Talk:Holocaust denial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
This is not a forum for general discussion of Holocaust denial.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Holocaust denial is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Good article 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Some discussions to note: Some topics have been discussed multiple times on this talk page. It is suggested that editors review these previous discussions before re-raising issues, so as to save time and cut down on repetition.

  • If you want to argue that Holocaust Denial should be called Holocaust Revisionism, please read (not an exhaustive list): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
  • If you want to argue about the Auschwitz Plaque, please read: [7], [8], [9], and the appropriate section in the Auschwitz article.
  • If you want to argue that "most historians" or "almost all historians" do not reject Holocaust Denial, please read: [10], [11]

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

Contents


[edit] Archived

It looked like time to archive the talk page, as no new discussion was occurring. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] no use for discussion

The one-sidedness of this article is that obvious that there would be no use for any kind of scientific discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.220.137 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant bias on this page

This page is riven with bias against holocaust denial. Wikipedia is a place to go for reasoned analysis of topical subjects. It confounds me that it was even nominated as a 'good article'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkerb (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

it's because these ideas are generaly frowned upon. i do agree that all article should be un-biased, no matter how distasteful the subject matter is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.226.101 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there should be a support for holocaust revisionism or denial as many editors insist on it being called in addition to criticism. Both a critcism and support page for these ideas should exist, with each side arguing against, debunking, or critically examining the arguments of the other to present a MORE COMPLETE picture of holocaust revisionism/denial. Of course third party sources as well as other wikirules should apply. I humbly submit that in certain historical contexts, it was once (and may still be) thought blasphemous, unfaithful, and downright evil to believe the world was round or that minorities deserved equal rights or that abortion should be a right of all women. Not that holocaust revisionism/denial is anything approaching 100% correct - but that if a notable debate exists, it should be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Reliable sources do not negate the existance of the Holocaust and its occurance, so accordingly, Wikipedia has no obligation to appease the unreliable ones which do. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it the case that as soon as a scholar (self-professed or otherwise) or institution (like IHR) begins to question or undermine certain parameters like the the 5-6 million figure that they become ostracized and disreputable? If the flat-earth society majority discredits and ignores any dissent as unreliable, untrustworthy, unscientific, etc. does that mean that wikipedia should not have an entry about those institutions or persons' views (no matter how incorrect they may be) even if those views are published, numerous, noteworthy, and relevant to the article? For example look at the page on Intelligent Design in wikipedia - although "scientific consensus" appears to stand against "creation science" - and the article definatively and clearly expresses this point numerous times, there is also a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement that explores (in detail) the viewpoints and positions of the supporters. For example this passage - "Though not all intelligent design proponents are theistic or motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the principal intelligent design advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in their view the intelligent designer is clearly God. The response of intelligent design proponents to critics and media who discuss their religious motivations has been to cite it as proof of bias and part of a hostile agenda. The Discovery Institute provided the conservative Accuracy in Media a file of complaints about the way their representatives have been treated by the media, especially by National Public Radio." Perhaps a Holocaust Revisionist/Denial page? Although I believe information in the parent to begin with is necessary about documenting the "movement/group/whathaveyou." Still I feel that a "Support for Holocaust Revisionism/Denial" section to this article would immediately be taken down - is this incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources of questionable verifiability should only be used as sources pertaining to them and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then, scantly. You may suggest both critical/analytical views of something, but only with reliable sources and it is for this reason that there is no Revisionism/Denial dichotomy of pages here, and will not be either. I do not seek to discuss the facts of the Holocaust on this talk page as its purpose is for discussing the article at hand only, but sources which negate things which would otherwise contradict them are hardly reliable - like individuals and institutions which ignore/fail to explain why approximately 6 million Jews in occupied Nazi territories disappeared, for instance. WilliamH (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, please do not restore that edit. As described below, there already is a reliable source that describes the contentions and claims of Holocaust denial and it has been established that the David Cole citation is both unreliable and superfluous. If you are interested in being a contributor to Wikipedia, consider registering for an account. WilliamH (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This page ignores the definitive 'debunking the holocaust' work

There is a video documentary which describes the flaws and outright deception in the official holocaust story. It is located on the web at http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com It needs to be listed in the Holocaust Movies section. How is it that you can disagree with just about any other official historical account and not be labeled a 'denier'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.34.135 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree, this movie does ask some very good questions. and you are a denier because it threatens the money-making machine that is the myth of 6 million gassed. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you would be a denier if you claimed that "6 million gassed" is a myth, simply because it's only deniers that build that strawman. Approx. 6 million were killed, a percentage of which were from gassing.

Most legitimate review of history takes the form of varying interpretations of events. This legitimate form of revisionism doesn't question that the events took place at all, however. You'll see lots of discussion about why this general did or didn't do things in the American civil war, for instance, but not much about whether a battle happened or not. So, while you can "disagree" that a battle, or the whole American civil war took place, most historians won't bother with such people -- just like they won't with deniers.

