Talk:Holocaust revisionism

2004

I think this should discuss the issue of revisionism with a link to historical revisionism and a link to Holocaust denial and a discussion of generally-accepted and not-accepted revision as regards the Holocaust. For example, one revisionist claim is that the numbers of concentration camp victims were inflated. In some cases, particularly as regards the number of Russian and Slav victims, this appears to have been true, since the Soviets inflated the number of non-Jewish victims for politican reasons (to make it appear as if the Jews were not specially targetted, and the Russians were equal victims). On the other hand, many revisionist claims, especially the ones that deny the Holocaust occured at all, are not even close to true.

There should also be some discussion of the political issues. For example, some legitimate revisionism is initially opposed by those who hold sacred absolutely anything having to do with the Holocaust, and is thus detrimental to legitimate history. On the other hand, some purported revisionism is done by those more interested in anti-Semitism than in accurate history, and is therefore also detrimental to legitimate history. --Delirium 06:50, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should be merged with Holocaust denial, which seems to address these issues. --AaronSw 06:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if we could write a reasonable article on revisionism, since denial and revisionism are different issues, but if Ezra continues to insist that any attempt to do so is vandalism while at the same time supporting what is quite clearly a biased article (not to mention formatted terribly) that may be necessary. --Caliper 17:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There has been little to no discussion of this particular entry vs. the Holocaust denial entry since it was protected in the wake of the last flame war. User:Ezra appears to have given up on Wikipedia already, and no one else appears interested in a separate entry on Holocaust revisionism vs. denial. Therefore, unless there are any other objections, I will be redirecting this entry back to the Holocaust denial entry, the way it was before Ezra changed it. --Modemac 08:35, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... this was going to be my project for today, but perhaps this is for the best. There is, after all, an explaination of revisionism on the denial page. --Caliper 17:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the re-direct to Holocaust denial. Holocaust revivisionism is a different, and is often a more accurate term. I mean, one could defend the view that Hitler didn't order the Holocaust because there is no explicit written order by Hitler. To lump this view together with Holocaust denial is, I think, unfair and inaccurate. Andries 19:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is a violation of NPOV to conflate Historical revisionism with Holocaust denial. The logical relationship between the categories is simple, and factually indisputable: Historical revisionism is a superset of Holocaust revisionism, which in turn is a superset of Holocaust denial. Redirecting the article on Holocaust revisionism to an article on Holocaust denial is a transparent application of propaganda techniques, painting all revisionism pertaining to the Holocaust with the brush of apology for genocide. This page is the logical future destination for material on the application of the methods of historical revisionism to the Holocaust which does not qualify as Holocaust denial. Aminorex 05:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The term Holocaust revisionism refers to activities which do not fall under the activities done by historical revisionists, since Holocaust revisionism is not historical enquiry, but rather attempts to prove a pre-ordained conclusion. Moreover, "policitally unpopular" is inherently POV, and implies that the issues historians have with Holocaust revisionism are political, rather than historical, in nature. If you discover a type of Holocaust revisionism that is true historical revisionism, rather than just an attempt to put a more acceptable face one Holocaust denial, then a non-redirect might make sense. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

@Jayjg: found two examples of revised numerical estimates of death at a camp and individual.ghetto numbers which I believe qualify as.true revisionism so made adjustments. Many areas of history have adjustments by reputable scholars that go unprotested so I think it is possible to find more of this. To show how the accepted view has changed over time. Highlighting well sourced revisions as opposed to bad scholarship negation masquerading as it could do more to inform people than a squelching "there were no revisions only denials" message sent by a redirect. --Ranze (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historians revise things all the times, but that's not what "Holocaust revisionism" is, and none of the sources you have brought indicate that their topic is "Holocaust revisionism". Your claims that these "examples... qualify as true revisionism" are pure original research. Please see the section at the bottom of this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayjg: Historians revising things is exactly what historical revisionism is. The historian making a revision does not actually have to use the word revisionism for it to be recognized as that. Something as obvious as reestimated statistics is clearly a revision.

