Talk:Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why did someone delete my message?

So basically I posted a refutation by showing a false quote on here that was made up ("Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."). This page is a joke! You show a picture of a Soviet officer pouring down gas and expect us to think that's proof? Ha! 22:10, 21 February 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by McDonaldsGuy (talk • contribs)

First, your previous post was not deleted, it was moved to the bottom, where new posts are placed. Second, Squiddy, below, gave you a number of sources for the quote, which is actually quite famous: Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1936-45, Nemesis, (2000) p 153. Also (partially) quoted in Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust, 1990, p 76 (his source given as Norman H. Baynes (Ed.) The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922 - August 1939, London, 1942. p 741. Third, the Soviet soldier pictured is holding the lid to the gas vents at Majdanek, after it was captured by the Russians, he is not "pouring down anything." Fourth, I believe you wrote in your last comment "There is no evidence he said this. If there is, show me it and I will take back my statements." So, please, take back your statements now that Squiddy has given you all of these sources. Also, you should sign your comments. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I feel stupid now, I'm just used at keeping my posts on the top. But as I was saying he never said this, when it was claimed he said it, they never cited it in Nuremberg. So not only was it not sustained, it was not even cited. It's not serious evidence. On January 30, 1939 the concentration of the Jews in camps had not yet begun. Until I see serious evidence he said this I won't believe it. Not some book that was written 50/60 years after he supposedly said it. I mean like a video of him saying it. But I will check out the 1942 book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0598758933/sr=8-1/qid=1140562787/ref=sr_1_1/104-9563748-6671113?%5Fencoding=UTF8

And about the Soviet officer - I know he is not pouring down anything. I know it was just a demonstration. But it's not serious evidence of gassing.-- 22:58, 21 February 2006 McDonaldsGuy

For all it's worth, throughout my school years, I have heard this quote in the German original so many times, I can almost quote it by heart. Heck, I think every Germany can do the whole Hitler routine by heart. The quote is as real as anything. (except, of course, if all those tapes were made in the Zionist Conspiracy Headquarter Basement Cutting room. Who knows...) Dietwald 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

McDonaldsguy, not all testimony was at Nuremberg, Hitler wasn't on trial, and his speeches wouldn't have been relevant to the trial, especially compared with the mountains of testimony and documents actually presented. Indeed, I am baffled by your questions as to whether the quote exists, honestly, especially as you don't even need to buy the 1942 book, the full speech is here[1], or you can do a Google book search on the phrase and you find many books including the information. It is likely that the speech was recorded as well, it was in front of the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, and I don't think that even hard-core Holocaust deniers argue that the speech doesn't exist. As for the picture, it illustrates how Zyklon B was introduced into gas chambers, just one piece of information among many, so I am not sure why you would focus on it. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

i'm sorry but this page IS REALLY A JOKE. it's about how to show that holocaust NEVER HAPPENED and more than the half it's about how holocaust HAPPENED. well this must already be in the HOLOCAUST ARTICLE. it was written by some zionist or what? always taking someone's side, that's how wikipedia works. you just have to ready "five chimneys" where Olga Lengyel says that 24.000 were destroyed everyday at auschwitz (were she claims it's true because she was there and she saw it). alright. from march of 1942 until october of 1944 auschwitz destroyed more than 21 million people. six million more than THE JEWISH WORLD COMMUNITY. 02:15, 24 March 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.203.56.178 (talk • contribs)

Ah, revisionism at it's best. First, the article is about the falacy that is Holocaust Denial, not a support piece for it. Second, articles aren't written by "some zionist", but by a consensus, which in the case of these kind of topics, is often hard to come by. Lastly, it's amazing that since one account (by a survivor) might be flawed, that should be enough to cast doubt on the entire veracity of the Holocaust. 06:29, 7 Apr 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

If that is the case then call it "The Fallacy of Holocaust Denial" instead. 16 November 2006 User:Wazzaly

Hitler never said this

"Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

There is no evidence he said this. If there is, show me it and I will take back my statements.

This is a part of an infamous speech given on 30 Jan 1939. Sources: Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1936-45, Nemesis, (2000) p 153. Also (partially) quoted in Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust, 1990, p 76 (his source given as Norman H. Baynes (Ed.) The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922 - August 1939, London, 1942. p 741). --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever been able to find a full complete English translation of this speech? I can't find the full transcript anywhere, only parts of it taken out of context. I've also noticed the translation slightly differs from different sources citing that quote.--Nazrac 19:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the translations differ. They are translations. The speech is more fun in German in any case. High German must be one of the best languages to say those things. Can't imagine him saying this kind of non-sense in Platt...;) Dietwald 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Translations are never perfect, but what I meant was there seem to be some very different excerpts of that speech floating around, and since I can't find a complete transcript of the entire speech either in German or for that matter any other language it seems highly dubious to me to be taking those words out of context.--Nazrac 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you saying the translated portions are wrong? Or are you saying that in context the quote wouldn't be as ominious sounding? 02:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really making an assertion there, however I don't really think it is good scholastic work to formulate opinions or theories based on a few bits and pieces of a speech taken out of context. That sort of cherry picking all too often creeps into articles on here, especially politically related articles.

--Nazrac 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, presumably the people who are quoting the words, originally, have done an in-depth study. Really, there is little debate that Hitler was a rabid anti-semite, and quotations about Jews are all over the place. Usually, "cherry picking" is when you review something (article, speech) to support your position when the gist of the work, in context, speaks against you. While this sort of thing goes on in revisionism/denial quite often (Irving is an example of this), I don't think that is what is happening here. However, if you can produce a credible analysis that has a different take on this speech/quote, I'm sure we'd be interested to review it. 06:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the "historians" quoted Hitler correctly, but just to pat us fools on the head maybe you can give us a link to the original, complete speech - not just the part you like to quote. Gee thanks.

But Hitler did sign this

But Hitler did sign a statement, his last written statement ever, his "Political Testament," saying, in relevant part, this (as translated into English):

"I have also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility. I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe's Aryan peoples die of hunger, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means."

Although awkwardly phrased (in English anyway), the phrase "without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means" suggests that "the real criminal" ("Jewry") had actually had to atone for this guilt -- the reference to more humane means would seemingly be a reference to it being better to die in a gas-chamber than of hunger, or by being burnt or bombed to death. That is, he seems to be saying in effect: "Well, OK, I lost and unfortunately a lot of Aryan people starved, were burnt, were bombed, or otherwise were killed, but, as I promised, at least the Jews got theirs -- we Nazis saw to that -- although they got it relatively nicely (by gassing)."

Anyway, it's my understanding that lead Nazi anti-Semite Julius Streicher (editor-in-chief of Der Sturmer) took Hitler's Political Testament to be a statement that Hitler knew of the Holocaust. Streicher denied knowledge at the Nuremburg trials of the Holocaust himself, but took Hitler's Political Testament to be an admission of knowledge of it on Hitler's part.

Pretty vague - the testament( or the excerpt) that is - to get so much history out of. Do you have a more concise statement - this code word stuff really doesn't measure up. 20:21, 15 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)

No refutation non-existence gas chambers

Hey, I was wondering, were is the refutation of the Examination_of_Holocaust_denial#Evidence_that_gas_chambers_were_used_for_killing non-existence of the gas chambers? --Vincent 15:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC) And by the way, how can the Zyklon B be thrown into the gas chambers through the windows? Windows wouldn't be really great in a gas chamber. I hope this can be clarified because even though the Holocaust deniers don't stick to the facts, we should. --Vincent 15:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your asking here. Are you asking for proof of the gas chambers in your first comment? As for your second comment, there were no windows for the gas chambers. I think you are referring to one of the pictures, which shows the crematorium in the background with windows; in these pictures, the chambers are actually underground, and it is pointed out that the induction columns, where the gas would have been put in, are visible (the tops) 07:04 UTC 18 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

Well, the article notes a few arguments of the Holocaust deniers and tells why theyr aren't true. However, at the noted section, it skips to a whole other subject than the gas chambers.

As for my second point, I quote the article:

(In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.).

--Vincent 13:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying in the first comment now; but I think the article is trying to take on the "evidence" that is used to prove that the gas chambers didn't exist -- namely the various reports that deniers advance to show that various aspects of the killing process were impossible or that evidence that they expect to be there is absent. Now, for your second comment, the referenced comment is a quote from another source. I think it's referring to whether the poison was introduced from above ("the roof") or the side ("the windows") of the different chambers used. 20 03:34 20 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

OK, good enough for me ;) --Vincent 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the arguments put forward by deniers and revisionists is that the aerial surveillance photos taken by American pilots show that the 'holes in the roof' of the Auschwitz gas chamber did not exist during the time the gas chambers were supposed to be opperating. It has also been confirmed by many that the Soviets rebuilt the gas chamber after the Germans had allegedly blown it up before fleeing from the advancing red army. Does this seem odd to anyone else?