And while the videos alluded to above are entertaining, they are also refuted in this series of blog postings: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/sticky-chicken-challenge.html

So, if it should be listed in the Movies section, it would have to be added in the "already debunked" category. Cantankrus (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It is simply unfair that this article on Holocaust denial assumes that all revisionists are anti-semitic

Here is a link to a one hour documentary by a young Jewish revisionist's trip to Auschwitz: vho.org/dl/ENG/DavidColeatAuschwitz.wmv Llichtveld (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • David Cole's 'scholarship' can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of actual reliable sources and he has since recanted his views on Holocaust denial anyway. If you wish to contribute, please use reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Also note that the denier claim of "no gas chambers" is already accounted for in the claims section, so Cole's reference isn't necessary. WilliamH (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
david cole's recant is very suspicious because it is a total turn around. nobody as articualte as him, who had done as much research as him and who had asked the kinds of real questions that totally debunk the holocaust could just change his mind and then accept the mainstream view. i believe he was threatened by zionists from the ADL. regardless of the things he says now there is still no official explanation for why there were doors that opened inward on these "gas chambers" and why there is no blue staining on the walls of the gas chambers, but there is on the walls of the delousing chambers. the holocaust is 99% propaganda and if it wasnt, there would be no need to lable people "deniers" and then put them in jail with rapists and murderers. Spoilermdc (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Since David Cole is not a reliable source, what he thinks is largely irrelevant. If you can find reliable sources making Cole's criticisms, please bring them forward, otherwise, please refrain from using talk pages as a soap box. WilliamH (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

uh, if you want to know what david cole said, look at his interview on the phil donahue show back in the early 1990's. i am not using this as a soapbox. the fact that you dont like the truth doesnt mean that i am using this forum as a soapbox. Spoilermdc (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The claim of no gassing based on Prussian blue disparities is the most heavily flogged dead horse in the denier stables, so please, stop using this as a soapbox on which to beat it. If you can find reliable sources on this matter, please put them forward. Otherwise, for the last time, please stop using talk pages inappropriately. WilliamH (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Spoilermdc, is there a specific change you wish to make to the article? Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

that is a great article. i still dont believe. and what about the chambers that had doors that opened inward and locked from the inside? if you are going to make a claim of homicidal gas chambers killing 6 million plus people, the burden of proof is on you and not the person who finds critical flaws with the story. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

you werent there, so there is no way you could actually KNOW what happened. that is why all angles must be analyzed. but if you do, you get labled a Nazi and a Denier. call me what you wany, but i am not going to shut up and eat a bogus story. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, there is a specific change. but if i made it i would be banned and labled a "denier" by the likes of William. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And that change is....? Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I stand by Jayjg's question. I welcome any article improvement based upon reliable sources, and I don't have any prejudice against Spoilermdc to source the given criticism(s) from them, but if not, WP:SOAPBOX applies. I can't say fairer than that. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources about claim that soviet union supported a theory of zionist conspiracy

Reading through the article, I came across this: "Since 1960s, the Soviet Union promoted the allegation of secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist leadership." which I have now tagged with {{Fact}}. I come here to request some kind of source for this allegation. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 21:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Clicking on "promoted the allegation" would have taken you to the Zionology article, which documents the phenomenon well. I've restructured the sentence to make it more clear (and to take the link out of the cookie jar.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Cheers bud. With the layout I use links are sometimes hard to see. --Mad Tinman T C 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slight edit suggestion

Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[7] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[8] conspiracy theory.[9] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[10]


This is the third paragraph in the article, I would suggest changing it to this for POV reasons


Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[8] conspiracy theory.[9] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[10]


I think accusing the Jews of a conspiracy theory to advance our interests in the third paragraph is a bit rich, what do the rest of you think? Would like it if someone changed this for me :) Hebrewpridehebrewpower (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You would be erasing an important factor in Holocaust denial; that Holocaust deniers accuse the Jews of falsifying the Holocaust for purposes of furthering their own interests. Note that the article doesn't accuse Jews of actually doing that, it just states what Holocaust deniers state or implicitly suggest, and is backed up by the commentary of eight independent reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the following: Many Holocaust denial claims openly state that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[7] For this reason, most forms of Holocaust denial are generally considered to be antisemitic[8] conspiracy theories.[9] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[10]

