Jump to content

Talk:Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

I propose improvement

First of all, challenging the 6 million killed figure is not Holocaust denial as long as we accept that Holocaust occurred. Secondly, all sources pointing to the figure of 6 million are Jewish. How can they be objective? It's impossible. I propose we include the following paragraph as an improvement to debate (note: I am not debating that Holocaust happened, but I am pointing that 6 million is a highly questionable figure based on hard and unquestionable evidence). I propose the following category: "Controversy: In 1940, World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359. In 1948, World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. Based on original independent research, the loss of Jewish population from 1940 to 1948 was: 394,279 (and not all could be attributed to World War II deaths). It is true that for 1947, American Jewish Committee gave the 'revised' figure of world Jewish population as 11,266,600 -- but this figure is suspect due to obvious conflict of interest (Jewish sources). The independent research casts a serious doubt as to the veracity of the American Jewish Committee's estimates." 24.82.163.125 (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Do you have any reliable sources that make these arguments? Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Also please read [1]Shrike (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Excellent link, Shrike. Thank you for pointing out the bullshit-artistry being employed here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It's actually the source cited in the relevant section of this article. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll post this here since it is sort of related to improving the Six Million section (but not challenging it). Referring to the death toll the article says: ...is often minimized by claims to a figure of only one million deaths, or only three hundred thousand casualties.
I bolded the weasel words, it just sounds wrong the way it is written. For example, some reports on 9/11 estimated the death toll at 20,000 which was later changed to 3,000. So if somebody wrote "Although some early reports on 9/11 indicated the death toll to be over 20,000, only 3,000 died during the attacks" would you honestly be okay with that? I'm assuming the writer wanted to emphasize that the 1,000,000 figure is insulting but in any context "only 1,000,000 deaths" just sounds wrong, shouldn't they be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryal-oh (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You do not say what makes you regard the word "only" as a "weasel word" in this instance. On Wikipedia, the phrase usually indicates some kind of vaguely attributed statement that seems to puff up its authority without clearly indicating a source such as "sources say" or "scholars indicate". In this case what we have is a figure for deaths (300,000 to 1 million) that is far less than what is known to be accurate (roughly 6 million). I can hardly think of a more appropriate way to use the word "only." --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
In this specific instance it is used to indicate that 1,000,000 deaths is insignificant given the context. If it were referring to something like say currency than it might be appropraite. For example, "Although historically it is agreed he made $6 million from the deal, some say he only made $1 million". Even in this fake example it sounds wrong because $1 million is still significant. When you are referring to human lives it takes on an entirely different meaning. By saying "only 1,000,000 deaths" makes it sound like one million out of six million deaths of Jewish people during the holocaust was not meaningful. Saying you 'can hardly think of a more appropriate way to use the word "only." ' is a disgrace to 1/6 of those who were murdered during this tragedy. I'm referring to the 1 million number, but even hundreds of thousands of deaths is significant when referring to human lives. Again, I'm pretty sure the writer was trying to emphasize their disagreement with those who dispute the six million death toll but by using the word "only" in conjunction with 1 million deaths it makes it sound as though 1 million deaths is insignificant and that to me is sickening. Ryal-oh (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to your interpretation. I don't think anyone shares it. Since Wikipedia functions on consensus, this means no change to the article along the lines you propose is likely forthcoming. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You are also welcome to your own interpretation, and aside from what I have written here and on your talk page I will not say anything else about it but it most certainly sounds like you agree that one million Jewish murders is not signficant Ryal-oh (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong. You're also invited not to engage in any more blind speculation about what I think. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Accusation of torture against the Nuremberg Trials

Some Holocaust deniers accuse the Nuremberg Trials for torture. Is there any unambiguous evidence of this or is it just a suposition they believe in because they want it to have been so?

2010-05-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.146.16 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You've already asked this question a year ago or so and you got some replies that confirmed those allegations. Why don't you read some revisionist literature and make up your own mind instead of waiting for others to tell you their opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.5.34 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I deeply distrust that kind of literature. The literature you call “revisionist” is actually pseudohistory. I may seriously consider major revisions of the descriptions of specific persons. But I can’t deny the industrial killing of about twelve million people – out of which six millions where Jews – on the hands of the Nazis. What I asked about was empirical evidence that the torture was used in direct connection with the Nuremberg Trials. The earlier discussion did not answer this question to my satisfaction.
2010-08-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.151.47 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Then you could read the Nuremberg transcripts and see where they diverse from "history". Then you can make up your own mind as to which witnesses/evidence passes the "laugh" test. I believe for your specific question, you can easily find statements by Allied guards, lawyers, judges, etc that confirm that most witnesses were "tortured". Some of the defendants statements are so far off the wall that torture or insanity are the only explanations left ( "history" certainly can't support them). If you want to know the truth, it is readily available, otherwise it may be a hopeless lifelong search. 159.105.80.103 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Her's some footnotes of where to find "torture" documents - there are literally 1000s on the web - even check out the "pseudohistorical" sites and grab their footnotes and you will find they usually use material from "approved - reliable" sites. Good luck
[Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Regnery, 1949), pp. 185-200.; Judge Edward L. van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany," The Progressive, Feb. 1949, pp. 21-22. Reprinted in: The Congressional Record - Appendix, Vol. 95, Sec. 12, (March 10, 1949), pp. A1365-66.; Dachau trial defense attorney Lt. Col. Willis M. Everett, Jr., reviewed prosecution methods in a petition submitted to the Supreme Court. Complete text in: The Congressional Record - Senate, Vol. 95, Sec. 2, (March 10, 1949), pp. 2159-2165. Important excerpts were published in: The Congressional Record - Appendix, Vol. 95, Sec. 13, (April 5, 1949), pp. A-2065-67. Also useful are: Montgomery Belgion, Victor's Justice (Regnery, 1949).; Reginald T. Paget, Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial (London: 1951).] This is just a quick copy - Congressional Record and the Supreme Court must be reliable sources.159.105.80.103 (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I deeply distrust that kind of literature. The literature you call “revisionist” is actually pseudohistory.