--Nazrac 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to me. The Soviets, and the Germans too, loved propoganda. I would say the Soviets "restored", rather then rebuilt one of the gas chambers the Nazis used. I do believe that guides tell visitors it's a restoral, and not the original state the Soviets found the room in. (It was used as an air raid shelter by the Germans prior to Soviet arrival, and had been modified). The chambers that had still been in use prior to the Soviet capture certainly were blown up, and they remain collapsed in fragments to this day.

Is this surveillance evidence very strong? There was some recon photos posted some time ago, with a $100,000 reward to establish credibility, that claimed all sorts of stuff about Auschwitz. It seems the poster wasn't so sure of his claims, since no one was able to contact him to establish the rules for collecting the prize. This wouldn't be those same photos, would it? 05:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

According to the documentary by David Cole, the tour guide claimed it was original. However the director of the tour facility contradicted her and claimed the Soviets rebuilt it and that the holes in the roof were not original which seems interesting because they also dont appear in aerial servailance photos. I found these arguments intruiging in that no one seems to be able to definatively explain this anonaly. Incase you're interested in reading the articles, I found the information here:

http://www.vho.org/tr/2000/4/gcairphoto.html http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcairphoto.html http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/RadDi280100.html http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p421_Weber.html http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4303

Also David Cole's Auschwitz video can be found here: David Cole Interviews Dr. Fanciszek Piper part 1 http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=712790597880479314&q=david+cole Part 2 http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2827691277822616716&q=david+cole

David Cole the truth behind Auschwitz part 1 http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=277520188822606933&q=david+cole part 2 http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7607543071101199504&q=david+cole

I found David Cole's take on revisionism particularly interesting, consider he is an Atheist jew. He was subsequently threatened by a jewish group called "the jewish defense league" which has been labeled by the FBI and the ADL as a terrorist extremist group. --Nazrac 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite tell what an "atheist Jew" is. I always thought Atheists didn't believe in any religion. This David Cole info is old, and has been addressed before. The tour guide made a mistake; tour guides aren't historians, but Dr. Piper is. Curious that you didn't mention this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franciszek_Piper

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/p/piper.franciszek/press/daily.texan.1093

Which fully documents Piper's response to Cole. Also not reported (or mentioned) is that Cole has recanted his take on revisionism entirely, and broken with the scene. Why isn't this point ever mentioned? (or if it is, there is some twist as to why Cole no longer holds these beliefs)

Your second link refers to the discredited photos I refered to above, examined in detail by "Air photo expert" John Ball.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/john-ball/

http://www.nizkor.org/features/ball-challenge/

If Mr. Ball's faith in his photo analysis is so genuine, why didn't he let anyone take his $100,000 challenge? Stange indeed, for those seeking the truth to shy away from such a challenge.

Finally, of course, there is the holes that you keep talking about. I have to say, I'm quite disappointed in this, for while it seems you've kept a very open mind while listening to deniers/revisionists, you've done very little _real_ research on the topic. If you had done much research, then you should be able to easily discover that Auschwitz is not just one camp, but a series of camps. Further, you would know that "the Soviet remodeling" of the Gas Chamber was done in the main camp (Auschwitz I), while Ball's "analysis" of the holes was done on the killing center (Auschwitz II), located at least a few miles apart. While I can't fault you for not knowing all of the details of the camp system, it goes a long way to pointing out the knowledge gap that revisionists/deniers try to exploit -- They advance a story, which while plausible, is not a credible one. Even though someone knowledgeable in that specific area would easily be able to show that their story lacked credibility, many people couldn't, and the expert might not be readily available. We should be glad, then, that history is written be people who _do_ consult those type of experts, and who are interested in facts. 17:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

To complete this little exercise, I have actually followed and read all of the links, I'm quite surprised you posted the last one. I mean, if this was a well meaning "fact finding" journey, surely the last link you posted above really exposes "the lunatic fringe neo-nazis" that defines the denial/revisionist movement. The "problems" exposed in this little piece are a re-hash of every bad piece of revisionist junk, which, although it's been totally refuted, seems to wash up on some new website every few months as genuine _new_ information. 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

What do you mean by "killing center" in Auschwitz II? How is that different from the gas chamber? Keep in mind here that I'm not trying to prove a point, or take one side or another. However in making an attempt to be fair I think their view deserves attention and I don't think credibility is a factor whatsoever. They arent asking anyone to believe them, they have provided evidence to the contrary of some of the assrtions made about the holocaust. It also seems that those who claim they are keeping an open mind glance through the articles or revisionist material, look for some refutation of the revisionist point and assume it is settled, dismissing the devisionist stance so they can claim the moral highground of having "listened to both sides." In otherwords you are making it about credibility rather than evidence. Now the big question I have is, why do you assume these so called refutations of revisionist material is the deciding factor? Keep in mind the burden of proof is not on the revisionists. That being said it becomes a rather gray area when you use the ambiguous term "holocaust" since contesting one detail could easily get you labeled as a holocaust denier, which de facto assumes you deny or contest every detail.--Nazrac 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazrac, this is all hooey. This tapdance is old, and has been done many times before. Just because a fringe thinks they should be given attention, doesn't mean it should. And _of course_ credibility is a factor; otherwise we would teach the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Just to clarify, revisionsts/deniers mostly _haven't_ provided "evidence to the contrary" of facts of the Holocaust. And, _of course_ the "burden of proof" is on the revisionists, since the history of World War 2, of which the Holocaust is just one facet, is accepted fact. It's well known and accepted, save in the denier/revisionist world, that the burden of proof is on the skeptic, not on the existing view.

Again, I don't think there is anything wrong raising questions; it's the way that people get informed. It's part of a healthy learning exercise. And you won't get labeled a denier for asking questions. However, when confronted with a logical and credible source, deniers/revisionists refuse to accept such an answer, and instead formulate an illogical conclusion from question sources. This is both bad science and bad history. 06:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

The burden of proof is on the person alleging a crime has happened. Of course its established fact that jews were persecuted, but that doesn't mean every alleged incident is de facto accurate simply because the broader holocaust umbrella is accepted. Because has yet the theory of relativity is generally accepted, does not mean it is complete or beyond question. No one has yet to explain why red shift has been observed moving towards us instead of away from us, which violates the theory of general relativity, even though it is essentially most accurate in many areas. Now, if someone were to come up with an alternate theory, perhaps similar to relativity, by with some key differences, would that be considered scientific revisionism?Of course it would, and it happens all the time, as it happens with every other aspect of history, EXCEPT the holocaust. So why is it so tabboo to question it? why is everyone in such a hurry to shoot down any disagreement with the official story? why is there virtually no official disagreement on the various aspects of the holocaust? I suppose because no one wants to believe otherwise. I suspect this is based on emotional, political and false moral reasons, none of which should ever interfere with investigating historical phenomenon. One thing you're also forgetting is the history of the holocaust has been revised countless times. I still see numerous holocaust and political websites, books and tv documentaries claiming Dachau had a gas chamber, even though it is now "accepted fact" that there were no gas chambers operating on German soil. Infact the primary focus on the gas chamber story seems to have been originally on Dachau, but subsequently shifted attention eastwards until finally it was admitted there was no gas chamber at all on German soil. One can even find a map of Dachau on google without much difficulty, indicating a gas chamber location, despite the fact that this notion has been thoroughly discredited.

I also find it hard to believe any of you have read through the above mentioned sources I posted, as you dismissed them all as "revisionist non-sense" despite the fact that some of those claims, such as the soap made out of jewish body fat, have also been dismissed by modern mainstream historians as nonsense, despite the fact that it was widely accepted initially after the war, and Simon Weisenthal himself claimed to have seen this occuring in concentration camps. Apparently no one told the French this either, as they still have a memory dedicated to the jewish victims whose body parts were allegedly used to create industrial products.

--Nazrac 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

During a trial, the "burden" of proof is on the prosecution in the modern western legal system. However, History isn't written by judges and lawyers, but rather by historians, who collect, collate, sift through and then write about history, with opinions on the causes of events and their implications. Once this process is completed, the "burden" then shifts to those that dispute the opinions. Your science example is a good illustration. If someone comes up with "a different theory", is it the people who espouse the current theory's job to shoot down this new theory? Of course not. The BURDEN of proof is on the NEW theorists to show that their theory fits all of the known facts, and does so _better_ then the current theory. They are then expected to publish their findings, so that other scientists can verify their work and have their theory accepted by the community. While science isn't totally parallel to history in this regard, since much of science is theory-based while history is fact based, there are challenges to the _opinions_ about history, but not to the validity of the underlying events. For instance, no one claims World War One didn't happen. But why not?

