Talk:Institute for Historical Review/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Intro Redone

I have redone the introduction (slightly) to try to minimized the NPOV problems. Its mostly just been rearranged, with one of the reference citations moved. Everyone happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.221.4 (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Old comments

I don't think moving this here solves the NPOV problems. The article on an organization should not spend the vast majority of its length calling the organization ludicrous and dishonest, even if it is true. Tokerboy 05:08 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

Kowtowing to idiots doesn't make an article any more NPOV. Why not complain that the Charles Manson article doesn't try and see Helter Skelter from his point of view? 66.229.161.103 09:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

the article "shouldn't call the organization ludicrous and dishonest, EVEN IF IT IS TRUE." ...think about that. If it's true, isn't it dishonest and biased NOT to say so on this wikipedia site, which is supposed to give honest information?Neysa 18:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because that's not what encyclopedias do. St. Jimmy 21:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember a radio talkshow one time when the IHR was being interviewed. They put forth the claim that a lot of Jews and non-Jews died in concentration camps but not in the numbers that most historians have stated. When the host allowed people to call in and debate the subject, instead of debating facts, the people spewed all kinds of hateful comments at the IHR. There's nothing that adds credence to someone's claims than when given a chance to be refuted, people throw insults. A tragic waste of an opportunity. Who knows how many silent listeners became fans of the IHR that day because the callers spewed insults rather than argue the facts? Whenever given the opportunity to debate something this important, either do your homework and debate or keep your mouth shut lest you rally more people to their cause. Jtpaladin 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

---

What proof exists that the Nazis practiced genocide or deliberately killed six million Jews?

The anti-Semitic Institute for Historical Review claims that the answer to this question is "None. The only evidence is the postwar testimony of individual 'survivors.' This testimony is contradictory, and no 'survivor' claims to have actually witnessed any gassing. There are no contemporaneous documents and no hard evidence whatsoever: no mounds of ashes, no crematoria capable of disposing of millions of corpses, no piles of clothes, no human soap, no lamp shades made of human skin, no records, no credible demographic statistics."

The Nizkor project, which documents the fallacies of Neo_Nazi Holocaust deniers, replies that this position is "Lie piled upon lie, with not a shred of proof. This is as good a place as any to present some detailed evidence which is consistently ignored, as a sort of primer on Holocaust denial. It will make this reply much longer than the other sixty-five, but perhaps the reader will understand the necessity for this."

Let's look at their claims one at a time:

• Supposedly the only evidence, "the postwar testimony of individual survivors."

First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how the testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmates' testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis' own testimony (!), is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust-denial.

This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged myriad documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the camp survivors and told them what to say.

The conspirators also supposedly managed to torture hundreds of key Nazis into confessing to crimes which they never committed, or into framing their fellow Nazis for those crimes, and to plant hundreds of documents in Nazi files which were never discovered until after the war, and only then, in many cases, by sheer luck. Goebbels' diary, for example, was barely rescued from being sold as 7,000 pages of scrap paper, but buried in the scattered manuscript were several telling entries (as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):

February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million, and sixty percent of eleven million is 6.6 million. This is fairly close to the actual figure. (Actually, forty percent was a serious overestimate of the survival rate of Jews who were captured, but there were many Jews who escaped.)

In any case, most of the diary is quite mundane, and interesting only to historians. Did the supposed Jewish conspiracy forge seven thousand pages to insert just a few lines? How did they manage to know Goebbels' affairs intimately enough to avoid contradictions, e.g. putting him or his associates in the wrong city at the wrong date?

As even the revisionist David Cole has admitted, revisionists have yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of this document.

Regarding postwar testimony from Nazis, were they all tortured into confessing to heinous crimes which they supposedly did not commit? This might be believable if only a few Nazis were captured after the war, or maybe if some had courageously stood up in court and shouted to the world about the supposed attempt to silence them. But hundreds testified regarding the Holocaust, in trials dating from late 1945 until the 1960s. (For example, see Böck, Hofmann, Hössler, Klein, Münch, and Stark.)

Many of these Nazis testified as witnesses and were not accused of crimes. What was the basis for their supposed coercion?

Many of these trials were in German courts. Did the Germans torture their own countrymen? Well, Holocaust-deniers sometimes claim that the Jews have secretly infiltrated the German government and control everything about it. They prefer not to talk too much about this theory, however, because it is clearly on the lunatic fringe.

The main point is that not one of these supposed torture victims -- in fifty years, not one -- has come forth to support the claim that testimony was coerced.

On the contrary, confirmation and reconfirmation of their testimony has continued across the years. What coercion could have convinced Judge Konrad Morgen to testify to the crimes he witnessed at the International Nuremberg Trial in 1946, where he was not accused of any crime? And to later testify at the Auschwitz trial at Frankfurt, Germany, in 1963-65? What coercion was applied to SS Doctor Johann Kremer to make him testify in his own defense in 1947, and then, after having been convicted in both Poland and Germany, emerge after his release to testify again as a witness at the Frankfurt trial? What coercion was applied to Böck, Gerhard Hess, Hölblinger, Storch, and Wiebeck, all former SS men, all witnesses at Frankfurt, none accused of any crime there?

Holocaust-deniers point to small discrepancies in testimonies to try to discredit them. The assumption, unstated, is that the reader will accept minor discrepancies as evidence of a vast, over-reaching Jewish conspiracy. This is clearly ludicrous.

In fact, the discrepancies and minor errors in detail argue against, not for, the conspiracy theory. Why would the conspirators have given different information to different Nazis? In fact, if all the testimonies, from the Nazis' to the inmates', sounded too similar, it is certain that the Holocaust-deniers would cite that as evidence of a conspiracy.

What supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Untersturmführer Dr. Hans Münch to give an interview, against the will of his family, on Swedish television? In the 1981 interview, he talked about Auschwitz:

Interviewer: Isn't the ideology of extermination contrary to a doctor's ethical values?

Münch: Yes, absolutely. There is no discussion. But I lived in that environment, and I tried in every possible way to avoid accepting it, but I had to live with it. What else could I have done? And I wasn't confronted with it directly until the order came that I and my superior and another one had to take part in the exterminations since the camp's doctors were overloaded and couldn't cope with it.

Interviewer: I must ask something. Doubters claim that "special treatment" could mean anything. It didn't have to be extermination.

Münch: "Special treatment" in the terminology of the concentration camp means physical extermination. If it was a question of more than a few people, where nothing else than gassing them was worthwhile, they were gassed.

Interviewer: "Special treatment" was gassing?

Münch: Yes, absolutely.

And what supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Unterscharführer Franz Suchomel into giving an interview for the film Shoah? Speaking under (false) promises of anonymity, he told of the crimes committed at the Treblinka death camp (from the book Shoah, Claude Lanzmann, 1985, p. 54):

Interviewer: You are a very important eyewitness, and you can explain what Treblinka was.

Suchomel: But don't use my name.

Interviewer: No, I promised. All right, you've arrived at Treblinka.

Suchomel: So Stadie, the sarge, showed us the camps from end to end. Just as we went by, they were opening the gas-chamber doors, and people fell out like potatoes. Naturally, that horrified and appalled us. We went back and sat down on our suitcases and cried like old women.

Each day one hundred Jews were chosen to drag the corpses to the mass graves. In the evening the Ukrainians drove those Jews into the gas chambers or shot them. Every day! Ask the deniers why they shrug off the testimony of Franz Suchomel. Greg Raven will tell you that "it is not evidence...bring me some evidence, please." Others will tell you that Suchomel and Münch were crazy, or hallucinating, or fantasizing. But the fantasy is obviously in the minds of those who choose to ignore the mass of evidence and believe instead in a hypothetical conspiracy, supported by nothing but their imaginations.

That total lack of evidence is why the "conspiracy assumption" almost always remains an unspoken assumption. To our knowledge, there has not been one single solitary "revisionist" paper, article, speech, pamphlet, book, audiotape, videotape, or newsletter which provides any details about this supposed Jewish/Zionist conspiracy which did all the dirty work. Not one.

At best, the denial literature makes veiled references to the World Jewish Congress perpetuating a "hoax" (in Butz, 1976) -- no details are provided. Yet the entire case of Holocaust-denial rests on this supposed conspiracy.

As for the testimony of the survivors, which the "revisionists" claim is the only evidence, there are indeed numerous testimonies to gassings and other forms of atrocities, from Jewish inmates who survived the camps, and also from other inmates like POWs. Many of the prisoners that testified about the gassing are not Jewish, of course. Look for instance at the testimony of Polish officer Zenon Rozansky about the first homicidal gassing in Auschwitz, in which 850 Russian POWs were gassed to death, in Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p. 154:

Those who were propped against the door leant with a curious stiffness and then fell right at our feet, striking their faces hard against the concrete floor. Corpses! Corpses standing bolt upright and filling the entire corridor of the bunker, till they were packed so tight that it was impossible for more to fall.

Which of the "revisionists" will deny this? Which of them was there? Which of them has the authority to tell Rozansky what he did or did not see?

The statement that "no 'survivor' claims to have actually witnessed any gassing" is clearly false; this was changed to "few survivors" in later versions, which is close to the truth.

But we do not need to rely solely on testimony, from the survivors, Nazis, or otherwise. Many wartime documents, not postwar descriptions, specifically regarding gassings and other atrocities, were seized by the U.S. armed forces. Most are in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.; some are in Germany.

Regarding the gassing vans, precursors to the gas chambers, we find, for example, a top secret document from SS Untersturmführer Becker to SS Obersturmbannführer Rauff (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 999-1001):

If it has rained for instance for only one half hour, the van cannot be used because it simply skids away. It can only be used in absolutely dry weather. It is only a question now whether the van can only be used standing at the place of execution. First the van has to be brought to that place, which is possible only in good weather. ...

The application of gas usually is not undertaken correctly. In order to come to an end as fast as possible, the driver presses the accelerator to the fullest extent. By doing that the persons to be executed suffer death from suffocation and not death by dozing off as was planned. My directions now have proved that by correct adjustment of the levers death comes faster and the prisoners fall asleep peacefully.

And Just wrote of the gas vans to Rauff, on June 5, 1942, in a letter marked both "top secret" and "only copy". This is a horrific masterpiece of Nazi double-talk, referring to killing as "processing" and the victims as "subjects" and "the load." (See Kogon, Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, pp. 228-235.)

Since December 1941, for example, 97,000 were processed using three vans, without any faults occurring in the vehicles. ...

The normal capacity of the vans is nine to ten per square meter. The capacity of the larger special Saurer vans is not so great. The problem is not one of overloading but of off-road maneuverability on all terrains, which is severely diminished in this van. It would appear that a reduction in the cargo area is necessary. This can be achieved by shortening the compartment by about one meter. The problem cannot be solved by merely reducing the number of subject treated, as has been done so far. For in this case a longer running time is required, as the empty space also needs to be filled with CO [the poison exhaust gas]. ...

Greater protection is needed for the lighting system. The grille should cover the lamps high enough up to make it impossible to break the bulbs. It seems that these lamps are hardly ever turned on, so the users have suggested that they could be done away with. Experience shows, however, that when the back door is closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the door. The reason for this is that when it becomes dark inside, the load rushes toward what little light remains. This hampers the locking of the door. It has also been noticed that the noise provoked by the locking of the door is linked to the fear aroused by the darkness.

