Talk:Debate: Criminalization of Holocaust denial
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Click on the "+" tab above to add a comment. Join us on Facebook for broader community discussion.
I'm a bit confused by the following statement in the "Background and Context": It is assumed in this article that the Holocaust occurred and that Nazi government of Germany.... This is because further down there is a section entitled Do facts indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Holocaust occurred? where the underlying question of whether the Holocaust occurred is addressed. Most of the article does seem to take the well-accepted position that the Holocaust occurred and that this debate is between those who accept that the Holocaust happened but differ as to whether Holocaust denial is merely incorrect or also criminal. However this one section Do facts indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Holocaust occurred? seems to make a debate as to whether the Holocaust happened at all fair game. So I'm confused.--DharmaLion 18:30, 9 July 2009 (CDT)
I reckon that the final section is irrelevant to the debate. The argument is about whether holocaust denial should be allowed, not whether it is true or false. The con side of the debate contradict themselves as they support holocaust denial itself in the last section but reject it earlier, saying only that they think that it shouldn't be banned. In view of this, the section should be removed. If the seemingly anti-semitic editor who filled in the con side of the final section really wants to argue this case, he should start a whole new debate for this.--User:England4ever