Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →

Contents

Polish Catholics

Is there a place for a section that suggests that 90% of the world unknowingly denies half of the Holocaust by completely ignoring the fact that it wasn't just Jews killed? The Catholics that were killed along with others, they all deserve recognition too. Don't give an Ameriflag 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe you posted a similar comment to the main Holocaust article as well. As I stated there, Catholics were not targeted as a group for extermination, though Poles were much more targets, and indeed between 1.8 and 1.9 million non-Jewish (mostly Catholic) Poles were killed during the German occupation, though there is debate among scholars as to whether this is considered part of the Holocaust. In any case, total estimates of democide by the Nazis range up to 17 million, under the widest definitions. However, I am not sure that anyone actually denies that Catholic Poles were killed by the Nazis, it is certainly not commonly part of Holocaust denial as it is discussed here. Do any scholars or sources place ignorance of non-Jewish deaths fits under the definition of "denial" or "revisionism"? Further, Wikipedia's article on Holocaust denial certainly discusses non-Jewish victims, as it should. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
My point was that there isn't enough emphasis on all of the victims of the Holocaust, it's just Jews, Jews, Jews. It's bad that it happened to them but it's bad that it happened to the Polish as well, and I didn't even know they were victims until my Polish friend told me. :/ Don't give an Ameriflag 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ameriflag, the point is that their being Catholic was incidental. Polish Catholics were not intentionally targetted as Catholics. Polish Jews, however, were. OTherwise, we would have to point out that millions of men died in the Holocaust, and not just women. And millions of children. And millions of teenagrs. And millions of craftsmen, and millions of farmers. Most of these categories overlap, as you can see. By the way, a good chunk of Polish Catholics were killed because their ancestors had been Jewish... Dietwald 07:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not they were Catholic, they were not Jewish, and that's my point - People make a big deal about all the Jews who died and completely ignore others, such as the Polish (who perhaps happened to be Catholic). Don't give an Ameriflag 02:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
So, Ameriflag, you would like to list all the different categories of people who died? Farmers, craftsmen, painters, childern aged 6-12, people who had dogs, people who hated dogs. Hm... the last one sounds reasonable: Hitler loved dogs. So, I guess that those who hated dogs and died in the camps might need extra mentioning. Interesting approach. Dietwald 12:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
No, but if you're not going to mention that non-Jews also died, then don't praddle on and on about the Jews that died. That's all. Don't give an Ameriflag 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The text mentions non-Jews, such as Gypsies, for example. What's your problem?Dietwald 08:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My problem is that they hardly ever teach in school that anyone other than Jews died, and when people talk about the Holocaust it's all about "the Jews".
What suggestions for improving the article are you presenting? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't want to improve the article, he is simply angry that it's mainly about Jews. The Poles in the death camps weren't there because they were Poles, but because the Germans arrested them for some reason.
I take that as an attack. Let me just spell this out for you. Ask anyone on the street, "who died in the Holocaust?", and 90% of them will say, "Jews". My problem is people saying "Jews died in the Holocaust", because others died in the Holocaust too. I don't know how to improve the article based on this. All I know is that something needs to be said about it because I'm sick of Jews whining about how unfairly they've been treated. Don't give an Ameriflag 21:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a reflection of current human knowledge, and *not* an accurate portrayal of fact, logic, or reason. If the current sum of human knowledge believes that "Jews" were the target of the holocaust (a blatantly wrong understanding in my book, "genetic Jews" (a fallacy in it's own right, as we no know there is no such thing) were targeted because of their "genetic inferiority", regardless of their faith or culture), then wikipedia will reflect that gross error in public thinking.
As far as the "whining" comment, perhaps that comes from a mis-understanding of Jewish culture. Many rites and rituals of Judaism focus not on things that happened within the last 50, or 100 years, but on things that happened thousands of years ago... much like christians constantly "whine" about their god-dude being nailed to some pieces of wood some 2000 years ago, and even wear daily symbols to complain that their man-god was killed. I suppose one big difference is that while Jews commemorate and "make a big deal" out of *all* jews being killed, many christians only seem to care about one dude being killed.
So, to improve the article, and public knowledge, perhaps some better verbiage could be suggested to point out that the holocaust wasn't about religion, race, ethnic customs, etc... Jews weren't killed because they were jewish, Poles weren't killed because they were Polish, *people* were killed because they were thought to be üntermenschen. Ronabop 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is no such thing as jewish heredity, except for the fact that in jewish culture one is not a jew unless his mother was a jew, making it heredity. You're also forgetting they now have DNA tests to detirmine if a person is a jew or has jewish ancestors. Apparently you have never heard of Tay-Sachs, a disease that affects almost exclusively eastern european jews and their decendants. The disease is hereditary among certain jews, and causes a complete failure of the nervous system in jewish infants. There are also aa number of other less severe nervous system disorders that affect almost exclusively jews. I suggest you do a little more research before you make such statements like "jews are only a religion."

Nazrac

Suggested new Intro

Much of the current intro properly belongs in the article itself. I suggest the following redacted version as an alternative, while most of the valuable material excluded from it should be put into the appropriate article sections.


Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism as it is referred to by its supporters, is the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography. Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection that, in the Holocaust:

  • The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews and the Gypsies for extermination as a people;
  • Over five million Jews[1] were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies.
  • Tools of efficient mass extermination, such as gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews.

In addition, most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the current mainstream understanding of the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy created to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other nations. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Because of this, Holocaust denial is also illegal in a number of European countries, as their governments hold that it is motivated by an anti-Semitic and anti-democratic agenda.

Holocaust Deniers themselves do not accept the term as an appropriate term to describe their point of view, preferring the term "Holocaust Revisionism" instead. They are nevertheless commonly labeled as "Holocaust deniers" or "negationists" to differentiate them from historical revisionists by those who consider their goal to be not historical inquiry using evidence and established methodology, but rather to try to prove that the Holocaust did not exist, regardless of historical evidence.[2]

Dietwald 14:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

IF next time I drop by there are no objections, I'll make the change, ok? Dietwald 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's an improvement. But it's still longer than it should be, I think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Question regarding a new definistion of Holocaust Revisionism -- Rather than use the IHR's definistion, why not use the term to define the work of Finkelstein and others, who do not deny that the Holocaust happened, but try to marginalize its significance and denigrate the experience of survivors. 68.5.64.178 08:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


The fact is most people who question the holocaust do so out of legitimate concern that some things simply dont make sinse in the official version of events.

68.5.64.178 08:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is a perfect example of why wikipedia does NOT work. Firstly the term "holocaust denial" is itself propaganda slogan, it is a blatant POV. It is used to harass and slander anyone, honest historian or not who suggests certain aspects of the official story doesnt add up, regardless of how minor. A person who points out the fact that there are certain inconsistencies in the official story can then be labeled a "holocaust denier" which directly implies that the person is stating every event of the holocaust is false, regardless of whether or not this person has made such a claim. It is a well known fact among propagandists that emotion easily overrides a persons capacity to reason, and people more easily succomb to emotional appeal than they do to facts and statistics. Since everyone on some level or another has an emotional attachment to the holocaust, it is perceived as an attack on the victims when a person suggests that things didnt happen exactly as history claims. It has become a religious tabboo to examine too closely the holocaust. Anyone who does ends up on the receiving end of vicious personal attacks or even jail time, not because what they are saying is unfounded in many cases, but because people view it as disrespectful to the victims due to their emotional attachment. This emotional response is fomented by the propaganda catch phrases like "holocaust denier" which implies something vastly different than the person making the claim usually intends. This term and its emotionally implanted reaction is taken further by certain interests claiming holocaust rivisionism is simply a disguised arm of anti-semitism, racism, neo-nazism ect. thus further emotionally entrenching people in an irrational pre-programmed point of view that is, in some cases in stark contravention to the facts. Remember propanganda does not try to convince you of something by using neutral scientific studies which is why this article has no facts whatsoever, simply hollow rhetorical rebuttal and overt belittlement of the opposing views. It instead has to reach you on an emotional level and engrain the ideas into your very perception of the world around you. There is no easier way to do this than to associate ideas, words and catch-phrases with emotional responses. We see the propagandists of scientology for example attempting to use this tactic in their opposition of psychiatry, we see it being used in the abortion debate (pro-life vs pro-choice) and we see it in the holocaust debate. History shows people who are brought up believing certain ideas will defend them to the death, even when it has been completely disproven using methods of science and reason. Just as a person during the middle ages would be labeled a heretic on religious grounds for suggesting the world is perhaps round and not flat as previously thought, so too is a person today who makes a tabboo statement. The only difference is today people are not persecuted by rigid organized religion, but by the religion of political correctness and its zealots. It does not matter how well intentioned the person was in making the statement, or how correct the person may actually be in the long run, it still elicits the programmed emotional response and the same end result, persecution of someone for commiting a thought or speech crime.

Nazrac 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Replacement of Old Intro

The following text of the intro was replaced by the one suggested above:

Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism as it is referred to by its supporters, is the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography. Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection that, in the Holocaust:

  • The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews and the Gypsies for extermination as a people;
  • Over five million Jews[3] were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies.
  • Tools of efficient mass extermination, such as gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews.

In addition, most Holocaust denial implies, or openly states, that the current mainstream understanding of the Holocaust is the result of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy created to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other nations. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Because of this, Holocaust denial is also illegal in a number of European countries, as their governments hold that it is motivated by an anti-Semitic and anti-democratic agenda.

The Holocaust is generally considered by historians to be one of the best documented events in recent history, and is the subject of thousands of books and articles.[4] Most historians and scholars therefore reject Holocaust denial as "grounded in hatred, rather than any accepted standards of assertion, evidence, and truth"[5] and a "pseudoscience" that "rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence,"[6] and is instead based on a "blatantly racist"[7] ideology.

While a few Holocaust deniers have training as historians, some of their most prominent representatives have been shown in court to have a pattern of falsifying historical documents (David Irving) or deliberately misrepresenting historical data (e.g. Ernst Zündel). This history of Holocaust deniers distorting, ignoring, or misusing historical records has led to almost universal condemnation of the techniques and conclusions of Holocaust denial, with organizations such as the American Historical Association, the largest society of historians in the United States, stating that Holocaust denial is "at best, a form of academic fraud."[8] Similarly, Public Opinion Quarterly, summarizing the work on the subject done by a range of historians including Jaroff, Lipstadt, Riech, Ryback, Shapiro, Vidal-Naquet, Weimann, and Winn concludes "No reputable historian questions the reality of the Holocaust, and those promoting Holocaust denial are overwhelmingly anti-Semites and/or neo-Nazis."[9]

Many Holocaust deniers insist that they do not deny the Holocaust, preferring to be called "Holocaust revisionists". They are nevertheless commonly labeled as "Holocaust deniers" or "negationists" to differentiate them from historical revisionists by those who consider their goal to be not historical inquiry using evidence and established methodology, but rather to try to prove that the Holocaust did not exist, regardless of historical evidence.[10] -- Dietwald 18:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ustaše genocide denial

I deleted the line about Franjo Tuđman and Croatians denying the Ustaše genocide. Tuđman never explicitly denied the Ustaše genocide. He was accused of doing something else - reducing the estimated number of those killed in Jasenovac, and one cannot be too sure if he was right or wrong since the estimated number of Jasenovac victims is a very debatable issue. Some have reduced the number to mere two thousand victims, others have exaggerated and claimed that over million people had been killed there. He could have been right, but even if he wasn't and did reduce the number on purpose, that's not the same thing as completely denying a genocide. To tell you the truth, I never liked Tuđman at all and I have no intention of justifying his rather controversial moves. My father's firm almost went out of business due to Tuđman's privatization in Croatia. I'm just not happy when I see things written that, I assure you and believe me, are not true. I'm not saying there aren't Croats who deny the Ustaše genocide, but I assure that they are just a minority compared to Croats who never supported or glorified the Ustaše.