Slip-ups occurred in written correspondence regarding the gas chambers themselves, some of which, fortunately, escaped destruction and were found after the war. A memo written to SS man Karl Bischoff on November 27, 1942 describes the gas chamber in Krema II not with the usual mundane name of "Leichenkeller," but rather as the "Sonderkeller" "special cellar."

And two months later, on January 29, 1943, Bischoff wrote a memo to Kammler, referring to that same chamber as the "Vergasungskeller." (See Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, pp. 223, 227.) "Vergasungskeller" means exactly what it sounds like: "gassing cellar," an underground gas chamber.

Holocaust-deniers turn to Arthur Butz, who provides a specious explanation for the Vergasungskeller: "Vergasung," he says, cannot refer to killing people with gas, but only to the process of converting a solid or liquid into gas. Therefore, he says the "Vergasungskeller," must have been a special room where the fuel for the Auschwitz ovens was converted into gas -- a "gasification cellar."

There are three problems with this explanation. First, "Vergasung" certainly can refer to killing people with gas; Butz does not speak German and he should not try to lecture about the language. Second, there is no room that could possibly serve this function which Butz describes -- years after writing his book, he admitted this, and helplessly suggested that there might be another building somewhere in the camp that might house a gasification cellar. Third, the type of oven used at Auschwitz did not require any gasification process! The ovens burned solid fuel. (See Gutman, op. cit., pp. 184-193.)

So what does the term "gassing cellar" refer to? Holocaust-deniers have yet to offer any believable explanation.

An inventory, again captured after the war, revealed fourteen showerheads and one gas-tight door listed for the gas chamber in Krema III. Holocaust-deniers claim that room was a morgue; they do not offer to explain what use a morgue has for showerheads and a gas-tight door. (See a photograph of the document, or Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation, 1989, pp. 231, 438.)

A memo from the Auschwitz construction office, dated March 31, 1943, says (Hilberg, Documents of Destruction, 1971, pp. 207-208):

We take this occasion to refer to another order of March 6, 1943, for the delivery of a gas door 100/192 for Leichenkeller 1 of Krema III, Bw 30a, which is to be built in the manner and according to the same measure as the cellar door of the opposite Krema II, with peep hole of double 8 millimeter glass encased in rubber. This order is to be viewed as especially urgent....

Why would morgues have urgently needed peepholes made out of a double layer of third-of-an-inch-thick glass?

The question of whether it can be proved that the cyanide gas was used in the Auschwitz gas chambers has intruiged the deniers. Their much-heralded Leuchter Report, for example, expends a great deal of effort on the question of whether traces of cyanide residue remain there today. But we do not need to look for chemical traces to confirm cyanide use (Gutman, op. cit., p. 229):

Letters and telegrams exchanged on February 11 and 12 [1943] between the Zentralbauleitung and Topf mention a wooden blower for Leichenkeller 1. This reference confirms the use of the morgue as a gas chamber: Bischoff and Prüfer thought that the extraction of air mixed with concentrated prussic acid [cyanide] (20 g per cu m) required a noncorroding ventilator.

Bischoff and Prüfer turned out to be wrong, and a metal fan ended up working acceptably well. But the fact that they thought it necessary demonstrates that cyanide was to be routinely used in the rooms which deniers call morgues. (Cyanide is useless for disinfecting morgues, as it does not kill bacteria.)

Other captured documents, even if they don't refer directly to some part of the extermination process, refer to it by implication. A captured memo to SS-Brigadeführer Kammler reveals that the expected incineration capacity of the Auschwitz ovens was a combined total of 4,756 corpses per day (see a photograph of the document or Kogon, op. cit., p. 157).

Deniers often claim that this total could not be achieved in practice (see question 45). That's not the point. These crematoria were carefully designed, in 1942, to have sufficient capacity to dispose of 140,000 corpses per month -- in a camp that housed only 125,000. We can conclude that massive deaths were predicted, indeed planned-for, as early as mid-1942. A camp designed to incinerate its full capacity of inmates every four weeks is not merely a detention center.

Finally, apart from the abundant testimonies, confessions, and physical evidence of the extermination process, there is certainly no want of evidence of the Nazis' intentions and plans.

Here are just a few examples. Hans Frank's diary (from Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 1946, Vol. I, pp. 992, 994):

But what should be done with the Jews? Do you think they will be settled down in the 'Ostland' [eastern territories], in [resettlement] villages? This is what we were told in Berlin: Why all this bother? We can do nothing with them either in the 'Ostland' nor in the 'Reichkommissariat.' So liquidate them yourself.

Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourself of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain the structure of the Reich as a whole. ...

We cannot shoot or poison these 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation....

That we sentence 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger should be noted only marginally.

Himmler's speech at Posen on October 4, 1943 was captured on audiotape (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p. 145, trans. by current author):

I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the Jewish people are being exterminated," says every Party member, "quite true, it's part of our plans, the elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it."

The extermination effort was even mentioned in at least one official Nazi court verdict. In May 1943, a Munich court wrote in its decision against SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner that:

The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.

And Hitler spoke quite clearly in public on no fewer than three occasions. On January 30, 1939, seven months before Germany invaded Poland, he spoke publicly to the Reichstag (transcribed from Skeptic magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 50):

Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

By the way, this last phrase is, in German, "die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa," which German-speakers will realize is quite unambiguous.

In September, 1942:

...if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan people which would be exterminated but Jewry...

On November 8, 1942:

You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: if Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now.

There are many other examples of documents and testimonies that could be presented.

Keep in mind that the IHR's answer to "what proof exists?" is "none." It has certainly been demonstrated already that this pat answer is totally dishonest. And this is the main point we wish to communicate: that Holocaust-denial is dishonest.

We continue by analyzing the remaining, more-specific, claims about what evidence supposedly does not exist.

• "No mounds of ashes" is an internal contradiction. In an article in the journal published by the same IHR that publishes these Q&A, the Journal's editor reported that a Polish commission in 1946 found human ash at the Treblinka death camp to a depth of over twenty feet. This article is available on Greg Raven's web site.

(Apparently some survivors claimed that the corpses were always thoroughly cremated. Because uncremated human remains were mixed with the ash, the editor suggested that the testimonies were false. Amazingly, he had no comment on how a twenty-foot layer of human ashes came to be there in the first place. Perhaps he felt that to be unworthy of mention.)

There are also piles of ashes at Maidanek. At Auschwitz-Birkenau, ashes from cremated corpses were dumped into the rivers and swamps surrounding the camp, and used as fertilizer for nearby farmers' fields.

• "No crematoria" capable of disposing of millions of corpses? Absolutely false, the crematoria were more than capable of the job, according to both the Nazis' own internal memos and the testimony of survivors. Holocaust-deniers deliberately confuse civilian, funeral-home crematoria with the huge industrial ovens of the death camps. This is discussed in much detail in the replies to questions 42 and 45.

• "No piles of clothes"? Apparently, the IHR considers piles of clothes to be "hard evidence"! This is strange, because they do not deny the other sorts of piles found at Nazi camps: piles of eyeglasses, piles of shoes (at Auschwitz, Belzec, and Maidanek), piles of gold teeth, piles of burned corpses, piles of unburned corpses, piles of artificial limbs (see Swiebocka, Auschwitz: A History in Photographs, 1993, p. 210), piles of human hair (ibid, p. 211), piles of ransacked luggage (ibid, p. 213), piles of shaving-brushes (ibid, p. 215), piles of combs (ibid), piles of pots and pans (ibid), and yes, even the piles of clothes (ibid, p. 214) that the IHR claims do not exist.

Perhaps the authors of the 66 Q&A realized that it was dangerous for them to admit that these piles were hard evidence, because then they would also be forced to admit a number of other things as "hard evidence." Perhaps this is why they removed this phrase from the revised 66 Q&A.

If items were not generally found in mass quantities, it is only because the Nazis distributed them to the German population. A memo on this was captured, revealing that they even redistributed women's underwear.

• "No human soap"? This is true, but misleading. Though there is some evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited experimental scale, the rumored "mass production" was never done, and no soap made from human corpses is known to exist. However, there is sworn testimony, never refuted, from British POWs and a German army official, stating that soap experiments were performed, and the recipe for the soap was captured by the Allies. To state flatly that the Nazis did not make soap from human beings is incorrect.

• "No lamp shades made of human skin?" False -- lampshades and other human-skin "ornaments" were introduced as evidence in both trials of Ilse Koch, and were shown to a U.S. Senate investigation committee in the late 40s. We know they were made of human skin because they bore tattoos, and because a microscopic forensic analysis of the items was performed. (A detailed page on this is being prepared.)

• "No records"? This is nonsense (which may explain why this claim was removed from the "revised" versions of the 66 Q&A). True, extermination by gassing was always referred to with code-words, and those victims who arrived at death camps only to be immediately gassed were not recorded in any books. But there are slip-ups in the code-word usage that reveal the true meanings, as already described. There are inventories and requisitions for the Krema which reveal items anomalous with ordinary use but perfect for mass homicidal gassing. There are deportation train records which, pieced together, speak clearly. And so on. Several examples have been given above.

• "No credible demographic statistics"? This is the second internal contradiction -- see question 2 and question 15. The Anglo-American committee who studied the issue estimated the number of Jewish victims at 5.7 million. This was based on population statistics. Here is the exact breakdown, country by country:

Germany 195,000 Austria 53,000 Czechoslovakia 255,000 Denmark 1,500 France 140,000 Belgium 57,000 Luxemburg 3,000 Norway 1,000 Holland 120,000 Italy 20,000 Yugoslavia 64,000 Greece 64,000 Bulgaria 5,000 Rumania 530,000 Hungary 200,000 Poland 3,271,000 USSR 1,050,000 Less dispersed refugees (308,000) Total number of Jews killed 5,721,500

(This estimate was arrived at using population statistics, and not by adding the number of casualties at each camp. These are also available -- for instance, a separate file with the ruling of a German court regarding the number of victims in Treblinka is available. The SS kept rather accurate records, and many of the documents survived, reinforced by eyewitness accounts).

Some estimates are lower, some are higher, but this is the magnitude in question. In an article in CMU's student newspaper, the head of CMU's History Department, Peter Stearns, is quoted as saying that newly discovered documents -- especially in the former USSR -- indicate that the number of victims is higher than six million. Other historians claim not much over five million. The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust uses 5,596,000 as a minimum and 5,860,000 as a maximum (Gutman, 1990, p. 1799).

• In summary:

"Revisionists" often claim, correctly, that the burden of proof is on historians. The proof, of course, has been a matter of public record since late 1945, and is available in libraries around the world. The burden has been met, many, many times over. You've just seen a brief presentation of some of the highlights of that immense body of proof; much more is readily available.

To even argue that the Holocaust never happened is ludicrous. To claim straight-faced that none of this proof even exists is beyond ludicrous, and it is a clear example of "revisionist" dishonesty.

This rant is way too long. Roseblossom2 17:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Some people believe that the earth is flat and that the moon landing was an elaborate hoax. It's their right. If you don't like it, tough titty.

