacking on-site experience or personal eye-witness accounts of the German concentration camp debacles truthfully denied any knowledge or participation in the events [both as an alleged mass murder or as a holocaust].  
There is some reason to believe that camp-dwellers were being recruited and confined so as to engage in some kind of public works or product-development schemes, and that coercive pressure or inexperience contributed to digestive problems in-formally characterized as 'gas'/gastrointestinal disfunction.
While historical photographs affirm the existence of crematory equipment within the German concentration camps investigated, there is no reason to believe that chloroform or some other type of gas was used to deliberately kill the in-mates.
Beadtot 10/19/2005 20:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that "some other type of gas" was used to deliberately kill the victims -- Zyklon-B, for instance.  This is one of the topics that holocaust deniers have been trying to assert, and despite all of of their whining they have yet to prove their case that "gas was not used to kill Jews." --Modemac 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the gibberish-troll. Check the edits of . --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  call-demand strategies and information-gathering 

message: :Just passing through.  I think you need to change the comment about David Irving being found guilty of falsifying historical documents.  This creates the impression he is involved in fraud, which is not true.  And also suggests he was found guilty by a judge which is not true unless in some obscure matters relating to Canadian immigration law.  Perhaps a more correct and neutral comment would be: in an unsuccessful libel case taken by David Irving the judge ruled that while a noted historian in military history Irving was prone to knowingly distort historical source documents to suit an agenda of holocaust denial.  Clumsy but more accurate, what is written at the moment is simply incorrect.139.80.123.38 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he was not found "guilty" of Holocaust denial, but rather was found to have committed it.  He was not convicted of anything at all. Please try to remember, it was Irving who brought the case against Lipstadt, not the other way around.  She called him a Holocaust denier, he sued her for libel, and he lost because he was found to have lied and falsified, and was, in fact, a Holocaust denier.  That is the point. Jayjg (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irving

message: Sansvoix, please do not make major changes to this article without consensus. Discuss the changes you want to make, and work them gradually into the article. Everyone, please work to achieve concensus. Please contact me or any other administrator if you need assistance. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sansvoix 

message: Despite the vigorous debate on this discussion page, I find the article admirably neutral.  If anything it treats the subject too gently.
Regarding the denial/revisionist debate I have a comment.  Among historians, a revisionist approach means the evaluation of primary source material using accepted methodologies to expose and correct previous oversights.  This is different from fringe scholarship which ignores standard methodologies in the interest of justifying some partisan viewpoint.  True revisionist historians earn a measure of respect within the academic community even when some of their ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas.  Fringe scholarship rarely publishes in the academic press, preferring to appeal to the ignorant.  This holds true across a variety of topics. 
When holocaust deniers call themselves revisionist they are attempting to appropriate a level of legitimacy they haven't earned.  
:How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.  -Abraham Lincoln
Durova 20:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per  Rfc : seems perfectly sane to me .I'm  almost ashamed to say , though , that all I'd think of changing is the word deniers . I think denialists would be better . Deniers deny , but denialists adhere to  denial .  Ad hominem on WP  , made against  my particular  notices of denial (here on WP ) suggest  my writing to be all kinda shite .   But .... it seems stronger denialist , and more logical , and  as per mathematics - more beautiful (hence my shame) . I come across people  in denial . Sure they deny this and  they deny that , but are  ,over-all , in denial of something  . So the generality is  here of  holocaust denial , whose  adherents  are denialists  .    Rfc=NPOV . 
EffK 20:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responding to Request for Comment 

message: The image of the book that is a cornerstone of the Holocaust denial is appropriate, and IMO, not "highly offensive".  I've rolled back that edit so that it is back in the article.  If there is disagreement, please discuss here first. Wikibofh 13:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Could someone here have a look at the recent changes to the Mel Mermelstein article?  I'm suspicious of some of the info added to the article.  Gamaliel 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mel Mermelstein]] 

