Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 7

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 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →

Contents

Horrible article

I thought the purpose of this webpage would be to explain the position of the Holocaust Revisionists (or, Deniers). This article doesn't come close to explaining their position and reasoning. The entire article should be eliminated and someone who knows something of this subject should make the case for Holocaust Revisionism. Jtpaladin 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How does replacing one POV with another one help anything? Articles should have a neutral POV. Koweja 17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This article does seem like a "set 'em up and knock 'em down" type article. There are some places that are extremely troubling to me (the first paragraph of the Criticisms section is completely unsourced and the last sentence of that paragraph seems like blatant OR to me), but I'll get around to that soon. .V. 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jtpaladin. Well, not entirely because I think this article has its merits, but I think we should try to include more information about what the deniers or whatever you want to call them are claiming.
If memory serves me right there's a lot of material in the Japanese version of the article on the Holocaust(I believe they explore over 20 common claims made by deniers) and Holocaust Denial. With this in mind I believe the first step towards a better article would involve translating parts of those articles and assess its credebility. My Japanese language skills aren't that great, but I guess I can be of some help.
I also suggest we remove that part on how the denier's methodology is supposedly flawed. Even Historians/scientists working within the realm of respectability base their research on certain assumptions, i.e, they believe it (the Holocaust) happened and go around "distorting", or rather, interpreting the facts in such a way as to fit their preconceptions.--Ishikawa Minoru 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not how historigraphy/science works. While a Historian or a Scientist might have a theory, they both are compelled to follow the evidence where it takes them. When the evidence they uncover is contrary to their original theory, they have to discard this theory and work on a new one.
Now, paticular people may try to salt their findings or bury evidence, but this is foolhardy, since science and history are both transparent scholarly persuits, and another researcher will eventually come along and uncover the evidence.
That said, if there are claims from revisionists/deniers that we are missing, as has often been claimed, please do add them. Cantankrus 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Far from having done extensive research on the topic, I have however read several books published by Holocaust deniers such as Jurgen Graff, German Rudolf and the like and tried to determine whether their methodology was flawed or not. This involved mostly looking up the documents said authors use to substanciate their claims and looking for contradictions, false statements. So far I have my own share of newspaper articles, trial minutes, official reports, etc and can say with the exception of an article about Fred Leuchter dated October 13, 1990 (New York Times) that I am yet to find any attempts at burying evidence or the like.
Regarding said article--which, by the way is used on the Leuchter article here on Wikipedia as a footnote-- the truth is German Rudolf could have mentioned the fact said article did more than praise Leuchter (it reads he was the leading expert on execution methods, not once but twice. Germar only mentions that once, though), but also question the humanity of Leuchter's practices, via claims by an expert anesthetist. There's however a statement made by an individual who is also considered an expert by the author of the article which claims the contrary, namely that Leuchter's lethal injection system, adopted by 4 states, was far less painful than the use of gas chambers (in the US, of course, not during WWII.) and that any legal action claiming the contrary would most likely fail.
To make a long story short I think both sources (Germar and Wikipedia) should have mentioned the counter evidence contained in that article.
I'll try to translate some material from the Japanese version of the articles. -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I always get a chuckle out of Germar Rudolf's academic "methodology", but I think he sums his arguements up best --[C]hemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust 'rigorously'.
Except, as a chemist, what else would Germar be qualified to do?
A review of Rudolf's work is available here
I'd be interested to see your translation, when you get a chance. Cantankrus 07:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What would be the big problem in going to the IHR website and using their material (Nothing copyrighted) to make this article what it is meant to be? Jtpaladin 14:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
What this article is meant to be is an encyclopedic article on the practice of Holocaust denial, a fringe historical movement. What it is not meant to be is a regurgitation of the claims of Holocaust deniers, which is all the IHR web site would give us. - Eron Talk 14:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Where should there be a page that discusses the reasons for the beliefs of the Holocaust Revisionists? I thought this would be the appropriate page. Do you have a better idea? Or, are you of the opinion that these Revisionists should be silenced at Wikipedia? Jtpaladin 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that "Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." This article presents the claims made by Holocaust deniers, and the published refutations of these claims, as presented by reliable sources. This article does not exist to provide a soapbox for deniers to express their views. - Eron Talk 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(In response to Cantankrus-san) - I recall once having read portions of the article you mentioned. I'm glad you brought it up because I had a chance to sit down and read it.
As far as I am concerned Chemistry isn't the only tool we can use to assess the plausibility of the claims made by mainstream Holocaust Historians, but one of the main, which range from plain logical analysis to documentary analysis. It's as good as any other method we can employ to study the Holocaust.
This paper is, however, very informative. I spend some time reading it and comparing each of Rudolf's claims to those contained in the paper you linked to. To tell you the truth I don't know who is right and who is wrong. Standard historians say 300 ppm is a lethal dose, Rudolf bases his assumptions on executions carried in the USA where a concentration of 3,200 ppm was used. This means both parties use completely different values.
There's however one point I'd like to make. The article you mentioned makes a reference to a 1942 paper published about the effects of HCN at low temperatures, namely -18, 0 and 15 ℃. According to Rudolf and the paper itself humidity significantly reduces the rate of evaporation and cellars are known to have very high relative atmospheric humidity. This is even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about cellars. This means that, while Germar admits the huge # of inmates crammed in a small place would increase the temperature, it'd also lead to increased humidity. The paper you showed me fails to explore that.
I'm reading the Japanese version of the Holocaust article right now and will probably be translating it in the next few days. --Ishikawa Minoru 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Many revisionists/deniers argue that Chemistry disproves certain facilities were used as Gas Chambers, and they point to Rudolf's report as conclusive proof.
As far as concentrations go, one need only consult the DuPont datasheet, which states that "300 ppm is rapidly fatal". I'm not aware of any Historians that are claiming that 300 ppm is anything; they would tend to rely on a chemist for this. The 3,200 ppm used in executions seems like overkill based on this -- but in the US executions have to avoid being judged "cruel and unusual punishment", so ensuring rapid death through overdose.
Humidity and low temperatures do increase the rate of evaporation, of course. But keep in mind the concentration needed for fatal poisoning doesn't require evaporation of all of the gas from the carrier.
I hope this helps, and await your translation. Cantankrus
Unfortunately, US executions are far from bringing rapid death upon those who commit capital felonies. Germar talks about this in his book. He tells us the horrible story of David Lawson, who was sentenced to death by gassing after killing Wayne Shinn and injuring his father after burglarizing the son's residence, back in 1994. I purchased two articles from the News & Observer dated June 11, 1994 and "Lawson's Final Moments" June 19, 1994, which explain, in great detail, the entire execution process. Of the two, the most explicit and complete is the second, which confirms Germar's claim that Lawson only stopped struggling 9 minutes into his execution, and was declared official dead 18 minutes after 02:00 am, when the execution began. In my book this is far from being a rapid death. Even assuming he died 9 minutes after the execution started(officially he died 18 mins after) that's way to much. Also check the Gas Chamber article here on wikipedia to see other examples. "Those are just a couple cases!", you may argue. That's true, which is why I request the following of you or anyone who can help. Rudolf mentions an Amnesty International Fact Sheet compiled in December 1996 dealing with botched executions, which supposedly contains information on the average duration of gassings in the US. I checked their website but couldn't find anything. If you can find it (or have proof Rudolf is lying), please write it here.
Regarding the two articles I quoted, those can be purchased on the News & Observer website. I can upload those documents so that everyone can check them for free. However, since, unlike older NYT articles, the articles are presented in HTML and can therefore be edited at will(I did convert it into .PDF, but that doesn't change anything), you may not believe me, so check them out for yourself.
As far as HCN evaporation is concerned, I believe you meant those two factors (humidity and low temperatures) hinder the evaporation process instead of increase the evaporation rate.
The translation process led me to ponded about an interesting aspect of the whole extermination process. Point 2 of the Holocaust Denial section of the Japanese Holocaust article reads "Even assuming the Nazis really did attempt to conceal evidence, the disposal (inceneration) of hundreds of thousands of victims would certainly yield some material evidence (ashes) for experts to find." The article's author/s them adds "Standard historiography contends the remannts of the bodies of the Auschwitz inmates [their bones having been crushed by the Sonderkommandos] were dropped on the Vistola river. Additionally, given the fact Auschwitz was a marshy region, the Nazis didn't have any reason to concern themselves with the process of getting rid of the bodily remains." ---> This portion shows this is a truly neutral article. They talk about what deniers are saying, then what the standard historians are saying and, because this is the denial section of the article finish with the following :"It should be noted, however, that the incineration of a human body yields aproximately [5% of body mass is ashes, I read] one shoe box of ashes. Both parties are in agreement as far as this statment goes." Although this wasn't on the article I've also heard in a radio show on IHR.org's audio archive from 1990 that the ashes were spread in surrounding fars. We could add this information. --Ishikawa Minoru 21:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I meant "increase the time" or inverted decrease, but the evaporation rate would be slowed -- typo on my part there.
As far as botched executions go, there are probably long lists of them for each of the various methods. I did check on the Lawson case, and found info about him seeking publicity. The NYT is mentioned in the link, but nothing is mentioned about length of time. Certainly, this isn't the only case to look into if you are researching gas exections.
I would agree with the fact that inceneration isn't a complete process, and there is material remaining at the conclusion. However, I don't see much support for the "material evidence for experts to find" bit. In fact, even if the Nazis were not trying to conceal anything, why keep this material onhand?
As far as adding, I think that that this would fit under the examination/criticism area, and might fit better in its subarticle.
That was an interesting bit -- let us know how the rest of the translation is going. Cantankrus 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The article I referred most certainly does mention how long it took Lawson to die. Additionaly, the other cases I found on the death by gassing article on Wikipedia prove there has to be some "willingness", for the lack of a better word, on the prisioner's side to inhale the lethal gas, least the execution extend itself for several minutes, up to over 15 minutes. An Amnesty international report would settle this issue, even though I have very little doubt most deaths by gassing take less than 7 or so minutes at around 3200 pm, for a single person, at a relatively mild temperature with moderate humidity.
[Regarding cremations] We're talking about massive ammounts of ashes and human remants. I said 5% of body mass turned to ash, however, according to wiki this figure is actually 3.5%. Even still, when hundreds if not thousands of people are being killed, cremated and disaposed on a daily basis, each being reduced to at least 1 kg of ashes (Assuming 30kg per person, 3% of body weight turned into ashes to take into account the 2.5% rate for children), don't you think allied experts or red cross representatives would find something?
Which leads me to my next point taken from the Japanese Wikipedia. According to said article all concentration camps were, from February 1943 to Germany's defeat, under supervision of Red Cross. Additionally, the treatment of prisioners was also checked by the RC and aparently approved of. The article also mentions that, in RC reports dated 1943 and 1944, forced laborers were given 2750 kcal(daily, of course). I'll continue later because I have to go now. --Ishikawa Minoru 19:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify -- the article I referred to says nothing about how long the execution took, but did mention that Lawson had tried to get his execution taped. The Merck index warns "Death may result from a few min exposure to 300 ppm", 7 minutes at almost 11 times that concentration is probably an overshoot.
I'm not sure what "allied experts" were supposed to find, really. Why is the remnant material supposed to have stayed onsite? (I don't follow the logic)
The Red Cross approved of the camps, and the prisoners were getting 2750kcals? Are you sure about this -- it seems a bit outlandish of a claim to me. Cantankrus 06:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact Lawson tried to get his execution taped isn't relevant to Holocaust Denial. That only proves his strenghtened unwillingness to cooperate with his executioners. Unless all those allegedly killed in the Nazi gas chambers wanted to die and were to inhale large amounts of gas without struggling, I don't see how 300 ppm of HCN would have warranted a rapid, "clean" death, specially when were talking about several people being killed, in such a humid place as a cellar without heating.
I don't think the Nazis had an particular fondness for the act of keeping human remnants either, it's just that we're talking about a massive amount of ashes and small bone shards. This becomes even more evident when we consider the cases of Birkenau, Treblinka and Belzec. Rudolf discusses all this in the book "Lectures on the Holocaust". We're dealing with incineration trenches here, along with huge outdoor pyres, all of which would require brutal amounts of firewood, which would in turn leave, along with bodily remnants, tons of ashes. Also note it'd be theoretically impossible to dig those trenches in Birkenau without them getting filled with water because, since the area is so swampy, you'd hit the water level shortly after you started digging. We could also add that to the section I took from the Japanese Wiki.
[About IRC section] Like I said once I am not sure who is correct. I was merely translating what the Japanese editors wrote. I do know there was a 1938 inspection in Dachau as detailed in "The Red Cross and the Holocaust" by Jean-Claude Favez pp.538. All was found to be well. However, it would be naive to assume that also happened during wartime and I do not claim that. However, in LotH the Revisionists mention that Auschwitz inmates were visited by IRC representative in Sept. 1944. I can't confirm this, because vho.org is currently down, but it's from P. Rassinger's book "Was ist Wahrheit?" pp.246.
I really want to ask the Japanese wikipedians were they got their sources from, but I am afraid I can only read, not write in Japanese, so I can't contact them. Which is a pity, because the article also mentions the celebration of wedding ceremonies in Auschwitz, claims 3,000 child births were recorded in the camp and that there was even a creche in the premises. I'll try to find a native speaker here on wiki and ask him/her to leave them a message asking for sources. --Ishikawa Minoru 14:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the Red Cross, the English Wikipedia entry on that groups states "during [WWII], the ICRC failed to obtain an agreement with Nazi Germany about the treatment of detainees in concentration camps, and it eventually abandoned applying pressure in order to avoid disrupting its work with POWs. The ICRC also failed to develop a response to reliable information about the extermination camps and the mass killing of European Jews. This is still considered the greatest failure of the ICRC in its history." The references provided in that article may provide more information on that subject. - Eron Talk 14:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, still there aren't many references in that article, only three in fact, all of which are unrelated to the Holocaust.
How exactly did the IRC fail to reach an agreement with Nazi Germany? Is there a document proving such claims? Why is information regarding the alleged mass killings "reliable", when in fact Allied military leaders didn't accept those claims? (both parties claim this. Can anyone tell me if this is a true document or a forgery?) The article goes on to mention the IRC was allowed to send parcels to inmates. They agree with Rudolf on this point, but we still don't have any evidence this happened (even though I did bring it up when I mentioned the IRC).
I venture that ICRC in WW II: the Holocaust is pretty definitive regarding the ICRC's inaction in this regard. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Had to change the bit about Britain being one of the countries to use "common law". This is simply not true. Britain is not one of the "common law" countries. Scotland's legal system is based on civil law. England and Wales use common law. This article needs to tighten up on inaccuracies like this - however it is fairly informative generally.--62.249.233.80 17:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

About Nizkor project

I've changed some expressions about Nizkor project group. I believe I have reason. There was "A third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust denial head-on, debunking invalid arguments and false claims of Holocaust denial groups."--Igor "the Otter" 19:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What Nizkor does is examine claims by revisionists/deniers, and then show they are invalid. This is debunking a claim, not "trying to debunk". I've changed the expression back. Cantankrus 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be greatful if You point me an example where they really debunked "invalid argument" or "false claim" of "deniers" not Nizkor's own straw man. I can't find such things on their site.--Igor "the Otter" 07:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • After reading your comments here, it's pretty obvious that nothing that anyone writes will satisfy your demands. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I would sound a note of caution regarding this sentence. For one, the sentence assumes that Holocaust deniers use "invalid arguments and false claims." While this may be true, we don't need that kind of editorializing here (the facts should show this, not the editor.) Additionally, the use of the word "debunk" in this sentence makes it look like these claims are being actively refuted. Overall, it's a loaded sentence. It should be rephrased somehow. A good way to do this would be to say its stated purpose is to... so that you avoid any issues such as these. .V. 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

V, I think "actively refute" is an apt description of what Nizkor does. They play an active role in the newsgroup alt.revisionism, and have a large library of well researched and footnoted responses to various revisionist/denial publications. I didn't write the original content, so I'm not saying what is written is perfect. However, if you show a claim made by someone is false, then usually they cease using that claim. Revisionists/deniers often use claims that have already been demonstrated false to attempt to build their case. I think that "debunk" in this context is the correct term. Cantankrus 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the correct term, but the phraseology should be reworded as it is a loaded sentence. I think adding "their stated purpose" would fix this "loading" of phraseology, but any other suggestions are welcome. .V. 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What's loaded about it? It is a fact, not an editorial opinion, that Holocause deniers use invalid arguments and false claims. It's what they do. It's the very definition of Holocaust denial. If they don't use invalid arguments and false claims, they're not Holocast deniers; they're revisionist historians. Nizkor actively debunks false claims and invalid arguments. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that logic is that the article tries to make it painfully clear that a revisionist historian who wants to examine the Holocaust is a Holocaust denier, and therefore there would be no condition in which Holocaust revisionism is acceptable... and therefore all revisionism/denial claims are invalid. The article says that a majority of scholars believe revisionism is a mask for denial, and a clear effort was made to convey this. This is currently disputed above, with this issue being one of the reasons. .V. 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the article says the exact opposite: "Though they do not use the term revisionism, historians do continue to study and revise opinions on aspects of the Holocaust, though no reputable historian has challenged the basic scale and outlines of the event." The Holocaust is examined continually, using valid arguments and true claims. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, unless it challenges the "basic scale and outlines of the event." .V. 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Since no such challenges have or will have any validity, given the voluminous amount of evidence and eyewitness testimony, that's correct. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"Basic scale and outlines" is incredibly broad. For example, outlines of what? The timeline of the holocaust in general? Or does "outline" mean the outline of what number of people were killed where? And what does basic scale mean, anyway? The scale of deaths, the scale of the camps, the scale of the SS involved? It's so vague as to mean many different things, some of which are not as strongly supported as the others. Surely, some parts are better than others, but it's hard to tell what precisely this means.
Obviously, we can't be as precise everywhere. I'm just saying, caution should be taken given the relatively unclear nature of the wording used. .V. 07:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2 Jpgordon & Cantancrus If You wanted to convert me into Your faith and not succeded, it's Your own problem. My opinion is my own business not Yours. I believe such expression like I tried to change are against Wikipedian policy. If You are so convinced that Nizkor are right and "deniers" are wrong, what are You doing in Wikipedia at all? You may go to Nizkor Project site and propagate Your ideas there. There is written "Wikipedia is not soapbox". So I changing expressions my way?--Igor "the Otter" 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone, and my interest here is in History and facts, and if that clashes with your faith, I'm sorry your offended.
It's ironic that you write "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" only one sentence after "propogate your ideas there".
The thing about Wikipedia is that neither your or my opinion matters -- it's what we can get consensus on. Since you've done nothing to build that consensus, you are thus simply injecting your opinion about Nizkor into the article. Cantankrus 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I had the chance to read the Nizkor Project and I was wondering if the Revisionists have addressed that info in what appears to me like solid evidence of a policy of extermination by the Nazis. This is not my area of expertise and it would be nice if someone could explain to me how any denial can exist considering the info listed in the Nizkor Project. Is there a rebuttal to the Nizkor Project by Revisionists? Thoughts, please? Jtpaladin 14:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2 Jtpaladin:

http://www.codoh.com/cgi-bin/websearch.pl type the word "Nizkor" for site search there.