I know a long time after the original post - wiki is a big site - but to offer proof and then lose the argument to youself....yeah....159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Typical of denier mentality: this guy doesn't respond to a single point the o.p. makes. Just closes his eyes to the whole thing and dismises it in one sentence without any reasoning. Deniers know the holocaust happened without doubt. I wonder if they admit that to each other in private? I would guess so - I can't imagine many of them can believe their own, hateful lies. I would respect them more if they were at least honest about it and said 'we think it is good that 6 million people were tortured and killed.' If they were ever successfull in their attempt to bring back nazism I can only hope they would get to experience it for themselves, first hand. I wonder if they would manage to leave some scientific proof for us before dying? 6 million people were denied their lives and now some few try to deny their deaths as well. I can think of no greater crime. I don't know how they sleep at night. Probably the worst part is that they try to make it sound reasonable, so that people who know little about the holocaust, or even children could be tricked by it if they stumble across a website or something. It is a terrifying thought that such a thing was able to be done in the 20th century, and equally frightening that there are still people trying to bring it back. I am not in favour of censoring speech but in this one case I believe the risks are so great that we should do anything and everything in our power to stop it. All it took before was one evil man to reach a position of power. It could be very much closer than we realise. 212.84.122.27 (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A Plea for Fairness

My efforts to correct even demonstrably untrue statements in the Wikipedia article about the Institute for Historical Review have been rejected. Whoever "monitors" the editing of this article apparently has no problem with an article that is manifestly biased, polemical and contains smears or innuendo.

Critics of the IHR typically misrepresent its work and purpose. Even a casual visitor to the IHR website can see that the Institute deals with a wide range of historical issues, and that to characterize it simply as a "Holocaust denial" outfit is inaccurate.

No reasonable person "denies" or disputes the catastrophe endured by Europe's Jews during World War II. All the same, the IHR has published numerous articles and books that take issue with the scope and nature of "the Holocaust," and specific Holocaust claims. The IHR as such does not necessarily endorse the findings or views of the diverse people whose writings we have published. IHR conference speakers and contributors have expressed a range of divergent views on various aspects of the Holocaust issue. Indeed, some IHR contributors and conference speakers affirm the generally accepted "six million" Holocaust story.

If "the Holocaust" is rigidly defined as the murder or killing of no less than six million Jews, then Raul Hilberg and other prominent Holocaust historians are "deniers."

It is unfair for Wikipedia, or anyone, simply to repeat as true groundless claims made by hostile groups such as Nizkor, the ADL, and so forth.

The Nizkor project characterization of the IHR (see below) is inaccurate and unfair, as anyone who looks into the matter can pretty easily determine for himself. Ken McVey, who runs (or ran) Nizkor, has declined even to acknowledge my efforts to correct the record. This suggests to me that he's not really interested in truth or accuracy.

The often-repeated claim that the IHR is a "neo-Nazi" group is simply a smear. In fact, the IHR is proud of the support it has received from people of the most varied political outlook, and every racial, religious and ethnic background (including Jewish). The IHR supports freedom of speech and expression, and ardently opposes bigotry of every kind.

Mark Weber Director, Institute for Historical Review weber@ihr.org (August 18, 2005)

The IHR certainly focuses on the Holocaust, and the difference between Holocaust "denial" and "revisionism" is purely semantic: Holocaust deniers prefer "revisionist", and the rest of the world calls them "deniers"; no-one calls themselves a Holocaust denier. The WP:NPOV policy means that significant views cannot be suppressed, even if you disapprove of them. Were there specific sentences you thought were inaccurate? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not themselves pass judgment on whether certain views are right or wrong or better. All we do is summarize views that are relevant and pertinent to any certain disputed subject, including its critics. That you feel your institute's critics' views are wrong is largely irrelevant, except insofar as to say that the institute refutes them. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mark, let's go through your objections line by line. You removed the following:

Critics have accused it of Anti-Semitism and having links to Neo-Nazi organizations, and assert that its primary focus is denying the commonly understood facts of the Nazi genocide of Jews and others.

Why should this statement be removed? It is certainly true that your critics have said the above about you, is it not?Homey 20:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It might be helpful to name the critics mentioned throughout the article and use actual quotations.Homey 20:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that should be done instead of having it use weasel words. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the comments. I’ll try to respond to each of the points raised.

I object to references to un-named “critics.” In fairness they should be identified. ” In fact, these “critics” are, first and foremost, Jewish-Zionist groups with a distinctly self-serving agenda of their own.

I also object to a selective mention of IHR “links.” The IHR has “links” to many groups, including leftist, liberal, and conservative ones. So what? It’s a bit like asserting that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has “links” to terrorists, or supports terrorism, because it has publicly honored two Israeli prime ministers (Begin and Shamir), each of whom has a well-documented record as a terrorist.

I object to a claim that the IHR’s “primary focus” is “denying the commonly understood facts of the Nazi genocide of Jews and others,” when even a simple look at the IHR website should be enough to discredits that assertion.

I object to the term “Holocaust denier” because it is pejorative and one-sided. The difference between “Holocaust denier” and “Holocaust revisionist” is not merely semantic. One is obviously pejorative. If the difference is merely semantic, as you assert, why not use “Holocaust revisionist”? It is not true, as you suggest, that only “Holocaust deniers” refer to themselves as “revisionists.” The term “Holocaust revisionist” is used even by “mainstream” periodicals, such as the Los Angeles Times and the (Jewish) Forward of New York. I would expect at least the same level of fairness from Wikipedia. Even “Holocaust skeptic” would be fairer and more accurate.

I also object to the term “Holocaust denier” because it does not apply to the IHR. The IHR as such itself does not “deny” anything, including the Holocaust. Speakers at IHR conferences have expressed a wide range of views about “the Holocaust.” Given that some IHR conference speakers, and contributors to our publications, affirm the generally accepted view of the Holocaust, would it be proper to refer to the IHR as a “Holocaust affirming” outfit?

I particularly object to the final sentence of the Wikipedia article about the IHR. No “spokesperson for the IHR” has ever met with any Arab figure “suspected to have ties to known terrorist groups.” This groundless and clearly polemical statement is not even supported by the source that’s cited for it.

-- Mark Weber (weber@ihr.org)

Re "Denial"

Google reports that IHR's homepage has a page description of "Site of the world's leading Holocaust denial organisation. Many articles from its journal (founded in 1980) are reproduced, and also contains a few general ..."[1] Searching for ["Institute for Historical Review" Denial OR Denier] results in over 10,000 hits. So whether or not the IHR considers itself to be a "denier" (which is apparently open to question), there are plenty of other people who use that term to describe it. It's fair for us to say that IHR cinsiders itself to be a "revisionist" group, but that others disagree. -Willmcw 22:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I see in this, [2], that you acknowledge the use of the term by your adversaries. -Willmcw 22:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh please! Mark Weber's interview with the white supremacist group the National Vanguard about Jewish groups. http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2588 In fact in 1978, Mark Weber was a news editor for the white supremacist National Vanguard Drsmoo 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One only has to look at your site to see that you're nothing more than an Anti Semitic hate group. An editorial by Marc Webber titled "Jews: A Religious Community, a People, or a Race?" A list of Jewish billionares? I can't see what that has to do with "historical review"Drsmoo 12:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On its own, the first article sounds fine. We even have an article like that here on Wikipedia entitled Who is a Jew?. The second article, however, would be a red flag - Except they didn't write it. This doesn't change that IHR is a bunch of Nazi apologists. Chris Croy 15:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

More from Mr. Weber http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/20weber.html "Observing Jews as they shamelessly swindled and bilked the primitive Blacks began to open my eyes. The wealthy, liberal Jews would push for racial integration in the ethnic White neighborhoods of Chicago, while the kosher crowd stayed isolated in their Hyde Park and North Side enclaves."

"After finishing college, I accepted a fellowship for graduate study in history at Indiana University. But during the year and a half I worked on my MA, I grew increasingly restless and fed up with the futility and meaninglessness of academic life. My colleagues and professors resigned themselves to a cynical, self- centered, bourgeois future. What was the point? If things kept on going as they were, neither our race nor our nation would have a future, and whatever we did in our short lives would be pointless."

"In graduate school, I became ever more disgusted with the liberal effort to twist and distort history to make it conform to the naive, unrealistic, liberal view of life. The lies and myth-making were especially frequent when dealing with the Negro in American history. Various obscure Blacks were elevated to undeserved prominence, while White college students learned virtually nothing of the heroic sacrifices at the Alamo and Valley Forge. While Jews and Blacks blatantly promoted their own biased cultural and racial programs in special studies departments, anti-White and anti-Western professors taught White students to be ashamed of their racial-cultural heritage. Liberals ignored or obscured the fact that our forefathers consciously established America as a nation for White people. Professors were often far more interested in berating the White race for its past "injustices" than in imparting an understanding of the dynamics of history. And while they talked of democracy and the majority, liberal professors looked down with contempt upon the White taxpayers who paid their wages."

"Of course, these academic bureaucrats had no real loyalty to America or to the White race. They were interested in job security and academic prestige, but not in the search for historical truth. A study of history, I was convinced, demonstrated conclusively that race-mixing, a mania for equality, and a lack of idealism and heroism were all unmistakable signs of decadence."

Trying to convince people here that your site is open to all viewpoints and a legitimate forum for historical review is bogus. Though of course you're fully within your rights to do so. On the IHR website's front page, the word "Jew" is written 71 times. And Israel is written 74 times. You claim that your leaflets "do not necessarily represent the views of the IHR." So leaflets distributed by the IHR do not represent the IHR? Even though 7 of the 15 are written by you, and all are Anti Jew. The site is nothing more than a Neo Nazi hate site. Even the name "Institute for Historical Review" is so suspiciously generic as to be laughable. Drsmoo 07:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

Contrary to what Google reports, the IHR’s home page does not have “a page description of `Site of the world’s leading Holocaust denial organization’.” Check for yourself.

By the way, Alexa ( http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=ihr.org ) describes the IHR site this way: “Site of the world s leading historical revisionist organisation. Many articles from its journal (founded in 1980) are reproduced, and also contains a few general texts on the subject of why the mainstream Holocaust historiography is allegedly wrong.”

I’d appreciate at least this level of fairness from Wikipedia.

Whether or not "there are plenty of other people who use that term [“Holocaust denier”] to describe” the IHR is not relevant. “Plenty” of people can be wrong.