message: "It is legitimate to argue that the Holocaust was the unintentional consequence of the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi regime. However, even IF this were the case, the Nazi government would still bear the moral responsibility for actions committed by its officials."
It is not Wikipedia's place to itself argue what is legitimate or illigitimate, or where moral responsibility lies.  The above section should be included as an expert's opinion.  It sounds like the writer's own response to the claims mentioned above.
"Holocaust deniers make all or most of the following claims:"
So if someone makes just four out of nine claims they are not a holocaust denier?  Surely if someone argued that the claim 3, the number of 5-6 million is too high and actually 100,000 they are a holocaust denier.  I think it should say "Holocaust deniers commonly assert some of the following" or a statement along those lines, that is free from a generalisation that detracts from the article's credibility. --Constan69 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion 

message: I have no problem with the section on examination of Holocaust denial being split. I do think that it has been very poorly summarised. This has lead to an unbalanced article. I expect to see refutations of this stupidity in this article. Currently there aer not really many at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: There should be a section on the international roundup of Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel, Seigfried Verbeke and David Irving as well as the suit now pending against LePen. Jim Bowery 01:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Given the, um...incinderary nature of this article, I would suggest you draft something up here in talk to make sure it looks good for the main article.  Wikibofh 01:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the most important thing is to document the fact that "holocaust denial" is not only in criminal laws of various nations but that it's definition is being established in court preceent.  Something like this: German citizens Germar Rudolf and  Ernst Zundel were deported from the United States, which has no laws against "holocaust denial" and will stand trial in Germany for the crime of "holocaust denial".  German Seigfried Verbeke was extradited from Belgium for trial in Germany.  David Irving was arrested in Vienna, Austria, on suspicion of having engaged in "holocaust denial" in the late 1980s. Their court cases are pending.  These court precedents will establish the working legal definition of "holocaust denial" as a crime. Jim Bowery 20:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid original research, could you provide us with some external sources indicating that "its definition is being established by court precedent"? I can't really tell which courts you are referring to; Zündel and Rudolf weren't deported from the US for holocaust denial in particular -- Rudolf was convicted and sentenced for that crime in Germany, and the US (per US law) deported him as a convicted criminal; Zündel outstayed his visa. I don't know if the issue of holocaust denial per se came up in the hearings; plenty of people get booted out for outstaying their visas, especially nowadays; and anyone convicted of a crime in Germany who fled before incarceration would get the same treatment here as Rudolf. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrests and Suits 

message: Just as there is a seperate article for the phenomenon of Genocide in general - with a discussion of definitions, examples and border-line cases - so there should also be a separate article that deals with policies of official denial and "Truth and Reconciliation" policies (including apologies, monuments/museums, education and sometimes even financial compensation) that some states have resorted to after they have abandoned policies of denial or innocence of extermination, forced removal or slavery. This is a development that has been witnessed in many countries, including Australia, Germany, Cambodia and Brazil. --Big Adamsky 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for advising! Big Adamsky 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a seperate entry for the section "Other genocide denials"? 