2 Cantankrus:

I just trying to remove Your opinion from there. I pointed You my example about Nizkor in "This article isn't neutral". You showed nothing to prove Your words and You say You trying to find consensus. I think You just thumping Your opinion. With whom except You can I talk about it? I mean administrators.--Igor "the Otter" 17:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This fails to back any of your agruments. Nizkor is trusted, and thats the difference here. I still have yet to see anything resembling a responce to Nizkor from any deniers... --T-rex 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2 T-rex If You trust Nizkor, it is Your own business.--Igor "the Otter" 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, it's Wikipedia's business; it's been deemed a reliable source on Wikipedia; if you don't like that, go over to Stormfront where you'll find people more suited to your particular point of view. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Igor - As clearly stated in a previous comment, I didn't write the content, but I do agree with what it's trying to convey. Rewording the content to imply Nizkor doesn't address revisionist/denier claims is your own opinion. And since you edited and then noted this edit here, I would say you aren't trying to build consensus, but rather trying to justify your edit.
Jtpaladin - While there is lots of speculation about Nizkor from revisionist/denier sources, the fact that few if any even link to the Nizkor site speaks volumes (while Nizkor and other similar sites always link to revisionist/denial material). Basically, revisionists/deniers aim their material at the uninformed, and hope that a reader doesn't dig too deeply. Most revisionism/denial stems from emotional political motivations, and emotions are not subject to logical considerations. Cantankrus 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't that just a huge leap of faith? Just because someone dares to question something that doesn't mean s/he has some sort of hidden, much more pernicious agenda. Maybe people, such as myself, just want to find the absolute truth, which is probably contained in neither side, but rather in some standard historigraphical POV and some other revisionist articles, books, whathave you. In the above portion of this talk page I am trying to discuss, among other things, Germar Rudolf's methodology. Someone posted a Nizkor report and such. After reading it, I do believe some valid points have been raised, by both sides, however the truth is I think the authors of that report are doing precisely what they criticize in Rudolf: they're ignoring some important evidence and also they're constantly trying to hurt his image and that of other deniers by implying they're cranks or not "sophisticated". It'd help if someone knew enough German so that we could translate some documents, for example regarding the population of Kiev before and after June 22, 1941. If the writers Jurgen Graff mentions in "Giant with Feet of Clay" aren't lying that'd be a huge blow to the standard Babi Yar Massacre theory. I'm not saying there was no massacre, I read the standard historiography without reviewing each source. I don't to be lied to, by anyone, so I'll peruse all Revisionist works without fail, collecting and analysing all evidence. I honestly believe this article would greatly benefit from this undertaking. --Ishikawa Minoru 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you have a really good head on your shoulders, Ishikawa. I couldn't have said it better myself. I think there's a tendency to assume agendas in this type of subject, given that it's so controversial. The truth has no side, and a complete understanding of the issue requires a fair knowledge of both groups. .V. 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course there's a tendency to assume agendas. Holocaust denial is and always has been primarily driven by Jew-hatred. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So why there are "deniers" of jewish origin? If most "deniers" dislike jews it doesn't show that "denial" is "primarily driven by Jew-hatred" not by something else. Proveless speculation. And even if somebody is driven by Jew-hatred it hasn't any relation to that how much true is that s/he claims. Nobody is owed to love jews. I believe I find better description for Nizkor activities then my last edition: "Deliberately trying to discredit the work of the researchers they call "deniers"". Such will be much better, how do You think, everybody? Different parts of this article seem to be written by different editors, and some of them are more neutral then others, but in whole it is looking deliberately distorting reality and mainly propagandistic. If You want to see that I call neutral article, look there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials and compare.--Igor "the Otter" 08:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

True, nobody is owed to love the jews, but that gives no one the right to hate them. Despite what you say holocaust denial is and always has been primarily driven by Jew-hatred. This is not in any way just proveless speculation. We understand that you personally hate Nizkor, but that doesn't imply that they are "deliberately distorting reality and [are] mainly propagandistic", as that just isn't true. For the most part they are rather low profile to everyone not interested in holocaust denial, and confine themselves to the facts much better then any holocaust denier. --T-rex 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that delving into motivation is a bad idea. Sure, many people who are Holocaust Deniers/Revisionist hate Jews. However, some take a revisionist stance as a matter of principle. The dangerous thing in this case is to assume purpose and motivation. .V. 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
While I agree on assumption, many revisionists/deniers let their motivations flow out in short order.
I'd be interested in which revisionists/deniers are truly taking a "stance as a matter of principle", and what other fields they practice such principle in. Cantankrus 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The principle would be the review of anything held to be commonly true. I know quite a few scholars personally who believe in this philosophy (not big-name historians or academics, mind you, but then again, I don't know any big-name academics personally.) It doesn't mean "buying into every conspiracy theory that comes along", but rather the objective analysis of mainstream views. .V. 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, and any objective analysis of the "mainstream view" comes to the same conclusion, unless it uses the invalid arguments and false claims described in the article as the heart of Holocaust denial. Feel free to provide some counter-examples. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

T-Rex You "understand" nothing if You believe I hate Nizkor. I just have seen with my own eyes how they lied, that is why I don't trust them, and I can prove my words. I still believe my eyes. Anybody who doubts can look to the topic "This article isn't neutral" in this discussion. Closer to the end. I simply don't want to repeat this again. But I can if it is nesessary.--Igor "the Otter" 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, people have been offering "proof" that Nizkor lied about something or another for the past ten to fifteen years now - and Nizkor is still there and still an authoritative source on Holocaust denial. Second, this is not the Nizkor Project article. If you're determined to prove Nizkor to be a liar, go to that article. --Modemac 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What? not the Nizkor Project article? How about this: http://www.nizkor.org/ "66 questions and answers about Holocaust" IS a Nizkor Project article placed on the top of their site. That who claims it is not either mistakes or is just a liar. So You can't deny that it contain lies? Thus it is proven fact not just my opinion that Nizkor project are liars. If these liars are "authoritative source" for You, then You spread disinformation. --Igor "the Otter" 08:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, we've been over this already. While you have attempted to show that Nizkor lied, by misrepresenting their response to an IHR pamphlet, you haven't really shown any lies by Nizkor. The record of this is all on this talk page. By the standards of this encyclopedia, Nizkor doucments are reputable sources. IHR pamphlets are not. - Eron Talk 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree if that part about Nizkor will remain deleted. Anyway there is already part about McVay.--Igor "the Otter" 13:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The part about Nizkor isn't going to remain deleted. It is a clear, neutral, statement of what Nizkor does. And before you delete it again, I'd advise you to review the three-revert rule, which you already seem to have violated once. - Eron Talk 14:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked in an edit summary "how is it NPOV when it says the adversaries' POV is false?" Let me try to explain. The statement in question is this one:

A third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust denial head-on, debunking the invalid arguments and false claims of Holocaust denial groups.

This statement does not say that all arguments and claims of Holocaust deniers are invalid and false. What is says is that Nizkor debunks those arguments and claims which are invalid and false. I've tweaked it a bit in the current version, to read the invalid arguments and false claims made by Holocaust denial groups. Look at it this way: there is a set of statements made by Holocaust deniers. There is a subset of these statements which are false and invalid. Nizkor concerns itself with that subset. If the IHR or any other denier were to make a true statement regarding the Holocaust, Nizkor would not - indeed, could not - debunk it. It is not POV to say that Nizkor debunks false statements - that is what the organization does. - Eron Talk 14:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know this 3RR, sorry. The word "debunking" means that "deniers" deliberately distort facts. That is unproved. Some "deniers'" claims indeed may be wrong or invalid such as the ones of Nizkor, but it hasn't any relation to their intentions. 2 Eron Please prove that I misrepresented Nizkor. By the way, I didn't deleted it. --Igor "the Otter" 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Debunk: to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans." Nothing there about whether or not the falsehood is deliberate or not. Nothing there about intentions.
As to your misrepresentation of Nizkor, see above where we discussed Nizkor's response to the IHR Pamphlet about Questions and Answers on the Holocaust. In brief, the IHR made a claim that the first mass bombing of civilians was carried out by the British in 1940. To debunk this, Nizkor provided an example of an earlier bombing, the Nazi attack on Guernica in 1938. You then referenced an even earlier example, and claimed that Nizkor had lied. However, Nizkor did not claim that Guernica was the first such attack, only that it had occurred prior to the 1940 attack cited by the IHR. You misrepresented their position. (And, coincidentally, by finding an even earlier bombing you proved their own point that the IHR had lied.) - Eron Talk 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that the sentence could be considered loaded. Much like a loaded question, its truth lies on another, seperate issue which is assumed to be true. This issue in this case is the usage of the word "debunk." As the sentence claims, Nizkor debunks the false claims of Holocaust deniers. The problem is that this assumes that many, or a good portion, of those arguments are false claims and deliberate distortions. While this may very well be the case, it's assumed to be true throughout the course of the sentence. This enters a sort of gray area, as the idea of Holocaust revisionism/denial is itself hazy. The border of Revisionism and Denial is not clear, nor are the official positions of countless Denial/Revisionist groups and individuals across the world.
The problem is that the usage of the word "debunk" not only loads the sentence, but makes a sweeping implication about many different people and many different groups. The wording of this sentence takes every group that could be considered a "denier" and, in batch form, criticizes them of making deliberately false and invalid claims. And not only does it do this, but it establishes that Nizkor is dedicated to exposing these false claims. That leads into the next issue with this.
The final issue with this phraseology is that it's written from Nizkor's POV. It doesn't say Nizkor "attempts to debunk", "has a stated purpose to debunk", or anything like that. It states that it does debunk. This implies that it has a success rate almost all of the time, or perhaps a 100% rate. As above, this may or may not be true. However, we cannot forget that this issue is very contentious. Both sides present arguments which range from baseless to respectable. As such, it's hard to tell if Nizkor is always right in all these cases, just like any other group. Because it's impossible to ascertain, there shouldn't be an implication of constant success.
Instead, the wording should have the following traits: First, it needs to present less of a stereotype regarding denial/revisionist arguments. Secondly, it needs to be objective about Nizkor. The only way to do this is to change the certainty of the word "debunk." It needs to become less certain, but not in a way that undermines Nizkor. One possible solution is Nizkor's intention is to debunk... That way, you're not precluding truth, as well as not favoring Nizkor in any way. Objective reporting is important, and an edit like the one I proposed a couple sentences prior seems like the way to go about it. Intention implies neither success nor failure, which is what I'm getting at here. .V. 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Eron, I don't argee. In fact, IHR pamphlet appeals in this point to the british, some of whom are still mad at germans for bombing London and destroying Coventry during WW2. There is not written "first nation in world history". Anyone can understand, that it mean "who, germans, or english begun to bomb other side?". And IHR gives right answer even if it is formally wrong. Nizkor understands it exellently, but instead presents IHR as liars. If Nizkor means that question is "who was the first in world history who bombed civilian population?" then they were must answer, who was first. Instead they begun to talk about Guernica. Why they didn't just answer, who was first? Their answer is too double-facing to be frank. If somebody doesn't know, who was first in world history, he will make conclusion, that first were Nazis. Such half-truth is a sort of lie, even if it is formally correct. So it is Nizkor misrepresented IHR not me misrepresented Nizkor. That is the way Nizkor "debunking" IHR.--Igor "the Otter" 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate repeating content, but really it's the only way to demonstrate that you are either misrepresenting or, more charitably, misunderstanding what Nizkor says. From Nizkor's web site, in their response to the IHR/Ernst Zundel pamphlet "66 Questions & Answers About the Holocaust":
13. What nation is credited with being the first to practice mass civilian bombing?
The IHR says:
Great Britain -- on 11 May 1940.
Nizkor replies:
The town of Guernica in Spain was bombed by the German Luftwaffe in 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. (The Luftwaffe honed its bombing skills during World War I - see the Recommended Reading note, below.)
But what does this have to do with the Holocaust?
It is true that the Allies had massively bombarded civilian population -- as had the Germans. Does the fact that atrocities were committed against the Germans mean they did not commit any themselves? Some weird logic.
The last few questions may only have hinted at it, but the IHR does openly suggest elsewhere that the imprisonment of European Jews was justified. See their Web page, The Encampment of the Jews: Might It Have Been Justified?
Recommended reading, for those who do not truly appreciate the duplicitous nature of Holocaust denial: The Luftwaffe : Creating the Operational Air War 1918-1940, by James Corum (Modern War Studies)
You are cherry-picking quotes to support your position. A review of the complete statement from Nizkor makes things clear. (There's a lesson there for anyone who reads the claims of most Holocaust deniers. As there is a lesson in the statement "IHR gives right answer even if it is formally wrong." How can the truth come from a lie?) - Eron Talk 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
V - when you examine someone's claim, and show that it doesn't hold water, that is debunking. That is what Nizkor does.
It doesn't debunk every claim deniers/revisionists advance -- it just examines the distortions and lies, and then shows them for what they are.
Further, we should touch on intention and integrity. While it is true that no human is right 100% of the time, the real question is what they do when they make a mistake. Researchers with integrity correct oversights or misconceptions in their works. We don't say "Historians intend to write history", or "Scientists intend to perform science" because they are occasionally wrong. So, saying that Nizkor attempts to debunk, because, perhaps they might get something wrong doesn't seem balanced.
Remember, it is not Nizkor that is advocating a contentious position -- it is simply utilizing facts historians have accepted for decades. Objective doesn't mean we have to water down the truth. Cantankrus 03:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't debunk every claim, but the wording is very ambiguous and prejudicial. It does this through its implications (I described that in detail above so I won't waste time going through that again.)
I think your logic on that is flawed (faulty analogy.) The examples you gave (writing history, performing science) are all open-ended tasks; that is, they do not assume a result, they only state an activity. "Debunking", by your definition, involves "show[ing] that it doesn't hold water." Debunking is considered successful if the idea is proven to be false. Because of this, saying "debunking" automatically includes a judgment of success, because the success of the debunking action is included in the definition.
To rephrase one of your examples to include a statement of success and thus be applicable, examine these two statements: "Scientists intend to find the truth" and "Scientists find the truth." Scientists don't always find the truth, and they have been wrong many times before in history (even today.)
Lastly, the issue is contentious, not necessarily Nizkor's position (but I suppose that if people oppose it, it could be considered contentious as it breeds contention.) I think the problem here is that you're assuming it to be true through definitional means, when that can't really be the case.
The problem is this. Nizkor makes an attempt to debunk claims. Whether those attempts are successful or not is another story. But it seems like because Nizkor makes the attempt, the part of the "debunk" definition that implies success is being overlooked. Because of that, success is automatically assumed, and that's somehow transforming into truth. It's not, and it's not objective. .V. 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
So far, they're batting a thousand. That's pretty objective. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Any way to prove that, or is it just an assertion? .V. 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just an assertion based upon something like two decades of dealing with deniers, Jew-haters, Nazis, and other network vermin. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOR .V. 06:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand, what was wrong with my editings; I added there: "Nizkor project, however, many times were charged that they didn't debunked anybody except themselves.", I believe it is absolutely true and neutral statement, but it was deleted more than three times and I've even got warning. Please, explain yourself. 2 Eron Your reply have no relation at all to my claim. You just avoiding to answer. That what Nizkor cherry-picking facts to discredit IHR doesn't means that I cherry-picking quotes. I believe it will be fair to use standarts which Nizkor use to IHR to Nizkor itself. So Nizkor remain proven liars who uses "straw men" to discredit opponents' PoV.--Igor "the Otter" 08:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your addition was unreferenced and unverified. "Nizkor project, however, many times..." (When?) "were charged..." (By who?) "that they didn't debunked anybody except themselves." (Do you have a reference for this statement?). It was also ungrammatical and somewhat hard to understand. The fact that Nizkor debunks Holocaust deniers (or, for the moment, let's say "challenges the factual veracity of the claims made by Holocaust deniers") is verifiable and referenced. Your assertion is neither.
As to my reply, I am simply quoting the full statement from Nizkor, in a case where you have accused them of lying, to show that it was not, in fact, a lie. If you have another example of where Nizkor has been proven to lie, please provide it. I'd love to see it. - Eron Talk 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article's reference to the Nizkor project, I wonder if it might in fact be better to use a different word than "debunk" for the sake of NPOV. As I understand the word "debunk," it really means (or at least strongly connotes) that the idea being "debunked" is indisputably false — a position which Holocaust deniers / revisionists / challengers, by definition, are never going to accept as being neutral. I'd like to propose something like the following instead: "A third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust denial head-on, countering the arguments and claims made by Holocaust denial groups." Or perhaps this shorter version would suffice: "A third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust denial head-on." Comments? Richwales 21:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the first of your two options as it's more specific, but both are very good NPOV statements. .V. 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Richwales - Don't forget that we don't want to give Undue Weight to Revisionists/Deniers -- just because they claim something isn't NPOV doesn't mean it isn't neutral. While the flat earth society would be quite upset with our description of a spherical earth, it wouldn't make or description POV.
Debunking is what Nizkor does - refutes the lies propagated by Holocaust denial, as well as educating about the history of the Holocaust.
The analogy I used was in the wrong tense, but not false. We don't write intended to write history, or intended to do science if a historian or scientist occasionally gets something wrong. We also shouldn't write intended to debunk for pieces already written.
We can rephrase, but to be factual we should convey that there is no serious response from the revisionist/denier camp to the Nizkor material. Cantankrus 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone involved of the Wikipedia NPOV policy that states we are to present the facts and let the reader decide. Saying they "debunk" does not do this; it takes the facts and interprets it for the reader. It implies a judgment, and even if you believe it to be a factual one, it's still against policy.
I'm also not sure why that analogy is correct, as I believe my previously-stated concerns with it still stand. .V. 06:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
"Debunk" does this exactly. Hoaxes, frauds, and lies get debunked, and that's the case here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
V - this simply strikes into the heart of revisionism/denial. Instead of challenging the Nizkor rebuttals, or revising their claims, most revisionists/deniers simply wait for a new audience and parrot what has been said in the past.
I'm not sure what is "against policy" about telling the truth. A party advances a claim, that claim is shown false. That is debunking the claim. When the party then re-advances this same claim, without any novelty added to the original claim, does this re-publishing now turn fiction into fact?
I'd be happy inserting this, as a compromise edit: Nizkor exists to expose Holocaust denial for the fraud it is, and to expose deniers for the charlatans they are, not to change their minds. By educating folks about the dishonest techniques employed by Holocaust deniers, we help to arm them against those whose political agenda has more to do with Hitler-cleansing than historical research. This is a published statement, so it meets the WP:RS criteria. Seems lengthy, but it conveys their aims with crystal clarity. Cantankrus 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

