Talk:David Cole (journalist)

Terms

I switched the term “denier” back to “revisionist,” for two reasons:

The first problem is the sourcing. The first source (The Wrap), does nothing more than rewording the The Guardian piece and links to the Guardian piece for the details. In other words, it's just a second-hand source that uses the Guardian as IT’S source, but then using more clickbaity terms. The other new source is the American Spectator, an ideological opinion site, NOT a news site. The American Spectator is not the equal of the Guardian, an international paper of record. Opinion sites alone are insufficient to establish facts (WP:RSOPINION).

Second: WP:BLP tells us that BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Terms like “holocaust denier” can be damaging for Cole’s career, and we are not making an encyclopedia to destroy someone’s life.

Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source, and the ADL source in the article also described Cole as a denier. in any event "Holocaust revisionist" is a euphemism for Holocaust denier. Please review Holocaust denial. Wikipedia doesn't use euphemisms. Also, if you're concerned about sourcing, why did you remove the tags for better sources? Finally, I removed the claim that the renunciation of denial was after threats from the JDL, because Cole himself said his renunciation of denial was "made freely and under no duress". However, I can restore it for now, pending further discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Jeff, can you point to any sources that indicate that Cole's status as a Holocaust denier is "in dispute". Are there any sources that say "Cole is not a denier, he is a revisionist"? Just finding sources that use one term or another is not really good enough; that is true in general, some sources talking about anything related to the topic of Holocaust denial prefer the term "Holocaust revisionism", other prefer "Holocaust denial". However, historians of the Holocaust prefer Holocaust denial, because "revisionism" is a misleading euphemism. Writing "this source uses denial, this other uses revisionism" is original research; you're doing your own analysis of the sources, which is something we cannot do on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg. I did not write the original piece I restored. I saw it was sourced by reliable sources, and one of the rules/guidelines on Wikipia is that sourced content shouldn't be deleted. Thus I restored sourced content, while keeping in the indisputable improvements you made, while trying to improve some parts by myself (like giving a neutral though informative description of Deborah Lipstadt). As for the denier/revisionist-part of the discussion: from what I know, it can be compared with the anti-evolution-movement: the anti-evolution-movement can be roughly divided in Young-Earth-creationists, Old Earth creationists, and the Intelligent Design-proponents. Likewise, Holocaust-deniers also can be divided in subgroups. One of these are the "negationists", which consist of neo-nazis with two brain-cells and can utter at most four words to make a case (like "No ashes, no Holocaust") or make stupid strawman-arguments ("You cannot prove that 6 million jews were gassed in Auschwitz!"). Another group are the "revisionists," who try to use some quasi-semi-scientific-looking "essays that call into question aspects of the orthodox, Holocaust-extermination story," as the Institute for Historical Review may say in it's own wikipedia-article. One of the articles discussing this is the American Spectator-article (ref 2 in the article): Cole had been one of the new breed of Holocaust denialists, called revisionists, who tried to accommodate the damning, massive accumulated historical evidence to create a new, poisonous synthesis. Sure, Cole and company argued, a lot of Jews died in German camps during World War II, but so did a lot of other people of various ethnicities, and the numbers are exaggerated by our modern “Holocaust industry.”

These groups were largely ignored, hoping that they would just fade away. That makes the quest for reliable sources difficult. Still, I am willing to go that way. I had been researching Holocaust denial and it's groups for quite some time (just see the first edits I made on Wikipedia), but the last ten years my interests diverted to other topics. Please allow me to examine the subject for a few weeks, and see what happens. Meanwhile, I will revert the article to my version, which is less damning for Mr. Cole. After all, WP:BLP says... well, just see my argument of last July. All the best and best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jeff. Your analysis of the distinction between Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism is interesting, but I don't think reliable sources and scholars see it that way. To quote from the Holocaust denial article lede:

Scholars use the term denial to describe the views and methodology of Holocaust deniers in order to distinguish them from legitimate historical revisionists, who challenge orthodox interpretations of history using established historical methodologies.[5] Holocaust deniers generally do not accept denial as an appropriate description of their activities and use the euphemism revisionism instead.[6]

The statement in The American Spectator is not, I think, differentiating between "deniers" and "revisionists", but rather saying deniers are also sometimes called revisionists. Even if it is attempting to make that differentiation, it's not a strong source, particularly when measured against Holocaust scholars and academics. There's a reason that Holocaust revisionism is a redirect to Holocaust denial, and so even if you think you're making a differentiation by linking to the former, in fact you're still linking to the latter.

