Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 5

message: ...some are exclusive claims of Holocaust deniers, while others borrow from other realms of history and are, by the wording of the article, also discredited. There is nothing "weaselly" about stating that some of the claims listed are shared by Holocaust deniers and other patrons, or that some are actually valid points. What certainly is suspicious is including certain claims in Holocaust denial territory and stripping away their credibility when paired with some of the beliefs of Holocaust deniers that are, and are written off as, completely absurd. You can't say "here is what the Holocaust deniers believe" and include items that are accepted outside of H.C. denial territory without identifying them as such. That is just wrong.
--72.92.0.83 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The entire article is rife with bias of a sort that wouldn't be tolerated on other pages. As pointed out in discussions above [now archived], the name of this article is itself a POV. "Holocaust supporters" or "holocaust deniers": it's all such tripe. Why don't we stick to the facts? The point is that "deniers" are actually "questioners" or "seekers after the truth". Lumping people who don't fit a certain profile together into one denigrated group is the tactic of Stalinism and fascism. Perhaps we should all read Orwell's "1984" once more with feeling. Al-Fie 03:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, Deniers are actually "questioners or seekers after the truth". Or, at least the truth as they'd like it to be. People who are honestly "seeking the truth" look at BOTH sides of an issue, and _critically_ examine evidence. While there is lots of lip service paid to the truth by these so called "truth" seekers, it's amazing how often they bring up debunked claims, recycle old mistruths and try to cast doubt on small details while ignoring the overall events. I also specifically disagree the "article title is POV" -- the Holocaust is a historical fact, and there are people that attempt to deny some or all of this fact. These are all facts, and not point of view. 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I was telescoping my argument and conflating the two terms, "deniers" and "revisionists", since that is precisely what the article atttempts to do. They are not identical terms. There has been one long effort at undermining the revisionists' contributions towards critical examination of all available facts.  If revisionists are so patently absurd, why not state their views baldly, without comment, and just let everybody laugh their heads off? A valid question is a valid question, and if people here refuse to allow it to be stated openly, then that is censorship, and worse. It is fear that one's belief system might start to crumble around the edges. Al-Fie 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, almost all "holocaust revisionists" _are_ holocaust deniers, so they are, in effect, identical. As a student of history, I welcome any question about any event. However, the interesting thing is that "holocaust revisionists" seem to ONLY question the holocaust, and not any other historical event. But, they aren't just historians (or what they'd like to believe are historians), but also chemists, engineers, and a dozen other disciplines. What I think is that it's not a belief system that is starting to crumble, but rather a political system which is in need of desperate rehabilitation. 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or outright elimination. *tongue-in cheek* Not that I support Holocaust denial (or Holocaust revisionism, or whatever the hell it is). --physicq210 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  "holocaust revisionists" seem to ONLY question the holocaust" Some of them also question events of WW2 unrelated to the Holocaust (like the events in Oradour-sur-Glane), or even events unrelated to WW2 like the Armenian genocide. Serge Thion also says the was no genocide in Cambodia. Apokrif 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: concerning the list of "Holocaust denial beliefs"

message: Yet again this issue crops up with regard to the list of "Notable Holocaust Deniers", since people seem to want to put anyone in there who is an enemy of Israel, an outspoken anti-semite, or who has merely made loud statements against the concept of the Jewish Holocaust. It seems intellectually dishonest to equate all of them with each other, and all of them as a group with people who have published discussions and research about factual matters and who openly question the holocaust, whatever a person here might think of such conclusions. 69.109.167.245 23:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisionist vs. Denier 

message: The final two sections with content are both good encyclopedic material but aren't a perfect fit for this article. That combined with the fact that this article is already a bit too long, I suggest that they both be moved to their own seperate article, one for List of Notable Holocaust deniers and revisionists; and another for Genocide Denials. Vicarious 10:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spare sections 

message: The article at Paul Rassinier is written from a denier's viewpoint, it seems to me. I know little more about him than that his views are contradicted by the work of historians, so I've just put a  tag on it. Does someone have the time and energy to NPOV it? It needs serious work, especially the 'Post-war activities' and 'The father of Holocaust Revisionism' sections. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His work doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and if that isn't "contradiction by historians", I'm not sure what is. Why is it "embarrassing" that he was a witness? Being a witness doesn't make on authoratative on something, it just is a part of the evidence. 19:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Rassinier 

message: This article is becoming much too long and unwieldy. More importantly, it is tracking current events on an almost weekly basis. I strongly suggest splitting off the "Arab" issue from the actual issue of people who at least claim to have done their research. The Arab issue is largely political and has little or nothing to do with the Europeans/Americans like Irving, Faurisson, Butz, etc. Proskauer 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Length

message: Can someone please explain to me the necessity of including the phrase "the very real belief".  This seems, at minimum, extremely odd for this article.  CJCurrie 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and changed back to the original wording. Ergative rlt 03:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The expansion of the intro by Harrisonferrel, while well-meaning, is not the sort of thing that belongs as the introduction in an encyclopedia, even when dealing with such as Holocaust deniers. Also, many of the specific points raised are otherwised covered in the article or in Examination of Holocaust denial. Ergative rlt 03:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted intro 

message: This article states that Holocaust deniers are Anti-Semites who rarely challenge that assertion.  This is in contradiction with the actual categorizations for Anti-Semitic people.  SighSighSigh 06:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, rather, this article is tightly controlled by a several agenda-driven individuals who would like to put forth the image that all Holocaust revisionists/deniers are anti-semites and, further, that every word spoken by a victim of the Holocaust is truth in the utmost. Most revisionists vehemently deny that they are anti-semitic. Whatever the truth is must be found in the hearts, souls, and minds of the protagonists themselves. To treat such a disparate group with such a broad brush is also verging on bigotry, IMHO. Proskauer 07:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please list the specific statement in the specific article you think this article contradicts. And please do not use this or other articles as a place to carry on a proxy edit-war regarding Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Finkelstein's work is rejected by much of the mainstream Jewish community as well as many scholars.[24]
I believed this line should be changed or removed, for the following reasons:
(i)  Finkelstein is not a holocaust denier, notwithstanding that some of his opponents have tried to label/libel him as such.  His book, The Holocaust Industry, affirms both the reality and extent of the Nazi holocaust against Jews.
The book is relevant in the context of this article only for its title, not for its arguments or for Finkelstein's motivations in writing it.  As such, critical comments about the book are not especially relevant here.
(ii)  Only one source is listed in the footnotes.
(iii)  Raul Hilberg, possibly the world's leading authority on the Holocaust, has spoken favourably of Finkelstein's work.
The remark appears to be an arbitrary dismissal of Finkelstein's work, and one which is neither warranted nor necessary in the course of the article.
Comments welcome.  CJCurrie 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article is too long and goes in too many directions already, and Finkelstein's work probably should not be directly connected with Holocaust denial, though it makes sense to reference the work for the sake of the title. 69.109.176.77 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finkelstein comment

message: The article is a piece of bigoted trash.It lacks NPOV. It is PRO-SEMITE.Brothers in Arms 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigoted Trash

message: The first sentence confuses revisionism with denial in an unacceptable way: It happens to be truly revisionist to consider that something "did not occur as it is described by mainstream" (as also explained furtheron in the article). But revisionism is certainly not what is meant with "Holocaust denial", and indeed it is not what this article is about. The article is about the positive claim that no targeted mass murder of the Jews was orchestrated by the Germans. Harald88 11:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad first sentence: mix-up 

message: I just corrected a holocaust-denial claim that had found its way in the Holocaust article, see my last edit on its Talk page,   :-( Harald88 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please also keep a watch on the Holocaust article