Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Steven L. Anderson

It seems this article has been a real battleground for edit wars, largely due to one user, User:Beyond My Ken, reverting perfectly legitimate edits for no good reason. He first undoes my edit without bothering to leave an edit summary, ignoring the bit where it says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." Then lastly seems unable to give any argument, instead resorting to personal attacks: "You are reverted to take [sic] the name of a legityimate [sic] anti-semite Holocaust denier out of this article. How exactly do you live with yourself?".

I believe it is common practice to only include people in a list of this sort if they have their own articles. How else do you define notability for inclusion? Steven L. Anderson is a redirect page. He made one video 3 years ago supporting Holocaust denial. That's it. He has had no lasting influence in the movement. BMK would rather twist things. This isn't about whether he's a genuine denier, or antisemitic. The question is whether he is noteworthy enough for inclusion in this list. If you want to turn Steven L. Anderson into a proper article, then fine, but as it stands, there is no reason for him to be listed.

I can't find anyone else's name in that list who doesn't have their own article. Why should Anderson be the only exception? Is everyone the ADL has ever identified as a denier listed here? Why is it so important that he be mentioned? He is not in Category:Holocaust deniers or any of its subcategories. I see no valid reason for inclusion. Citizen Canine (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The entry has a reference, which is sufficient for inclusion. It is not required that lists of notable people have both a Wikipedia article and a reference showing notability, either is generally the requirement. Citizen Canine's belief indicates a lack of familiarity with our requirements, perhaps because they've only been editing since April, but that certainly doesn't excuse their reverting to their preferred version without coming to the talk page, or even simply inquiring of myself the reason for the restoration. Instead they chose to revert again, and then, when I restored the good version with the suggestion that they not revert again, hit me with WP:EMPOWERMENT, from the essay WP:Arguments to avoid in edit wars. I would suggest that Citizen Canine, if they wish to continue editing here, read more policies and fewer essays.

Bottom line: as with any other piece of information in the encyclopedia, a reference is sufficient, per the core policy WP:Verifiability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the argument that Steven L. Anderson "does not have an article" is b.s., considering that Steven L. Anderson founded Faithful Word Baptist Church, and that article (to which "Steven L. Anderson" redirects) is largely about Steven L. Anderson and his actions, including

In March 2015, Anderson published a documentary called Marching to Zion, in which he argued that the anticipated Jewish messiah is the Antichrist, and the Talmud is blasphemous.[7] In May 2015, Anderson created a YouTube video promoting Holocaust denial.[10]

And yet Citizen Canine "see[s] no valid reason for inclusion" of Steven L. Anderson on a list of Holocaust deniers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Again confusing the issue. This isn't about verifiability, it's about notability. You seem think my removal amounts to a denial of Anderson's denial. The purpose of that section isn't to list everyone who can be reliably identified as a Holocaust denier. If it were, it would grow unboundedly long.

perhaps because they've only been editing since April is an appeal to experience (WP:MOREX) and grossly inaccurate. If you're referring to edits from this account, I've actually been contributing since March. And just because I didn't bother to sign up before then doesn't mean I made no prior contributions or that I'm unfamiliar with the guidelines. And you seem to think you can make hostile comments because "That's only a guideline, proposal or essay". I can't think under what circumstances "Don't revert again" would be helpful. If you meant "Please discuss on talk", then say that. It seemed far less a "suggestion" than a warning implying ownership of the article or a greater entitlement to decide its content.

or even simply inquiring of myself the reason for the restoration Would it have been so much effort for you to give the reason in the edit summary? After all, that's what you're urged to do every time you click on "undo".

The purpose is to list people notable for being Holocaust deniers. Not people who are notable and also deniers. In this case, Anderson apparently isn't even article-noteworthy. If you think he is, go ahead and turn the redirect into a proper article. Again, he is the only person in that list not to have their own article, nor does he appear in any of the relevant categories. Citizen Canine (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my behavior, ANI is that way, but I don't recommend it, considering your own actions. The question here is about your persistent removal of a clear Holocaust denier and anti-Semite from a list of notable Holocaust deniers. Once again, your perception of the purpose of the list is totally wrong. If a person is notable, and is a Holocaust denier, they should be on the list. If a person is otherwise non-notable except for their Holocaust denial, they should be on the list. It's a list of people who are Holocaust deniers who are, for whatever reason, notable. Your criteria for exclusion is incorrect, and your continued defense of the removal of Steven L. Anderson is disturbing in light of the information I presented above that your reasons were totally inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Anderson's close relationship with a notable organization certainly makes his inclusion on this list both relevant and of interest to readers. Your opinion on the alleged existence of a criteria for inclusion being the existence of a separate article is noted, but I can't see where such a criteria is part of a wikipedia policy or guideline. Feel free to enlighten us if I'm wrong. I note that Anderson has been on the list for at least a year. It seems the issue now is whether there is a consensus to remove it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I note that Anderson has been on the list for at least a year is WP:UNCHALLENGED. If there are good reasons for him to be included, can you make any arguments that aren't listed among those to avoid? If anything, that the redirect has gone this long without being turned into a proper article is reason for removal.

I have now looked more closely at the list. Anderson is indeed the only person not to have their own article. The only other exception is Mark Weber, which was an article at the time of addition and has only since been converted to a redirect. It is a common prerequisite for lists of this sort that the entry have its own article. I believe this criterion is upheld so there are no spats as to whether someone counts as notable.

This is the only antisemitism-related article which links to that page. There is no mention of Anderson or his church on ADL or on Antisemitism in the United States. So this and the redirect target are the only articles on Wikipedia where you'll find mention of both Anderson and his antisemitism.

Anderson is not included in the category American Holocaust deniers. The article-less Andrew Anglin is included in that category and he is not in this list. And Anglin has an entire section dedicated to him at the article on The Daily Stormer, which is a far more prominent organisation in the world of antisemitism and Holocaust denial than is the Faithful Word Baptist Church. This article does not link to the Daily Stormer, yet you think it important that it link to the far less relevant Faithful Word Baptist Church?

All this, and especially the edit summary of your last reversion BMK, makes me think that your thought process is basically (and do correct me if I'm wrong) "He's a horrible man, we need to name and shame him". If it is, then I accept the premise, but deny the conclusion. The section isn't intended to be a laundry list of anyone who's ever denied the Holocaust. I can't see why else you would take my view that we shouldn't list just any Holocaust denier as a personal insult.

Basically two questions we need to ask: Would Anderson's absence from the list be highly significant? Given that he is not well known, as a denier or otherwise, the answer is obviously "no". And secondly, is Anderson's inclusion in the list anomalous? Given that he he is the only article-less entry, and more prominent deniers like Anglin are excluded, the answer is obviously "yes". It makes him stick out like a sore thumb. His inclusion is jarring and just seems to be idiosyncratic. Citizen Canine (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

No, my thought process is something along the lines of: This person obviously belongs in the list, and has both an article and a reference which confirms that, and you're being a WP:dick about removing him and attempting to justify your actions, and you need to stop. Please read First law of holes. This is my last comment here, unless you edit against consensus and remove the name again, in which case, you'll enjoy the ANI report I will be filing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There are deniers who have both an article and are included in Category:Holocaust denial or one of its subcategories, yet do not appear in the list. A sampling: Kevin Alfred Strom, Augustus Sol Invictus, Matthew F. Hale, Alex Linder, Hans Schmidt, Wesley A. Swift, Bill White, Don Black. Anderson has neither an article nor is he in any of the relevant categories. Given this, please could you explain why you think he "obviously belongs in the list"? Citizen Canine (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Awkward sentence two

Sentence two of the lead describes Holocaust denial as one or more of three things, using a series of three relative clauses as a comma-separated, serial direct object. This is perfectly grammatical in English, but it is a somewhat sophisticated English sytactic structure, especially for those for whom English might not be a first language. I would have less objection to such a structure further down the body of article, but in the lead, we should be trying to convey a summary in a direct, and if possible, simple manner for those who may not read past the lead. Here's what it looks like now:

sentence two of lead, as of rev 875628174 of Dec 27

Holocaust denial claims include that Nazi Germany's Final Solution was aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich and did not include their extermination; that Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews; or that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million, typically around a tenth of that figure.

I wonder if we can do better with this sentence. Here's a draft to consider:

Holocaust deniers typically make one or more of the following false statements: 1. Nazi Germany's Final Solution was aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich and did not include their extermination; 2. Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews; or 3. the actual number of Jews killed is significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million, typically around a tenth of that figure.

Notes: I've changed was to is in #3; because Jews were killed, but the number is lower. I've also changed denial to deniers at the beginning of the sentence for two reasons: 1) it reads better (no more parse back-tracking at claims when interpreting it as a verb upon first scan), and 2) there is always an agent doing the denying, and leaving the subject as the somewhat impersonal "Holocaust denial claims include that..." seem to disappear the deniers, as if the claims had some sort of independent existence. Adding "false statement" seems more forthright and an unequivocal statement for the lead. We seem to have shied from using the word "false" in the lead. I haven't read through the archives, so I'm not sure if I'm stepping on a landmine here, but surely we can label these three common denial claims as "false" in Wikipedia's voice, can't we? What I'm concerned about, is that someone could read the entire lead, without coming away with the idea that Holocaust deniers make false claims. That could be addressed somewhere else in the lead besides sentence two, but I think it fits well here. Finally, this version still has the same meaning, so the existing refs still work. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been had before. The problem with your sentence is the use of "typically", which requires a supporting citation. That is why we have a simple list without qualifiers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The word typically plays no role in what I view as the weakness of the current sentence, or in recasting it to read better, so I've struck that word. Mathglot (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. My second problem is that numbering the items creates the appearance of a ranking in importance. I know that's not your intention, but that's how it reads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I think your version is somewhat better, except that "is" is just weird. We shouldn't use "is" when giving a statistic about the past. It is equivalent to "The 1860 population of Canada is 3 million." even though that is also stating a fact that remains true today. Zero^talk 02:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point about is, and the way it is worded, it does seem to be giving a statistic about the past, but in my head, I didn't mean it that way (what? you're calling me out on what I said, instead of what I'm thinking? I'm shocked...) What I meant, is in the context of a current-day "dispute" (if it can be called that), where the "figure" representing the number killed is the locus of the dispute; in this view, deniers say the figure is one million (or whatever), while historians say the figure is 5-6 million. So, the verb is agreeing with some verbiage in my head about "figure" that I didn't want to add to the draft version, in order to minimize changes from the current version in order to keep any discussion focused on what I saw as the more important stuff. The tense of this verb isn't one of the important issues, doesn't affect understanding of the whole sentence pro or con, and I don't care which tense is used. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding numbered items implying rank: I really didn't imagine a ranking, does it really seem like one, rather than just a separator? Perhaps letters, or bullets? I think that the phrase "...one or more of the following..." aids understanding, because it sets you up to expect a small, in-line series, and some kind of separator here would help establish where the list elements start and end. Semicolon is a bit weak, as it looks more grammar-y and less list-y; but I guess it could work if there's nothing better. What about regular, inline bullets? Is there a MOS item saying we couldn't do that? Maybe something like {{hlist}}? Mathglot (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Or what about this: if the common falsehoods have a shorthand in the literature, we could borrow that and do double-duty as ident and separator; e.g., Deportation fallacy: Nazi Germany's Final Solution was aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich and did not include their extermination; No-gas-chamber fallacy: lorem ipsum.... Mathglot (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of a bulleted list:

Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements:

• Nazi Germany's Final Solution was aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich and did not include their extermination;
• Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews; or
• the actual number of Jews killed is significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million, typically around a tenth of that figure.

