Talk:Holocaust revisionism

message: I've protected because of the reverting triggered by , who wants this version  but apparently without discussion here. Jab, if you want your edits to stick, you'll need to provide scholarly/reputable sources showing that Holocaust revisionism is not the same thing as Holocaust denial, and you would have to avoid original research. Perhaps you could start an article in your userspace and discuss it here when it's ready? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
:First since this page is redirected to Holocaust denial it is more reasonable to discuss the removal of the reversion there -- which I did.  Redirection is particularly problematic because it gets rid of not only the entire article but also the discussion of the redirection.  Secondly, the meaning of "holocaust revisionism" as an English language phrase is obvious by construction -- not by original research.  Moreover, there is ample precedent for distinguishing the two since legislative bodies and courts have not outlawed "historical revisionism" but have outlawed "holocaust denial".  People are being sent to prison or set free based on the distinction so it is hardly up to some "moderators" to claim the distinction doesn't exist.  If anything is POV and original research that is.  I already posted an article which should be an adequate stub -- a stub which linked to Holocaust denial for those concerned with that issue.  It was clearly about "holocaust revisionism" and it was clearly NPOV.  It was, of course, deleted.  Jim Bowery 23:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By your criterion any article that doesn't have every fact referenced with an "authoritative source" is original research.  No one disputes the facts that I posted.  Its not original research and I referenced a Weisenthal article with link. Jim Bowery 01:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No you are still very very confused.  When I say no one disputes the facts I present I mean it -- I don't mean they might dispute the "argument" I put together because I am not making an argument.  Are you confused by the fact that the Weisenthal center moved the web page describing the reduction of the death toll at Auschwitz?  That's the only way I can make sense of your responses to my  virtual repetition of their argument which you can read at the bottom of this linked page.  This isn't original research.  The history of the Holocaust has been revised in ways that even the Simon Weisenhtal Center agrees with.  Are you saying the Simon Weisenthal Center is a bunch of anti-Semites and neo-Nazis?  I may sound like a satirist but when you say there is no such thing as "Holocaust revisionism" that isn't "Holocaust denial" it is an abuse of the English language. Jim Bowery 05:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No I'm not going to waste my time with a futile exercise.  It appears we have multiple admins who are incapable of rational thought when it comes to Jewish issues.  Clearly going through a "process' with this sort of environment is worthless.  You'll be hearing from me via another route.  Jim Bowery 19:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Another route"?  That sounds ominous... Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ominous? Well, yeah. Self-confessed Stormfront activists are by nature ominous. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Whewps, bad cache. I think the redirect needs to be above the pp notice, though.Hipocrite 13:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Using some of the text that had previously been entered into this entry, I've taken a stab at an article describing the difference between "Holocaust revisionism" (the use of genuine historical fact to correct historical errors concerning the Holocaust) and "holocaust denial" (the conspiracy theory that the Holocaust never happened).  Take a look at Holocaust revisionism/worksheet and feel free to take part. --Modemac 13:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another attempt to separate "revisionism" from "denial" 

message: Very surprised this does does exist. If reverting to previous versions is controversial we can make a stub.from scratch. Not all revising of events is enough to demote them from Holocaust status, like adjusting death counts attributed to certain camps or which rooms people were thought to have died in and how long people survived and so forth. --Ranze (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the redirect. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: noticed, restored the article, revisionism exists as a legitimate topic not merely tongue in cheek denialism. Please do not do that again. A link is provided and the relation to negationism explained. --Ranze (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Holocaust revisionism" is a denialist euphemism for Holocaust denial, as the Holocaust denial article itself makes clear. The examples you've provided are pure original research; none of the sources you've used in your article indicate that what they are talking about is "Holocaust revisionism"; in fact, none of them even use the term. I'm restoring the re-direct - please do not undo this again. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "science" is a pseudoscientist euphemism for pseudoscience. Just because something is a euphemism does not make it the primary meaning of the term. An article saying revisionism should focus on actual revisionism on the topic not redirect to denialism/negationim masquerading as it. The pages do not actually have to use the conjoined term as its meaning is clearly explained. Just as a historian would not have to say "this is revisionism" when making new claims contradicting previous historical claims. If a change/revision is being put forth by reliable scholars and studies then that is revisionism. --Ranze (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreation