Talk:Holocaust denial

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Appalling article: My retort)
m (Appalling article: grammar)
Line 125: Line 125:
 
If my user name is unblocked, I will revert to using it.
 
If my user name is unblocked, I will revert to using it.
 
[[Special:Contributions/89.242.149.12|89.242.149.12]] 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 
[[Special:Contributions/89.242.149.12|89.242.149.12]] 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
::Tell me Mr. Troll, if there is "No evidence of a policy of extermination" and "Lack of evidence of gas chambers," as you so claim, then explain Operation Reinhard.  Also, I have visited the sites where the Dachau and Treblinka death camps were, so are these sites, which are still just as the Nazis left them, a myth then?  Did these former death camps that I have personally visited made up? Do their gas chambers and the empty canisters of Zyklon B non-existant? {{User:Gooniepunk2005/sig|}} 00:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
+
::Tell me Mr. Troll, if there is "No evidence of a policy of extermination" and "Lack of evidence of gas chambers," as you so claim, then explain Operation Reinhard.  Also, I have visited the sites where the Dachau and Treblinka death camps were, so are these sites, which are still just as the Nazis left them, a myth then?  Are these former death camps that I have personally visited made up? Do their gas chambers and the empty canisters of Zyklon B non-existant? {{User:Gooniepunk2005/sig|}} 00:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:56, 16 November 2009

Contents

Discussion

"...that the gas chambers used by the Nazis were actually hair care facilities."

Damn, they're even more creative than YEC's! MiddleMan 12:37, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Might wanna start a section on famous deniers, like that crazy british scholar, whatshisname.--PalMD-yada yada 13:19, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

"Dr." (as in Dr. Evil) Rath? MiddleMan 15:43, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

There's that German-Canadian expat, too, Ernst Zündel. Wasn't he working with British neo-Nazis or something? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:51, 5 July 2007 (CDT)


Removed

I have removed the following from the end of the article as- frankly - I'm not sure what it's getting at.--Bobbing for apples 12:17, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

blockquote>…Jessica is turning into a fine little lady. She sits very upright on an ordinary chair – her strong back muscles a product of our regular walks in my arms to the bank, etc., I am sure. On those walks we sing the Binkety-bankety-bonk Song. There are two other poems in which she stars: My name is Baby Jessica/ I’ve got a pretty dress-ica / But now it’s in a mess-ica. And more scurrilously, when half-breed children are wheeled past:

I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry-an
Ape or Rastafarian </blockquote>

It's something that David Irving wrote in his diary about his daughter. I think it was used as evidence in the libel suit against Lipstedt. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 12:38, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Do you think it makes sense at the end of the article? To be honest, the whole Irving quote looks over-long to me. Maybe a separate article for him?--Bobbing for apples 12:44, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, it looks like all quotes from the trial transcript. I'd suggest fleshing the whole thing out in a separate article, and just a brief summary here. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 12:54, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Holcoaust denial is CONSERVATIVE

Holcoaust deniers are EXTREME RIGHTWING CONSERVATIVES. They are not liberal IN THE LEAST IN ANY WAY. They are ULTRACONSERVATIVE, as are all white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. ANyone who disagrees is SHIT, theya re all SO CONSEVRTAIVE ITS UNBELIEVEABLE. Lulzno 22:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)

"The Nazi party clearly had the will and the technical ability to exterminate the Jews. Why wouldn't they? "

This argument is kind of lame in that it's begging the question and asking the respondent to prove a negative. There could, conceivably, have been any number of reasons why a particular course of action was not followed. Amin7b5 01:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. - π 02:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"they imply that the Allied atrocities have been denied or censored after the world..."

What, exactly, does this sentence mean? Amin7b5 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were to guess it should read "...denied or censored after the world war", i.e. WWII. Secret Squirrel 00:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"according to Nizkor"

Who the hell is Nikzor, and why should we believe him/her? If you're going to rely on someone as an authority, you need to introduce that person and establish their bona fides...Amin7b5 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Nizkor Project is an internet project documenting and refuting Holocaust denial. Their reputation is similar to that of Snopes in terms of reputability. http://www.nizkor.org/ Secret Squirrel 00:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. added to the article. Amin7b5 00:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Israeli atrocities as a red herring

As far as I know, the Israeli atrocities against Palestinians are commonly used by Holocaust deniers as a red herring. Therefore, their irrelevance to the Holocaust should be mentioned in the chapter about red herrings. /Strom 05:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but your edit seemed to fail at saying that, in my reading. It could almost have been read as a denialist point. Perhaps remove the attempt at sarcasm and make the point clearly? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that works a lot better. Sorry if I jumped at you, but you'll agree, I'm sure, that it is a sensitive topic. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference error?