Rather than deleting it outright, let's correct the text to say that he was more of a revionist, if that's the case. There are gradations of denial. -Will Beback 01:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how everytime the violin playing starts for the Serb victims of the war, there is a deafening silence when it comes to the victims of the Bleiburg massacre and the mass reprisal murders of Croats in Slovenia and surrounding regions during the last months of fighting by Serbs and communist partizans. Nearly as many Croats were brutally murdered in a span of a few months than Serbs during the entire conflict, and that does not include the mass rapes, beatings, torture and stoning of Croatian women and children. Does that not equate to genocide? or is it only genocide if it was commited by the losing side of the war.... Nazrac 06 July 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism

Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism as it is referred to by its supporters

Given that I have just added a reference that all four London based broadsheet newspaper and the BBC uses the term revisionist when referring to David Irving and his Austrian adventure, is this introduction correct as not one of the papers or the BBC is a supporter of Holocust revisionism? Perhapse this is a difference of the use of an expression on the different sides of the pond.

It is not just British press, for example here is an Australian article Ratbag now a martyr in the Herald Sun. Articles have also appeared in the New Zealand Herald which are wire copies of articles published in London which include the term revisionist and historical revisionist. None of these media would usually be considered supporters of Holocaust revisionism. As the page historical revisionism (negationism) says

This usage has occurred because some authors who publish articles that deliberately misrepresent and manipulate historical evidence (such as David Irving, a proponent of Holocaust denial), have called themselves "historical revisionists". This label has been used by others pejoratively to describe them when criticising their work.

--Philip Baird Shearer 21:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We might perhaps say that some ignorant newspapers continue to use the term "revisionism". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it is lucky for us then that we have a policy on this Wikipedia:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

Do you have a source which says that the four London broadsheet news papers and the BBC are "ignorant newspapers [to] continue to use the term "revisionism""? If not, I put it to you that the introduction to this article needs fettling --Philip Baird Shearer 11:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Genocide Denial

Since "Holocaust denial" is inteded to be a synonym for "antisemitism" the later term should be used for clarity. If "Holocaust denial" has separate meaning then the term and related laws should be expanded to include "Genocide denial", "Democide denial", "Politicide denial" and "Theocide denial". If the later were crimes then large numbrs of people and many countries would be among the criminal states. --LPfeffer April 30, 2006

Removed section

Following comment was removed by me from the article. It's an interesting topic in and of itself, but does not -- in this form -- add much to this article. It would fit nicely in an article on the German Holocaust Denial Law, if there were such an article.

Mr Ahmadinejad would enjoy diplomatic immunity and some lawyers doubt that his denial of the Holocaust breaches German law as his comments were made abroad.[1]
Dietwald 09:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, his Foreign Minister would have diplomatic immunity, but Ahmadinejad wouldn't necessarily have it.

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Holocaust denial/Archive 4 has failed, for the following reason:

This article is far too long and far too controversial for the single-person review system at WP:GA to be effective. Worldtraveller 19:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Article not a Controversial Historical Topic

Holocaust Denial itself is not a historical topic, though holocaust deniers deny history. The Holocaust could be a controversial historical topic -- but holocaust denial is not historical. I am not sure what else to call it but political. Maybe it's just a controversial topic? Dietwald 10:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep the Website

There is no reason to delete (<weblink removed by admin> ←Humus sapiens ну?). It is in the appropriate section, and it is indeed a website with a message board that denies AND discusses the Holocaust. Keep your pro-jew agenda away. Thetruth566

It's interesting to note that I listed the website under "Websites that deny the holocaust or parts thereof." It would appear it's very apt, accurately placed, and among OTHER websites. You have a Jewish surname, so I can understand your bitterness, but move on. Thetruth566

Your website appears to be down, and please avoid discussing other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he just doesn't remember what he called the website, which is kinda funny, since he created it just today. He named it accurately in the article, just not here on the talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thetruth566 (talk · contribs) switched to openly antisemitic language. Even though I dislike reverting talkpages, I had to clean it up and blocked him indefinitely. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy to Deniers and Revisionist

What is the policy of Wikipedia to Deniers and revisionists of Holocaust? Do they get banned by admnistrators for being anti-semtic.I raised this doubt as i found atleast two instances on WP where Admns banned editors for being anti-semtic...Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article

Biased Article

This article from plain reading shows it is biased to one point of view. i think Wikipedia has failed completely here to maintain even an iota of neutrality. From the talk page archives i see that there is an hardline Admn behind this, no less to the famous 'Holocaust denier/revisionist'of recent times 'Mahmood Ahmednijad'. i would like to see a 'neutrality' disputed tag on the article. Ultimately it is 'Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales' who'll have to decide what he makes of this piece of bigoted trash?This article proves WP is a 'closely controlled organistation' and is not yet neutral as it claims it to be its Objective...Anon ALleged vandal of Dia Mirza Article.

Why is Holocaust denial a crime?

It is a violation of free speech!