Most changed to many because of the grey area where the term revisionism is misused, and the fact that there are plenty of denial claims that state exaggeration or partial inaccuracies rather than hoax, which is stated clearly in this article. Imply removed for POV reasons. Better to deal in facts rather than stating what it seems people are implying.--74.93.118.129 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But why do they say that the Holocaust is an exaggeration? WilliamH (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably a few different reasons. Some of them with an agenda and some of them without an agenda. Is it unreasonable to consider that facts tend to be corrupted more often than not when an issue is political/emotional/controversial/etc... Look, I personally don't have any reservations about what history has accepted as fact about the holocaust, and I totally understand anyone who is passionate about not letting it become marginalized. My points are still valid and it's just not good to protect questionable POV wording. It's not how Wikipedia does it and in this case it only serves as ammo for conspiracy theorists.--75.95.95.227 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Exaggeration, hoax.....hydrogen oxide, dihydrogen monoxide. If claiming the veritable destruction of Jews in the Holocaust never happened/ was a hoax/myth/exaggeration isn't inherently antisemitic, what is it then? Eight independent sources describe that Holocaust denial is antisemitic; I fathom your point, but the only POV I can see is historical point of view. WilliamH (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small Issue

I found the paragraph that claims that Holocaust Deniers are traveling to the Middle-East and meeting with "terrorist" groups a little fishy (the tone was that of a government drone rather than a living person) so I looked into the reference. It's number 30, and it links to a completely unconnected page, and offers no validity to the claim. I have no opinion on the subject of Holocaust Denial, other than that I believe it DID happen by default. I DO think that trying to tie the Holocaust Denial Wikipage to the pathetic propagandist methods of the current Western governments ("Just SAY terrorist a lot and the people will believe you") actually makes me a little suspicious of the page, and begins to discredit it. 65.94.184.162 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't inherently mean the paragraph is false, the most likely thing is that the link may have simply died. If you can find a better source/citation/link, by all means add it, but please don't misconstrue a problematic link to jump to the conclusion that the whole thing is a slur campaign, that's not what we're about. WilliamH (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
References to Hitlist magazine and to the relevant information can be found by searching, but they're all references, mostly in blogs (including the author's own); we might just need to take the link away but keep the source. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the statement should be removed unless someone can actually find an accurate source for this claim. I can't.65.94.183.213 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the dead link with a convenience one. It doesn't need a link at all, it's properly sourced regardless. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead deterioration

The lead to this article appears to have deteriorated since last summer when it was reassessed, and I find I am partly to blame for not adding the reassessment discussion to the article history. I've added it now. The lead at the moment is not, in my view, encyclopedic neutral point of view.

The key to achieving the latter is "show, don't tell". At the moment, the lead implicitly tells the reader what to think rather than showing the reader the issues, and letting the reader decide. The worst point is the transition to the third paragraph, which suddenly states: "A common theme of antisemites is that Jews are organized as a group dedicated to world domination, and use their power to control world events. It has been suggested that those with this belief understand that it is incompatible with the Jews having been victimized to the degree claimed in World War II, leading many to resort to Holocaust denial in order to maintain the consistency of their claim about Jewish power." These sentences are almost certainly true, but they are not encyclopedic and they are not neutral. They effectively tell the reader that holocaust deniers are antisemites, which was one of the main issues at the previous GAR.

The conclusion of the GAR was that the article should show the reader that holocaust denial is an anitsemitic activity, rather than simply name-call: the resulting article was not bad at doing that, in my view. The lead has deteriorated since: can it be fixed? Geometry guy 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(For further info on my view, see my comments in the GAR discussion, which still apply.)

This isn't a case of the "lead deteriorating since last summer", it's a case of new editor making an inappropriate insertion a month ago that wasn't noticed. You could have removed it yourself, instead of this lengthy comment about GAR etc., but since you didn't, I've done it for you. Problem solved. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it out. Geometry guy 08:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] I moved "Terminology: Holocaust denial or Holocaust revisionism?"

I moved the section to the near the bottom of the article. I'm not saying that it's not important, but I think the article would read much better if the general information on the topic was up top, and more "refined" stuff closer to the bottom. Please revert if it causes any problems.Squid tamer (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hm. The only argument I can see for having it near the top is that for deniers, it's very important to called revisionists, so it makes sense to dispose of that issue quickly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement. Having the paragraph at the top immediately disambiguates a fundamental part of Holocaust denial. It makes absolute sense to start off addressing the terminology before going into detail. WilliamH (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you dissagree with moving it to the bottom, revert it. this is wikipedia. Personally, due to my personality, I like to see the facts first, then the gramatical issues later. I didn't think about the denier's point of veiw. Whatever. I just wandered onto this article and thought that it would read better with that somewhere else. I thought for a bit, and realized that the title was already Holocaust denial, and I read the section, and deemed that it wouldn't hurt anything to move it. Squid tamer (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Terminology is a big issue with Holocaust denial, so it's best to get that out of the way up front. Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem Squid tamer, thanks for being bold. I would have indeed moved it to where it originally was, I just figured it was appropriate to post my comments and wait for some other editors' opinions before doing so. WilliamH (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omissions