-- Mark Weber (weber@ihr.org)

Mark, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~). To your last point: "Whether or not "there are plenty of other people who use that term [“Holocaust denier”] to describe” the IHR is not relevant. “Plenty” of people can be wrong." Again, we aren't here to pass judgment; we're here to summarize points of view. That there is an opposing point of view as to whether your organization should be described as "denier" or "revisionist" is clearly present. Therefore it's proper for inclusion in the article, as long as it's couched and attributed properly. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I believe Alexa uses website descriptions written by the site's webmasters themselves. Homey 17:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that this article on the IHR is yet another in a seemingly endless series of non-NPOV hatchet jobs featured here on Wikipedia. Several long-standing Wikipedia editors of varying political and religious orientations have all commented on the staggering amount of pro-Jewish bias here on Wikipedia. Mark Weber, my advice is that you open up an account here on Wikipedia and that you rectify the portions of the article you consider to be non-NPOV. I and several other editors (and maybe a few administrators) will stand by your edits if we consider them to be an improvement over the article as it stands now. Roseblossom2 17:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you propose a Final Solution to this problem, anti-semite? Hipocrite 18:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's tone the rhetoric down a bit (and this applies to everybody, including me). I know this topic invites strong opinions, and that's all right -- we don't all have to agree, but let's try at least to be civil, even when we disagree. Roseblossom, instead of just criticizing, how about proposing some specific changes you'd like to see made? · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Human soap

Indeed, human soap was made in Danzig-based Institute of Anathomy led by Rudolf Spanner. It is well-sourced, mostly because of testimonies of several people working there, including three British POWs who were interrogated after the war in London. It is supported by the testimonies of Spanner himself, although he claimed that the corpses were used not for soap production but for production of some sort of a joint preservation agent. It is currently being investigated by the Polish IPN institute and with all probability the scale of the production was very small - an experiment rather than industry. Halibutt 10:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Yad Vashem yesterday upheld the recent statement by Professor Yehuda Bauer, an eminent Holocaust historian, that the Nazis never made soap from human fat. "What is clear is that soap was made on which the letters RIS were inscribed, and there was propaganda that this soap was made from Jews," said [Shmuel Krakoski]. RIS supposedly stood for Rein Idisha Seif, or "pure Jewish soap,"" [3] So the Yad Vashem said there was no human soap. "We still cannot say with certainty whether or not human soap was made at the Danzig Anatomical Institute. There are three affidavits from three people who worked there to that effect, and corroborating physical evidence. That is not sufficient to establish human soapmaking for certain, but neither can it be dismissed out of hand." - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/soap06.html These are all Jewish sources, so why are you so sure? --82.79.53.16 12:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

RIS would never be used to mean "pure Jewish soap" because Jew(ish) is spelt with a J in German just as it is in English. It is never spelt with an "I". "Jew" is "Jude", and "Jewish", "Jüdisch". (The word "Yiddish" is a dialect pronunciation of "Jüdisch".) Moreover, "Jüdische Seife" would mean "Jewish-style soap", not soap made from Jews, just as "Polnische Wodka" is Polish-style vodka, not vodka made from Polaks. Katzenjammer 20:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Without the required buying the text that the link to Bauer's statement leads to, it seems like people are talking about two different things. The notion that the Nazis had an industry that made soap from Jews and then distributed it for use is what Yehuda Bauer may be researching: Bars of soap that were distributed with the letters RIS inscribed were not made from Jews. (Jeez, what a weird sentence to write!) On the other hand, as Halibutt notes, the testimony about making soap from Jews was about a "very small experiment rather than industry." And there is no indication that this soap was distributed with RIS on it. Kriegman 13:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you got one of these bars of soap? If so have it tested, and then we will know the truth - and whether or not the witnesses are liars - kill two birds with one stone.

As a matter of fact, there have been recent tests on the so called "human soap"... and the results show that it is in fact made of human fat. Not industrially. Not in large scale. But human fat nevertheless. See Human Fat Was Used to Produce Soap in Gdansk during the War--Ninarosa 08:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article linked to above appears ambiguous. It starts with witness testimony and then by the time we get to actual chemical tests the assurance seems to fade. Did I read it wrong? If some weirdo made a(one) bar of soap, that is a long way from the witness stories I have grown up with and heard for years.

(please sign your posts). As Kriegman has explained above, historians (real ones, not the IHR type) have long ago concluded that the stories about "human soap" the campus' inmates mentioned were rumors. Rumors that circulated widely and are part of the history of the Holocaust. Rumors so precise that at certain point, even high-level nazi officers thought they could be true. But the evidence shows that at least experimentally, it was tried. Not industrially. The witness testimonies are but one part of evidence that lead historians to look for corroborations in other areas (such as the chemical testing). Even before the testing, however, a recipe for soap made of human fat had been found, and the records from the institute also pointed in this direction. No evidence is sufficient on its own, but the testing corroborated what was previously concluded.--Ninarosa 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound convincing to me, not by a long way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.251.0.188 (talk) 17:09, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Known for Holocaust denial

RJII, I reverted your edit qualifying that they're known for Holocaust denial, because that's about the only thing they are known for. See [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back their assertion that they do not deny the Holocaust. RJII 23:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

National Security Agency calls IHR scholars and researchers

Does this information lend any value you the article that the NSA called the IHR scholars and researchers?

IHR: Jewish Center Criticizes National Security Agency for IHR Mention

A Jewish research group is sharply criticizing the National Security Agency for a new report that refers to the Institute for Historical Review as a center for “scholars and researchers” and as a “scholarly association.”

“For a US government report to call them ‘scholars’ gives them the legitimacy they desperately crave but do not deserve,” said Rafael Medoff, director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, who is calling on the agency to withdraw the report from circulation and “correct” it.

IHR director Mark Weber dismissed the Wyman Institute’s complaint as bigoted and desperate. “To any unbiased person,” said Weber, “the IHR’s record of scholarship is self-evident and incontrovertible. Over the years, many scholars of unquestioned ability and stature have addressed IHR conferences, or have contributed to the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review. The Wyman Institute’s complaint only underscores its obvious bias.”

Continue at: http://www.ihr.org/news/100705NSACriticized.html

Perhaps it is worth sharing the whole quote from the NSA article, since the IHR press release the anonymous user just quoted makes it sound like the NSA were being complementary, which the NSA was not. In fact, they criticise both the JHR and its conclusions, dismissing them both:

In 1984 a monograph was published in the Journal of Historical Review that reviewed the published literature of wartime intelligence, including the Police decrypts, which carried information about the massacres and the concentration camps. The article called into question what the intelligence actually revealed about the Nazi’s ultimate plan for the elimination of Europe’s Jews. Unfortunately, the journal in which this article appeared was a well-known forum for that faction of scholars and researchers associated with a movement known as “Holocaust denial.” Rather than discuss the intelligence about the Holocaust and how Allied officials differed over its meaning, or review the Nazi program of silence and obfuscation about the Final Solution, the author claimed that the gaps in Allied intelligence suggested that many aspects of the Holocaust, such as the gassings at Auschwitz, were a fiction. However, the amassed evidence from captured records and the testimony of Holocaust victims and perpetrators overwhelms the article’s contention. Later releases of Police decrypts to the PRO would illustrate how the missing intelligence was attributable to greater German security measures and the limitations in the communications intelligence system.

Hardly a compliment to the IHR's "record of scholarship." --Goodoldpolonius2 03:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

But a really good compliment to the NSA's courage under pressure. "the ammased evidence" - gosh they should publish it all - and I mean all - just to clear things up. Maybe they are friends with the Red Cross - they might like to publish it all also.

heads up

This article was targetted by a reader of white supremacist website Vanguard News Network for editing in a letter at [:http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/091605letters.htm] 149.68.74.164 17:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

first sentence

Maybe the article shouldn't start by declaring it the "leading Holocaust denial organization in the United States," since "Holocaust denial" is such a charged phrase, and moreover quoted from a single source. Regardless of the content, it looks like bad-form.--Quadalpha 02:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is an accurate description. It is also the description Google uses: "Site of the world's leading Holocaust denial organisation." And their site and journal are all about denying the Holocaust. What would be more accurate? --Goodoldpolonius2 06:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, alright, but the quotation looks lazy, and seems to be from an unfriendly source.--Quadalpha 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to address your concern by removing the direct quote and adding more sources, such as CNN and Google, to the footnote. The friendly source thing is an issue, as everyone but the IHR and its contributors says that it is a Holocaust denial organization, but I included a self-quote about what they say they are. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's no concern of mine except in style. Doesn't the Google description come from the site itself? Some sort of meta thing? (I'm not well versed in html.)--Quadalpha 22:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

National Front is not technically a "neo-Nazi" party.

Call it what it is please!

The Institute for Historical Review is a racist organization that espouses hate propaganda and stereotypes. This is not an opinion, it is fact, just as it is for the KKK or other racist organizations. Just because the Institute tries to pass itself off as legitimate scholarship, does not mean that's what it really is. The Institute is not legitimate historical revisionism, it is Holocaust denial, plain and simple. This is the appropriate word to use, "charged" or not charged. By failing to call the Institute what it is, Wikipedia is propagating the very same ideology the Institute wishes to push: that is, racism disguised as scholarship. The Institute is a racist, anti-Semitic organiztion, and by trying to remain "balanced" and politically correct by not calling it as such, Wikipedia is simply lying.

I urge you to call it what it is: the leading Holocaust denial organization in the US.

Suggested motto: "We not only deny the Holocaust, we deny our denial!"Gzuckier 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It's unfathomable why User:DJac75 removed the description and the category, especially considering that the cited footnote specifically refers to them as a leading Holocaust denial organization. I've restored the original. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Why" is because one description is disputed, the other is not. If we can't treat this subject according to NPOV principles I will have to tag the article as disputed. This is especially true precisely because of the counterbalancing nature of the footnote.St. Jimmy 03:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "one description is disputed, the other is not"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean that about 100% of neutral observers would agree that IHR's perspective is one of historical revisionism (not even disputed by IHR) while whether their perspective amounts to "Holocaust denial" or not is a trickier matter of definition. There is a reasonable difference between neutral observers as to what qualifies as "denial." Hence the need for consensus terminology. St. Jimmy 11:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of ....(can't think of a politically correct word). If you think the holocaust is Zionist propaganda then who cares if it's called revisionism or denial. If it's stupid and can't stand up to the facts then deny it, you bunch of ...(still can't think of a politically correct word).

Language neutrality

Clearly the IHR is a deeply biased, agenda-driven organisation. However this article's language fails to meet NPOV criteria. Simply writing an article that hammers the point "these guys are bad" is less likely to convince readers than a clinically neutral article which allows readers readers to make their own mind, rather than bang them over the head with the authors' views. The article does not clarify

• does the IRR cover general historical issues or just agenda-driven ones?
• do respectable academics participate or just right-wing agenda-driven ones?
• What does it publish?
• How often does it publish?
• Is its work cited in academic journals?

Quoting the Anti Defamation League as a definitive source is dodgy, to put it mildly. Even some Jewish groups accuse it as pushing its own POV in an over-the-top manner. It seems to have a credibility among some in the US, but internationally it is generally dismissed as politically motivated and agenda-driven. More credible sources must surely exist than the ADL.

Overall, through agenda-driven writing, the IHR escapes the sort of objective examination it should receive here. Instead the language, while likely to convince those already critical of the IHR readers, is likely to be dismissed as agenda-driven by the neutral. A clinically neutral article is likely to show the IHR for what it really is, a deeply repulsive scar on the face of academic research. This article, through agenda-pushing, far from damaging the IHR, simply misses the target, which, given the nature of the IHR, is not merely regrettable but beneficial to the organisation.

The bottom line is that, while the content may be adequate, the language used to explain the content is too agenda-driven and POV to achieve any meaningful hits against the IHR. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 05:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)}

So are you going to fix that? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jt, in order to use the tag correctly, could you please give examples of the sections that need to be rewritten, and make suggestions as to how they could be rewritten to be more neutral, bearing in mind that any objections must be actionable within our policies? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll work through it. Even the opening sentences breaks NPOV. It states

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is a leading Holocaust denial organization. It describes itself as a "public interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history."

