Can we add "Denialism" to the list of discouraged topics?

Question

H:SE currently has a list of on topic/off topic advice in ask. (Curiously the "what not to ask here" is under the heading "What topics can I ask about?" rather than the "What topics should I not ask about?"

The current list is: It is not about:

    Genealogy
    Asking for reference material
    Questions answered by a simple Google search or to be found in a Wikipedia page
    Predicting the future based on historical trends
    Mythology
    General (non-human) Prehistory
    Conspiracy Theories or Pseudo-science

I'd like to add one more item

• Denialism

Specifically of course I'm referring to Holocaust Denialism. Wikipedia defines Holocaust Denalism as:

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 the term denial as an appropriate description of their activities, and use the term revisionism instead.[6] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary.[7] wikipedia

That pretty well summarizes the distinction I'm trying to make. I'm happy to discuss challenges to historical orthodoxies based on historical methodologies, but I don't want to engage in discussion/debate with those who are arguing from a predetermined conclusion.

I believe that community moderation is sufficient to resolve any ambiguity. I'm more comfortable with a downvote/closevote if I can point to a clearly documented community standard that we don't want to engage denialists.

Answer 1

To be honest, no we should not.

It is quite obvious that we are referring to a single poster who has pursuing a singular topic of validating his own Holocaust denial. However, this does not mean that all questions regarding, say Holocaust denialism should be discouraged or have no probative value. This could lead to perverse results where people are discouraged from discussing denialism on sensitive topics such as say the Armenian Genocide.

We should avoid letting the actions of one rogue individual disrupt our ability to broach revisionist topics.

Answer 2

Following up my comment:

Ultimately what I guess I'm trying to say is no. We shouldn't add it to the list of discouraged topics. If it is primarily opinion based or too broad or a duplicate, we should close it as such, otherwise if it is answerable we should allow it.

You say:

Specifically of course I'm referring to Holocaust Denialism

I see nothing about the Holocaust in particular that is a problem aside from the fact that it is a sensitive topic. Yes, we should make sure the topic is handled sensitively, and we should close poor questions, but good questions about the Holocaust should be on topic.

You say (quoting Wikipedia):

The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are often based on a predetermined conclusion

Such methodologies should not be accepted in the body of a question, but fortunately questions can be edited if there is anything salvageable. It may mean that no answer gets accepted, but that is a common problem.

You say:

I don't want to engage in discussion/debate with those who are arguing from a predetermined conclusion.

Fortunately, discussion/debate is already not the proper form for this site anyway. Questions that encourage such should be edited to be less discussion-inciting. If the comments end up that way anyway, moderators can step in, as they should.

You say:

I'm more comfortable with a downvote/closevote if I can point to a clearly documented community standard that we don't want to engage denialists.

Downvotes do not have to be based on standards, and questions should not necessarily be closed because of them.

Closevotes are a little different, but they are still ultimately based on one person's interpretation of the rules. I don't think we should set denialism in stone as a discouraged topic. If an otherwise good question gets closed just because of the point of view of the asker, then hopefully others will reopen.

Answer 3

It is a good idea to encourage good historiography in question asking. However, I think the holocaust denial spam we've been getting is more of an administrative difficulty. For me, we need to focus on moderation that does not "feed the trolls".

Perhaps we can have a single authoritative holocaust question here at SE, then all the denial questions will just get a very boring 'duplicate' response? Then the legion of holocaust deniers will find new people tease elsewhere on the internet?

If holocaust deniers get no comments, no responses, just a bunch of down-votes, flags, and close votes for a boring 'duplicate' reason, then the issue will fade on its own.

Answer 4

I would categorize denialism as a "conspiracy theory or pseudoscience." So we have it "covered" under the rules. Of course, we would have to spell this out in the policy statement, something like: "This includes 'denialism' of the Holocaust, the Armenian dislocation, the 'Rape of Nanking' and other documented tragedies in human history."