Talk:Holocaust Denial
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holocaust Denial article.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Article policies | |
| This article was nominated for deletion on January 2, 2006.
The result of the discussion was Keep.
|
|||
| This article was nominated for deletion on February 8, 2006.
The result of the discussion was Keep.
|
|||
Comment[edit]
Is this page really necessary? The holocaust never happened, so why do we need a denial page.... - Abscissa 08:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well played, troll. 201.214.246.30 18:27, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
I know Uncyclopedia is meant to be satire, but is it really necessary to have an article about the tragedy of the slaughter of five million innocent Jews. At least you could show some decency and delete this page.
With the other holocaust denial page this article seems pointless, especially as it talks about the holocaust and not a river. Wheatleya 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is humorless and vile. It appears to me to violate your own policies regarding content and humor. I didn’t perceive Uncyclopedia to be a playground for Anti-Semitic, Anti-Catholic, Anti-American, Anti-Brit and Anti-Indian terrorist-kidlings, but it certainly is. Oddly enough, the Middle East, other than Israel, fares well. I am curious to know how all of those “unfunny” articles with absolutely “no redeeming value” have not yet been deleted. --Lonvom 06:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- There really ought to be a word or phrase in English for the sorts of ideas that, from the progressive standpoint of the youngest current adult generation, are so obviously incredibly totally horribly wrong that merely stating them has a sort of ironic humor, i.e., "slavery is awesome." As for this article, I'd say it does a so-so job, not to great and not too shabby, of bridging the obvious gaps between satire, reality, historical genocides, and ugly lies. My favorite part of it is probably the whole "there'd be pictures and testimony" bit, in addition to "they were probably Raptured." For most people in the civilized West, I'd think this would hit the right note as "tongue-in-cheek bullshit", not "serious bullshit." But I could definitely be wrong about that.—Lenoxus 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who belongs here should appreciate this article. All the people who didn't die hitlers final solution are dead now any-way. For gods sake theres an article about eating babies (I love it!) so if someones going to be offended by this satire then it's simply because they want to be offended about a piticualar subject society has deemed offensive. One of the wonderful things about uncyclepedia is that it isn't sterilezed because somebody might be offended this that and most really funny stuff. If you want 'clean wholesome humor' u should go to an article like chuck facts, or better yet, watch flinstones.
In the mean time I love the archived footage showing us 'wat really happened'. Darklord25 07:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice idea[edit]
Short and simple, and a good idea.
But, seriously, how come so many Americans are so offended by EVERYTHING? This article should definetly stay, since it has a point is also funny.
Not[edit]
If it was funny at all, yes. This article looks like someone in a sinister black uniform wrote it, so calling it humour ("hey man, it's only a joke") does not come into play here, and is abusing the word humour. Delete. --Andreasegde 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded. I had many laughs in uncyclopedia, but this page is definitely not apropiate -- not even funny. I vote for removing the entire article, and especially the video. It's unaceptable. 87.217.57.206 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have only one question... Holocaust Denial AND Holocaust denial? Why two different articles about same? 
Sir Ptok-BentonicznyPisz tutaj • KUN 13:04, November 11, 2009 (UTC)