Talk:Legality of Holocaust denial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing countries[edit]

In this linked article you mention 17 countires. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#cite_ref-171). But in the present article, it is missing Canada, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Australia, and Slovakia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of other countries that may not state the Holocaust in their legal texts, yet persecute Holocaust Revisionists in one way or other. --41.150.239.208 (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the reader some time by highlighting[edit]

I noticed some of these quote a lot of material, when only a small part of it is the part that would be the ban on Holocaust denial, so I'm bolding those parts to help the reader find them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVoluntarist (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some of these crimes[edit]

some of these crimes are nothing to do with the holocaust deniat .either the title of the page should be changed or some of the countries where only race crimes are mentioned should be removed. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Came here to say this. I just read these, and most of them do not mention the alleged Holocaust at all. So this information is completely wrong. 79.106.203.3 (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Union[edit]

The entry for the European Union is misleading because it is not a law it is a directive. For a directive to be implemented as a law it has to be enacted in the individual states of the European Union. A much more balanced section on the laws of the European Union's members on this directive is available at Holocaust denial#European Union --PBS (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Of Speech?[edit]

Should it not be noted that these countries do not practice freedom of speech or expression? Lostinlodos (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A point of view shared in the UK, at least, by many Jews, including Michael Howard and Leon Brittan, who stopped the EU enforcing such laws Europe wide, and Melanie Philips, an almost pathologically right-wing Zionist, who nevertheless wrote in opposition to the deportation of Frederick Toben to Germany. Channelwatcher (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irving wasn't sentenced to 3 years[edit]

he got 1 year and 2 probation...least i think so.... (89.184.41.127 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think you'll find he was sentenced to 3 years but appealed. His appeal wasn't allowed (that way they'd have had to pay him compensation) but the sentence was reduced to time already served. Channelwatcher (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France[edit]

In France, the Gayssot Act, voted for on July 13, 1990, makes it illegal to question the existence of the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46.

Is it illegal to question the existance of this category?? Unlikely so. I think the sentence should be: In France, the Gayssot Act, voted for on July 13, 1990, makes it illegal to question the existence of crimes that fall in the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46. Annika27 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Prosecutions and convictions" section[edit]

A "Prosecutions and convictions" section was added to this article in July. However, it does not appear that most of the people in the table there were actually convicted of Holocaust denial; rather, they were convicted of things like "inciting racial hatred", "denying crimes against humanity", etc. typically based on their Holocaust denial. Given that this is an article specifically on "Laws against Holocaust denial", should the article only list people who were actually convicted using laws specifically against Holocaust denial? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As examples, which individuals do you mean? --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example:
  • Jürgen Graf was sentenced for inciting racial hatred.[1]
  • Jean-Marie Le Pen was convicted of inciting racial hatred.[2]
  • Roger Garaudy was convicted of challenging crimes against humanity and of racial libel.[3]
  • Gaston-Armand Amaudruz was found guilty of racial discrimination.[4]
Most countries don't have laws specifically against Holocaust denial, but people can be convicted under other broader statutes (not specifically about Holocaust denial), such as the ones listed above. Jayjg (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Graf was convicted under the anti-racism law, which includes a ban on denial of any genocide; that's pretty clearly targeted at Shoah deniers, though it could also be applied to (say) denials of the Armenian genocide. The Le Pen conviction indeed was for Holocaust denial; the relevant law is the Volksverhetzungsgesetz -- "inciting the people law" -- and it bans denial of any Nazi atrocities. Garaudy similar (as the Holocaust was certainly a crime against humanity). Amaudruz likewise. The laws they were convicted under were inclusive, not exclusive, and were (most likely) written with Holocaust denial most specifically in mind. I don't see any reason why the list needs to be exclusively those convicted of a law explicitly rather than implicitly about Holocaust denial. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that if people have been notably prosecuted for Holocaust denial then it's relevant to mention them here, regardless of the exact wording of the statutes. How a law is enforced is as relevant as its text. But we'd have to have clear sources who say something like "X was charged and convicted under the Volksverhetzungsgesetz because of his statements that the Holocaust..." If reliabe sources say they were prosecuted under the law for this cause, then we shouldn't second-guess them. However it is an opinion so we might want to attribute it.   Will Beback  talk  11:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sources do tend to indicate that pretty clearly, though many of the laws cast a wider net than outright "denial"; "minimizing" is in the same category, I'd think. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, in common usage, "denial" includes minimizing.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., that all makes sense. Thanks both for the feedback. Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Graf, was any evidence of racism offered against him? Or was Revisionism conflated with racism to get the conviction? (He was, incidentally, convicted under retrospective legislation, since the law was not in force when he committed his crime. In general retrospective law is considered bad law.) Channelwatcher (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same (i.e. conflation) is probably true of Le Pen. And, according to your link, Garaudy was actually cleared of "provoking racial hatred, discrimination or violence". Channelwatcher (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources indicate these convictions were for Holocaust denial; do you have some sources claiming otherwise? --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spain[edit]