message: Dear Davril2020
I am the guy with the broken english... :))
Thank u for your inline-citation additions and for the clear and humble explanations u posted in the current disscussion board. 
But for the sake of neutrality I still find important to reformulate the paragraph in its explicit implications and that according to the sources you provided.
--
recap :
"
In the Middle East, the Syrian and Iranian government, as well as the Palestinian Authority have published and promoted Holocaust denial literature [3][4][5]. These works are best sellers in many Arab nations.
"
source [3] refers to the syrian part
source [4] refers to the iranian part
source [5] refers to the palestinian part
--
In source [5] from the ICT we can read that the palestinian groups incriminated in HD by Reuven Paz (the ICT Academic Director) is the Hamas :
"
Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) has recently published a denial of the Jewish Holocaust on its official website. Although Hamas often uses anti-Jewish phrases, this publication marks the first time the organization has officially denied the Holocaust.
"
The Hamas is not the Palestinian authority!
The Palestinian Authority is the legitime government of the Palestians and it is a laic, the Hamas is a political/military/religious/more? group.
Is the Front National of Jean-Marie Lepen the representative of the French state?  
/*
nb: In the early stages of its creation , the Hamas was also benefiting from the israeli government secret funds to counter the FATAH legitimacy among the palestinian opinion  ...but that is another story  : Out of subject.
*/
MORE IMPORTANT THE SOURCE [5] STATES THE FOLLOWING :
"
The Islamic establishment of the PA, headed by Shaykh 'Ikrimah Sabri, has taken a strong anti-Jewish tone, but it has so far not been accompanied by a denial of the Holocaust."
CONCLUSION : THE SOURCES GIVEN ARE INFIRMING THE STATEMENT !!! 
Is this source a pro-palestinan, antisemitic or negationist one?
No it is a pro-israeli, 'prosemitic' (sorry for the word but jewish is not the antonym of antisemitic... ) and antirev one!!!  
I am going to reformulate the paragraph in a neutral/non-political way :
"
In the Middle East, individuals from the Syrian and Iranian government, as well as  Palestinian political groups (Hamas) have published and promoted Holocaust denial statements [3][4][5].
"
As Best-Sellers are more ore less paper books and not website like in source [5] or newspapers like in source [4], I am erasing "These works are best sellers".
Feel yourself welcome for any correction..Especially because of my poor writing in english! But please do not revert without explanations!!!
Sincerly yours.
:Thanks for the recap. If somebody can provide best-seller links (or even sales info, so we can discuss what a "best seller" is, and isn't), that might be helpful. I would also encourage you to make a wikipedia account, so you are not an anonymous IP address, as many anonymous IP edits get reverted without much consideration. Ronabop 09:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure that calling "Hamas" a "political organization" is anymore accurate or unbiased then calling Al Queda a "political organization". To, as Wikipedia does, disambiguate what I am saying: Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization, speaking of which I am starting a new article: Terrorism denial if anyone is interested. --Nonymous-raz 02:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting arcticle idea, Nonymous-raz, I'll watchlist it, and wait for people to discuss Irgun ;-) . I think the main problem with giving large or diverse organizations a single label is that such short labels miss the scope of multipurpose organizations. HAMAS builds schools and hospitals, and engages in political campaigns, and also blows people up. To apply any single label (political? terrorist? militant? NGO? humanitarian? What if they are all of the above, and more?) to a group, which cannot encompass the scope of an group's activities, inevitably leads to debate about the label used. Ronabop 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformulation needed 

message: Removed the sentence: "Thus Holocaust revisionism has come to be understood as revisionist history, rather than historical revisionism." This distinction is unknown by the scientific world. See talk pages of revisionist history. Those two articles should be merged. I hope readers of this page understand the necessity to do so. Kaliz 21:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical revisionism (politics?) 

