Talk:Criticism of Holocaust denial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Holocaust denial article.
Article policies
The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Stylistic concerns

Some of the article seems to be written in a factual, but non-encyclopedic way. Wikipedia doesn't usually start a section with "Argument: foo bar". Also, "However, as is typically the case," seems to be a conversation-like, even though it is true. Andjam 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to be bold in your edits. I'm kind of on the fence about the "Argument" line. I think it's useful in that it gives a short summary of the claims so that a reader that's unfamiliar with the topic can understand it better. However, it's bothersome that those argument lines are not cited. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with andjam, particularly with reference to the "unreasonable burden of proof" section, I think this needs to be written in a more encyclopaedic fashion. Perhaps this section also does not meet NPOV guidelines?

Andy4226uk 13:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of criticism of Holocaust denial

I just got in here because I actually wanted to see what Wikipedia had to offer on precisely that issue: criticism of criticism of holocaust denial. My suggestion would be to make Criticism of criticism of Holocaust denial simply refer to Freedom of speech. I would do that, if only I knew how. (If it is deemed appropriate to forbid expressions of denial of one kind of established historical fact, then why shouldn't this be generalized to denial of any kind of established historical fact? I can see - in a perverted way - a huge benefit from expressly forbidding denial of biological evolution, for example. Yet somehow, I have a feeling that banning the bible etc is a stillborn idea.) Please note, I am not trying to defend denial in any way, I am only saying that forbidding expressions of denial is absurd, even if it is actually the law in numerous countries. The attempt to make H.D. illegal EU-wide was blocked by Britain and the Nordic countries - presumably they had arguments for doing so, which could be cited as effectively being examples of criticism of criticism of H.D. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen 19:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We have the Holocaust article, which claims that it happened, but uniquely, does not have to defend its facts or logic. Then we have Holocaust denial and Criticism of Holocaust denial. So next I expect: Criticism of criticism of Holocaust denial. Etc. Fourtildas 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust article, not quite 'uniquely', has over 100 footnotes, so your comment about not defending its facts is untrue. Holocaust denial is altogether separate, being a form of antisemitic propaganda. The typical elements of this propaganda are described in 'Criticism of Holocaust denial'. That seems to be a logical structure for the content. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

why is it antisemetic propaganda to question the holocaust myth? why is it antisemetic when it wasnt just jews who died in the holocaust. only jews have profited from the hoax. if the holocaust is so true then why is it so imflamatory to question wether or not it happaned? why are there people in jail for saying it is a hoax? doing that is like jailing someone who says that the american revolution didnt start until 1964. why should a person who makes such an absurd claim be put in jail? Keltik31 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest always considering the source of a Talk: page comment before bothering to respond. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Criticism of the criticism of Holocaust denial can be discussed in this article. This article isn't designed to be one-sided; the proponents of Denial/Revisionism can be represented here as well. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Only if there are reliable sources making that criticism. I somehow doubt there are. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems hardly neutral to promote only one side of a debate. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right. If you can find reliable sources making criticism of criticism of Holocaust denial, feel free to put it in the article. --GHcool 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do some searching later. Although it seems to me that many sources are considered unreliable simply because they criticize the criticism of holocaust denial... .V. [Talk|Email] 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no "debate". There's the historical truth, and there's a handful of loons. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has opinions, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia must reproduce your Aunt Millie's views on the subject. WP:ATT applies here as in every Wikipedia article. Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute, guys. Let's not trash the guy before he gives us something to trash. I stand by my challenge to .V. If .V. can find a reliable source that criticises criticisms of Holocaust denial, I say it should and must be included in the article. Of course, it would have to comply with WP:RS and WP:ATT and also be relevent to the overall outline of the article. So, for example, Jayjg's hypothetical Aunt Millie would not cut the mustard and neither would Wendy Campbell. But if .V. can find a quote given by Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Yad Vashem, or any number of respected and established historians and philosophers specializing in the Holocaust that criticizes critics of Holocaust denial, wouldn't it be worth putting on Wikipedia? So I repeat my challenge to .V. and wish him good luck in his search. I expect that it will be fruitless, but obviously .V. is willing to accept the challenge despite the overwhelming odds of its not being met. Until the challenge is met, however, I would appreciate it if .V. would have enough sense not to respond about this topic, for nothing will convince us more than proof for his bold claims. --GHcool 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh? At what point do I make a claim, let alone a bold claim? .V. [Talk|Email] 22:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to .V.'s Aunt Millie. My Aunt Millie is quite notable. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I assume that Jayjg's Aunt Millie wouldn't criticize critics of Holocaust denial. I'm not as sure about .V.'s Aunt Millie.  ;) --GHcool 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] the photo of the guy with a gun to his head

i have heard that this is a faked photo because the soldier with the gun is actually wearing a soviet uniform and is not a german nor is he using a german pistol. help? Keltik31 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can cite a reliable source backing up what you heard, you're out of luck. Andjam 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm working on it because i know its out there somewhere. Keltik31 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I stared at that thing for a good long time and came to the conclusion that the photo didn't have enough detail to determine any insignia on the uniform. I'm sure that someone with extensive knowledge of WWII-era uniforms would be able to determine something. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


