Talk:Buchenwald trial

Removing of external links

Here it is stated as a reason to removal: Holocaust denial website. These links were brought from dewiki, where de:Buchenwald-Hauptprozess is a feature article and clearly they are extremely careful about these kind of issues (holocaust denial is a criminal offense in Germany). Claiming "holocaust denial" is a serious accusation; however, I've read the three external links and find nothing of that. For instance, here, the page starts "One of the most horrific war crimes committed by the 31 Buchenwald war criminals was perpetrated by Hans Merbach". Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 21:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then start reading their blog. Like, this post from Friday: [1]. I've got "scrapbookpages" removed from about 100 articles in English Wikipedia last year, now I'm patrolling Wikipedia for it. You can tell the Germans too. --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading the external links before removing them? The links that you just wipe out in this page had nothing remotely related to "holocaust denial". And you justify this behavior by citing a link from a different website? It doesn't make much sense. For my part, I did my homework: I reviewed the three links in search of something reprehensible. Would you kindly do the same? At least out of respect for the work of others. Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 04:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say it's a "different website" when its very name is "Scrapbookpages blog" and is linked from http://www.scrapbookpages.com ??? Both are run by the same author - a German-American woman (Generose Baugher from California - her About Me: "me at the Eagle’s Nest in Germany.") dedicated to Holocaust denial.

For (and about) you, as you fell for her even AFTER you were informed it's a honey-trap website: The name Scrapbookpages is innocuous and Gen Baugher’s initial descriptions seem impartial at first glance. When she takes issue with technical details, she does it in an unemotional voice. The juicier stuff appears in her blog which she runs as Further Glory where Holocaust deniers get quoted and in the comments she makes it clearer what she’s about. Unlike most Holocaust deniers, Gen Baugher doesn’t openly present herself as a skeptic. Baugher poses as a source of information, including photos and her own commentary, where the denial comes in. Baugher doesn’t take a flat “Holocaust never happened” approach, instead she chips away at detail after detail, focusing on whether Jews were actually being killed as part of an extermination program or were just there as a compulsory labor force. (...) Baugher also participated on alt.politics.nationalism.white and alt.politics.white-power. Most of it is gone now so there’s no way to know what Gen Baugher commented on “How to spot a Jew”. But what does survive has that same cagily creepy odor to it. There’s some German nationalism, some thinly disguised racism and anti-semitism. (...) The internet is full of things, good and bad. The only real crime is misrepresenting your agenda. Gen Baugher is a denier pretending to be an amateur period historian. --Niemti (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This it just outrageous! You keep launching accusations without proper support (an anonymous post in a blog can not be in any way a reliable source; really wordpress?). I think you failed to noticed that this is a serious matter. I urge you to review the pages that you so easily criticize. Maybe you can start with this: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Contributions/index.html , where I quoted "We have received six essays contributed by Dr. Wolf Murmelstein, the son of the last Jewish Elder of the Theresienstadt ghetto" or "Essays of this type from survivors, or soldiers who were the liberators of the camps, are most welcome". Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is "just outrageous":

"The Nazis went to a great deal of trouble to save the prisoners from dying of typhus, while at the same time gassing prisoners to death. Does this make any sense?" [2]
"German lawyer Sylvia Stolz, who was punished with almost three and a half years in prison for defending “Holocaust denier” Ernst Zündel in court, recently spoke on November 24, 2012 at an anti-censorship conference in Switzerland, where she protested against the persecution of Holocaust revisionists." [3]
"So what happens if György Nagy visits one of these “Holocaust Memorial Centers” and writes an essay in which he points out the errors and inconsistencies found there. For example, if he chooses to visit the “Auschwitz Memorial Center in Poland,” what happens if he points out, in his essay, that the so-called “gas chamber” in the main Auschwitz camp could not possibly have been a real “gas chamber.” The Auschwitz “gas chamber” is a reconstruction of an alleged “gas chamber” in the morgue of the crematorium. You can read about the Auschwitz “gas chamber” and see photos of it on my website here." [4] ("my website here" linking to http://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/Tour/Auschwitz1/Auschwitz08.html)
"If you don’t know who Carlo Mattogno is, stop reading this right now and go to the Inconvenient History blog, where you can read his articles about the Holocaust. Carlo Mattogno is the foremost revisionist scholar" [5]

And this is only from this month (February 2013).

