Talk:Holocaust denial

There's not need for an article copying the (faulty) structure of the way things are in Wikipedia. Ori Redler 08:28, 8 February 2007 (CST)

I admit it was mostly a reminder to work on the article later. How would you suggest we proceed? Just a single article on Holocaust denial and include the criticism on it?--Lise Sedrez 00:18, 9 February 2007 (CST)

I'll start by saying that I'm not an expert on this subject (my experience is limited to a BA seminary work and some articles in popular press) so my comments should be taken with more than a pinch of salt.

That noted, I think the stuff in WP is there anyhow, so we can always go back to it if and when we think it's good and helpful for our purpose. Since we do not want to start off trying to "jump over our belly-button" this naturally leads to trying to write a good article about Holocaust denial. The current one, also from Wikipedia, seems rather horrible, as it lacks any discrimination between what's important and what's not. listing Robert Faurisson alongside a common internet troll like Matt Giwer as "notable holocaust deniers" is typical, as is the total lack of historical prespective in this article. Of course, there may be a legitimate need for an extended article about Criticism of Holocaust denial, but that should be determined once we have a good, solid start with Holocaust denial and feeling that there is a real need for it. I think that when we copy from WP, we also copy the whole history of this article and the "politics" of the articles, with which we should not be burdened. Ori Redler 18:26, 9 February 2007 (CST)

I have to agree with pretty much everything you've here said, Ori. --Larry Sanger 18:32, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Agreed, too. I'd like to add that any articles that are Holocaust related are going to among those that we simply must get right in terms of neutrality. Stephen Ewen 18:40, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Okay. Maybe the best solution is then to delete these articles (which I had pretty much thought as placeholders, anyway), and I will try to come up with a good article on Holocaust denial by next week. --Lise Sedrez 18:59, 9 February 2007 (CST)

it was part of an on going discussion - editing last week. Do not delete please. Robert Tito | Talk 14:45, 19 February 2007 (CST)

denial of holocaust

May I remind you all that in the vast part of the EU denial of the holocaust is a criminal offense, liable for at least 5 years in prisonment. Robert Tito |  Talk  10:41, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

May I remind you that Internet websites are not bound by every law of every country in the world? --Larry Sanger 15:51, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

That doesn't make my statement not true. Besides many europeans do feel very strongly about it. Too bad the USA is the largest source of nazi and fascist propaganda in the world at the moment. But then that is a personal feeling, shared by many from my part in the world. Robert Tito |  Talk  16:21, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Robert, I don't understand why you are reminding us of this fact. Rest assured that I shall make a point of avoiding denial of the Holocaust if and when I'm in that vast part of Europe in the future. However, what are the implications of this information with regard to us editing this article?—Nat Krause 18:18, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

A considerable implication could be the outright banning of citizendium from EU based internet service providers.--Robert W King 09:12, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

The very fact that a large number of European states -- including those historically responsible for the Holocaust -- have chosen to outlaw alternative versions of history is, in itself, something which needs to be included in thia article. Provided that the article itself does not support Holocaust denial -- and it should not, under Citizendium policy -- I cannot see on what legal basis EU internet providers could prevent access to Citizendium. If, however, they should choose to go down that road, I venture to suggest that it would be of great benefit to the public profile and reputation of Citizendium. However, I emphasize that the content of this article needs to be very carefully checked for independence, fairness and accuracy. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:30, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Martin on this point. Moreover, even if there were a chance, I can't imagine that Citizendium would want to cooperate with this sort of censorship.—Nat Krause 14:42, 28 April 2007 (CDT)

Neutrality

I changed the first sentence of this article. "Many historians and commentators criticise the claims of Holocaust denial." Because, it presented a paradox. In an effort (I'm sure) to appear balance and even-handed, implies that there is an actual debate among the scholars of the world over whether or not the Holocaust occurred. This is not true, and it is important to make the situation clear. Nancy Sculerati 18:28, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

merge into Holocaust Denial

I suggest we merge this into the stub Holocaust denial Richard Jensen 03:22, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Agreed.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:05, 25 November 2007 (CST)

Definition

The definition given above & at the head of the article is what seems to me the common-sense meaning. However, the article mentions David Irving as a heading, & covers those who claim that the numbers are exaggerated, which is not the common-sense meaning of denial. The last I heard of Irving he specifically agreed the Nazis murdered millions of Jews. That again is not the common-sense meaning of denial, yet he's been found guilty of holocaust denial by courts in at least 3 countries.

Wikipedia offers an explanation of sorts. It says HD includes not only actual denial of the holocaust but also quibbling about details if it's done dishonestly. I've no idea whether Irving is guilty of this, but let's assume he is. Is it then correct to call him a denier? It seems to me this is a sort of McCarthyism, guilt by association, or something similar. There are well-known parallels:

1. anyone right-wing is liable to be called a fascist
2. anyone with traditional religious views is liable to be called a fundamentalist
3. anyone who disapproves of homosexuality is liable to be called a homophobe

I think we have to be careful to avoid collaborating with this sort of thing. The article should clearly distinguish different senses in which the term is used.