Saying something is something that it itself denies is POV editorialising. (I agree with the definition. The problem is you cannot say that under NPOV.)

An NPOV rewrite would read

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is a right-wing organisation that publishes history articles and academic papers. It describes itself as a "public interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." Its many critics however accuse it of being a leading Holocaust denial organisation.

Writing it that way is NPOV. You don't say it is something. You let the facts speak for themselves and the reader reach their own conclusion on the evidence. The way it is currently written, the entire article, based on the first two lines, will be dismissed as biased and agenda-driven by many readers. So you will have undermined your whole case against it through clumsy POV writing. Given its repulsive politics, far from hitting it you will have let it off the hook through POV editorialising. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 14:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)}

Google is one of "its many critics"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jt, we don't allow controversial organizations to define themselves. It is without question a leading Holocaust denial group and no serious source says otherwise. We go with what reliable sources say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We allow every organisation to define themselves. We have to under NPOV. We say "they say this. Others say that. Here is the evidence. You, the reader, make up your own mind." Yes they are a holocaust denial organisation and make my skin crawl. But the same NPOV rules apply in every single article, no matter how repulsive the topic is. Writing it as fact is editorialising. We cannot do that under any circumstances on WP. It is also counterproductive. The more opinionated the article, the less credible it is going to be taken by neutrals. It is for the reader, not the writer, to reach definitive conclusions based on the evidence. Anything else is a serious breach of NPOV and is not an option, here or anywhere else.

We don't say "Adolf Hitler was a mass murderer", which he was. He say that sources have reached that conclusion based on the evidence. That is what NPOV is all about. Neutrality of language. Outlining of evidence. Let the reader decide, not the writer. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 16:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)}

FE is 100% right. Of course controversial organizations can define themselves, and if their definitions are notably critiqued by reliable sources, that should be made note of as well. St. Jimmy 17:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have to present what reliable sources have to say about things. Period. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Try reading WP:NPOV. You obviously have forgotten. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)}

Me? I think not. WP:NPOV does not condone using unreliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but we can say "They are XXX; they say they are YYY". We don't have to give what they say equal weight if the preponderance of reliable sources says otherwise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We report what reliable published sources say, period. Dodgy organizations like the Institute for Historical Review may be quoted in articles about themselves (though not anywhere else), but their views are simply included, not prioritized in any way, because they are not reliable sources. See NOR and V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You just don't get it. You cannot write any article in that form on Wikipedia. All you are doing is letting the IHR win. People will look at that article and dismiss it as agenda-driven. So you will let the IHR win. That is what you are doing by writing a shodily constructed J'Accuse article rather than an NPOV article. This is exactly the sort of article it is in their interests to have here. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)}

I have been reading the above comments with interest and others for articles on a wide range of topics in Wikipedia.

Put simply, what I have found infuriating about Wikipedia is that sometimes a contentious comment (with a quote from a reputable source) is edited away. What is really happening in these cases is that the writer simply does not agree with what has been written and under the excuse of POV or whatever has expunged the comment he does not like. Some of the comments above (and the reason why the neutrality alert is posted on the article) are, I am afraid to say, in this category. Other comments however are worth a great deal - "however odious a person/subject is, we must be accurate, so as not to give them credence..." This approach I agree with. What I think is very dangerous in dealing with this organisation is to respect their opinion as much as any other group. When I say respect, I mean the word in this sense: we must not accept what they are saying at face value, we must be listen, but if is true (and it is) that their articles are lacking academically (not because I think so, but are measurably so) then it should be noted. The idea somehow that "everyone's view is valid" to the extent it must not be criticised is very dangerous. There are values out there, things which can be measured, not based on opinion. Lastly if all the academic world (even if this organisation would have it influenced by left-wing Jews)things the material this organisation produces does not hold water, if much other opinion thinks this organisation is x, y and z, then Wikipedia has a duty to say so. And there are some other things in the world which are regarded as just plain wrong and it would be very odd of Wikipedia to ignore "opinion" in those areas. For example to criticise an organisation which believes in the legalising of sex between adults and children which claims "scientifically" that such activity is good for children cannot, if its "scientists" are in fact NOT scientists, or doctors or whatever, expect its outpourings to be "respected." If Wikipedia notes that the "Child-Love organisation believes that freedom and happyness comes from having sex with children, that is fair enough (it is a quote), but also it is right i to say they are dangerous people (because everyone else says so) and their "research" is not research (because everyone else says so). All true information sources have a duty for accuracy - even if contain "worldwide" opinion (With quotes). The Wikipedia entry for this subject satisfies the criteria as it reflects the truth - that is this organisation is "regarded" as rather scary and silly, full of people who do not have the same discussion regarding accuracy as we arfe having here and rather typically of conspiracy theorists and crackpots think they have a final trump card saying back to us "there you are you are part of the left-wing Jewish conspiracy and your views, and those of many people are against our free speech and proves us right - you are all against us, we are opressed" Personally I believe these people should not be prosecuted, their books banned, I do believe in free speech but I also believe in accuracy and not to note what many people have said about this organisation would be inaccurate/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That was my point. We cannot editorialise. We cannot say 'x is good' or 'y is bad'. We have to say 'x says this. y says that'. That means you have to cover what an organisation (no matter how repulsive, like this one) says about itself and what its critics say. Under NPOV you cannot say "everyone says this lot are a shower of bastards. They disagree" which is how this article is written. That fails NPOV and is not how any professional encycloapedia covers any topic, no matter how repulsive. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 10:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}

Agreed, I really do see and accept your argument. In this respect I note the following. What if the truth is that EVERYONE (at least everyone who really matters or can be trusted from left, centre or right politically) says a group/person is simply wrong (factually) then what does Wikipedia do? Is to point out that truth (with support) really POV? Should we in the supposed interests of NPOV try to find and quote from those who disagree with undisputed fact/truth? The earth-is-flat argument above is a perfect example. What does Wikipedia do?

Do we say that it could be that the earth is flat because Alfred Nutcase says it is, or do we say it is clear to everyone, and it is undisputed fact, that the earth is not flat(truth and fact). And do we try to explain their wrong views by saying for example - "they are clearly mad (because Professor Dweeble says this is typical of conspiracy theorists/lunatics.)"

The danger here is that we are falling into the trap(as I noted) that everyone who has a view is not only allowed to articulate that view (I agree) but that it must be accepted as valid because it is a view (wrong). Wikipedia should not go along with the flow because the majority agree with something, but it should at least acknowledge that "flow" and not pretend that there IS an alternative truth when it is not truth (if you follow me).

Just adding: I love debunking widely held views (I am a law lecturer in the UK but write in the field of music also) - I think that many of Mozart's operas (which are regarded as abosolute perfection by the "musical cognoscenti") are sadly lacking musically and dramatically. But I know that to say that I will have to find "good" people who are respected (and have, through true research shown their views have some validity) to offer this alternative view (however much we are in the minority). To say that a person "down the local bar" agrees with me, will not do academically - I need more! To get any kind of supposed "balance" with this group of IHR people would require the acceptance of poor research, pseudo-academic research etc.etc. or the insidious view that "any view is valid" approach. That's my problem

Thew ironic thing is that if this group "came out clean" and said "honestly" that they quite like the fact that people were gassed and they would do it again, I would be less annoyed academically. At least that would be honest - OK, repulsive to me, but you could not argue with their directness and clear philosophy. The same with someone who says "it is fine for adults to have sex with children, because I think it is right and I don't care what the children think or the world in general: Mine is a selfish desire" Again, I think that is at least honest - if personally to me repulsive.

You might have something about Mozart's music - but you could prove it much better with a conspiracy theory! Mozart was involved with the Freemasons, so his operas progam Freemason thoughts into your mind as you listen to them!

And the Holocaust? Everyone knows Jews are all robots and you can't gas robots, what a ridiculous idea! And they could use their mind-control beams to stop you anyway.

David Cole - haven't heard that name in awhile. He must get sick of being dragged out as either a revisionist ( who always seems to say something good for the other side)or a penitent who never believed what he originally said. Say hi to him for me, too bad he got scared to the path of righteuosness. If you ever want to debate any of these issues again - which a repeated beating wont do much good - then you know where CODOH, etc is.

Lampshades - look up Ken Kipperman - a man who has spent endless energy trying to find proff of Nazi victims,etc - he finally conceded that the lampshade story was bogus ( keep up with your own guys' research ) along with the soap. I assume he is going to search for those darn missing victims till the bitter end.

In 1984 IHR was firebombed - any evidence ever collected on that event?

I believe that before anybody writes anything on a subject like this he or she should repeat this: "Ignorance is not a Point of View." This is because endless discussion is nothing but a false arguement. It is Wikipedia's greatest weakness, not inaccuracy. Making the language neutral is the purpose of this discussion, yet it veers off into the fluff. What matter is it that the article says somebody is ignorant and stupid if it is true? Actually they are stupid but not ignorant. Stupid is using information incorrectly, ignorance is not having information. (Sorry to repeat the obvious.)

--b_calder 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This wiki is a joke

How is this wiki even in existence in this form? I think 95% of the wiki is ad hominem attacks, glued together by an occassional date or name. Just stunning. Never seen anything like this on wikipedia.

Agreed. The POV on this article is sickening. .V. 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the only Wikipedia article that I have ever read that comes across as a solid "hit piece" on the subject. Is there anything factual that this organization has ever said that has a place in this article? Jtpaladin 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you asking? If you have such a quote, insert it. If not, why are you asking? Do you think people are concealing a big reservoir of good things about the IHR? Gzuckier 15:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's a fair question, certainly: "Is there anything factual that this organization has ever said?" --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read codoh you would be surprised how many details - big and small - that IHR,etc and the proholocaust crowd have in common. Begrudgingly maybe but more and more over time. Remember the days when Katyn was a Nazi atrocity?

This is an appalling and ill considered Wiki entry

I got here (the IHR article) by way of a conversation I was having with my partner regarding potentially conflicting testimonials from Shoah survivors and perpetrators; I thought Wiki may provide some impartial and interesting links I could follow.

I had first set out to read an article about one, Mel Mermelstein. His name mentioned as a survivor accused, allegedly, of colouring and contradicting accounts of his experiences during the Shoah. My initial Google search on Mermelstein was topped by an article written by the Institute of Historical Review, IHR, so I set about reading it. Boy, did this witnesses statements make for interesting reading on the IHR website. A web-site, I may add, I had never heard of until I carried out my Google search.

After reading the IHR article I headed over to Wiki to see what it had to say about this individual: the entry was fairly succinct but seemed to miss salient points found on the IHR site. So, I created a link. Which I then found had been removed by one Briangotts. I wondered why this link had been removed so I headed over to the Wiki IHR article to see if I could find an answer there...

Now,

From the first IHR section on I have never seen a more biased and opinionated pseudo-encyclopaedic article in my life. I'm hardly into the article when I hit comments like "Its many critics in the United States, Europe and elsewhere call it, among other things, an anti-semitic "pseudo-academic body" linked to Neo-Nazi organizations and to Holocaust denial.[1] Broadcaster CNN has called the IHR the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization."[2]

1) It's many critics in the US, Europe and elsewhere - Where, elsewhere? The US, Europe constitute a small proportion of the total world population. Are many IHR critics to be found outside Judaeo-Christian spheres of influence. The world extends way beyond the Americas and Europe.

