Talk:Holocaust denial

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Physical evidence)
(Physical evidence)
Line 65: Line 65:
 
:::::::Yeah, but what surprised me was a Holocaust denier citing an article specifically debunking denialist arguments vis-a-vis Treblinka as if it somehow supported denialism, and then subsequently disavowed the article altogether - that's really odd.
 
:::::::Yeah, but what surprised me was a Holocaust denier citing an article specifically debunking denialist arguments vis-a-vis Treblinka as if it somehow supported denialism, and then subsequently disavowed the article altogether - that's really odd.
 
:::::::I think the problem was that the BoN cited the specific paragraph above in an attempt to quote mine (I only realised that later). Once I reread the paragraph with my "Holocaust denialist-coloured glasses" on, I think our denialist BoN (Mikemikev?) latched onto the final sentence: ''"I really hope this is the first stage in a long-term programme to seek out those hidden graves of the Holocaust"'' and interpreted it as if it meant that ''no one'' have found ''any'' Holocaust graves until now. This is clearly bunk, and only a staunch denialist would even read it that way, whereas the saner section of humanity can easily identify the intended meaning: That ''some'' Holocaust graves remain hidden. [[User:ScepticWombat|ScepticWombat]] ([[User talk:ScepticWombat|talk]]) 09:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 
:::::::I think the problem was that the BoN cited the specific paragraph above in an attempt to quote mine (I only realised that later). Once I reread the paragraph with my "Holocaust denialist-coloured glasses" on, I think our denialist BoN (Mikemikev?) latched onto the final sentence: ''"I really hope this is the first stage in a long-term programme to seek out those hidden graves of the Holocaust"'' and interpreted it as if it meant that ''no one'' have found ''any'' Holocaust graves until now. This is clearly bunk, and only a staunch denialist would even read it that way, whereas the saner section of humanity can easily identify the intended meaning: That ''some'' Holocaust graves remain hidden. [[User:ScepticWombat|ScepticWombat]] ([[User talk:ScepticWombat|talk]]) 09:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::There's amper evidence of false testimonies, false survivors and so on{{fact}}. See Enric Marco, RoseMarie Pence, Herman and Roma Rosenblat, Misha Defonseca ... also the "reduced head" of a purported jew was a piece from a pice from a museum, the "jew skin lamps" were made of paper, and so on and so forth. This is what happens when the victors write history and truth-finding is forbidden by law.[[Special:Contributions/145.64.134.245|145.64.134.245]] ([[User talk:145.64.134.245|talk]]) 10:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
+
::::::There's amper evidence of false testimonies, false survivors and so on. See Enric Marco, RoseMarie Pence, Herman and Roma Rosenblat, Misha Defonseca ... also the "reduced head" of a purported jew was a piece from a pice from a museum, the "jew skin lamps" were made of paper, and so on and so forth. This is what happens when the victors write history and truth-finding is forbidden by law.[[Special:Contributions/145.64.134.245|145.64.134.245]] ([[User talk:145.64.134.245|talk]]) 10:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 
:::::::''Exactly'' 1 ampere? I thought we measured bullshit in volt-metres. [[User talk:PacWalker|PacWalker]] 10:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 
:::::::''Exactly'' 1 ampere? I thought we measured bullshit in volt-metres. [[User talk:PacWalker|PacWalker]] 10:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 +
:::::::Consider that I have transcluded {{fact}} all over that and respond appropriately. [[User talk:PacWalker|PacWalker]] 10:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:08, 9 April 2015

Information icon.svg Cover Story Nominee
This article has been nominated, among others, for random inclusion on the Main Page.
Please discuss its nomination on the this talk page.
If it is accepted, its front-page abstract can be found here.
Icon denialism.svg

This denialism related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too!

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png
Editorial notes
  • Documentary and physical evidence for gas chambers
  • Denier arguments concerning gas chambers - Prussian blue, ash disposal etc, and response
  • Deniers' disapproval of some survivor testimonies, and response
  • Deniers' illicit comparisons of Nazi Germany and Israel, and response Strom 02:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove, redirect or "fill-in" redlinks
  • Copy-edit π 03:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Article needs minor cleanup, e.g. removing all of the red links, perhaps a couple more images(?), and a review of major supporting articles to reach gold. A few more external links wouldn't hurt, either. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Contents