message: An article full of "most", "almost all" without specifying how many are "most" and "almost all" cannot possibly be NPOV. Somebody needs to provide figures if such strong assertions are to be made. --Vizcarra 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Vizcarra, from Public Opinion Quarterly, the most respected journal on polling and opinion research on the planet: "No reputable historian questions the reality of the Holocaust, and those promoting Holocaust denial are overwhelmingly anti-Semites and/or neo-Nazis."  That is pretty definitive, and yhey use the much stronger "no reputable historian" and the article just says "almost all" or "most " If you are going to argue otherwise, please provide some sources of your own. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Holocaust denial includes those who do not "question the reality of the Holocaust" but question the description of how it was occurred. Again, another point of the confusion between the two. --Vizcarra 23:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is correct, Vizcarra. Can you give an example of someone who is a denier who does not question the reality of the Holocaust (Defined in this article as the deliberate targeting of the Jews and Roma, around 5-6 million Jewish deaths, and gas chambers and industrialized killing techniques)?  Also, you did not respond to the piece from POQ, which should allow you to remove the POV tag and restore the words "almost all."  --Goodoldpolonius2 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not need to keep providing sources. Just read the first paragraph of the article. <<Also, you did not respond to the piece from POQ, which should allow you to remove the POV tag and restore the words "almost all.">> No it doesn't. Again... you are confusing HD with denying the holocaust. HD includes both "denying the holocaust" and not agreeing with the account of it. So, in a sense saying that there were 4 million Jewish deaths is in fact HD (although not "denying the Holocaust", just the account of "5-6 million"). --Vizcarra 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not need to keep providing sources.   What sources have you provided so far? You are confusing HD with denying the holocaust. What does that mean?  I have never heard of this difference between "holocaust denial" and "denying the holocaust."  This sounds entirely original.  Please explain, and please do provide at least one source backing you up. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have never heard of such thing? Well let me introduce you to this article Holocaust denial, which is not original research since I did not write it. And that's my source to back me up. --Vizcarra 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of the sources you have provided as "Holocaust denial" refer to people or organizations that deny the Holocaust existed. However, Holocaust denial refers to "the claims that the Holocaust did not occur as it is defined by mainstream historiography". That is the distinction. Deying the Holocaust existed is illegal in some countries but not agreeing completely on the accounts (numbers, facts, ect.) Again, my source is the wikipedia article, which not only mentions this but also that <<([Holocaust] deniers insist that they do not deny the Holocaust, preferring to be called "Holocaust revisionists". They are nevertheless commonly referred to as "Holocaust deniers" due to the fact that they deny the veracity of the commonly held historical definition of the event". --Vizcarra 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the distinction you are drawing still doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't seem to be in the article.  The first sentence "mainstream historiography" is almost immediately followed by a longer definition, which makes it clear what Holocaust denial is in more detail (denying rough death total, methods, and intentionality+belief in conspiracy).  You seem to be arguing that there is confusion between "bad" Holocaust deniers who deny that the Holocaust happened and "good" Holocaust-deniers-who-are-called-Holocaust-deniers-even-though-they-don't-really-deny-the-Holocaust.  Who, exactly, is in this second catagory?  The distinction is not in the article, and you seem to be basing all of your claims on the fact that this article is smearing those people, who you think shouldn't be called deniers.  Please give me an example of the problem, because currently you are talking about something that seems to not actually have a real case -- since the UN, American Historical Association, EU, and countless scholars have stated explicitly that "Holocaust denial" is not real scholarship.  Please be explicit, as it will make the conversation easier. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, again, you misunderstand, even though I was explicit. I am not challenging the name "Holocaust denier", if it has been decided to call them that way, fine. But, unfortunately, we are not talking about homogeneous groups. We are talking about: 1) Those who claim the Holocaust never existed, 2) Those who accept it existed but do not agree on the historical account (numbers, facts, etc.) 3) One that I did not mention but is considered a type of "Holocaust revisionism", which is comparing the state of Israel to Nazi Germany. The sources you are using to label them as "liars" are referring to #2 type. That is the problem, and that is where most of the controversy is. Obviously, it can be said that someone claiming the Holocaust did not happen is a liar, but this cannot be said of someone who disagrees with the actual number of deaths, etc. And calling someone who does not agree with any of these points a liar is POV because there are many opinions on the topic. --Vizcarra 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the "problem" is that scholarship lumps all categories of deniers together, thereby unintentially (yeah right) or intentially discrediting those who make revisionist claims. Note that a title like Holocaust denial isn't neutral to begin with, not that Holocaust revision is a better alternative, as it has the exact opposite effect. In addition to problems with the title, wikipedians are attempting to neutralize a category that includes a host of interesting characters, with "revisionists" who deny the event wanting to be called Holocaust revisionists, leaving actually revisionists who want to play with numbers and details not sure what to do. And yes, numbers do matter. Someone argued much earlier that either way there were atrocities, so Nazi sympathizers have a moot point. I highly disagree, simply because there are tremendous social and political consequences from the Holocaust being so intrinsically different from other atrocities throughout history. So the question is as are we entitled to seperate the two even if no effort has been made in the mainstream to accomplish this? This could become confusing, as the two paths tend to cross each other. For example, the controversial Zundel has had success with the numbers game and certain specific challenges despite the fact that many of his other claims are absurd, outright distortions.--68.45.21.204 10:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Zundel is your best example in doing real reaserch then it is apparent that not much is being done.  There is no vast conspiriecy to discredit holocaust deniers, just the facts.  Calling Holocaust Denial Holocaust revisionism is no different then saying that a financial loss is a defered profit.  It is simply putting a positive spin on it, which as a result just confuses the issue.  The Holocaust is different from other genocides in that it was the first to become well known through out the world. --T-rex 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[POV]] tag 