That seems extremely clear to me, and has the advantage of not losing the various claims in a sea of words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I like it. Still have a minor issue with bullet one: namely, the lack of parallelism in the verbs introducing the contrasted items. Currently, we have: was aimed only at... vs. and did not include... and I find the missing parallelism slightly unclear. Perhaps simply use the same clause (or synonym) in both locations, e.g. either, 1) was aimed only at [deportation...] and was not aimed at [...extermination], or 2) included [deportation...] but did not include [...extermination]. I'm not a fan of elegant variation, but if either formulation seems too repetitive, one could vary to aimed at ... had the goal of, or included ... comprised/encompassed. Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd append the refs to the intro clause:

Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements:

• bullets one to three...

Or separately, per bullet? Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it's not one ref per statement, more of a group thing, so your first option is better. The lack of "parallelism" doesn't bother me - actually, the attempt to introduce it weakens the entirety of the statement, which should not read as rhetoric, but as a list of simply stated facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with that, then. Do we need to wait a bit, get some more feedback, or what now? Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, we have a rough consensus now, so unless someone pipes up with an objection, I'd say you can go ahead and make the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Made the change in version 876139808. It looks good. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

To me too. There's usually a reaction once changes such as this go into articles, so let's see what the feedback is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

It's quite unusual for a lede to start like this - but I think it works well. Alexbrn (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It is quite unusual, and that did cause some worry. But I agree that it works well here, so I was relieved to see your comment. Thanks for adding it. Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Extermination and deportation

Regarding Mathglot's "minor issue": what about switching extermination and deportation:

• Nazi Germany's Final Solution was not aimed at exterminating Jews, but only at deporting them from the Reich

Denied fact first, fringe explanation later. Looks smoother to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling Personally, I have no problem with that, if no one else does. Not sure what the scare quotes were about; I did not introduce the current order of deportation and extermination, that predated the proposal in this section and was left that way in order to minimize the scope of changes for the discussion, without endorsing the status quo ante on that point. Since your comment is a valid one irrespective whether or not the "sentence two" proposal survives, I think this point deserves its own section header; any objection if I add one, or would you like to do so? Mathglot (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Have done so. The quotes around "minor issue" were not intended as scare quotes, but as quotes, since the words came from a contribution not directly above mine. Sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, No worries; and thanks for the section header. (Sorry I misunderstood your intent. Seems like we need a font that can distinguish "scare" and "quotation" quotes. Here's an interesting article about that topic in The Atlantic; enjoy!) If no one objects in a day or two, I'd say go ahead and make the swap. Worst that can happen is it gets reverted, and then we're back here again; nbd. Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

no neutral POV

"Holocaust denial" does not purport to a neutral point of view. The phrase itself holds to a specific point of view. Imagine a Wikipedia page on "Christ denial" to describe those who aren't convinced that Jesus as a historical figure existed. The article begins with "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II". This sounds like propaganda, instead of neutral observer describing the phrase known as "holocaust denial". Let me correct this rubbish: "Holocaust denial is the phrase often used to describe the rejection of the mainstream account of the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.". That would be a neutral point of view. What you got right now is political rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpkinGoo (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but no. You miss the point that there is no debate here among historians or other reputable, honest people. Holocaust Denial is not an alternative point of view. It is an intentional lie performed by people who know perfectly well that they are lying and are doing so intentionally for anti-Semitic purposes. That is what our wording makes clear and your does not. Ours is factual. Yours seeks to open the door to an equivocation between between facts and lies. We will not be adopting it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

sorry, but no. You miss the point that it's not Wikipedia's job to hold a position. You miss the point of "NPOV". It's not wikipedia's job to describe people as "Holocaust Deniers" any more than it's Wikipedia's job to describe people as "Christ deniers" or "Climate deniers". It's also not wikipedia's job to tell you what's facts and what's lies. Wikipedia provides information. Not truths. You can say "X thinks this is a lie" or "Y is commonly accepted as true" but it's not WikiPedia's job to provide opinions. Because that's all this entire page is. WikiPedia itself says: "NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is a fundamental Wiktionary principle which states that all entries must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. ... Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging which is correct." PumpkinGoo (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@PumpkinGoo: it would help if you actually read our policy, we are not Wiktionary. In fact, that statement isn't in our policy. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." We are a mainstream encyclopedia. We take sides on fringe issues through our NPOV policy. We don't suggest that evolution and Creationism are equally possible. You are far too new here to understand how we work or make judgements based on other WMF project. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the same policy of NPOV. I gave you the definition of NPOV. Wikipedia purports to hold to NPOV. You don't seem to understand what NPOV is. Here is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them". When you call someone a "holocaust denier", you are in fact engaging in the dispute, you're not describing it. The way I phrased it, I described "holocaust denial". The way it's currently written, it's actually engaged in calling people "holocaust deniers". Why is Wikipedia, who supposedly purports to NPOV, engaged in calling people "holocaust deniers"? You clearly, seriously, need to read up on what NPOV is and how it works. If you think what's written on this page is neutral, you're plain and simple ignorant. And I'm in no way saying this because I side with those who reject the mainstream holocaust account, but because I want WikiPedia to provide information without bias and editorialization.PumpkinGoo (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add, this isn't comparable to evolution and creationism. If you read the page on creationism, not ONCE does it say evolution is right or creationism is wrong, or that creationism is "evolution denial". Why? Because it would be extremely politically incorrect to write that. But it's not politically incorrect to editorialize a topic like holocaust denial. And that's why you do it. And then you pretend that you're "unbiased" and you got "facts". Well, isn't there overwhelming evidence for evolution? You got all the facts on evolution's side. Why don't you edit "creationism" and add a few lines of "evolution deniers think..." go ahead. I'll wait. Also, you should probably take lessons for how to write pages with NPOV. because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism page does it somewhat well. it describes creationism. it doesnt engages in "proving it right or wrong" with "facts" the way this page does, for the most part. PumpkinGoo (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Creationism is something that some people genuinely believe in. Holocaust denial is something that anti-Semites pretend to believe in for anti-Semitic purposes. That explains the difference in approach. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: that may be true, but it is not the reason that we can characterize Holocaust denial as such. VQuakr (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason why we do not call creationism "evolution denial" is that reliable sources do not often call it that: [1]. It would be an accurate description, and if it were more popular among scholars, we would gladly use it, and it would be fully compliant to our rules, just as "holocaust denial" is. The real problem you have is your unfamiliarity with our rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

no reliable sources? https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-01935-005 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X12001783 you never heard of "science deniers"? are you really gonna be this dishonest and pretend that the only reason you maintain NPOV on creationism because there arent any "reliable sources calling it that"? dont make me laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpkinGoo (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody said reliable sources never call it "evolution denial," rather that they do not often call it that. When something is called multiple things that more or less mean the same thing, we tend to go with the most common description, so as to use the words which our readers are most likely familiar with. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

PumpkinGoo, as your quote from RS says, neutrality is "attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in [reliable sources] fairly." It is fair to say that no reliable sources question the holocaust, which is why we do not give it the same weight as alternative theories such as Jesus never existed, which have some support among scholars. Also, per Common name, we refer to the theory as holocaust denial, which is what it is called in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

PumpkinGoo, this is covered by WP:FRINGE/PS, which notes that obviously bogus viewpoints can be categorically labelled as such without further justification. In a case, such as this, where there is a completely unambiguous consensus among the experts in the relevant field (historians), we don't need or want to hedge our bets like you propose. We present facts as facts. Climate change denial is another example of the same concept. VQuakr (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No, WP:FRINGE/PS covers pseudoscience, but this is pseudohistory. However, WP:FRINGE does apply and I think it gives adequate support for our approach of presenting Holocaust denial as a false claim. Incidentally, DanielRigal is quite wrong to claim that HD's don't really believe their bullshit. Obviously many don't, but some of them are quite convinced of it. There is no limit to human stupidity. Zero^talk 07:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no data to support the supposition, but I agree that it is quite unlikely that the majority of Holocaust deniers don't believe what they say. Rather, I think they are mostly hardcore True believers. Even in the warped period we're living through at the moment, it would strategically be a very low-return gambit to adopt Holocaust denial in order to achieve power or influence. I'd say that most people in power who are Holocaust deniers are secret ones, and the public revelation of their beliefs sooner or later leads to their downfall (albeit not soon enough, and they can do great damage in power before that happens). I just don't see the upside to them of faking disbelief in the Holocaust. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@PumpkinGoo: I guess it's possible that with my having made only 194506 edits since 2006 your understanding of NPOV is better than mine, but unlikely. You are certainly wrong in saying Wiktionary policy is identical to ours. For instance, the word "significan"t only appears one time there, 8 times as I recall from checking last night in ours, the content of the two projects is radically different. Our is an encyclopedia, Wikitionary a dictionary and its NPOV policy concentrates on words and languages. Thus the issues are almost entirely different, and Wiktionary's policy lacks aspects such as WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

all you're pointing out is that you've been spreading opinions on 194506 edits. it doesnt change a thing on NPOV because you clearly do not understand it mate. the FRINGE policy does not in any way grant you permission to throw NPOV in the trash because that's what you've done. if you can read this page and think "this is neutral", you do not understand NPOV. im gonna keep repeating that. google some examples of NPOV vs non NPOV. PumpkinGoo (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Your understanding of NPOV is flawed and incorrect. We aren't going to keep repeating that; you're welcome to remain wrong for as long as you like, but your proposed changes are not going to be implemented here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

PumpkinGoo has never contributed to a mainspace article, preferring to WP:SOAPBOX on this talkpage and on Talk:Climate change denial. The first step is to ignore this editor. If it continues, then to block the account. Rhadow (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Surely you wouldn't want to do that to someone who knows so much more about Wikipedia policy than the rest of us? Doug Weller talk 19:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Israel

Can anyone find a trial in which the law was applied in Israel? I don't think it ever was (especially since the law itself states that the Attorney-General must consent to its application in any specific case), and I'm not sure that it would hold up in an Israeli court today. VwM.Mwv (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@VwM.Mwv: You must learn to check. Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Israel ~ R.T.G 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Immediate POV

I came to this article to find out about the subject - genuinely, I did. I find this assertion in the first line of the article: Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements:. In the spirit of Wikipedia how can this possibly be NPOV? Whist there might be text further down that verifies the assertions via reputable sources, I don't believe it's the place of Wikipedia to make such an upfront assertion (I didn't read past the lead. I'll find out about the subject elsewhere). Silas Stoat (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

How can it possibly be non-neutral to state an unequivocal fact? That those statements are false is not disputed by any reliable source. Wikipedia does not create a false balance by pretending that obviously false claims may be true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't tell me, upfront, that it's an unequivocal fact. This is nothing to do with false balance. The statement I placed in italics should omit the word 'false. Provide me with the evidence in the body of the article and I'll make up my own mind as to whether they are false or not, thanks. Silas Stoat (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't tell me, upfront, that it's an unequivocal fact. Telling.