You say there is "no official disagreement", but many historians disagree about the Holocaust. There are many opinions about various events, about why it happened. I think you are frustrated because there isn't much discussion about _whether_ it happened. However, there isn't much discussion about whether World War One happened either. Will you be jumping onto _that_ historical investigation, since it seems "no one wants to believe otherwise"?

A quick word on the Dachau -- while it never had an _operational_ killing gas chamber, it did certainly have such a chamber. So, what is wrong with a map of the camp indicating it existed?

As to soap nonsense, you originally provided that when challenged about Ilse Koch's conviction, which you claimed was due to human lampshade evidence. Can I assume that you've "revised" your viewpoint on this, then?

As for soap being "widely accepted", could you provide evidence of this wide acceptence? It does seem that inmates were taunted with "made into soap", so there may have been widespread _rumours_ about soapmaking. But rumours are not evidence, and this does not make the soapmaking story "widely accepted" among historians, despite what revisionists/deniers imply. 02:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

"it is now "accepted fact" that there were no gas chambers operating on German soil." See Karmasyn on h-holocaust, "More about Hitchens and "German soil"", 30 May 2001 Apokrif 11:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. To clarify a bit more, there were certainly delousing gas chambers at virtually _every_ concentration camp, and there was a killing gas chamber constructed at Dachau, but it wasn't the site of mass murders. 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

population section

Couple of queries about the population section:

The article suggests that the high post-war figure for the Jewish population is innaccurately cited by Holocaust sceptics. Rather, as I understand it, it is correctly cited, but misunderstood. The post-war figure was largely derived from 1939, not the year of publication. This is why pre-war and post-war populations do in fact initially show up as being similar. A revised figure was then provided by the American Jewish Committee with more relevant and contemporary information, giving the lower figure. Atm the article suggests that the claim for a high post-war figure is simply invented. This doesn't appear to be true. 02:50, 7 June 2006 Hakluyt bean

Hakluyt, I have checked the volumes of the World Almanac from 1945 to 1948. It says very clearly at the top of the page (page 219, for the 1947 Almanac, for instance): "Compilation from latest available data, 1938, by the American Jewish Committee..." and so on. The next sentence says "The American Jewish committee, which gives the figures of the table below, estimated the Jewish population of the world, in 1939, as follows..." It is impossible to ignore or miss this note. Whoever built the "population argument" omitted this information. This is NOT a correct citation, or a misunderstanding. It is a deliberate distortion of data.Ninarosa 09:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, and probably simply as a result of edits by different people, the section presents a rather contradictory picture of the World Almanac. In the first paragraph it relies on it as authoritative, but in the third paragraph invites the reader to conclude that the Almanac is far from authoritative: Either 3.7 million Jews appeared unnoticed between 1982 and 1990, and then 4.5 million Jews disappeared equally unnoticed between 1990 and 1996, or the World Almanac is not a particularly reliable source for accurate estimates of worldwide Jewish population. In fact it seems the same "selective citing of sources" that is the criticism levelled in the next paragraph. I don't know, but to me it makes wikipedia sound rather less than authoritative itself. 02:50, 7 June 2006 Hakluyt bean

Here I agree with you. I don't see much to be gained from questioning the World Almanac, when it was already clear that the error is on the denier's part. The World Almanac obtained their figures from the AMerican Jewish Committee and other Jewish world organizations. THEIR methodology is not clear, and the figures are not, of course, as reliable as those from a census. But for "order of magnitude" and scale, it is not that bad. I would delete this paragraph.Ninarosa 16:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the following question from the article, because it didn't belong there, but I can answer it here: "Why would the 1949 almanac use Old numbers AFTER the holocaust, knowing that 6 million supposedly vanished into thin air, while the 1947 almanac uses lower numbers? Explain this one." The 1949 used new AND old numbers, comparing the last available data before the war and the new ones obtained AFTER the war, while the 1947 Almanac still didn't have hte new estimates. They used the 1938/39 data with a CLEAR WARNING that these were the "last available data" from those years. Nothing else.--Ninarosa 07:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

article as a whole

(Sorry, thought I'd put this separately)

Referring to the article overall, if you google holocaust denial, as I've just done, you get apart from this article, frequent reference to allegations made after the First World War of 6 million deaths among Jewish Europeans. This seems to be the chronological first point of reference of Holocaust sceptics. But not mentioned here?

It also struck me that some of the language is a tad tendentious (?). For example: Deniers consider one of their stronger arguments to be the population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. This argument is then rebutted. Well, rebutting the argument is straightforward, as I illustrate in my above comment, but I'm not sure how the writer of that section knows that the particular argument is indeed considered one of the stronger arguments. Is it? And if so could it be cited in some way?

In a way this goes to the heart of the use of the term "holocaust deniers" as if this describes an homogenous group, which I see is talked about elsewhere, so I won't bore anyone further with it here. 02:53, 7 June 2006 Hakluyt bean

This is the propaganda tactic the holocaust lobby uses. They create some catch phrase like "holocaust" which means "death by fire." They then throw an enourmous amount of allegations of criminal murderous actions under this umbrella catch phrase. That way if anyone starts asking too many questions they can conveniently be labeled a "holocaust denier" which is yet another catch phrase. If anyone questions even the most minute detail they are in an instant labeled a "holocaust denier" which is instant academic suicide and a prison sentence in many countries. Following the war there were hundreds of jewish witnesses who claimed the Germans had been making lampshades out of jewish skin, boiling down the bodies of jewish victims to make soap and cosmetic products out their body fat and other absurd ideas. These accusations didnt come from a few jews here and there who obviously didnt remember things quite as they happened, they came influential jews like Simon Weisenthal. Today this claim has been quietly dropped and there is almost no mention of it, nor is there mention of it on this pathetic article. As far as I can tell this article doesn't provide any proof whatsoever contradicting "holocaust deniers." It simply states in alot of bloated and misleading verbiage "the holocaust deniers are wrong and are a bunch of liars"

This article attempts to "refute" the claims simply by saying "that isnt true."

It is rife with character assassination, and completely void of any fact, reason or logic. It is a bunch of hollow doublespeak. 06:17, 27 June 2006 Nazrac

Erm.... :) Well, I agree with your assessment of the article. This is an easy subject to research, but somehow the article brings nothing to the table of exhibits. Naturally it's controversial and I'm guessing there's a certain amount of self-censorship. It's fascinating to me; received wisdom, rhetorical conceits, contrained discussion, stuff like that. I agree the phrase 'holocaust denier' is a kind of Rhetorical device, or anyway a triumph of rhetoric over substance, but it's probably unwise to say so. On which point it's readily observable that some holocaust sceptics have ulterior motives, usually just common or garden racism. This is the point at which some say there can't be further discussion because there's a rowdy mob at the back of the hall. I think that's wikipedia's view. I don't think you can have encyclopedic articles on that basis however.

Hakluyt bean 22:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with this article is no one here seems to have read revisionist material. How can you refute something you havent read? The tactic here seems to 1. Look for the main objections raised by revisionists 2. Look for arguments or "facts" that refute those objections 3. write a definitive article about how false revisionism is. If you take a pre-conceived notion and then try to prove or disprove it by only looking for facts that support the pre-conceived notion, you get a distorted picture. You arent really supporting both views and conducting yourself in an un-biased manor and thus violating Wikipedia rules, not to mention being a poor scholar. By using that crude methodology you are asserting a POV while slandering the opponent as a "denier" of history. This article seems also to be as much about trashing the opposing view as it is "refuting" their claims.--Nazrac 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The main problem here is the inability to distinguish between "discussion form" and "work of fact". The _fact_ is that there are those that seek to minimize or deny part of history. And a "slander" is something said about someone that is untrue. David Irving found out that telling the truth _is_ a defence against slander when he sued. Wikipedia's mantra isn't to provide a platform for EVERY view; that is what a discussion form is for. It's also not completely unbiased; there is a bias for truth and correctness. 05:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

And there are also those who seek to grossly distort, misrepresent and twist the facts and historical accuracy for political purposes, both by means of omission and commission. That I think is a far greater crime than someone who pokes holes in a number of the more obvious falsehoods. The fact is history is constantly in a state of revision, as is Wikipedia. What is so wrong about wanting to start an honest debate on the subject? It has been my observation that throughout history for every so called denier of history there are 100 liars and fabricators. I simply dont see why so much time is spent blasting holocaust deniers, if there even is such a thing to begin with. I see more attacks on the credibility of the individuals in question rather than the claims they are making. I haven't ever seen one website that denies every single crime commited during the holocaust, rather they disagree some details that certain interests are insinuating as fact. I don't see how that equates to "denial" at all. Just because someone doesn't buy every jewskin lampshade story they read on holocaust websites does not make them a denier of history. Why is everyone on here so afraid of David Irving anyway? I have yet to see anyone conclusively refute any of his work, aside from pointing out a few trivial inaccuracies. Just my two cents.--Nazrac 05:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true, history is in a constant revision -- but not the kind that so called "holocaust revisionists" dabble in. TRUE historical revisionism has to do with the causes and effects of history, and not whether event(s) transpired or not. While there is much debate over the causes of WWI, for instance, there is no serious debate that it occured. What deniers do, under the guise of "revisionism", is not debate why the Holocaust happened, but rather question whether some or all of it occured at all. This isn't a revision, but an attempt to rewrite the facts of history.