2 Eron Well, I can not show another example of deliberate lie, but there are easy to find examples then nothing is debunked. About lack of oxygen in ditches, for example. I agree that "challenges the factual veracity of the claims made by Holocaust deniers" will be absolutely neutral. Or "A third group, typified by the Nizkor Project, responds by confronting Holocaust denial head-on, countering the arguments and claims made by Holocaust denial groups." as Richwales proposed. But I don't agree that is a proven fact that "deniers" are the kind of charlatans. That is bullshit, IMHO. The "deadliest" argument against "deniers" is that survivors claim Nazis gassed many people. But many survivors believed also that Nazis made soap "from the corpses of slain jews". And many of them still believe it: http://www.historiography-project.org/nonsense/20050210soap.html So how can these survivors be considered as reliable source? --Igor "the Otter" 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Igor - Here you've presented a textbook example of the misinformation of revisinists/deniers. Let's take a look.
You state that the "deadliest" arguement is that survivors claim Nazis gassed many people.
You then draw a parallel with survivor stories about soap, always a revisionist favorite, and how they aren't "true".
You then infer that the survivors must not be reliable.
It's truly a wonderful strawman. But, thankfully, History isn't constructed that way.
First, the evidence of the survivors -- are they eyewitnesses, or relating hearsay? What are they relating? These, and many more questions will be asked when historians examine the evidence.
Next, there is other evidence to consider. Lots of documents, and testimony of the various SS personel, among other things.
The convergence is overwhelming between the various types of evidence.
As for soap, while it's true there was rumours about soap (mostly started by the Nazis themselves), there are no eyewitnesses to the process of using slain jews for making soap. That is why it is not a historical fact, unlike gassing. Cantankrus 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not straw man. That is an example. --Igor "the Otter" 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Example of survivors' misunderstanding of situation is not straw man. These survivors will sue even Yad Vashem if it will conradict them. And some such witnesses already exposed as liars like Elly "how-dare-You-compare" Wiesel. Yes, that was a joke of black humour during WW2, but now it is used in propaganda to defame anyone who will say something against Israel. There not only one such soap-grave. It is looking funny, but I love to see, what will happen if someone will dare to laugth at this soap-graves in the eyes of zionists. So what is written in the "lots of documents"? The words "Final solution"? Nobody can prove that it mean "extermination". --Igor "the Otter" 07:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly a strawman, since this isn't how evidence is assessed by Historians. They don't simply rely on what survivors heard, and include it as history. They critically assess each piece of evidence, both individually and in conjuction with other pieces. That is why they can discard the "soap made from Jews", as it is clear this was a rumour, whereas gassings are included in the Historical record.
I won't say anything about "zionists" and Israel, other then it betrays your political bias.
What I think is funny is how much real evidence one has to discard before the revisionist theory becomes tenable. Documents? Forgeries! Eyewitnesses? Liars! Perpetrator Confessions? Extracted by torture!
The documentary trail is much more then the words "Final Solution". But, someone interested in truth and history would be willing to find that out, rather then drawing snap conclusions. Cantankrus 18:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2 Eron I've changed that part the way You proposed. I believe, it is acceptable to everybody.--Igor "the Otter" 19:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted; please at least attempt to find a consensus before reinserting the change.
This watering down is not acceptable to me, and it appears other editors are also not in favor. Describing the way you would like doesn't mean its NPOV. Cantankrus 19:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really about Nizkor anymore, but further discussion

2 Cantankrus What is strawman, is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man That what I showed an example to prove that I mean, is not straw man. Elie Wiesel written that Nazis burned people alive in Buchenwald on the eyes of other prisoners. That is not true. You don't understand me. I think, "deniers" may be mistake, may be not. But I don't see there deliberate lie like in Nizkor case. I think, Pressac is closer to truth then real "deniers". Of course, You don't know anything about Zionists and Israel, may be there at all no any Zionists, but seems You know everything about "deniers", even their thoughts and hidden wishes. --Igor "the Otter" 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You claimed that this survivor evidence was the best ("most deadliest"). You then advanced that since survivors related rumours about soap made from Jews, it follows that survivors can't be trusted to relay information about the gas chambers. Your inference is survivors->best evidence, survivors->related soap rumor, soap rumor->false, therefore survivor evidence->unreliable. Your strawman fails to assess and weight evidence properly.
If you make a claim and then you are shown this is wrong, then that might be an honest mistake. However, to pick up this claim and represent it, again and again, without any change? That is a deliberate lie, and it is what revisionists/deniers often do.
I don't know everything about revisionists/deniers - but many (most?) of them don't seem too interested in the real truth - only what they would like to believe the truth is. Cantankrus 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So what is wrong in the chain? Where is Your straw man? Do You mean, I invented it myself, that "survivors is the best evidence"? You are wrong then. No straw man. What "wrong" was shown to me? I don't see. Deliberate lie is about Nizkor not about me and You understand it. Anyway this article can not be worse then it is now. It seems like everybody except You can see this. OK, what is Your proposal? --Igor "the Otter" 21:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong is simple. You are trying to infer that (a) survivor evidence is the "best" kind of evidence and (b) (some) survivors, in relating what they heard about soap, invalidates what (some) survivors knew about gassings. Your invalid inferences are that these groups two groups are exactly the same, and that there is some kind of hierarchy to evidence.
I'll illustrate here. American Soldiers are the best evidence that the US fought the Nazis in world war 2. Soldiers widely believed that soap was made from concentration camp prisoners, so how reliable can the rest of their account be? (Using your logic, I've disproved the US participated in World War 2). I hope this clarifies.
As for "wrong" I was trying to clarify the Nizkor<-> Revisionist/Denier situation. You said that Revisionists/Deniers "may be mistake, may be not. But I don't see there deliberate lie". If a revisionist/denier says something once, it is possible it's a mistake. If they have been shown it is false and continue to use it, that is a deliberate lie.
I don't believe that "everybody except" me sees this article is bad. Please WP:AGF and try to reach consensus.
I made a proposal above, which is wordier but very clear on the goals/purpose of Nizkor. Cantankrus 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Why was the last version changed? I thought the phrasing of it was fine. .V. (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The survivors not just heard about soap, they continue to insist that it existed. Entirely different. So You use a straw man not me. That was not me but You or Eron who claimed the survivors are the one of the best evidences. I didn't seen there was shown that "deniers" mistakes. There are INDEED NO ANY MATERIAL TRACES of gas chamber in Auschwitz. And no any proves of 1100000 dead. That is only possible (theoretically), but not proved. Delousing facilities doesn't count. Homicidal chamber still could existed, but if somebody claims there are material proves of it, he is either ingnorant or is just a liar. There also no any documental proves of it. So stop call "deniers" liars. Therefore "refutes lies of deniers" is bad term. Your analogy with "no moon landing" is also bad, because landing on the moon is proven fact. --Igor "the Otter" 08:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are still persuing the same strawman. Is every survivor insisting that soap existed? You are discarding assessment of the evidence for an emotional appeal. Some hearsay leaves strong impressions -- but that doesn't mean they are true. Even if a paticular survivor insists, how did he learn about soapmaking? Was it in taunts from the SS, or did he witness it? As long as he is truthful about how he came to know it, it doesn't even make him less reliable.
"Proof", of course, depends on your definition of the same. Since the bulk of the Nazi defences consisted of "Yes, it happened, I did it, but I was only following orders", we already have proof.
The landing on the moon is a proven fact of history - as is the Holocaust. Cantankrus 15:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I understand what you are saying: If I say "The Holocaust occurred; it is a proven historical fact," then I am a liar. If I say "The Holocaust did not occur; it is not a proven historical fact," then I am not a liar. Did I get that right? - Eron Talk 15:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Who deleted my editing again?--Igor "the Otter" 17:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

2 Cantankrus You failed to show any straw man, please stop to repeat it. It doesn't matter, how he learned about soapmaking. If he insists that is true knowing that it isn't, his motives are questionable then.

2 Eron: Igor wrote above "if somebody claims there are material proves of [the Holocaust], he is either ingnorant or is just a liar. An exellent example of straw man, congratulations. I wrote different. Do You want to tell me, You can prove that gas chamber now available for the tourists has been built not in 1948? Delousing facilities doesn't count. If You can't prove it then don't claim it. And don't try to catch me. That who doesn't lie, isn't liar. So how about changing expressions? I agree if it will be changed the way You proposed. --Igor "the Otter" 17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I misquoted you. Let me try again: you wrote above "if somebody claims there are material proves of [homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz], he is either ingnorant or is just a liar. There also no any documental proves of it." So then, the direct testimony of the Commandant of Auschwitz is a lie? Is that what you are saying? - Eron Talk 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm! He is talking about 3,000,000 dead. Now it is estimated like about 1,500,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz Very interesting. Which number is right, how do you think? I think that proves that there are ways to make anybody say whatever you want. Having in mind that number of 1,500,000 was taken like about maximal possible for krematoria. Great document, indeed. --Igor "the Otter" 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding example of misdirection. Make one claim ("There were no homicidal gas chambers") and then, when confronted with evidence that there were, change the subject ("He gave a different number than someone else!") But you aren't answering my question: did the Commandant of Auschwitz lie when he stated that homicidal gas chambers were used at Auschwitz? - Eron Talk 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

He not just gave different number than someone else. He gave unreal number. Can you see the difference? That is wrong number, do you agree? I don't think he said it willingly. I don't know, who interrogated him, but I also don't know examples where anyone interrogated by NKVD, didn't plead himself guilty. I think, you better hide this document if you want to convince somebody in your PoV. --Igor "the Otter" 07:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The number provided by Hoss is not in line with the current best estimate, but it is not "unreal"; it's an overstatement - and given the large numbers involved, the fact that detailed records were not kept for those who were murdered immediately upon arrival, and the fact that Hoss was not the Commandant for the duration of the war, it is perhaps understandable that his number might not be exact.
As to who interrogated him, Hoss was captured by the British, appeared as a witness at the the American-run Nuremburg trials, and was then handed over to Polish authorities who tried and executed him. The NKVD had nothing to do with it. So, is your statement above an error or a "deliberate lie"? - Eron Talk 13:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hoess told:"l commanded Auschwitz until 1 December,1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000." If he was commandant it is hard to believe he didn't know real number. But he gives number as twice as real. It only proves he was forced to say that. I see no another reason him to slander himself. So my statement is neither mistake nor deliberate lie. --Igor "the Otter" 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In discussing the testimony of Hōss, you said "I also don't know examples where anyone interrogated by NKVD, didn't plead himself guilty." inferring that Hōss was "interrogated by NKVD" and thus that his testimony is invalid. That was a lie; Hōss was never in Soviet custody.
"He gives number as twice as real. It only proves he was forced to say that." It doesn't prove any such thing. There are many reasons that the number he provided may have been in error. Where is your evidence that he was forced to say anything?
In any case, you are forgetting (or deliberately avoiding) that the original question was not about the numbers of dead at Auschwitz; it was about your claim that there is no evidence that homicidal gas chambers were used there. - Eron Talk 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Forget about Hoess. It is the best argument in favor of deniers/revisionists, not in your favor. Never had I heard such bullshit before. --Igor "the Otter" 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like mindless rejection of Historical evidence to bolster your case. Too bad history isn't written that way. Ah well. Cantankrus 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No rejection. That evidence only plays in favor of your opponents. I've explained you, how. If all your evidences are like this one, you have poor chances to convince anybody.--Igor "the Otter" 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
evidence only plays in favour of your opponents. [...] 'you have poor chances to convince anybody.
Well, if the evidence played so much against the current historiography, you'd guess that one respected historian would have noticed at least one of these evidential shortcomings.
History isn't assessed the way you would like it, it's assessed based on 'evidence. Hoess' testimony, his confession, the documents he signed, and his memoirs all are a part of that evidence. Your fault in assessing this evidence is the hasty generalization. You show that he may have said something one spot, but other corroborated evidence shows his testimony is incorrect. Thus, you conclude he is "unreliable". (You also infer he was tortured, and thus is lying). But, he could have just been mistaken, and be relating something that is outside his experience. (He wasn't a statistics person).
This, and your assessment of "survivors" of a group, along with defense of there being no material evidence of the gas chambers shows your woefully inadequate grasp of how evidence is critically assessed for History.
Since Historians are convinced, and they are the ones who write history, it is the opponents of historians will have to do better.Cantankrus 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say Hoess was tortured. I said he slandered himself. That is fact. 1,5 millions is not 3 millions. Reason for him to slander himself is unknown. Respected historians think the way they are ordered to think. Those who disagree to think that way will go to prison. That is fact too. But it seems like we forgot that we are talking about. How about changing expressions?--Igor "the Otter" 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say Hoess was tortured. No, you only inferred it: It only proves he was forced to say that.
Respected historians think the way they are ordered to think.
Anything except pure speculation to back this up? Your inference is that discussion will lead to prison. Could you show us, by example, where any revisionist who was jailed has done any other history work? (Not degree work, bonafide research outside of the holocaust). If you can't, it means that you can't back up your claim that those who "disagree to think" go to prison.
I think it's been demonstrated by now that you've failed to reach consensus on a change. Feel free to drop a new section header and try again, though. Cantankrus 14:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you only inferred it. I told he was forced to say that. You inferred he was tortured. That is logical enough, but it is your thought, not mine.
Anything except pure speculation to back this up? Look at the section "Laws against Holocaust Denial" first, then talk about "speculation".
Did I said any "denier" was jailed for work which was done in permitted way? Only those are jailed who think "wrong" way, it is as clear as day.
Feel free to drop a new section header and try again, though. OK. I'm changing article my way.--Igor "the Otter" 08:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at the section "Laws against Holocaust Denial" first. Feel free to demonstrate that these laws restrict academics from a having frank and open discussions on the Holocaust. Then, please show where they have been applied in such a way. We'll wait.
Only those are jailed who think "wrong" way Right, so you can't demonstrate any "denier"/revisionist who has performed research outside of the Holocaust. But, it's only facts they are after, right? Cantankrus 04:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a suggestion, but perhaps this issue should be opened to a request for comment? I really liked Richwales' suggestion above (regarding the use of the word "debunk"), and I am still unclear as to why it shouldn't be used. Maybe getting some fresh perspectives on this idea would be wise. .V. -- (TalkEmail) 02:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think an RFC will go too far, as Igor has done no consensus building, but instead simply inserted what he felt was the "right" point of view.
I think that "debunk" is exactly the right word here, and I feel that consensus would be there too. Maybe a straw poll would be better then an RFC? Just a suggestion. Cantankrus 03:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
A straw poll might be okay, but I was thinking the RFC would have the benefit of bringing new voices into the discussion. I see that this discussion has become quite long, and when it gets to be this long, it's best to try to bring in additional viewpoints.
As for consensus building... that's another reason to have an RFC.
I'm not sure there exists a consensus on this matter. .V. -- (TalkEmail) 04:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


RE Nizkkor and Guernica - the above discussion assumes a lot about Guernica. You should read the wiki article on Guernica and give nizkor the link. The Spanish civil war had all types of participants/suppliers/mercanieries/... German, Russian. Italian,... The town was a peaceful little nonviolent palce, except for the 2 battlions of soldiers who were using the town as a shield ( well who knows but as long as we are slinging BS why not ).The German Luffewaffe - not really - German planes maybe but controlled by the Nationalist Franco folks. Like the US fighter planes in Israel are not the US Airforce ( darn close but not exactly - same concept ). Nizkor takes current emotional myths and propaganda and gloms onto it. A good site for believers but a poor source for the truth - excellent site for the holocaust project - sorry I mean wiki.159.105.80.141 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Censorship Category

It seems that a couple editors want to remove the "Censorship" category from this article.

The reason in the revert summary was: "Denial Laws don't restrict discussion in private or academic discussions, just incitement in public"