Provide me with the evidence in the body of the article and I'll make up my own mind as to whether they are false or not, thanks. First off, the evidence is already there. If you'd read the article, you'd have seen it. Second, you are not the arbiter of truth; reliable, secondary sources are, and on this subject they are unanimous. If that offends you, then go light up a tiki torch and march on Washington or something. If you believe that truth or falsehood lie in the eye of the beholder, then you should not edit this project anymore, because that notion is fundamentally at odds with WP's purpose. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't offend me. I'm making a perfectly reasonable point about the way Wikipedia should work, but it's obviously passed you by. You need to understand the difference between an article about the Holocaust itself, and an article about Holocaust denial. By the way, there's no need to be a total arsehole (asshole if you live in the US) with your comment about a tiki torch (whatever the hell that is), and the rest of your high-handed suggestions. Why don't you fuck off and edit another project yourself. Try Conservapedia. Silas Stoat (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you take a moment and re-read WP:NPA and then consider striking out som eof your comment above. MPants is correct, BTW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I do believe that's the first time I've been directed to edit Conservapedia by someone who seems intent on defending a predominantly right-wing phenomenon. Usually, they tell me to read Conservapedia.

Interestingly enough, even they are pretty unequivocal about this, starting the third paragraph with "As denial of the Holocaust is nonfactual..." But Conservapedia was founded well before antisemitism was in vogue along the right edge of the Overton window, so it's not all that surprising. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to think I'm defending holocaust denial; not a bit of it. I'm only interested in the NPOV angle on this. It is not Wikipedia's place to debunk, or indeed support, holocaust denial, but the way the article commences, one might be forgiven for thinking the aim is to debunk it. There are similar issues with Climate change. Silas Stoat (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh the irony of claiming that there are NPOV problems with Climate change while trying to convince someone that you're not engaging in right-wing POV pushing...

For the record, subsequent responses to the same comment should have the same indenting, and be placed below the previous reply. The changes you made made it appear as if I was replying to you, which I was not. Also, I'm mortified that I forgot you direct you to WP:FIXBIAS. It's an essay specifically about what you're doing here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you're also advising MPants about NPA, given that he made the first one. Rather than looking at NPA I looked at his contribution log going back a few months - yes, he definitely needs to read WP:NPA! Silas Stoat (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks against you. I said that if your issue was one of offense, that you should do something other than advocate here. I also offered another possibility after that, which you ignored. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your useful advice about indenting. Silas Stoat (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem. See also User:MjolnirPants/Indenting for an example and a slightly more verbose explanation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

OK so, this is pretty easy. We're providing the definition of what this article (and the sources supporting this article) is presenting as "Holocaust denial". That definition includes making one or more of small set of contrafactual statements. We have no reason to present the statements being countered as anything other than contrafactual per WP:FRINGE. End of discussion. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia can NEVER declare that "holocaust denial" be defined as denying the killings of a determinate amount of Jews & no fewer, because that would be declaring that there is NO MORE evidence possible to be presented, which is impossible to do. All evidence must be handled case-per-case as presented.--Diligens (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

That's good; but the thing you are talking about says the actual number of Jews killed is significantly lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million, typically around a tenth of that figure. This says nothing about a "determinate amount and no fewer" -- that would mean declaring the precise number to be (say) six million and refusing to consider 5.9 or maybe even 5.5. This means refusing to consider 3 million. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not defining any such thing. The RSes defined what Holocaust denial is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it the same principle. Nobody can claim there can never be another RS to establish the Holocaust because that would be the impossible claim that there can never be another RS to mitigate it.--Diligens (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens

Excuse me, but what the heck are you talking about? I can't make hide nor hair of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't police what the RSes say. We report it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent developments section

It's not a good heading per MOS:DATED. Can we come up with something better, "Post 199x develeopments" or maybe arrange stuff differently? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but honestly, I'd be in favor of merging that section into the History section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

At least it should be a subsection to "history". Perhaps make 2-3 subsections to "history", ending with 19xx-present (for now)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, the history section as it is seems to be split by nation, as is this section, so splitting this up and merging it in makes sense. But history is usually presented chronologically, so it also makes sense to re-write that section that way and incorporate this content. I'm not sure which is the better route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sponsored by countries

"Holocaust denial is sponsored by some Middle Eastern governments, including Iran and Syria." What's the source on this? Why is this here? Who edited this in? I realize that Israel is currently at war with Iran and Syria and for that reason it's twice as sketchy, especially since it's "including" and it's obvious conflict of interest. Very loaded political statement. Remove? - Konecat (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it's properly sourced in the body of the article. Per WP:LEAD, if the information is sourced in the boydm the lede section -- which is a summary of the body -- is not required to carry the source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll find the sources in the Holocaust_denial#Middle_East section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Notable Holocaust deniers

I don't know if this has been up for discussion before, but per WP:BLP it sems very strange to have several uncited LP:s in this section. Is there any good reason not to cite them or weed them out PDQ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

By "uncited" do you mean there is no reference? Because if the person has an article, and the article says that the person is a Holocaust denirer, and that statement is sourced, than that's as good as being sourced here, as the source from the subject's article can simply be transferred here. Beyond My Ken (talk)

That's what I mean, yes:A citation, also called a reference,[1] uniquely identifies a source of information. I'm not sure it is good enough, considering (yesterday I made this [2] edit which made me notice). While some uncited seems "fine"/near as does no difference, there are those like Khalid Abdul Muhammad which right or wrong doesn't mention HD, dito Salvador Abascal. Those are not LP:s but should have cites nonetheless. It seems reasonable to me to be cautious here and "demand" a cite in this article, which most of the entries already have. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You're correct, at least at a quick glance. The Khalid Abdul Muhammed article does not mention HD, though it does put him in the HD category; for a case like that, certainly we need to both remove the categorization and remove it from this article even if it is correct, so I've done that. I agree each entry here must be cited. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I've restored it with refs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I don't think adding people without WP-articles [3] is a good idea. While "Notable Holocaust deniers" is blurry, in WP-lists-of-people-context notable often means "at least has an article". The source seems ok, but does it make him a "Notable Holocaust denier"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In some post-Soviet states, Holocaust deniers etc.

A few months ago this statement was added to the article lede:

In some post-Soviet states, Holocaust deniers do not deny the very fact of mass murder of Jews, but they deny some national or regional elements of the Holocaust.[8]

The lede is supposed to summarize the most important contents of the article, and nothing regarding this appears in the article. Even if there were something about this in the article, it still wouldn't belong in the lede, as it is obviously not a major facet of the subject of Holocaust denial. Finally, it is confusing and unclear; even the footnote that explains "national or regional elements" as meaning "the contribution of different nationalist organizations or armies to it, or very frequently the participation of local populations in pogroms and other forms of anti-Jewish violence" is vague/non-specific. Where, if anywhere, should this material go in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That text was added on 12 September 2018 by @Paul Siebert:, so I'm pinging them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I added this sentence to the lead because I planned to add a section about Holocaust denial in post-Soviet states. The reference provided contains a lot of information about that, and I have other sources on that subject. Unfortunately, I am busy now, but I am going to do that in a reasonable future. Sorry about the delay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Paul Siebert. Typically one should first create text in the article, then summarize it in the lede, if it is significant enough to be summarized there. I recommend we remove this sentence until the detail is added to the article, and can then be assessed. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:No deadline, I am not sure there is a reason for deleting a properly sourced content. However, if you prefer formal approach, I can copy the same sentence to the main article as a stub for the separate section. Feel free to expand it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. The material is interesting, but given the length of the article, and the shortness of the lede, I don't think it deserves special mention; I propose leaving it just in the body. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The tendency to whitewash WWII time crimes of many nationalistic heroes of some central European nations is an important and worrying trend. Actually, it is a modern face of the Holocaust denial: Indeed, whereas most "old style" deniers are widely considered as marginals, modern deniers of just some aspects of the Holocaust present themselves as fighters for national independence, and pretend to be a part of a modern European discourse. That is a really dangerous and worrying tendency, and to remove that would be a dramatic omission.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, all Holocaust denial is worrying, including this. I note that the whole article is over 11,000 words, while this section of the article is 107 words, or around 1 percent. By contrast, the lede is 291 words, while the sentence about this in the lede is 28 words, or around 10%. So this topic occupies 10 times more of the lede than it does of the article, which seems disproportionate. Of course, that's not the only way of judging this; something source-based would be helpful. Do you have any sources that indicate this is a particularly significant facet of the whole topic? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The denial of the fact that Roman Shukhevich was the Holocaust perpetrator is the state policy of present-days Ukraine. Just compare the scale of denial: whereas in Britain or France we can speak about sporadic publications (as a rule, marginal ones) where the Holocaust is denied, in Ukraine, numerous monuments to the Holocaust perpetrators are being erected and streets are being named after them. Similar tendency can be seen in some other states, for example, in Lithuania or Latvia. If you believe that problem does not deserve a mention in the lead, I even do not know what else does. Note, that is not just a minor example of the Holocaust denial in some small country: that is a new type of denial, a new trend, which is deeply worrying.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you show the relative weight given to this aspect in the literature about Holocaust denial? TFD (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the critical question. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what "some national or regional elements of the Holocaust" means. You mean like denying bodies were buried at Babi Yar, or that townspeople partook in pogroms, lynching; the Polish death camps controversy? Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see, there's a long footnote added to the sentence. It doesn't seem like good WP policy to do something like that in the lede, i.e., refs should generally not be necessary in the lede. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but this doesn't seem to be an article where it's necessarily a good idea to not have refs in the lead. It's fairly common with conspiracy-theory related stuff. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is significant - e.g. in Lithuania (where much or even most of the killing was done by Lithuanian nationalists, not Germans) - a common form of denial is to attribute all killings to the Germans while venerating the Lithuanian nationalists involved. To a lesser extent this is an issue with Polish Holocaust complicity, Banderites in Ukraine, and other Baltic states. Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

How are you judging "significance"? Do reliable sources on Holocaust denial typically/often refer to this? Please also see TFD's post above regarding "relative weight". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Marcos Loyalists?

