Talk:Holocaust denial: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holocaust denial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Important: In order to save editors from repeatedly answering questions which have already been asked, as well saving you the time from asking them, it is strongly recommended that you view the following FAQ section, which contains responses that represent editorial consensus on the following issues which have frequently arisen on the Holocaust denial talk page. In addition, the links given to related archived discussions are not necessarily exhaustive, and it is recommended that you use the search tool as well. To view an item, click the [show] link to the right of the question. 1: Holocaust denial is not necessarily antisemitic. Response: One item that has been raised here several times is the contention that Holocaust denial is not inherently antisemitic, and/or that Wikipedia should not conclude that everyone who is a Holocaust denier harbors antisemitic feelings. Wikipedia is not here to conclude that, and its editors' opinion on the matter - whatever those opinions are and regardless of who they belong to - are irrelevant. Wikipedia is here to present what reliable sources say. In this case, there is a preponderance of reliable material stating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic, and therefore the article notes that Holocaust denial is considered to be antisemitic, and why the antisemitism template is legitimately included. Related archived discussion: [1], [2]. 2: The antisemitism template should be removed. Response: Please see the response to Item 1 as to why the antisemitism template is legitimately placed. 3: Holocaust denial should be renamed Holocaust revisionism Response: No. Per numerous reliable sources, the correct terminology is Holocaust denial/denier. Related archived discussion: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. 4: Not all historians reject Holocaust denial. Response: Yes, they do. As is already stated in the article, according to the oldest and largest American association of historians and history teachers, "no serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place", and that Holocaust denial is a form of "academic fraud". Wikipedia must avoid using vague or unspecific terms, and words which do not accuractely reflect what reliable sources say. Related archived discussion: [9], [10]. 5: The 4 million Auschwitz plaque Response: One issue relates to the death toll plaque at Auschwitz, which was amended following the collapse of the Soviet Union to read 1.5 million Jewish deaths, instead of 4 million victims of no specified ethnicity or background. The Soviet authorities estimated the death toll not via historical methodology, but by working out how many people could have been cremated during the entire existence of the camp, taking 20% off to account for crematoria down-time, and using that number: around 4 million. They did not, for example, examine how many people were sent to the camp versus how many did not return, but used the 4 million variant to purposely overstate non-Jewish deaths, and diminish the fact that 90% of those that disappeared following their deportation to Auschwitz were Jewish. Once the Iron Curtain fell, communist pressure to keep the original Soviet estimate ceased and the more accurate estimate replaced it. In any event, reputable historians did not use the 4 million figure in their calculations of the overall number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Rather, they used numbers of 1 to 1.5 million, figures which are still used today. Related archived discussion/items: [11], [12], [13] and the appropriate section in the Auschwitz article.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Holocaust denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Holocaust denial at the Reference desk.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Jewish history GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Holocaust denial has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 6, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 11, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 27, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 5, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept July 15, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