Finally, your statement that "one of the rules/guidelines on Wikipia is that sourced content shouldn't be deleted" is simply incorrect. In fact, sourced information is often deleted, and for good reason; primary reasons include being irrelevant, too much detail, failing WP:NOT in some other way, or, as in this case, because it it original research. If there is some dispute about whether Cole is a "denier" or merely a "revisionist", then surely you can find a reliable source that discusses that. If you can't, then all we have is the original research of User:Adambiros, an editor who has made a total of four edits in his editing history.

I'm going to ping User:The Four Deuces, User:Doug Weller, and User:jpgordon on this, as they're active on the Holocaust denial talk page, and are all experienced editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't say much more other than that Jayjg is correct, both about the denier/revisionist issue and about deleting sourced content. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all. Meanwhile, I am trying to reach out to Rory Carroll (author of the Guardian-article) and Joe Bob Briggs (author of this article I dug up) on why they used the term of "revisionist" instead of "denier." And I will reach out to mr. Cole himself, and question him on what he has to say about this discussion. I'll keep you informed. Again, thank you all for your input. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I assure you Mr. Cole's opinion will be of no value here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Jeff, your personal correspondence with Mr. Carroll and Mr. Cole and Mr. Bloom will be of no help here. If you want to write about the topic you've described above (a debate about denial vs. revisionism as regards Mr. Cole), you will have to find published, reliable secondary sources that discuss that exact topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

---

As the David Cole in question, I'd like to add my two cents. I have no idea if I'm violating propriety by commenting on my own page, and I'm certain I'm formatting the text poorly, but I find it difficult to resist the temptation (I would certainly never attempt to edit my own page, but perhaps Wiki rules allow me to comment in a talk).

We seem to be dealing with two issues here. The first involves The Guardian, certainly a WP:RS. There can be no argument that The Guardian is a major paper of record. If it isn't, then the term “paper of record” loses all meaning. It's also a paper with a left-leaning editorial bias, and therefore not one to cut unnecessary slack to a conservative or right-winger. The Guardian made the deliberate decision to refer to me as a “revisionist.” The editors are well-aware of the term “denier,” having employed it many times over the years. The editors looked at my work and specifically, not by accident, not because they forgot the word denier, but by choice, decided on revisionist.

The Guardian article author's email is publicly available, and Jayjg is free to ask him for confirmation that calling me a “revisionist” was done on purpose, that it was not an accident or an oversight (this is something he's willingly told me, so I have no doubt he'd tell Jayjg as well).

There is no legitimate way the Guardian piece can be used to support calling me a “denier,” as the paper made an informed, deliberate decision that I am not one.

However, OTHER media organs HAVE used denier, therefore I see no way for my entry to be honest unless readers are informed that the press has employed both terms. To just choose one, to ignore The Guardian, the largest of the sources to ever profile me (for the record, none of the authors of the pieces from 2013 that called me a “denier” ever actually interviewed me – they just linked to the Guardian article), well...why not just flip a coin? “Heads denier, tails revisionist.” Silly? Sure, but how would that be any less fair than allowing one editor to reword the writing of a WP:RS journalist?

Now, there seems to be a secondary issue regarding Wiki's style manual and not employing euphemisms. The argument appears to be that even though The Guardian used “revisionist,” it violates the “no euphemism” rule. But I assume that the style manual is not intended to be used to override accuracy regarding quotes. For example, the style manual states that entries should say “have sex” rather than “make love,” but surely that doesn't mean Wiki can alter quotes, as in, if an embattled politician says, “I did not make love to that woman,” surely Wiki can't substitute “have sex” in a quote...and what does substituting “denier” for “revisionist” do to The Guardian's Rory Carroll if not alter the specific words he wrote?

For the record, prior to around 1993/'94, “revisionist” was the widely-used term. It was used for actual revisionists AND for deniers. Deborah Lipstadt, who herself called me a revisionist in the January 1994 Detroit Jewish News profile that's one of the sources on my page, began lobbying for replacing revisionist with denier shortly thereafter. So this situation becomes a bit complicated, as a euphemism is typically a replacement, a substitute word, but in this case, denier was the replacement, the substitute. Prior to '94, revisionists AND deniers were called revisionists. That was not a good situation; it was inaccurate. Today, revisionists and deniers are called deniers. That's equally bad, equally inaccurate. The work of everyone in the field requires individual determination. That's exactly what The Guardian did, and it decided on revisionist in my case (as I don't deny an extermination program, I don't deny that the Reinhard camps were extermination camps, and I put the death toll at 3 to 3.5 million).

I think it's only fair that my Wiki page reflect the truth of The Guardian's decision and accurately report The Guardian's word choice, while still pointing out that other media organs have decided differently. That was the exact condition of my entry before Jayjg decided to alter it. It is a simple fact that The Guardian specifically chose to call me a revisionist. Others have called me a revisionist, too. Sarah Burris, writing for Raw Story in December 2016, called me a “denier,” but after receiving more information on my work, changed the description to “revisionist” (here's the piece as it's currently online: https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/white-nationalists-are-prepared-to-revolt-if-trump-runs-from-their-support/ A Wayback Machine check will confirm the change from denier to revisionist).

The New Yorker – certainly a magazine of record and another WP:RS – called me “a young revisionist agitator from California” (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/11/15/evidence-of-evil).

The listing for one of my videos (https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/bib34834) in the catalog of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (c'mon, you gonna tell me that's not an accepted source for Holocaust info?) states “Taking a revisionist stance on the history of the Holocaust, Cole interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper, Senior Curator and Head of Archives at the Auschwitz State Museum, and raises certain questions regarding the authenticity of the gas chamber at Auschwitz.” Yet, at the same time, one keyword in the catalog entry is “Holocaust denial literature.” This is as stark an example as I can provide of how BOTH terms are used, and one or two Wiki editors should not be allowed to deprive readers of the bigger picture by withholding information from reputable sources.

AlterNet – another NOT right-wing source, said this about my work: “David Cole, who is Jewish, was active in the early 1990s as what he calls a Holocaust revisionist. That term is up for debate. When the Guardian profiled Cole in 2013, the reporter and editors made a conscious decision after reviewing Cole’s work to use the term 'revisionist.' However, the Huffington Post, MSNBC, the Wrap, and Yahoo News have preferred to use 'denier'” (https://www.alternet.org/2015/01/daily-callers-exclusive-hit-piece-bill-clinton-hoax/). Jayjg made a huge deal out of his claim that “no reliable sources discuss this 'debate' about Cole, or even refer to it.” He is mistaken.

RationalWiki includes me in a lengthy list of “famous deniers,” but because it uses The Guardian as its source, my actual entry describes me as “Leader of Republican Party Animals, a Hollywood-based conservative political group. In 2013, he was exposed as being 'David Cole,' a Holocaust revisionist who made a splash in the media in the 1990s.” The Online Hate Prevention Institute refers to me as a denier, but in all instances in which it uses The Guardian and The New Yorker as a source, the term becomes “revisionist.” I include these examples to show that EVEN THOSE WHO CONSIDER ME A DENIER understand that you can't use The Guardian as a source for anything other than revisionist. Everyone seems to get that except for a few editors here. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking me; you have to use the word the source uses.

Look, all I'm trying to do is ensure that my Wiki page is honest. I'm not asking for ONLY revisionist to be used. That would be inaccurate. I'm asking, expecting, Wikipedia to allow readers to understand that both terms are used. There's no journalistically excusable way to use the Guardian piece as a source and claim it supports describing me as a “denier.” So either remove The Guardian as a source – which would leave you with a situation in which your 2013 sources all reference the Guardian piece, all base their stories off the Guardian piece, but the piece itself is kept from Wiki readers (“we'll let you see how secondary sources reworded the Guardian article, but we won't show you the primary source”...c'mon, you know that's not what Wikipedia is about), or allow the entry to revert back to how it was.

The material Jayjg removed should be restored (specifically, the lines in the opening paragraph, and the text several paragraphs down pointing out that some reliable sources use revisionist, while others use denier).

I realize I'm out of my league here, as I'm not a Wiki editor. But I wanted to add my two cents.

David Cole CounterContempt@gmail.com DavidColeStein (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't use WP:EUPHEMISMs, especially not for WP:FRINGE pseudohistory. Pretending that this distinction is vitally significant is pointless and disruptive, and as I've said elsewhere several times, Wikipedia is not obligated to play stupid to these deliberate tactics. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:LABEL tells us that we should avoid value-laden labels. A word as "denialist" is even mentioned as a "word to watch." The rules on wikipedia can be contradictory, sometimes.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no contradiction: that very section says "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Please reread it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

DavidColeStein, for the guideline for how you can contribute to this article, please see "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest". For the standards by which this article should be written, see "Biographies of living persons." If you believe that we are not interpreting those standards correctly, then you can request the assistance of an administrator at the Adminstrator's Noticeboard. After that, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation.

