Talk:Holocaust denial

Skip to table of contents

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.

Article policies

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, 22: 30 days

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.

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.

Holocaust denial was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

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
June 6, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Jewish history Top‑importance

	Judaism portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please read before starting

Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents Holocaust denial in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:

Also of particular relevance are:

In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.

Do not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Historical revisionism (negationism)#Politically motivated historical revisionism|Holocaust denial]] The anchor (#Politically motivated historical revisionism) has been deleted.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

"So-called"

The article says "so-called" Allied atrocities when referring to ways holocaust deniers try to minimize the holocaust with a false comparison. However, using "so-called" about something that historically happened doesn't make sense; it would be more fitting to use "so-called" for the false equivalency. For example, if they tried to minimize the holocaust by comparing it to the slavery in the US, you wouldn't say the "so-called slavery", you would say "so-called" about the comparison. Does that make sense? Are there any objections to removing so-called from that part? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What phrasing do the cited sources use? Llll5032 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By removing "so-called", it would look like it there was allies were the ones committing atrocities (similar to concentration camps?). Seems like the issue is "allied atrocities". Ramos1990 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Llll5032 I don't have access to that specific source, but on the Allied atrocities page you can see it's definitely not speculative that they committed the atrocities.

@Ramos1990 the allies did commit atrocities, but nowhere on the page is it said that it's similar to the concentration camps. If the holocaust deniers said it's similar to concentration camps, then adding "so-called" there would make sense. However, saying "so-called" to an event that actually happened doesn't look right to me. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is best resolved by citing and summarizing how the academic sources on Holocaust denial phrase the issue, per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and WP:BESTSOURCES: "When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." Llll5032 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "The leading Holocaust denial institute is the German-Austrian Institute for Contemporary History. Its role is similar to the American Institute for Historical Review and there is interaction between them. Most of its scholarship is devoted to proving that the Holocaust was a hoax concocted by Jews to win financial support from Germany. Another Holocaust institute is the Research Institute for Contemporary History (Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle). Alfred Schickel founded this institute in 1981. He has remained head of this institute that is headquartered in Ingolstadt, Germany. Schickel has been careful to avoid German legal restriction against attacking the Holocaust, so he has concentrated on so-called Allied atrocities against the Germans during and after the war. He has also frequently written in the extreme right journal Young Freedom (lunge Freiheit). Schickel has cautiously incorporated the Auschwitz lie thesis in his writings." (Atkins, Holocaust denial as an international movement, 2009, pg. 105) Ramos1990 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramos1990 @Llll5032 So looks like they do use "so-called" in this source. However, this does seem to conflate with the numerous other sources which state that the allied atrocities definitely happened. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the other sources cited in the paragraph use a different phrase? Llll5032 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor662 I don't think what's at issue is whether such events actually happened, but whether or not they should be called "atrocities". That is the origin of the phrasing "so-called" in this context. The source is staying ambivalent as to whether or not such events are indeed "atrocities" or just mere "horrible things". — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the Allies committed atrocities, holocaust deniers paint actual or imagined events as atrocities, when there is no clear consensus for their position. For example, they call the bombing of cities in Germany and Japan atrocities, although there is no expert consensus for that. Or they claimed Allied Nations carried out attempted genocides against Germans and Ukrainians. TFD (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article doesn't use "so-called" to a specific desputed event, it uses it on ally atrocities in general. @Llll5032 Not in the paragraph, but in the Allied war crimes during World War II page you can find many, many sources for undisputed atrocities committed by them. Stating that it's disputed whether the allied committed atrocities is definitely WP:Fringe. Non fringe scholars and journals can probably still hold fringe views. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source says ”on so-called Allied atrocities against the Germans during and after the war.” So it is pretty much focused on perceived atrocities against Germans, not perceived injustice by the allies broadly. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust deniers don't write about proven atrocities, because they pale in comparison with Nazi ones. For example, the Razing of Friesoythe (which is mentioned in the linked article on Allied War Crimes) was carried out by Canadian soldiers in retaliation for the murder of their commanding officer. They burned down civilian homes after making sure that there were no people in them. On a scale of one to ten, this was on a much lower level than major Nazi atrocities, it was directed by lower level soldiers without sanction from the Allied Command, and was fairly unusual.

Holocaust deniers concentrate on atrocities they consider comparable. And before you say this is OR on my part, you need to show that the sources are wrong before we can question their conclusions. I am merely explaining how it can both be true that Allied soldiers committed atrocities AND holocaust deniers write about "so-called" atrocities. TFD (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. But the quote does provide a specific context - against Germans during and after the war. I think that the context in the quote is more precise for the article. It avoids OR and sticks to the source. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says, "he has concentrated on so-called Allied atrocities against the Germans during and after the war." The issue was whether we could use the term "so-called," since there were actually atrocities carried out by Allied soldiers. But clearly the Holocaust deniers are not talking about these proven atrocities buy about questionable or non-existent ones. Their motivation is to show an equivalence in order to trivialize the Holocaust. TFD (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that what Llll5032 proposed makes sense. We can just quote the source so the weight falls on how the source mentioned it. It seems clear to me. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, using a quote instead a paraphrase would handily resolve this discrepancy. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it now, they were referring to certain allied atrocities so-called, instead of calling the atrocities that in general. That makes sense, but it's confusing. Is there any way we could clear this up, so that the readers will know they're questioning certain potential allied atrocities instead of allied atrocities in general? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you understood the nuance in the book. I will just quote it and hopefully it eliminates any ambiguities. The is no need to paraphrase in this situation. Let the source speak for itself. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, individual sources are not perfect, and while directly quoting would definitely be better than what we're doing now, couldn't it still be confusing for the readers? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear to me what the author is saying. For anyone who is confused, they can seek the source itself. I already quoted extensively here too so the context should be visible to anyone. Clarity falls on the source, not our interpretations of what the source says in this case. We cannot agree on how to paraphrase this apparently, so this is probably the best middle ground option. This avoids OR and SYN. The source speaks for itself. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"271k" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 271k has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 26 § 271k until a consensus is reached. Chuterix (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't just miss it but I feel as if there should be a hyperlink or reference to the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht

This may be considered a form of holocaust denial because it rejects aspects of it Solar89 (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Solar89 Welcome! I agree with you, so I added it at Holocaust_denial#See_also. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see now it's actually linked in the collapsed templates at the bottom of the article, but I think it's a good fit for See also anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]