message: Was James J. Martin a "holocaust denier"? RJII 04:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was very much a follower of Barnes, and had a similar intellectual trajectory based on establishing the moral equivalence between Allies and Axis.  As he took that point further, he increasingly began to explain away or minimize Axis crimes.  By late in his career, he went all the way to full-blown Holocaust denial. He also wrote some pieces for David Duke's "No War for Israel" site -- as if IHR association wasn't enough! --Goodoldpolonius2 04:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Thanks. I was wondering because someone had asked earlier if any "professional historians," as opposed to "amateur historians," were "Holocaust deniers." So, there's one --Phd in History and all. RJII 05:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: James J. Martin

message: The section in the article which talks about holocaust revisionists stated that they were basically deniers, which isnt true (I myself dont believe 11 milion people died in the holocaust, but I dont believe it didnt happen).
I have further defined holocaust revisionism in the article and described how it is different to holocaust denial.
::Your definition is original research. As can be seen from the article, Holocause deniers are not called that because they think that only 10.5 million Jews were intentionally slaughtered. They're called that because they assert that it was not intentional and that only a fraction of that number died. If you wish to clarify the distinctions, please find proper reference materials. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only claimed that 6 million jewish people died in the holocaust, the other 5 million are (off the top of my head) slavs, homosexuals, political activists etc. I'm sure there are more but yeah
Holocaust denial is the belief that there was no holocaust at all, and that it is a jewish conspiracy. Holocaust revisionism is the belief that the holocaust did happen, just that 11 million people didnt die.
* Go through the archives.  We've had this discussion.  Virtually all deniers claim to be revisionists.  This is consensus.  Wikibofh(talk) 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To be fair, it's not really a consensus. There was a lot of disagreement, and, seeing no one really switch sides, there probably still is. There's a majority, yes, and a decent one at that, but not a consensus. However, seeing as a consensus isn't really possible, this is the best we can do. And yes, this issue has been discussed quite a bit, so looking through the archives is a good idea. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please don't tell me we're going to get into a meta-discussion on consensus consensus.  :)  Wikibofh(talk) 16:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * Heh, don't worry. I'm not looking for one. :) I just wanted to make the distinction because editors who are in disagreement but are respectful of the majority's wishes might feel marginalized otherwise. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revise revisionists 

message: I have reverted the inclusion of noam chomsky as a 'reference'. It needs an actual reference (paper, essay, book etc...) not a vague relation to a philosopher. -Localzuk (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naom Chomsky citation 

message: Does anybody agree that the intro to the article is disgustingly long and redundant? Maybe we could work on shortening it? Moving discussion items to the article, and just leaving the basic facts in the intro? Dietwald 16:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let's ask it differently, would anybody object to a more tightly written intro? there is a lot of stuff in the intro that could just go into the body of the article. Dietwald 08:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Why does holocaust revisionism redirect to holocaust denial? I dont think that the holocaust didnt happen, I believe it did happen, I just dont think that 11 million people were killed. The redirect implies that anyone who even questions the holocaust is a denier.
:Well, the article says nothing about 11 million people being killed, for one thing.  In any case, please see the previous discussions: 
, , , , , .  Hopefully, this will help. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisionism 