Based on all the hidden "DON'T CHANGE THIS NUMBER" stuff, I'm guessing there has been considerable debate about the 5-million-vs.-6-million-vs.-whatever figure in the past. And I have no desire to open a can of worms here; but the fact remains that there were other victims as well. In addition to Jews, there were roughly 5 million Poles, a million Russians (most of them POWs), half a million gypsies, and an estimated 1 million "miscellaneous others", comprising handicapped unfortunates, homosexuals, people of conscience and courage who sheltered Jews or spoke out against the Reich, and (although it is seldom mentioned) about 100,000 non-Jewish Germans who just "disappeared" for various reasons ranging from trying to start a competing political party, to beating up a Gestapo guy 20 years earlier in high school. Again, I'm not trying to muddy the waters -- but the deniers deny all these other victims too; should we at least mention the larger scope of the atrocity? DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the reason the article reads the way it does is because it's about Holocaust denial not the Holocaust. Deniers seem to be exclusively interested in denying the genocide of the Jews and don't seem to typically pay much attention to the other massive atrocities committed by the Third Reich. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, I guess, is what I'm really trying to say -- that Holocaust denial is, essentially, anti-Semitism -- nobody says the Holocaust was a Polish conspiracy, or a gypsy or homosexual conspiracy, only a Jewish conspiracy -- nonsense that makes even less sense when you point out that more Gentiles were murdered than Jews. I'm trying to find a way to make this article more focused, and less rambling, and that might be the way -- starting with moving the "Holocaust denial and antisemitism" section up toward the beginning of the article, and building the rest of the article around that theme. Any objections to my doing that? Do most accept the premise that Holocaust denial essentially equals anti-Semitism? DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for "DON'T CHANGE THIS NUMBER" comment was because well-meaning individuals often didn't see that "at least" before the "5 million", and changed it to "6 million". Modern academic sources, on the other hand, give a death toll of somewhere between 5.1 million and just over 6 million. Regarding the larger scope of the Holocaust, it's true that the term "the Holocaust" is sometimes used in a narrower sense to refer to the Jewish victims (who were its primary focus), and other times used in a larger sense to refer to all the non-Jewish victims as well (whose numbers in raw numbers may have equaled or even exceeded the Jewish victims). However, Holocaust denial itself is an activity directed solely at Jews, and at denying the Jewish victims - as you point out, no-one says it was a Polish conspiracy etc. The section on Holocaust denial and antisemitism is analysis, rather than description, so I think it probably makes more sense at the end of the article - first describe what it is, then discuss it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what it is, I think we're all agreeing, is anti-Semitism -- the anti-Semitic vandalism reverted just today makes it more obvious than ever -- which is why I think we ought to call a spade a spade, and describe it as such from the get-go. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--If an individual acknowledges that the Holocaust was an attempt by the Nazis to kill virtually every person of Jewish heritage that they could lie their hands on, then I think it is totally inappropriate to label such a person a “Holocaust denier” for merely questioning whether the commonly cited figure of six million murdered might not be significantly inflated. Such an assertion does not deny the historical motivation or fact but merely questions how successful the mass murderers were in accomplishing their criminal goals.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us where someone who takes that position has been so labeled? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--This is a very emotional issue and for understandable reasons. If the actual figure of ethnically Jewish people judicially murdered in the Holocaust was five million, then I would judge holding it was six million to be a statistically significant inflation; most certainly from a human standpoint. Any decent person who is thinking straight would want the lower figure to be correct. We are dealing with human beings here and not mere statistics. However, the six million figure, first established at Nuremberg, has become so enshrined within the canon of the Holocaust that many negatively react reflexively to any attempt to argue for a lesser figure, even if that lesser figure is itself too horrible to bear contemplating.

I think many people (especially those of Jewish heritage) fear that any downgrading of the number of victims is the first step in an incremental (“slippery slope”) attempt to arrive at an out-and-out revisionist history of Holocaust denial. Thus, they react hostilely to any attempt to ”denigrate” the iconic six million figure.

Although I don’t know if he was accused of actually being a Holocaust denier, Professor Raul Hilberg (himself of Jewish heritage) was much maligned both for pegging the figure significantly lower (5.1 million Jewish deaths from all causes during the event) and for challenging the conventional wisdom as to how events developed that led to the great tragedy. His doctorial dissertation was even rejected by one judge as being “anti-Semitic."

I’ve encountered people on various forums who have used the “Holocaust denier” epithet for any who argue for a significantly lower figure (even five million), and I noted the discussion here about using “at least five million” versus “six million” in describing the number of victims. I was afraid such could happen here.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Perhaps even a short section entitled “Holocaust denialism vs. legitimate debate.” In the section one can address legitimate debates concerning estimates of the number of victims and differences between the intentionlist and functionalist interpretations of how the tragedy occurred and how such debates contrast to denialism which positions demonstrably disingenuous "arguments" in support of a political agenda.HistoryBuff14.

HistoryBuff, this article doesn't call Hilberg a Holocaust denier. To the contrary. It mentions him as a witness for the prosecution at the Zundel trial. No one here cares what you've "encountered" on "various forums" and discussing that is not what this talk page is for. Since you've never made a single, constructive contribution to Wikipedia, I feel compelled to ask; Do you intend to troll this talk page with endless, pointless, useless posts like you have every other talk page you've touched on Wikipedia? If so, I suggest you alter your plan, since no one here has patience for it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Mr. Anderson, since your last response came on the heels of mine, I shall afford you the benefit of the doubt that you had not read it. It is a suggestion as to how to improve the article per the request of another poster. You might not agree with the suggestion, but a legitimate suggestion it is.

As to your untoward remarks concerning my Wiki posts, I shall take the liberty of quoting someone here as follows:

“You are way out of line with this, fella. I made a perfectly appropriate and on-topic post on that talk page. If you think you're going to intimidate me off that talk page with a remark like this, you're in for some news.”

