Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 8

message: 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)
replies: text: 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" [] 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)
replies: text: I think V is correct. Perhaps a GAR is called for? -- Avi 02:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know when this became a GA? 

message: 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.'"Qtd. by Jonny Paul, "Jerusalem Post Holocaust Scholar Warns of New 'soft-core' Denial," The Jerusalem Post 6 February, 2007, accessed 12 February, 2007.  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!'"
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)
replies: text: How about "self-hating-Jews", there are plenty of authors for that. Fourtildas 05:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Soft-core denial"

message: 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.'"Qtd. by Jonny Paul, "Jerusalem Post Holocaust Scholar Warns of New 'soft-core' Denial," The Jerusalem Post 6 February, 2007, accessed 12 February, 2007.  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!'"
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)
replies: text: How about "self-hating-Jews", there are plenty of authors for that. Fourtildas 05:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Carter accused of "Soft-core denial" of the Holocaust

message: 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.See for example:"Freedom for Europe’s Prisoners of Conscience!". Retrieved January 2007. 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)
thread_title:  ECHR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Strongly POV article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So? What are their arguments? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Something from the Vermont Library Guy about the Luther Memo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: 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)
replies: text: '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)
thread_title:  Notable Holocaust Deniers 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Denying the holocaust.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: POV dispute: Millions of non-Jews killed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Holocaust Denial Examined 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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'. EyeSereneTALK 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  what they claim 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA/R pt 2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of GA status 

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

text: ...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 ;) EyeSereneTALK 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I beg pardon, ladies, no offence was meant:)--Igor "the Otter" 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sure, I will. But frankly, who did invented claim that jews have horns? Just interesting.--Igor "the Otter" 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: "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)

text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Antisemitism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. EyeSereneTALK 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. EyeSereneTALK 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: GA Review

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitic Qualification Again