Caution

The tone of the article is extremely biased; I believe the Holocaust did, in fact, happen, but this article still made me wince. You may want to revise it to be less heavy-handed. Strangely, this detail caught me off-guard: “The Holocaust gave birth to many rumors about atrocities. Some of these turned out to be true, while others were false. Examples include allegations that the Nazis manufactured soap and lampshades out of their victims' remains on an industrial scale. The fact that these allegations have been disproved is supposed to imply that revisionists have been successful changing the minds of historians, and that the main facts of the Holocaust are also in question. However, it has no relevance to the big picture of the Holocaust.” In fact, there was at least one such lampshade (detailed in a US Army documentary, “Why We Fight”), and to the lack of soap it is usually argued that the inventory was either used up or destroyed as the Allies closed in on the camps. (The former argument is usually tied to claims the soap was only used in the early stages of the camps, and that later on was discontinued; often, this is tied to claims it wasn’t cost effective, and that it was cheaper just to let the filth pile up.)67.5.253.177 (talk)A REDDSON, truth seeker (aka, notorious troublemaker).

The Details about the Holocaust contains arguments where there has been some confusion among scholars. The article could clarify that inconsistencies in these details does not disprove the big picture. /Strom (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ike quote

I think that Ike quote should be removed because it has no relevance. Many holocaust deniers begin their arguments by pointing how that people will use that quote and make it seem like he was talking about extermination camps in Poland when he was actually talking about concentration camps in Germany which is not where the systematic killings took place(but where conditions were horrible and many prisoners died anyway). They will say that this is proof that that historians are not interested in presenting facts and instead will use anything to convince you that the holocaust happened.192.253.210.41 (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mentally ill

Particularly when it focuses on "how the Jews faked it all," Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism often embraced by bigots who are too cowardly to admit that they wished that Hitler finished the job.

This sentence is proof enough that the author of this article is mentally ill.— Unsigned, by: 80.141.8.228 / talk / contribs 15:28, 8 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Cover story?

This is listed in Category:Cover story articles, but there's no Template:Cover abstract/Holocaust denial and the talk page is missing Template:Cover. What's going on here?--ZooGuard (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, I bet the Jews are behind it. --Ymir (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What happened? RecklessNoiseSymphony added gold to the page and to the talkpage without discussion. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 14:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It was in gold/cover status previously but downgraded circa 2010 due to quality issues (see archive). WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Polish Concentration Camps

I'd just like to point out a bit of a different sort of denialism. It's about foreign media frequently using the phrase 'Polish Concentration Camps' which suggests the camps were build and ran by Poles. While it is no secret a lot of people joined the Jerries side to avoid, you know, horrible death, using the aforementioned phrase shifts responsibility and 'whiten' German history (mostly because Polish government is unlikely to fight it). For a comparison, it's like saying 'Austrian leader Adolph Hitler'. Technically of Austrian descent, he was hardly an 'Austrian leader'. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Polish_death_camp%22_controversy 213.48.106.145 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the 'Polish' just meant to point out that the camps in question were located in Poland? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It is, but I think the point they're trying to make is that people may take it out of context somehow or they may have taken it out of context themselves, as calling them 'Polish Conentration Camps' removes Germany from the equation grammatically, since it is no longer mentioned. People who are aware of the holocaust would (probably) know that there were concentration camps in Poland, but to the unlearned, it could be meant to mean that Poland also had concentration camps free of German control. Seems like just a grammar flub to me, though it would be more precise to say "German-operated concentration camps within Poland" just to clear any confusion. The Cautiously Capricious Crowley Alliteration is Always Appreciated 09:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't seen any examples where 'Polish concentration camps' omitted references to Nazis/Germans. It's like discussing U.S. military bases worldwide and referring to the 'Japanese bases' and then worry that the audience might think you're discussing bases of the Japanese military and not U.S. bases in Japan. The only ones likely to make such a "mistake" vis-a-vis the KZ and death camps are probably Nazi apologists and they don't do it accidentally anyway. The Nazi camps in Poland tend to be single out because most of the death camps[wp] (unlike the KZ camps such as Dachau[wp]) and the most "industrialised" ones (and thus those with the highest number of deaths) were located in Nazi-run Poland (whether the annexed parts[wp] or the Reichskommissariat Ostland[wp]). Contrast with Nazi or Nazi-puppet camps elsewhere, such as Jasenovac[wp], Theresienstadt[wp], or Buchenwald[wp] to name but a few. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The reason I brought it up is because a lot of people already believe the camps were ran by Polish people. As you have described above, ScepticWombat, the articles themselves do quote the German origin of the camps, but just as there are people saying 'if we came from monkeys how come there's still monkeys out there?' there will be people one day (50-100 years from now) saying 'if those camps were ran by Germans, why are they called Polish concentration camps?'. Poland is particularly vulnerable to such attacks as you can see by the 2010 plane crash that killed Polish president - let me remind you that the wreckage is still on Russian soil (or was recently retrieved - 5 years after incident). Another thing is that from your perspective, it's just some random error someone might blow out of proportion to falsification of history, but if you read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Polish_death_camp%22_controversy you will see actual Holocaust survivors describing the use of the term as 'insulting' and ' intentionally or unintentionally – it shifted the responsibility', which in my opinion, cements the controversy's position on Holocaust denialism page. 213.48.106.145 (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Physical evidence