2) "Call it, among other things, an anti-Semitic "pseudo-academic body" linked to Neo-Nazi organisations and to Holocaust denial." This is for a researcher to establish (or not) for themselves. It is not the duty of an Encyclopaedia to offer prior-judgement.

3) "CNN has called the IHR the "worlds leading Holocaust denial organisation"." Just who or what is CNN? (More about individual media moguls later, perhaps).

Statements like those above have no place in an impartial and objective Encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is meant to cover and represent the entire body of human knowledge. So, I revised the first paragraph to state the claimed objectives of IHR. I didn't care if their stated aims were inaccurate or misleading even. That is how they describe themselves; an Encyclopaedia should respect that. No more, no less. Many of the succeeding Wiki comments to that article were anything like neutrally balanced.

I then sat down to read the whole article and Discussion on the talk page with a view to assisting in making this entry as apolitical and neutral as possible.

I covered a few sections on my computer and came back to make some additional changes. Instead I find my edit had been reverted to include the original comments that I believe were and are inflammatory.

Jpgordon had (rv whitewash of nazifarm). What does "nazifarm" mean, exactly?

What's going on here? Can someone please explain how an article crying out for neutrality has editors bent on maintaining what appears to be a biased agenda? Camberwell 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a nazifarm is, either. Anyway, I think the current revision is overburdening the introduction with material best suited for the rest of the article. Perhaps the reverted content should be summarized into one short and concise sentence, and the rest moved into the criticisms section. An example of a sentence concise enough would be "The IHR's critics question the organization's academic standards, as well as linking it to Neo-Nazi groups." The rest can go into detail later in the article. .V. (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why critics of IHR should be mentioned at all in the opening section of the article as the "rest" is already found in the "detail" later on. Even there, though, the article does not conform to impartial and objective encyclopaedic standards. I thought Wikipaedia aspired to educate not indoctrinate. I changed the introduction to: The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American organization describing itself as a "public interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." As that is what it states itself to be. The Bible has critics as does the Koran, etc., but one doesn't open each subject with "their many critics" as doing so would rightly cause outrage. Camberwell 11:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A controversial organization should probably have a short sentence about its criticism, but the more specific issues should be addressed later in the article. .V. (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Organizations dedicated to fraud and other forms of evil wrongdoing get treated as such. See Ku Klux Klan or American Nazi Party, for example. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

.V., a controversial organisation should be demonstrated to be so by discourse. But this Wiki article is rabid. I have learned little of the IHR via this article other than their being accorded the labels of anti-Semites, supremacists, etc., ad nauseum. It may well be the most odious publisher on the planet but a glance at the published essay subjects determines that they have a wider scope than is being suggested in this article. The repetitious cries of anti-Semitism are tedious and unnecessary. I'm also more than a little suspicious of many of the generalised citations. Are they required?

jpgordon, it is telling; your reply could have been stolen from the lips of the 1692 persecutors. NPOV?. I now understand why you referred to me as a Nazi without first knowing me. Seriously, I am alarmed that you are both an administrator and an arbitrator. Camberwell 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not refer to you as a Nazi. What I said was, rv whitewash of nazifarm. At worst, I accused you of whitewashing a nazifarm. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:Undue weight: mainstream opinions should prevail in articles and extremist minority opinions must be represented as such. Accordingly, if the overwhelming majority of sources believe that the IHR is a pseudo-academic, neo-nazi propaganda machine, then most of the sources in this article are going to be of the opinion that the IHR is a pseudo-academic, neo-nazi propaganda machine. Don't expect this band of racist liars to be given any adulation. -- WGee 20:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Even so, the criticism in the introduction should be moved to a later part of the article, and summed up as I had wrote above. That section reads more like actual article content rather than an intro.

Also, what's the deal with the alleged Islamic antisemitism section? It seems like there's only one allegation of that, which appears to be an editorial. .V. (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

.V. There are problems with many of the citations.

jpgordon, you reverted what you perceived to be a whitewash of the nazifarm. Could you please explain what nazifarm is and how it has any bearing on my actions? Yours is the only obscure use of the word Nazi in the entire article history. I explained why I felt editing the introduction to this article helped towards neutrality. If you and yours don't have the slightest intention of allowing this article the right to neutrality, please let me know now.

WGee| I'm not asking for their adulation...where'd you get that notion? The article doesn't present an overwhelming majority of unique, original sources. Some repeat quotes from one organisation that have been used verbatim by another, and so on. That is not scholastic original research, it is called plagiarism. Camberwell 02:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism should be placed prominently in the introduction because the preponderant opinion of the IHR is negative. It would be ridiculous to introduce the IHR without mentioning its many critics, since it is only by them that this group of propagagandists is notable. Moreover, in order to accurately guage the controversy that the IHR generates, readers need to be shown the storm of criticism amongst all reliable sources . If we were to only mention the IHR's description of itself in the introduction, we would certainly be giving undue weight to the opinion of an extremist fringe. -- WGee 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with you, V, that the "Alleged links to Islamic anti-semitism" section is misleadingly named. -- WGee 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the criticism should be there, but rather a summary in one sentence of the criticisms against the IHR. That way, there's the IHR's stated purpose, then a sentence that summarizes the position of critics. The more in depth criticisms would be discussed later in the article.

Do you think that the "Alleged links..." section should be removed or renamed? The last 2 paragraphs in that section have nothing to do with "alleged links to anti-semitism", and the first paragraph seems to be a summary of an editorial. .V. (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

.V. "Alleged links..." looks conspiratorial and detracts.

WGee| "readers need to be shown the storm of criticism..." No, I don't agree, not initially. It simply looks like kicking someone when they are down. It's too one-sided, aggressive and provocative. I'm not a Holocaust denier yet that intro got my back up as it read like a hatchet job and that's not what credible encyclopaedias are intended for. Allow them (IHR) to state what they believe they are about and then dissect them less fervently. The article just doesn't need so many repetitions of pseudo this and pseudo that. There are also too many overlapping single source citations and some are too general; "CNN say", is that CNN policy? "Channel 4 say", is that Channel 4 policy? It should read something like The Holocaust section found on the Channel 4 web-site says of them "...". Plus I can't find where CNN say anything.

The impression I get about this discussion page is that no one has the guts to handle this impartially. That leaves a chink in your armour. Dangerous. After today I'll drop back in in a few months time and see if you're all still of a mind not to allow them some rope. Camberwell 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked into that second footnote, and it seems you're right about it going to a Google search page (?) for "Institute for Historical Review". I don't see anything about CNN on that page, let alone the fact that a google search does not count as a WP:RS. I removed that sentence because of it. .V. (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A start, .V., but removing one link is just picking. This whole article is unbalanced and untrustworthy as an encyclopaedic entry. There is little point in building a house from rubble on foundations of rubble...it just wont stand the test of time and will need constant attention and patching. Just reading some of its papers over the last few days I can see the IHR covers far more contentious ground than is asserted here. It's not the Holocaust they target, it's humanity.

• Maybe trash it and start all over again? It's an interesting challenge: how to write an NPOV article about utter scum (and NPOV does result in the conclusion that they are utter scum.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• In theory, NPOV doesn't result in any conclusion. NPOV would just be to state the sides and leave it at that. I think the POV issue here is, at heart, the lack of coverage of non-Holocaust IHR activities. The IHR does take part in various issues that have nothing to do with the Holocaust, but this article tends to give the impression that they are concerned solely with the Holocaust. .V. (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That would probably work better if the people who actually have some knowledge re "IHR does take part in various issues that have nothing to do with the Holocaust" would add examples of such to the article. Gzuckier 20:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And as far as stating both sides is concerned: no. That falls in the face of WP:Undue weight. The overwhelming majority of scholarly and other opinion about IHR is that it is as stated in this article, and it's our responsibility to present that opinion. Neutrality doesn't mean giving equal weight to gold and to dross and letting the reader decide. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the policy states, "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." Because it's the article about the IHR, the IHR should be entitled to have quotes representing its position. .V. (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of all articles published in the IHR's Journal of Historical Review. The overwhelming majority (80% would be a conservative estimate) have to do with Holocaust revisionism or the plight of Holocaust revisionists. A minority have to do with pro-Axis WWII revisionism that is not Holocaust related. To say "The IHR does take part in various issues that have nothing to do with the Holocaust, but this article tends to give the impression that they are concerned solely with the Holocaust," is absolute nonsense. Holocaust revisionism is the IHR and JHR's raison d'etre. Dimitroff 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain about that? For a good portion of these, I can't actually discern the contents of the article from the title. I think it would be very hasty to make judgments based on the title rather than the content of the articles themselves. Additionally, some seem to do with political topics in certain countries which may or may not be unrelated to revisionism (I can't easily tell without reading the actual articles.) .V. (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite certain. Perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with the field? Anyone who is familiar with the ins and outs of Holocaust revisionism can discern what almost all the articles are about from the titles. They are almost entirely about Holocaust revisionism or Holocaust revisionists. Give me an example of a title you are uncertain about. Dimitroff 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite certain. Perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with the field? Anyone who is familiar with the ins and outs of Holocaust revisionism can discern what almost all the articles are about from the titles. They are almost entirely about Holocaust revisionism or Holocaust revisionists. Give me an example of a title you are uncertain about. Dimitroff 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's ask an academic who works in this field. Lipstadt, 'Denying the Holocaust', p 142: 'Though virtually all its [the IHR's] activities are concerned with Holocaust denial, the institute depicts itself as engaged in a far broader and loftier quest. It claims that its goals are to align twentieth-century history with the facts and expose the historical totems that are manipulated by secret vested interests.'

and ibid, p 143: 'Despite its claims to a total revision of all history, the IHR focuses almost exclusively on World War II and the Holocaust.' Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent for a criticism section, but not for other parts of the article. .V. (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You were arguing about the IHR's focus; I just thought those quotes might come in handy somewhere. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They certainly would. However, I'd like to have the focus stated in two places; once by the IHR, and once by Lipstadt. Lipstadt would be in the corresponding criticisms section. .V. (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's cool, but I disagree with the layout proposed by Camberwell (if that's what you're suggesting): 'I don't see why critics of IHR should be mentioned at all in the opening section of the article'. Detailed quotes can well go further down the article, but I don't think the lead para should just be the IHR's description of themselves, with all criticism in a separate section. I quite like the lead para as it is. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually right between Camberwell's idea and your idea. I think the criticism in the title block should be shortened to one sentence that would run like "Critics claim the Institute is non-academic and anti-semetic, as well as being a major proponent of Holocaust denial." (That's just an offhand, rough example of what I was thinking of.) The rest would be folded into the criticism section. Otherwise, it gives the impression that it's a "set 'em up and knock 'em down" piece. .V. (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an example of what I'm suggesting, see Southern Poverty Law Center. The intro for this article would be much like the intro for that article: a summary of the organization, then a line of summation regarding criticism. .V. (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now read and re-read the article and discussions here. Spent time on IHR papers and their site. I have also found sources (authors) for almost all the citations, read them in context and arrived at a conclusion below: I know it may cause offence (it is not my intention) but I think it covers both sides of the mix and does so with a NPOV. Some of you are much more conversant with WK vernacular than I.