The definition of censorship is to "suppress or delete as objectionable." I don't understand how this is not censorship. A government ruling that some idea cannot be expressed in public under threat of fine or imprisonment certainly counts as being censored. It might be said that you "can't yell fire in a crowded theater", but that's not the reason for this censorship -- it's because it's objectionable, not because it presents any immediate danger. It may not be censored in all realms, but when an idea is banned by law in public or private, that's censorship. .V. 06:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How is the idea banned? Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As the dictionary says, banned is "prohibited by law." Open discussion of Holocaust denial in certain countries is prohibited by law. Because it's an idea, and because the governments in question institute laws to ban it in the public realm, it is therefore censored in the public realm. It's thus, censorship. .V. 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Private discussion, scholarly discussion, and even open discussion are not prohibited. It is the political use of minimization or denial of National Socialist crimes that is legislated against. While it's a common revisionist/denial tactic to meld the two, "discussion" doesn't imply denial or minimalization of the crimes. It is not even the idea that is supressed, but rather it's expression as a political instrument.Cantankrus 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not true, actually. Open Holocaust denial claims (as in, public claims) is prohibited by law in some countries. It's not just restricted in political usage, as you claim, but rather in public (and in some cases, in private.) Take, for example, the Belgian Holocaust denial law: "Specifically, the law makes it illegal to publicly 'deny, play down, justify or approve of the genocide committed by the German National Socialist regime during the Second World War'." (from the Wikipedia article on the law).
And these censorship laws are not even restricted to the public realm, either. In Germany, if an individual "publicly or in a meeting" (emphasis mine) denies the Holocaust, he is subject to prosecution under Germany's criminal code section 103 (3) [[1]]. "In a meeting" shows that this law reaches even into private discussion as well as public.
So in both private and public realms, there are places in which the claim of Holocaust denial is illegal. And that's just two examples. So the idea that Holocaust denial is only limited for political use is incorrect, and the statutes I cited above show this.
Because the expressing of this idea is illegal in both public and private realms depending on where you go, that constitutes censorship. .V. 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this an uncontroversial categorization? Do reliable sources characterize these laws as "censorship"? Is this article actually about Holocaust denial laws, or simply about Holocaust denial? Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The article contains a section regarding Holocaust denial laws. Even if it did not, it would be applicable in that Holocaust denial is censored. As for your citing of WP:RS, it states that reliable sources are required for anything that is likely to be challenged. My question for you is, do you have any other basis for challenging this categorization other than it lacks a reliable source? If you don't, it seems like circular logic to me. .V. 00:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Read the arguments above as to why it is not censorship, and why, even if applicable, including it in the category would overweight the actual content of the article. The article does not discuss Holocaust denial as "censorship". Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any arguments as to why it's not censorship. The first argument made was that it's only blocked in the political realm, but then I showed through two statutes that it's blocked in both the private and public realms. Anyway, I'll go add a section on censorship to the section of Holocaust denial laws. .V. 00:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please make sure it is a summary of what reliable sources have to say on the subject, not original research. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a paragraph on censorship to the Laws section. I no longer see any reason why the censorship cat should be removed from the article. .V. 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Most of it will have to go, I'm afraid. The first two references are not reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination, Chomsky is not an expert in this field, and Bermant doesn't call it censorship. Please remove it yourself and propose something here instead. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to back up your assertions or what? .V. 01:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial website, and "Francois Tremblay", are not reliable sources regarding the laws against Holocaust Denial and censorship, nor are your original research insertions about "Germany's criminal code section 103(3)". It's hard to imagine what the linguist Chomsky's expertise in Holocaust denial and censorship laws might be either. I warned you about this, and you did it anyway; inserting a section of original research based on unreliable sources in order to make a WP:POINT simply so you could include a disputed category is very, very bad faith. Please remove the paragraph post haste, lest I be forced to assume going forward that all your edits are merely disruptions. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm not about to presume that you're doing this out of bad faith, so please don't presume that of me, either. It's quite uncivil to demand that someone remove their work immediately, or else bad faith will be assumed. Anyway, if you read the article, you'd see that Germany's penal code section 103(3) was already cited, so I didn't see the need to cite it again. But because you asked so nicely, I've added a link. As for the other sources, the IHR is cited as the source for "Opponents claim it's censorship." You're saying that the IHR is not an opponent of Holocaust denial laws?
Additionally, because Chomsky wrote the introduction to Fauisson's book which included various legal concerns. This is from the section in which I'm citing. Because he's discussing this, it's relevant to the subject. Because he was fully aware of the law and gave his commentary on it, I see no reason to not include him from the discussion. Just because he's not a lawyer does not mean he has lost all ability to give commentary on the law.
I'd also like to remind you that WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. As such, it's hazy. However, I believe that when discussing the opponents of something, you should cite the opponents (in this case, the IHR.) Newspaper articles are as well applicable in these cases, as is the introduction to a notable book regarding the Holocaust. .V. 02:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:V is policy, and you haven't been able to verify that laws against Holocaust denial are censorship. I have shortened your paragraph to the relevant facts for now, for the sake of NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
V - I think you are misunderstanding the German law. Reading carefully, in that same (horrible and oft cited subsection) says in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace. So, it's actually not true that you simply have to talk about holocaust denial in public or at a meeting. (My instinct tells me that a meeting wouldn't be defined as sitting around over a Lager and talking about facets of WW2). It has to be with some motivation, and one with the intention of disturbing the public peace.
Really, since the issue is a country's laws, the most appropriate place to mention this would be in that context; Holocaust Denial and it's response aren't inherently an issue of censorship, despite the way revisionists/deniers try to portray it. Cantankrus 03:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed it back as per WP:REVERT, which states: "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." Let's let the discussion conclude before we make any changes, it's only good policy to do so.
In regards to WP:V, all my sources cite what they claim to cite (I say, "Opposers say this..." and then link to opposers, for example.) You also haven't given any reason as to why my sources do not comply to WP:V, you've only asserted that to be true. Being so aggressive about changing my work without giving any reason past "I hardly think it's verifiable" is disturbing to say the least.
Anyway, because I have several sources (which I think are RS, but you don't) that say it's censorship, and because it conforms to the definition of censorship, I think it's censorship. But perhaps we should open it up to an RfC? .V. 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I restored my edit, per WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:REVERT. I didn't simply revert you, but explained at length what was wrong with your edits first, more than once. Feel free to try to get consensus to insert the text here on the Talk: page first. Regarding your sources, they weren't reliable, and didn't all claim "censorship". Also, evidence that one Holocaust Denial organization claims Holocaust Denial laws are "censorship" are, well, evidence that one Holocaust Denial organization claims Holocaust Denial laws are "censorship". They certainly aren't evidence that "people who oppose the law" make that claim, nor are they evidence that the claim is credible. Nor, for that matter, are your own arguments on this page. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You keep saying that my sources are not reliable over and over, but can you actually show me any reasoning behind that statement? By this, I mean, show exactly (preferably using quotes from policy) that they aren't reliable. You haven't shown what was wrong with my edits, and I do think that if you're going to keep reverting them, you should give me more proof than "they weren't reliable." .V. 02:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Holocaust denial sources, like IHR, are "Sources of dubious reliability", per WP:V. They are also "tiny-minority views", per WP:NPOV. You have made no credible argument as to why "Francois Tremblay" or "The Liberator" meet Wikipedia's WP:V policy and related WP:RS guideline; as far as I can tell, the former is a random blogger who is in Unniversity studying web development, and the latter is some random website pushing some agenda or other. As explained before, Chomsky's expertise is in linguistics, not Holocaust denial or censorship laws, and Bermant didn't even write about censorship. I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating myself. Reliable sources are sources which have some sort of editorial oversight, or some sort of expertise in the area in question. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Your description of Chomsky as a "linguist" is misleading. He is, in addition to being one of the most important figures in the history of linguistics (some would say the most important figure), a highly prominent political analyst who has devoted a huge amount of his life to trying to understand and explain the complex political pressures under which people form their beliefs. He clearly has a great deal to say about censorship.
From what I remember of what happened between Chomsky and Bermant, what Chomsky wrote was strictly limited to a defence of Bermant's right to expound his beliefs. In other words it was about censorship and nothing else. He was, if I remember rightly, quite upset that this was taken by Bermant and others as an implicit endorsement of Bermant's views on the Holocaust. Ireneshusband 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason you have to keep repeating yourself is that there's no substantiation of your first sentence. You say they're sources of dubious reliability, but why?
I also think that this is still a complete aside to the simple fact that this is in concert with the definition of "censorship." On that point alone, the category should stand. .V. 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I've explained this already; Holocaust deniers are extremists with an agenda who push an extreme minority view, on the order of "the moon landings were a hoax" and "the sun circles the earth". No legitimate historians give their views about the Holocaust any weight. If you don't even recognize this, then it's hard to see how you can be editing this article. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is... Holocaust deniers are not reliable sources because Holocaust deniers are not reliable sources. That seems like circular logic to me. This kind of prejudice against Holocaust deniers or sources that can be interpreted to be such is dangerous; it's certainly not following WP:NPOV. I don't see in WP:RS any statement that says Holocaust deniers are instantly disqualified from inclusion in Wikipedia. Certainly, they cannot be given undue weight, but your mass-rejection of Holocaust denier sources is rather troubling, and seems to be against WP:RS. .V. 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm saying Holocaust deniers are not reliable sources because they are non-experts (i.e. non-historians), and they espouse views that are not published in peer-reviewed journals or other reliable sources, and that are "extreme minority views" that are repudiated by legitimate historians and scholars. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Those are all very general concerns. However, I believe that in the context in which they are cited, this is perfectly fine. When we're talking about what opposition to the law thinks, it's only right to cite those who oppose it. That's exactly what I did. The paragraph I wrote made it very clear who's opinions they are, along with providing references. I'm not entirely sure what you want -- should we just not discuss what Holocaust deniers say, because they're "non-experts"? .V. 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It ought to be obvious from the fact that in the U.S. the KKK and similar groups are protected, even to the extent that they are granted time on public access TV, by the First Amendment, one of the world's most famous laws and one which directly addresses censorship, that censorship is an issue here. However let me point out a few reliable sources just in case:

LEGAL ASPECTS OF HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM

Bindman, Geoffrey. "Outlawing Holocaust Denial." New Law Journal 147 (28 Mar. 1997): 466, 468.

Bristow, Jennie. "Who's Afraid of Holocaust Denial?" Living Marxism, no. 97 (Feb. 1997).

Cesarani, David. "Why We Must Outlaw These Race Lies." Guardian, 30 Jan. 1997, Sec. I, 19.

Delacourt, John T. "Recent Development: The International Impact of Internet Regulation." Harvard International Law Journal 38 (Winter 1997): 207-230.

Dixon, John. "The Politics of Opinion." Canadian Forum 66 (Apr. 1986): 7- 10.

Dworkin, Ronald. "The Unbearable Cost of Liberty." Index on Censorship 24 (May-June 1995): 43-46.

Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee C. Minutes of Proceedings on the Holocaust Denial Bill. HC 382. London: HMSO, 1997.

Greenberg, Sally. "Threats, Harassment, and Hate On-Line: Recent Developments." Boston Public Interest Law Journal 6 (Spring 1997): 673-696.

Harding, Luke. "Blair Favors Holocaust Denial Ban." Guardian, 30 Jan. 1997, Sec. I, 8.

Heinrichs, Terry. "Free Speech and the Zundel Trial." Queen's Quarterly 95 (Winter 1988): 837-854.

"Holocaust Denial: Criminal Offense?" Response 17 (Winter 1996/97): 8.

Josephs, Bernard. "Labour Pledge to Legislate Against Holocaust Denial." Jewish Chronicle, 4 Oct. 1996, 20.

Landon, Janine. "The Right to Equal Concern and Respect Versus the Right to Freedom of Expression: The Case of Holocaust Denial." M.A. thesis, University of Essex, 1995.

Lasson, Kenneth. "Holocaust Denial and the First Amendment: The Quest for Truth in a Free Society." George Mason Law Review 6 (Fall 1997): 35-86.

Lerman, Antony. "Wrong Way to Stop Lies About the Holocaust: A Bill to Outlaw 'Holocaust Denial' is Misguided." The Independent, 29 Jan. 1997, 17.

McVay, Ken. "It's Not Really About Free Speech: Ernst Zundel is Using Freedom of Speech to Avoid the Real Issue Hate." The Convergence (6 Jan. 1997). An electronic journal article.

Mahoney, Kathleen. "R. v. Keegstra: A Rationale for Regulating Pornography?" McGill Law Journal 37 (Apr. 1992): 242-269.

Martin, Robert. "Group Defamation in Canada." In Group Defamation and Freedom of Speech: The Relationship Between Language and Violence. Ed. Monroe H. Freedman and Eric M. Freedman. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995, 191-217.

Moon, Richard. "Drawing Lines in a Culture of Prejudice: R. v. Keegstra and the Restriction of Hate Propaganda." University of British Columbia Law Review 26 (1992): 99-143.

O'Neil, Robert M. "The Internet in the College Community." Northern Illinois University Law Review 17 (Spring 1997): 191-203.

Ramraj, Victor V. "Keegstra, Butler, and Positive Liberty: A Glimmer of Hope for the Faithful." University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 51 (Spring 1993): 304-330.

Seemann, Jacquie. "Combating Anti-Semitism: Is Legislation an Answer?" Generation: A Journal of Australian Jewish Life, Thought and Community 1 (Feb. 1990): 25-31.

Solomon, Tasmin. "Problems in Drafting Legislation Against Racist Activities." Australian Journal of Human Rights 1 (Dec. 1994). Available on the Internet at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/ahric/ajhr/V1N1/ajhr1117.html.

Somers, Michael G. "Hate Propaganda and Freedom of Expression in a Multicultural Society (Canada)." LL.M. thesis, York University (Canada), 1993.

Tishler, Gerald, Irwin Cotler, Alan Dershowitz, and Arthur Berney. "When Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech Confront Holocaust Denial and Group Libel: Comparative Perspectives." Boston College Third World Law Journal 8 (Winter 1988): 65-90. Revised version of a panel discussion that was first published in Cardozo Law Review 8 (1987).

United Nations, Human Rights Committee. "Restrictions on Freedom of Expression for Denial of the Holocaust Under the 1990 Gayssot Act/Author's Conviction Justified/Faurisson v. France: Decision of 8 November 1996 Views of the Human Rights Committee Under Article 5, Paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Concerning Communication No. 550/1993 Submitted by: Robert Faurisson State Party Concerned: France." Human Rights Law Journal 18 (29 Aug. 1997): 40-49. The Human Rights Committee's decision is also available on the Internet at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/385c2add1632f4a8c12565a9004dc311/4c47b59ea48f7343802566f200352fea?OpenDocument and http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/VWS55058.htm.

Weinrib, Lorraine Eisenstat. "Hate Promotion in a Free and Democratic Society: R. v. Keegstra." McGill Law Journal 36 (Dec. 1991): 1416-1449.

Weiss, David E. "Striking a Difficult Balance: Combatting the Threat of Neo-Nazism in Germany While Preserving Individual Liberties." Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 27 (1994): 899-939.

Yonover, Geri J. "Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial in the Academy: A Tort Remedy." Dickinson Law Review 101 (Fall 1996): 71-94.

How Many Jews Does It Take…?

HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM IN LIBRARIES

Drobnicki, John A. "Librarians Seek Answers For Literature of Denial." Martyrdom and Resistance 23 (May-June 1997): 12, 15. Available on the Internet at http://www.york.cuny.edu/~drobnick/answers.html.

Erspamer, Peter. "Educate, Not Censor." Martyrdom and Resistance 23 (Mar.- Apr. 1997): 14.

Fialkoff, Francine. "To Buy or Not to Buy? Media Attention Shouldn't Legitimize Buying the Insidious Goebbels Biography." Library Journal 121 (15 Apr. 1996): 70.

Hurst, Rhandon. "Keep Books in Libraries." Daily Texan, 18 Apr. 1996.

Myers, David Gershom. "Denial is Not Speech." Martyrdom and Resistance 23 (Mar.-Apr. 1997): 14.

Nadel, Stan. "Consequences of Censorship: Endless and Disastrous." Martyrdom and Resistance 23 (Mar.-Apr. 1997): 14, 16.

Rogers, Robert. "Nasty Books." Daily Texan, 15 Apr. 1996.

Schwartz, Philip. "Ban Holocaust Books." Daily Texan, 16 Apr. 1996.

"Tennessee Prof. Battling Deniers of the Holocaust." Martyrdom and Resistance 23 (Jan.-Feb. 1997): 10.

"Texas A&M Professor Stirs Holocaust Denial Debate." Library Journal 121 (15 May 1996): 11.

Thomas, Lemuel B. "A&M Professor Wants Books Denying Holocaust Off School's Library Shelves." Daily Texan, 15 Apr. 1996.

Wolkoff, Kathleen Nietzke. "The Problem of Holocaust Denial Literature in Libraries." Library Trends 45 (Summer 1996): 87-96.