Articles are supposed to convey information about subjects and not disparage them, no matter how unpopular they or their views may be. On the other hand, wording should be unambiguous. The expression historical revisionism was used to describe the views of Elmer Barnes, who provided a reinterpretation of U.S. history and also cast doubt on the Holocaust. Subsequently, holocaust deniers called themselves revisionists and the term was commonly used in mainstream media to describe them, although that usage has declined and the expression has mostly reverted to its original meaning while the term holocaust denial is commonly used for its second meaning.

There is no question that the views you expressed are normally described as holocaust denial and the article must reflect that fact. It doesn't directly call you a Holocaust denier or denialist, but says you "achieved notoriety for...Holocaust denial." I do not see how else this information could be provided without casting doubt on the sources that said this.

TFD (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

DavidColeStein, I agree with what TFD said. In addition, when you write Jayjg made a huge deal out of his claim that “no reliable sources discuss this 'debate' about Cole, or even refer to it.” He is mistaken., can you please provide a reliable source that says something like "There is a debate about whether Mr. Cole is a revisionist or a denier"? We would need something that explicit to avoid violating the original research rule; please read WP:NOR carefully to understand the restrictions under which we edit here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Sorry to disturb everyone again. I'm not here to convince anybody in the thread to allow my page to go back to the way it was. Rather, I'm working on an article about Wikipedia's “no euphemisms” policy, and how it impacts the altering of specific words from reliable sources. If I'm not as brief as you'd like, please understand that it's only because I need to be accurate for my article.

All I ask is to be corrected if I'm wrong on any of the following points:

The Guardian is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia.

The Guardian is internationally respected for its trustworthiness (source: The Guardian's Wiki page).

Rory Carroll, former West Coast Guardian correspondent (now Ireland correspondent) is an award-winning and respected journalist (source: Carroll's Wiki page).

Am I doing okay so far?

In The Guardian's May 2013 interview with me, Rory Carroll referred to me as a revisionist. At no point did he call me a “denier.” The Guardian had previously written about Holocaust deniers in straight news stories. For example, the author David Irving is consistently referred to as a denier in The Guardian (and I'm not just talking about opinion pieces, but hard news).

A reasonable person could therefore conclude that The Guardian is very much aware of the two terms (“revisionist” and “denier”), and – because of The Guardian's reputation for integrity and accuracy – a reasonable person could conclude that if The Guardian chooses one word over the other, it's for a reason.

Carroll's piece did not appear on a personal blog, but in The Guardian's print and online editions. Therefore, it had to have gone through the standard editing process, in which errors or inaccuracies are typically corrected.

Okay, am I still doing alright?

Wikipedia does not allow euphemisms.

According to the participants in this thread, “revisionist” is a euphemism for “denier,” and therefore not allowed.

I think I've got it straight so far.

Here are my questions:

1) To what extent can the “no euphemisms” policy be used to alter a quote from an acknowledged reliable source?

2) To what extent can the “no euphemisms” policy be used to employ a reliable source as a footnote for a specific claim that the reliable source did not make?

3) I've seen one editor here who says, “Rory Carroll said 'revisionist;' he should not be a source for saying 'denier,'” but there are several others who say, “the no euphemisms policy mandates that he can only be used as a source for 'denier,' regardless of what he actually wrote.” Who settles these kinds of disputes? Is there a final, governing body, or does it just come down to majority vote (i.e., six editors vs. two editors = six editors win)?

4) In Masson v. New Yorker (1991), the Supreme Court set the legal standard for how a source can be paraphrased. Paraphrasing was deemed okay if the word or phrase substitution does not “materially change” what the source said. But the Court also held that it is NOT permissible to alter a word or phrase if the paraphraser believes that their substitutions are a “rational interpretation” of the original words. To be clear, Masson is not applicable here. It dealt with the print press and the use of quotation marks. That said, my question is, does Wikipedia's “no euphemisms” policy allow editors to “reinterpret” the words of reliable sources and replace them with words that the editors believe are “rational interpretations?”