And I'm done talking with you, because you're eithter trolling or in league with Baugher, Stolz ("German heroine"), Zündel, Mattogno and other "revisionist scholars". --Niemti (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Niemti, it sounds like you are the one who is trolling, or at least terrible at reading. In your first point, you seem to have cherry picked the once sentence that sounds like denialism, when taken out of context. The entire rest of that post makes sounds like it was written by someone who very much believes the holocaust occurred. Is it forbidden to point out that something the Nazi's did makes no sense? Regarding your second point, there is a distinction between supporting holocaust deniers and supporting their right to free speech. Regarding your third point, again, read the entire blog post, and then read her linked article. I don't understand the author's overuse of quotes, but it's very clear nonetheless that her concern is with the authenticity of the recreations of the gas chambers, but assumes that some gas chamber was actually used to kill Jews. You don't mention where your fourth point relates to the website, so I'm not going to comment on it. And so truthfully, I cannot grasp what sent you on a crusade against this one blogger. Is it her support of free speech for some of the most vile humans on the planet, or just the few cherry picked quotes that make you angry? Regardless, this is likely an unreliable source, and that's the actual reason for arguing for its removal. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, for example crying for the "demonized" and "tortured" (and "innocent") commandants of KL Auschwitz[6][7] while making fun of the survivors and their "lies",[8][9] (and in the comments from this one: The collected lies are now a religion. Non-Jews, who are extremely religious, are drawn to the Holocaust religion and are True Believers. It is useless to try to tell people anything, after the world has been indoctrinated for 68 years., which is a quite typical blog comment of hers when she's not mocking something/someone and pretending like she does on her "ironic" main website) doesn't make her "some of the most vile humans on the planet", it just makes her some crazy old bitch on the Internet. --Niemti (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal from alleged holocaust denial external links

Niemti admits having started a crusade to eliminate any links to the website scrapbookpages.com from Wikipedia. I thought his holocaust denial allegations were questionable, so I asked for some explanation. I am not satisfied with his explanations, as you can see in the above discussion. And now he also accuses me of revisionist, so I think the dialogue is broken. I want to hear opinions about this website and whether or not is a holocaust denial site. Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 17:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. "The crusade" started and ended 1 year ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_26#Scrapbookpages.com & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_126#.22Scrapbookpages.com.22_-_Holocaust_revisionism_website.2C_spammed_in_around_100_articles and this is only mopping up the filth that comes back. --Niemti (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm the most impartial on this subject, however it doesn't looklike the scrapbookpages.com site is a reliable secondary source; not so much because of what it says, but because of what it does'nt say: It doesn't analyse- so it's really just a collection of primary sources. Good luck with this one though! Basket _Feudalist 13:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least in this page, the external links in discussion were not used as sources, so the right guideline would be Wikipedia:External links. In particular, I think the site has a fine collection of photographs. @Niemti, it would be extremely nice if you stop treating me like a holocaust denier, only because I asked for an explanation. You have already used ad hominem to qualify the website as revisionist. Like I said before, holocaust denial is a criminal offense in Germany and it would important to determine whether these allegations are true to request the removal of these links from dewiki. For this reason, I have brought the issue to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard in here. Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 02:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baugher IS A HOLOCAUST DENIER (or a "revisionist", as you prefer to say), is not hiding it anymore at all (for example, her post from from January 3: "The Non-Jewish Stake in the Holocaust Mythology — an excellent article by Paul Grubach": He starts off with a long list of Holocaust historians who admit that there is no evidence for much of the “facts” of the Holocaust. He makes many good points about the reasons that Non-Jews hold onto the Holocaust lies, in the face of the complete lack of evidence.), but lives in America not Germany. So the next time Frau Baugher comes to Germany to hang out in Hitler's Kehlstein treehouse, they can arrest her if they want. As of her fine "collection of photos", they were also deleted from Wikipedia in 2012. And speaking of deletions, somehow she deleted her post recent where she hailed Sylvia Stolz as a "German heroine" immediately after I had posted it here. How interesting. --Niemti (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address only one point in this discussion: the accusation of Holocaust Denier. If a source is Holocaust Denying, that is not a reason in itself to exclude it from a Wikipedia reference. Yes, it is upsetting. Yes, it is illegal in some countries. Yes, it is anti-Semitic. But these are not specific reasons to exclude the sources. The reasons to exclude a specific reference source is if it is not a reputable historical source (not published by a reputable publishing house), or if it is a primary source (Wikipedia prefers secondary sources because they have been filtered and digested and prioritized by academia). We are all tempted to label something as distasteful and shameful and then expect others to be equally upset by the shame, but I believe we will make faster progress if we dispassionately consider sources based on the criteria Wikipedia provides. So if you object to a reference, say that it is not published by a reputable publishing houser, or it is not a secondary source. Very few will argue with you if you use one of those two reasons to delete a reference source. Markewilliams (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sound post. Good one. Basket _Feudalist 15:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]