Do we think Marcos Apologists and Marcos Loyalists of the late strongman Ferdinand E. Marcos promote Holocaust Denial too? 112.201.14.188 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, are there reliable sources that say they do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You really don't know the details (yet). Marcos is in the Philippines. 112.201.14.188 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Rebutting Twitter Denial

I really like this source because it refutes all the holocaust denial I used to believe in: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html?m=1

Please include it in external links on this page and incorporate its commentary in the main article.2600:1:9A07:1841:0:6A:A080:2201 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No per WP:BLOGS and WP:LINKSTOAVOID (11). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible originating causes of various revisionist numbers / concept?

I wasn't able to find much info on whether this is related or not, but I found an interesting story about Simon Wiesenthal related by historian Yehuda Bauer that was posted in an article by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency a couple of years ago in response to 11 million / 6 million confusion by the White House; the jist of the article is that the 5 million non-Jewish victims of the camps were pulled out of thin air.. The article was seemingly not widely published outside of Jewish papers.

Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.

“I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’”

A second article (a transcript of a speech to the American Enterprise Institute) talks about the impact this had in changing the meaning of 'The Holocaust' from something that was exclusively Jewish.

I'm not familiar with the second source, although the speech is heavily referenced. The JTA is a Jewish community news organization dating back to 1917, and given that inventing 5 million deaths for sympathy really isn't going to make deniers believe the other numbers, I doubt they'd invent this. It seems as though Nobody in the Jewish community really agreed with Wiesenthal doing this, and Bauer had been debunking it since at least 1989, but Wiesenthal's pseudo-celebrity status and the fact that he got Jimmy Carter to use that figure when dedicating the US Holocaust Museum made it difficult. I suspect it could have led to some of the denial / revisionism in a few ways:

• people assuming that the 5 million number was intended to mean all of those killed by the Nazis, when that number is much higher, making it appear as though the Jews were undermining the loss of others
• the ability of the camps to kill 11 million being out of the realm of possibility, and lack of documentation for the 5 million invented victims, causing the 6 million figure to be questioned as well
• people already knew about this (IHR.org shows a more or less accurate version of the same story from a google search) and decided if a lie about 5 million was possible, well... you get the idea

The more disturbing point to me (forgetting the blatant falsification of data) is whether or not the laws against Holocaust denial, in countries that have them, would have been applied to someone claiming less than 11 million people were killed in the camps during this time. The page on the denial laws here makes it seem as though most countries only ban claiming numbers lower than 6 million, but German has a broader definition of "any acts committed under National Socialism".

Ironically the only response I could find to the article was a denial that it was true, and a reference to the Jewish newspaper they'd found it in as "anti-gentile"...

Anyway I'm not sure how any of this could be integrated into the article; except perhaps to relate it to some denial theory if this info is brought up in that theory. I was surprised I couldn't find it on other pages. I'm posting it here because articles like The Holocaust are already accurate in terms of these numbers. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

A reliable source discussing that issue, and linking it to Holocaust denial would be necessary to include it here. Care obviously needs to be taken to not confuse the debate among historians over the Holocaust's nature and death toll, mistakes (especially made by non-experts) and well-meaning advocacy for Holocaust denial, as they're quite different. It's a misconception that there's some kind of mandated figure for the Holocaust's death toll and going below this is automatically denialism - estimates by historians and expert institutions actually differ quite a bit. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

In the intro please change "historically accepted figure" to "academically accepted figure". "historically accepted figure" is easily misinterpreted to mean "a figure that was accepted in the past but no longer is". 92.88.255.254 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: I just changed it to "accepted figure" DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Actual, proven historical revision as counterpoint to conspiracy laden denialism?

From the article: "Scholars use the term denial to describe the views and methodology of Holocaust deniers in order to distinguish them from legitimate historical revisionists, who challenge orthodox interpretations of history using established historical methodologies." Seeing as how deniers themselves often cite the "shifting numbers", it's clear that there have been academically recognized revisions on the matter (up or down, in favor or against the conspiracy theory, don't care). It may help mantain the NPOV to link to such incidents, serving to highligting the rejection of denier methodology and presumptions of intent. 185.163.103.83 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Historical revisionism does not refer to changes in estimates but in substantial changes in how historical events are seen. TFD (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

In the "Post-Soviet States" section, the line "Instead, the participation of local population in anti-Jewish pogroms or contribution of national paramilitary organizations in capture and execution of Jews is denied" has the word "programs" misspelled in it and should be changed to "Instead, the participation of local population in anti-Jewish programs or contribution of national paramilitary organizations in capture and execution of Jews is denied" Felix banks (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done It's a less well known word but "pogroms" has a specific meaning and is correct. CIreland (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Felix, I wikilinked this in the article, for those who are less familiar with the word. By the way, it's accented on the second syllable in AE, first in BE. See the box. Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

The assertion "Holocaust denial is sponsored by some Middle Eastern governments, including Iran and Syria." in the introduction should be immediately followed by external references. I know it is thoroughly explained and referenced later in the article but, in my opinion, the readers shouldn't have to read the entire article to find external links corroborating the claim. Thanks for the amazing work you're doing btw, sorry if it is too much nitpicking. Murtaghdl (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Iran Sponsors Holocaust denal

It would be nice to have a link or three added here to support this. Just because Holocaust deniers we'll take issue with anything on here that isn't documented. And we shouldn't give them a inch.

Here: people tend to not whine when BBC is a source. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24442723

JonesyPHD (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

Change "On December 11, 2006, the Iranian state-sponsored "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust" began to widespread condemnation.[158] The conference, called for by and held at the behest of Ahmadinejad,[159] was widely described as a "Holocaust denial conference" or a "meeting of Holocaust deniers",[160] though Iran denied it was a Holocaust denial conference."

to "On December 11, 2006, the Iranian state-sponsored "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust" began, receiving widespread condemnation.[158] The conference, called for and held by orders from Ahmadinejad,[159] was widely described as a "Holocaust denial conference" or a "meeting of Holocaust deniers",[160] though Iran denied it was a Holocaust denial conference.

Slight reshuffling of words to improve readability/clarity Hockeyhickey1523 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request regarding use of "So called"

In the section Focus on Allied war crimes in Holocaust denial literature we have "The focus on so-called Allied atrocities (my emphasis). What is "so called" about this? See [4]. Please remove it. 5.81.164.49 (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The context of the paragraph makes it clear that "so called" is there because they are called as such by Holocaust deniers/minimizers/revisionists. Words to watch are not absolute prohibitions. In this case, it is justified by the cited reliable sources. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't. There's an article about Allied war crimes detailing "legally proven violations". You wouldn't accept "so called Holocaust", so why should the readership put up with "so called" in relation to Allied war crimes? 5.81.164.49 (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

We're not giving credence to Holocaust denial as you propose, hopefully inadvertently. Holocaust deniers claim that a large range of Allied actions, including some they've invented or grossly exaggerated, were deliberate war crimes which is what this part of the article is discussing. Nick-D (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It's really simple: the way it's worded at the moment suggests that there were no allied atrocities, or that the events were not atrocities in themselves. Regardless of what Holocaust deniers or other might claim, there were allied atrocities, and to refer to them as "so called" implies that there might not have been. The reader should not have to understand the somewhat obscure context to which you refer. The sentence as it stands is not in the spirit of NPOV. 5.81.164.49 (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request regarding (4.10) Romania classified as a Post Soviet state.

Romania was never a Soviet state...Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.185.147 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done changed to Eastern Europe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Holocaust denial is the act of denying the German Nazi genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II 2606:A000:8B89:9600:C513:CB99:15E4:CDFD (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done It is not clear what change you are requesting. buidhe 01:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Problems with this article

The excessive quoting in this article is getting in the way of readability and causing undue weight issues. For example, the section "Immediate post-war period" includes two long quotes from Eisenhower and nothing about the efforts by other Americans, Soviet Union, and survivors to preserve evidence. Most of the "Japan" section is about one magazine article, surely there are other Holocaust deniers in Japan. "Holocaust denial and antisemitism" section has one long blockquote from one individual, giving undue weight to his personal view on the subject. I am also concerned about the use of non-reliable sources and original research in the article, in particular use of quotations from alleged deniers to label them as such without either self-labeling or reliable secondary sources. buidhe 02:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I should note that my attempts to fix these issues have been reverted without explanation by BMK. buidhe 02:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The quoting is not in any respect "excessive" and does not inhibit readability. The existence of X information in the article does not merit being called "undue" simply because there is no information on Y and Z. If the article is unbalanced in that respect, add information on Y and Z, sdo not remove sourced information on X. The quotes from Eisenhower are significant in that he was the Alllied Commander in Chief, and he took steps whic shaped the Allied response to the discovery of the camps, which he took in order to fend off future denialism. That's highly significant. If you think that the reactions of others are significant as well, add them in, don't delete what's there and important.

Your other complaint is so vague as to be useless. Please cite specific instances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edit were reverted, but with an explanation: "These are NOT improvements to the article" [5] is as direct and straightforward as it is possible to be. You may not like to hear it, but that was the reason I reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is already over 62 kb readable prose. Considering long quotes, that puts it significantly over the recommended WP:Article size. Content which appears to have a source can absolutely be undue and/or OR. The OR guideline states, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". I fail to see how Eisenhower's memoirs are directly related to the subject of this article. Furthermore, I checked two books on Holocaust denial and neither mention Eisenhower's efforts at preservation.[6][7] This leads me to believe the content is probably undue unless you are able to find sources on Holocaust denial which discuss it specifically. buidhe 02:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You checked two books, and you want to use that as a reason to removed reliably sourced information that has been in the article forever. No. Please stop this nonsense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The information is sourced to a book by Eisenhower. He says "I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and the British public in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt." "Doubt" = "Denial". He also says that he wants to be able to " testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that "the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda"" again, he's saying he want to be able to counter denial of the reality of the Holocaust. That he doesn't say the words "Holocause denial" is completely irrelevant, because the concept hadn;t been reified at that time, and because that is the obvious and clear meaning of his words. This material is important to be in the article, and should stay.

