Not. The similarity is in title only - "identities of ~1M of the murdered are unknown" and "there's a discrepancy in statistics, therefore did not happen" are as different texts as they could possibly be, even though the title could fit both.
I'd prefer the term "Shoa" over "Holocaust", as that this is AFAIK the term preferred by the victim groups. But apart from that I don't see any issue with the title.
Do you care to elaborate? Who was sentenced, what was the reasoning, and what was written in that article?
It was long time ago, his name is Vladimir Stwora. He wrote that number of victims were not identified and 6m is not exact number. BBC is British, but in my country I would report this article to the police.
...and also wrote, in that very same article, that "there isn't any evidence of extermination camps" - an insignificant bit of information that you have omitted, surely by accident.
And that is where we diverge: your "any" seems to indicate "never mind the intent, never mind the content: the title is slightly similar to one of a completely different article. Therefore revisionism, release the kraken!"
I consider that overzealous - this article on "it's hard to identify the now-nameless people who were mass-murdered during the Holocaust" is anything except revisionist, yet you would "report this article to the police." What for?
The gist of his article was essentially "no holocaust ever took place, there is no evidence of any genocide or gas chambers, Hitler did nothing wrong." He was just asking questions, riiiiight.