Denial works with lots of "codewords", much like the Nazi system that helped foster the Holocaust. They are engaged in "revisionism", not denial of fact. There are "certain interests" that are motivated to have history written a certain way, which they don't agree with.

Finally, no one is afraid of David Irving. He's proved himself a fool, quite admirably, by suing for slander in England, where the defendents had the more difficult burden of proof, and he still managed to lose. And if you haven't read a refutation of Irving, you obviously missed "Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial" by Richard J. Evans, a great book by a History Professor who took Irving's sources to task and proved he manipulated what they said. 04:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

The problem is no one except the lunatic fringe neo-nazis deny the holocaust in every facet occured. Most revisionists dont deny it at all but disagree on major points, as any other facet of history is debated by historians. The difference is the Holocaust is a very emotionally charged issue, so any perceipted attempt to question or revise the current accept account is met with suspicion or outright hostility, regardless of how well intentioned or accurate the argument may be. By calling everyone who calls into question certain details a holocaust denier, you are doing a dis-service to yourself and others. What do you mean by "code-words"? Certainly there are those who have an interest in twisting history, but not everyone, and it works both ways. One might argue there are certain powerful interests who want to prevent closer examination of the holocaust and evidence for or against it, so labeling anyone who starts sniffing around and drawing in too much attention is labeled "holocaust denier" regardless of the intention. It isn't just alleged neo-nazis who have been given this label. David Cole for example is jewish and has been on the receiving end of this term. A person's motivation or alleged motivation for questions or examining certain accepted facts does not change the fact that they may very well have a point. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with revisionist views, but I have at least taken to the time to read them in depth, rather than dismiss them with prejudice as having some sinister intention.

--Nazrac 20:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is little substantial difference between "denying every facet" and "disagreeing om major points", as far as most Revisionists/Deniers go. Make no mistake -- there are very few people who want to supress a critical examination of history, or even the Holocaust. The Holocaust is an emotional event, especially for those involved and their families. However, most revisionist material is neither "well intentioned" or "accurate". Further, there is no demands for "debate" on whether Gas was used in WW I, that we provide forensic reports to show it happened, etc etc. This microscopic examination of the topic is saved only for the Holocaust. The truth is, most revisionists/deniers have a very limited interest in history -- mostly around "Zionism" and Isreal. Most historians have an interest in at least a few areas of history, even if they specialize in just one. It's great to take time to read the revisionist/denial material in depth; but make sure you expend the same effort in reading the refutations of this material, which are quite enlightening. 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

Peter Lee writes- This article complies with U.S law, which states that the Holocaust is an undeniable truth. That mmeans that, no matter how much evidence you provide that no people were ever killed in a gas chamber, the United States Legal system will accept the Holocaust myth as a truth. It's like the problem in Italy where a man is being charged with denying the existence of jesus, or in Afghanistan where it is illegal to preach against islam. The writr has misdirected your attention away from the fact that holocaust myth was created to build support for the state of israel at the United Nations back in 1948 after jewish terrorists killed hundreds of innocent civilians there. And while Israel continues to defy the U.N on every front, they need this myth to continue to support their fraudulent claim of sovereignty over Palestinian land. dupisha@google.com

Yes, very interesting how no one ever mentions the jewish terrorist groups who commited shootings and bombings against the British in Palestine after the war. I also recall reading somewhere Winston Churchill was quoted as saying "I think we slaughtered the wrong pig" around the same time. --Nazrac 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who Peter Lee is, but he seems as uninformed as your are. There are _NO_ laws in the United States that say the Holocaust "is an undeniable truth". In fact, there are no laws against Revisionism or Holocaust Denial in the United States AT ALL.

It's ironic that _just above_ this I handwaved at this very tiresome linking of the Holocaust to Zionism. What's "interesting" here is that the agenda of _most_ revisionist "truth seekers" is much more transparent then they care to admit. If you have some interesting insight into the creation of the state of Israel, or "jewish terrorist groups", I'm sure there is a place to add them, provided they are fact based -- but none of this is relevant to Holocaust denial. 00:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

'holocaust myth was created to build support for the state of israel at the United Nations back in 1948' - I don't know how much you've looked into the facts but obviously not very much. Just one interesting point, of course you could say it's all part of the "myth". When some of the holocaust survivors came to Israel after the end of the war, no one believed them there (up to a sertain extent) untill the eichman trial when the state brought survivors to testify for the first time. 20:43, 22 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.221.101 (talk • contribs)

This article and dicussion page are very amusing. It appears - I may be wrong - that Jews ( I am one myself - a few generation removed, about 4 grandfathers ago) write the article for an opposing view. Of course they write most of the articles touching on the subject. Is there any way that deniers can get to write an article so we can see their evidence first hand? Having an article responding to their article would be a little less heavyhanded. In this article there seems to be a rush to get to the end of each sentence so you can stick it to the argument. I wouldn't let any of you guys argue both sides of any thing except in wiki. 20:31, 15 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)

Denial as anti-Semitism

Is the point of view of Chomsky in Faurisson affair#Chomsky's response an isolated one? Apokrif 17:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) See also "Inside the bunker.(in-depth look at those who deny the Holocaust)", John Sack, Esquire, 1st February 2001, Volume 135; Issue 2: "Nor did they seem anti-Semites. I'm sure many anti-Semites say the Holocaust didn't happen (even as they take delight that it really did), but I don't believe I met any that weekend [a conference of deniers]" (he compares deniers with cryptozoologists) Apokrif 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I read the article with a genuine interest in the subject with very little prior knowledge. I felt the tone was far from neutral and more "this is why everyone who thinks this is wrong." Particularly the part about the pre and post-war Jewish populations. Basically, I felt it was blatant what stand-point the author is from, whereas I was looking for an honest representation of facts. What about those who aren't denying the holocaust but questioning the honesty and integrity of the number Jewish deaths specifically without being labelled neo-nazis. I've probably gone about this all the wrong way, but it makes me angry that the article was just there, seemingly unquestioned.---15:54, 11 October 2006 Clkarp

There have been many studies of the Holocaust done by a range of Historians, and there is a diversity of estimates on the exact number of victims, both Jewish and non Jewish. However, there are few if any scholars who "question the honesty and integrity of the number of Jewish deaths specifically" without actually doing a thorough study.

The article should be an honest representation of the claims of revisionists/deniers, but as their claims are not accepted by Historians (or backed by any evidence), I'm not sure what "facts" are missing. Cantankrus 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof

I think we could discuss (but, is this approach neutral?) http://www.geniebusters.org/915/04g_jumping.html : looks like its fallacy is that, unlike encounters with UFO, the Holocaust happened only once, and that unlike psi powers, the Holocaust cannot be reproduced at will (so the level of evidence required is higher for psi powers than for encounters with UFO, which in turn require stronger proof than the Holocaust). Apokrif 17:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the difference is that the Holocaust is a historical event, and psi powers and UFO sightings are contemporary things. The approach in the linked article isn't about the Holocaust as an event, but rather a challenge to the Skeptic's article; and the author of the linked article talks only about _gas_ chambers. 05:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

We all know the kind of loony bins one will find at UFO conventions. The question is how are they any different than the people who fabricated stories about the Germans making lampshades out of the skin of murdered jews and cosmetic products out of their body fat? That seems not only crackpot but malicious in intent. They actually produced a lampshade that was used to incriminate Isle Koch, the wife of the Buchanwald commandant during the Nuremburg trials. It was claimed she collected items, including furniture made from the corpses of jews murdered in the camp. She commited suicide after spending two decades in prison. It was subsequently detirmined that the lampshade was made out of goat skin. Sadly we still see this sort of proposterously absurd nonsense on numerous holocaust websites despite being thoroughly disproven in more recent times.--Nazrac 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many stories about various atrocities, and it is true that some of the more sordid ones get more play, but that doesn't make them fabricated. The truth about Ilse Koch, it seems, is that she _wasn't_ convicted with a lampshade, or any human skin article from Buchanwald. She was sentenced to life, commuted to 4 years for her crimes at Buchanwald by the military courts. She was then subsequently tried by German courts and sentenced to life, again with no reference to any human skin article. She was implicted in several testimonies in the collection and possession of human skin tattoos. If you have some reference that disproves this, it would be interesting to read. 05:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nwidmann/nwidsoap.html

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/antiprop/jewish_soap/index.html

Ironically only decades later has the holocaust lobby quietly dropped this claim, although the self proclaimed "Nazi hunter" Simon Weisenthal made these claims, and never retracted them before his death recently. Despite being thoroughly disproven, these claims are still parroted off on a number of "holocaust research" websites. Why is it only those evil lying holocaust deniers are the ones making a stink about this scandal against human decency and historical honesty? One might venture to guess its still more profitable to continue portraying Nazi Germany as comic book supervillians.