Let's face it, this is an emotive subject and attracts polarised views. I think those extremes have to be met head on honestly and dispensed with from the start.

What I propose below as the article intro does not pull any punches and allows the IHR to say what they are, exposes their agenda and then counters that with what its critics have to say. The rest of the article can more amply cover the specifics and criticisms of the IHR with citations.

Okay...deep breath... (I have taken note of the comments by jpgordon, Wjhonson and Squiddy (below) and this is a second edit).

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR) was founded in 1978. It is a controversial American organization describing itself foremost as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." It is insistent on not being considered anything other than an organisation comprised of (predominantly Holocaust) "Historical Revisionists"; as such the IHR publishes essays from numerous diverse and in some cases discredited contributors who they state speak "...factually and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more". Such views have fomented a considerable, though not predominantly, Jewish weight of academic, mass-media and lay criticism throughout the United States, Europe and elsewhere. In overwhelming contradiction to IHR contentions, their opponents insist the Holocaust per se was and remains an irrefutable historic event and charge them with not only being the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization" but a transparently "anti-semitic", "pseudo-academic body" linked to "Neo-Nazi" individuals. An organisation which seeks to subvert accepted historical fact by propagandistic, unscholarly and erosive mitigating arguments which are not arrived at by due academic process.

Citations can be added if the piece is acceptable. Camberwell 04:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I find the third and fourth sentences exceedingly difficult to read. 82 and 67 word sentences don't work well, and the entire structure is confusing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with JP above. Fifteen word sentences are the maximun for which we should strive. We want to appeal to a broad market. Wjhonson 08:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Adjustments made (see above) Camberwell 14:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• 'It is insistent on not being considered anything other than an organisation comprised of...' This is unnecessarily convoluted. How about 'members of the IHR insist they are...'
• 'a considerable, though not predominantly, Jewish weight of academic, mass-media and lay criticism'. A Jewish weight? My problem here is not just that this is a mixed metaphor.
• critics do not 'insist' that the Holocaust is 'undebatable'. Many real historians work in this area debating various aspects of the Holocaust.
• since the existing article lead has a cited version of someone calling them 'world's leading Holocaust denial organization', why change to use the vague word 'critics'?
• They don't use 'erosive mitigating arguments', they misrepresent Holocaust historiography and their own activity. They try to look like historians, when in fact they are propagandists.

In short, the existing lead para is better-written, shorter, and more informative. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Possibly. However, I just don't know if all its members insist they are revisionists/denialists, etc. I know the IHR does as it states it repeatedly and predominantly. 2) The mixed metaphor being? (2a) and other problem(s) being? 3) Lipstadt amongst others stated the Holocaust undebatable. I have changed that to per se. You can add in historiography in the criticisms section. 4) I stated citations can be added. (this will be referenced to the CNN source) 5) that as well. 6) Shorter and "better written" is your opinion. I would argue that it fails WK:NPOV and is inflammatory.

• Well, better-written is definitely the case. Do you really want us to go into painful detail on writing style? Also, what's a Jewish weight? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • lets ignore (1) for a while. The main problem with (2) is that in normal history writing, the ethnic/religious identity of the people involved is not generally thought to be important or drawn to the reader's attention. Academic historians tend to address each other's arguments rather than identities. (3) Factually wrong - Lipstadt does not state the Holocaust to be undebatable: 'their [deniers] claim that the Holocaust is treated as a sacrosanct subject that is not open to debate is ludicrous. There is little about the Holocaust that is not debated and discussed. ... [various examples] ... There is a categorical difference between debating these types of questions and debating the very fact of the Holocaust. This is not to suggest that students who ask how we evaluate the veracity of certain testimony should be shunted aside.' Lipstadt, 'Denying the Holocaust', ISBN 0-14-024157-4, intro, p xiii-xiv.
  • Finally, instead of editing the stuff you have already written above, could you cut-edit-paste a new version in below, otherwise it looks as if I've been misquoting you. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with (2) is that in normal history writing, the ethnic/religious identity of the people involved is not generally thought to be important or drawn to the reader's attention. Academic historians tend to address each other's arguments rather than identities.

The claim here in this article is that they are not arguing from an academic stance and are ipso facto non-academic. They would speak in those terms. "Look, it's the Jews attacking us". My emphasis on the Jewish weight resulted from my tracking down most of the citations. In the case of this article it is factual. It is not a negative slur. I point out that Jews (although the principle parties in this event) are not alone or unique in their condemnation of the IHR although the IHR would prefer to suggest it was.

(3) Factually wrong - Lipstadt does not state the Holocaust to be undebatable: 'their [deniers] claim that the Holocaust is treated as a sacrosanct subject that is not open to debate is ludicrous.

I recall a TV interview where she, Lipstadt, said she would not debate with the likes of Irving et al as there was nothing to debate. The Holocaust was fact. In this article I am asserting it as such. This article is not about historical revisionism it's about the credibility of the IHR.

My intention here is to help prevent this article from being regarded as lacking in neutrality. As long as that label is applied it is no more than a wasted ballot ticket.

Your proposed intro is still too verbose for the average reader to easily comprehend. If I may? One of your sentences is "It is insistent on not being considered anything other than an organisation comprised of (predominantly Holocaust) "Historical Revisionists"; as such the IHR publishes essays from numerous diverse and in some cases discredited contributors who they state speak "...factually and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more"." I think I counted about 68 words. This should be broken into four seperate sentences at least, to wit:

1. It is insistent on not being considered anything other than an organized comprised of "Historical Revisionists".
2. As such, the IHR publishes essays from numerous diverse and in some cases discredited contributors.
3. However, they say that these contributors speak

   "...factually and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more".

Wjhonson 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the proposed introduction is a bit too much. The introduction at the top of a page should give as short an overview of the topic as possible. Pages like the Southern Poverty Law Center are a good example of this. The narrative you give may well be appropriate somewhere else in the article, but it seems oddly out of place in an introduction.

This is not to mention several things which make me cautious. There's a lot of generalizing here, and as such, things like the majority of this text block should be hashed out other places in the article. An example of this is the "discredited contributors" statement. This raises questions, "Who is discredited?" "Why are they discredited?" "By whom are they discredited?" and so forth. When that many questions need to be asked about a statement in an introduction, it probably shouldn't be there. To fully explain that statement would require even more text, and as such, it would be better placed elsewhere in the article.

Lastly, it's a bit too verbose, as others have stated. I don't see any problem with the current introduction, although I still stand by my recommendation that it needs a bit more summary and the specific criticism should be moved to the criticism section. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay...some criticisms accepted. However, the IHR is not nearly as straightforward an organisation as the Southern Poverty Law Center. How does this encylopaedia cover all the principle stated aims of the IHR neutrally? How about...

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is a controversial American organization. It describes itself as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history." It makes additional claims of speaking "...factually and effectively about [what it states to be] the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more".

However, consensus between reputable and recognised academic historians, Jewish lobbyists, left-wing journalists and informed lay people argue significant historiographic inaccuracies amongst its many published theses render their central tenet to educate "factually" as fraudulent. Camberwell 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of a misuse of the [ ] notation in the paragraph above. Generally, the [ ] is used to make clear a subject when a quotation is provided out of context. For example, "[The President] stated today..." instead of "He stated today", so that people know what's being talked about. However, the text enclosed in brackets in your paragraph doesn't do that... such interjections have no use in a direct quotation. Of course it's what they state... it's a quote. :P

Anyway, as for the criticism. The issue is how specific we put the criticism in the title block. The title block is meant to be short and informative, giving a brief and concise summary of the entire article. When a great deal of specifics are mentioned, it detracts. That's why, in this case, the criticism should be "summed up" into a sentence in the title and then later talked about in the criticism section in detail. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then the founding sentence of the whole article as it stands is disingenuous: ""public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history."". This makes the IHR sound like the parochial history group of a regional Womens Institute club and doesn't warrant the succeeding sentence or immediate criticisms as there is no true summary of what is really being criticised. Camberwell 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that doesn't warrant the succeeding sentence. It's not that the entry is saying "here's what these guys are", it's just providing a quotation from the group, as many articles do. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's one of their most benign statements. It doesn't give a hint as to what they are about or why they command such strong criticism from the off.

If I may give an example of a different article intro: "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American non-profit legal organization, whose stated purpose is to combat racism and promote civil rights through research, education, and litigation."

The IHR have something to say. It's intro is tantamount to pulling its tongue out and chopping its head off. You may as well chuck a chunk of meat into a pack of wolves.

Does this make my point?

So, I would suggest more openness and honesty:

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American organization whose provocative agenda has attracted notoriety. Amongst their most contentious of stated objectives is to speak "...factually and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more".

However, consensus amongst reputable and recognised academic historians, Jewish lobbyists, left-wing journalists and informed lay people argue that significant historiographic inaccuracies amongst its many published theses (especially those related to the Holocaust) undermines a salient IHR tenet: to educate "factually". Camberwell 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt we can accept that "...consensus amongst reputable..." without a specific and well-founded citation that's in-line with that claim. A contentious claim requires firm citations. How are you going to back this claim up, against the minority view that no such consensus exists, without a citation? Wjhonson 00:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you drop consensus and state "However, reputable and recognised academic historians (citing the Journal of American History already referenced in the article),...etc.," Actually, that is one of a few quotes I have been unable to find the source of directly) I'd also like to know who the editor and board were at the time that statement was made. If I can't find the quote at the British Library this week I'll have to remove it from the article.Camberwell 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The IHR may have something to say, but so do many organizations. I see no reason why the IHR should be treated differently. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be treated differently..but equally... Compare this then to the Wiki intro on the IHR:

"The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) is an advocacy group founded by B'nai B'rith in the United States whose stated aim is "to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."

In each of the cases, ADL and the SPLD, their Rasion d'êtes are stated precisely... Why the reticent wishy-washy IHR entry? You can't tell from their description why they are being attacked/challenged/critcised. They are just attacked from the off; what in their intro gives the slightest hint why? Camberwell 07:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with providing the "why" answer in detail is that it leads to POV and stylistic concerns. Currently, the intro states the IHR's purpose through a quote from the organization, then states that there's criticism of it and here's what it is in summary (they're allegedly Holocaust deniers, they're allegedly a pseudo-academic body.) The detailed reasons as to "why" should be kept primarily for the criticism section, although it's stated in summary in the intro block. There are two main reasons for this:

• Stylistic reasons -- The introduction of an article is basically the summary of an article. To include excess information detracts from the introduction's ability to introduce. Imagine if we had to answer "why" in article-level detail for everything contained in the introduction of an article. You'd basically have the entire article inside the intro section, defeating the purpose of an introduction.
• POV concerns -- By placing a good deal of the criticism section in the title block of a group, it doesn't show a fairness of tone. Obviously, there is criticism. And in some circles, the IHR is synonymous with scum. However, we shouldn't unbalance the article by placing a huge amount of focus on criticism in the title block. That's what the criticism section is for.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "equally". What exactly is wishy-washy about the IHR entry? .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 09:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Up until the criticisms start flying ask yourself if you would have the slightest idea of what the IHR was and what its purpose was from the Wiki intro description.

The current IHR intro states vague intent. The ADL and SPLD intro's announce tangible reasons for their creation. They are and exist because...