message: Do you think this should be added to the President of Iran's section, or is it too unimportant in the grand scheme of things?
::IMO, totally off-topic. Belongs under Religion as Lunacy (too bad the article does not exist -- would it be too POV?Dietwald 07:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Cartoons 

message: While this article seems somewhat biased (See "Surely this is not NPOV" - I essentially agree with Brenton's statements) the only revision I thought strictly necessary was deleting this particular sentence and reference:
The Holocaust Research Center director Dr. William Shulman described the denial "…as if these people were killed twice." [18]
This is obviously an extremely non-neutral statement and is unnecessary.  While I find holocaust denial to be repulsive, to claim that said denial is equal to murder is over the top and mars this article.  It's silly and wrong to deny the holocaust but certainly worse to make it a criminal offense or equate it with murder.  --adamatari 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote as the finishing quote of the article in this particular context stronly implies this is the view of the article.  We CAN report non-neutral opinions in a neutral context, but THIS opinion in THIS exact context skews the article.  The IHR is quoted earlier in this article, but to quote them as the "last word" would give the impression that their view is supported by the article.  The same goes for this; it adds nothing to the section and only serves to give a last moralistic tinge to the article.  --adamatari 16:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two problems with your argument: 1) Despite arguing that only the positioning bothered you, you deleted the sourced quote, rather than moving it and 2) the article now ends with Ward Churchill, which hardly seems appropriate.  I will try to fix both of these issues. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your fix - it finishes the article and section well but removes the sense of bias.  Next time I'll work harder produce a better edit like that. --adamatari 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! And sorry if I seemed a bit harsh -- this article has been the object of so much vandalism, some quite subtle, that my kneejerk reaction to a new editor removing a well-stated condemnation of Holocaust denial was "yet another one, sheesh." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit, NPOV 

message: I'm worried about this section. I don't know why it is necessary, but I'm not proposing to do anything drastic to it.
I'm sure the Nazi holocaust took place very much as described by conventional historians. The jury isn't out on that; it's as well accepted by anyone serious in the field as Darwinian evolution (which is denied by creationists) is by legitimate biologists. 
But the relevant section says pretty clearly that the same degree of certainty applies - making the "deniers" just plain wrong - to the facts of each and all of the listed cases. That seems POV. For all I know, the jury may indeed still be out in some of those cases. The only one I know much about is the case involving Windschuttle and the Tasmanian Aborigines. It seems pretty clear to me that Windschuttle's opponents are not having it all their own way in this particular debate, and have even had to make concessions to him on particular points. To list him as a denier in the same way that Irving etc are - i.e. denying solid historical facts - is just not right. I'm inclined to make some change here, but I'll leave it for further debate. One approach would be to remove the Windschuttle example, or qualify it somehow, if it is the only one where anyone thinks the so-called denier may actually have a point, or at least that there is a reputable POV that sides with him. Another would be to put some "alleged"s, etc., in the stem for the whole list. I don't want to do that if everyone thinks that most of these cases are as solid as the Nazi holocaust. Metamagician3000 02:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other genocide denials

message: Can we get a section on laws against Holocaust denial/revisionism?  That's not really clear here. -  Che Nuevara:  Join the Revolution 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  summary of denial/revisionism laws? 

message: I would like to take a bit of space (and admittedly off-topic space) to give a brief thank you to those - on all sides of the issue - who care enough to fight to keep/make this article NPOV.  Please continue to do so.  Thank you. Nailed 07:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My admiration 

message: The The beginnings of the modern movement section states:
:Rassinier was himself a Holocaust survivor (he was imprisoned in Buchenwald for his socialist beliefs), and modern-day revisionists continue to cite his works as scholarly research that questions the accepted facts of the Holocaust. Critics and opponents of revisionism, however, note that Rassinier's own anti-Semitic views influenced his viewpoint; more importantly, he was arrested in Germany in 1943, and had long since been transferred to Poland by the time the extermination was fully in progress.
In what way would being "transferred to Poland" serve to support the critics presumed attempt at negating Rassinier? lmno 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed this, the editor probably meant to say that gassing occured in Poland, not Germany, so it was unsurprising that Rassinier did not see gassings at Buchenwald. This is one of the points that Lipstadt and Evans made. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The beginnings of the modern movement 