Touché’? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pas de touché; this isn't a fencing match; it's a collaborative effort to create an encyclopedia. Regarding your suggestion of perhaps even a short section entitled “Holocaust denialism vs. legitimate debate. -- do you have some reliable sources to draw upon to create such a section? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--I rarely touch an article and in the cases where I have, I always pay others the courtesy of discussing it on the talk page first. Since this article is already lengthy, my intention was to insert a short section. Therefore, I shall write it and post it here on the talk page for comments and then it can be added if the consensus feels as though it is warranted and we can discuss sources then. As this is the busy season at my business, and because I have a couple of other projects ahead of it, it might be a few weeks to a month before I am able to report back for your inspection.

In regard to another suggestion, since apparently (as indicated by the note on the top of the page) some feel as though the article is too long and perhaps unwieldy, in my travels within the Wikipedia universe I encountered a gentleman who seems to be on an (apparently) self-appointed mission to condense articles. He never seems to discuss beforehand even major changes that he makes on the articles’ talk pages which has resulted in some rather heated comments on his talk page. (I say “comments” rather than “exchanges” because he rarely deigns to respond.) Nevertheless, I must admit he does a superlative job in rendering articles not only more concise but more coherent as well. If people here who have been involved with this article had any inclination to do so, you could invite him to look at the article and render his services:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Treybien

One word of caution before doing so: Although he has very good writing skills and excellent editing ones (indeed, he might consider submitting his resume to Reader’s Digest, which would seem most appropriate for his skills), he doesn’t appear to be as knowledgeable about specific topics as one would like before such major edits are made. If you would like him to bring his literary buzz saw to this article, it would be wise to read the article over carefully afterwards to assess whether any collateral damage has been done in regard to factual issues. All in all, however, he does an admirable job in rendering articles more readable.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, in reviewing that editor's contributions, I'd do the condensing myself rather than let him do it. But like you, I'm busy, so it'll be awhile before I could get to it. Meanwhile, this thread has strayed significantly from my original proposition, which is that since Holocaust denial is at its root anti-Semitism (and everyone appears to agree on that), I think the article should make that point early on, rather than alluding to it with great temerity near its conclusion. And if no one objects, that's what I will do, once I find the time. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I recently tried to put an explanation used by holocaust deniers for Himmler's quote in the article, (located in the "Attempts at concealment by perpetrators" section) but I only cited it with a holocaust denial website. I was not aware that using holocaust denial sites as references was against the rules, but Jayjg corrected me. So I put the edit back, this time citing with an article from the LA Times, but Jayjg reverted it again... I'm sure he meant well, but isn't this article a little too biased for Wikipedia if it only contains arguments from people who believe the Holocaust happened, while the counterarguments that deniers have used are removed? I mean, this is the holocaust denial article, shouldn't it contain a reason why deniers discount such a seemingly conclusive quote? For the record, I personally am undecided on the issue of whether or not the Holocaust happened as it is traditionally said to have happened; I've heard decent arguments for both sides. N3philim (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That just means your mind is open but not fully operational. You first cite was from the Holocaust denial site codoh.org, and can't be used at all, in any way shape or form, except as an example of what Holocaust denial sites claim (as opposed to your presentation, which attempts to insert the assertion as fact.) The Associated Press article appears to be quoting the codoh article; don't know why. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jp, its the other way around, codoh is quoting the AP, but more importantly:

N3phelim, you didn't quite do what you say you did. What you actually did was twice claim as a fact that Wolfe said certain things about the Posen speech and used codoh.com as a reference for that fact. That's not acceptable because codoh.com is not a reliable source for facts, only for its own views.

In your second edit, after this was pointed out to you, you reverted to the same text with the same invalid reference, but included a reference to an AP story printed in the LA Times. The problem with this is that the AP story does not support your false claim that Wolfe said "extirpation" is a "more accurate" translation of "ausrottung". What he actually said was that "extirpation" is "more precise." In this case, however, this precision ignores idiom and context and give a less accurate impression of the contextual meaning of the word. Similarly, if I were to say, in a discussion of, for instance, an American Civil War battle, that an army was "decimated," the precise meaning of that word is that their commander ordered one in ten of them to be executed, a meaning that would be absurd in context. Clearly, what I would mean in such a context is the idiomatic sense of the word "decimated", that it suffered heavy losses. Thus precision can destroy accuracy.

Furthermore, your edit is a WP:BLP violation, as it gives the impression that Wolfe supports codoh.com's view of the matter, which he patently does not.

