Talk:Holocaust denial/FAQ

Important: In order to save editors from repeatedly answering questions which have already been asked, as well saving you the time from asking them, it is strongly recommended that you view the following FAQ section, which contains responses that represent editorial consensus on the following issues which have frequently arisen on the Holocaust denial talk page. In addition, the links given to related archived discussions are not necessarily exhaustive, and it is recommended that you use the search tool as well.

To view an item, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

1: Holocaust denial is not necessarily antisemitic.

Response: One item that has been raised here several times is the contention that Holocaust denial is not inherently antisemitic, and/or that Wikipedia should not conclude that everyone who is a Holocaust denier harbors antisemitic feelings.

Wikipedia is not here to conclude that, and its editors' opinion on the matter - whatever those opinions are and regardless of who they belong to - are irrelevant. Wikipedia is here to present what reliable sources say. In this case, there is a preponderance of reliable material stating that Holocaust denial is antisemitic, and therefore the article notes that Holocaust denial is considered to be antisemitic, and why the antisemitism template is legitimately included.

Related archived discussion: [1], [2].

2: The antisemitism template should be removed.

Response: Please see the response to Item 1 as to why the antisemitism template is legitimately placed.

3: Holocaust denial should be renamed Holocaust revisionism

Response: No. Per numerous reliable sources, the correct terminology is Holocaust denial/denier.

Related archived discussion: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

4: Not all historians reject Holocaust denial.

Response: Yes, they do. As is already stated in the article, according to the oldest and largest American association of historians and history teachers, "no serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place", and that Holocaust denial is a form of "academic fraud". Wikipedia must avoid using vague or unspecific terms, and words which do not accuractely reflect what reliable sources say.

Related archived discussion: [9], [10].

5: The 4 million Auschwitz plaque

Response: One issue relates to the death toll plaque at Auschwitz, which was amended following the collapse of the Soviet Union to read 1.5 million Jewish deaths, instead of 4 million victims of no specified ethnicity or background.

The Soviet authorities estimated the death toll not via historical methodology, but by working out how many people could have been cremated during the entire existence of the camp, taking 20% off to account for crematoria down-time, and using that number: around 4 million. They did not, for example, examine how many people were sent to the camp versus how many did not return, but used the 4 million variant to purposely overstate non-Jewish deaths, and diminish the fact that 90% of those that disappeared following their deportation to Auschwitz were Jewish. Once the Iron Curtain fell, communist pressure to keep the original Soviet estimate ceased and the more accurate estimate replaced it.

In any event, reputable historians did not use the 4 million figure in their calculations of the overall number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Rather, they used numbers of 1 to 1.5 million, figures which are still used today.

Related archived discussion/items: [11], [12], [13] and the appropriate section in the Auschwitz article.