One thing that is clear from this list is that not all of the sources contained within it endorse the view that Holocaust denial is censorship. That in itself is not directly relevant here. What matters is that they all talk about censorship (i.e. the outlawing or suppression of certain forms of speech) in the context of Holocaust denial. For this reason the "censorship" category is entirely justified. Ireneshusband 04:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. One of the objections made against the "censorship" category is that those Holocaust deniers who claim they are being censored are not reliable sources. Maybe so. Nevertheless, since this is an article dedicated to the opinions of such people, then what they say is entirely pertinent here, whether or not it is credible. If they say their views are censored (see for instance [2] [3]), whether or not reputable sources dispute those claims, then censorship is an issue for the purposes of this article. Ireneshusband 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. The assertion that Holocaust deniers are all, without exception, non-experts or "non-historians" is false. David Irving in particular, although lacking formal training as a historian, has been acknowledged as a skillful researcher with an expert knowledge of German military archives. I don't dispute that the way he has applied this knowledge has been dishonest and perverse, but since he is a capable historian with a significant popular following, his views should be represented in Wikipedia, as should that fact that the historical consensus is that he is irresponsible and untrustworthy. Ireneshusband 07:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the word "censorship" has strong negative connotations, therefore its use here would be a POV political statement. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, it is censorship. Not only does it conform to the dictionary definition of censorship, there's also a pile of sources to confirm it as such.
The concern you raise would only be applicable if it was unduly prejudicial. It may have negative connotations depending on where you go, but then again, so can most things. There's nothing in the definition, though, that's unduly prejudicial. The definition itself does not make a judgment call (as in, it's not in the definition that censorship is wrong.) Whether readers see "censorship" and think "evil" or think "necessary to protect society" is their call.
Additionally, "censorship" is the most commonly used term for this phenomenon, and should be used as such. .V. (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"censorship" is the most commonly used term for Holocaust denial? By whom? You want WP to make a POV political statement. I will resist that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You misinterpret what I'm saying. The issue at hand is not Holocaust denial in general, but whether or not "denial laws" can be considered censorship. I thought it was clear because the rest of my post (and all my previous posts in this section, including the title) were about this subject specifically. What I meant by "this phenomenon" is as follows: the illegality of the profession of a certain idea. The most common term for that is censorship. .V. (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It is illegal to scream "fire" in a public place. The most common term for that is...? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I already mentioned why the "imminent lawless action" issue doesn't apply earlier in the discussion, but I'll describe it again with a bit more length. What you're describing is actually the paraphrased example from the earlier standard, but both (the old and the current) are very similar. As several court decisions have shown (see the article on imminent lawless action for more details), there's a difference between free speech and this. Thus, this does not fall under the purview of censorship.
I'm not sure what you're getting at in your opposition to this category. You first brought up negative connotations, now you're making a comparison to imminent lawless action. Can you summarize your position for me? I'm rather confused. .V. (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes you seem to be confused. Now you're switching from a dictionary to the US legal system. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this "switching" is in response to your replies. Your quote about fire is actually part of the US legal system. Anyway, what I'm asking is, why precisely do you oppose the inclusion of this category? I've already made it clear as to my reasoning why it should be included. .V. (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be wrong for WP to take a POV political position. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Point #1 In WP:NPOV, what is considered a POV position is discussed. The policy states to assert facts, and not opinions, as that would be bias. In this case, however, when the public proclamation of an idea is made illegal, this falls under the definition of censorship (it removes the idea from the public distribution.) "Imminent lawless action" does not apply in these cases, of course. Because this is definitional, it's not taking a point of view. I don't see how this can be considered an opinion. It would be like stating "Saying Earth is a planet is an opinion" or "Saying Australia is a continent is an opinion." It falls under the definition of planet, so it's not questioned.
Point #2 The word "censorship" does not contain a judgment call, and is not inherently POV. An individual may have an opinion of it, but we're not here to try to anticipate what people will think when they see the word. Some will see an assault to freedom, another will see stability. However, the word itself is not loaded. It has no POV sway one way or the other when it comes to the definition. In addition, it's connotative meaning isn't extremely prejudicial in itself. As such, it's exempt from these concerns.
Point #3 Because "censorship" is the most common word used to describe the actions such as the ones taken by the laws in question, it should be used.
Can you cite for me exactly which parts of WP policy you are referencing? .V. (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality." [[4]]. I believe this quote directly addresses your concerns. As stated above, the fact is that when a government are prevents free speech regarding a certain ideology, it's called censorship. .V. (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in fact, "imminent lawless action" does apply here, as the German law states in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace. That would be parallel to the 1st amendment restriction on shouting fire.
Calling the IHR "opposition" (to whom?) on these types of laws seems dubious -- they are located in the US, where no such restrictions are in force.
I do think there should be some discussion of the laws, and of the censorship issue surrounding them. However, it would be more appropriate to place in the category articles dealing specifically with this on a jurisdictional basis, rather then on a purely topic basis. Holocaust Denial isn't inherently censoring; it's certain governments that take that stance. Cantankrus 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
To follow up - It would appear Wikipedia is already doing what I've suggested. I'm not sure on category policies, but it would seem redundant (and confusing) to add topic wise that which is already dealt with by country. Cantankrus 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You're singling out Germany, but the fact remains that these laws are present in multiple other countries and are just as restrictive or more restrictive. Because it applies to a bunch of different countries, the broader category of "censorship" should be applied. (Also, the Germany statute is a de facto standard: Denial/Revisionism is, by definition, assumed to be imminent lawless action. See David Irving.) Otherwise, we'd have "Censorship in Germany", "Censorship in Austria", "Censorship in..." It would actually be about a dozen by-country categories. "Censorship" covers everything.
As for the IHR, I made it clear that it said "opposition" to the laws. What's cited along with it is an article criticizing the laws. Several people involved in the IHR or supported by the IHR are being convicted under these laws (like David Irving), so I think they'd have license to comment. Because the IHR is a US organization that has a connection to the laws (they have people involved in the litigation process in several countries), then it shows that the censorship in this case impacts people outside of their respective countries, once again justifying the category of censorship.
Holocaust Denial isn't inherently censoring, but the laws are. Across many different countries, there are laws that prohibit the expression of the Holocaust denial claims. In Germany, it does appear to give an imminent lawless action clause, but all Holocaust denial is assumed to be such anyway. The Belgian Negationism Law has the criterion that it only must be stated in public. The Austrian laws have the same criteria, and the laws cited for other countries are similar. Anyway, it would be redundant to add "Censorship in..." categories for all 12 or so countries (or however many it is.) The one category of censorship fits best. .V. (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Might I also add that the category of censorship contains entries that only apply to one country. Given that this spans multiple countries, it seems like a shoe-in for inclusion. .V. (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:CAT: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". You are entitled for your POV, but keep it out of WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on the policy you quoted, the idea that a "government banning a particular kind of speech is censorship" would need to be both self-evident and uncontroversial for it to be included. How is this not either? For one, it's evident in that "government banning a particular kind of speech " is censorship. We're not talking about any great leaps of faith here; it's true by definition. There's no way to get more self-evident than that. You need to explain how it's not self-evident and how it's controversial instead of just quoting a policy without showing why it applies. If you simply don't like it, it does not count as it being controversial.
Additionally, I have four points that I gave in my last response to you that you have yet to address. Might I also quote WP:CAT -- "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories." (That's the part that came right before your quote.)
I already explained why it's NPOV in the four points which you never responded to. .V. (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
V, in several talk entries you've argued for specificity; but now you are arguing for more generality. I'm not an expert in Denial laws, but since they are so varied, it would seem important to draw the distinction between the differences in them in the various countries - neither this article nor the general "censorship" tag does this. Adding to, rather then clearing up confusion goes against the foundation of an encyclopedia.
David Irving and "other people supported by the IHR" is a slippery slope. They aren't anti-censorship advocates by any stretch of the imagination -- Irving sued Lipstadt, for example, to cast a libel chill on his critics.
As for your claim that in Germany all Denial is assumed to be imminent lawless action, it is simply untrue. Academic discussions are definately not covered by this restriction, for instance. In Austria, the law is specifically against "broadcast or publishing", and Irving gave two speeches and a press interview, but was only charged for the interview.
As for controversy, I think the size of this discussion is ample evidence there is contention. I think you are characterising the laws as outright banning in all cases, where the laws themselves mostly place restrictions on paticular expressions (and usually with political intent). Cantankrus 15:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I've argued for specificity before. However, different issues have different solutions. For example, in this case, WP:CAT says as few categories as possible should be used. I believe, for reasons stated below, that the Censorship category is far superior to about a dozen "Censorship in..." categories.
Now, as for the laws themselves. Indeed, they are varied. But what do they all have in common? They prohibit public display of Holocaust denial ideas. That's why they're called denial laws, and that's why it's censorship. If it was split up by countries, what would the distinctions be? Differences in fines, perhaps differences in jail times, and certainly differences in wording. But regardless, the part that makes it a censorship law is unchanged among the various jurisdictions... and that's why having "Censorship in..." as a series of categories is superfluous.
Additionally, consider the nature of the "Censorship in..." categories. They are for issues which are censorship only within a certain nation. When it becomes a censorship issue that spans many different nations, it's no longer appropriate to use a category designated for a single nation.
I base my claim regarding Germany in that several Revisionist figures, such as David Irving, did not present the material in a way that incited violence. Many of the big name figures of Revisionism that have been either arrested by German authorities or considered persona non grata by the German government either published books or did interviews that did not encourage violence or lawless action in any way. Because of that, it can only be concluded that Revisionism/Denial is regarded as inherently a lawless action.
In Austria, you cannot publish or broadcast Holocaust denial. But isn't that the actions that first embodied censorship? The first censors governed newspapers and edited out parts which were contrary to the Government's sense of morality, thereby restricting the freedom of the press. In fact, many censorship systems did not explicitly say you couldn't speak a certain idea at home, but freedom of the press was restricted so that the idea couldn't disseminate. It's classic, textbook censorship.
David Irving and the IHR are certainly not experts on censorship. But given the fact that David Irving is being censored in Germany, he has license to comment on the situation which is restricting his freedom of speech and freedom of press. A bunch of big-name revisionists are associated with the IHR and are under similar circumstances. Because they're affected by these laws, and because they oppose them, they should be cited as opposition to these laws. When it comes to sources about laws, they're 2 good categories: 1) Experts on legal systems. 2) People affected by the laws in question. This fits under #2.
As for the "controversy", I don't think the policy meant "editors who believe it's a controversy." Otherwise, a single editor or a few editors could go around removing any category they wanted because their objections made it controversial. It's circular logic: The issue is controversial because an editor has problems with it because it's controversial. They think it's controversial because the issue is controversial because an editor has problems with it... The policy was meant for things like putting a "Hoax" category on the article about "Creationism", for example. It's not about what editors think, but rather if the issue is actually a controversy or not. The reason is because people could express a POV judgment... however, I explained why this would not be a POV judgment above, in a response to Humus. Keep in mind that this concern does not apply to objectively verifiable categories.
I do not characterize all the laws as outright banning. However, they do fall under the category of censorship. While the nuances of the laws could be discussed in depth, they all share the same characteristics: Governments are restricting the freedom of the press by making the transmission of certain ideas illegal. In some cases, citizens can't even speak these ideas out loud in public, and certainly books cannot be written that take this stance. If a writer or columnist were to support Holocaust denial, they would assuredly be met with legal consequences designed to suppress the public dissemination of a particular idea. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, it is still by definition censorship. Like in Austria, it's a series of textbook examples. When it comes down to it, the laws in these countries are censorship laws. The fines may differ, the jail time may differ, and the wording may differ: but at the end of the day, governments are restricting the propagation of an idea in the press and in public speech, and that's censorship. .V. (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
.V., denazification in Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Poland, etc. are specific cases. Holocaust denial does not belong to general Cat:Censorship. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
So are you suggesting it be put in Cat: Censorship in Germany, Censorship in Austria, etc? .V. (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
IMHO a better terminology would be "denazification". I wouldn't object to "Censorship in X" if they use this particular term. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's still by definition censorship. Perhaps it's part of a greater denaizification, but it's still censorship. Also, what do you mean by "they" in your last sentence? .V. (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
They = Austria, Belgium, Germany, etc. Do they call it "censorship"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The governments don't call it that. But then again, most governments who employ censorship laws do not (excluding, of course, the original censors.)
Because "censorship" is an objective term and the most common term for laws that restrict this sort of thing it should be used. I don't see why not. Are you still basing your objections out of POV concerns? From your last post, it seems to me like you're saying that we should call it what the governments call it, not what's correct. Why would that be the case?
Let me just clarify something. Humus, do you think the laws themselves are censorship? Regardless of what other names might be used. .V. (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase the question. Do you have a RS that explicitly calls this legislative measure "censorship"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes; see the paragraph that was reverted.
I still want to know... do you agree with that this is censorship (regardless of what anyone else thinks) or not? .V. (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you or I think. You make a claim, so it is your responsibility to provide proof. Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) doesn't contain the term. liberator.net and zmag.org/chomsky are not RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Chomsky is certainly a reliable source regarding censorship. If you object to the site it's hosted on, I'm sure another host can be found. I don't see the problem with the other sources. If you're going to say it's not an RS, you should explain why. Additionally, you have your pick from any of the reliable sources that Ireneshusband mentioned above, if you'd rather have a different one. Please select from that list what you would consider a reliable source, so I don't have to guess. As none of the editors who have claimed the sources I used are not reliable but haven't explained why, I think this would solve the issue.
This category, though, does not require the standard of sources you are claiming because it's definitional. It would be like needing to source someone to say "Earth is a planet." Laws which prevent a certain idea from being published or sometimes even spoken are censorship, just as Earth is a planet. I believe that your requests for RS in this case seems very much like rules lawyering. Keep in mind that RS is a guideline, not a policy. It's also intentionally vague.
I've noticed that every attempt has been made to disqualify this category using a variety of different reasons, yet when I make a reply to those reasons, it never is addressed again. The issue just shifts to something else as if the last one never was said. Can we please condense the argument here to a few central points instead of jumping across the map? .V. (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Chomsky is most certainly not a reliable source on anything outside his area of expertise, which happens to be linguistics. Bear in mind that categories carry no explanation with them, so categories may be included if and only if they are NPOV beyond any reasonable doubt. So far, you have failed to demonstrate why including the censorship category is NPOV. Beit Or 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, nobody has demonstrated why the category is POV. So far, I saw one allegation that it was POV by Humus, but my reply to his statement was never addressed.
However, I will state why it's NPOV. If something is POV, it needs to have several elements.
The first is some kind of (obviously), Point of View. The term "point of view" implies that an issue can be interpreted several ways. This does not apply in this case, though, because this category is definitional. Some may prefer to call the laws "denazification", but that's the impetus that created both those laws and many others. That applies in showing why the laws were made, and perhaps justification for the laws, but it doesn't describe the topic itself in the "here and now".
A point of view has two (or more) diametrically opposed viewpoints; however, this issue can be both censorship and denazification. They are not mutually exclusive, and so they do not conflict in a POV way. An example would be the term "hoax." In that case, there are two opposed viewpoints: "hoax" and "not a hoax" (or "true.") In a POV dispute such as that, there are two viewpoints which cannot both be true at the same time. In this case, there is no viewpoint directly opposed to censorship. Sure, there are viewpoints which attempt to justify the censorship (denazification). Perhaps those are right, but it doesn't make it any less censorship. So what would be the conflict? Censorship vs. Not Censorship? There is no conflict such as this with this topic. By the definition, these laws are censorship.
So what could the conflict be? That brings me to my next element. It seems the POV arguments against this topic have transmuted the argument into "Unjustified Censorship vs. Justified Censorship." For this to be the case, though, censorship would need to be a loaded word; and that is the second element. A POV category applies a judgment inherent in the word. Take, for example (again) the word "hoax." This means that it's just not true. By definition, censorship has no judgment of right or wrong, good or bad, or successful or unsuccessful. It is entirely neutral in definition.
Keep in mind what I quote to Humus: "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality." [[5]] This is objectively true, as I explained above.
And that leads me, finally, to my last point. Something which is POV that does not contain a bias in definition must contain a bias in connotation. However, this bias must be two things: one, it must be extremely clear. Two, it must be through interpretation.
"Censorship" does not connote anything particularly bad. In Western society, it is in many circles looked down upon as an affront to free speech. But people do acknowledge that some censorship is acceptable; for example, you can't print national secrets in a newspaper. Depending on where you go, people may say censorship is evil or that censorship is good for stability. People acknowledge that some things can be censored and others cannot. One example of publicly-accepted censorship is pornography. Pornography cannot be printed in newspapers in America, which is essentially censorship. However, it is gladly accepted and highly praised. So obviously censorship is not an instant turn-off for most people (no pun intended). Apparently, people in countries with denial laws generally seem to favor these censorship laws, because they exist (and the countries in question are democratic societies). This shows that many countries in Europe are perfectly fine with laws such as these. Because of this, we can only surmise that there is no unduly prejudicial bias using this term, neither in definition nor in connotation. The negative connotation of censorship is too vague, as it seems to be happily supported in some places and situations and not in others.
For all the reasons stated above, it is a neutral category. .V. (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You need no lengthy diatribes on talk pages to demonstrate that something is NPOV. All you need to do is provide multiple reliable sources on the subject, agreeing with each other. Beit Or 21:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you see the fault with that logic. You can get multiple "reliable sources" who have a distinct POV, but that doesn't make what they're saying NPOV. NPOV is a very nuanced policy, and my comment above was an in-depth discussion of why it's neutral. After all, that's what you were asking for. Please respond to my points directly instead of dismissing them. So far, I've given very clear reasons why it's NPOV, including the statement above. The fact that nobody has actually responded to my points directly makes me think they they're correct. .V. (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Few people care to respond to original research. Beit Or 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Care to tell me what you're referring to as original research, or shall we keep to the current trend of throwing around policy without explaining how it should be applied? My post above explains exactly why the category is NPOV, and why this category cannot fall under the definition of POV by any means. I've noticed that not only do my points remain unrefuted, but you still have not shown why it is POV, as I had asked. I've thoroughly addressed every reply brought forward, yet I see no direct responses to my points. All I've seen are assertions that it's POV. I request that further replies to this section actually address the post before it, instead of bringing up some vague and unsupported allegation. If you want to say "this is POV" or "this is original research", please back it up with something instead of just saying it. Those kind of comments get us nowhere. Assertions without logic to back it up are just distracting. .V. (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Long paragraphs filled with POV at talk usually are either ignored or treated as trolling. On the topic: various societies make illegal what they consider anti-social behavior: from child porn/exploitation films/snuff films/video nasty, to all kinds of Abuse, to incitement to genocide, etc. Try to categorize all those under censorship. Holocaust denial is already under Category:Historical revisionism (political), seems descriptive and liberal enough. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Apparently, short posts filled with unsubstantiated allegations are preferred. For example, your "long paragraphs filled with POV talk" comment. What "POV" talk do you refer to? Any examples you can quote? When people have a discussion, there's a certain standard expected. That standard is that when you make a claim, you provide evidence. If you make a claim that something is POV, specific examples should be given. It's not like we just say stuff, and to hell with any kind of reasoning. I'd rather read a huge block of text filled with actual arguments rather than four sentences which contain baseless statements. It's not like this is a discussion page or anything, so why give reasons? :P
The reasons my paragraphs are so long is because I make sure to completely detail the reasoning behind my statements. I would appreciate if the responses to those statements contain at least a brief explanation as to why they're being asserted. I've noticed that my reasoning has been met with everything but discussion that relates to my actual points. This creates a very unproductive and boring discussion in itself. It also seems to be promoting "consensus by attrition"; just keep asserting something is POV until the person who says it's NPOV goes away. I'm sorry to say that it won't work in this case.
With that being said, I don't see how this can be POV. After all, who would call a law that says you can't print a certain idea censorship? Well, no-one but the dictionary. The dictionary is NPOV in itself, and that's what I'm citing (among other things, such as NPOV policy). It's not like it's right up there with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I guess the editors of Merriam-Webster and David Duke have some sort of cabal-type thing going. Either that, or a law that says you can't print a certain (non-violent) idea is censorship. *shrug*
As for the comparisons you've made, I hardly think they apply. There's a big difference between child porn and saying "Only 2 million people died at Auschwitz." There's also a difference between inciting genocide and saying "Nobody died at Auschwitz." I don't see how saying there were no gas chambers somehow incites genocide. Holocaust revisionism/denial is nothing like the examples you gave. All the examples you gave involve grievous harm to another in some fashion (physical or emotional). The expression of an idea might offend (and it might offend greatly), but people getting offended and taking naked pictures of a child are in two completely different ballparks.
I don't see why I have to dumb down my arguments so that people won't dismiss them as "trolling". I guess all I can say is, nobody has actually tried to directly address the points I've made. Whether that's because the points are valid or for some other reason, I can only assume the first. After all, if I was so wrong, wouldn't it be easy to refute them?
Anyway, I'm going to hold out hope that someone comes along who will actually respond to my points. All this side-tracking into irrelevant issues not only bulks up the talk page, but is pointless. Maybe I'm spoiled, but I'm used to discussions where people actually addressed each others posts directly.
The bottom line is, if you're going to claim an issue is POV, you should read the responses and reply to them. If you're just going to disregard the responses you get when you make your claim, you might as well not make it. After all, if my points are so wrong, why is it so hard to refute them? Certainly all the time (and talk page space) spent on irrelevant tangents could be better spent actually addressing the issue at hand. .V. (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was you who insisted on using a dictionary definition, and I begged to differ. That definition certainly applies to kiddie porn, etc. so please be consistent: if you insist that WP should use it, let's use it uniformally in every article where it applies. To single out Jews for experiments is a bad practice. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
How does it apply? "To Censor" means to edit out for moral or political reasons. Kiddie porn is illegal because it involves harm to another. Removing something for a moral or political reason is nothing like coercion or harm or murder. You seem to think that "censorship" simply means "illegal to print"... it doesn't. It refers to when a publication removes something for moral or political grounds as well as it being illegal to print/publish/speak. Not only is this the dictionary definition, but every historical example of censorship is like that.
Kiddie porn is illegal because it involves harm to another. Snuff films are illegal because it involves murdering another in the process of creating it. Censorship does not apply to either of these. However, the removal of Holocaust denial speech from publication and in some cases public speaking certainly is censorship.
It's also not just applied to Jews. I think you'll find that most of the articles in the Censorship category have nothing to do with Jews. I also don't see how putting a category on an article is an experiment. .V. (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
For more on what censorship is, you may want to read the Wikipedia article on the subject. Additionally, if you want to read more on why the example of child porn is not applicable to censorship, check out this site [[6]]. A good quote from this is: "The concept of censorship is irrelevant to child pornography. lt is not censorship to outlaw (and punish) certain activities. Criminal laws are necessary to both illuminate and enforce the social contract that prohibits individuals from preying upon others. Nor is it censorship to criminalise production and dissemination of, and profit from, child pornography." This logic applies to your other examples as well. .V. (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