For some reason, when clicking the [1] reference, it fails, it tries to refresh as #cite-0 rather than #cite-1. As a result, all the refences are now one out of sync. [2] links to 1, [3] links to 2 and so on. If anyone can think of an obvious reason, please go ahead and fix it, if not, I'll go over the entire page and may blank it once or twice in the process. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing the denialism template seems to fix it. Not sure what's up there. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh CUR, how we don't miss you (cover story)

Please do not archive this section

This article was subject to a drive by cover story nomination by CUR, but it looks pretty good as is. What say we finish promoting it? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

At a glance it looks pretty good to me, but I don't have the fortitude to do the basics (proofread the whole thing). Kan we haz volunteer? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I say we start the process. Do we have a list of things that need doing? First off I noticed about 10 redlinks that will need removing or articles created. - π 02:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to help. I note is still being edited by its main creator... ħumanUser talk:Human 07:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unilaterally cover storied

After proof reading and fixing a couple of awkward bits of phraseology, I've taken the unilateral decision to cover story this article. It seems fairly accurate to me, and of a decent quality. If anyone has any objections, speak now or forever hold thy peace. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... I changed the header level so this is part of the discussion above. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Appalling article

This article is nothing but a hatchet job and has no place in any site with a pretence to rationality. It makes no attempt to address the arguments brought by critics of the established holocaust story and merely attempts to brand them all as knuckle-dragging neo-nazis. Such knuckle draggers obviously will latch on to revisionist arguments, but the actual revisionist scholars generally make their arguments somewhat more calmly and with better evidence than many of those who oppose them. While they tend to come from right-wing nationalist circles they also include communists, socialists and liberals and even some Jews. Some indeed do exhibit unpleasant anti-semitism, but some allowance has to be made for the way Jewish organisations have treated them: beating them up, destroying their careers, and in some countries getting them sent to jail or forced into exile. But all that is ad hominem. Address the argument, not the person.

What follows below is a description of their position. I am not advocating it.

They accept that:

- Jews were confined to ghettos.

- They were transported to camps.

- The conditions in the camps were brutal.

- A large number died from a mixture of malnutrition, overwork, disease, brutality, deliberate murder, etc.

- All this was unjust.

They say that:

- The figure of six million is not based on any solid evidence. Since floated at Nuremberg it has become an article of quasi-religious faith. It appears to include any Jew who died during the war from whatever cause and makes no attempt to account for those who survived but for whatever reason did not return to their prewar place of residence.

- There is little or no material or documentary evidence for gas chambers. The belief is based on a remarkably small amount of unreliable eye-witness testimony (Eye-witness testimony, especially of interested parties, has low credibility in courts of law) and on SS confessions obtained under duress. Before gas chambers were decided on, steam, electricity and fire-pits were all cited by "eye witnesses" but are not believed today.

- There is no evidence of a policy of extermination.

- Such a huge operation as the deliberate selection and murder of millions of people could not have taken place without leaving a clear documentary trail.

(In fact their arguments on numbers, intentionality and the lack of evidence for gas chambers are shared by several of the mainstream historians.)

They do not claim to possess a unique truth, but seek to open the holocaust to normal historical examination and debate. In demanding this they are indisputably right, even if every one of them is a Neo-Nazi and every one of their historical arguments can be proved to be false. — Unsigned, by: Qwertyuiop / talk / contribs

Troll Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not signing the above. It was an oversight, not intentional. I cannot now get back in with my user name. I don't know the reason for this. It may be because I attempted to edit my talk page. I didn't realise I was not supposed to do this. The reason I did it was to remove a couple of offensive messages. I can only suppose the persons who wrote them did not read what I wrote:

"What follows below is a description of their position. I am not advocating it."

"[they] seek to open the holocaust to normal historical examination and debate. In demanding this they are indisputably right, even if every one of them is a Neo-Nazi and every one of their historical arguments can be proved to be false."''

I am an atheist and a freethinker. I do not see how anyone who advocates freedom of thought can wish to suppress it by force of law and threats of violence. If they seek to arouse hatred, attack them for that. But if they simply question some aspects of the accepted version of events, their right to do so should be defended by freethinkers, including those who disagree with them.

If my user name is unblocked, I will revert to using it. 89.242.149.12 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell me Mr. Troll, if there is "No evidence of a policy of extermination" and "Lack of evidence of gas chambers," as you so claim, then explain Operation Reinhard. Also, I have visited the sites where the Dachau and Treblinka death camps were, so are these sites, which are still just as the Nazis left them, a myth then? Are these former death camps that I have personally visited made up? Do their gas chambers and the empty canisters of Zyklon B non-existant? Punky Your mental puke relief 00:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support