I thank you for reading this, and I look forward to any replies I receive.

David Cole

DavidColeStein (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi DavidColeStein. Your interesting questions prompted some questions of my own:

1. I don't believe this article alters any quotes; can you indicate where it does?
2. Let's say the Holocaust denier link in the lead were changed to Holocaust revisionist; can you say what happens when you click on the Holocaust revisionist link?
3. If the phrase "Holocaust denier" in the lede were changed to "Holocaust revisionist", would that mean that the four sources indicating that David Cole is a "Holocaust denier" were being misquoted, or incorrectly paraphrased?
4. Is your reference to Masson vs. New Yorker (1991) intended as a legal threat?

I eagerly look forward to any replies. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow – you “solved” the problem by removing The Guardian as a source! I couldn't have asked for a better reaction on your part. Up until now, you've tried to couch your fanaticism in the guise of, “I'm only following Wiki's rules.” But you removed the primary source (The Guardian) and kept the secondary source (The Wrap), which is simply a repost of the primary with a few words changed. That's NOT Wiki rule-following, my friend. Primary sources first. The Guardian interviewed me, and The Wrap simply linked to The Guardian. But, to you, The Wrap's repost takes precedence over The Guardian's primary.

See, you're proving my point perfectly. Wiki editors with enough seniority are allowed to influence entries based on their own biases, even at the expense of Wiki's rules. Please keep it up. You're becoming a case study.

And even if you remove The Wrap (which I assume you'll do now), what are you left with? The American Spectator is a conservative OPINION SITE, not even remotely on par with The Guardian in terms of hard-news trustworthiness (again, Wiki rules: reliable, unbiased sources over ideological opinion sites). Then you have an ancient piece that the ADL pulled and is now viewable only via archive.org. And lastly? Shermer's book – a reprint and expansion of his Skeptic article, in which he called me a revisionist, not a denier (he changed it to denier for the book).

So, The Guardian vs. A) a fluffy entertainment site that posted the Guardian link second-hand, B) a conservative non-news opinion piece, C) an old ADL page that the ADL pulled, and D) the book by a man who admits to having a contentious personal history with me, and who called me “revisionist” up until we had a falling out.

Sorry, but The Guardian should take precedence. That said, I don't WANT the page to just say “revisionist,” any more than I want it to just say “denier.” To be accurate, the original sentence must be restored, informing readers that I have been called BOTH. That is the ONLY accurate way to phrase it.

Why can't you be content with that? Oh, right. Fanaticism. DavidColeStein (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

DavidColeStein, if you don't approve of those sources, there are many more; I've added five from 2018/2019. More to the point, and as I wrote above on 27 February, can you please provide a reliable source that says something like "There is a debate about whether Mr. Cole is a revisionist or a denier"? We would need something that explicit to avoid violating the original research rule; it's not enough that you simply prefer one description over another. Can you also answer the question above, what happens when you click on the Holocaust revisionist link? Also the one about a legal threat? Finally, it would also be helpful if you would review WP:NPA and WP:INDENT. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep it up. My entire point in this exchange was to show how Wiki allows ideologically fanatical editors to manipulate sources, and you are the poster child for that. The Guardian piece is a full-on profile of me by one of the most respected newspapers in the world. It's also the most highly-cited article on Google regarding my name. So, most complete, most respected, and most cited. I think you're so far-gone in your mania and baffling hatred toward me that you don't see how foolish you look. You remove The Guardian, the single best source in terms of reliability, respectability, detail, and citing, and – overnight – you load the piece with sources that are laughable.

The JTA piece is about Chuck Johnson, not me. The piece merely mentions me in passing, and does not discuss my work. Yet you remove the Guardian piece, which is a full-on profile, and replace it with a piece in which my name is briefly dropped once in an article about someone else. Then, you cram in a piece from a small-market Memphis newspaper, and you cram in THREE sources that do nothing more than cite and link to the Memphis paper. BTW, as an ultimate punchline...what source does that Memphis paper rely on? THE GUARDIAN! So, you remove The Guardian piece as a source on my page, and replace it with a tiny paper that itself uses The Guardian piece as its source.

Even the sources you used in place of The Guardian profile still use The Guardian profile as their primary source! Everyone understands The Guardian's importance in this but you.

I'm glad you're doing this. You're demonstrating exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia's use of sources and the blind trust it places in biased editors.