Dear anonymous. I have reverted the deletion of your comment, because you make a valid point -- however, it is not revelant to this article. Why some countries consider it a crime has been explaiend in the article already. Whether that's a violation of free speech is besides the point. I hope this helps. Furthermore: please sign your entries, preferrably with a wiki account name. Dietwald 08:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

...I think the anons comment are relevant and are well within the scope of discussion on the talk Page. A talk page is not the same as an article and therefore the rules of relecancy must be very liberal and flexible if some wants results out of the talk. And it is very sad that they delete comments against Holocaust here on WP as they do in some european countries. These acts by whoever show amply that this article is biased and is being protected vehemently on one side. This article can be nominated for most biased,bigoted, protected article of WP if there is any such nomination. ..BTW, Dietwalddon't expect anons to sign because they don't have one (as they are not registered). And it is not mandatory to sign in username for posting the message. ..Anon Alleged Vandal of Dia Mirza Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.187.139 (talk • contribs) 17:54, June 15, 2006

  • It's not mandatory, it's just polite; it means I don't have to go in and add the {{unsigned}} template. (Having the timestamp there is real helpful for following the flow of a conversation. At least putting in the timestamp, with ~~~~~ (that's five twiddles) would be polite.) Now, what suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JP. It's about politeness and the ability to make sense of things. Many things are not mandatory, like keeping your music at room-level volume during the day instead of blasting the neighbourhood with it. The law may not require that, but it's just civilized. There is no need to sign with your own name (few of us do), but just keeping the identity of posters clear helps. Sources do matter in practice. IF you are ashamed of what you have to say, don't say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietwald (talk • contribs) 05:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OOPS!!! Dietwald 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

It seems most of the comments in response to the above question don't really answer it, so I'm not sure if this is off-topic. But as far as I can tell, and just mostly from reading the Wiki article, Holocaust denial is not a crime in the United States, and perhaps the countries in which is it (Germany, Austria) don't have the same legal attitude toward free speech. Just a possible answer. I don't have an ideological answer for you, though, and I might be completely wrong in this guess.--161.185.1.100 15:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Many European countries have a rather contradictory approach to free speech. You can, for example, insult atheists as a group, and nobody gives a damn. Call the Muslim community something nasty, and you're in big doodoo. Europeans believe that unlimited free speech can lead to the end of liberty by creating an atmosphere of hatred conductive to violent behaviour towards minority. I think they are stupid, but that's besides the point. Holocaust denial in many European countries is considered a crime because they believe that most Holocaust deniers are Nazis or something like that and therefore should be prosecuted, since we have already seen what they are able to do. Again, I think this attitude is both lazy and stupid, but that's why it is so. Dietwald 12:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the hurt from World War Two, even now, lives on. At the world cup the German organisers were worried about people with racist and nazist ideals using the competition to gain political ground and the country still has a certain reluctance even to display its own flag. I think Holocaust denial is, in the end, considered a crime firstly because it, as you rightly state, ultimately brings nazism into the open (even if there are no connections) but also because of its imapcts on survivors (who are essentially being called liars) and racial tension with certain areas. In some ways, the prosectuion of such people is no different from prosecution for slander or libel in that, as the holocaust has been proven, the broadcasting of lies or untruthful things about events is forbidden. It is not so much denying freedom of speech but rather enforcing freedom from speech.
The debate, of a similar topic, is rife in the U.K. Gloryfying terrorism. Is it a crime? Is it right to allow people to express such opinions, even if they condone the taking of innocent lives? Can you limnit a person's free speech, or simply limit who hears it? Difficult moral judgements. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 20:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a screwy topic. Personally, I think the sensitivities of others should not constitute the limits of free speech. But, then again, what if I were the target of some nasty comments? Maybe free speech is like any other freedom. Without rules, it's not freedom at all. But, this is OT. Dietwald 11:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


If holocaust deniers prove that the Nazis didn't commit genocide then then the Nazis aren't the Nazis. Then what would we do? All our books would have to be rewritten and alot of people would be embarrassed.

Other genocide denial

Surely this section should be moved to another article (linked to under See Also). Other genocides are not the Holocaust and so don't belong in this article. 84.70.132.186 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

They are important as they follow the same mechanism as Holocaust denial. In the serious academic literature about Holocaust denial, genocide denial in general is discussed with most of these examples. It is the features and processes of denial that make it an area of study with certian descernable patterns.72.75.63.86 03:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nitzor and Cole

[13] - Why read anything by Nitzor? Read it once, it's still junk. By the way where is David Cole, other than one of your footnotes. I don't see him on any speaking tours answering his 46 questions - they probably stumped him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.224 (talk • contribs)

For those of you who are interested in seeing David Cole's video he made at Auschwitz contradicting many claims made by the holocaust lobby you can see it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5730629725967885378

For those of you who dont know, David Cole is himself a jew.

Nazrac

*cough*

Maybe someone posted this already. Paulus Caesar 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a source that could've been relevant to the article.. Paulus Caesar 00:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Openness to discussion, bias

There is strong emotion on both sides of the issue. Such emotion tends to restrict the use of reason and clouds discussion.

Holocaust is a noun, not a proper name. Even in the discussion page, this bias creeps in "Other genocides are not the Holocaust..." (user 84.70.132.186) The word's meaning is not tied to the killing of Jews during WWII. Therefore, the article shows its bias in a very fundamental sense by adopting the word Holocaust as the Jewish people's own. The effort to do so reveals either conscious intent to over-emphasize the Jew's experience during WWII, or deliberate disregard for other people's experiences during WWII, as well as others of similar magnitude, such as Cambodians after the fall of Vietnam.

I have seen strong arguments for revisionism, including some technical points which have had to be accepted by the mainstream, regarding the use of diesel engines used to generate carbon monoxide for mass killings (practically 0 probability). What other stories have been fabricated? The use of fake documents is a serious problem; the problem with eyewitnesses is well-known from criminal trials; and the use of propaganda during the war sometimes creeps into pseudo-realism (such as the lies used during wars Iraq I and II, many of which are extremely well-documented, see for example www.truthaboutwar.org)

In conclusion, every argument deserves a hearing. If wikipedia is not open, then it is closed. Truthaboutwar 13:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How many times does the same invalid argument deserve hearing? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As often as you raise the opposite viewpoint, if you're claiming NPOV. Truthaboutwar 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No. Not at all. What you're describing is "every loon deserves to be heard every time they squawk" rather than NPOV. Neutrality does not mean abandoning all critical judgement. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, is an argument "invalid" when the mainstream says it is? When the sanctioned and approved "historian" says it is? When the judge from a jurisdiction in which stating a belief disagreeing with the Holocaust is a crime per se? Truthaboutwar 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, when the 'main-stream' says something is wrong, then the encyclopedia has to reflect that. Some people believe the Tunguska event was caused by UFOs. Should that be given credit? Probably not. Dietwald 08:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tenguska June 28, 2006 Two articles were added to the "About" section.