If only you could see the irony in that...

I may seriously consider major revisions of the descriptions of specific persons. But I can’t deny the industrial killing of about twelve million people – out of which six millions where Jews – on the hands of the Nazis.

You are right, you "can’t deny the industrial killing of about twelve million people – out of which six millions where Jews – on the hands of the Nazis.", because it is only possible to deny something of which you have actual, direct knowledge.

What I asked about was empirical evidence that the torture was used in direct connection with the Nuremberg Trials.

You've already asked that and got some answers. If you refuse to do your own research which would also include reading books that others tell you are "pseudohistory" you can't be helped. But may I ask in turn what empirical evidence you have to support your belief of "the industrial killing of about twelve million people – out of which six millions where Jews – on the hands of the Nazis."? I mean, since there are no gas chambers, no documents, no bodies with cyanide poisoning etc.
62.226.18.94 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's some evidence of mistrial for you -- Firstly, the majority of the jury at Nuremberg were European jews. Second, this trial was conducted by the soviets, who at this time had, for decades, famously been conducting false "show trials" to convict anyone and everyone who was inconvenient to the Stalinists, for which the "defendants" were each and every time tortured, threatened, et cetera to conform to the script written for them. The entire point of these trials -- Nuremberg being far from the first of them -- was to put on a good show, where the evil baddies got what they deserve, and the glorious soviets triumphed over evil. These are the same people that murdered thousands of their own men in Katyn forest and blamed it on Nazi Germany. The same people who put on a very similar trial years earlier for Bukharin, one of Stalin's close personal friends that had become a burden to him. I am shocked that anyone would ever believe the Nuremberg "trials" to be valid, in light of the retrospective implications of these facts. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You, sir, are a lying snake. A quick perusal of Nuremberg Trials will show that the prosecutors and judges came from all four of the major allied nations, the United States, France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, there were a number of acquittals, something that never happens at show trials. Your pathetic, evidence-free accusations of torture impress no one. Since you obviously didn't come here to do anything constructive, do us all a favor and crawl back into whatever hole you crawled out of. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


Steven J. Anderson said:

A quick perusal of Nuremberg Trials will show that the prosecutors and judges came from all four of the major allied nations, the United States, France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union.

At this time the Jews did not have their own country and therefore neccessarily were living in other countries. Thus, the fact that someone comes from one "of the major allied nations, the United States, France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union" does not say anything about him being a Jew or not. And a "quick perusal of Nuremberg Trials will show" that many important members of the staff were indeed Jews, as for example the chief interpreter Richard Sonnenfeldt, the court psychologist Gustave Gilbert, Clarke, the guy who jailed and tortured Höß, the guy who jailed Julius Streicher etc.
And here is for example what Thomas J. Dodd, an American prosecutor at the IMT, wrote to his wife:

"You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge — you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish."

Steven J. Anderson said:

Furthermore, there were a number of acquittals, something that never happens at show trials.

Well, if that were true, than these show trials would have been the first show trials that had a number of acquittals. So what? There's always a first time for everything. But, of course, this claim is false. Or do you seriously consider the witch and heresy trials of the Middle Ages not to be show trials? They acquitted some people as well, you know.
It's always funny to see those lacking arguments to support their ideological or religous needs resort to name calling and other irrational behaviour.
62.226.1.192 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
What article changes do you wish to make, based on which reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Huh? What makes you think that I want to make changes to the article? I was just answering a certain Steven J. Anderson who accused someone with the IP 216.185.250.92 of lying.
Is this supposed to be the pretext to the deletion of my comment on the ground that I did not contribute to the improvement of the article? Or did you mean to answer to my criticism of criticism of "Holocaust denial" where I pointed out some falsifications and errors in the article and which is simply ignored in spite of everything being reliably sourced?
62.226.36.47 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My original question is: is there any empirical evidence of the use of torture in direct connection with the Nuremberg Trials? The source of the description should not be anyone who denies the industrial killing of millions of defenceless people on the hands of the Nazis. I have had a similar discussion before but it did not result in any sensible answer.