Nothing you do changes this simple fact. The Guardian piece is the most cited and most complete profile of me from the past 25 years, and it ran in one of the most respected and reliable newspapers in the world. According to Wiki standards, that's the primary source.

You have removed The Guardian for no other reason than that the piece said something you don't like. Wikipedia either approves of that kind of thing – removing the most reliable and complete source from the most trustworthy and respected news organ simply because an editor disagrees with the journalist's conclusions – or it doesn't. I intend to find the answer to that question myself.

I will say again, even though I fear you are too deep in your self-righteous, irrational hatred to understand: there is only one accurate way to handle this matter, and that's the way that paragraph read before you defaced it. I have been called BOTH “revisionist” and “denier.” Both words should be used, with sources given for each. That's the accuracy that Wikipedia supposedly strives for.

I don't expect to be able to reason with you. You're an ideological extremist, and you edit with a personal agenda that goes beyond accuracy and adherence to the rules. But I think I've been able to get you to prove my point about biased editors many times over, as I now take my complaint elsewhere.

Ideological rigidity can be debilitating, J. Relax a bit and lower your fists. DavidColeStein (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

DavidColeStein, the Guardian piece is still in the article (and cited). Moreover, all the sources I've added explicitly use the phrase "Holocaust denier", which is the main point, and the phrase to which you seem to object. Unfortunately, I haven't had any success in getting you to answer any of my questions, and I don't think I've been able to communicate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in a way you find acceptable; perhaps other editors here will. TFD, Jpgordon, Doug Weller,Grayfell, is there some better way you can think of to express this? Or am I perhaps misunderstanding or misapplying the policies and guidelines here in some way? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to clearly present information. Specifically, we write articles to summarize information in our own words. In some situations, historical revisionism could potentially be appropriate, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. There is no sign of this "revisionism" being published in respected journals, etc. or in any way significantly influencing academic discourse about the history itself, at least not from what I have seen. The term can also be used as a euphemism, or (per the revisionism article) as a "pejorative". So which of these uses applies here, and how are readers expected to know? It would be bad encyclopedia writing to intentionally add a less-clear term when a more clear term works just fine. It would be needlessly confusing to introduce this fussy term without providing any context to readers. In context it is very clear from an overwhelming number of reliable sources that the current wording is clearer. It is more neutral, also, and is therefor more appropriate. The Guardian source doesn't meaningfully refute this underlying description, regardless of which term that particular journalist uses in that particular article. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth: I left this article alone for a while, but I just saw this article: The Jewish Post of 9 February 1994 calls mr. Cole a "Holocaust revisionist." See here: Now there is a Jewish Holocaust revisionist. He's David Cole, 23.... I cannot imagine that a news outlet called "the Jewish Post" would ever use "misleading euphemisms" on topics like this one. Thus, I still believe my opening statement in this discussion is valid. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Jeff5102, when referring to Holocaust deniers, some sources generally prefer to use the term "Holocaust denier", others prefer the term "Holocaust revisionist". They do this with all people, not just with Cole. Wikipedia uses the term Holocaust denial. Do you have any reliable sources that specifically discuss whether or not David Cole is a "denier" or a "revisionist", or indicate that there is some debate about which term is more appropriate as regards Cole? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg, worthy of note: holocaust revisionist is a redirect to holocaust denial. Because of course it is. Very much as antivaxers paint themselves as "pro safe vaccine" and then erect a bar to what they consider safe that cannot possibly be met. Guy (help!) 11:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, JzG, and I've pointed this out several times, to no avail. Even if people were to put Holocaust revisionist in the article, it would still point back to Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I did my best to keep it that way (see here). So there is no problem when we insert Holocaust revisionist in the article: it doesn't hurt the contents, and it doesn't hurt Cole's career, which, as I said 18 months ago, is an important point of the WP:BLP-rule: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:LABEL we use the formal use of term. The term "holocaust revisionist" is not the same as "holocaust denier" because the word "revisionist" does not equal the word "denier" and this is a BLP. If we want to say "holocaust denier" we should attribute it even if it is sourced to reliable sources. We don't need to mention it in the Wikipedia voice.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Journalist

Since he is not a Journalist we need to remove Journalist from the title. Any idea how we do that?--SharabSalam (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest David Cole (documentary film director) but I think it is a long title.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, how about David Cole (alias Stein)? Guy (help!) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert today