--Nazrac 21:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that those "lying" deniers keep parroting the same lies, though? The refrences have to do with SOAP, not Ilse Koch, human skin artifacts or what she was convicted of in courts of law. But, lampshades, human skin, what difference is the truth as long as there is some vague refutation. There is no need for comic books to portray Nazi Germany as villians; they did that without any need for imbellishment. I'm not sure anything here has been "thoroughly disproven" though - while it's true that some of these more horrific stories get more play, just because they aren't widespread doesn't mean they aren't true. 04:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

Try reading the entire articles I cited above before posting, you'll save yourself some confusion and save face by not posting meaningless responses. Is there some reason you're afraid to actually read it?

--Nazrac 05:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked for something on point about Ilse Koch, and you posted links about Soap. While that might make sense to you, it makes no sense to me, whatsoever. I guess I'm one of those few logical people that expects an on point answer to an on point question; call me crazy. Above, you mentioned that Ilse Koch had been incriminated with a lampshade; I asked for a reference about _that_, not about soap. Is there some reason you didn't send a link to back up your assertation above? 05:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.47.2 (talk • contribs)

Why are you posting on this Talk: page, Nazrac? Do you have a point? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not an objective article on holocaust denial and is a disgrace to the Wikipedia rules. Wazzally 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Any specific criticism? --Havermayer 21:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

An examination of Holocaust denial should present both cases - this does not. It is clearly written by someone who strongly disagrees with "holcaust denial". I wish to see both sides and then make my own assessment - this article and the discussion does not assist in anyway. Amateur debating society if you ask me. 21:28, 16 November 2006 Wazzally

NPOV does not mean giving equal space to all sides of the argument, it means giving a neutral and honest treatment to all sides. The vast majority of evidence, research, and historical fact is weighted in favor of the Holocaust, simply because of the fact that the Holocaust occurred. It is also a fact that the arguments and "evidence" of Holocaust deniers are flimsy and tremendously outweighed and overwhelmed by the evidence of their opponents, because their arguments are poorly stated and impossible to support. This article is indeed weighted strongly against Holocaust denial, because this is NPOV: the fact that historical fact and evidence itself is weighted strongly against Holocaust denial. --Modemac 21:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also take notice of Undue Weight. Pseudo-history does not need to be given the same weight as real history. Sorry--131.104.139.117 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I found this article interesting and educational; however I do agree with Wazzally that the article in its current state is NPOV. While it may be true that historical evidence weighs against Holocaust denial, the style in which this article is written seeks to persuade the reader that this is the case. This shouldn't be the case on Wikipedia. Phonemonkey 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the article should refute the facts. If the article portrays facts in a manner that leads to the conclusion that they are indeed correct, they should remain as such unless proven otherwise. Idanbd 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing and Original Research.

I agree with almost every assertion in this article, but that is not the point. We are supposed to refer every opinion to someone notable that holds that opinion, and every fact to a reliable and verifiable source. At the moment this article consists mostly of unsourced editorial. I don't want to add tags while the AfD is in progress, but it deserves at least the {{unsourced}} and {{cleanup}} tags. --Zero^talk 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Zero, I think a distinction needs to be made between "unsourced" and not Wikified. The sources are given at the bottom, but no inline cites are given. I have offered at the Afd to do this should the article be kept, but until that time I do not want to bother when my work could all be deleted. Jeffpw 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the offer. I'm sure this article won't be deleted as there is nowhere near enough consensus. --Zero^talk 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Family ties

As a Jew, There are many noticable things that I get to see each and every week. The first is, most my family keeps very reliable family tree information, which isn't something unique about my family, but a tendency for Jewish families to keep records. Many elderly Jews spend their final days piecing together the past. What is of interest here, we have witness statements made by survivors, perhaps as the deniers would say, exaggerated, perhaps due to the terrible conditions they faced. But, how can one explain lost family members who disappeared from the face of the earth?

My family remembers all who were lost during the holocaust, we have a list of names of family members lost. Now, please explain to me, where these people went to, if they weren't in fact killed? I'd love to know, so would many of my family. If the holocaust isn't real, which we're prepared to accept, if it's true, then where did these people go?(Brijones 06:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

I tried to make a list of the kids I went to school with. Almost half have disappeared - girls married and moved away ( no family left in the area, guys ditto. I hope they didn't die in a holocaust.

Please choose a better photograph for evidence

The first photograph under the "Evidence of the Holocaust" is probably one of the worst examples of proof I have seen. It is a photo-montage (like the Beatles Sgt. Pepper Album).

• The officer who is shooting does not have any shadow in the picture.
• He does, though, have a white outline around him. This is an obvious cut and paste job.
• All the other Germans are lined up behind a hill, which makes the collage job much easier.
• The group in the background seem to have some problem matching their legs with the rest

of their bodies.

Recall that the Nazis uncovered mass graves in the Ukraine after they occupied it. They catalogued almost 10,000 bodies the Soviet NKVD murdered during the Stalinist purges in the 1930's. That may be the true origin of part of this photo.71.132.230.99 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The picture looks to be taken with Orthochromatic film which treats lights and shadows in a different manner than newer pictures. Film is a good deal more sensitive to contrast than our eyes our; this picture appears to be taken on a cloudy day with diffused shadows. The outline was probably not visible to the human eye when the picture was taken. The legs look unusual because the soldiers are at an various angles relative to the camera. I don't see any evidence that this picture is a Photoshop job. Samboy 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not a Photoshop job. Adobe didn't exist back then. 71.132.210.164 03:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This photo went through an extended discussion over at the Einsatzgruppen page. While there are lots of claims made about the photo, none of them seem to be supported by anything resembling a reliable source. Not surprisingly, there is a large number of revisionist websites that engage in wild speculation about the photo. It's fake, it's soviet, it's a montage. Anything to throw doubt, but surprisingly little evidence. But, that is a criticism of Holocaust Denial, isn't it? Cantankrus 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, add Mel Mermelstein to your watchlist

Guys, I just reverted some pro-denial propaganda added by an IP to the Mel Mermelstein article. People with this page on their watchlist should also keep an eye on Mel Mermelstein. Samboy 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist - you sound like a bunch of kids. After reading the article this whole subject is in real trouble. The arguments against revionionism have no substance. Someone out there must be able to do better even on the weak side of a debate. Sooner or later the smarter kids are going to get uncomfortable and take Saturdays off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) One indication of how the factual side of the debate is going is the protection of the Holocaust Denial site. Beef up our arguments with some facts - the above thing about different cameras in the olden days producing white lines around figures is your best joke yet. I have hundreds of old family photos taken from 1900 on and not one white line encasing a single figure - of course maybe the white lines only surround Germans and jews taken in the cloudy overcast days of the 1940s. When you have to grasp at straws like this please protect the page - this is too embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Your photos were taken with different lighting conditions which wouldn't cause that. Basically, the white lines are caused when the light is coming from behind someone, but the light source is somewhat diffused by clouds. This is a somewhat unusual lighting situation, but apparently the one in the photo above. Oh, and also please look at Wikipedia:Civility. Don't just assert that our arguments are bad; show us why the arguments are flawed. Samboy 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My family photos fill up boxes. They were all taken by non-photograhers - whether the light came from the front or the back or on clear or cloudy days or wer double exposed etc was beyond their technical knowledge. They just shot pictures at random. Not a single white line enclosed figure man, woman kid, cow, house or horse. Show us a link to white line enclosed figures so we can see one. Also show us some known falsified photos to judge.