I FOUND THIS ON THE TALK PAGE for the Einsatzgruppen CONCERNING THIS PHOTO.

Its sad indeed to see how misrepresented the articles on Nazi Germany are in Wikipedia, but this page bar far takes the cake. The ignorance of the author who in his almost stunning lack of knowledge of the subject matter, most of which is taken from holocaust websites and reworded, even makes the mistake of copying images from such websites of alleged Einsatzgruppen soldiers apparently executing a man. Take a close look at the picture on the main page. Those arent German uniforms and that is not a German pistol in the soldier's hand. The soldier in the image is wearing a Soviet M35 uniform and is holding a Tokerev TT33 pistol. The boy right behind the arm of the soldier wielding the pistol (he looks no more than 16-17 years old perhaps younger) is wearing a Soviet M35 airforce uniform. You can distinctly see everything the soldiers are wearing are Soviet issue, and and non corrospond to German uniforms or equipment. For all any of you know, the guy who apparently is about to be shot is a German POW. Perhaps the Soviets thought it would be funny to dress him up and then shoot him, or more likely it is just a staged event in order to send pictures home (the red army was notorious for staging photos for propaganda purposes back home) This makes sense since the bodies in the pit below appear to have been decomposing for a fair period of time and the grave does not appear fresh.

If you want further proof go to the link at the bottom and view this site that sells authentic reproductions of Soviet and other WW2 uniforms and regaelia. Check out the tunics, belts, headwear, pistols ect. They are all identical to the ones being worn by the soldier and onlookers in this misrepresented photo. Keltik31 15:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say i agree with you. however the holocost did happen and this was probably a mistake. Saying the holocaust didn't happen is dishonorable to the victims and the survivors. What is someone said 9/11 didn't happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.82.102 (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe instead of cherry picking, you could link to the Whole discussion? While it was truly a piece of Original Research to behold, the argument wasn't compelling and consensus there was that the photo was indeed genuine. Cantankrus 04:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out Keltik31's talk page: he's made numerous racist edits. --DrBat 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Because of the fear of being labeled an anti-semite, I doubt any scholar would conduct research on such matters. It's a shame original research is not popular, since he has a valid point, and I did check the uniforms and his claim is tottaly correct. It's common sense his not a german soldier. I think common sense should be allowed on wikipedia. I mean, its like putting a red circle and labeling it green, Do we need a scholar to tell us that the circle is Red just to be able to put the facts on wikipedia? No. --87.194.3.52 14:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link to the original Russian uniform. http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-photos16/safom35b.jpg Anyone who has eyes can see that they are russian soldiers in the picture. Please remove the picture as it is common sense and not original research. If this fails, we would have to mediate or take further actions for wikipedia to do this. It's like putting pictures up of a camel and claiming it is Ariel Sharon.
All the soldiers in the article picture have tunic pockets below the belt. The tunic in the picture you link to has no pockets below the belt. Nor do the soldiers have Sam Browne belts, whereas your picture does. In fact, they are different uniforms. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The link I put is the 1950's version of the Soviet uniform, sorry for not mentioning. Also if you look behind the main guy in the pictures, there are different types of uniform some with different markings, different colours, styles, for different ranks and different elements of the Russian military (paratroopers etc.). One thing is for sure, not many German soldiers wore that type of hat except the African corps and even that had the german eagle with the swastika circle in the middle which are not present in the photo. But it will be good to once and for all prove the identity of the soldiers in the picture by finding a credible, non biased source that will show who the uniforms belong to. --87.194.3.52 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not a 1950s Soviet uniform. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have realized. But I can't find an german replica neither. Thank You --87.194.3.52 02:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not an expert, but i believe that the pistol is a Walter PP. Looked and found google image. http://burnfan0.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/walther_pp_final1.jpg.w560h361.jpg Not sure if one pistol can be determined from another in a grainy picture from 1945. However, I expect a lot of the confusion is that the Walter PP doesn't look anything like very distinct, infamous Luger or Mauser pistols that were highly prized by Allied troops, even though Walters were a common pistol at the time. The Walter looks much more like a "generic" semiauto, the same as the Tokarev TT33.

