> Your use of terms like “conspiracy theory” make it seem like you’ve come to some very strong opinions about this specific debate. Holocaust denial is a long

> Your use of terms like “conspiracy theory” make it seem like you’ve come to some very strong opinions about this specific debate. Holocaust denial is a long lived conspiracy theory. There is no way of getting around that fact. > Your original question at the top of this thread made it seem like you had a reasonable meta-question about whether it’s appropriate to “escalate” editorial conflicts to a journal (...) There is no escalation. There's at best a blatant attempt to throw accusations in a way that prevents those attacked of defending themselves, and at worst there is libel. Let's look at the facts: the wikipedia article on the Holocaust is clear in pointing out that the 6 million figure was actually provided by the leading Nazi official responsible for the Holocaust. The same wikipedia article then says in no unclear terms that "Historians estimates range from 4,204,000 to 7,000,000." What exactly is questionable about these facts? Nothing.