2011-01-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually there has been one of the accused persons at the main Nuremberg trial who has been tortured: Hermann Göring who was a drugs addict has been deprived of morphine, heroine and any other drugs between May 1945 and the trial. This must have been awful for the "poor guy". Bu outside of that, there is no clear evidence of torture. --Lebob-BE (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the details nor accuracy of this info but if you are genuinely interested, here are a couple of leads. Apparently there is the account of a British sergeant of Jewish origin containing a description of the circumstances of Höss' arrest, as well as his interrogation. The book is entitled Legions of Death and is by Rupert Butler. It was published in 1983 by Hamlyn Paperbacks. At the beginning of his book, Butler expresses his gratitude among others, to two persons, one of whom is Bernard Clarke ("who captured Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss"). The author quotes several fragments of what are either written or recorded statements by Clarke. These state that Höss was arrested on 11 March, 1946 and Bernard reveals "It took three days to get a coherent statement out of [Höss]" (p. 237). This admission was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in an article in the Wrexham Leader. (October 17,1986): "They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. ...We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance," etc.
Then there is the testimony of Moritz von Schirmeister who had been the personal press attaché of Joseph Goebbels. Before testifying at Nuremberg, he was transferred by plane from London to Germany. At first he was kept at Minden-on-the-Weser, the principal interrogation center for the British Military Police. From there he was taken by car with Rudolf Höss (31 March -- 1 April 1946) to the prison at Nuremberg. Von Schirmeister is the "prisoner of war" who had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritzsche's defense about whom Höss speaks in his "memoirs" (p. 393).
An American researcher Mark Weber, allegedly has a document, slightly more than two pages long, where Schirmeister reports that Höss confided to him:Gewiss, ich habe unterschrieben, dass ich 2 Millionen Juden umgebracht habe. Aber ich hätte genausogut untershrieben, dass es 5 Millionen Juden gewesen sind. Es gibt eben Methoden, mit denen man jedes Geständnis erreichen kann -- ob es nun wahr ist oder nicht.
"Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
For a reference for the Schirmeister anecdote see 'The Journal of Historical Review', Winter 1986-87, p. 399.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
But keep in mind that the Journal of Historical Review is the official journal of the Institute for Historical Review, which might trigger some doubts on what you will find in it. --Lebob (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Mark Weber is a notorious Holocaust denier and Jew hater; anything he writes can be assumed to be a lie, including the words "the" and "and". --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Slander and ad hominem are fallacious arguments and are not really worthy of reply. Better to deal with the facts and the evidence not the personalities involved. --85.228.49.58 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
No, before we deal with anything on Wikipedia, we deal with our core requirements of reliable sourcing, and Holocaust deniers, by the nature of their obsession (promulgating falsehood), cannot be reliable sources. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
No argument with reliable sourcing. Guaging the reliability of sources is not in question. Ad hominem as a logical refutation of factual information is. Is there any credible evidence for assuming that the Schirmeister information is a fabrication other than exaggerated personal abuse and a personal antipathy felt towards someone owning the documentation?
Plus this was only one part of the answer given. The book by Rupert Butler, the newspaper account by Mr. Ken Jones, as well as the alleged Schirmeister document all fit the requested criteria of not coming from sources "...who deny the industrial killing...", etc., etc.
Historians revised in 1990 the total number of deaths at Auschwitz to a figure that demonstrates that Höss's 'confession' was clearly inaccurate. The number of Jewish people who died at Auschwitz is now officially 960,000 (NOT 2.5 million as confessed by Höss). These facts fit the criteria of "...empirical evidence of the use of torture in direct connection with the Nuremberg Trials" when applied to the Höss confession, and which taken together tend to support the alleged Schirmeister information. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
What article changes do you wish to make, based on which reliable secondary sources? Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I myself would assume that 1.) in the interests of accuracy and fairness, and 2.) in the light of the reliable evidence I have referred to, that the portion of the article with the sub-headings 'testimonies' would need amending. But I'm not going to fight over it, if people here are opposed to that. It is clear that these issues raise very passionate and emotional responses. But if it is considered that this information is worthy of inclusion and and as the sources I have mentioned are reliable I would like to see that section reflect this or include this evidence. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The sources you raised are reliable? Really? Like Mark Weber of the notorious Institute for Historical Review? Go ahead, pull the other leg; that one's got bells on it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You doubt these sources? Have you checked them then?
Is the book Legions of Death by Rupert Butler published in 1983 by Hamlyn Paperbacks not reliable in your opinion?
Is the article in the Wrexham Leader (October 17,1986) quoting Mr. Ken Jones not reliable in your opinion?
How about the reliability of John Toland in his 1976 book Adolf Hitler (pgs. 845–846). There he relates how Sturmbannführer (Major) Georg Konrad Morgen was beaten by his Allied investigators and was threatened with beatings to force him to confess to the authenticity of the myth that Commandant Koch of Buchenwald concentration camp (who, by the way, was executed by the Germans for cruelty and murder of two camp prisoners before the war's end) had a fetish for lampshades made from human skin of camp inmates?
Would that then be a reliable enough source for torture at Nuremberg to extract confessions?
On what grounds are these sources not reliable?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what do any of those sources have to say about criticism of Holocaust denial? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Read the sub-section titled 'testimonies' and you should understand.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
And, just out of curiosity, why have you been engaging in a discussion of "Accusation of torture against the Nuremberg Trials" since Oct 2010 if you are unclear yourself as to what this subject has "...to say about criticism of Holocaust denial"?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Do these sources discuss "Criticism of Holocaust denial", or even discuss Holocaust Denial in any way? Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think a more helpful question would be: "Do we want an accurate encyclopedia entry or not?