en·sor·ing: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>. WP is not a reliable source. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"To suppress or delete as objectionable", as well as the rest of the definition, supports the category of censorship. In this case, the idea of Holocaust denial is suppressed in these countries due to laws against their publication or proclamation in public. In the examples you gave, those (kiddie porn, snuff films, etc) are all acts which harm another, and therefore are illegal to publish documentation of them exactly for that reason. Note that I say explicitly; an individual can in the United States for example, discuss child porn and even say they like the idea of it. That's because the idea of child porn is not censored. In this case, the idea of Holocaust denial is censored in these countries. That's why it's considered censorship.
I think the line is being blurred here between acts and ideas, and that's a careful distinction to make. That's the key distinction between censorship and the examples you gave. Making an physical action illegal (murder, rape, etc) is not like making the publication of an idea illegal (such as, the idea that Holocaust denial is true, the idea that child porn should be acceptable, etc.) .V. (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The line is definitely blurry between acts and ideas. In most jurisdictions that I am aware of where there are laws forbidding it, the public expression of the idea of Holocaust denial is considered to be a harmful or potentially harmful act. In Canada, prosecutions of Holocaust deniers like James Keegstra and Ernst Zundel have been made under laws governing hate crimes; the act of publishing Holocaust denial literature is considered to be a hate crime. (And I would note that the Wikipedia article on hate crime is not included in the censorship category). There are other laws which criminalize the publication of an idea where such publication is considered a harmful act - libel for example. Are libel laws a form of censorship? - Eron Talk 03:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what jurisdictions may consider it to be, it's objectively censorship. If we followed the logic you present, there wouldn't be censorship in the first place; except in the original context when there were actually people with the title of "censor". All other incidents wouldn't count, because the government in question doesn't call it censorship. However, there are many issues (this among them) that are called, objectively, censorship. .V. (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not "objectively censorship," any more than laws governing hate speech, libel, or slander are censorship. All of these laws forbid the act of promulgating an idea where that act is considered to cause harm. - Eron Talk 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In every case of governmental censorship, a governmental body considers an idea to cause harm. So by your logic, are there any valid examples of censorship?
I think that your points are all justifications of censorship, not reasons why it's not censorship. .V. (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you consider slander and libel laws to be censorship?
As to governmental censorship, I think a critical concept is to whom the harm is caused. Censorship as it is practiced in countries like China or North Korea is intended to protect the ruling classes from the harm caused to them by the free expression of ideas. Laws governing libel and slander, or child pornography and hate speech, are intended to protect third parties from harm. I would suggest that laws against the public expression of Holocaust denial are intended more to protect third parties than they are the government that imposes them. - Eron Talk 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Trying to assume intention is often very imprecise. I'd rather stick to verifiable things. What it comes down to is, what harm is caused by denying (or minimizing) the Holocaust?
Another important distinction is that hate speech, libel and slander are direct attacks upon a person. Holocaust denial is direct attacks against a historical event. Because of this, they cannot be compared. .V. (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that, as the article on hate speech tells us, a common opposition to the usage of the term is that it can be used to promote censorship. .V. (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Directly, Holocaust denial is an attack on Holocaust survivors, and on the relatives of Holocaust victims. To deny the Holocaust - and claim that millions of victims were not actually killed - is to implicitly suggest that those millions never existed. After all, if they weren't killed, where are they now? This is an affront to their memory, and to their survivors.
While hate speech laws can certainly be used to promote censorship, so can many other laws that restict certain forms of expression including child pornography laws (see John Robin Sharpe), obscenity laws (see Little Sister's Book and Art Emporium and Glad Day Bookshop), and libel laws (see Chilling effect). This does not mean that all such laws are by definition censorship. - Eron Talk 20:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a direct attack on Holocaust survivors, though. Direct means that it's clearly and unmistakably directed at a particular individual or group of individuals. For example, "hate speech" might be directed at blacks, for example. Holocaust denial is directed at the Holocaust. Some people may take offense by proxy of the Holocaust because of it, but it's not directed right at them. Keep in mind that denial is not just the "millions didn't die" argument. It also encompasses things such as "there were no gas chambers" (I've heard arguments that 6 million Jews really did die, but there were no gas chambers, for example.)
Think of it this way... how many steps do you need to go before you find out who's harmed?
Hate Speech = Target: The ethnic group/religion it's directed at. (1 Step)
Child Porn = Target: The children being molested. (1 Step)
Holocaust Denial = Target: The Holocaust. By proxy: Someone who may get personally offended. (2 Steps).
See what I mean?
Anyway, I've noticed there's been quite a lot of focus on what other laws could or could not described as censorship. I fail to see why this is relevant. I don't really understand the point... sure, there are laws which restrict freedom of expression but may not be considered censorship. So what? I don't care about other laws, I care about these laws. For one, I fail to see the connection between child pornography and Holocaust denial, for example. As I said before, child pornography is videotapes or photography of the act of child molestation, which is directly harming the child. That's why it's illegal. Secondly, in my responses to Humus, I believe I adequately covered this issue.
Keep in mind that the word "censorship" has a long history which you may wish to consult. A quick read through the censorship article on here shows that censorship is generally regarded not to contain things like child porn or other things such as that. It's meant to suppress a certain idea by deleting it or threatening legal action against anyone who would print it. These incidents usually have not been things like child pornography, but rather things the government deems objectionable... like Holocaust denial.
I guess my point is, what exactly is your argument here? It seems like you're saying this law isn't censorship, even though it fits historical examples of censorship and the dictionary definition. .V. (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify -- how would you describe your opposition to this category in essence? For example, Humus seems to be opposed to it for POV reasons. Am I right in surmising that you oppose it because you believe it doesn't fit the definition of censorship? .V. (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that while you believe that laws governing Holocaust denial are censorship, not everyone does. I have drawn comparisons to other laws, such as child pornography, because there are similarities. If you read about John Robin Sharpe, you will see that this was a case where an individual was prosecuted under child pornography laws for producing fictional stories; there was no physical, living victim. This prosecution was challenged as censorship. (I notice you have not responded to my question about other laws such as libel and slander.) As to targets, I suppose it is a matter of opinion. I believe that the victims of the Holocaust and their survivors are the direct "target", as it were of Holocaust denial. - Eron Talk 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we're focusing on things which may or may not be censorship. I think we should focus on things we know to be censorship, because they are historically regarded as such. Historical examples follow the same modus operandi of denial laws. I'll go into more about that at the end of this comment.
In the case of John Sharpe, he was acquitted on the charges which centered on the fictional stories. I don't really see what this shows, other than a Canadian court said that it would be infringing on his personal rights not to allow him to write that. So if it shows anything, it's an example of how a Canadian court rejected censorship. I fail to see why this doesn't justify the category of censorship on this article.
I think that we're focusing too much on other laws and not the laws in question. Most of this discussion have been about laws that aren't Holocaust denial laws, and many of them are only barely related (the only common thread being speech.) In law, we have two standards when we want to compare something. It has to be on-point factually and on-point in the legal matter talked about. I see no factual similarity between these cases, even though they all involve free speech. As for libel and slander, I believe I addressed that with the "harm" point. I don't believe that discerning the "target" requires an opinion. When Holocaust deniers criticize the mainstream view of the Holocaust, they are doing just that. Perhaps they criticize first-hand testimony, but if questioning testimony was hate speech, then most practicing lawyers would be behind bars. Because Holocaust denial is not directed at Holocaust survivors directly, it doesn't follow the same standard as libel or slander. Imagine if a libel case was brought against an individual because, say, he made negative comments about a country and another individual was a citizen of that country and got offended. There's no way such a case would be brought to court.
The real question here isn't how similar Holocaust denial laws are to other laws which may or may not be censorship. The real question is, "do Holocaust denial laws fit both historical precedent for censorship and the definition of censorship?" Historical examples fit the methodology of denial laws. The answer, therefore, is "yes". .V. (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
And these examples are...? - Eron Talk 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The Committee on Evil Literature banned several materials they thought to be objectionable in Ireland. They were authorized by the Irish government. In East Germany, the radio was highly controlled by censors. These are just two examples in which a government decides to ban a particular idea.
As I said before, I would hesitate to compare things which aren't factually on-point. However, these historical examples set a context for the definition of censorship. Because Holocaust denial does not directly target an individual or group (rather, it targets the mainstream account of the Holocaust), the Denial laws cannot be considered under the same category as libel/slander. Thus, the decision to ban it is a moral or political one. That fits the definition of censorship, as well as the historical trend: the idea banned is not one that directly harms another, but rather one that is chosen to be distasteful or objectionable by the government or a representative for the government. .V. (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Because Holocaust denial does not directly target an individual or group -- well, no, it does. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
How so? .V. (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't waste my time if you don't know the obvious answer. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why. If it's the same answer as was previously stated before, it's still not direct. Holocaust denial criticizes the Holocaust. For it to be direct, it has to be the specific target. .V. (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem hung up on "direct target" attack. So, lets examine your examples.
Child Porn = Target: The children being molested. (1 Step)
Well, I'd say that kiddy porn has already victimized the children. It's prosecuted because it's morally reprehensible, and that it's consumers are pedophiles. But you say 1 step, fine.
'Hate Speech = Target: The ethnic group/religion it's directed at. (1 Step)
Ok, gotcha.
Holocaust Denial = Target: The Holocaust. By proxy: Someone who may get personally offended. (2 Steps).
Hmm, ok. So, Denial is two steps because of this? I think this is actually a strawman.
Denial -> Hate Speech = Target: Jews/Zionists who promote a "lie" -> (religious/ethnic group it's directed at) (1 Step).
Fits like a glove. Now, before you argue something else, it's just as easy to deconstruct your simple "1 step" arguement into 2 steps.
Holocaust denial/revisionsim doesn't simply focus on the Holocaust -- saying that is incrdebily short sighted. There are crystal clear implications if the revisionists/deniers arguements were true. Cantankrus 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
But why is denial hate speech? Denial is, generally, saying the Holocaust didn't happen or didn't happen to the extent that it did. I don't see how it becomes hate speech.
Yet, in your example, it does become hate speech. You say there's only one step, so why are there 2 arrows and one equal sign? The -> signifies that it's turning from one thing to another.
This is still just pointless semantics. Let's address the underlying issue instead of going back and forth on what is direct or not. I think the concern raised here is that some people call it hate speech and so it's not censorship. But why is that the case? One of the biggest concerns, as we see on the hate speech page, is that the term hate speech is used as a means of censorship. .V. (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The arrows don't signify "turning from one thing". They are the equivalent actions.
"Direct Target" was your yardstick, and I showed it was a direct target. Now you are arguing something else. Cantankrus 08:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Censorship: Long overdue section break

I've mostly stayed out of the discussion because it got too noisy too quickly. Holocaust denial laws certainly are censorship, regardless of what their basis or justification is; censorship doesn't stop being censorship just because it's socially acceptable or pragmatically or politically necessary. So, if this were the very-much-needed Holocaust denial laws article, :Category:Censorship would be very appropriate. However, since very few countries actually have such laws, it doesn't seem appropriate for this article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

I have added the category to the redirect. This should solve the problem. -- Petri Krohn 07:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Petri, that's a great idea. Thanks for adding the category; that seems to solve the problem pretty well. Anyone have comments about the censorship paragraph I tried to add, which Jayjg reverted out? The link to the diff is here - [[7]]
The reason Jayjg gave was that it was not related to censorship and that it's unreliable sources. But the paragraph was reporting on what opponents to the law say, so I think that response quotes would be proper in this case. .V. -- (TalkEmail) 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism??

The second block on the right hand side of the article has many links to Antisemitism pages. I understand that it is very stereotypical of many people who deny/revise the Holocaust to also be Antisemites. Other than being a stereotype all I see it doing is making assumptions and adding racial bias to the article. Is there a specific reason it is in the article? I just cease to see the relevence between racial prejudice and a belief questioning the validity of a specific historical event. However, I feel it should be discussed as a stereotype of many who hold the belief, but again I find it hard to see why it is linked with Antisemitism directly. I apologize if this has already been discussed, but in my browsing of the archives I did not come across much. atshaw 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue should be examined in depth. Certainly, many antisemites assert Holocaust denial. Some Holocaust deniers are, in fact, trying to mask their antisemitism by using this title. However, it seems to me that it's stereotyping to include this series. The inclusion of the series implies that Holocaust denial and antisemitism are one in the same. .V. (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No. Some antisemites aren't Holocaust deniers, that's true. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But are all "deniers" antisemites? There are people of jewish ansestry amomg them. --Igor "the Otter" 08:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. "Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitic prejudice." [8]
  2. To suggest that people of Jewish (note capital J) ancestry have some kind of insurance against antisemitism is ridiculous. See e.g. Johannes Pfefferkorn or Bobby Fischer. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
May be you are right about J(thanks)ewish antisemitism, but I think it doesn't prove that all "deniers" are antisemites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair

"I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the Holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson's work." (quoted in Noam Chomsky's Search for the Truth) He later elaborated:

"In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue."

Many of people called antisemites are rather antizionists then antisemites. I don't think that antisemitism and antizionism are the same, because many people believe that Zionism is a kind of Jewish racism/supremacism. --Igor "the Otter" 12:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

When I see the Holocaust denial movement devote equal time and effort to "revealing" the "myths" of other political mass murders such as Stalin's purges, Cambodia under Pol Pot, or the Rwandan genocide, then I will believe that it is motivated for a desire for historical truth. Until then, their singular focus makes it clear that other motivations are in play. - Eron Talk 12:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Rwanda, Pol Pot and so on have no relation at all to that, did Nazis do it or not.--Igor "the Otter" 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course they did it - we have all the historical evidence that proves it, in the form of documents, plans, decrypts, testimony, both from guards and survivors, physical evidence and a timeline of escalation. We also have the historical context behind it - the increasingly antisemitic laws that were passed by the Nazi regime, the legal dehumanisation of the Jews in Germany, the terrible damage that was both incited and inflicted on Kristallnacht - in other words all the steadily increasing violence inflicted on the jews. The Holocaust happened, although the ability of many to deny it even now is desperately pathetic. Darkmind1970 13:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You know, I really tried to find such proves but I failed. Both sides may be right still.--Igor "the Otter" 13:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how can both sides be right? The proof of the Holocaust is out there - the deniers all too often rely on supposition, the casting of aspersions, suppression and/or outright lying. The case of David Irving is an excellent example of this. Darkmind1970 14:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, each side can be right. I don't know who is right, but I'm aware that in open debates revisioninsts/deniers will win with the score about 8:2.--Igor "the Otter" 15:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not start this discussion to prove or disprove the validity of the holocaust just the Antisemitic relevence to this article. I think that just due to the fact that no one can agree to this relevence further proves my point. In my mind, discovering the truth about the past should not have to mold your racial bias whatsoever. If I questioned the validity of the Great Flood in the Bible does this make me an atheist??atshaw 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Igor - while it is true that many call themselves antizionists, it is apparent from examination that their true motivation is antisemitism, but since antisemitism isn't politically correct anymore, they try and hide behind a more acceptable label, similar to the way Deniers cling to "Revisionism". (And to be clear, Not all "Isreal critics/Antizionists are antisemites -- but there are quite a few that engage in the latter and staunchly claim to be only the former).
atshaw - The key point is this - are people who are engaged in Revisionism/Denial interested in History and the truth, or do they focus on only this area for other reasons?
The fact that the bulk of revisionists think History isn't described from "the Nazi side", and that their political (and religious) biases slip through in short order allow us to judge their general motivations.
Questioning, discussing or investigating the Holocaust are not "denial", and do not make you an antisemite. Research might upset certain individuals, of course -- its an emotionally charged issue. So, just like questioning Biblical text doesn't make you a bible denier, questioning Holocaust history doesn't make you a Holocaust denier. Cantankrus 15:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Antisemites are closer to Nazis, but antizionists are rather pacifists and antifascists. I see the difference here. --Igor "the Otter" 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Rwanda, Pol Pot and so on have no relation at all to that, did Nazis do it or not." My point exactly. Holocaust deniers have no interest in other historical genocide. The only crimes against humanity that they seek to diminish or erase are crimes committed against Jews by an antisemitic government. What is their motivation if not anti-semitism? You also quote (Faurisson or Chomsky, from context I can't tell which) saying: "If a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite." That is true. However, if we then showed that person the documentary and physical evidence accumulated over the past fifty years that attest to the factual truth of the events of the Holocaust, and we answered all of that person's questions, and that person still refused to believe, we would perhaps have to revise our conclusion. And if, after all this, that person not only still refused to believe, but began to actively refute the truth of the Holocaust... - Eron Talk 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you tried to convince somebody and failed, that means another side arguments were more impressive then yours. Try better.--Igor "the Otter" 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Alternately, it means the listener is immune to logic. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it means that others' logic was better then yours.--Igor "the Otter" 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That must be proved, who's logic is better. If opponents of deniers/revisionists could win them in open debates, why does it need to restrict such debates?--Igor "the Otter" 16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But they Italic text haven't Italic textwon in open debate - anywhere at any time. The Zundel trial, the Irving libel case - each and every time the claims of the deniers have been disproven and shown to be false. That hasn't stopped people like Irving trying to make personal capital out of the findings by claiming that they sort of won - when the opposite is true. Irving will never publish in the mainstream publishing market again, because no publisher wants to touch a man who has been Bold text proven Bold text to be a liar in open court. Darkmind1970 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Who knows? Time will show.--Igor "the Otter" 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Time has shown. The lies of deniers have been exposed, again and again. Ignoring that fact does not make it go away. - Eron Talk 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
May be. But I know one thing: now deniers/revisionists have got support on the state level. I mean Iran. So their influence is growing.--Igor "the Otter" 18:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Iran shows there is certainly no political or antisemitic motivations to revisionism/denial. And, with their record as a champion of universal human rights and liberal democratic freedoms, they should be a model for any state, right? Cantankrus 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather in this little discussion is that there is no other motive for someone to deny the Holocaust other than Antisemitism. This must be it, I mean, deniers/revisionists only deny the Holocaust and no other genocide in history. Wait just a tick, I do believe there is this thing called pride that stems from family and from within a nation. Perhaps a motive for someone to deny the Holocaust is to clear their family name? Who knows what their motive is, that is, if they have one to begin with. But to suggest that everyone who deny's the Holocaust is an Antisemite is audacious and takes quite a bit of ignorance to out-rule any other motive. So in essence, it is OPINION rather than FACT that those who deny the Holocaust are Antisemites. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it is not up to Wikipedia to shove it in their mouth. It is the duty of Wikipedia to display an unbiased factual page on the belief of those who deny/revise the Holocaust. atshaw 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