According to Jpgordon's childish reasoning it is a historical fact that the world was the center of the universe until 1530 when Copernicus observed otherwise. Unfortunately the laws of physics state that is impossible, which means we must conclude conventional wisdom was dead wrong. Just because something is generally accepted does not make it factual, and trashing the opponents of conventional wisdom does nothing to prove the original assertion. In any debate based on the rules of logic known to civilized man since the days of Aristotle, Plato and Archimedes, the burden of proof falls on the side making the accusation or assertion. The other side need do nothing but poke holes in the arguments of its opponents. Since the holocaust is an assertion (asserting the holocaust in every facet is indeed the truth) one must be prepared to face the criticism and examination of opponents of the idea. If you cant prove your case using facts and reason, instead of slandering your opponents with deceptive terminology like "holocaust denier" perhaps you should re-examine why you believe the assertion in the first place. The very fact that a seperate holocaust article needs to be created in the first place for the sole purpose of slamming critics of the accepted version of events betrays the bias, both concious and unconcious when it comes to this discussion. Instead of having any open and balanced discussion involving both views this page simply states "holocaust deniers are wrong and a bunch of liars." Everything else written in the article is alot of misdirection and hollow rhetoric.

Nazrac 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, anyone familiar with the histories of ideas will know that believing the world was the center of the universe was a very reasonable idea, and it took a long time to provide evidence to the contrariy. Copernicus circular orbit model was beset with so many problems that for any resanoble person at the time accepting the older model was no less unreasonable, as both models had to be backed up with so many ad-hoc explanations to deal with their inconsistencies that the earth as centre of the universe model made a lot more sense. It was not until Keppler provided the eliptical model, and until Newton developde the theory of gravity that the heliocentric model of the world could be accepted on scientific grounds.
Those who subscribe more or less to the current method of science will have to agree that theories are accepted not because we can prove them right -- a logical impossibility -- but because they provide more reasonable explanations of given phenomena than their alternatives. (see Popper et. al.). To accept that the Holocaust did not happen one has to accept a number of higly speculative and quite absurd additional hypotheses which are not reasonabl (including a world-wide conspiracy of malicious propaganda against the German people, controlled by the Jews). The alternative, that the Holocaust did indeed happen is far more reasonable and can be backed by a far smaller set of easily falsifiable arguments (which to date have not been successfully falsified by the deniers).
To come back to the heliocentric versus geocentric model comparison: accepting the heliocentric theory prior to Keppler and Newton was no more reasonable than accepting the geocentric model. After that, the geocentric model became absurd. Not believing in the Holocaust during WWII and the immediate aftermath was quite reasonable, considering the limited amount of research done into the phenomenon, and the reasonable assumption of propagandistic spin. After more than 60 years of research into the matter, however, not believing the Holocaust is simply unreasonable, and probably malicious. I might add it's outright stupid.
Personal disclaimer, so to say: I used to vehemently believe the Holocaust did not happen -- I found the event to be too staggeringly absurd to have been true. However, after doing many years of reading on the Holocaust, human nature and behaviour in various settings, as well as general science and philosophy of science, I reluctantly accepted the stupendous fact that the nation of Goethe, Schiller, Kant, von Humboldt, Einstein and so many other great contributors to the betterment of the human race was quite capable of attempting to wipe out an entire population based on beliefs that are patently absurd.
Disbelieving the holocaust, in my opinion, is a sign of intellectual immaturity at best, and at worst an indicator of tremendous maliciousness and hatred, not to use the term 'evil', which may be more appropriate in this context.
You may find the very existence of this entry offensive, but that is simply your problem. Holocaust denial exists, it's unreasonable, and it's so obviously unreasonable that it merits this entry in the form it is now. Frankly, I find the entry surprisingly mild.
Dietwald 07:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"Disbelieving the holocaust, in my opinion, is a sign of intellectual immaturity at best, and at worst an indicator of tremendous maliciousness and hatred, not to use the term 'evil'".
I must say Dietwald I find this a remarkably lofty opinion, and with respect, this heading invites us to address bias in the article....
If any of us are running around this topic with such a low view of others' opinions and catching glimpses of 'evil' we probably shouldn't be editing this article.
Hakluyt bean 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
"Personal disclaimer, so to say: I used to vehemently believe the Holocaust did not happen -- I found the event to be too staggeringly absurd to have been true. However, after doing many years of reading on the Holocaust, human nature and behaviour in various settings, as well as general science and philosophy of science, I reluctantly accepted the stupendous fact that the nation of Goethe (etc.) was quite capable of attempting to wipe out an entire population based on beliefs that are patently absurd."
If I may I'd like to try and illustrate something, so no offence taken I hope. Re the above statement of yours it offers as evidence of what it describes only the words that it uses to describe. Ie it asserts rhetorically something we are invited to accept logically. If we follow your verbal description we come to your logical conclusion, but in reality we have made no logical progress, only rhetorical, and we can show no workings. The words "philosophy of science" for example do not in reality adequately substitute for the philosophy of science. Realistically proof of your position should be served by evidence not words. The Holocaust stands on evidence, not words. We all have a tendency to do this kind of thing, this is what I mean when I say no offence. However, I believe it illustrates the wider point, being the root of the difficulty with "holocaust denial" and the article, namely that the phrase serves as proof of its own position and the article treats it accordingly. It is a rhetorical proof of itself. It will remain very difficult if this position continues to be guarded by editors as if they were the keepers of this topic and not merely editors for any logical progress to be made through the topic.
Hakluyt bean 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