At present the subsection under discussion I believe is incorrect, in that there DOES exist "reliable" evidence that some accused were tortured prior to the Nurmeburg trials. I have now provided reputable sources for that. I'm sure more exist. Plus are you not introducing criteria that is not applied elsewhere in this article? E.g. The subsection testimonies has at present nine references, none of which appears to me to be discussing the title of this article. Nor need they imo. If you insist on this new criteria then will you be deleting every other reference in the whole article that relies on sources which do not discuss "Criticism of Holocaust denial", or even discuss Holocaust Denial in any way? I would have thought that such a modus operandi will be completely unworkable. :-o --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
In this case the first question one must ask oneself is "does this material comply with WP:NOR"? WP:NOR is not "new criteria" or "completely unworkable", but rather one of the 3 fundamental content policies. The material you are proposing appears to consist of WP:NOR. If an article has content issues, one does not compound them by adding more of the same. Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting "adding more of the same" (which is a 'strawman' argument) but pointing out an obvious inconsistent appplication of editorship in this article. Please explain how this is about WP:NOR? What original research has been suggested? :-o Are you not demanding that reliable sources provided - which demonstrate the current entry is incorrect and misleading - can only be included if they "'discuss "Criticism of Holocaust denial", or ...discuss Holocaust Denial in [some] way? If so then you appear to be arguing against correcting a misleading sub-section of the article which itself does not pass this criteria, NOT because of issues of "reliable secondary sources", nor original research, NOR accuracy of the information supplied, but soley because of a selective application of a dubious criteria. In light of your latest reply will it be OK then if I rewrite this sub-section aswell as the whole article by deleting all references that do not fit this criteria of "'discuss[ing] "Criticism of Holocaust denial", or ...discuss[ing]Holocaust Denial in any way?? I will be happy to oblige. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, please answer. Are we agreed that I can amend the article so that it reflects more accurately the referenced reliable secondary sources? Or are we agreed that I should instead delete all other sections of the article that do not come from sources that explicitly "discuss Criticism of Holocaust denial... or Holocaust denial in some way". Which way do you want to go with this? In order to avoid any possible edit war I will wait some more days for an answer before proceeding, .--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
All edits to this article must comply with WP:NOR, and must be from sources that at least discuss Holocaust denial. What article changes do you wish to make, based on which reliable secondary sources? Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read back a few entries in this thread. This has already very specifically been adressed and answered. (Erm...Is this an avoidance tactic?)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else have an opinion on this. This page isn't owned by any one individual. The entry as it stands I think is misleading and innaccurate and I think I have now provided evidence with reliable secondary sources that support that. If no-one else objects I will go ahead and amend.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I object. I've read through this and still don't see that you have answered the question "What article changes do you wish to make, based on which reliable secondary sources?" - your sources must discuss holocaust denial, remember. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
An opinion on what? You are posting on this talk page since 4 weeks and I still don't understand what actually your point is. And I am (and, BTW other contributors as well) supposed to agree or to object on a request that is still not clearly identified. I have read this talk page several times and was unable to find these reliable secondary sources you were talking about. And I still have no idea of the amendments you are willing to do. Of course this page does not belong to a single individual but so far I have the feeling that Jayjg knows much better this topic than you. Therefore if I have to make a choice between what he says and what you say about the content of this page my choice will be very easy to do. --Lebob (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The suggested amendments are i.) delete all references and unsourced comments in the article that do not come form sources that specifically discuss the topic. And ii.) amend the subsection'Testimonies' in some way to include the sources demonstrating that Höss WAS in fact tortured to sign a confession, and others were also tortured to confess to what are now known and accepted to be holocaust myths (e.g. Georg Konrad Morgen was tortured to force him to confess to the false myth that Commandant Koch of Buchenwald had a fetish for lampshades made from human skin of camp inmates.) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Dou you have a clear example for what concerns i)? Because I still don't understand what you mean. As for ii) the part on the testimonies clearly states that Hoess was beaten when arrested. But I would like that you make a list of what you consider as holocaust myths. This would make things much clearer for everybody. And please tell us also which sources you intend to use to demonstrate your point ii). --Lebob (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have clear concerns: those I have repeatedly presented (see above) ;-). If you go through the list of references, see if you agree that references 5, 8 & 13 come from sources not specifically discussing the holocaust. And references 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 25 seem to me not specifically about holocaust denial. I have only got as far as checking the references this far. And NONE of these appear to be specifically addressing criticism of holocaust denial (jayjg's criteria for inclusion).
Sources showing that at least two people WERE in actuality tortured to procure confessions I have already given. That's two examples of confessions regarding what I referred to as 'myths', i.e lampshades of inmates's skin (Morgen) and 2.5 million jewish people killed at Auschwitz (Höss).
As we are all interested in accurate, balanced and neutral wiki articles I think this should be addressed. As the article is about criticism of holocaust denial I assume that holocaust revisionist sites would be reliable sources for this subject matter as they are words from the horses mouth, so to speak. Yet it has been stated in this discussion-thread that Mark Weber is not a reliable source. This strikes me as a strange logic that someone branded as a holocaust denier is not regarded as a reliable source for the subject matter of criticism of that very same holocaust denial. Thus the Schirmeister reference I would also like to include to present the opposing argument that this article cites to be in criticism of.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Abitrary break 1