Also, your understanding of OR is flawed. If a fact is supported by a reliable source, then it cannot be OR. Period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of the source. It is more likely in my opinion that he was referring to downplaying the brutality of Nazi concentration camps (majority of prisoners were not Jewish) rather than Holocaust denial, which is defined by this article as "denying the Nazi genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II". I suggest you read the original research guideline again. buidhe 03:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

So you reject the clear and plain meaning of the text in favor of your own unsupported interpretation? Now, that is OR. You're way, way off base here, and you're making yourself look ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Buidhe is making himself/herself look “ridiculous”. On the contrary as the Eisenhower quote actually undermines the subject of this wiki article as he was at Ohrdruf, NOT a "death camp". So Buidhe's opinion that Eisenhower was referring to downplaying the brutality of Nazi concentration camps, and NOT pre-empting the topic of this wiki article is supported by the known facts. This by far more deserves the description of “ridiculous”: maintaining that ‘doubt’ equals ‘denial’, as was maintained above by BMK. It very obviously does not. Check any dictionary. Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Dictionaries, by necessity, ignore context. In context, what Eisenhower meant by "doubt" was definitely something that we would file under "Holocaust denial" today. He did not know that a subculture would grow which would think up all sorts of bullshit reasons for not accepting the Holocaust as true, but he did anticipate something in that direction, although with a smaller scope, and obviously did not use a term that became standard later. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Specific incidents of original research

• Eisenhower quote, discussed above
• French destruction of documents, source cited does not connect it to Holocaust denial
• Post-World War II history overview—this section discusses doubt of the Holocaust while it was occurring, which is not "post-World War II". The BBC source does not mention Holocaust denial. The offline book needs to be checked to see if it mentions Holocaust denial.
  • This content would belong in an article about contemporary knowledge of the Holocaust.
• People being labeled Holocaust deniers based on statements that appear to be Holocaust denial, without self-identifying or being described as such in RS. This is the most concerning example. buidhe 03:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Other issues with the GA criteria

• The lead does not adequately summarize the article.
• "Middle East" and "Eastern Europe" are misleadingly listed alongside various countries.
• The article is a confused mishmash of history of Holocaust denial movements and a breakdown by country as for "recent developments". It seems to lend undue weight to Holocaust denial in the United States.
• The list of deniers is at risk of BLP and neutrality issues due to labeling people deniers without any context. For example, in Pat Buchanan's article there is a section titled "Accusations of antisemitism and Holocaust denial", but this article just lists him as a denier with no explanation of why or what he said. I would just axe the section as unsalvageable. buidhe 03:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• And a note to User:Buidhe: Just because you posted a list of things that you believe are wrong with this article doesn't mean that those things can be done with "per talk" as an edit summary. "Per talk" general;y means "As we have discussed on the talk page" or "Per consensus on the talk page" or "As agreed to with the handful of editors discussing it on the talk page". It most certainly does not mean "because I listed it as a problem on the talk page." You can certainly make BOLD edits, but please don't attempt to justify them with an edit summary of "per talk". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  "Per talk" just means, "see further explanation on talk". buidhe 02:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Notable Holocaust deniers section?

The entire Notable Holocaust deniers section was removed in this edit with the summary "per talk" but I don't see any discussion of this here beyond a single statement from one day ago that has not been discussed at all yet. This is long-standing article content. Should this not be reverted, at least pending proper discussion, or has there been discussion elsewhere that already establishes a consensus for removal? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal: it was a hodgepodge of a few genuine deniers, mixed with those not constantly and consistently identified by RS as such. Best it stays out since it's going to be attraction for such entries. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment' I have not looked closely at the list a long time, but it should not have been removed without consensus. I have restored it so a consensus discussion can take place here. Please do not remove it again until there is a consensus to do. so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• If we should have such a list anywhere on WP it should be a separate article, List of Holocaust deniers, which explains what they said and who considers them to be Holocaust deniers. Otherwise I don't see how you can resolve the problems with NPOV since no context is being given. It's not quite as bad as having a list of racists or list of antisemites but leads to many of the same issues. buidhe 02:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's a good point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Aggressively prune. I have long been concerned about the BLP aspects. While many of those listed are notable HDs, some have had the merest brush with the subject (consider B.o.B. — who cares what a flat-earth-believing singer thinks about the holocaust?). Others are supported by mere accusations, which should never be enough. Zero^talk 03:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  The most noteworthy ones should already be discussed in text, with context, eliminating the need for a list. buidhe 03:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• nonsense. This is an overview article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• there's Template:Falsification_of_history for that, no? Alcaios (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Early Holocaust deniers

I know the article is already long, but there is an issue: in the current version of the article, the history of Holocaust denial begins with David Hoggan's Der erzwungene Krieg, published in 1961, and Barnes' 1962 pamphlet Revisionism and Brainwashing. Yet, as historian Valérie Igounet – a specialist of Holocaust denial – reminds us, the first person to openly write after the end of World War II that he doubted the reality of the Holocaust was French journalist Maurice Bardèche in his 1948 book Nuremberg ou la Terre promise ("Nuremberg or the Promised Land") [cited in the article], followed by Paul Rassinier's The Lie of Ulysses: A Glance at the Literature of Concentration Camp Inmates, and Bardèche's Nuremberg II, ou les Faux-Monnayeurs, both published in 1950.

We need a section on "early denial in the late 1940s–1950s". I wrote some paragraphs on that a few months ago (see: Maurice Bardèche) which could be partly reused in the article, especially those highlighting the influence of Bardèche's "arguments" on all the Holocaust deniers that followed. I mean, everything was already there in 1948–50: Bardèche aimed at creating "two schools" of equivalence between fascists and the Resistance [...] To prove Germany innocent, Bardèche refuted the specificity of the Hitlerian crime by drawing moral equivalence between the Soviet and the Nazi concentration systems. Ignoring the Nazi attempt at the systematic extermination of Jews and Roma, Bardèche believed Russians were just more skillful in their propaganda and had successfully dissimulated their own crime. Concentrations camps were likewise presented as a meticulous post-facto construction by Jewish "technicians" (presented as the architects of the "invention of the Holocaust"), designed to dominate the world via a global secret plan of historical disguise. Bardèche qualified the Nazi policies on Jews as "moderate" and "reasonable", and believed the Holocaust was nothing more than a "grouping" of the Jewish people in a "reserve" through a population transfer to the East. His other arguments formed the basis of numerous works of Holocaust denial that followed: "testimonies are not reliable, essentially coming from the mouth of Jews and communists", "atrocities committed in camps were the fact of deportees [essentially the kapos]", "disorganization occurred in Nazi camps following the first German defeats", "the high mortality is due to the 'weakening' of prisoners and epidemics", "only lice were gassed in Auschwitz", etc. Alcaios (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hamas leader Rantissi

I am regularly dismayed by the low quality of scholarship that nearly always results when Holocaust denial and the Israeli-Arab conflict are involved together. Most of the writers are activists who quote each other rather than doing the hard work of digging out primary sources. Leaving that aside...let's consider Hamas leader al-Rantissi. It is perfectly plausible that someone who promoted the Protocols might also support Holocaust denial. But did he? I removed the claim when I checked that the Guardian article given as a source did not have it. User:Infinity Knight reinstated it with this source by Lasson which indeed makes the claim. I will use the published version, though I don't know of any relevant differences. It is a "peer-reviewed academic paper", so hard to argue against. The first thing I noticed is that Lasson quoted this very Wikipedia page for the opinion of Mahmoud Abbas (how on earth did that get past the referees and editors?). Regarding Rantissi, Lasson wrote "Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi declared that the Holocaust never occurred and that Zionists funded Nazism," and even gave a source: "Rosie Dimanno, “No Guarantee this ‘Map’ Leads Anywhere,” Toronto Star, May 1, 2003 at A10." So I opened up my friendly Toronto Star archive and located the article in question. Alas, al-Rantissi is not mentioned in relation to the Holocaust at all. The claim that Lasson makes against al-Rantissi is actually made by the Star against Abbas, with "collaborated" rather than "funded" and the addition "He's since recanted some of these views." I won't conjecture on how Lasson came to make this blunder or whether he cares. Since it is not unlikely that a proper source exists, I won't immediately remove this source. But it can't stay like this forever. Zero^talk 02:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the claim per your compelling investigation above. If someone has evidence of "Hamas leaders" (plural) engaging in Holocaust denial (which sounds right — although I do read a lot of Hebrew language sources, so that may bias me with respect to that notion), they are free to add that to the article. Although a talk page discussion first is preferred. Thank you. El_C 02:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That's very good detective work. There are frequent errors in academic papers that don't get checked because they are tangential to the thesis of the paper. The sentence mentioning al-Rantissi could be removed without any real effect on the paper overall.

The way to avoid this type of problem is to follow DUE, which requires that articles cover information that is considered important in the body of the literature. Instead, someone added information from an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source, written by a pro-war writer at the start of the Iraq war. The information is then found in an obscure article by an author who supports moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and his source is a pro-war Canadian writer who wanted to be embedded with U.S. troops.

I don't know what al-Rantissi thinks about the holocaust, but if he is not routinely mentioned in literature about holocaust denial, it doesn't belong in this article. So I suggest we stop looking for sources and just leave it out.

TFD (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Re Hamas leaders (plural), according to Defending Truth: Legal and Psychological Aspects of Holocaust Denial, Kenneth Lasson, University of Baltimore School of Law, 2007, page 11: Holocaust denial... Palestinian political group Hamas, openly publish and promote such claims

Re Rantissi, according to David Patterson (9 February 2015). Anti-Semitism and Its Metaphysical Origins. Cambridge University Press. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-107-04074-8. In 2003 Rantisi ... published an article in the Hamas weekly Al-Risala arguing that Holocaust was "the greatest lies" spread by the Jews and if there was a Holocaust the Jews were the true perpetrators said Rantisi. ... The Holocaust did not happen, and the Jews did it.