After more than 60 years, I really think that the jury has long since made its decision, told the judge and packed its bags. The fact that Iran - or rather the current leader of Iran, as opposed to the people of Iran - has raised this is more of a regional political issue than anything else. Sheesh. Darkmind1970 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the most number of charges in anisemitism are expressed by Zionists. But Zionism, according to UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 is a form of racism itself. --Igor "the Otter" 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And where do you get your "fact"? I thought, everybody know this.--Igor "the Otter" 02:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Which was revoked by a vote of 111 to 25 Yes, it was revoked. But now the world community's opinion is shifting against Zionism again thanks to it's war crimes.--Igor "the Otter" 09:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

atshaw - While pride might seem like a good reason to minimize or downplay what happened, you can only feel guilty for something that you particpate in. Those born after 1945 should have an awareness of what happened during WW2, but that doesn't mean they have a responsibility for the actions of the previous generation/government. If you were out to "clear your name" for your family, wouldn't proving that your own family had no complicity be enough? Let's suppose that you are trying to "clear your nations name" as well. In that case, isn't it important to deny or explain all attrocities and "criminal actions" taken on behalf of your country during the entire course of the war? Why only focus on the Holocaust?
The thing is that most revisionist/deniers allow their motives to show through quite quickly, so I wouldn't say it's simply an educated opinion. Cantankrus 02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
With regard to my family, my grandfather was 18 years old when he was drafted by his country(usa) and sent to clean up the camps. Shortly before he died he told me never to believe what the history books said with regard to the Holocaust(here is not the time to tell war stories). It is often said that, "Those who win the war, get to write the history books". What if my grandfather was right, and the history books are a bit misguided? Does this still make me a antisemite? I think not. Does this make my Grandfather an antisemite? I think not, kind of tough seeing as how he was there.atshaw 04:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal stories, paticularly ones with an emotional attachment (like your Grandfather's) are more difficult to be both objective and sensitive with. While you've told us generally what your grandfather said, without further information its hard to judge the information itself.
Does either your or his "questioning" automatically make you antisemites? No, of course not.
I'll try to address what you have written. You mention that he was there, and that he was sent to clean up the camps. You also said he was drafted by the US, so I'll infer he was in the Army in Europe. What he would have seen would have been the post-liberation state of any camps, and then probably only in the US sector. While life in these camps was horrible, they weren't extermination camps as we consder them today. He would have missed daily life under the Nazis, how they ended up at the camp, etc. His experience is a snapshot, and couldn't tell the whole story.
As for those "winning the war" writing history, there have been many excellent accounts written by German historians on all phases of World War 2, including the Holocaust. And Historians are very concerned with accuracy in their craft, whether it be WW2 or Napolean they are examining.
Could a book on the History of WW2 be wrong? Of course, people are human, they make mistakes. But since there is a consensus among Historians about the history of WW2 (including the Holocaust), the chance that this collective group is making the same mistakes over and over is quite small.
I hope I've managed to be sensitive to you while being objective here - thanks. Cantankrus 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My grandfather was one of the first British soldiers to stumble on the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, where thousands of people had been shovelled away by the Nazis and basically left to die due to horrendous overcrowding, little food and water and an epidemic of typhus. In short they were labelled as subhuman and left to die. What my grandfather saw stayed with him for the rest of his life. It scarred him mentally. The only time that I ever saw him come close to losing his temper was in the 70's, not long before he died, when a German girl who was staying with us said that the Holocaust never happened. My grandfather went white, then red and then left the room hurriedly, torn between being rude to a guest by telling her that she didn't know what she was talking about, and being rude by leaving abruptly. Darkmind1970 09:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
2 Darkmind current leader of Iran, as opposed to the people of Iran. People of Iran elected Ahmadinejad as their president. Please, talk for yourself, not for people of Iran. Your grandfather's impressions only shows that war is one big atrosity not that Holocaust DID happened. --Igor "the Otter" 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Electing Ahmadinejad does not mean that they agreed 100% with everything he said. It has been postulated that they voted for him because they were tired of the corruption of the other, rather familiar, candidates. He only started talking about his theories about the Holocaust after his election - not during it. As for Bergen Belsen, the wilful neglect of so many thousands of jews, held in insanitary conditions and left to die from neglect, starvation and typhus, shows a great deal about the mindset that led to the Holocaust. It is a short step from treating people as if they are subhuman to killing them because they are subhuman. Ann Frank and her sister died in Bergen Belsen a few weeks before my grandfather got there. Darkmind1970 10:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, but which way did you learned what people of Iran realy think? Only next elections can show this. As for me than I think, that most pro-Zionist politicians seems also most corruptible. As for neglect, please explain me, why I most respect Jews more than anybody else. Atrosities against my own people worries me much more than ones against Jews. And nobody gassed Anne Frank. --Igor "the Otter" 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This really isn't the place to be discussing Zionism, still less why you seem to think that pro-Zionist politicians are easily corrupted. Please explain your comments about neglect - I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Oh and I did not say that Anne Frank was gassed. She and her sister were herded into a crowded camp, fed small amounts of food, dressed in what amounted to rags, were denied basic medical treatment despite the fact that they were soon covered in lice and died from typhus-related causes. They were children. Darkmind1970 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not discussing Zionism here. But in my opinion, the most of whose who charge somebody in antisemitism are Zionists and therefore can not be considered as uninterested ones. So most number of charges in antisemitism can not be considered as fair IMHO. I'm trying to say that Jews suffered much less during WW2 then other peoples, such like Russians or Germans. Not only Anne Frank and her sister suffered. Many non-Jews suffered much more.--Igor "the Otter" 11:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
We cannot point fingers and say that 'these people suffered far more than those people' as we are making relative judgements based on our own interpretations. The level of suffering during WW2 was horrifically high. That said, the racial policies of the Nazi Government specifically and maliciously targeted members of minorities that were seen as being subhuman (based on racial criteria that are simply laughable today). This is a key point. The vast majority of the Russians and Germans who died did so as the result of combat, bombing, enforced migration, and so on. Sadly all wars see these kinds of casualties. What made the Holocaust uniquely horrible was that the resources of an industrialised state were set aside to mass-murder, deliberately and with malice aforethought, as many Jews as possible. The Jewish population of Eastern and Central Europe in 1939 was estimated to be around 7 million. By 1945 around 5 million of these people were dead, specifically due to the Holocaust. Slaughtering 75% of a minority surely qualifies as a level of suffering that plumbs new depths. Darkmind1970 11:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no great matter in reason somebody was killed for. S/He is equally dead. Russians lost about 30 millions, about 1/3 of those were civilian. I think 10 millions civilians is more than 5-6, even if this number is true (but revisionists/deniers claim it is wrong). There are two opinions about this question whatever you want to think. And Holocaust Conference in Iran proved this. --Igor "the Otter" 12:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Actually it proved nothing. It was not attended by any serious historians, it did not come up with any evidence denying the Holocaust that had not already been readily debunked and it failed to raise even an academic ripple. Inviting members of the KKK demonstrated that it was was a risible effort. And it has made Iran a laughing stock, not to mention doing severe damage to its international reputation. Let me stress this again - Holocaust denial is NOT a serious historical argument, as it has been rebutted again and again. Darkmind1970 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I try to bring this back to the use of the Antisemitism template, which I think is the original issue here? I understand that some people find its use offensive, as they hold that not all Holocaust deniers are anti-semitic. While I agree that there may be some deniers who hold their beliefs for other reasons than anti-semitism, it does not change the fact that the act of denying the Holocaust is still an anti-semitic one. If I may draw an analogy, I may believe that the Earth is flat because of my adherence to a brand of Native North American cosmology; that doesn't change the fact that the flat earth theory is pseudoscience. In the same way, I may deny the Holocaust out of a belief that the standard history of it slanders my grandparents; that doesn't change the fact that to deny the Holocaust is a form of attack against Jews.

While estimates vary, it is generally accepted by reputable historians that between five and seven million Jews were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust. These millions had their lives - all they could have been - taken away. Because of the Holocaust, they ceased to exist. If the Holocaust is a myth, then what happened to these people? They did not exist any more; if the act that terminated their existence never took place, where were they? The logical conclusion is that they had never existed at all.

The Holocaust took the lives they could have lived. Denying the Holocaust takes away the lives they did live. It doesn't kill them; it erases them from history. Whatever the motivation, the act of Holocaust denial removes millions of Jews from their place in the collective history of the world. That is a profoundly anti-semitic act. - Eron Talk 13:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we have wandered more than a bit from the main thread of this. And I also agree with Eron's comments above. Darkmind1970 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
So what if Duke was in KKK in the youth? It doesn't make him criminal. Please, explain me, how it discredits him? He wasn't also charged in corruption, like Chirac, for example. Neither in lie to begin war, like Blair. Tax avoiding is a trifle. Ukrainian prime minister Viktor Yanukovich was convicted twice for criminal action and nobody see anything special in it. Risible? I don't think so. President Bush or PM Blair both seem much more risible, than Ahmadinejad or Duke. Everybody could heard how Bush talked with Blair in St Petersburg. That was funny indeed (somebody forgot to turn off microphones). Bush talked with Blair like master with servant. So who respects Blair now? Duke and Ahmadinejad are brave guys so they have much more respect then that Blair because they deserved it. Now everybody know about deniers/revisionists. That is their success. I have seen some arguments for official version of Holocaust. I can tell you only that deniers'/revisionists' arguments were much more impressive. --Igor "the Otter" 17:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
2 Darkmind Revisionists/deniers have no real perspective to become mainstream in nearest 10 years, of course. But with muslimisation of the Europe (because of population dynamics) they may have such chance about in 20 years (if you mean this).--Igor "the Otter" 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, where to start here? Duke was in the KKK well beyond his 'youth'. The man's views are a matter of public record, and are, to be blunt, vile. Anyone involved with the KKK can be suspected of having a POV argument. As fot your point about being 'mainstream', I mean being a reputable historian. In other words having access to verifiable facts that are not easily denied- like the arguments for Holocaust denial. Darkmind1970 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Eron, I understand where you are coming from and I respect your view. What you seem to forget is that many who deny/revise the Holocaust aren't refuting what happened to the Jews during WWII, those that do have very antisemitic motives, what many are doing is trying to decifer HOW the Jews suffered and WHY they suffered the way they did. A holocaust defined in the dictionary is, "Any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life". Did the Jews suffer based on this definition? Many believe they did. It is too easy to come to that conclusion, because the Nazi party was antisemitic to begin with. The Nazi party was antisemitic, many camps were found at the end of the war, and as a result of those camps many Jewish people died, not to mention all the negative propaganda surrounding the Third Reich making it all too easy to come to the conclusion that the Nazi party was so full of hate for the Jews that they systematically slaughtered every Jew they could get their hands on. It is without a doubt that the Jewsish people who died in WWII died at the hands of the German SS. HOWEVER, was it INTENTIONAL? Many of us in this world have seen what Germans can accomplish when they set their mind to something. So if the Nazi's INTENTION(goal) was to systematically kill every Jew within reach, it would have taken a matter of months to kill every single one of them, not years to kill most of them. Germans have little tolerance for error, so it is with this knowledge that people such as myself tend to take a closer look. Many of us are not trying to "erase" anyone from history, or trying to dimish the amount of suffering that the Jewish community had to endure. All it is, is an objective look at one of the most horrifying atrocities in history. Was it a tradgedy? Yes. But was it a holocaust?atshaw 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a question of definition. As this article states,
Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection that, in the Holocaust:
      • The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews, people of Jewish ancestry, and the Roma (also known as Gypsies) for extermination as a people;
      • More than 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.
You say that "many who deny/revise the Holocaust aren't refuting what happened to the Jews during WWII." But in the historical record, the overwhelming body of proof shows that the above is what happened to them. You suggest that some revisionist historians may dispute certain aspects of what happened - the deliberateness of the action, who exactly gave what orders, which camps served which functions, the exact numbers of dead in particular areas - without attempting to refute the general features and scale of the Holocaust, and that this would not be anti-semitic. I agree, but it wouldn't really Holocaust denial either.
As to German efficiency, well, all I can say is that the intentions of the Nazis included conquering England and establishing a Thousand-Year Reich, and that didn't work out so well for them. So I'd be cautious about attributing too much power to them. The sheer numbers and geographic scale of their attempted genocide suggests that it would take more than simply months. It is also necessary to consider that they did make attempts to clothe their actions in legality, and to conceal them to some extent. - Eron Talk 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding efficiency: Operation Reinhard only started up in 1941; the first extermination camp (Belzec) opened in mid-1942; by the end of the next winter, the Russians had prevailed at Stalingrad, and it was all downhill from there for the Nazis. So, they had a few things on their plate besides killing all the Jews. But they did try. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
2 Darkmind Even if he was now in KKK, it can't discredit him. Because KKK is a legal organisation now. To be frank, vile is to talk that Nazis were greatest monsters in world history. Then Zionists lose their influence due to muslim influence they will be not able to bribe opinion of mass media and corruptible politicians anymore. That is why deniers/revisionists may get then reputation of reputable historians. That's what I mean.--Igor "the Otter" 09:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The legal status of the KKK is not at question here. It was set up as an illicit organisation for the terrorising of former slaves in the US and has a proven record of racism, anti-semitism and outright murder. That denotes the holding of any number of unacceptable views. Announcing that they're now dedicated to raising puppies and holding love-ins would not come close to erasing its past, or the abhorrent views that KKK members have expressed. This should really be discussed on the KKK page, so apologies. As for the reputation of the Nazis, words cannot express the contempt in which they are held due to the crimes that they committed in the name of Germany. Greatest monsters in recent world history at the very least, although this is admittedly my POV. You also seem to believe that the mass media are being 'bribed' into acceptance of the Holocaust. This is also incorrect. Darkmind1970 10:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is not good idea to discuss anybody's political views here. --Igor "the Otter" 12:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If those policical views are those expressed by an antisemitic person, with a history of making antisemitic comments, that makes it a very good idea to discuss their politics on this matter. Darkmind1970 12:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe, no political views and its expression can discredit anybody. Anybody have right to believe or disbelieve thatever he wants and express his opinion. Violating this right even in interests of the most wealthy group is a kind of totalitarism. Thus, if somebody is antisemite, it doesn't discredits him.--Igor "the Otter" 10:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Eron: "Holocaust deniers have no interest in other historical genocide. The only crimes against humanity that they seek to diminish or erase are crimes committed against Jews by an antisemitic government." ~ That is a ridiculous thing to say. Okay, before I start, the Holocaust happened, it was a terrible thing, and to try and deny it is not only misguided and offensive, but also doomed to failure. But you can't say that just because they don't try and disprove other massacres, they must be antisemitic. The reason they don't try to deny Stalin's purges is that they believe that Stalin's purges happened, whereas they don't believe that the Holocaust did. It's as simple as that.

As regards to the original topic of this section, I have to say that I agree that the Antisemitism template does not belong on this page. It may be true that the vast majority of Holocaust Deniers are antisemites, but the denial of the Holocaust is not in and of itself necessarily antisemitic. We may believe that these people are antisemites, but it is not Wikipedia's place to judge, only to record the solid facts, and the fact is that it would be perfectly possible (if unlikely) that somebody could believe that the Holocaust didn't happen without disliking the Jews. Branfish 18:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You can agree or disagree, but please refrain from calling my statements "ridiculous". In what was is it ridiculous to state that Holocaust deniers only deny the Holocaust, i.e. "crimes committed against Jews by an antisemitic government"? You may consider it irrelevant, but it is factually correct.
I'm not actually making any judgement on whether or not any given denier is antisemitic, as I think you'll see from reading all of my comments above. I am stating that I believe the act itself to be antisemitic, regardless of the motives of its perpetrators. - Eron Talk 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that a substantial number of people who died in the Holocaust were not Jews, I don't see how Holocaust denial could be patently antisemitic. Perhaps antisemitism is a motivation for Holocaust denial, but the act in itself doesn't seem to be antisemitic. (I'm assuming that by "denial", it refers to people who say the Holocaust never happened at all. Included in many Holocaust denial laws are those who approve of the Holocaust; in that case, they would almost certainly be antisemitic.) .V. -- (TalkEmail) 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


V, deniers rarely bother to discuss the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust; there is some "justification" of the T4 program, but that is it. Besides, the whole holocaust denial logic relies on a vast conspiracy to falsify testimonies, documents and evidences, with counts with the necessary cumplicity if not outright planning by "the Jews". There is one holocaust denier who is Jew (D Cole, even if he has dissociated himself from the group), and he is mentioned every time deniers want to prove they are not anti-semitic, but it is mostly the exception that proves the rule. More or less like being favorable to the Jim Crow laws was not presented as being anti-black (separate but "equal") but in fact, you should not take these statements at face value.--Ninarosa 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Who deleted my addition again?

I've added there section:

The most important facts Holocaust deniers are appeal to:

-Absense of material traces of existense of gas chambers built for homicidal purpose in Auschwitz http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0150.shtml

-Many of survivors' reports may be considered as questionable

-Absense of documental proves that term "Final Solution" mean "extermination" http://prorev.com/wannsee.htm

But somebody deleted it twice and keep silence. I think it is good idea to ban that guy.--Igor "the Otter" 09:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you add unsupported, broad generalisations in broken English, I'll remove them. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I beg pardon for my English. What shall I fix there?--Igor "the Otter" 11:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right, means not mean extermination, I've lost "s", what else?--Igor "the Otter" 11:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What is unsupported there? --Igor "the Otter" 11:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's redundant. That content is already in the article, in the section "Claims of the Holocaust deniers". - Eron Talk 12:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's different. Their claims are based on facts. Their interpretation of facts is another thing. --Igor "the Otter" 13:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The references you provide are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of establishing a fact. We can use Holocaust denier web sites to provide references for the fact that they deny the Holocaust. As references for actual historical fact, they are worthless. - Eron Talk 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see the links to the revisionists'/deniers' sites there? That links have no relations to revisionists/deniers.--Igor "the Otter" 15:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I assumed that any link attached to the statement that homicidal gas chambers did not exist would be to a site claiming that tehey did not exist. However, your link points to a site claiming that they did exist - an odd way of supporting your claim. So let me try again: the references you provide do not support the statements you attach them to; in fact, they support the exact opposite of what you claim. - Eron Talk 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Try to read again that I wrote: "Absense of material traces of existense of gas chambers built for homicidal purpose in Auschwitz". That site proves that. Not that were no homicidal gas chambers at all. That site proves that it was POSSIBLE, the chamber in the Krematorium I. But chamber in Krematorium I indeed was built after the war because building was heavily damaged in 1945. --Igor "the Otter" 16:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't even true that there is no physical evidence of gas chambers at Auschwitz: [9]. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It is true. Delousing facilities doesn't count. According to most sourses they were used from time to time to kill people. But they were built for delousing purpose.--Igor "the Otter" 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You linked to a series of pictures of the roof of Krema 1. The caption to the main picture includes these words: "Overall view of the roof of Krematorium I, looking southeast. On the right hand side are the four openings for pouring Zyklon-B [1 to 4] reconstructed after the war." All this proves is that there was reconstruction after the war. It does not prove the "absense of material traces of existense of gas chambers." You are inferring from the photos that there is an absence of proof; this qualifies as original research. Let me help you out here: what you really need is a site that makes the claim that there were no homicidal gas chambers, backing that claim up with solid historical and scientific research. The information should meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability and the site you link to needs to be a reliable source. To avoid getting your entries reverted, I'd recommend you post any such links you find here first. - Eron Talk 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • To save you some time, I suggest not bothering with ihr, codoh, fpp, or their kin when searching for reliable sources on this; they won't be accepted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need such links because it is not any kind of research. That is just fact anyone can't deny.--Igor "the Otter" 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm denying it. (Along with every mainstream historian, I might add.) I think you are a Holocaust denier who is attempting to insert untruths into this article and call them facts. I do not believe it is a proven fact that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, and the accepted historical record backs me. If you want to insert, as fact, that there were no such chambers, the onus is on you to provide the proof. Good luck with that. - Eron Talk 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very sad that you denying facts. Who am I is not your business, you may think whatever you want, it doesn't matter. But denying facts is very bad thing. No mainstream historian will agree with you. --Igor "the Otter" 17:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me. Which facts am I denying? The "fact" that no gas chambers were used to murder people in Auschwitz? That isn't a fact; it's a lie. The "fact" that the Final Solution did not mean genocide? That isn't a fact; it's a lie. Have I missed anything? - Eron Talk 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you read at all? -Absense of material traces of existense of gas chambers built for homicidal purpose in Auschwitz. This is the fact you trying to deny.--Igor "the Otter" 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I can read. For example, I can read this. - Eron Talk 18:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So where are material traces of existense of gas chambers built for homicidal purpose in Auschwitz?--Igor "the Otter" 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From the linked paper:
"ABSTRACT: In a widespread campaign to deny the existence of extermination camps with gas chambers the "revisionists" have recently started using the results of the examinations of fragments of ruins of former crematoria. These results (Leuchter, Rudolf) allegedly prove that the materials under examination had not been in contact with cyanide, unlike the wall fragments of delousing buildings in which the revisionists discovered considerable amount of cyanide compounds. Systematic research, involving most sensitive analytical methods, undertaken by the Institute confirmed the presence of cyanide compounds in all kinds of gas chamber ruins, even in the basement of Block 11 in Auschwitz, where first, experimental gassing of victims by means of Zyklon B had been carried out. The analysis of control samples, taken from other places (especially from living quarters) yielded unequivocally negative results. For the sake of interpretation several laboratory experiments have been carried out."
- Eron Talk 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's make it easier to understand: "-All gas chambers which remain after 1945 were built as delousing facilities."--Igor "the Otter" 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism at it's finest -- Once your arguement is debunked, move the goalposts. Neither Krema I nor Block 11 were built as "delousing facilities", and both remained intact after 1945. Any further clarification that you need to make? Cantankrus 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can't understand something, that doesn't mean that you debunked it. Is it clear, or still not?--Igor "the Otter" 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the debate technique known as "La-la-la-la-la I can't hear you!" Seriously, Igor, just saying over and over again "there were no gas chambers" is insufficient to establish it as a fact. You say "All gas chambers which remain after 1945 were built as delousing facilities." Reputable sources respond "No they were not." (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here to start.) - Eron Talk 02:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Your original question was about "material traces" in Auschwitz. First a link was offered, and then a quote, which you "made easier to understand" by changing the goal.
Your misinterpreting my position again and again. Please stop misquote my words. OK if second edition isn't clear to you, let the first one remains.