OK, I looked at the first reference you mentioned, [5], which is Evans, Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, And The David Irving Trial. The book is obviously about Holocaust denial, so I'm not bother to go any further, and you still haven't explained what you want to add. To explain what you want to delete, please list a sentence from the article, and the exact source given. Be complete and explicit. Here is an example:

I would like to delete the following sentence: "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog", sourced to "John Smith, John Smith's Book of Needlepoint, p. 3", because the source is not about Holocaust denial.

And if you want to add material, please list the sentence you want to add to the material, and the exact source you want to use. Be complete and explicit. Here is an example:

I would like add the following sentence: "The Nazis were vilified, they were all great guys", sourced to "J. Raus, Jews are Bad!, p. 20."

Is that clear? Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please. Do go further. And can't we strive to be neutral, fair and unbiased, while assuming good faith. I have just given you the start of exactly such a list of material for deletion and asked for others opinions. I wrote. "see if you agree that references 5, 8 & 13 come from sources not specifically discussing..." etc.
As it stands, reference 5 only has "Evans, Lying about Hitler". So it appeared to be NOT about..., etc., etc. Do you see?? Anyway, as it has no other details, page number or anyway of verifying it, it therefore appears to me to be an uncheckable source and should be either improved or removed.
Ref 8 links to this: "2005 Open University Lecture, Ian Kershaw, Professor of Modern History at Sheffield University, examines Hitler's place in history". So again does NOT APPEAR to be about the Holocaust.
Ref 13 has this only: "The Weimar Republic sourcebook. University of California Press. p. 806. So again does NOT APPEAR to be about the Holocaust. Etc., etc.
I am assuming there are more like this in the article and I'm suggesting it to be checked.
You wrote: "Do these sources discuss "Criticism of Holocaust denial"... Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
So... in the first instance can we just start with deleting the material that already exists which doesn't meet THAT criteria. That way we may not need to add ANY NEW material.
Finally, can you explain why that criteria for inclusion of material hasn't ALREADY been applied consistently and with neutrality and why this apparent reluctance to even consider applying that criteria to the rest of the article?
--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not because a book is not specificaly devoted to Holocaust denial that it does not address this issue at all or counter some arguments developped by the Holocaust denialists (and not revisionists, by the way). You criterion is therefore irrelevant and material could only be deleted if it was proved that the sources used in this article do not say what is reported in the article. --Lebob (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Unless you examine what the source actually says, you can't possibly know whether or not the source discusses Holocaust denial. Please don't suggest removing material again without doing even the most basic kinds of research. And are you really asking me why material that was added to this article four or five years ago doesn't (in your view) adhere to policy? What has it to do with me? Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have access to a copy of Evans' Lying about Hitler, and while I cannot find the "flawed research, biased statements, and deliberately falsified evidence" statement verbatim, there is an excellent section on pages 69-70 that describes David Irving's use of historical sources, where he "falsely attributed conclusions to reliable sources, bending them to fit his arguments", "relied on material that turned out directly to contradict his arguments", "quoted from sources in a manner that distorted their authors' meaning and purposes", etc. This section is undoubtedly the author's paraphrasing of a part of his own report he made during the Lipstadt trial, the bullet point list here.
About reference 8...the key reference is actually reference 7. It is the full text of the letter by Hitler, in its original German, on a website repository of Nazi documents. Reference 8 is offered because it gives an English translation of the sentence in question. Reference 13 is offered as the support for this quote. Lebob is right. These citations are given because they are from reputable academic institutions. Furthermore, Hitler and his government's wish to exterminate Jews and the reality of them having done so is hardly one of the most obscure pieces of 20th century history. WilliamH (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
To Lebob.
You wrote:"your criterion is therefore irrelevant and material could only be deleted if it was proved that the sources used in this article do not say what is reported in the article".
Great. :-) That is also my understanding of the criteria for inclusion. Can you then tell that to Jayjg please. Because, as I understand him, Jayjg is saying something different. He is saying all sources to be accepted for inclusion MUST be discussing Criticism of Holocaust denial or sometimes he says Holocaust denial. And this even though, after a quick check, it appears to me that there are a great many sources that do not fit this requirement (plus he is arguing for inclusion of a source citation that allows no way of checking, e.g. the source given for ref.5 is not checkable as insufficient data is given, so can NOT be guaged as a reliable source by any criteria.)
Basically I am pointing to this clear inconsistency of applying criteria to existing sources, from that which has been applied to my suggestion for an amendment/improvement to the article
To WilliamH.
You wrote: "These citations are given because they are from reputable academic institutions".-Marvelous. It is precisely a question of reliablity only that that I argued for from the outset. If reliable secondary sources is the criteria for inclusion then we have no argument and have reached a consensus. Please can you also tell that to Jayjg.-Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
WilliamH wrote: "This section is undoubtedly the author's paraphrasing of a part of his own report he made during the Lipstadt trial, the bullet point list here."
Does that not constitute an WP:NOR infringement?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
All sources must comply with both WP:V and WP:NOR. That means they must be reliable secondary sources that are about Holocaust denial. You've had this explained to you several times, please stop wasting our time. Now, which specific source do you object to, and why? Please state the source, and the material it supports. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to keep explaining it. Instead I request you qualify it.

I.e. can you please show me where Wiki policy requires a source specifically needs to be discussing the title of the article. I've looked but can't find such a stipulation. Two other people, if I have understood them correctly, have now expressed an opinion divergent to your own. So... please can you point me to the specific passage in wiki policy that spells out that requirement? Then, in the eventuality that you can demonstrate this is wiki policy, please explain why you are resistant to this criteria being applied elsewhere in the article (even after other infringements have been pointed out to you). I have asked this repeatedly so feel it is you who keeps taking us around in circles. As I see it we have two ways to proceed: 1.) agree that if material is relevant to either the holocaust, or denial of it or criticism of that denial then it is acceptable. or, 2.) if your criteria is in fact actual wiki policy then TO BE CONSISTENT YOU MUST ALLOW WITHOUT FURTHER ARGUMENT others to delete every part of this article that is not specifically discussing holocaust denial? If this is wiki policy, then it appears to me we need to start deleting a great deal. E.g. we will need to delete the citations refs.7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 none of which, as I have already pointed out, discuss holocaust denial. I see this as really a simple choice of one of these two alternative approaches. Which is it going to be? Can you let me know if you are going to allow me to add the material I want to (read back) or if you are going to allow others to start deleting that which already stands and is infringement of YOUR interpretation of wiki policy.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." So, any sources you use must be directly related to Criticism of Holocaust denial. Now, I won't be repeating this again, and do not ask about it again. Regarding the rest of your post, I return to my post of 01:50, 3 June 2011: To explain what you want to delete, please list a sentence from the article, and the exact source given. Be complete and explicit. Here is an example:
I would like to delete the following sentence: "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog", sourced to "John Smith, John Smith's Book of Needlepoint, p. 3", because the source is not about Holocaust denial.
And if you want to add material, please list the sentence you want to add to the material, and the exact source you want to use. Be complete and explicit. Here is an example:
I would like add the following sentence: "The Nazis were vilified, they were all great guys", sourced to "J. Raus, Jews are Bad!, p. 20."
Is that clear? Any other response will be viewed as disruptive, and the appropriate response to persistent disruption is banning. Again, use the exact format above. Nothing else. Nothing about what NOR means, or what you claim you've previously stated. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you to apply some civility WP:CIVIL. The following I regard as subtle abuse ("...The Nazis were all great guys", sourced to J. Raus, Jews are Bad!, p. 20.). I ignored it the first time but now ask you to try being more agreeable WP:NICE and be more cooperarative WP:GAME and how about applying some good faith WP:AGF. I have just tried to give you what you asked for. And you have ignored my query of WP: NOR. This is what I am repeatedly referring to as inconsistent application of criteria.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the quoted policy. Neither do two others, if I have understood them correctly. Please address this and stop gaming WP:GAME .