Ancapman removed references to holocaust denial with the summary "A legal opinion by TN legal board of ethics involving judge lammey has stated publicly he is not a denier after they thoroughly researched his research.". Since this opinion appears not to be widely reported, and comes from Judge Jim "Jews Should Get The Fuck Over The Holocaust" Lammey, I have reverted. Guy (help!) 11:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You are opening yourself and Wikipedia to tort libel. A legal board has determined he is not a denier http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-who-shared-foreign-mud-article-on-facebook-is-reprimanded-for-partisan-posts

This board was clear “ This reprimand concerns your actions relating to a series of Facebook posts from 2016 and an interview with you by a local reporter to discuss your policy of requiring illegal aliens to report to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a part of probation to adhere to the requirement that all individuals obey the laws of the United States. The resulting article, “Memphis Judge Posts Facebook link to Holocaust denier’s Essay calling Immigrants ‘Foreign Mud’” discusses your probation policy and references a Facebook article you shared, inadvertently made public by you, by a Jewish author, David Cole, titled “Stop with the Golems, Already.” It is abundantly clear that you did not author this article and your only comments simply described Mr. Cole’s article as an “interesting read…some four-letter words though.” Your comment also did not endorse all of the article’s contents. The basic premise of the article is that Jewish Americans have enough to worry about in the present to dwell on the past. Specifically, that Jewish Americans should not bring in people who want to do them harm. Mr. Cole did not describe all immigrants as “mud” just those who want to do them harm, the Golems. However, the language used by the author was crude in saying, “In a perfect world, the rabbinical Rain Men would finally get the f*** over the Holocaust and end their war of hostility against the west.” The investigation revealed that the author is not a Holocaust denier.”

Members include the dean of the Nashville School of Law (who’s also a former Tennessee Supreme Court justice), U.S. Army officers from the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, city attorneys, assistant district attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys, an FBI agent, a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation agent, a director at one of the nation’s premier nuclear security companies, the president of the Tennessee Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division, and a former senior administrator at Johns Hopkins, Drexel, Bethune-Cookman, and Duke. The Board is diverse; male and female, black and white—top people in their field. Ancapman (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ancapman, No we are not, and please see WP:NLT. We accurately reflect the consensus of multiple reliable independent sources.

Earlier coverage had described the author of the article, David Cole, as a Holocaust denier. But the letter of reprimand said an investigative panel probe revealed that Cole is not a Holocaust denier.

That characterization is disputed by a Holocaust expert who previously spoke with the Commercial Appeal about a statement by Cole in his 2014 book. “You want the really quick condensed version of my views?” Cole wrote. “Auschwitz was not an extermination camp.” Cole went on to write that Jewish people were killed at the camp, most likely in defiance of orders.

— your source

The Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct is not an expert in holocaust denialism. Guy (help!) 12:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nor is the High Court of Justice. Yet the Irving v Penguin Books Ltd-case is often used as evidence that David Irving IS a Holocaust denier. From the article on Wikipedia: The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist. It is a bit weird to see how a court ruling, and a reference to an article in the Guardian are good enough to state something as a fact in one article, but not in the other. Why is that?Jeff5102 (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) The article on the Tennessee ruling contains direct and indirect quotations from Cole's book that are standard denialism, beyond the "revisionism" covered in the article. (2) The Irving trial has a ton of material you can read online to evaluate the evidence considered and how the judgement was reached. You don't need to assume the judge was infallible, and there is no reason to presume (without evidence) that the TN decision was correct just because it came from a judge or official panel. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Incorrect edit

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-who-shared-foreign-mud-article-on-facebook-is-reprimanded-for-partisan-posts

3rd paragraph from the bottom and this has been widely reported and the boards findings were clear. He is not a denier. Calling him such is now a tort libel. Ancapman (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

See above. Your own source notes that this finding is disputed. It's not a finding of fact in court, and it's contradicted by a very large number of other sources addressing Cole's work in general not just the one link discussed. Guy (help!) 12:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Did Cole ever publish an article about Wikipedia?

The above discussion with Cole is pretty interesting -- the most extensive participation by the subject of a BLP that I have seen. He (I assume it's really him) says this page prompted him to prepare an article on Wikipedia and its policies. Did such an article ever appear?