--Igor "the Otter" 08:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Krema I and Block 11 were used for gassings. Block 11 is the most interesting, since it was only used for gassing for a very short time, but it still had compounds present. Of course, there are the chambers of Birkenau, which still remain as ruins now, and also still had compounds present.
Now, just because someone can't accept facts and logic, it doesn't mean something isn't debunked. Cantankrus 02:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Krema I and Block 11 were used for gassings. Block 11 is the most interesting, since it was only used for gassing for a very short time Please explain me, which of my statements does it debunking.--Igor "the Otter" 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The bit you were trying to add, saying it was a 'fact' that there is an 'Absense of material traces of existense of gas chambers built for homicidal purpose in Auschwitz'. This is a lie, as the (extremely patient) EronMain has pointed out. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Again and again the same. What don't you understand still? They were built as delousing facilities. If you have nothing else to objection, I'll understand it as agreement.--Igor "the Otter" 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand perfectly. I have provided numerous factual, verifiable, reliable references demonstrating that your claim that "they were built as delousing facilities" is untrue. You have provided no such references in support of this claim. If you want to prove your point, you need to provide some references. - Eron Talk 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens". (Friedrich Schiller). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything is very simple. Point me the link where is shown remaining gas chamber built as execution chamber and I agree that I'm wrong. But all are you doing is claiming "that's all lie", and showing me fact which have no relation at all to my claim. Schiller also has no relation to Holocaust denial. --Igor "the Otter" 19:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll begin by noting that there is a big difference between your original claim of the "Absense of material traces of existense of gas chambers built for homicidal purpose in Auschwitz" and your current requirement to "Point me the link where is shown remaining gas chamber built as execution chamber." Material traces are abundant and include the ruins of Krema II, III, IV, and V. As these proofs have been provided to you, your focus has narrowed to "the remaining gas chamber," Krema I. For proof of its use as an execution chamber, I refer you to Pressac's AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Chapter 2. For a more all-encompassing proof, you could review Chapter 8.
Now, let me save you some time. You will doubtless seize on the first sentence of Chapter 2, which states "Krematorium I, the first cremation installation in Auschwitz, was part of the “normal“ equipment of the camp. but came to be used as an experimental criminal instrument for killing people by hydrocyanic acid intoxication in the morgue, which was transformed into a gas chamber." Your response will be along the lines of "See, it wasn't built as a homicidal gas chamber - it was built as a morgue. I was right." To which the only response is that if all you have proven is that, to begin with, the Nazi's murdered Jews at Auschwitz in adapted facilities rather than purpose-built ones, you have proved nothing of any consequence with regard to the Holocaust. In fact, you haven't even debunked any "myths" of the Holocaust; no one claims that Krema 1 was originally built as a gas chamber. It was just used as one. - Eron Talk 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll save your time too. Nizkor writes there were such things. Pressac writes different, but you have won. I agree. But you're wrong that I tried to debunk anything.--Igor "the Otter" 19:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain myself. I just tried add facts everybody agree(deniers/revisionists and official research). I didn't know that Nizkor and Pressac have different versions. That's all.--Igor "the Otter" 21:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you have actively tried to shoot down a number of comments about the Holocaust, along with evidence that it happened. Darkmind1970 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That is pityful lie and even such like you must understand it.--Igor "the Otter" 09:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please reread the above entries, to see where you have repeatedly been informed that various facts you were highlighting were wrong. Darkmind1970 10:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That was little bit difficult to notice ALL in that piramyd of misquoting.--Igor "the Otter" 10:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Then please read through what has been written and click on the suggested links. Please do not ignore what they state. Darkmind1970 13:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough

Can everyone just look at the above 3+ sections? Not read, as that would take far to long, but to just look at it? This is not a debate forum, this is not a soap box, this is not the place or time for this nonsence. Can I ask everyone to just stop feeding the trolls and to move on? Really I hope this isn't too much to ask... --T-rex 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like discussion on a talk page, then the old adage applies: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." .V. (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
T-rex is correct and .V. is wrong. Please review WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Large amounts of discussion on the talk page of a controversial issue? Who ever saw that one coming? I mean, it's completely out of the blue. You'd think that every editor who came across a controversial subject would agree... right? .V. (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

T. Rex is correct that this page is meant to discuss the article, not the subject - it says so right at the top of the page. Trouble is, this isn't just a matter of talk page trolling. We are dealing with editors who would like to insert (depending on your opinion) incorrect, unsourced, unverifiable, or POV content into the article. Policy demands that we assume good faith in dealing with these edits. If someone raises a neutrality concern, we can't just say "bugger off, troll!" and be done with them. If someone adds debatable content to the article, we can't just delete it as vandalism. We are meant to discuss their concerns, and explain our reversions. Of course, this being the Holocaust denial page, these discussions do tend to grow arms and legs due to the strong feelings they generate. That said, I agree that discussion on these points has probably run its course. - Eron Talk 12:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is, take a look at the "censorship" section here. So far, I've seen numerous allegations that the censorship category is POV. However, I have seen no reasoning behind this, only assertions. I made an indepth post regarding why it's NPOV, and it seems to be going ignored. So you can imagine why the discussion is so long; there's one set of people claiming it's not neutral but not saying why, and I'm still trying to discuss this issue. If all reply posts directly addressed the question before it, then it would be far, far shorter. It's frustrating to say the least. .V. (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least part of the reason it's being ignored is that the page is also full of people trying in good faith to deal with another editor who is raising temperatures without any hope of creating light. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. I just don't want anyone taking it out on me though. .V. (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. You're just wrong; you're not insanely wrong. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the best way to prove someone wrong is to address their points directly and show those points to be incorrect. Nobody's done that yet, it seems. Hopefully someone will at least make an attempt. It seems the favored method here is to just say "this person's wrong" or "this is POV" and not waste time with actual explanations. .V. (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's nonsense. People have been (overly) patiently presenting fact after fact to a someone who is practicing the classic Holocaust denier techniques of denying the validity of all evidence that doesn't coincide with their beliefs. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to my section on this page. .V. (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
But there is a question: Why this page attracts such attention if it is so neutral? Or may be it is something wrong with it indeed?--Igor "the Otter" 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Because a small but noisy fringe group has access to computers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Because you are a troll --T-rex 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Calling me troll is a personal attack:). In my opinion, some admins here are looking much more "trollish" then me. The tone of this article is provocating. Therefore this article is trollish one.--Igor "the Otter" 13:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. It should be obvious by now that you are not going to get what you want here; I suggest you move on to articles in your other areas of interest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm not even interested in the Holocaust Denial. But it became a matter of principle. This article is horrible one, and this is not only my opinion. But some admins here don't show any good will to improve it. I don't see the reason to critisize articles which are neutral indeed. It seems silly suggestion for me. --Igor "the Otter" 16:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
There does seem to be an outright hostility (or at least, unwillingness) for compromises. .V. (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
For someone not intersted in holocaust denial you have a very interesting pattern of editing --T-rex 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion about my patterns of editing can't make this article better. --Igor "the Otter" 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
but getting you baned can... ironic isn't it? --T-rex 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It is clear, of couse, that if you have nothing to objective, the only way to deal with somebody is to ban him. So what?--Igor "the Otter" 09:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Friends, it is quite clear that Igor has a closed mind to the reality of the Holocaust, and nothing that we say will have any effect. I have already tried on the Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp page. Might I suggest that we stop feeding him with comments (albeit true ones) which have no effect except to produce further revisionist comments, and return to discussing the actual article?--Anthony.bradbury 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. That does it mean, "feeding him with comments"? Somebody comment me, I answer. That's wrong there? Please, explain yourself. Nobody is owed to accept your opinion. --Igor "the Otter" 10:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
DFTT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll not feed you anymore--Igor "the Otter" 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Revisionism (by its supporters)

Hi. I made the change [[10]] which was then reverted by Biet Or without discussion on the talk page. Please keep in mind WP:REVERT.

Anyway, it's not that the current revision is technically incorrect (that is, some deniers call it revisionism), it's just POV. The way that the current revision makes it sound is that, unless someone is a Holocaust denier, they won't call it revisionism. This is biased in that it does not adequately differentiate between the differing degrees of "denial", ranging from outright assertion that the holocaust never happened to saying only 2.5 million people died in total, for example.

The second problem is that it says "commonly called." This implies that there really is no such thing as legitimate revisionism, because it's a common synonym used by supports to legitimize their claims.

These are both very broad and vague, as well as POV. As such, they really shouldn't be in the article. Just saying "also known as" introduces the term without making any implications. .V. (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated about in the past, and I do believe that the consensus was the compromise wording now used. No serious Historian calls what Revisionists/Deniers do "revisionism", so that is accurate and not POV.
I won't get into the arguement about "degrees" of revisionism/denial except to say most revisionists/deniers explicitly argue they do not deny the Holocaust, and then espouse all of the key elements of denial in the next senetence.
Of course there is revisionism in History. Unfortunately, revisionists/deniers aren't even attempting to practice that, so they exactly are using the label revisionism to try and legitimize their claims.
Remember, NPOV doesn't mean we have to deviate from the truth to "balance" to a fringe viewpoint. Cantankrus 01:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement that you make (and what's implied by the current version) is that if no "serious" historian calls it "holocaust revisionism", only Holocaust deniers call it that. That's the POV problem. There's no in between. Either someone is a "serious historian" or a "Holocaust denier." This raises a serious POV concern, because it implies a strict dichotomy. It also implies that Holocaust deniers/revisionists can't be serious historians by default.
As such, the wording that allows for the least amount of bias should be used, and "also known as" works well for that purpose. .V. (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It implies that Holocaust deniers/revisionists can't be serious historians by default -- Yes, I'd say that was accurate. To be a revisionist/denier, you have to throw away an academic approach to history. If you don't have an academic approach, then you aren't a serious Historian -- although you could be a writer about history (or psuedohistory).
The problem with "also known as" without any qualifier is that it implies that this term is widely used, when in fact it isn't. It might even infer that it's Historically sound, when of course it's not.
I think the current wording is both accurate and NPOV - while most people consider it "denial", many of its proponents call it "revisionism". Cantankrus 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the justification for the distinction between "serious historians" and "historians" is too vague and subjective. Whether someone is actually following an academic method is perhaps one of the most common points of debate in this field. Both sides make the allegation against each other that one side is academic and one is not. To decide which side is actually the group of serious historians would require that a POV be taken. Regardless of whether the line of reasoning you gave is actually true or not, writing it into the article as if it were true is not neutral.
Not only is too vague and subjective, but it relies on a generalization about both sides (as in, both sides would fit the roles ascribed to it). A generalization may be okay in some circumstances. But if the generalization relies on a particular point of view to be taken, the generalization should not be made.
The wording itself is inherently inaccurate because the logic that created the wording relies on an individual's definition of "serious historian" and whether they believe that a group or individual is following an academic method. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but given that the issue of who is using the correct academic method is a huge point of contention in this field, I think that it would be wrong to assume a stance on it.
The wording "also known as", though, does not imply anything. It simply states that Holocaust denial can also be known as Holocaust revisionism, without placing a judgment on either side. You cited two concerns; one, that it would imply the term is widely used. Two; that it would imply there's some historical merit to the claims.
To address the first concern: "also known as" does not imply any degree of notability. I believe the article goes into a significant degree of depth in explaining why Holocaust revisionism is just a mask for denial, so I don't see why this is a problem.
Secondly, I believe the concern that it might show they have historical merit would be enforcing a POV. It's really not our concern as to whether they have historical merit or not, only to present the points of the sides involved. We can cite how bad their logic is all day, but to choose wording as to minimize their claims seems to be creating a POV.
How about the compromise edit sometimes known as? That seems to satisfy both your concerns, and I believe it would be correct in my eyes. .V. (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"known" takes sides, how about sometimes referred to as or often referred to as? Ronabop 10:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
These passive-voice constructions, 'known as' or 'referred to as', whether or not prefixed by 'sometimes', are weasel-worded and give a misleading impression. Serious (by which I mean professional, academic, tenured) historians refer to Holocaust denial as Holocaust denial, and explicitly make the point that they try to give an impression of academic respectability which they do not deserve. Examples are Lipsdtadt and Evans.
WP:NPOV involves not giving undue weight to extreme, fringe, and minority viewpoints, and there is no exception when the article is about one of those viewpoints. The lead paragraph, IMHO, should explicitly state that no professional academic historians regard HD as a valid interpretation of the historical evidence. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Also the article has a section devoted to this. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It's weasel worded? That's odd, I can't seem to find "known as" or "referred to as" as weasel words as per the Wikipedia policy. It does say to watch out for passive constructions, but I see nothing in that section about why that would apply here. Not all passive constructions are weasel words.
Furthermore, given that 220,000+ articles use the terminology "known as", and over 310,000 use the terminology "referred to", it seems odd that such a weasel word could be present in literally hundreds of thousands of articles (apparently about 1/3rd of all Wikipedia articles). I would think that, because it's not a weasel word in the policy and it's so commonly used, we could use it here. I think Ronabop's compromise sometimes referred to as would be fine.
As for the "explicitly state" issue, I don't believe we can take absence of proof as proof of absence. The points should be listed clearly and the reader should decide, not us. .V. (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
(1) The classic weasel wording is something like 'some people say', because it is not clear who is doing the saying. Passive voice statements have the same problem.
(2) The argument that 'other articles have crap aspects, lets add crap to this one' is weak.
(3) We should explicitly state the published views of academics who have looked at Holocaust denial. That means not 'Squiddy's view, nor '.V.'s, but people like Lipstadt and Evans. There is no 'absence of proof' on this issue. 'When I turned to the topic of Holocaust denial, I knew that I was dealing with extremist antisemites who have increasingly managed, under the guise of scholarship, to camouflage their hateful ideology.' - Lipstadt, 'Denying the Holocaust', ISBN 0-14-024157-4, p 3. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I see a compromise here. Would you agree to making the quote above a footnote after the last word in parenthesis? I think that would solve the issue of NPOV by attributing that statement to a source. .V. (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I decided to just be bold and add the quote in as a footnote. .V. (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed uncited claim from article

I've removed the following uncited claim from the article:

In Belgium, Filip Dewinter, the charismatic leader of one of the country's largest political parties, the Vlaams Belang (formerly named Vlaams Blok, Flemish Bloc), was involved in the Flemish nationalist youth group NSJV whose prime campaign was promoting and defending Holocaust denial.

A bit of Googling suggests that the NSJV existed only during World War II, and is thus unlikely to have had Holocaust denial as its "prime campaign", since the existence of the Holocaust was largely unknown at that time. This seems to me to cast doubt on the rest of the sentence. Cite, please? -- The Anome 10:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I can only find references to that group existing in WWII. I also can't seem to find any sources for this claim. I googled the name + NSJV and found a couple entries, but they were in a foreign language and may or may not be related. Even so, there was only a few of them and they don't seem to be reliable. The only English source which seems to carry this claim is a page which copies from Wikipedia... .V. (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It's also not particularly likey that Filip Dewinter was nvolved with NSJV, given that he was born in 1962, twenty years after that organization ceased to exist. Perhaps someone from the West Flemish Wikipedia might know more, but for the moment, it looks like a political attack only. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Holocaust Deniers

Could someone define what is "notable" for wikipedia? Just because someone has a blog that denies the holocaust is not enough, in my understanding. I've cleaned up some names that didn't show any "juice" (outside usenet/internet) in a simple google search. But please check to see if I didn't delete any legitimate new inclusion.--Ninarosa 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I always keep an eye on that section. It seems a name gets added to it every once and a while as a defamatory jab. .V. [Talk|Email] 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I added Richard Williamson, an excommunicated Catholic bishop and one of the principal leaders of the Society of Saint Pius X. I perhaps should have explained why. I thought he should be added because he is a leader of a religious movement, and very open about his anti-semitism and denial of the Holocaust. His statements and activities are discussed in the Wikipedia article on him.--Gazzster 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how we can list someone as a holocaust denier without citation. Arguably the people listed who have articles have citations there, but those without articles are certainly uncited. Under our policy on WP:BLP, I am removing the red-linked names. Please do not re-add them without including citations showing clearly that each is a holocaust denier. Tom Harrison Talk 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Ditlieb Felderer, Wilhelm Staglich ... notable deniers. Well known by deniers but largely ignored otherwise - ( I would ignore them too if I was a believer, far more so than many of the others ( picked to pick on maybe- choose your enemy wisely )). 159.105.80.141 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Soft Deniers?

Deborah Lipstadt has coined the phrase "soft-core denial" versus "hard-core denial".

Lipstadt: "When groups of people refuse to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day unless equal time is given to anti-Muslim prejudice, this is soft-core denial."

Accusing Jimmy Carter of "soft-core denial": "When a former president of the United States writes a book [Palestine, Peace not Apartheid] on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and writes a chronology at the beginning of the book in order to help them understand the emergence of the situation and in that chronology lists nothing of importance between 1939 and 1947, that is soft-core denial."[Jerusalem Post Holocaust scholar warns of new 'soft-core' denial Feb. 6, 2007

Can someone add it into the article as a new type of denial? Thanks DJSemtex 20:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So Deborah Lipstadt coins a phrase and it immediately becomes WP content. I see she already has it on her personal page. I will cut & paste it here. Fourtildas 07:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that "soft-core denial" and "hard-core denial" are neologisms as per WP:NEO and not fit for inclusion. Actually, these would technically be "Protologisms", because I don't believe this usage has caught on in any significant manner. .V. [Talk|Email] 13:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And frankly, it is absolutely POV. Lipstadt did NOT accused president Carter of soft-core denial. It is not even a mainstream concept. So someone with a clear political agenda adapts her concept to attack someone else they disagree with, and suddenly this makes WP material?? If everybody with whom the Jerusalem Post disagrees will be listed as soft-core holocaust denier, be prepared to include half of the columnists of the Haaretz.--Ninarosa 00:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the word "denial" in the paragraph emboldened? Ekantik talk 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to ask these claimants to prove that their evidence is "really real"

Yeah, this is a totally neutral, unbiased, encyclopedic statement. The "Jewish People" wouldn't lie to us about their nukes and Iraqi wmd's either. Fourtildas 07:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)