For the record, and in the interest of full disclosure, I personally am decided on whether the holocaust happened (not "as it is traditionally said to," but as it is clearly and abundantly recorded in history) and have heard decent arguments on only one side. If you think you've heard "decent arguments" on the other side, you may want to give more thought to what you consider a decent argument. You'd do well to understand that most of the regular editors of this page are well aware that claims of being "undecided" or "just trying to get to the bottom of this controversy" are a favored dodge of holocaust deniers. It's nice to have an open mind, but not so open that one's brain falls out.

Lastly (and least importantly), you misspelled ausrottung. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. How about if I change my edit to "However, holocaust deniers have claimed that the above quote was mistranslated" and cite the codoh article. Would that be alright? N3philim (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The codoh is not a reliable source, therefore you pretty much can't use it for anything on Wikipedia. If you find a reliable source making that argument, then you can use it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You might be interested to know that two days after making the speech you're referring to, Himmler basically repeated it to a different audience of Nazi seniority, except where he uses "ausrotten", he defines it with "umbringen". To conclude: this is the man second only to Hitler describing the on-going making of Jews "disappearing from the earth" ("von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen") with a word that has absolutely no meaning in the German language other than "to kill". WilliamH (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its really sad to see that this article is extremely biased. and your comment about open mindedness was uncalled for. it clearly states articles must remain unbiased. i think it should be open to both sides of information. not just what you deem is acceptable. this isn't your call its meant to be edited freely by everyone with credible references. what wiki deems credible and YOU are completely different. so holocaust denier or not you are wrong. i recommend this article be revised if i don't do it myself. "Truth or not, History is written by the victors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.41.217 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All "credible references" are included. Please review WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that the people who commit "Holocaust Denial" actually believe it? According to the documentary Nazi America: A Secret History, George Lincoln Rockwell made up Holocaust denial only as an easy way to recruit followers. Also, why would Nazi groups actually believe Holocaust denial when they intend to do the exact same thing if (when, since most people don't care at all) they take power. Holocaust denial is probably just made up by Nazi leaders and not believed by any of them.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should write a "Holocaust denial denial" page, Anonymiss. :-)

I don't think anything in the current page would be invalidated by your scenario. However, your perspective would be an interesting addition if you can document it through references to scholarly sources. Keep in mind, though, that this is a contentious topic; your sources would have to be solid. It's not enough to reference other people's speculation. NillaGoon (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this recently inserted paragraph here for further discussion:

Many persons do not deny the Holocaust, but point out that the Jews were not the only victims of genocide before and during the Second World War. For example, millions of Ukrainians died during the Holodomor of 1932-1933 on account of the collectivization policies of Josef Stalin, but the plight of these Ukrainians was ignored and covered up by Walter Duranty of the New York Times, as part of his effort to curry favor with the Soviet Union^{[citation needed]}. For writing stories which the New York Times now acknowledges were false,^{[citation needed]} Duranty was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

To begin with, it's completely unsourced. Next, I have no idea why this was inserted in the "Terminology and etymology" section, when it appears to have nothing do with with terminology or etymology. Third, what does it have to do with Holocaust denial at all? It's about the Holodomor. And finally, why insert material with "citation needed" tags in it? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty clearly like a combination of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK. I support its removal. Spaceclerk (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I can see that it's a (very) vaguely-related subject, but we already link from this article to Denial of the Holodomor, which is all that the vague relationship justifies. Barnabypage (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

firstly every refrence and edit on this page is one sided. the jewish side. if this artile and the wiki itself is to remain unbiased we should include refrences from the revisionist side. it seems only fair. why should someone whos born naturally bias to a subject be allowed to strangle it? i move for a partial rewrite balancing this article for both sides not just the political correct side so we may have a better understanding of the issue not just POV. 24.113.49.10 (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality does not require giving equal coverage to fringe views. See WP:Undue. We do not give hollow earth theories coverage on a par with the geological reality. We do have an article on Hollow Earth theories but deniers of geological reality do not get to write half of it. That is precisely analogous to the situation here. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Jewish" or "politically correct" side to this; there is historical reality, and antisemitic religio-fantasy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As given this paragraph is simply not relevant. It might make sense to have a well-sourced section comparing holocaust denial to other denials of genocide, but this doesn't do that. I don't see what this paragraph is intended to do. Yes, other actions of genocide have occurred. That's true and utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the person offering up the paragraph is trying to put the holocaust in context. In that the Jews were not the only victims of WW2 atrocities, though it would seem that is the way the holocaust has since been marketed (Ref: The Holocaust Industry). Brings up a point. Why are the deaths of so many different peoples in labor camps, at the hands of the Nazis, not all covered by the term "holocaust"? I am glad to see the article specifically mention that disagreeing with the "established facts" can lead to arrest and jail time in a growing number of countries. Article seems much better than when I last read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.4.37 (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Holocaust denial, not the Holocaust. Do you have any suggested changes (based on reliable sources) to this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these facts statements, assumptions are wrong and where have they featured in Holocaust revisionism / denial ?