Interesting - Mermelstein article - I recently read in one of the discussion pages on a holocaust article that there was no law in America on "judicial notice". Well the Mermelstein article states that California in the Mermelstein case first used "judicial notice" in this case - it had been on the books for a time I guess but never was used. It appears "judicial notice" is in the law - other states, US federal ???

NPOV Tag

I placed the NPOV tag on this article for several reasons. There's a myriad of POV issues on this page, I don't even know where to begin. This usually comes through unsourced judgments such as the "Evidence for the Holocaust" section, which presents the argument of the deniers, then attempts to prove it wrong. This seems to violate fairness of tone, because this article gives a bias by its careful choice of sources.

I mean, hell. This paragraph I quote below is obviously trying to prove something. While it might be true, POV drips from it. It completely goes against the idea that facts should be presented and the reader should judge. It also contains several weasel-words, such as "clearly false".

"A number of other common Holocaust denial claims about gas chambers rely on misdirection, similar to the Auschwitz plaque example given above. For example, the Institute for Historical Review has claimed that Holocaust testimony on gas chambers is unreliable, because, in the words of the IHR: "Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false." This claim is clearly false, as the Nizkor Project and other sources has pointed out, the minimal concentration of Zyklon-B to be explosive is 56,000 parts per million, while the amount used to kill a human is 300 parts per million, as is evidenced in any common reference guide to chemicals, such as the "The Merck Index" and the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics"." While this does make sense, it's not our place to say something is "clearly false."

Additionally, every single citation in this article is from someone who is anti-holocaust denial. That says something, for one thing.

I'll try to fix these NPOV issues over the upcoming weeks by adding citations, rephrasing material, and so on and so forth. Hopefully some people here can help me do the same. We basically need to go through the article, and every time we see an unreferenced statement (e.g. "Historians point out that after liberation the local Polish farming population returned, and, needing materials to rebuild houses before winter, removed large amounts of re-usable bricks from the ruins") or some sort of conclusion made (e.g. "Finally, Holocaust deniers can be very selective when citing sources; other sources give very different figures for the Jewish population before and after the war.")

All these things need sources and phrasing so that it fits with WP:NPOV and WP:AWW guidelines. That means, remove judgments, weasel words, sarcasm, and so forth.

How can we claim any semblance of NPOV if we say things like "However, as is typically the case, the evidence given by Holocaust deniers does not stand up to closer scrutiny"?

Anyway, I'll see what I can do about this as time goes on. .V. 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of requested citations. Maybe we can focus on issues, rather then overtagging the article.

I'm not sure if the cite style is the prefered one, does anyone know? It's inconsistent through the article -- I fixed the ones around the fact tags, but I don't want to fix everything if my style here isn't correct.

There was a fact tag added for lack of publishing in peer reviewed journals. If a revisionist actually had published in such a beast, we'd have heard about it, no doubt. However, I'm not sure how you would cite a negative such as this. Any ideas? Cantankrus 03:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we don't need to use a citation needed tag on everything. I figure we should just go through and add citations wherever we can.

As for the negative, I'm reluctant to say that absence of proof is proof of absence... unless we can get a source saying such. Or something. One way to do it is to say "In no major publications" and then have a footnote listing what we mean by that. For example, the footnote would read: "Journals A,B,C,D" and so forth. .V. 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If everything isn't in contention, maybe we can drop the article tags and just add fact tags?

I'm not aware of any peer reviewed journal that has published any revisionist/denier article. Major publications imply that some more minor ones may have done so, which seems to be misleading. Maybe a better phrase would be "No respected peer reviewed journal has published". Cantankrus 06:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely everything isn't in contention, but when I went through to add fact tags, I found that I would be adding so many that it would simply be easier to place the tag on top of the article. It was to the point where there would be sentence after sentence of unsourced statements, with whole sections citing maybe one place, or even none.

Anyway, the term "respected" no doubt differs from region to region, and even person to person. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed journal that has published holocaust revisionism/denial articles, but then again, I'm not an avid follower of these journals. Given the sheer number of peer-reviewed journals, I think we should just create an operating definition for "major peer review journal." I figure we should find the top 4 or 5 peer reviewed journals in the subject of history, and then cite which these are. That way, the sentence can still stay in the article, but it would be extremely clear what we mean by "major".

That's part of another issue we should deal with on this article. I've noticed that there are some citations, but when those citations are presented, the opinion is stated as if it was fact. Making the source clear in the statement is important, especially given the fact that we're dealing with a "Criticisms of" page here (which often blur the line between fact and opinion for the benefit of either side, depending on who's writing it.) .V. 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that respected is more on point then major, actually. What you consider important or "major" would depend on your field of history, what language(s) you speak and where you are located. However, scholars and academics would be aware of journals that aren't in their own area, but where the journals are respected within their own field.

The point here is that while revisionists/deniers seem to be approaching the subject in a scholarly manner and with academic methodology, but this is only window dressing, as they aren't really interested in the academics.

Most of the lines between history and conspiracy theory are pretty clear, in my experience. In the end, the Holocaust is just another piece of history. And History doesn't have "sides", it only has evidence which establishes the facts. (Of course, Historians have lots of opinions on the cause and effect of these facts -- but that is what real revisionism is about). Cantankrus 08:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Google "hit counts" or something would be a good objective measure of which publications are considered major. I can't think of any way to quantify which are respected. .V. 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Google would be a poor indicator here, as some journals only come in paper versions, and even if they do come in electronic form, I believe a subscription or signup is needed before contents are viewable, which would make them unsearchable (and unidexable) by Google.

Respected journals would be carried in University libraries -- usually there are lists of them available from the circulation desk. Cantankrus 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

V, Cantankrus, could you explain better what you want to do? It is not hard to have a rough idea now a days on what has or has not been published in academic journals. There are several electronic databases, such as JSTOR, Project MUSE, Historical Abstracts that are quite helpful to have an overview of hte field. And I can promise you that you won't find holocaust denier's articles in these database. You will find huge disagreements on the most diverse points regarding the holocaust (e.x.: what was the participation of the German population? How much was already in place when Wannsee took place? How much of the camp network was inspired by the Gulag? How was the religious life within the camps? and so on), but you won't find anyone contesting that a genocide occurred.--Ninarosa 07:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My problem was that the statement in the article (that no Holocaust denier/revisionist has been published in a respected journal) is trying to "prove a negative" and in this case, absence of proof seems like proof of absence. That statement has serious logical problems. Additionally, "respected" is hard to define. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ninarosa - You have covered the point I was making. Journals with academic integrity and a peer review board are the type of Journal that shows up on JSTOR. Those journals are considered "respected", and as you say, have a diverse range of opinions expressed about the events that encompass the Holocaust. Revisionists/Deniers use a myriad of techniques to show they are after "the truth". It's incomprehensible that a respected journal would have published a revisionist/denial piece and they would have missed it. Cantankrus 03:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

V., I am not sure how to solve it. I can do a simple search with the names of the most prominent Holocaust deniers in four leading academic databases, those indexing the most prestigious journals in the history, and by prestigious I mean peer-reviewed journals sponsored by Academic institutions or associations. The search will return empty (in fact, I have already done something similar). This gives me sufficient (although not perfect) bases to say that "no Holocaust denier has been published in a respected journal." (it may need some qualifications: no holocaust denier has published an article with this argument in a peer-reviewed publication that is respected by the Academia). But it is so full of caveats and the result is the same: holocaust deniers have no credibility in the academia, and one of the indicators is that their work does not survive good peer-reviewing. --Ninarosa 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Even so, going out and collecting that type of information is essentially original research. It would be good if we had a source to attribute the quote to. At the very, very least, there should be a footnote saying exactly where was searched (JSTOR for example). .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 05:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I will look at Michael Shermer'work next week. He wrote a book recently (Denying History) that is basically an analysis of Holocaust deniers, and I am pretty sure there was a chapter discussing who the deniers are and the (lack of) relationship with the academia.--Ninarosa 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Checked Shermer's book: he revised the biography of the most notorious Holocaust deniers (and the most quoted) and the Institute of Historical Reviews--none of them has publications on holocaust denial in any peer-reviewed, reputable journals. It can be assumed that the deniers themselves would be interested in making the claim, if they had. I think it can also be safely assumed that if these "most notorious" or "most quoted" do not have publication records, their followers won't have them either. Furthermore, the Organization of the American Historians has declared since 1992 that IHR does not even come close to standarts of scholarship. In October 1992, The Organization of the American Historians published a note that said among other things: "We all abhor, on both moral and scholarly grounds, the substantive arguments of the Institute for Historical Review. We reject their claims to be taken seriously as historians." It was publishe in the Newsletter of the organization in February 1993 and again in the letters to the editors of the Journal of American History, vol. 80, n. 3, in 1993.--Ninarosa 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of the inherently vague nature regarding "proving a negative", perhaps it should be listed in the article in such a way as: "According to Michael Shermer, none of the most notable IHR editors have been published in a peer review journal." (or whatever is the most accurate phrasing is of what Shermer said.) .V. _[Talk|Email] 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nitzor's analysis is interesting but... If Zyklon was used, which we all agree ( except for the diesel fuel advocates ), then in order to kill a packed room in three minutes - claimed by the knowledgeable witnesses - then you might need a slightly higher conten than the Merck leathal dose. Without a good fan/circulation system, in order to make sure that everyone in the room was dead in three minutes then you would have to have an extreme overload dose of crystal thrown in. These crystals would continue to release gas - reaching a point where smoking a cigarette would be unwise. The three minute limit misses up the logic/argument. Is there any way we can drop the three minute guys or are they necessary for some other detail/s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I am missing something. Where is it said that a room full of people was killed in three minutes? As far as I know, the time varied greatly, according to temperature, for instance. The testimonies of the SS in the camps mention that it was "very quick", but also mention 15 minutes, 30 minutes or more, before the doors could be open again. This is still quite fast. See http://www.izieu.com/new_page_8a.htm --Ninarosa 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Article Restructuring Suggestion