To be be generous, here again is the list that I just wrote for starters, but now in EXACTLY the format that I feel you are pedantically requiring (though anyone can read it in the article).

The following sentences will need to be deleted to fit your interpretation of wiki policy of only using sources that are "discussing" (your wording) and therefore "directly related to Criticism of Holocaust denial" (your wording).

1.) In a letter dated 1919 Hitler mentions that part of the ultimate aim of a strong national government must "unshakably be the removal of the Jews".
[7]http://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/antisemitismus/hitler/gutachten.php
[8]http://www.open2.net/historyandthearts/history/lecture_transcript.html

The source does not "discuss" criticism of H denial (nor even H denial). The english source (ref.8) does not even use the word "unshakably" WP:NOR. Here is the part from the original German: "Sein letztes Ziel aber muss unverrückbar die Entfernung der Juden überhaupt sein." Likewise the German source (ref.7) does not "discuss" H denial nor criticism of H denial. Talk of "removal" in 1919 can be argued to not even clearly be discussing the "genocide" that we now refer to as The Holocaust which resulted in the deaths of millions of people regarded as "undesirables": Jews, Poles, Slavic peoples, the disabled, gypsies, homosexuals, communists, Jehovah's witnesses, etc., etc.)

2.) In 1922 Hitler told Major Josef Hell (a journalist at the time): Once I really am in power, my first... ...until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews.
[9]Hell, Josef. "Aufzeichnung", 1922, ZS 640, p. 5, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, cited in Fleming, Gerald. Hitler and the Final Solution. Berkely: University of California Press. 1984. p. 17, cited in "Joseph Hell on Adolf Hitler", The Einsatzgruppen.[2]

The source does not "discuss" criticism of H denial (nor even H denial). And what are the credentials for reliability of this site? WP:reliable source "Questionable sources are those ...with no editorial oversight."

3.) On 21 January 1939 Hitler spoke with František Chvalkovský and said: We are going to destroy the Jews. They are not going to get away with what they did on 9 November 1918. The day of reckoning has come.[10]
"Joseph Hell on Adolf Hitler", The Einsatzgruppen. Helmuth Krausnick, 'The Persecution of the Jews', in Buchheim et al., Anatomy of the SS State (New York, 1968), p. 44, cited in Germany, 1866-1945, p. 637

I do not have access to this, but going by the title it does not appear to be "discussing" criticism of H denial.

4.) On 30 January at the Sports Palace in Berlin, Hitler told the crowd: And we say that the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews.[11]
"The Holocaust," by Martin Gilbert, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1985, p. 285., cited in "Statements by Leading Nazis on the "Jewish Question"

The source does not "discuss" anything to do with criticism of H denial (nor even H denial).

5.) In Mein Kampf, Hitler argued that a war against Jews would have saved Germany from losing World War I:[12] If at the beginning of the war... ...not have been in vain.[13]
Dawidowicz, Lucy S.; Altshuler, David A. (1978). Hitler's war against the Jews. Behrman House, Inc. p. 190.

The source does not "discuss" anything to do with criticism of H denial (nor even H denial). There doesn't even appear to be a page 806, as is stated in the source. The book here is only 769 pages long. <http://books.google.com/books?id=J4A1gt4-VCsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false>

6.) In the following widely cited speech made on January 30, 1939, Hitler says to the Reichstag: Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international ...but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe![14][15]

The source does not "discuss" anything to do with criticism of H denial (nor even H denial).

7.) Hitler's choice of language in German in the final phrase of this passage is "die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa" - unambiguously meaning "the extermination [or annihilation] of the Jewish race in Europe."

No citation. Appears to be a WP:NOR infringement Etc., etc., etc., etc. ______________________________________________