Should Spain be here at all now? Or maybe listed separately? There is a huge chasm between asserting or offering evidence that a crime didn't happen (denial), or not exactly as described (revisionism), and justifying it. Hardly anyone in their right mind is going to justify extermination of an ethnic group. Revisionists, by the very act of saying it didn't happen, cannot be justifying it. Other countries do explicitly outlaw "denial". Spain, it would appear, no longer does. Channelwatcher (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction you make between "denial" and "revisionism" is a straw man, as is the tired old argument that revisionists can't be justifying the crime by saying it didn't happen. Exonerating the criminals is justifying the crime. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this was posted a long time ago, but I wanted to mention that attorneys all the time try to exonerate their clients, but they aren't typically advocating the breaking of laws. You used the word 'criminals' above, which implies they (whoever they are) are guilty. I would tend to agree with Channelwatcher if his point is that advocating criminal acts is not the same as saying no crime took place. Really the problem is that its silly for us to be criminalizing thought or opinion-type speech. It is a constant battle no matter what the topic is to separate truth from fiction, so why should we be so scared of it when it happens to relate to genocide? -- Avanu (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this page is not to debate or take sides on the wisdom of laws forbidding Holocaust denial. It is to document those laws. The section on Spain (as I noted before) seems perfectly appropriate and informative on that subject. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument makes perfect sense. Saying that it's "tired and old" doesn't make it any less valid. And I'm neither a Nazi nor an Anti-Semite, in fact I'm against totalitarianism and pro-Israel. But you don't have to be Aristotle to understand that one can't simultaneously deny and justify a crime. If a conspiracy theorist denies that the 9-11 planes were hijacked, does it mean that he is justifying the hijacking of 9-11 planes? Nonsense. 93.40.122.190 (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the article says is that Holocaust denial used to be illegal in Spain but, due to a court decision, now isn't. This is perfectly appropriate and informative on the subject of the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Denying the Holocaust in Spain is illegal since 2015. Please add it and change the map. 79.158.148.251 (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

Im adding the Censorship template, also I want to know where is the concensus that its against the template. --Realxsalo (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works according to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, you were reverted, now you state your case here on the talk page instead of edit warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im adding the template beacause I think the article its very related to censorship, --190.164.81.129 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know that you think it's related, Realxsalo. But editing from an IP doesn't work to avoid WP:3RR violations; please don't edit war, whether logged in or not. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats ok. But why can´t I add the Censorship template? --Realxsalo (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I confused this talk page with Talk:Holocaust denial. You might be able to get consensus in this article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I would personally agree that legislating against Holocaust denial is a form of censorship, I do not think the censorship template should be on this article, editorially speaking. The template links to much broader types of censorship as they occur as concepts, but this article is clearly not one of them, or a "part of a series" on censorship. A much sharper inclusion of a censorship template would be one which links to other clear incidents or lists, such as Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China. WilliamH (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were not clear why the template shouldnt be added. I agree with the inclusion to the Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China. --Realxsalo (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say I am very clear - that template links to concepts of censorship, such as book burning or political correctness. Meanwhile, this article is a very specific form of censorship. I would say there are grounds for a censorship template, but not this one. I will work on a suitable one. WilliamH (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why one and not the other. The censorship in China is not a 'concept' (like 'book burning'), either. They are in the same category, I mean these laws and the laws in China. - 92.100.165.149 (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add Australia?[edit]

The below from the Anti-Defamation Commission of B'nai B'rith (Australia):