Still look as controversial claims? Infinity Knight (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Not so much controversial, but still requiring strong sources per BLP. The first source is the one I just proved to be unreliable. The second source, from the appallingly biased David Patterson, says "former Hamas leader" so it doesn't support "leaders". Zero^talk 06:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

TFD, Rantisi no longer "thinks" — he was killed ~15 years ago. But I disagree: I think if there was a statement by him to that effect, it's fine to look for it. It's fine to also look for any other Hamas leaders' statements to that effect. If someone has, say, vague recollection of these statements, then if they're able to reliably retrieve those, that's fine. But these should be based on high-quality sources (which include the actual quotations in question, quotation marks and all) whose own veracity is basically beyond reproach. El_C 08:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Additional quotes for Rantissi, from an article titled “Which is Worse—Zionism or Nazism?” for the Hamas weekly Al-Risala. According to HOLOCAUST DENIAL’S ASSAULT ON MEMORY: PRECURSOR TO TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY GENOCIDE? by Dr. Harold Brackman and Aaron Breitbart, page 61, Rantissi said: “The Zionists, who excel at false propaganda and misleading media, have had phenomenal success in changing the facts. ... They have managed to present themselves to the world as the only victims of the Nazis, excelling at misleading until they turned the greatest of lies into historical truth." “The Nazis Received Over $100 Million from the Zionists” “The Nazis received tremendous financial aid from the Zionist banks and monopolies, and this contributed to their rise to power. In 1929, the Nazis received $10 million from Mendelssohn and Company, the Zionist bank in Amsterdam. In 1931, they received $15 million, and after Hitler rose to power in 1933, they received $126 million.“ "“It is no longer a secret that the Zionists were behind the Nazis’ murder of many Jews, and agreed to it, with the aim of intimidating them [the Jews] and forcing them to immigrate to Palestine. Every time they failed to persuade a group of Jews to immigrate [to Palestine], they unhesitatingly sentenced [them] to death. Afterwards, they would organize great propaganda campaigns, to cash in on their blood."

Hope this helps, Infinity Knight (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

MEMRI, of course. I believe this is probably all true but it would be better to source it to something other than an unofficial outfit of the Israeli government. Zero^talk 09:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero, I would go with David Patterson (9 February 2015). Anti-Semitism and Its Metaphysical Origins. Cambridge University Press. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-107-04074-8. as a ref if no objections. Thank you, Infinity Knight (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C, although reliable sourcing is required for inclusion, so is weight. Balancing aspects says that each aspect of a topic should be given weight proportional to its coverage on reliable sources about the subject. Tertiary sources says we can look at tertiary sources when evaluating weight.

The question is, if we looked at general articles about holocaust denial in university textbooks, far right watchdog websites or mainstream media, would most of them mention Rantisi? Giving more coverage to the problem among Islamists at the expense of the far right in Western nations skews the relative weight of the two groups.

Rantisi's article was picked up by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) from a Hamas weekly.[8] MEMRI appears to be the source for articles that mention it. That may be why only highly partisan sources (at least those cited in the discussion) have picked up on the story.

Reading highly partisan sources and looking for reliable sources to corroborate them is working backwards. We should start by identifying the most reliable and relevant sources and summarize what they find important. That way we can avoid discussions about rs and weight.

TFD (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

TFD, this may be anecdotal, but I am relatively confident that due weight applies to this in so far as Israeli academia is concerned. But I take your point about what concretely is to done. El_C 16:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on the sources presented here, that seems doubtful. Anecdotally, a search of The Times of Israel website shows only one article out of 15 on the first page about holocaust denial in the Muslim world and it's about Iran.[9] Iran of course notoriously invited Western holocaust deniers to a conference which is rightly in this article. TFD (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

David Patterson is one of those academics (another is Ilan Pappe) whose work I don't cite as a personal discipline because I am not satisfied with his reliability. Patterson essentially equates Islam with "Jihadism" and claims that the extermination of Jews is inherent in the Sharia. His writing on Islamic-Jewish interaction should therefore always be considered suspect in my opinion. In this instance, the real source is MEMRI anyway. My negative opinion of MEMRI went down to zero when they published blatant lies about Norman Finkelstein. MEMRI relies on the fact that checking their sources is very difficult for western news agencies, so mostly they are quoted on the basis of trust. The chance that Patterson checked their claim in this case is negligible (if he did, he would have said so). Zero^talk 01:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero, you said above, Patterson essentially equates Islam with "Jihadism" and claims that the extermination of Jews is inherent in the Sharia.. Is it your personal opinion, or could you cite some sources? You have expressed a concern above, that this source by Lasson confuses Abbas and Rantisi, however on closer examination it appears that Rantisi did make the claim in article titled “Which is Worse—Zionism or Nazism?” for the Hamas weekly Al-Risala. still doubts that Rantisi making the claim? You have also said that Lasson paper is  a "peer-reviewed academic paper", so hard to argue against.. Let me add, that according to Google Scholar Lasson paper was cited 17 times by scholars in the field, so they did find it as credible. It was demonstrated that other sources also exist. You have said that MEMRI relies on the fact that checking their sources is very difficult for western news agencies, so mostly they are quoted on the basis of trust., however their translation is being cited, by secondary reliable sources, experts in the field. Other sources also report that they heard Rantisi making the claim personally see Robert S. Wistrich (1 October 2012). Holocaust Denial: The Politics of Perfidy. Walter de Gruyter. p. 24. ISBN 978-3-11-028821-6., for instance. That is why I do not find your arguments as terribly convincing. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What arguments? You mean the argument that impeccable sources are required for BLPs even more so than for other articles? That's just policy. Now you appear to be claiming we can use a source even after it has been proved to misidentify the living person we want to cite it about. I believe that would be a serious breach of the BLP policy. I don't like Wistrich (one of the most polemic writers in the field) but he was reliable by our rules so feel free. Finally, yes I can cite my opinion of Patterson to an academic reviewer. Zero^talk 06:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

BLP? Are you talking about Rantisi, who is dead since 2004, according to sources? And please provide sources for your claim above Patterson essentially equates Islam with "Jihadism" and claims that the extermination of Jews is inherent in the Sharia.. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct, Rantissi is not living. But we still shouldn't use a source when we know it has made a mistake. I'm also entitled to argue that a source which relies on Wikipedia shouldn't be considered reliable. As for Patterson, this book review makes the points that I reported. They are also well-supported by the book you cited. In the whole chapter on Islam, there is exactly one qualified sentence that allows that most Muslims are not Islamic Jihadists (but only because they have not adopted the "traditions that provide a sacred ground both for Jihadism and for Jew hatred"). To prove his thesis, he is happy to cite just about anyone. The fact is that he is a fundamentalist himself who thinks that antisemitism derives from the desire to kill God. Meanwhile, he misrepresents Jewish traditions on gentiles (p119 for example). Zero^talk 08:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines are clear that we don't add information ignored in most mainstream sources about the topic. We're not detectives searching for info the mainstream has ignored, but merely trying to summarize topics the way they are presented in mainstream sources. Think of it like Cliff's Notes. The student isn't interested in stuff that isn't in the textbook and won't be on the exam. If he or she wants to know more about the subject, they can conduct independent research. TFD (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

TFD, we're discussing removal of a long standing content. The relevant policy is WP:PRESERVE. No detectives searching is required, the sources to support the content are already used in the page, see ref #137 Dr. Harold Brackman, Aaron Breitbart (2007). "Holocaust Denial's Assault on Memory: Precursor to twenty first century genocide?" (PDF). Simon Wiesenthal Center. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 6, 2012. Retrieved May 2, 2012., so removal is invalid. Infinity Knight (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE says, "Preserve appropriate content." It doesn't say preserve content just because it is there. The purpose of the policy is that some editors will remove content they don't like on the basis that it fails rs, when what they should do is get a better source. But the problem isn't rs, it's weight. It's not that I doubt Rantissi wrote the article, but that per weight articles should reflect what is written in reliable sources about the topic. Bias is presented in articles by the choice of what facts to mention and what aspects to emphasize. Obviously everyone has a bias and will see some things as more important than others. But the point of the policy is that we use the weight in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is more apt and it's clear there's no consensus to keep this content. buidhe 04:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally I started an article at David Patterson (historian). buidhe 04:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

TFD, you have tried to argue for above for removal and praised Zero, you said at 04:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC) That's very good detective work. See El_C reply from 08:03, 22 June 2020. Do you feel you have gained consensus? Infinity Knight (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comments have no relevance to the discussion. Let's stay on topic.l TFD (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, let me state the obvious, there is no consensus for removal. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)  

Actually, "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". In the case of the source that mistook someone else for Rantissi, using it as a source for Rantissi anyway is unacceptable regardless of any other argument. Zero^talk 11:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero, could you please provide a quote for your claim Patterson essentially equates Islam with "Jihadism" and claims that the extermination of Jews is inherent in the Sharia. or strike it per WP:BLPTALK Infinity Knight (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I gave you a source for it above. Zero^talk 01:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

More detail needed on terminology

1. "Holocaust denialism" and "denialist" are also commonly used and should be included in the article.

2. The terms "denier", denialist etc, intended to distinguish the activity from "revisionism" and contradict the latter euphemism, seem to have been popularized or introduced by Lipstadt through her book. These words do not appear much before 1994. The quotations from Lipstadt should be contextualized to reflect this, she was introducing or arguing (successfully) for the deployment of basically a new term. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

These are pretty bland word variants based on standard ways of constructing variants in English. I don't see the point of making a deal out of them. Zero^talk 02:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"denier" and "denialist" are different enough lexically to mention both. How that is done is not as important, e.g., it would be enough to mention "Holocaust denialism" parenthetically in boldface in the first sentence, in accordance with WP convention on listing alternative names for the article topic. That French sources use "negationism"/negationist is also pertinent, as those terms appear when the sources speak in English or are translated.

The point about Lipstadt coining the term applies whether or not the alternative terms are indicated. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of French, it's distinction withOUT a difference in English, and all should continue to be used. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't modify extended-protection pages, so if there is ultimately agreement on points 1 and/or 2, I hope someone reading this will make the edits. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

So far, no one has agreed with either point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I understood "distinction with a difference" as agreeing. Did you mean "without"? Sesquivalent (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I did indeed, and I've altered it to correctly say what I meant, Apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Although it was a new term, it was not a new concept. Ernst Zundel had already been prosecuted in the 1980s for distributing the pamphlet "Did Six Million Really Die?" TFD (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As of the early 90's, revisionist (English) and negationist (French) were the most common terms in use along with ad hoc descriptions like falsification, fabrication, antisemitic, etc. The problem that Lipstadt solved was that historical or Holocaust "revisionism" emerged as a form of euphemistic self-advertisement by the deniers. Sesquivalent (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Institute of Historical Review section - final para - erratum?