SUMMARY it appears to me that NONE of these sources is discussing criticism of H denial. They are ALL discussing Hitler, or the history of the time and only very occasionally even the Holocaust, i.e. nothing about the subject of this article. The above therefore do NOT appear to me to fit what I regard as your narrow interpretation of "sources you use must be directly related to "Criticism" of Holocaust denial" (your wording). I believe this same criticism applies to a great deal of this wiki article. In particular the subsection testimonies. Erm... which is where I came in to this discussion--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is clear that you didn't understand what I have written before. I couldn'd disgaree with more your point. This being said it is clar that all what you cite under point 1 to 7 have a direct directly relation to criticism of Holocaust Denial. If you do not undertand why I am afraid there is not much we can do for you. --Lebob (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Humour me. What you "can do for me" is exchange information and viewpoint. I'm a reasonable person, so try reasoning with me. Jayjg, as I understand him, is clearly saying that anything and everything to be included must be 1. from a source that discusses "criticism of Holocaust denial" . Sometimes he says 2. "must be from a source that discusses "Holocaust denial". Do you agree? (I am assuming/guessing this stipulation is so as to disallow sources considered to be holocaust denier material). As I understand that, this means material for inclusion can't just be from a relevant source that discusses only the Holocaust, which is what I understand you just wrote and appear to believe. (Did I understand you correctly?) That means nor can it be from a relevant source that just discusses Hitler, or the Nuremberg war trials, or concentration camps, or torture of Nazis, etc. I understand him this way, because he has applied this criteria with me on another article. He insists sources MUST discuss specifically the subject of the article and I believe he applies this inconsistently in order to keep out information that he personally does not agree with/approve of. Is my position and understanding any clearer? Please do feel free to say where you think I am going wrong, if you still think that.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You failed to list the sources. "[9]" is not a source. Try again, this time giving the link, or book name/page etc. One sentence and source will do. Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added the first six references to my list (above). But I fail to see why that is required of me. Can you not yourself easily see the references by their number if you want to check them?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you are doing in your posts, which are very poorly formatted and extremely confusing. This is very simple. Take one sentence, and one source it is cited to. List it below, in exactly the format requested. Then we will be able to see whether or not your concern is valid. And if you try the trick you just tried a few minutes ago, inserting all sorts of Holocaust denial material, sourced to Holocaust denial websites, then I won't even bother to answer again, but will merely ensure you are banned. Is that clear? Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Wki policy states: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" WP:IRS

I assume therefore, that any source which is itself the subject of a topic, stands as a reliable one for that. "Context" is the key word. I.e. sources representing that which this article is in criticism of (Holocaust Denial) are reliable sources for that. (See: questionable sources as sources on themselves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves)

I welcome and invite any peaceful and well intentioned attempt to explain if there is a flaw in that logic. Please assume good faith, I come in peace and intend no harm.

Otherwise the article seems to me to be in danger of being one great strawman argument: criticising unspecified 'holocaust deniers' with unsourced (and therefore unverifiable) alleged arguments of those unspecified 'holocaust deniers'.WP:V

To be neutral and verifiable it seems to me to be an obvious requirement that if any specific viewpoint is to be criticised, then it should be sourced so as demonstrate it is an accurate representation of it. Otherwise anyone can just put up their own inaccurate version (strawman) of any alleged argument and then demolish what is merely their own misrepresentation of it. Thus I have added 'citation required' tags to the 'testimonies' section.

This topic I address specifically to Steven J. Anderson who recently undid a whole series of edits because just one of them referenced a site he objected to. Steven, you wrote as an explanation: "Zundelsite is not a reliable source and anyone who'd use it pretty much can't be trusted to edit." But Steven, it surely can not be right or fair to delete all of a persons contributions because of an objection to only one part of them. Nor can it be right and fair to decide that anything a person contributes is now regarded as unworthy because of an undiscussed (and therefore subjective) interpretation as to what constitutes a reliable source.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you've inserted material cited to Ernst Zundel's website, and, for example, to this obviously unreliable source: www.patriot.dk/english.html , which is a Holocaust denial site run by a single individual, and included in The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right's list of Fascist and Far Right sources. Your disruption at this page has crossed over the line from merely annoying to actionable. Try another trick like this, and my response will be to get you banned. I hope that's clear. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If you added the included the material because you believe they met Jayjg's earlier suggestion of what is a reliable source for this article, please carefully read WP:POINT before you add these type of sources again. Disrupting an article for the sake of making a point is considered unconstructive behaviour. Singularity42 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make a point. I'm trying to contribute to the accuracy and fairness of this article. I have explained my reasoning and why I think it is in line with wiki policy. I have also requested an explanation if people think my understanding of wiki policy is flawed. How is that disruptive? I really don't get it. Regarding the Zundelsite source, I deleted it this morning to avoid an edit war, though I still think it is a reliable one for the position of a holocaust denier and I have explained why I think that. I then created this topic here on the talk page to explain my reasoning and invite discussion. I have been polite and assumed good faith. What more can I do? Plus I still would like to know why does the following not apply in this case? questionable sources as sources on themselves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an article about Criticism of Holocaust denial, not an article on Zundel or the Zundelsite. Zundel has his own article. Jayjg (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand your position. The article says "Holocaust deniers claim [insert whatever claim here]" (that, and you want to add additonal claims by holocaust deniers to the article). To support those assertions, you are referencing websites of known holocaust deniers. Do I have that right?
If that is the case, then I think there are two serious problems with that approach. First, you are now relying on the websites as primary sources rather than secondary sources (and these websites would never be considered reliable secondary sources). Reliable sources require secondary sources, not primary sources. Second, this article is not about holocaust denial claims - it is about criticism of holocaust denial (as Jayjg indicated above); citing self-published websites of holocaust deniers and re-printing their claims would run afoul of WP:UNDUE. WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves has no context in this article. Singularity42 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. You asked: "...you want to add additional claims by holocaust deniers to the article..?" No, that's not quite what I am saying. I don't want to "add additional claims". I am saying that the existing claims in the article should have verifiable references/sources. Otherwise I believe the article infringes WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V policy. And I am saying that, as I understand it, Holocaust denial sources are directly related to the topic of the article. And therefore wiki policy regarding "questionable sources as sources on themselves" I see as a highly relevant and appropriate criteria in this context.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said, the policy you are citing has no context here. Let me try to explain again (I'm not sure how else to really say this). The policy you are citing says that in some limited cases, a questionable source can be used a source on themselves. But that is not what you are doing with the source. Let me use the following two examples, and you'll see what I mean (in both cases, Website A is generally agreed to be a questionable source):
  1. In an article about Website A (or the person, group, or product that Website A is about): Website A states on their website that the sky is really a neon pink colour and not blue. (Reference: Website A, Sky is really a neon pink colour and not blue). In this case, the policy you stated would have a limited application - the reference may be questionable, but it is a source on itself.
  2. In an article about respones to claims made by Group B (who the subject of Website A belongs to): Group B believes the sky is really a neon pink colour and not blue. (Reference: Website A, Sky is really neon pink colour and not blue). In this case, the policy you stated would not have any application. The questionable source cannot be cited to support the assertion (that would be trying to use Website A as a primary source. It may be giving undue weight to material from a questionable source. And most importantly, the article is not about Website A or the subject of Website A. It is not even directly about the claims made by Group B. Since the article is not about Website A or the subject of Website A, there is no relevancy to including Website A "as a source about itself". Singularity42 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reason. I really appreciate it. But I have read your examples three times and I'm sorry but I don't quite see the relevance. (Nor do I understand the relationship between Group A and B nor how these examples relate to this article. Can you use CoHD and HD instead of A and B?)