approx 1.5 million Jews emigrated to the USA, to South America, Australia, etc. after 1945. Where did they come from if the USSR and Europe had been so surgically ethnically cleansed? How many Jews moved from Europe to Palestine from say 1920-1945? Where do they fit into the 6 million figure if 1,5 mill. died in A-B, 1,5 mill at other camps(highly dubious effectiveness compared to A-B, the largest camp) and the claim that 1 million + died at the eastern front. Are there really absolutely no reasonably accurate figures for USSR survivors? Professor Michael Parenti seems to claim 3 million jews saved by soviet forces in his talk "Reflections" (youtube) . Anyone know his sources? Nunamiut (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if you reviewed WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add people to the list at the end of the article? I can think of a few to add off hand, Felderer for instance. He doesn't have an article but there is stuff to look up about him on the web. Several others could be named along with some researchers, etc that though not deniers did add to the denial literature ( often by accident). Frithof Meyer and van Pelt come to mind quickly in this vein. Meyer published a memo that van Pelt found, not realizing what the memo implied. The list of deniers looks pitifully small and selected by nondeniers - picked the easiest targets boys, let's put forth some better ones. Where are the instructions to add to the list - I hate html, etc but may have to learn.159.105.81.31 (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is actually a pretty weak part of the article, and in any event only includes individuals who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Which van Pelt did you mean? Can you list the full names of those you wish to add so we can look at their Wikipedia articles? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The van Pelt referred to is Robert Jan van Pelt, I think.

What Vermont libraries guy needs to learn most is not HTML, IMHO. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought he might mean Robert Jan van Pelt, but felt it was equally likely that he meant Lucy van Pelt or Linus van Pelt. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it out - it is Robert. Squiddy,jayjg,et al can add Linus and Lucy if they wish, please include reliable sources however. Dietlieb Felderer is a good candidate. Robert van Pelt wrote the defense brief for Lipstat that had the footnote that Frithof Meyer wrote an article about. Van Pelt showed that Holocaust believers, even at their most scholarly efforts, it is getting hard to avoid suportting Holocaust denial - even footnotes can unravel a good story. I know there are many others - browse the list of people you have erased over the years for a starter - good job for Squiddy and other scholars with access to reliable sources - Nizkor has some good lists ( although some pretty slanted info - but a good place for young encyclopedia users to jump off for some of their own studies.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Raul Hilberg - no orders from Hitler,Yehuda Bauer - forget Wanssee,Arno Mayer - most deaths from disease( never found the gas chamber), Nuremberg judges - Gerstein Report too shady even for them, JDL would have an exhaustive list, Nizkor - not bad for a mechanic but maybe not reliable.159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which notable individuals do you wish to add, based on what reliable secondary sources? Please name the individuals and provide explicit citations to the reliable secondary sources that designate them as such. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dietlieb Felderer - relilable source - HDOT from Emory University is a great starting point for anyone who wants to learn about Felderer. After reading the trial transcripts ( there and locateable elsewhere ), Lipstat's footnote are a tresure trove for the unlazy research. Yehuda Bauer - wikipedia gives a great start for a term paper. Reliable info I hope, that will lead to much ,much more. Lists from JDL and Nizkor - after reading the calm well-balanced views there will likely result in a web search that will give a wilder eyed look - just printing these reliable sources lists would start the ball rolling. I can actually get a large list of names of unknowns - back in awhile, thanks for the sugesstion, these two are just off the top.159.105.80.220 (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were claims about soap made from Jewish human bodies, and lamp shades made from their skins, as well as examples. These claims were not just at the level of "urban legends" among the populace, but were perpetuated and even used in court trials. These are serious issues, and should be discussed here. I am appalled at the lack of this information on an encyclopedia that claims impartiality. You may not just swipe history under the rug. People were tried and punished for these alleged "crimes". I hope Wikipedia can show true impartiality. Stating, studying, comparing and deliberating ALL facts is at the heart of the scientific method which is inherently impartial and just, and brushing this off with scornful terms such "antisemitic" is clearly not. This applies to both sides. Both sides need to look at all the facts, and not just what they want to see. If you read what I wrote, and still can only see "Jew loving", or "antisemitic", then I wasted my time.--99.246.101.166 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]