message: As a Jew who has relatives that died and/or disappeared during the Holocaust, I find it interesting that a key element of Holocaust denial is stated to be the belief that less than 5 million Jews died during this time.  I find this interesting, as having kept up to date with Holocaust information and records, the most commonly accepted number among academics seems to be in the range of one to three million Jews having died or disappeared (with one and a half million being the most realistic estimate for dead/disappeared).  This is a large number, given that the German territories had a Jewish population of a little more than three million.  My question is, is it actually illegal in some countries to believe the estimate of one to three million dead/disappeared, although this is the most realistic estimate?  I personally never believed the six million number, as it is frankly impossible.  This does not reduce the horror of the Holocaust, but merely has to do with statistics.  - Matthew [142.167.130.234]
::Er, who says that the estimate of one to three million is the "most commonly accepted number among academics"? It certainly isn't accepted among any scholar or historian of the Holocaust I have read.  Nor was it even accepted by the Nazis, who themselves recorded far more than 1 to 3 million deaths in their own internal documentation (see the Hoefle telegram, the Eisantzgruppen reports, etc.). Perhaps you should state your sources. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange that you didn't actually read the information on the Auschwitz plaque in either (a) the article on Auschwitz that you linked to, (b) the information in the box at the top of this talk page, or (c) the many times in these talk pages when this was discussed.  Also strange that you are (without crediting them) quoting directly from the Institute for Historical Review, an organization covered in this article.  But, to answer your "example" again, in case you are confused, quoting from the Auschwitz article: For many years, a memorial plaque placed at the camp by the Soviet authorities and the Polish communist government stated that 4 million people had been murdered at Auschwitz. This number was never taken seriously by Western historians, and was never used in any of the calculations of the death toll at Auschwitz (which have generally remained consistently around 1-1.5 million for the last sixty years) or for the total deaths in the Holocaust as a whole. After the collapse of the Communist government, the plaque was removed and the official death toll given as 1.1 million. Holocaust deniers have attempted to use this change as propaganda, in the words of Nizkor: "Deniers often use the 'Four Million Variant' as a stepping stone to leap from an apparent contradiction to the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax, again perpetrated by a conspiracy. They hope to discredit historians by making them seem inconsistent. If they can't keep their numbers straight, their reasoning goes, how can we say that their evidence for the Holocaust is credible? One must wonder which historians they speak of, as most have been remarkably consistent in their estimates of a million or so dead. In short, all of the denier's blustering about the 'Four Million Variant' is a specious attempt to envelope the reader into their web of deceit, and it can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of published histories."  Got it? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a feeling this is pointless, but here goes. First, you may want to sign your posts.  You may also want to look at any Western history book mentioning Auschwitz, and see what numbers they use for the Jewish death toll at Auschwitz. For example, among two prominent scholars of the Holocaust: Hilberg used 1.1 million in 1961 (p. 572), Dawidowicz used 1.1 million in 1979 (p 119).  Shocking! ...oh, wait, no that matches the number on the current plaque - kinda kills your argument, huh?  As for Bergen Belsen, name any Western historian who said that there were gas chambers there used for killing. The IHR, not exactly an organization to skimp on Holocaust denial, found exactly two - an account in 1945 and a book called "Jews, God, and History" written sometime in the late 1950s. So, a couple of people thought there were gas chambers at Bergen Belsen, but historians, who actually do historical research, don't claim that people were gassed there in any Western history book on the subject. Again, you would claim that historians of the Holocaust blindly repeat information, but you are, again wrong. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust Death Toll