I support that Dietwalds commentary. I cannot fathom this from user Nazrac: "The very fact that a seperate holocaust article needs to be created in the first place for the sole purpose of slamming critics of the accepted version of events betrays the bias, both concious and unconcious when it comes to this discussion."
The separate article is merited not for the a purpose of "slamming" "critics", but for illuminating the phenomena of denial -- which is a specific type of pseudohistory driven by discernable and specific psychological, social and political factors and more consistantly exhibiting and utilizing certain classic mechanisms.
Speculation and discussion as to why a genocide occurs, what nationalist interests by the perpetrators they serve, what types of pathologies are represented an exploited, are certainly reasonably debated. But attacking the historic fact is another matter altogether.
re the above (anonymous) assessment of the comments of user Nazrac, I entirely disagree. He/she highlights a blind spot that the existence of the article generates and your defence of it maintains. Why is there such a thing as "holocaust-denial". That's the very thing the article should address. Maybe pointing to Examination of Holocaust denial, where it is also not addressed. In doing so it will have to acknowledge that there are other opinions, indeed this is self-evident, and be tolerant of those opinions even as the topic "holocaust denial" is intolerant of them. It's not wikipedia's job to be dismissive of other's opinions. If this subject can't be approached safely from the side it probably shouldn't be here at all.
As it is one is left with the impression that a coming together of stupid people and malevolent people have produced this stupid & malevolent idea, "holocaust denial". This is all very well (if un-encyclopedic), but the question goes begging.... why are stupid & malevolent people (& the world is full of them) not cooking up denials of other historical events to the point where outrage forces laws to be passed banning their lack of historical correctness? What are the ingredients here, what are the parallels? The Turks (more or less) deny genocide towards the Armenians. Any rebuke for holding this view, which is seldom delivered, is relatively mild. The article should get straight to the point of why there is an article imo.
Hakluyt bean 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Finally re the above comment criticising the assertion by user Nazrac that the article exists for "slamming critics", I'm afraid I think that's certainly the effect of it. This topic is a whipping post for heretics. Any attempt to intervene is in turn declared heretical. Instead of treating the topic fairly, or even discussing reasonably what "fairly" might mean... it simply ties it up and flogs it to death. It's the worst kind of wikipedia article.
Hakluyt bean 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert Faurisson Controversy

Robert Faurisson was the first to describe the technical impossibility of the mass gassings in the areas designated as gas chambers with Zyklon B, as testified to by eyewitnesses. The following sentence is a clear statement of the core of Faurisson's argument:

"If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and then, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making touching and carrying them a deadly business. The ventilation and exhaustion of cyanide gas is very time-consuming and difficult. It adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands. Contact through the skin alone may lead to intoxication."

Doremifasolatido 18:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Here's the latest version that's being deleted repeatedly by control mongers who do not follow their own rules. Whatever happened to consensus?
Robert Faurisson was the first to describe what he considered the technical impossibility of the mass gassings in the areas designated as gas chambers with Zyklon B, as testified to by eyewitnesses. The following sentence is a summation of the core of Faurisson's argument:
"If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and then, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making touching and carrying them a deadly business. The ventilation and exhaustion of cyanide gas is very time-consuming and difficult. It adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands. Contact through the skin alone may lead to intoxication."
Faurisson is one of the key figures among holocaust deniers and is often cited as an "authority". 69.109.167.150 03:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Faurisson material was already re-inserted into the article by me in a NPOV way; please re-read it. Your lengthy quote is surrounded by unsourced POV, and in any event is irrelevant; this article does not do lengthy regurgitations of the claims of Holocaust deniers, nor is it a platform for promoting their views. Rather, it lists the history of their activities. As for consensus, given that at least 5 Wikipedia editors that I am aware of have reverted you, it seems the consensus is entirely against you. Also, you have violated the WP:3RR rule again, for which you can be banned. If you feel so strongly attached to this particular quote, try it out in the Robert Faurisson article. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg and others seem to practise a double standard since people they agree with are given veritable yardage of space to promote their views but one sentence should suffice for a major figure in the subject matter of the article. The fact that five people who agree with one another have orchestrated their activities is hardly evidence of consensus. I think the rules require you to INVITE opinion. I don't know how and I can't seem to follow the instructions, so please you do it for me. TTFN. 69.109.167.150 04:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"Orchestrated"? Hardly necessary. Ever heard of a watchlist? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The arguments brought forth by Faurisson are indeed interesting, and have received plenty of critical examination in the past, among others by Pressac [2], if I am not mistaken. However, it is beyond the scope of this article to detail his arguments, which should be better done on the relevant page on Faurisson. Dietwald 09:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I call it a double standard. This article is extremely biased. The counter arguments are given at length but the arguments themselves are not presented because they are "POV". The fact that a few wikipedians dominate and bully other contributors who are trying for a little balance should suggest something to you. To me it suggests a weak case and fear of exposure, fear that people out there might begin to think about all this. 69.109.116.216 10:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, go ahead and expose us. Be my guest. Dietwald 13:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm attempting to, but needless to say my contributions are constantly being deleted by people who wish to maintain a stranglehold on this website. Witness the fact that my last edit has already been deleted. Fear and loathing, Dietwald, fear and loathing. The reason I say this is simply that they refuse to undergo a review by a larger WP body. 69.109.163.178 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Your edits keep getting reviewed by a larger and larger body (e.g. [3] [4]) and still no-one agrees with them. Rather than making false assumptions about every single other Wikipedia editor, I think you need to start looking at yourself instead. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that remarks of a personal nature are against policy so please keep within established guidelines jayjg. Self-examination is usually up to the individual. I have made personal remarks against others and admit it was regrettable. If there is some concrete thing you would like me to focus on I'll be happy to oblige, but since you do not know me your remark is unwarranted. Additionally, I'm happy that more and more people are taking notice; however, I would appreciate an unbiased review, that is, by people who don't ordinarily participate in holocaust issues or who have not made up their minds about these issues. 69.109.163.178 20:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So if someone actually knows something about the Holocaust, or has an interest in it, then they are somehow less qualified to comment on whether material belongs in Holocaust related articles? This makes little sense. Jayjg (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Added this:

===Robert Faurisson===

Robert Faurisson was an early and key figure in Holocaust Denial, following Arthur Butz and performing primary research on his own. As core arguments, Faurisson claims that the Nazi gas chambers would have needed a perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a sophisticated ventilation process to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; potentially a method to neutralize the exhausted gases; and finally, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies making further handling lethal. Hydrogen cyanide gas, hydrocyanic acid, was marketed in Nazi Germany as Zyklon B. The gas can be absorbed through the skin as well as by inhalation. It has been used in gas chambers in the United States and is still in widespread use throughout the world as a fumigant and pesticide, with appropriate precautions.Al-Fie 14:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed it again, for reasons clearly stated above, which you still have not answered. It's original research meant to promote the theories of a minor Holocaust denial figure. I don't really care how compelling you find his arguments; Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of Holocaust denial. Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV.

WP:NPOV#Fairness of Tone: "Refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." Despite the fact that, from all apperances, this seems to be a collection of views disputing the Holocaust, a WP:NPOV#POV Fork born of requirement, the article refutes every allegation as it progresses and has a very verifiable slant when read-through. Can we please start splitting off the rebuttals to a seperate section located afterward? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 18:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Excuse me, are we reading the same article? "Questions raised by Holocaust deniers" has rebuttals only to the last two of the many questions, which I've just removed; the next section (and article!) "Holocaust denial examined" is a seperate section as you suggest. NPOV tag removed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Armenian genocide graph irony

In a gross and stunning irony the small text within on the Armenian genocide has been changed from a noting of the policy of denial -- to a denial itself. Here on these pages!

The user "ruzgar" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruzgar has put a classic genocide denial on a page designed to educate and illustrate the problem! here is the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&diff=50780967&oldid=50724263

The concenus of genocide scholars, including Israeli scholars is that therr is a policy and campaign of denial. It fits into the classic mechanism and methods employed by Holocaust deniers (that is why it belongs here as an example). yet instead of an example of denial, the denial itself has been injected here without qualification.

It as if David Irving's garbage were to be regurgitated here simply as statements without noting they are examples of denial. It is a full reversal of the intent and purpose of the article. I am going to change this back as I would like to continue recommending this to my students who as part of standard curriculum begin with the Armenian genocide as the first 20th century genocide, and its denial as an temporary abberation of nationalist state policy.72.75.63.86 03:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical Value of Holocaust Denial

I think it was Michael Shermer who first provided the argument that Holocaust Deniers have provided an important historiographic service by forcing historians to look into the matter in more detail. In other words, without people like Butz, Faurisson, etc, there would not be this amount of factual knowledge about the Holocaust we have today. The holocaust deniers have mostly been cranks and politically motivated rewriters of history, but it was necessary to address them. There is a similarity to the current amount of excellent popular literature on Evolution which was necessitated by the increasing onslaught of creationists in the public. I think this is a fascinating argument, particularly as this topic affects the history of ideas (see above discussion on Copernicus etc.). Does anybody here think this is an aspect that should be discussed here? Dietwald 09:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Are there good sources on this? Jayjg (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I am writing from memory, as my library is on another continent. I think the argument was made in "Why people believe weird things", and was also repeated in the "Skeptic" edition that dealt with holocaust denial (late 1990s, I think 1998, but I could be totally out of line with that date. I will try to find something on-line at least, but if anybody has these sources, he may find the material quite easily. Dietwald 09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A related problem is that Holocaust deniers take advantage from these sentences by saying "you see, even our enemies have to acknowledge that we say interesting things" (i.e. they say it was acknoweledgd that they contributed research, not how they contributed). Did holocaust deniers, as they claim it, really find new material? If not, did Shermer or other people reply when the deniers took advantage of these "credits"?Apokrif 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Category for holocaust denial books

As some people may not be happy with the categorizing of Did Six Million Really Die? in Category:Holocaust history books (although Category:Holocaust denial is in Category:Pseudohistory, which in turn is in Category:History), we perhaps need a new category for this book and The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. I don't know if "holocaust denial book" is clear enough (and if the phrase is good English), perhaps we should have a more explicit name like "book denying the holocaust" or something. Apokrif 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point! I think these books should certainly not be in Category:Holocaust history books. A category more fit is Category:Pseudohistory, but the best would be Category:Holocaust denial. I do not think there is need for a seperate [:Category:Holocaust denial books]. ActiveSelective 17:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
These are books, that's why I would like to have a category about books (like there already is for books on other topics). Probably you don't want them in Category:Holocaust history books because they say nothing useful about history, so they cannot be history books, but what is sure is that they are on history topics, and to this extent they have a direct relationship with history. Apokrif 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are books. No, I don't think there is a need for a seperate [Category:Holocaust denial books]. I think they fit best with the other Holocaust denial stuff. However, if there is a need for a seperate book category, then so be it. Perfectly fine with me!
My point is: I do think that wikivisitors interested in these HD-books are also very interested in the HD-authors. That is very different from, for example, the wikivisitors interested in Medieval History. They are generally not interested in: what was the name of that history professor who has written history books, and where does she teach medieval history today... That is only of interest for historiography. Therefore, the historiographer needs his seperate category of historians, while the general wikivisitor needs their seperate category of Medieval History.
WP categories are not always designed to be useful for experts of a given field, e.g. Category:Fictional mathematicians. Anyaway, there are (or there should be) wikilinks between the author and the books. Apokrif 18:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
About your second point, other books are very much related to history too: Theory of Evolution books, Geology books, King Arthur books, Historic Harlequin Novellas Rose. But are they history books too? Useful or not useful is not the question. What is, is the historical-scientific method used in the research for the book. Theory of Evolution, Geology, and King Arthur books do not have that. Neither do the Holocaust denial books. (maybe the nickname makes that more clear: history denial books) ActiveSelective 18:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
We do have Category:History/Category:History in fiction/Category:Historical fiction. As for Theory of Evolution and Geology: these topic are not about human history. I think the boundaries are not always clear-cut, e.g. between Paleontology and (pre)historyApokrif 18:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nasrallah

The continuous POV-warring on the Israel-Lebanon-War page should not affect this page! It is probably no coincidence that suddenly Nasrallah is being added and added and added to the list of Holocaust Deniers (HD), while never before.