Did some more looking. The photo caption states that the german soldiers are in fact hitler youth members, hence their uniforms do not match up with any Waffen SS or Wermacht uni's. This is a pretty decent pic here. http://www.afno-is.eu.dodea.edu/history10/hyouth.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.216.85 (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, that doesn't really check out with this link

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=3036 however, it does have quite a bit in common with the m35, most notably the knee-high boots, breast pockets and cap (especially). Also, note the man pictured behind the gunman's hand. There is clearly some sort of insiginia on the center of his cap, which is shown here on a replica of a M35 here: http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-photos16/safom35b.jpg--68.144.14.32 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They are German uniforms. The reason I know this?
A - No russian uniforms had pockets below the belt until the Telogreika padded winter jacket. Here for instance is the M35 the first person quotes and is (patently) wrong about [1]
B - the next most obvious thing (from a glance) is the piping on the lapels and collars.[2] and of course the presence (on several uniformed persons) the Nazi eagle[3] on the right breast[4] of which (again) there is no Russian match I can think of or have ever seen.
C - The belts are all obviously German issue. No other armed force supplied (on mass) full metal belt buckles[5]. See others here[6] [7]
D - the cloth caps are generic, they could be German M38 but it's impossible to see a true insignia on them apart from the 'target' circle on a few commonly used by a few nations, but few more so than the germans[8][9]. The 'pleat' is a bit of a give away that it isn't the generic Russian cap however.
E - third from the left is an obvious German trooper with shoulder pauldrons. I can't remember what they signified, but no other army issued anything like them.
F as for the pistol - The Germans produced a number of pistols, including imitation Brownings. It could well be a Tokarev, but pistols were not issued to foot troops as standard so any hand gun like that would be unofficial unless granted to them by an officer. There are signs he is wearing a holster, but nothing conclusive to even prove it is his own sidearm.
Any argument otherwise regarding the entire force here is misleading really.--Koncorde (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images within

Why hello, my comment comes in the form of a suggestion. Much of this article takes the form of refuting Holocaust Denial, for example the photos taken at death camps, man being, pictures of documentation of the holocaust; however none of the images seem to convincing at all. For example, the detail of a photograph taken at Auschwitz is of really poor quality. If I was show that detail while not reading about Auschwitz, there would be nothing to lead me to believe that it was Auschwitz.

Now obviously I'm unregistered, and am not going to be the person who digs up these images, but I think it would go a long way to further this refutation if there were some more definitive images present. Obviously you'll still get people saying things like "Well how do you know they were Jewish? That could by anyone in that mass grave", but given that better images are out there, I think the editors of this article can do better. Thanks. 142.167.151.52 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that photo technology of the time wasn't that great. I'll see if I can find better photos though. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm well aware, but I also know that higher quality photos exist as well as videos from that era. In addition modern photography exists of the preserved structures of the concentration camps. Thanks for taking my suggestion seriously. 142.167.138.104 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropiate document about "execution of prisoners"

The "Report to Hitler detailing the executions of prisoners" is pretty misleading. First, the proper image is labeled "Himmler_repor.jpg" (???); then the report itself does not have anything to do with the Holocaust. As far as I could translate it with google it's about the number of killed in encounters Soviet partisans (called "Russians" but obviously partisans weren't monoethnic), not prisoniers but combatants. Could someone with good Deutch knowledge have a closer look at it?

If my suspicion is correct, putting such a document in such a sensible article is a pretty wrong argument as it could consolidate someone's suspections rather than disclaiming them. --80.70.233.14 14:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why work to disclaim suspicions? Why not just present facts? Wikipedia is neutral, remember. 68.144.14.32 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just missed the translation of the document that was just under the photo, because I immediately clicked on the photo to see it at a higher resolution :-) It lists 363000 jews murdered in just 4 months! omg. Taking all my words back, the image is quite ok for the article. --80.70.233.14 14:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish population figures

The part about "Jewish population" lists the 1949 World Almanac as giving two different figures for the world Jewish population, one around 11 million and one around 16 million. Which is right? TribeCalledQuest 19:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The 11 million estimate is the 1949 estimate. The 16 million estimate is a revised 1939 estimate that appeared in the 1949 Almanac. --4.129.81.180 02:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I made the same mistake. Perhaps somebody could reword it to make that more clear. BCapp 23:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talk • contribs)