And all these counter arguments are as if I was adding questionable material to THE ARTICLE from questionable sources. But I did not. I just added references. (WP:V)

I added two references, admittedly from questionable sources, but ONLY for verifiability

Do we agree that its clear policy that everything must be referenced, otherwise its original research? As I understand it, according to wiki policy it is not OK to say "this is X's argument" without allowing that to be verified. Can we discuss this from that angle? "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies." WP:V

This whole article claims to be a criticism of X. So X is "directly related to the topic of the article". How much more directly related can it be other than being the main subject? Now as I understand the counter-argument to mine, it is saying 'But you can't source from X because its a questionable source.' My reply is, sure. I understand that. But (wait for it... ;-) questionable sources as sources on themselves are OK to use in certain contexts. That IS wiki policy. The source is directly related to the subject, and in the context of allowing for verifiability is totally relevant and, I argue, absolutely necessary and required. "...all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question."WP:V "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material."WP:NOR

"appropriate for the content in question" is the key wording imo.

And I don't see this as about using primary source. The sites used quote from primary sources, so they are Secondary sources. The only wiggle room, as I see it, is that they are not reputable or reliable secondary souces. But thats why questionable sources as sources on themselves is relevant here. Giving undue weight I don't think applies because I just added references for verifiability, I did not add or write something in the article using a questionable source.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Enough wikilawyering; you added citations to Holocaust denial websitees, including Ernst Zundel's site and www.patriot.dk.[3] As has already been explained, this is not an article about Zundel, or Zundel's website, or about www.patriot.dk or its author, so the potential "questionable sources as sources on themselves" loophole is closed. In addition, every source added here must be about Holocaust denial, as has also been explained to you many times. This is the final warning. If you bring up these irrelevancies again, we will move from the "discussing the article content" phase to the "discussing the scope and length of Mystichumwipe's ban" phase. We've been more than patient. Oh, and don't respond to this post either; from now on, your posts will be 100% about content you wish to add to the article, based on reliable secondary sources about Holocaust denial. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Testimony at Nuremberg about cremation.

The section about gas chambers includes this paragraph:

Cremation in the open at the Reinhard death camps (Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec) was discussed at Nuremberg on the 7th April 1946 by Georg Konrad Morgen, SS judge and lawyer who investigated crimes committed in Nazi concentration camps. He stated: "The whole thing was like an assembly line. At the last stop they reached a big room, and were told that this was the bath. When the last one was in, the doors were shut and the gas was let into the room. As soon as death taken place in (sic), the ventilators were started. When the air was breathable, the doors were opened, and the Jewish workers removed the bodies. By means of a special process which Wirth had invented, they were burned in the open air without the use of fuel."

This is supposed to be a response to the claim that burning the corpses would require too much wood. Seems to me it would more likely help deniers by illustrating the willingness of their critics (and of the Nuremberg court) to accept any statement supporting their case. Burning of the bodies without fuel seems not only very unlikely, it's plain impossible imo. (I could be badly mistaken, but I doubt it).
The article violates the WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH more than once, and this example demonstrates the risks of doing so. An article named Criticism of Holocaust denial should reference sources that criticize Holocaust denial only, not use sources that an editor believes to be good rebuttals.

If you want a decent analysis and rebuttal of the fuel requirements argument: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/03/mattogno-graf-kues-on-aktion-reinhardt_18.html This blog (I know blogs aren't obvious WP:RS) is set up by historians who have been active on the RODOH forum (Real Open-Debate on the Holocaust. For Believers, Deniers, Defenders, and Skeptics). I'm critical of some of their assumptions (that the normal loss of water when a corpse decomposes would also apply to a large number of bodies buried in a pile, and the use of carcass incineration data from emergencies like foot-and-mouth disease and anthrax outbreaks without discussing the difference in fat content and it's effect) but those wouldn't invalidate their results given the margins used.
I'll leave it at that, the absence of any message box in an article like this speaks volumes... DS Belgium (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see message boxes relating to this article, go to the achive pages. --Lebob (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Höfle telegram

The Höfle telegram does not mention anything about execution, only arrivals in camps. To claim otherwise is to fuel the holocaust deniers. I have changed the entry to reflect the reality of what was written.

  • While that is technically correct, the same figures are used in the Korherr Report, in which it becomes clear that the 1,274,166 Jews who passed through the camps of Operation Reinhard ceased to be part of European Jewry without emigrating, which basically means that they were killed at their respective destinations. Reliable sources should acknowledge this, and the source should be updated, as I'm not sure it's mentioned in the one currently given. WilliamH (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood why this change was made, but the source says "The total number of persons eliminated for 1942 was 1,274,166"." This should not have been changed to "arrived". And 'deaths' shouldn't have been removed. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evidence_and_documentation_for_the_Holocaust/Archive_4&oldid=1037690888"