Holocaust Denial in Australia
In Australia, there are no specific statutes prohibiting Holocaust denial. However, the Australian courts have made it clear that Holocaust denial is a form of antisemitism and vilification, which is prohibited by Federal anti-discrimination laws. In doing so, Australian law has developed genuine protection against Holocaust denial, and has demonstrated that Jews will have a means of redress.
The leading judgement is that of Jones v Toben [2003] FCA 137 decided by the Federal Court of Australia in 2003. The case concerned a website of an extreme right wing group, the Adelaide Institute, run by Fredrick Toben. The material published on the website denies the reality of the Holocaust and makes antisemitic statements. This material was held to be in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), as it was reasonably likely to offend, insult, or humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia because of their origins. The court ordered the respondent, Adelaide Institute director Fredrick Toben, to remove all offensive material from the site.
When an order of the Court is not complied with, it is possible to charge a perpetrator with contempt of court. In 2007 the ECAJ brought a successful action for contempt of court, which required Toben and the Adelaide Institute to comply with the 2002 order.

This case is mentioned in our article's Prosecutions and convictions table. --173.76.67.74 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only european countries, Why?[edit]

Hello, There's only european laws, but in the world there are more countries in North America, South America, Asia, Africa, etc... I think this article lacks info. I will try to put more law, but sadly I have no time now, so please could somebody add more laws against Holocaust denial (and/or genocide if possible)? Thanks for your work.

Which non-European countries have laws against Holocaust denial? I'm not aware of any, and there's no sense in listing in a country if it doesn't have such laws. WilliamH (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canada is well known for prosecuting Holocaust denials and is even listed on the Wikipedia page for "Holocaust Denial" as one of the seventeen countries in which Holocaust denial is either implicitly or explicity illigial Source: Lechtholz-Zey, Jacqueline: Laws Banning Holocaust Denial. Genocide Prevention Now.. Retrieved September 29, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.254.130 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

only 2 legal quotes name the holocaust, out of 17 countries[edit]

It seems to me both title and body of this article are misleading. This entry as whole suggests that many countries have laws specifically targeting Holocaust Denial, yet it does not contain citations to support his.

in the legal texts cited:
-only 2 out of 17 countries make a direct reference to holocaust or Jews,
-I think not half of them name Nazi or National Socialism

in the editorial parts:
-I think the word Holocaust is used 37 times, and nearly for all 17 countries
-a statement like "Many countries also have broader laws that criminalize genocide denial." suggests that many countries have laws that specifically target the Holocaust, but one can not confirm that based on the legal texts as cited here
-based on the legal quotes, my attempt at a fair title would be: laws on the denial or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity in general


41.205.230.233 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New map shows Russia, Italy and Greece but they aren't mentioned in the article[edit]

Someone recently replaced the map showing countries that have laws against Holocaust denial adding Russia, Italy and Greece but they aren't mentioned in the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article, could use more info. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Laws against Holocaust denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

There are legal consequences for holocaust denial in Canada, based on the Race Vilification Act of 1946 (Saskatchewan) later adapted nationally, and Neo-nazi Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel who briefly lived in Toronto in the 1980s and 1990s was charged for holocaust denial, he written articles, books and created videos with his historical revisionist beliefs on the Holocaust. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's 100% illegal now in Canada, since 23 June 2022. The criminal code has been updated. It's punishable by up to 2 years in prison. See: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-19 and https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html
I can't find any mainstream news articles mentioning it though, but the bill was passed, the online summary of the bill confirms it, and the Canadian criminal code does as well. That actually appears to be the only source to confirm this change.
- 108.190.228.126 (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I found a mainstream news source admitting it, finally, but only in passing deep inside of an article. It's extremely hushed up for some odd reason. They do not want to announce to the people of Canada that they can be imprisoned for 2 years for questioning the allegations surrounding an event in history. This really needs to be updated. People in Canada need to know they can go to prison for saying things they deep down they believe is the actual truth.
“The Holocaust is a fact, it’s been recognized as a historical fact by Canadian jurisprudence, but also, since this summer, Holocaust denial is now a criminal offence in Canada,”
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/11/25/lawyers-debate-whether-nazism-led-to-holocaust-as-montreal-hate-speech-trial-resumes.html
- 108.190.228.126 (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also Canada is still pink on the map. - 108.190.228.126 (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who uploaded the map has not edited since, so someone who can edit SVG files needs to take an interest and update it. File:Holocaust Denial Laws 2022.svg Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't edit SVG files, but I've done the best I could with a PNG file. Anyone who can update the original SVG is welcome to do so and replace my version in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laws against Holocaust denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laws against Holocaust denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poland and law change/holocaust “revisionism"[edit]