Do ignore me if I have got this wrong, but looking at the pop up of the source it seems to me that

British historian Richard J. Evans wrote that the Institute claimed that it did not deny the Holocaust and acknowledged "that a relatively small number of Jews were killed" in order to draw attention away from its main contentions, that the number of victims was millions, not thousands, and that Jews were systematically murdered in gas chambers.[66]

should read

British historian Richard J. Evans wrote that the Institute claimed that it did not deny the Holocaust and acknowledged "that a relatively small number of Jews were killed" in order to draw attention away from its main contentions, that the number of victims was thousands, not millions, and that Jews were not systematically murdered in gas chambers.[66] Jontel (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Done You are correct, and I have fixed that. I have also slightly rephrased the sentence to be a bit more fluid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Run into

Ken, "run into" was fine. Now it says "number of victims did not number in". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree about "run into", which seems to me to be too breezy for an encyclopedia, but, absolutely, you're correct about "number...number". If I ca';t rephrase in some some, I'll restore yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "did not run into" isn't breezy. The source uses it: "their refusal to admit that the figure ran into the millions"). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Reducing excessive detail, quotes and repetition

So, the above seem to me to be characteristics of some of the cases in the country sections and I am seeking to apply WP:EXCESSDETAIL and MOS:QUOTE. User: Beyond My Ken, you think "This kind of major change needs to be discussed on the talk page." I did not see the changes as particularly consequential as I sought to retain the sense and all important elements. In any event, please do, as per WP:REVEXP, provide any reasons why the changes should not be made. Jontel (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the shoe is on the other foot, I'm afraid. You wish to extensively change the status quo of the article, therefore you need to justify those changes with something more specific than hand-waving. What improvements, exactly, do your edits make to the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The principal change was to paraphrase quotes as per "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (while being aware that close paraphrasing can still violate copyright)" MOS:QUOTE. Other changes combine short sentences or omit unnecessary words while retaining the meaning to improve readability and reduce repetition. Jontel (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Janowska photo

@GizzyCatBella: In re: this edit, is it being suggested that the photo was taken in 1943, during the German occupation? --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not that, you removed the photo entirely, accidentally seems like, so please be careful with your editing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

Under the false equivalence section it states "so called allied atrocities" which implies there were no atrocities committed by the allies, while linking to the very atrocities it seems to deny. The words "so called" need to be removed as they add nothing to the article beyond making the reader doubt weather the allies committed atrocities. 2A02:C7F:8E6C:6600:6822:429E:A036:E84C (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. Holocaust deniers frequently argue that things they claim to have been war crimes but have never actually been found as such through legal channels (most notably, area bombing which was actually legal at the time) were equivalent to and sometimes worse than the Holocaust. The edit here gave credence to these claims. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is so biased

this article is very biased, and doesn't apply Wikipedia's neutrality rules Monkepedian (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

See note at top of this talk page. This is a common complaint from new users.The Alternate Mako (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, not at top of page, it appears when editing the talk page. The Alternate Mako (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't appear when editing the talkpage (nor when editing the article), The Alternate Mako. Are you referring to the FAQ? That does appear at the top of this page, though amongst such a lot of other stuff that it's quite hard to find. Here is a direct link to it. Bishonen | tålk 14:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC).

East, West and Central

Wouldn't it be better to divide the sections on East Europe and West Europe into the more accurate East, West and Central categories? PortholePete (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2021 (2)

Change "They picked out Hungary, Poland, Croatia and Lithuania as the worst offenders" to "They picked out Hungary, Poland, Croatia and Lithuania as the worst offenders in the European Union" as the report rates only EU countries so this suggests that Holocaust denial is less serious and mainstream outside of Eastern Europe. Originalcola (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

So called allied atrocities

In the section on false equivalency the first line says ‘the so called allied atrocities’. This implies that they weren’t atrocities, which they were. Them being by used as false equivalents doesn’t detract from them. They are still documented atrocities. Not being in the same scale as The Holocaust, doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. 121.220.32.136 (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that depends. Based on Allied war crimes during World War II, what "Holocaust denial literature" terms "Allied atrocities" could be any mix of stuff a decent military historian would or would not call "atrocity". Pinging @K.e.coffman, if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's scientific definition of "atrocity"; in that sense, all atrocities are "so-called". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

the strange case of the deletion of the BIRN-sourced content

@GizzyCatBella: deletes it [10] with the edit summary: "Not a RS, doesn’t meet sourcing restriction, appears to be written by students and self-published by non-experts."

Then @Beyond My Ken: restores the material [11] with this - accurate, as it happens - edit summary: "it's based on academic research"

Only for @Zero0000: revert him [12] with this edit summary: "It is out of the question to cite a report written by "student researchers"

The source in question, was this: https://balkaninsight.com/2019/01/25/holocaust-revisionism-widespread-in-croatia-warns-report-01-25-2019

Now, Balkan Insight is the website of the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), and is the very definition of a reliable journalistic source. Indeed, it's about the only news source in all of the Western Balkans that is truly independent and non-partisan - thanks to its sources of funding and it's status as a de-facto non-profit. It has received nothing but praise from the industry for it's fearless and non-biased investigative reporting, and its employment of only serious journalists. It has won numerous awards (from the Global Investigative Journalism Network, Reporters sans frontières, the EU, United Nations Development Program, the OSCE, local NGOs, local journalist associations throughout ex-Yugoslavia and Albania, the Academic Association for Contemporary European Studies for "excellence in reporting on the European Union in the English-speaking media", and even UNICEF.

The author of the piece, Anja Vladisavljevic, is not a "self-published student non-expert". She is a seasoned Balkan journalist, formerly of Le Monde Diplomatique, Bilten.org, Balkan Insight of course, and as of late 2021, with the newly founded Oštro Center For Investigative Journalism in the Adriatic Region,[13] a partner of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, and a member of the Global Investigative Journalism Network.

The research she cites, was not written by mere "student researchers", but was the project of William Echikson, financed by Yale University and Grinnell College, and assisted by a distinguished professor from each of those universities. Echikson is himself a former research fellow at Harvard, and a 30-year veteran Europe-based correspondent (PBS, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, Fortune, POLITICO, you name it - he was even Editor-in-chief of France's Libération’s international supplements!) He's published two books on gastronomy, was Dow Jones' Brussels Bureau Chief (2001-2007), then joined Google in 2008 as "Head of Free Expression Policy and PR for Europe, Middle East & Africa". He is now a Contributing Editor at at the independent, non-profit, non-partisan Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels.

From Grinnell, the project received support and advice from Professor Daniel P. Reynolds, Department chair of German Studies and Seth Richards Professor in Modern Languages. His most recent book, Postcards from Auschwitz (NYU Press, 2018), explores the relationship between tourism and Holocaust remembrance, a topic he has been researching since 2007. At Grinnell Reynolds has been a pioneer in developing course-embedded travel opportunities for students. Since 2010 he has been taking students to Europe as part of his team-taught class on the city of Berlin with Professor Jenny Anger in Art History, and more recently with Professor David Harrison in the Department of French and Arabic, as part of Grinnell's "Global Learning Program". His PhD in German Studies is from Harvard btw.

From Yale University, Maurice Samuels (again, a PhD from Harvard), is the Betty Jane Anlyan Professor of French at that fine institution, where he is also the inaugural director of the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism. He has been awarded the Gaddis Smith International Book Prize (2007); as well as the "Scaglione Prize", given by the national Modern Language Association for the best book published in the country in French studies, twice (2009 and 2016); and in 2015 was awarded a Fellowship at the Guggenheim Foundation.

In short, I propose that the material be restored. Do I have a second? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is the same as before. The report states clearly how the data was collected:

Yale College and Grinnell College helped finance the report. They supported student researchers to
 travel throughout Europe during the summer of 2018 preparing reports on the performance of
 individual EU countries in facing up to their historical dark spots. Distinguished professors at both 
colleges provided invaluable support and advice.

So it was a student group project. Having professors as advisors is no different from most student projects and does not change the basic nature. Interesting but fails WP:RS. Zero^talk 07:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the research was published by William Echikson, on his own pet-project website.[14] It was reported on by Anja Vladisavljevic in Balkan Insight, which is a RS. Echikson could've used trained monkeys for all it matters - it's really none of your business - and it's irrelevant, as you are in no position to question the validity of Balkan Insight as a RS. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My opinion didn’t change, source doesn’t meet sourcing restriction [15], it was a summer student project, written by students.

Yale College and Grinnell College helped finance the report. They supported student researchers to travel throughout Europe during the summer of 2018 preparing reports.... who undertook a summer of travel in order to conduct interviews and visit Holocaust sites. They include Lindsay Daugherty, Caderan Owen-Jones, and Justin Jin from Yale, Ilana Luther, Jeremy Epstein and Nicholas Haeg from Grinnell.[16]

Balkan Insight [17] is not a peer-reviewed scholarly journals or academically focused book - not a RS for this topic, author Anja Vladisavljevic is not a historian. GizzyCatBella🍁 11:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Since a reliable source reported the findings of the report there is no rs problem in relating what the findings were. The objection would only apply if we were using the report and presenting its findings as fact without in text attribution. TFD (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

But then we would have to present it as the findings of a student project. Otherwise it would be misleading. I don't think that would be a good look. Zero^talk 12:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we need to go to RSN then. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors are reminded that special sourcing restrictions imposed by ArbCom remain in effect for articles relating to the Holocaust in Poland and WW2 in Poland. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hungary

The Holocaust in Hungary describes another story. The other one seems to be better referenced,

"The Arrow Cross Party committed numerous crimes and killed or deported Jews. A total of 437,000 Jews were deported by Miklós Horthy's government in the Kingdom of Hungary, an Axis collaborator." - Horthy ruled before the Arrow Cross, so the order is wrong. No number of ACP victims is given here. There is a controversy regarding Gendarmerie role, not mentioned here, no such page. Sándor Képíró.Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• In memoriam: Randolph L. Braham (1922-2018)
• Randolph L. Braham’s open letter
• Obituary: Passing of Prof. Randolph BrahamXx236 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong attribution

The Brian Harmon mentioned and quoted in the section below is not and has no association with the Brian Harmon who worked at the New York Daily News and The Detroit News, among other publications.