This section is uncited. What specifically is the physical evidence? 58.141.99.113 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Harr harr, aren't we the funny one. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not use your Rationalpowers on this one:
"Sturdy Colls said: 'All the history books state that Treblinka was destroyed by the Nazis but the survey has demonstrated that simply isn’t the case. 'I’ve identified a number of buried pits using geophysical techniques. These are considerable in size, and very deep, one in particular is 26 by 17 metres.' The programme’s presenter says that the pits contain the burnt remains of thousands of bodies. The forensic archaeologist, who has now presented her findings to the authorities responsible for the memorial at Treblinka, added: 'I really hope this is the first stage in a long-term programme to seek out those hidden graves of the Holocaust.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087735/British-archaeologist-discovers-fresh-evidence-mass-graves-World-War-Two-death-camp-Treblinka.html
Any problems here? 1.233.112.168 (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not ask the good forensic Doctor about it directly.
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/staff/profiles/cs30.jsp 1.233.112.168 (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Since you're obviously able to find (additional examples of) the evidence yourself, what was the point of ref-tagging the article and your earlier "just asking questions"-stick? This is a wiki, so if you like some references just add them. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I would question a pile of shoes constitutes physical evidence. I would question all of the "evidence" I have seen presented, especially this GPR ash and bone pit. Can I write that? Of course I am not going to add questionable evidence unqualified by skepticism. Unlike some I have no a priori agenda. 203.226.200.88 (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're the same BoN that posted the Mail article and the OP, I'm rather confused:
  1. First you ask for evidence.
  2. Then you ridicule those saying that the evidence is so overwhelming that demanding specific citations is rather pointless.
  3. Then you cite a news story providing evidence and specifically countering Holocaust denialist crap pertaining to Treblinka (okay, it's from the Daily Mail, but still).
  4. Then you write that you "would question all of the "evidence" I have seen presented, especially this GPR ash and bone pit" and ask whether you can put this in the article.
WTF? You ask for evidence, find and post an example of said evidence, and then claim that it's not evidence?!?! Even for Holocaust denial that's pretty weird. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What are you so surprised about? Everyone knows the "evidence" is just planted by the Zionist World Government, so the existence of evidence of the Holocaust is proof the Holocaust was made up. You're really underestimating how loopy conspiracy theorists can get. --Ymir (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but what surprised me was a Holocaust denier citing an article specifically debunking denialist arguments vis-a-vis Treblinka as if it somehow supported denialism, and then subsequently disavowed the article altogether - that's really odd.
I think the problem was that the BoN cited the specific paragraph above in an attempt to quote mine (I only realised that later). Once I reread the paragraph with my "Holocaust denialist-coloured glasses" on, I think our denialist BoN (Mikemikev?) latched onto the final sentence: "I really hope this is the first stage in a long-term programme to seek out those hidden graves of the Holocaust" and interpreted it as if it meant that no one have found any Holocaust graves until now. This is clearly bunk, and only a staunch denialist would even read it that way, whereas the saner section of humanity can easily identify the intended meaning: That some Holocaust graves remain hidden. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
There's amper evidence of false testimonies, false survivors and so on. See Enric Marco, RoseMarie Pence, Herman and Roma Rosenblat, Misha Defonseca ... also the "reduced head" of a purported jew was a piece from a pice from a museum, the "jew skin lamps" were made of paper, and so on and so forth. This is what happens when the victors write history and truth-finding is forbidden by law.145.64.134.245 (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly 1 ampere? I thought we measured bullshit in volt-metres. PacWalker 10:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Consider that I have transcluded [citation needed] all over that and respond appropriately. PacWalker 10:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support