This article, as well as others, constantly references the "six million jews" killed in the Holocaust. However, about twelve million PEOPLE were killed, all told, including Gypsies, homosexuals, slavs, and other ethnicities. The constant omission of the OTHER six million people that were murdered is NOT ACCEPTABLE. I am aware that much of the current debate on this topic centers around the issue of anti-semitism that underlies much of the current discourse, but omitting six million people from the total death toll of the Holocaust, (a trend that is mirrored on other articles, mind you,) is a simple factual omission that should be rectified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.72.87 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While more people than just Jews were killed in the Holocaust, Holocaust denial is about denying that Jews were killed. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


HOLOCAUST DENIAL is not about denying jews being killed its about the gassings. holocaust deniers QUESTION????the gasing of jews sadly war itself is a CRIME,however deniers like ernst zundel, david irving etc DENY that gassings took place it is an atrocity that aperson should be imprisoned for QUESTIONING the holocaust. Seems to me the shoah needs serious REVISION Dwnndog (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC) ROBERT SCHMIDT

SEEMS to me THAT you should READ the WP:TALK GUIDELINES . Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe

Koenraad Elst is pretty much the definition of fringiness. I spent some time hunting for the perfect quote to replace him; IIRC at the time there wasn't even a mention of Rousso in the article. I would suppose Derrida is good enough for anyone. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you expand on why you think he's "the definition of fringiness"? He seems to have published 15 English language books, and the quote itself is spot on the topic of the section. Derrida, while good, doesn't actually mention "Holocaust denial" - the Elst quote really pulls it all together. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where all the rather extensive discussions have gone. What I can say without trying to locate those discussions is that Elst is largely published by Voice of India, which is openly fringe; he himself has never published in any peer-reviewed journal or by any academic press except for one paper that was part of a collection Routledge India did of Indian historical revisionists; he is the major online supporter for dotty Out of India theories of pseudohistory; this particular reference was probably added first either by a SPAs that spammed various Voice of India quotes a few years ago, or by User:Hkelkar; and the only time mainstream historians or academics of any sort are likely to engage him is as a source for the rhetoric of Hindu nationalism in India. Not to mention his close ties with the Vlaams Blok would make him closer to the subject of the article than I would like. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. The quote itself was particularly apt, I'd hate to lose it. Do reliable sources share your views of Elst? Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You know how it is with fringe writers. Reliable sources hardly ever address them directly. Most of the statements at the Voice of India page can be taken to refer to Elst; he has been called "eccentric" and his work "selective archaeologies and fanciful speculations" Bhatt, Chetan (1997). Liberation and Purity: Race, New Religious Movements and the Ethics of. Routledge, 306. ; Here is Irfan Habib on the sort of claim he specialises in; I don't have access to Pirbhai, M. Reza (2008). "Demons in Hindutva: Writing a Theology for Hindu Nationalism". Modern Intellectual History 5 (01): 27-53. doi:10.1017/S1479244307001527.  at the moment, but I suspect, if you do, it will be relevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That's all very well, but hardly proves your claims, and the quote itself is highly relevant and apropos. I suggest getting wider consensus for its removal. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Did six million really die.jpg

The image Image:Did six million really die.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scholars are undeniably among the ranks of Holocaust deniers.

How? Who? Which reliable sources do you have to back this up? There is a difference between writing discerningly, and just plain POV pushing. WilliamH (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason that David Irving or David Hoggan or Austin App or Richard Krege don't fit the definition of both "scholar" and "Holocaust denier?" --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for essentially the same reason that the article on Earth doesn't present the possibility that the planet might be a flat plane instead of an oblate spheroid. WilliamH (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps more directly: Irving and Hoggan share the propensity for falsifying data, and Irving's not a scholar in any sense of the word; App was a medieval English scholar, yes, but that doesn't really qualify as a scholar qualified to comment on Holocaust issues; and Krege's an engineer, not a scholar. (Appears to be a fraud, too.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    Are we speaking the same language? Holding a stupid opinion doesn't disqualify one from being a scholar, i.e., "a specialist in a given branch of knowledge." David Irving specializes in the study of World War II history. Is that not a given branch of knowledge? Does Irving not specialize in it? What am I missing? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
See below. The relevant scholars are scholars of history, particularly Holocaust studies. What an astrophysicist or a specialist in Tungusic languages might call Holocaust deniers isn't particularly relevant. As for Irving, he was a popular writer who, according to the judgement in his libel case against Lipstadt, "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." That pretty much removes him from the realm of "scholars". Jayjg (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
And these writers appear to have ignored the testimony of holocaust survivors.--Gazzster (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And the same can be said from Robert Faurisson, a French scholar working outside of his scope of expertise (i.e. French litterature) and falsifying data. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the weasel words, per the common sense and the consensus here on Talk. If any actual scholars of history show up preferring the term "Holocaust revisionist", let me know. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)