Should there be an extra section here about Poland’s recent laws denying any Polish involvement in the Holocaust, which has been widely rebuked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.240.68 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be updated, although you've got the law slightly wrong. See Act on the Institute of National Remembrance#2018 amendment and Polish Center for Holocaust Research, Doug Weller talk 14:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As displayed, I obviously don’t know enough about it myself, but thought with Wikipedia’s free editing ability we should be vigilant about keeping topics such as these updated and truthful

Brazil[edit]

In Brazil there was a case in which a holocaust denier has been charged by the supreme court, and laws have been passed.

As explained in the second link, it is a crime to:

Write, edit, disclose and sell publications "in favour of prejudicial and discriminatory ideas" Against the Jewish community (Law 7716/89, article 20, redacted through law 8081/90) constitutes crime of racism subject to clauses of unsafability and imprescriptibility (CF, art 5th, XLII). --Pinnecco (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms/arguments against anti-Holocaust denial laws missing from article[edit]

Surely these types of laws have had critics on the grounds of free speech, especially from those free speech advocates who agree that the holocaust happened but disagree with banning speech that argues otherwise. Also, I haven't look in depth on this issue, but is there also any disagreement with how the laws define holocaust denial, such as laws that banning disagreement over certain "facts" about the holocaust even if you don't disagree that the holocaust happened? If someone argue that only 4 million Jews dies in the holocaust rather then 6 million, would that qualify as holocaust denial under any of the listed definition, even though 4 million dead Jews would certainly have still qualified it as a holocaust otherwise? We could use some info in the article on concerns by non-holocaust deniers, especially free speech advocates, regarding any or all of these laws where they exists. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israel[edit]

Can anyone find a trial in which the law was applied in Israel? I don't think it ever was (especially since the law itself states that the Attorney-General must consent to its application in any specific case), and I'm not sure that it would hold up in an Israeli court today. VwM.Mwv (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic source broken[edit]

Hello, https://www.mzv.cz/old/wwwo/default.asp?id=46561&ido=13925&idj=2&amb=3 This points to what is basically a 404 not found page. I've tried searching for this but I've been unable to find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.126.95 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the dead link with a link to another source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 June 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Laws against Holocaust denial → Legality of Holocaust denial – Article covers both jurisdictions where it is legal and jurisdicitions where it is banned, compare Legality of child pornography. buidhe 21:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Critisism[edit]

This article misses a section with arguments in favor of those laws. 109.43.49.77 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short description[edit]

Per WP:SDDUPLICATE: "avoid duplicating information that is already in the title". It is currently almost an exact copy and does not serve to differentiate the topic. It should either be "none" or something more distinguishing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"None" helps no one. There is no other reasonable short description of the content of the article. Your removal did not improve the encyclopedia, so I reverted it. Your argument is trivial and this discussion is a complete waste of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is a description that equates to the title in any way useful? The purpose of WP:SDNONE is to remove frivolous and unhelpful descriptions from cluttering up the place; "some article titles are sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful". This is not a matter of opinion and your dismissive attitude is unacceptable. Either discuss improvement or bow-out. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short descriptions in general "clutter up the place" - we survived quite well without them for a decade and a half, and we really don't need them now. But now that we have them, we have them, fine. Your "none" took up exactly the same amount of storage space as the original description - only removing the short description template would be less. If you have time to waste (I don't), open a RfC on the question, but I will bet that many of the people who comment will simply say that you're wasting everyone's time -- because that's exactly what you're doing. Go edit an article, please, and help to actually improve Wikipedia instead of Wikilawyering about trivial b.s. My last comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finland has criminalized Holocaust denial[edit]

From Finland's national news service: https://yle.fi/a/74-20047962

and https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-minister-joked-about-nazis-finland-moves-to-criminalize-holocaust-denial/ 2001:14BB:64F:5687:0:0:188D:3F01 (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legality_of_Holocaust_denial&oldid=1195558428"