I have an idea, hopefully one that will help slice out a big chunk of POV and OR in this article. I'd like some feedback on it before I do it, since it's kind of a large step.

As for the first major change, I propose that we nix the entire "Methods used by Holocaust deniers" section. This is for two reasons.

• It's superfluous. When the reader examines the claims listed below, they're going to learn all about the methodology of the holocaust deniers, since they'd actually be reading the assertions.
• It's textbook POV writing. This article has the methods of Holocaust deniers defined by the person who's in charge of the largest Internet anti-denial organization. I think that says enough, not to mention the blatant "Here's why they're wrong" mentality of the section, evidenced through the various examples given through selectively-chosen sources.
• What ARE the methods of Holocaust Deniers, anyway? After reading this section, the concept of "Holocaust denial methods" is basically that, while in some cases they use facts, it's for the most part willful deception and lying. This is painting with a dangerously broad brush -- we should present the claims below and let the reader decide, instead of doing our best to prove that they're liars and scums of the earth (because that's what this section looks like it's doing.)

As for the second major change, I propose we restructure the "claims" section. Currently, the claims section looks like it's attempting to disprove the Denial/Revisionist claims before they're even presented. The section is called "Evidence of the Holocaust", and the titles of the sections are things like "Evidence for the 6 million death toll"... which is presented before the reader even knows what the Deniers/Revisionists say about the subject.

So therefore, I suggest we change the following:

Evidence of the Holocaust --> Criticism of Denial Claims Evidence for Hitler's Complicity in the Holocaust --> Hitler was not complacent in the Holocaust

And so forth to all the subsections so they follow this.

That way, it's much clearer. The section directly addresses the contents, and the contents follow the lead of the section. For one, it's less judgmental. The previous method was basically "proving" Holocaust denial wrong, while this can show the claims and then the criticism, as such an article should be.

Thirdly and lastly, the individual claims need to be pared down. They're filled with OR, but that's not the biggest problem with them. They're full of generalities with few examples. What the claims section should be is,

• Holocaust denial claims presented (with a clear source!)
• Holocaust denial claims rebutted (with a clear source!)
• NO judgment (as in, no saying "Clearly, this is false", as this article says several times.)

If the issue is so obviously clear, it will be clear to the reader. Like the Zyklon-B explosive percentage, it doesn't need any editorializing.

As such, the criticism section will be pared down, and will only contain claims and then rebuts without any other material at all.

How do these sound? .V. 19:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope this restructuring won't distract you too much from your strenuous objections to calling the Zionist Occupation Government theory an antisemitic canard. (Talk:Zionist_Occupation_Government#Anti-Semetic_Canard_Cat). It's a fascinating discussion. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist. My last reply was two days ago, so when someone replies, I'll certainly continue the discussion.

I also hardly think it's strenuous. The NPOV policy is enough to remove the article's category, but there are quite a few other reasons as well. Unfortunately, people tend not to address my reasons directly, but hopefully now I've put it in bulletpoint form, I'll get some clear responses. The more I think about it, the more I think that nobody will address the NPOV concern because it's straight out of policy and pretty obvious in itself. Well, we'll see. .V. 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone even have a comment on this? I don't want to go through and do all this just to have someone immediately revert it afterwards. .V. 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You have very good points, I fully agree with you and the need for major editing. ClaviculaNox 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)ClaviculaNox

Hello again! I have made a great deal of edits to this article, but before posting it, I wanted to show a preview. You can find it here: [2]

To summarize, I found that the "methods of holocaust deniers" section could be re-written to be NPOV, and so I did. I also removed the burden of proof section, since it seemed superfluous and didn't apply at all to the claims listed in the rest of the article. I also removed anything that was entirely unsourced. Please give any feedback you can on the revision. If it's feedback specifically about the content of the revision, please post that on the talk page of the revision's page (criticismofholocaustdenial.)

Thanks! .V. (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violations

The article is a shamefully political and against all rules of Neutral point of view.

First of all, the very title is against NPOV, why is it "Criticsm of Holocaust denial"? Is the point of Wikipedia to criticise something? No, the point is to be neutral, to let all views to be heard. So why is the main view selected right at the title?

My suggestion is to rename the article as "Holocaust controversy", this is the common way to title a controversial topic, for example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

After this, the contents should be modified to present both sides and without name-calling, for example categorizing the other side as neo-Nazis or the other as Jew-lovers.

ClaviculaNox 11:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)ClaviculaNox

There are many articles on WP starting 'criticism of' or 'criticisms of':

criticism_of_Christianity

criticism_of_Islam

criticism_of_Atheism

criticisms_of_Socialism

criticisms_of_Marxism

criticism_of_capitalism

Also, calling this article a controversy would be misleading - there is no controversy among historians, and only a fringe of Hitler-lovers and antisemites try to pretend that there is. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing this to other "criticism of"'s is not valid. Of the other criticised subjects there are also general articles, for example, there is Christianity where the basic concepts of that ideology is discussed. In addition to that, there is the criticism_of_Christianity article. But for holocaust denial there is no general article, only the one of criticism. That isn't compatible with NPOV.

Why you are calling people who support the subject (i.e. holocaust denial) with names? It's the general consensus among scientists and historians that holocaust did happen, no one is arguing with that. But it was also a consensus once that masturbation caused mental disorders, did it contribute anything to the discussion to call the people who disagreed as masturbation-lovers or anti-sanics? Sorry, that was a rhetoric question, the answer is no, no it didn't contribute anything, nor does it contribute anything now.

ClaviculaNox 13:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)ClaviculaNox

There is a general article Holocaust denial. My categorisation of deniers merely paraphrases scholars of the field: '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?) 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is not a very general article of the subject, it's an article about criticising and discrediting the subject. For example, why is Holocaust denial under the antisemitism category, is that really correct according to NPOV? If it is, why isn't all notions that conflict the general belief or scientific concensus put under some category of a hoax or a pipe dream? Such as Free energy suppression?

Are everyone who questions the holocaust an antisemite? I don't think so. Someone who criticizes Islam isn't necessery anti-Islamist, or someone who criticizes NASA's spendings isn't necessary against NASA itself. ClaviculaNox 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)ClaviculaNox

If you hold a fringe position, an article that appears to the majority of editors to be balanced may well appear to you to unfairly discredit your fringe position. That goes for any flat-earth type crankiness.

Your example of Free energy suppression is a poor one, since it is in Category:Conspiracy theories.

It is possible that not all deniers are antisemites, but some who say they are not in fact are. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Free energy suppression is a conspiracy theory, it suggest ("theory") that energy companies are holding back research data on free energy for their own monetary gain ("conspiracy"). The categorization is factual. To say holocaust denial is antisemite is a matter of opinion, not a fact. If you are disputing this then please, do show the evidence that proves calling holocaust denial as antisemite is a fact, not a mattter of opinion.