The IHR intro is not in least equally similar stylistically to the other interest groups mentioned and immediately looks prejudicially biased as a result.

Has there ever been from any people, for any reason, criticism of the SPLD? Has there ever been from any people, for any reason, criticism of the ADL?

If the answer is yes, why isn't it mentioned immediately after their purposes are stated?

I've just displayed the following three article introductions to 30 students:

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American organization. It describes itself as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history."

The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) is an advocacy group founded by B'nai B'rith in the United States whose stated aim is "to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American non-profit legal organization, whose stated purpose is to combat racism and promote civil rights through research, education, and litigation.

Not one of them could define at all what the IHR are.

"And in some circles, the IHR is synonymous with scum" simply displays a profound inability to create a detached and neutral entry. You cannot deduce how and what I feel or think about the IHR from anything I have so far written. Camberwell 12:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• They'd understand if they read "The IHR is the world's leading holocaust denial organization." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

During their break I wrote the following on the board:

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American organization describing itself as a "public-interest educational, research and publishing center dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history..." by arguing "...factually and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more."

Everyone who walked back into the room immediately understood what that meant. Agreeing, amongst many other things, that it "gave them a succinct and comprehensive understanding of IHR objectives". No one could see where or how the author was stating their own point of view. Camberwell 15:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

arguing "...factually and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit ... No one could see where or how the author was stating their own point of view. Is that supposed to be sarcastic? Gzuckier 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed your comment, Gzuckier. In answer, no. During our debate about a neutral introduction "arguing" was deemed a concession with potential for bias. Hence its removal. Camberwell 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"They'd understand if they read "The IHR is the world's leading holocaust denial organization." They've just roared with laughter .... The best point made by one of them is: "that is certainly not neutral, it may or may not be true but it is a point of view and is incongruous within the context of an organisations descriptive introduction." Camberwell 15:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we bashed it about a bit this end and came up with:

The Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978, is an American organisation that publishes diverse theses from many authors which, the IHR states, speak "...factually and effectively about the corrosive impact of “Holocaust” propaganda, World War II lies, Zionist deceit about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s cultural and political life, and much more."

The students thought the quotes used currently in the Wikipaedia: "public-interest educational, research and publishing center" and "dedicated to promoting greater public awareness of history" were both separately or collectively too vague to be anything other than meaningless.

So, do we now have an acceptably neutral intro which complies with all Wiki rules? If not, why not? Camberwell 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• See Ku Klux Klan: Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of a number of past and present fraternal organizations in the United States that have advocated white supremacy, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-Catholicism, homophobia, and nativism. These organizations have often used terrorism, violence and acts of intimidation such as cross burning to oppress African Americans and other groups. I'm sure they wouldn't describe themselves that way, but every reputable scholar, historian, and observer would find that a neutral and precise description. I don't see why the IHR deserves more consideration in this regard than the KKK; what they preach is lies, and what they say about themselvers is lies. IHR is not a reliable source regarding what the IHR is. That's the problem with hate groups. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

jpgordon, I'm not about to enter into an affray about what the IHR are or aren't. I have to keep those sorts of thoughts to myself. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article. It's purpose is to present the reader/researcher with factual and unbiased information. We have an obligation to maintain that intention. This is just the introduction. It's not pertinent to cite what other people think of the IHR this point. Those determinants you talk of could and should be arrived at later. Camberwell 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

because we are trying "to present the reader/researcher with factual and unbiased information", we cannot have only the IHR's self-description as the only description in the lead para, because academics and journalists who report on them overwhelmingly do not see them that way. "This is just the introduction. It's not pertinent to cite what other people think of the IHR this point." Wrong. The introduction should give a complete, pithy overview of the whole subject - pro and con - for people who do not go on to read the whole article. I browse WP a lot, and often just look at the lead para before thinking 'meh, marginally interesting' and clicking off to something else. The fact that most researchers see the IHR as antisemitic propagandists should be in the intro, or it fails NPOV. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Most researchers" should not be included in the intro; after all, there's no way to tell what "most" researchers think. However, the criticism should be attributed. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I don't want the phrase 'most researchers' in the intro - as I said above, I'm happy with the current wording. However because most researchers don't describe the IHR the way they describe themselves, the significant criticism of the IHR from a variety of sources should be reflected in the lead para. By, for example, retaining the current wording. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have to admit, I'm pretty confused here. I think the discussion has become a bit off track and is becoming hard to follow. Could, for the sake of bringing this discussion "back down to Earth", all parties involved summarize your stance in a sentence or so? .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

good idea. I've started a new section at the bottom of the page. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

CAMBERWELL - You are pounding your head into a rock on this one. These guys and wiki are only meant for entertainment when the topic touches on anything holocaustic. Many of the arguments they push have been lost and given up by their own "scholars/historians" long ago - they don't even read the books of their own people.

Google search ref

Unless you can figure out how to pull up the "google editor's" entry independently, how do you propose cited to the google snippet that produces when you do a search? Did you read what the description of the site says? It says "world's leading".... who wrote that? Someone did, and it's citable. Wjhonson 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, if you can figure out who wrote it. "Someone at Google" isn't very useful; are Google snippets reliable sources? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • An edited summary, provided by Google, of what a link goes to, is a reliable source, yes. It would consitute, perhaps the single most reliable source in terms of what a link points to, in my opinion.Wjhonson 04:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I'm not entirely sure. By what expertise does Google refer to it as the "leading" blahblah? What does "leading" mean to them? Is it a statistical thing, and thus Google is authoritative, at least regarding web hits? Is it in terms of references to it? What's it mean? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Those distinctions can perhaps be teased out, but I think even you are now seeing that their edit summary is a notable event in and of itself. This is actually my first encounter with google "edit summaries" if you will, but there is something substantial in noting that their editors are pinpointing this as the "world's leading..." whatever, don't you think? Perhaps we should investigate more how they create these summaries. Wjhonson 07:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:RS has several rules of thumb for dealing with non-scholarly sources (I'm assuming this is non-scholarly... it may be written by a scholar, but who knows?) Anyway, they're all [here]. I can't see a google search summary meeting any one of these. But I think that's beside the point... the footnote was referencing a comment made by a CNN broadcaster. Is there any way to find the actual comment? That way, we wouldn't need to bother with a google search result. .V. (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, one more thing about the summary. I thought for a second that the individual or organization might write it, but it uses the term "Holocaust denial", which is unlikely for the IHR to use to describe themselves. So I think the criteria above would apply. .V. (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't think we can claim right off that Google edit summaries are non-scholarly. I think we first need some quote that describes *how* Google makes these. Obviously they aren't made by bots but by humans, in some fashion. You'd think the IHR themselves would be interested in they themselves actually think (which I don't know) that it's unjustified. The fact, if it is, that they haven't raised a stink, might say something all by itself. Wjhonson 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
            • At the moment, this "use of a google search summary" as a source is entirely speculative. We don't even know if it's scholarly or not, and as a result, we have not a clue as to which set of standards to apply. Even if we did know which set, then we'd have to investigate the issue just to get an answer as to who made this summary. And Google might not even know which person specifically wrote it. After that, we'd need to find it this individual or group of individuals meets the criteria listed in WP:RS. I think that due to the entirely questionable nature of this summary, it should be removed until WP:RS can be met. At the moment, this source fails all WP:RS criteria. .V. (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
              • OK I think we're in agreement, I've removed to reference to Google and left the other references in, as they appear to be useful at least for Verification purposes, if anyone is actually willing to do that. They meet the bar of RS at least. Wjhonson 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I added the link to the transcript in the citation, along with clarifying the cited statement. Apparently, it wasn't CNN that stated this, but rather an editor who was featured on CNN. The text preceding it now states this. As for the other sources, it's too vague as it stands. I didn't remove them, but I think we need some actual quotations instead of saying "similar terms". It raises a few questions like, "In what context?" "What is a similar term?", etc. Direct quotes would help clear this up. .V. (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel Mermelstein

The segment on his settlement is clearly biased towards him, and contradictory to the article on him. It should be changed.

• Beginning in 1979, IHR publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." This money (and an additional $40,000) was eventually paid in 1985 to Auschwitz survivor Mel Mermelstein, who sued the IHR for breach of contract for initially ignoring his evidence (a signed testimony of his experiences in Auschwitz). As a result of Mermelstein's case, a U.S. Superior Court in California declared the Holocaust an indisputable legal fact.

How is it biased? This appears neutral and agrees with the info in the other article. Can you give more detail about your concern? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Was this case appealed? This sort of evidence sounds unusual to say the least. My signed testimony is that I am the real owner of Microsoft - I wonder if a CA judge will agree.

this is insane and shouldnt be in the article. what kind of evidence is a sworn statement? i could swear that my mother was a bigfoot. does that make it true? Mel Mermelstein cannot produce one sliver of PHYSICAL evidence that even one person was gassed in a gas chamber. and courts dont declare historical facts. historians and researchers do that. Tybridgefarm (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't talk crap. eyewitness testimonies sworn under oath are used as evidence in court every single day. Oh yeah, and if you swear under oath your mother is a big foot then you could be charged with perjury. Unless of course that happens to be true, and come to think of it, I expect it is. 212.84.122.27 (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

talk to any attorney and ask "would you rather have eyewitness testimony? or would you rather have physical evidence?". any attorney worth his salt would say physical evidence. there is no physical evidence that gas chambers were used to kill humans. NONE. Tybridgefarm (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So what? --Lebob-BE (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

so what? my point is that Mel's written statement about there being gas chambers at the camp isnt worth the paper its writen on. what do you mean "so what"? Tybridgefarm (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to argue it here; all we do is present information from reliable sources. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

so if a "reliable" source says something insane, wikipedia will print it? Tybridgefarm (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Insane according to whom? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

insane according to those who apply common sense. millions gassed? why is there no gas residue in the walls of the "gas chambers"? why are there no photos of otherwise healthy bodies? why do the ariel photographs not show people lined up and going into the "gas chambers". why dont the doors on the "gas chambers" lock? why does the door to one of the "gas chambers" open to the inside and lock only from the inside? shall i go on? or is this insane enough for you? and dont give me that "reliable and verifiable" crap. it can be verified that the death toll at auschwitz was intentionally exadgerrated and it can be verified that the "gas chambers" that were used to allegedly kill millions of people have no trace of the gas that was allegedly used. how about laws that jail non-violent people who speak about these truths? is that insane enough for you? Tybridgefarm (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• We're not going to argue it here. All Wikipedia does is present information from reliable sources. If you have information to add to the article that adheres to Wikipedia's requirements, please present it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

@Tybridgefarm, I can hear that you never, ever have visited Auschwitz-Birkenau, since you dont really know what the hell you are talking about. 1) there are locks on the shower/gas doors, 2) the nail marks on the walls and doors show the real image of what transpired there, 3) since the camps was place out of the way in terms of military value and civilian areas it really isnt that strange that there are no arial pictures, do you think they had satelites at that time? 4) the ash lakes of Auschwitz also show a clear picture of where these poor souls vent and finally try please at least once to go and see what your little heroes did there, watch the teeth and hair of the victims walk into the shower areas and try once more to state your little himmler fanboyism again.. my guess is you cant. Sneaking Viper (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just an emotional rant with personal insult. It ought to be deleted.78.151.121.184 (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)