"But leaving that aside, if you were consistent in your belief that a journalist can't be a reliable source because he is a journalist, you would not be referring me to this Nizkor piece by Brian Harmon, who apparently was a Detroit News reporter for 5 years and with NY Daily News for 8. As far as I'm concerned, it is entirely possible that a journalist is a reliable source. On Nizkor, however, there does not appear to be any editorial control over Harmon, and more importantly it is apparent that he arranges his research in order to get the conclusion he wants. Note Harmon's claim that only Friedman and Kogon "listed the total Auschwitz dead at four million." What does Martin Gilbert say? Well on page 337 of Auschwitz and the Allies Gilbert says... 4 million! This is then taken as authoritative by Deborah Lipstadt, who cites Gilbert to declare on page 262 of Beyond belief: the American press and the coming of the Holocaust, 1933-1945 that "[o]f the approximately 4 million killed at Auschwitz a minimun of 2 million were Jews." No one can accuse Gilbert of changing that 2 million Jews number around with the passage of time because the 3rd edition of his Atlas of the Holocaust came out in 2002 and on page 100 of that book Gilbert writes "The gassing of more than two million Jews at Auschwitz began on 4 May 1942..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.251.124.157 (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there language in the article that you're proposing to change, or new language that you'd like to be added to the article? Firefangledfeathers 16:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reasoning Section

I think a section on the reasoning/claimed evidence for Holocaust Denial beliefs should be created. I can help out with this and make a section about the party's talking points and what they propose as evidence. If the encyclopedia approves of this idea, I can begin work on it gradually over the next few weeks. However, I know that this is not politically correct and would be controversial, but I think that should be put aside in the name of creating an unbiased encyclopedia as I am sure we all value here on Wikipedia. 72.93.206.32 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The reasoning varies depending on who is making the claims, which is why we break the article up by origin of claim. No I don't think it's a good idea to have a dedicated section listing the reasoning because it would give undue weight to whoever's reasoning we choose to focus on. Also difficult to avoid WP:GEVAL issues. If you've got proposed secondary or tertiary sources that provide an overview of common denialist themes that you are proposing using as a basis that might be a data point that could sway my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I have an idea. First, regarding the secondary/tertiary sources, I certainly have those and can send some over when I get the time to compile everything. But, in regard to WP:GEVAL, I understand. However, any claims that one feels are refutable could be countered with a source that analyzes that specific claim. So, in my mind, it's not creating a false equivalency. Also I would like to add that I am not biased in this department (you have not said so, but other people reading this may think so); I have simply had many extensive conversations with some of these deniers and they have some very strong talking points. However, I brushed it off as them simply having spent a significant amount of time researching this relative to me - I mean really, it never before occurred to me that I should objectively research this area. Anyway, hope this reply is a resolution. 72.93.206.32 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Ow! "Not biased" does not sound good. See WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:YWAB. And "they have some very strong talking points" does not sound good either. If they really had "very strong talking points", historians would take their ideas seriously, and they do not. I may be wrong, but it seems you have been talked by deniers into accepting some of their bad reasoning, and now you want to spread the word. That is not what Wikipedia is for.

We will not add their "very strong talking points" here unless we also add the refutations, and if there are refutations, then they are not strong points. If the reasoning actually holds water (big chance!), then Wikipedia is the wrong place to popularize them because it is based on mainstream scholarly sources. First get those reasons accepted by historians, then we can add them.

I have not read much literature on holocaust denial, only about ten books, and most of them do not extensively list and refute the reasons deniers give, but de:Markus Tiedemann has collected 60 of their talking points and the refutations in "„In Auschwitz wurde niemand vergast“. 60 rechtsradikale Lügen und wie man sie widerlegt.". I don't think it has been translated. Maybe "Denying History. Who says the Holocaust never happened and why do they say it?" by Michael Shermer is the right source for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Another good spot is here that refutes many of the memes... Ealdgyth (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sir, I was not referring to memes when I referred to their talking points. As for Mr. Shermer, yes, I am an IP address user, so linking WP pages may seem enlightening to me, and I appreciate it, and yes the IP may make me come off as a Nazi troll. Regardless, I disagree that it is WP:FRINGE since, at no point during these posts, did I say we should make their beliefs appear more widely believed than they actually are. However, I will grant that WP:FALSEBALANCE is something to keep in mind, but does not automatically exclude a section on this proposed topic. Me admitting that a particular group offers some strong talking points does not indicate I am biased and I don't really appreciate the insinuation that it does. If they had no talking points whatsoever, there would be no traction in the movement (egalitarians, fascists, communists, capitalists, etc. all have at least some strong talking points). My objective here is to raise awareness; ignoring/censoring a given party's beliefs instead of addressing it only fails to educate them, make them feel correct, and, most importantly, makes their theories appear more legitimate to curious third party observers. This is contrary to what you are implying, that addressing it gives them legitimacy in and of itself. But perhaps we could compromise - maybe it's a bad idea for an entire section on this, but I think at least a few paragraphs would be beneficial to readers. 72.93.206.32 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

IP, assuming good faith on your part, others have already addressed your concerns about raising the "good arguments" of holocaust deniers so I won't repeat their responses. I would like to just respond to a few of your points:

1. As editors, we do not judge whether anybody has good talking points or not; that is simply not our role. Reliable sources make those judgments, not us. Wikipedia editors digest the preponderance of independent, secondary, reliable sources on a topic and summarize it in the article, accompanied by citations. Your own judgment about how good the talking points are is irrelevant.
2. If your objective here "is to raise awareness", then you have the wrong objective. We are an online encyclopedia; our objective is to write neutral, encyclopedic articles about notable topics of interest to readers.
3. We are not here to "educate" those whose fringe beliefs don't make it into the article for encyclopedic reasons.
4. We do not gauge what is appropriate for addition to an article because of a worry that some readers might think a theory is more legitimate due to its omission from the article.

Any additions you wish to make to the article should improve the article and adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If a paragraph or a section is appropriate for the article under those principles, then it could be added, but not by appealing to any of the things you stated above.

Finally, I have some comments for you about editing a controversial topic like this one as a new user. However, per WP:TALK page guidelines, it's not appropriate for me to go into that here, so I've left you a message on your Talk page about it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot has already addressed this comprehensively. I just want to add that I have no idea where "memes", "Nazi troll" and "does not indicate I am biased" came from. Maybe you should not imagine what people could mean and instead listen to what they actually say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hob, Why don't you ctrl+f "memes", or perhaps just read the post I was responding to? Insinuations of bias were made in the post above that one too. However, I will henceforth forfeit participation in this discussion, as it seems Wikipedia is very tricky with controversial topics. I would, however, like to thank Hob for continuing the discussion rather than just saying what is right and what is wrong. 72.93.206.32 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, right, memes and Nazi troll were in there. Sorry. But the problem with bias is not that people think you have it although you say you do not. The problem is that you think you should not have it, that bias is a bad thing. WP:YWAB explains that Wikipedia is biased about such things, and should be. In the fight between historians and holocaust deniers, the article has to stay on the side of the historians because of the Wikipedia rules, especially WP:FRINGE. And no, we will not go into details about the denialist claims and their refutations. That has been tried with creationism articles quite a while ago, and it made the articles worse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason for Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism. Deniers then search for evidence in support of their position. I don't think it is worthwhile to provide a point by point refutation of their claims, and should only mention claims that are highlighted in reliable sources about them. IOW you would need to show a reliable source about Holocaust denial that addressed their arguments. TFD (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

12.148.191.254 (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)The Jews were killed, what are you talking about

 Not done An edit request needs to be in the form of "Please change X to Y. Also, this article is about the phenomena of Holocaust denial; it is not a denial of the Holocaust. Singularity42 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Estimates below 6 million are not Holocaust denial

The text reads "The actual number of Jews murdered is significantly lower than the accepted figure of approximately 6 million." It should read "The actual number of Jews murdered is significantly lower than the accepted figure of approximately 5 to 6 million." Many prominent scholars have estimated the death toll to be closer to 5 million than six, including Raul Hilberg, the dean of Holocaust studies. SouthBendBoys (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources? Dronebogus (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What source states that? ZetaFive (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hilberg'estimate of 4.9 to 5.4 million was based on documents available to him in 1961. It does not include undocumented killings, such as shootings on arrival in camps and murders by SS in the Soviet Union. The original estimate of 6 million was supplied by Nazis themselves and most current estimates are in that range. Regardless, 5 million is not significantly lower than 6 million at least in this context. TFD (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for edit rights

Hi

I'd like to edit some grammatical errors on this page. I am requesting editing rights. K-Man 22:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koconnorc (talk • contribs)

Such as? ... Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:BLUELOCK, you're about halfway there, edit-wise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hello, In the "Turkey" section, there is the following sentence:

"In March 1996, a Turkish painter and intellectual, Bedri Baykam, published a strongly worded critique of the book in the Ankara daily newspaper"

"intellectual" certainly should be removed here as it's un-encyclopedialike and also subjective. Thank you! 76.179.55.120 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. I'd do it myself but I am not extended-confirmed-protected so I do not have that authority. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"Turkish painter and intellectual" is the specific phrasing used in the source, which is almost certainly why it's like that in the article. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 13:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Just because it says that in the source does not mean anything. That's a slippery slope, you know? I agree with the person who made this section and the guy under him though, I actually came here because I read that and thought "wtf?" since it seemed so out of place. 72.93.206.32 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been ignored largely. Why? 72.93.206.32 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:CHOICE. You could try some WP:APPNOTEing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Then my edit request still stands. I'd change it myself but it's a locked article. 72.93.206.32 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"Your" edit request, 72.93.206.32? You said 76.179.55.120 made the request, and that you merely agreed with them. Unless that was a typo, I'll remind you that WP:Sockpuppetry is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Regarding said edit request, "Intellectual" is a term used not necessarily to denote that a person is smart, but rather that they engage in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society (see Intellectual). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done clearly there isn't consensus to remove this sourced content. VQuakr (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

wooden doors claim

neo nazis frequently make light of the holocaust by using the argument that gas chambers supposedly had wooden doors, a claim which doesn't have a verifiable source but which they frequently attach photos of wooden doors locking a chamber of sorts in as evidence. is wikipedia covering this form of denialism In this article???? 2001:8F8:173D:71C:5D0D:3FB5:586E:4261 (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Source? Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You could read it find out. But it doesn't seem to be mentioned. If you think this article should mention it, you are welcome to make a suggestion like "I suggest we add this text to this section cited to these WP:RS." If other editors think it's a reasonable suggestion, they may act on it. A WP:RS in this case would be something like a history book or article in a scholarly journal who wrote about this particular claim. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the website Holocaust Controversies on the doors: flimsy door Ealdgyth (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

fact of deportees

There is a typo in "atrocities committed in camps were the fact of deportees [essentially the kapos]" in the Maurice Bardèche section. Should be act(s), not fact. Glimz (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed in this diff. It was an improper translation. "sont le fait de" = "are the work of"/"are the doing of"/"were perpetrated by" DFlhb (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

What about denial about usage of Zyclon B (hydrogen cyanide) to exterminate?

the title Bogomoletsilizarov (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What text do you suggest adding to which section, based on what WP:RS? Avoid blogs and wikis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)