[edit] Density

The article states German documentation mentions that danger of explosion occurs with a consentration of 75 g/cubic meter. This statement isn't sourced (it'd be nice if it could, but for all practical purposes I have no reason to doubt it's authenticity) and there isn't enough data available for readers to assess the veracity of this claim (and the 56,000 ppm claim either). My question is the following: what is the density of the Zyklon-B compound? Wikipedia gives the density of HCN in the liquid state, but I couldn't find anything related to its gaseous form. To put the matter briefly, what are the exact figured Nizkor used to calculate the concentration at which Zyklon-B became explosive? -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ask Nizkor, not here. This talk page is meant specifically to discuss the article, not to discuss the Holocaust in general (and all the niggling little details that Holocaust deniers love to discuss). --Modemac (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denial as antisemitism

This section seems a little mis-representative, the quote basically says that to deny anti-semitism, or to deny the holocaust, makes you a neo-nazi. Not only does this misrepresent the point of the article, it is far too emotive- ideally it needs changing. (the section, not the quote) Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICRC claims

The section about ICRC is wrong. There are several kinds of holocaust denier ICRC claims, and while the 300,000 claim is usually given without any source, other similar numbers are based on scans of (purported) letters form the ICRC, and so have nothing to do with the Die Tat article. For example Hal Turner's 271000 claim is based on this document, and the Was there really a Holocaust tract gives the number 282,077 based on another :one.

Beyond the obvious reliability issues, two things might be worth noting here:

  1. the letters give the number of "documented deaths" (beurkundeten Sterbefalle), whatever that means. (Maybe the number of those for whom they got a tracing request, and could ascertain that they are dead? Would make sense, since the letters came from ICRC's holocaust victim tracing service in Arolsen.)
  2. only the some of the labour and concentration camps are listed, not a single extermination camp (except for Majdanek in one of the letters).

--Tgr (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


It isn't wrong - they have everything to do with the Die Tat article.
The original 300000 claim comes from Richard Harwood's Did 6 Million Really Die pamphlet, chapter 9 page 28. If you look at the response from the ICRC, you will see that it is this they are referring to.
Unfortunately the article Turner put together is no longer available on his website, but there have been copy and paste jobs elsewhere, such as here: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/130513 I couldn't tell you whether the image is a scan of Harwood's pamphlet or the Die Tat article itself, but accordingly, it is this material which Turner bases his material on as he cites Chapter 9 of Harwood's pamphlet in his article.
The 282,077 figure - well that second image is actually another instance of Harwood's scholarship (and i use that word very loosely). It's an article from the June 13, 1946 edition of Basler Nachrichten, another Swiss newspaper. It reports that the number of Jewish casualties was 1.5 million maximum. Harwood failed to mention that a later article in the same newspaper acknowledges that this figure was incorrect, and 5.8 million was an accurate number.
As death tolls, these figures certainly did not come from the ICRC, since they have "never published or even compiled statistics" like that. Their job is to "help war victims not to count them". They are simply the number of deaths recorded by the tracing service and obviously despite such misrepresentation, this has absolutely no relation to actual death tolls, since as we know, those marked for extermination were never registered, and since the ICRC only had access to camps in the final days of the war, it is no surprise that camps like Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec aren't mentioned, as they had already served their purpose.
But thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have the sources available and will rework this prose so the roots of this claim are clearer. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much better now. --Tgr (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Iranian president's call for discussion?

Didn't Ahmad... claim he wanted to host a discussion and only saw anger at the consideration?Johnshoemaker (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that critics' response to Ahmadinejad should be included in this article? WilliamH (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

"Rebuttal of Holocaust denial" is problematic. Notable criticisms of Holocaust denial from reliable sources may indeed be presented on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should document the criticisms and present them neutrally, but "rebuttal" implicitly suggests a POV, that the article veritably sets out to dismantle Holocaust denial, which is not the case - it just lists notable criticisms. WilliamH (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would think that title no more "sets out to dismantle Holocaust denial" then the current title sets out to criticize Holocaust denial. It';s simply that the "critics" are largely not offering criticisms but rebuttals, and it seems reasonable that a title should reflect that. (In fact, what seems POV is watering down rebuttals and calling them "criticisms." Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
They may not offer as many criticisms here because they haven't been added yet. I understand your sentiment though. Remember it's not just the facts of Holocaust deniers that are refuted, but criticism, i.e., criticism that doesn't seek to refute claims, such as criticism of Holocaust denial from people who were actually involved in the Holocaust, e.g. members of the SS, criticism of denial as antisemitism, etc, etc. Rebuttal doesn't cover those sorts of commentary. WilliamH (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)