As an aside, with reference to the mention of laws above, I might point out that in Turkey it's illegal to say the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians, while in Switzerland it's illegal to say they didn't. I prefer the Anglo-American practice of free speech, as does Professor Lipstadt whom Irving sued for libel. Peter Jackson 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Some tweaks

Not sure how much detail I will do, but I did change the ambiguous "Nuremberg Trial" to Nuremberg Military Tribunals. If one is talking about the actual killing rather than the policy level, there was more testimony there than at the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg). Really, there was no single place -- Hoess, for example, was tried and executed by a national court; Eichmann by a national court after extraordinary rendition. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lede

Cambridge historian Richard Evans defines a holocaust denier as holding at the minimum the following beliefs: "(a) The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was far less than 6 million; it amounted to less than, the number o f German civilians killed in Allied bombing raids. (b) Gas chambers were not used to kill large numbers of Jews at any time (c) Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leadership in general had a program of exterminating Europe’s Jews; all they wished to do was to deport them to Eastern Europe. (d) “The Holocaust” was a myth invented by Allied propaganda during the war and sustained since then by Jews who wished to use it to gain political and financial support for the state of Israel or for themselves. The supposed evidence for the Nazis’ wartime mass murder of millions of Jews by gassing and other means was fabricated after the war. Concerning David Irving, Evans concludes, ""There was no doubt that he was a Holocaust denier.”

I am unaware of historians describing any one as a “partial denier” but will look. In the meantime it would seem useful to put the above in the article. I am new to CZ and am puzzled by the concept of common-sense meaning. Don't we want what historians and scholars use? Joel McClellan (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to any particular way of doing this. The important thing is clarity. There's a sort of McCarthyism that operates here (and elsewhere). Distinctions are slurred. The ordinary person, hearing Irving described as a holocaust denier, might naturally suppose he claims no, or few, Jews were murdered by the Nazis. We need, one way or another, to avoid that.

That Evans quote is interesting, as it seems at first sight to be untrue. That is, Irving doesn't seem to hold all those positions. However, it uses the past tense and was published a long time ago, so the statement is no doubt true literally, but misleading. That's the sort of thing we need to avoid.

In general, we should use academic meanings, but when they differ from how (some) uninformed readers might understand things, we must make that clear up front. Peter Jackson (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want "a sort of McCarthyism" but Evans explains how he arrived at his conclusion earlier on the same page: “...when I looked closely at Irving’s speeches and writings since the late 1980s, I could not escape the conclusion that he had becomea Holocaust denier in 1988. He clearly held all four central beliefs of the deniers as defined at the beginning of this chapter. He argued that the number of Jews deliberately killed by the Nazis was far less than 6 million; it amounted to only a few hundred thousand. and was thus similar to, or less than, the number of German civilians killed in Allied bombing raids, which he portrayed as crimes of a similar or greatr order. He argued that gas chambers were not used to kill large numbers of Jews at any time. If Jews did die in large numbers, it was as a result of epidemics for which the Allied bombing raids were in large measure responsible." Richard Evans makes clear in his recent interview in The Guardian (14.February 2017) that his original conclusion still holds today. --Joel McClellan (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's look at it point by point.

• (a) He certainly holds that the total was substantially less than 6m. I don't know what his current estimate is (last I heard he said 1-4m), nor do I know how many German civilians were killed in Alled bombing raids (or how many he claims were).
• (b) This wasn't the impression I got from Irving's BBC interview a few years back. He said few Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, that it was mainly Treblinka etc. That doesn't seem to fit what Evans says.
• (c) Evans' definition seems unsatisfactory. He allows only two possibilities:

They had a programme to exterminate Europe's Jews

They wanted to deport them to Eastern Europe

• And he lumps together two statements, one about Hitler and the other about the Nazi leadership in general.
• Irving, in the interview I mentioned, objected to being asked to accept or reject a package. Instead he said

• Hitler ordered the extermination of Russian Jews
• His subordinates extended this to all Jews

• (d) Given the above, I'm not sure that this would be an accurate representation of Irving's present-day position either.

Of course it's perfectly possible Irving says different things on different occasions. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, I would have thought that that a former Regius Professor would be a reliable source, the rest smacks of original speculation. Hadn't expected that here. I am afraid that I have other research and writing priorities. Perhaps this just isn't the place for me.Joel McClellan (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a reliable source, except maybe extremely specialized ones. Some of what I said above is indeed speculation, some is simply what Irving actually said. I think we should be careful to avoid following the example of the people in the (apocryphal?) story who refused to look through Galileo's telescope at things Aristotle said couldn't exist.

A possibly relevant case. The Wikipedia article on NARTH used to report what "reliable sources" said it believed in. Attempts to put in what it itself, on its website, said it believed in were repeatedly reverted. In the end it took an appeal to JW his very own self to get this dealt with. It shouldn't have, as WP policy is quite clear that primary sources are valid for the positions of their authors. (This illustrates one of WP's problems, the lack of adequate enforcement of content policies.)

What we're doing here is talking about this. That often involves a certain amount of rambling. I hope you're not put off by that.

Does Evans claim that his definition is the consensus of scholars? Is it in fact? Is there a consensus definition? Or do scholars define it differently? Or do some perhaps not define it properly at all?

Just to clarify. I'm not academically qualified in this field. I'm simply acting here as a lay reader to try to ensure that other such are not misled. I'm quite happy for those who know the correct academic terminology to input it as long as that objective is achieved. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)