There is accompanying "evidence" (after asking for it twice): http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1023 - It is a speech Nasrallah made on the subject of the hypocritical freedom of speech and discrimination in Europe. There is freedom to insult millions of muslims and ignore their feelings, but there is not the same freedom when it comes to Europeans themselves and HD. That is double standards, he says, and we do not want double standards. It is not a speech on trying to convince us of HD. He briefly uses the example of a French Holocaust denier who's been convicted for it.

This so-called "evidence" is way too thin to make Nasrallah an HD. Especially with the POVwarring going on right now, we need HARD evidence. We cannot accept that some users try to change this page because they want to back-up their POV on some other page (the Israel-Lebanon-War). Show us the speeches with full blown HD of Nasrallah. Show us his HD books of Nasrallah. Show us the HD meetings of Nasrallah, and Nasrallahs ties with for example French HD organizations. ActiveSelective 20:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial?

I think this article needs to explain itself in several ways. First: "Holocaust deniers" are not holocaust deniers per se. This dishonest term pairs those who delusionally believe the Holocaust to be a "zionist hoax" with those who question the evidence that has been put forth to prove the Holocaust's dynamics. Stories about aspects of Dachau, shrunken heads and soap have been discredited, and some documents were later reexamined and determined to be forged. What gets me is that to show such dissent (before "mainstream historeography" changes its mind) is Holocaust denial, according to the article and this definition. Ever since these stories unravelled, the view that they were fabricated became accepted as mainstream. So, my question is, what exactly is Holocaust denial? Is it the guy trying to prove that the Earth is square and lying about it (and knows it or is in denial)? Where does that put Copernicus, who is trying to prove his conviction that the earth round but doesn't have enough evidence to disprove the skeptics yet? If both represent Holocaust denial, I think we are in trouble.
I was also confused by the section showing World Almanac Jewish population. Holocaust deniers were quoting a number from a book, and others looked in the same book and found a different number? Seems very elementary, such blatant distortion...even for "Holocaust denial". Can we have sources on this?
Also, perhaps FP Yockey the individual can be interpretted as a Holocaust denier (it would take some work), but Imperium itself only argues that World War II was twisted into a story of good vs. evil (as many wars are/were to gain popular support) with fabrications made to propagate this view further than the facts would lead on their own. No mention of the Holocaust, however. As for Yockey's identification w. Hitler, that is only because Hitler's was in line with the "Age of Absolute Politics" and concerned about nation and volk - or at least Hitler presented himself that way. In any case, Yockey's sought after the Imperium for "Western Man" and in Hitler, it is obvious that he was drawn in by the Messiah-like figure Hitler appeared before Germany as. Yockey's obsession with his long-awaited Imperium and historical culmination. His views about the culture-soul and identity made him rather "xenophobic", but his primary disapproval of the Jews was their ungrounded status as "cultural parasites" (sounds much worse than how he writes about it). As a culture-centrist, it followed that he would have disapproved with the Jew's - or anyone's - effect as a minority. Multiculturalism had no purpose in his view. He hardly endorses Hitler, and the Jews are mentioned rather infrequently in the 600+ pages of his book and he even tries to analyze anti-semites, criticizing them.--72.92.0.83 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the most basic thing Holocaust deniers deny is that they are deniers in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That is really constructive, Jayjg. Thank you for bringing it to my attention that I'm supposed to be a "Holocaust denier" because I don't feel such a strong bias against those who challenging history (when it is conducted according to the rules of legitimate investigation). That is exactly why this pigeonholing title of "Holocaust denier" does ont work. Those who legitimately question the dimension of things should not be persecuted by your rhetoric.
The article isn't very consistent on its definition of "HCD" either. First says its one, then it says that it is the other. Then when someone is quoted to discreted efforts of "HCD" we are led to assume it is anyone who has even pondered the subject. The article is pretty decent otherwise, but I wish you could answer my questions constructively. I'm taking Yockey off your smear list (although in some cases, it is rightfully titled). I'm sure you wouldn't have the patience to read Imperium to find out for yourself that he makes no claims about the Holocaust, which is your exact claim. I read it, he's concerned with political theory, not denial or anti-semitism. --72.92.0.83 22:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

concerning the list of "Holocaust denial beliefs"

...some are exclusive claims of Holocaust deniers, while others borrow from other realms of history and are, by the wording of the article, also discredited. There is nothing "weaselly" about stating that some of the claims listed are shared by Holocaust deniers and other patrons, or that some are actually valid points. What certainly is suspicious is including certain claims in Holocaust denial territory and stripping away their credibility when paired with some of the beliefs of Holocaust deniers that are, and are written off as, completely absurd. You can't say "here is what the Holocaust deniers believe" and include items that are accepted outside of H.C. denial territory without identifying them as such. That is just wrong. --72.92.0.83 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire article is rife with bias of a sort that wouldn't be tolerated on other pages. As pointed out in discussions above, the name of this article is itself a POV. "Holocaust supporters" or "holocaust deniers": it's all such tripe. Why don't we stick to the facts? The point is that "deniers" are actually "questioners" or "seekers after the truth". Lumping people who don't fit a certain profile together into one denigrated group is the tactic of Stalinism and fascism. Perhaps we should all read Orwell's "1984" once more with feeling. Al-Fie 03:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)