As to the topic that brought him here, "denier" vs "revisionist", I found this which might be of interest.

https://reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2p13qt/im_david_cole_aka_stein_the_jewish_holocaust/

In the AMA, someone who appears to be Cole (and he can verify it on this talk page if he sees this) says that the usual understanding of Treblinka, that it had gas chambers, is probably correct (the "most likely cause of death"). It looks like he doesn't deny the non-Auschwitz gas chambers and grudgingly accepts that some gassing, possibly a ton of gassing, did happen , but still leaves some weasel-room about it not being definitive, whether what is true of Treblinka was true of Belzec and Sobibor, etc. That's denial unless he is clearer in other sources about accepting the standard account of the Aktion Reinhard camps.

73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:OR drifting into WP:NOTFORUM. A person's willingness to be vague is not encyclopedically significant without a reliable, independent source explaining why it would matter. Reddit is seldom a reliable source, especially not /r/conspiracy. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there an actual point to your comment, other than constructing and then shooting down an imaginary infraction?

I asked about sources related to the above discussion, and (unrelated to that), provided some possibly relevant background information that is not RS in itself, but may be of interest to some users if and when they evaluate RS on the topic. There was no claim of standalone "encyclopedic significance". But to the extent one considers it likely that the AMA was Cole, I think many people would take it as a point in favor of him being a Holocaust denier, and might look for similar phraseology when parsing his published writings. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

p.s. This is also relevant to the lede paragraph summarizing Cole's views (4M vs 6M, etc) that you removed. That paragraph should absolutely be there, and makes the article much more comprehensible, if it is accurate. In light of Cole's cagey, conditional admissions of what did happen, it is not clear whether he accepts the crux of the standard Holocaust account for the other death camps besides Auschwitz, or is just willing to talk about it as a probabilistic hypothetical. e.g., in Guardian interview: "The best guess is yes, there were gas chambers" he says. "But there is still a lot of murkiness about the camps. I haven't changed my views.. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Darling

I'm certainly no fan of the guy, but describing him as a "darling of conservative blogs and talkshows" is unnecessarily pejorative and dismissive of both this guy and those (unspecified) blogs and shows. Has anybody ever referred to people or groups in those terms without intending a slight? Even with people one strongly disapproves of that language is usually avoided. A more objective description and a specification of just exactly who or what the sentence is referring to would be preferable. Let readers come to conclusions themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.196.196.117 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

revisionist not denier

All the sources listed here as alleged proof that he was or is a denier don't cite anything of his. They just apply the epithet denier. That's not proof. If you look even at his first famous appearance on Donahue, he doesn't deny the Holocaust. He just says Auschwitz wasn't a death camp. His book and his video blog are dominated by his attacks on deniers. He talks about how Trebilinka or Sorbibor were death camps with gas chambers and that the train deportations through Poland all ended not in emigration into Russia as some claim but in death. He describes scientifically how quickly bones dissolve and explains why there's a lack of human remains today in the soil even though millions were exterminated. He argues that documentation can be used for historical argument. All of this is in opposition to people who deny the Holocaust. It is reasonable to say he wasn't a denier or to say as someone posted here recently most reasonably that he says he isn't a denier. He clearly says he isn't. All of that isn't vandalism as one editor here insists. It is a valid argument to make. I don't know how Wikipedia editing works so well, but I see from this that it gets dominated by individuals who see themselves as arbiters of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGoodPitch (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbiters of what is in reliable sources, more like, and reliable sources term him a Holocaust denier. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

AGoodPitch, "holocaust revisionist" is their term of art for holocaust denier. Of course they don't admit to being deniers, because WP:MANDY, but it's what the world classifies them as. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As a non-verified random internet user claiming to have Jewish ancestry, which I don't think should be relevant and I also understand is easily disregarded as false as it is non-verified, I want to say that if this comment isn't in violation of any rules then let it remain for posterity for readers so I can tell them to consider the bias-laden responses by editors on this talk page and also remind them to consider bias when browsing any source, specifically Wikipedia articles on other contentious topics or public figures. A lot of mind reading about what people will admit to and what they actually believe that is unknowable and for which a conclusion to can only be arrived at through assumptions. 207.161.67.17 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"changed his last name to Stein"

The article says that he "changed his last name to Stein". Did he actually change his name (meaning that he went to the government, filed paperwork to change his name, got a new driver's license, and whatever other stuff you do when you change your name) or did he simply use that name as an alias/pseudonym? Even though the article says he "changed his last name", everything it says after that seems to just be that he used the name Stein, but didn't actually change his name. --B (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)