As you said, it's possible that not all deniers are antisemites. Therefore it's unreasonable to call the idealogy (of holocaust denial) antisemite. And the articles on holocaust denial doesn't seem to appear balanced to the majority of editors since the subject sparks often very heated argumentation and discussion, doesn't it? ClaviculaNox 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)ClaviculaNox

Maybe we need to distinguish between the act of Holocaust denial (which could conceivably be performed by someone who was not an antisemite, for example a naive individual who took Last Thursdayism seriously), and what ClaviculaNox calls the 'ideology' of Holocaust denial, which seems to be widely defined as linked to antisemitism. Barnabypage 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, maybe we should distinguish between neo-Nazi holocaust deniers and skeptics who only wish to ask questions about the subject. Simply calling all who ask questions as antisemites or nazis is black and white, wrong, and doesn't lead to anything. ClaviculaNox 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)ClaviculaNox

Asking questions is one thing; making assertions is another. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Photographs

This line Photographs of Treblinka taken by the camp commandant show ash piles being distributed by steam shovels. was marked as "citation needed". I'm having trouble figuring out which of the Kurt Franz photographs this is referring to. (Franz, the deputy commander at Treblinka, kept a nice photo album entitled "Schöne Zeiten" -- "Good Times" -- which was used as evidence against him in his 1965 trial.) Is the actual album online anywhere? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the requested citation, you can take a peek there. Cantankrus 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To Whom it may concern

A couple of months ago I posted a small message on the talk page of the Battle of Shanghai regarding the improper use of this picture in the article, due to the fact I had found evidence it was faked.

Now I find myself in the same situation: After reading this article I decided to see the provenance of this photograph and noticed that the two men on the upper left corner of the picture show some strange features: the one to the right has what I can only call a "cartoonish" face. It's pretty obvious his face was drawn. Additionally both men are incredibly disproporcionate, their limbs just don't match their bodies, it's as if their stuck to just one body. Just see for yourself, download the picture and zoom it.

Can we really use this? --Ishikawa Minoru 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussions of this vein comes up every so often.

So far, other then a bunch of WP:OR about the possibility that the photograph might be a fake, there hasn't been anything presented to materially dispute the photo.

Its source is the USHMM, which we consider a reliable source. I'm not an expert in photo analysis, and even if someone was an expert, having them say that here is Original Research.

In other (somewhat lengthy) discussions, there was only amature analysis (photo and otherwise) and links to unreliable sources that dispute the photo's authenticity. Cantankrus 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. I actually had no idea someone had diuscussed this in the past. For the sake of the argument would you be kind enough to provide me with a link of any sort to those past discussions?

Regardless of the source it's pretty obvious that one's a fake. Just zoom the guy's face and you'll see a cartoon! Don't tell me that's a real human being, it's impossible! --Ishikawa Minoru 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. "That's a real human being". Or, at least, until you can produce some evidence from a reliable source indicating that the USHMM is providing fake photographs, that's going to be our position. I'm not even sure which face you're talking about, though; the focus on the men in the background is pretty poor. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this and found out several authors also noticed this distortion of history, namely all those who wrote "Dissecting the Holocaust". They mention this photograph as propaganda. Surely you won't consider those "reliable sources", despite the fact it's obvious they're telling the truth. This is just the whole Rape of Nanking issue. Why do people have to resort to fakes just to prove a point? It's disgusting.

P.S.-I just got a message saying my session data had been lost and that I was required to log in and out so that things would go back to normal. You're not going to ban me, right? I haven't done anything wrong, at least that's what I think. --Ishikawa Minoru 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

(scratching head) why would we ban you? You're not doing anything wrong. There's nothing wrong with editing anonymously; you might be confusing this with the objection we do have to people using multiple accounts (anonymous and otherwise) for disruptive or deceitful purposes (for example, setting up a bunch of accounts to make it look like a point of view has a broader base of support than it actually does.) And you are correct: "Dissecting the Holocaust" will not be used as a source in Wikipedia, nor will any holocaust denial textbook. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, I was just being paranoid.

This doesn't change my stance on the subject at hand, though. Revisionist literature is no good, you say. However, shouldn't we judge someone based on the soundness of their claims and not on their reputation?

Did you find the two men I mentioned? Didn't they look weird? Two men glued one to the other, their limbs don't match their bodies and one of them looks like a drawing. Just look for yourself. I'm not lying. --Ishikawa Minoru 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which ones you mean -- do you mean the two with their heads closest to the top of the picture? Also: a person's reputation has a great impact on the soundness of their claims. If someone from CODOH or IHR told me that the sky was blue, I'd carefully examine the sky, verify that it was blue, and then find another source asserting the blueness of the sky, because those organizations, dedicated as they are to propagating falsehoods, are inherently unreliable sources. Real history is published by real historians, and there are plenty of real historians studying the Holocaust; they do not publish for those organizations. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Holocaust denial sources shouldn't be excluded expressly because they are Holocaust deniers. However, the same standard should be applied as with other sources (The Institute for Historical Review says... X, Y, Z. This is evidenced by A, B, C.) .V. (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia policy on verifiability and guidelines on reliable sources. The former states that "sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)." The latter note that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." - Eron ^Talk 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because this is a criticism article, we can't just leave out the statements of those criticized. I think that identifying who is saying it works fine, like in the example I gave above. .V. (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We can do better than that. There are scads of photographs taken by soldiers (and others) of genocidal acts during the Holocaust. USHMM has many of them. We don't need to use one that gives us a reason to cite a holocaust denier source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. .V. (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We cannot use the statements of Holocaust deniers as a source for anything other than the fact that Holocaust deniers made those statements. They can't be used to support a claim that something did (or more appropriately, did not) actually happen. - Eron ^Talk 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. .V. (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

World Almanac Section

I removed the Almanac section for the time being because it didn't actually talk about the claims of Holocaust deniers. It said that Holocaust deniers claim issues regarding the Almanac's number of Jews in Europe, but it didn't actually show that deniers claim that. If someone can find sources that show that this is an issue used by Holocaust deniers, then by all means, reinstate the paragraph. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

V, the World Almanac is a famous argument by Holocaust deniers. See Jünger Graf, The Jewish World Population, or in the site of the Christian Party The Holohoax --in this particular case, the deniers scanned the final page (p512) that shows the population distribution WITHOUT the warning that the figures are from the last available data, but deliberately avoided page 219 on the same book (under the title Jews population, US and foreign), where the warning is very clear. Another denier site with the same argument: "Where did Hitler Get the '6 Million'?

I am reinstating the paragraph.Ninarosa 07:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that's fine. As long as there's evidence that Deniers actually use that argument, which there now seems to be. I reworded the first sentence of the Almanac paragraph... to say that this is their strongest (or stronger) arguments would require some kind of citation. I made it more generic and said this is one of the arguments they use. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I reworded the subtitles for the External Links. The main focus of this article is not whether the Holocaust happened or not--this is a false issue and it is not taken seriously by reputable scholars--but the claims made by holocaust deniers. Therefore the links should not be organized under "resources that support that the Holocaust took place", but under "Resources that support/refute Holocaust denier claims".Ninarosa 08:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 08:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic concerns

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

Don't be afraid to be bold in your edits. I'm kind of on the fence about the "Argument" line. I think it's useful in that it gives a short summary of the claims so that a reader that's unfamiliar with the topic can understand it better. However, it's bothersome that those argument lines are not cited. .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with andjam, particularly with reference to the "unreasonable burden of proof" section, I think this needs to be written in a more encyclopaedic fashion. Perhaps this section also does not meet NPOV guidelines?

Andy4226uk 13:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Criticism of

This article's existence is a POV violation.

Criticism of criticism of the Holocaust is not a subject for an encyclopedia and this is tautologically so. With the two sides of the issue both given proper attention in two VERY large wiki article, why must establishment have both the first AND the last word? Wikipedia is not to be used as a source to discredit "holocaust denial", only to present it for what it is. Why the back and forth? The "Holocaust Denial" article is already loaded with reference to disputed claims, misleading evidence and the like. Recommended for deletion unless links can be provided to ANY other article that presents a criticism of a criticism of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POVFORK. "Criticism" articles constitute what we on Wikipedia call "POV forks", and while a good deal of debate has occurred over their place on Wikipedia, no community consensus exists that can justify simply deleting them on these grounds. For instance, Criticism of Wal-Mart, Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Mormon sacred texts, Criticism of communism... Kansan (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point is that the actual article already does "criticize" revisionism (starting with calling it "Holocaust denial") instead of informing in a neutral way about the position of the revisionist view point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.5.34 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but Wikipedia's role is not about "Neutrality", it's about *reporting the truth*. The truth is not "Neutral", deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bootsielon (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is true that Wikipedia's role is about reporting the truth, then how comes that the untrue statements pointed out here are still in the Article after several month? Is it because the article couldn't fulfill its purpose if it would stick to the truth? 62.226.23.179 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly so. You see, there is a vast conspiracy going on - the Endlösung der Nationalsozialistenfrage. And you know it. --Insert coins (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Though conspiracy is not exactly the right word to describe it, I appreciate your honesty. 62.226.0.187 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)