That a change is a revision is not OR that is basic language. They are synonymous. The changes are sourced with references. Redirecting Holocaust revisionism to Holocaust denial is like redirecting science to pseudoscience because it claims to be science. --Ranze (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I've protected because of the reverting triggered by Jabowery (talk · contribs), who wants this version [1] but apparently without discussion here. Jab, if you want your edits to stick, you'll need to provide scholarly/reputable sources showing that Holocaust revisionism is not the same thing as Holocaust denial, and you would have to avoid original research. Perhaps you could start an article in your userspace and discuss it here when it's ready? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

First since this page is redirected to Holocaust denial it is more reasonable to discuss the removal of the reversion there -- which I did. Redirection is particularly problematic because it gets rid of not only the entire article but also the discussion of the redirection. Secondly, the meaning of "holocaust revisionism" as an English language phrase is obvious by construction -- not by original research. Moreover, there is ample precedent for distinguishing the two since legislative bodies and courts have not outlawed "historical revisionism" but have outlawed "holocaust denial". People are being sent to prison or set free based on the distinction so it is hardly up to some "moderators" to claim the distinction doesn't exist. If anything is POV and original research that is. I already posted an article which should be an adequate stub -- a stub which linked to Holocaust denial for those concerned with that issue. It was clearly about "holocaust revisionism" and it was clearly NPOV. It was, of course, deleted. Jim Bowery 23:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, the problem with your stub was that it was original research, because you were putting forward your own arguments and not using arguments from reputable sources — and in this case reputable would mean scholarly or legal, or at minimum, articles from very good newspapers. The meaning of Holocaust revisionism is not obvious by its construction: it depends, like all language, on how it's used, and the problem here is that all Holocaust deniers seem to call themselves revisionists, but it's not clear that there are revisionists who don't fall into the denial camp. However, the point is that you have to find reputable sources who agree with you, and then write up your article using only those sources, and not expressing any of your own views. Then it will count as an encyclopedic entry and you can put it up for review. For example, you wrote that people are being sent to prison or set free on the basis of the distinction: that's clearly an important point if you can source it. There might be a judge's summing up you could quote from, for example.

By all means copy this to the Holocaust denial talk page if you'd rather continue there. I won't be saying any more about it because I protected the page, and I'm only posting this here by way of explanation, and an attempt to be helpful, but I can't get involved any further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

By your criterion any article that doesn't have every fact referenced with an "authoritative source" is original research. No one disputes the facts that I posted. Its not original research and I referenced a Weisenthal article with link. Jim Bowery 01:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence doesn't need a source, but every contentious edit, or any edit that is challenged, does have to be sourced to a reputable or credible publication, and if it's not, any editor may remove it. Also, if the facts are used to promote a particular position, and that position isn't sourced to a credible publication, that also counts as original research. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, both of which are policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

No you are still very very confused. When I say no one disputes the facts I present I mean it -- I don't mean they might dispute the "argument" I put together because I am not making an argument. Are you confused by the fact that the Weisenthal center moved the web page describing the reduction of the death toll at Auschwitz? That's the only way I can make sense of your responses to my virtual repetition of their argument which you can read at the bottom of this linked page. This isn't original research. The history of the Holocaust has been revised in ways that even the Simon Weisenhtal Center agrees with. Are you saying the Simon Weisenthal Center is a bunch of anti-Semites and neo-Nazis? I may sound like a satirist but when you say there is no such thing as "Holocaust revisionism" that isn't "Holocaust denial" it is an abuse of the English language. Jim Bowery 05:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't carry on arguing about it, but the article you wrote read like a personal essay, not an encyclopedia entry. It's meant to be about revisionism, and yet the only point you mentioned was the example you gave above, which arguably has nothing to do with revisionism, and if it does, you have to say why. But you'd have to start by saying what revisionism is, using good sources, and why it arguably isn't the same thing as Holocaust denial, again using good sources. My guess is that the absence of any of that was why you were being reverted, and that an article written in an encyclopedic style wouldn't be reverted. You might consider writing it in your user subspace and asking the other editors to review it there, rather than getting into a revert war. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

No I'm not going to waste my time with a futile exercise. It appears we have multiple admins who are incapable of rational thought when it comes to Jewish issues. Clearly going through a "process' with this sort of environment is worthless. You'll be hearing from me via another route. Jim Bowery 19:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Another route"? That sounds ominous... Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ominous? Well, yeah. Self-confessed Stormfront activists are by nature ominous. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whewps, bad cache. I think the redirect needs to be above the pp notice, though.Hipocrite 13:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another attempt to separate "revisionism" from "denial"

Using some of the text that had previously been entered into this entry, I've taken a stab at an article describing the difference between "Holocaust revisionism" (the use of genuine historical fact to correct historical errors concerning the Holocaust) and "holocaust denial" (the conspiracy theory that the Holocaust never happened). Take a look at Holocaust revisionism/worksheet and feel free to take part. --Modemac 13:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation

Very surprised this does does exist. If reverting to previous versions is controversial we can make a stub.from scratch. Not all revising of events is enough to demote them from Holocaust status, like adjusting death counts attributed to certain camps or which rooms people were thought to have died in and how long people survived and so forth. --Ranze (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the redirect. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

noticed, restored the article, revisionism exists as a legitimate topic not merely tongue in cheek denialism. Please do not do that again. A link is provided and the relation to negationism explained. --Ranze (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Holocaust revisionism" is a denialist euphemism for Holocaust denial, as the Holocaust denial article itself makes clear. The examples you've provided are pure original research; none of the sources you've used in your article indicate that what they are talking about is "Holocaust revisionism"; in fact, none of them even use the term. I'm restoring the re-direct - please do not undo this again. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"science" is a pseudoscientist euphemism for pseudoscience. Just because something is a euphemism does not make it the primary meaning of the term. An article saying revisionism should focus on actual revisionism on the topic not redirect to denialism/negationim masquerading as it. The pages do not actually have to use the conjoined term as its meaning is clearly explained. Just as a historian would not have to say "this is revisionism" when making new claims contradicting previous historical claims. If a change/revision is being put forth by reliable scholars and studies then that is revisionism. --Ranze (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying revisionism

Just how picky are critics going to get on this? Do we not recognize words vary in tense conjugation and synonyms?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3020959?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents for example, will someone dispute it because it says "revising the Holocaust" instead of word-for-word "holocaust revisionism" ?

Can someone suggest a.better.term to describe the article I am building? Would you prefer historical revisions of the Holocaust or something? Seems simpler to use the briefer synonymous phrase. --Ranze (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple term? "History". Just put what's appropriate in Holocaust Denial; history is certainly welcome there. But the stuff you're listing doesn't warrant its own article; the first one, about the corrected memorial tablets, is interesting solely because it's a case where the Polish government was inflating the number of Polish victims with the intent of minimizing the Jewish victims; the number presented on the plaque was never considered by scholars to have any validity as regards the number of victims; the revision of the plaque is often used by deniers to say "look we are right the six million number must be wrong", which is why it's part of the "denial" article, and not the "holocaust" article. The other data is just historical corrections, not "holocaust revisionism" or "denial". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All forms of the phrase "Holocaust revision" have been hijacked by the denialists to deny they're denying. It's the same reason "Global warming skepticism" can now only mean "Global warming denial", or a biologist that wants to promote more utilization of living processes can no longer be called "pro-life". If you have new Holocaust info that has any association with the deniers, it goes in Holocaust denial. If it doesn't, it goes in Holocaust. Everyone's being judged to be either "for" or "against"; WP can't pretend there is a middle ground anymore, or "should be". --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@A D Monroe III: I don't find your claim provable, and will point out that "revisionism" and "skepticism" are not synonyms. "Holocaust skeptic" would sound closer to "Holocaust denier" than to "Holocaust revisor". There is a world of difference between being skeptical that an event happened or denying that it happened compared to those who accept it happened but want to revise details that the current status quo accepts. This might be to adjust death counts up or down, to widen or narrow those who are viewed as being at fault for atrocities, estimates about when certain events happened, the specifics of how people were killed (Holocaust regardless, but how many of the dead died via gunshot and how many were gassed are things people might quibble about) are examples.

Wikipedia would not be pretending there is a middle ground, a middle ground certainly exist. The pressure to create a false dichotomy of "accept every detail of what historian X says or you don't think the Holocaust happened at all" is one we should be rejecting here. Ranze (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We both agree that "revisionism" and "skepticism" are not synonyms grammatically, but that doesn't matter; all that matters is how sources use them when referring to the Holocaust. If the ones using "revision" are labeled by the majority RSs as being in the denial camp, that's our "proof" for COMMONNAME. We can't change the sources, or even remotely influence them; we can only follow them, regardless of what we know to be WP:TRUTH. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: it would only be appropriate to put denialism-related history in that article, not revisionism in history which does not attempt to deny the Holocaust and is only revising statistics. The things listed here individually don't need articles but collectively they certainly do, they're not being observed elsewhere. I am not sure what difference you're trying to make between "corrections" and "revisions" here, sounds like the same thing. I would support you making a Holocaust corrections article but I'm not sure that would fulfill WP:COMMONNAME expectations. Ranze (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]