Jump to content

Talk:Institute for Historical Review/Archive 3

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

Neutrality of Accusations

I ask this not because I support the subject of this article (I don't), but because wikipedia should be written an edited from an NPOV. In the first paragraph, it is stated of the subject of this article that "It is the world's leading Holocaust denial organization." However, the organization's response (as cited in the article) is quoted as "The Institute does not 'deny the Holocaust.' Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II. All the same, the IHR has over the years published detailed books and numerous probing essays that call into question aspects of the orthodox Holocaust extermination story, and highlight specific Holocaust exaggerations and falsehoods." In response to this, there are quotes from several critics essentially stating that IHR has indeed denied the holocaust as it is historically known to have happened, but these criticisms are not coupled with specific quotes to support the claims made. The article should either be expanded to include those quotes, or the aforementioned sentence should be changed to "It is widely criticized as the world's leading Holocaust denial organization." 24.46.236.102 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this. I added the word "considered", so it looks more neutral. However, I believe there's a little lack of knowledge on your side. The definition of a Holocaust denier is not limited only to someone/organization that completely denies the existence of the Holocaust. It also refers to (and I quote from the actual article) those who say "that the German Nazi government had no Final Solution policy or intention of exterminating Jews, Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews, and the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million". Finally, "Holocaust deniers generally do not accept the term denial as an appropriate description of their activities, and use the term revisionism instead". Hope that helps, Shalom11111 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"The world's leading Holocaust denial organization"

I've changed "the world's leading Holocaust denial organization" in the lead to "the centre of the international Holocaust denial movement" (something one of the sources, The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, has actually said[1]), because "leading" is a word with largely positive and flattering associations. Roget's online thesaurus gives best, dominant, famous, main, noted, outstanding, popular, preeminent, principal, prominent, top, well-known as the twelve most relevant synonyms for leading.[2] Bishonen | talk 07:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC).

"Critics have accused the Institute of antisemitism", etc

I was surprised to see the sentence "Critics have accused the Institute of antisemitism and having links to neo-Nazi organizations" in the lead. Turns out it's based on this sentence in the "Holocaust denial" section:

Critics have accused the Institute of antisemitism and having links to neo-Nazi organizations, and assert that its primary focus is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others

which is sourced to the Anti-Defamation League (twice, a little oddly), The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and an article by Jack R. Fischel from 1995, which I haven't been able to access. Using words like critics, accused and assert implies a false balance between these "critics" and.. and.. the opinion of the institute itself, I suppose. This contravenes our ineluctable neutral point of view policy, since, actually, the mainstream consensus for the supposed "accusations" is deafening. Compare WP:ALLEGED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." It's not undetermined. I've changed it in the "Holocaust denial" section to

IHR is widely regarded as antisemitic and as having links to neo-Nazi organizations. Its primary focus is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews.

(There's no support in the sources for "the genocide of Jews and others", so I removed the others.) And changed the lead to correspond. Please feel free to comment/improve. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC).

I agree, this is the general consensus. Doug Weller (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is a hit piece

From beginning to end this article is meant to trash the IHR. It is full of bias and emphasis is on 'critics' and 'commentators' rather than just a factual encyclopedia-type article about an organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.92.77 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's because they deserve to be hit. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, one-sidedness is not interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:9512:7100:DD02:C797:A86C:E8B9 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC) It's too bad that the article is written as an unabashed hack. This greatly reduces its ability to inform those who are trying to sort out reality from perception. It would be better, for example to discuss the organization's pedigree and the validity (or lack thereof) of its approach. For example, who are the main contributors and what are their credentials? Who supports them or opposes them and how? Merely labelling and screaming "Antisemitic!" just won't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.19.69 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This article should not be "part of a series on antisemitism"

The Institute for Historical Review is simply questioning the facts. How is that anti-semitic? 69.120.3.38 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There are certain facts that if a person questions, he/she will probably be considered antisemitic. People who question whether Black people, for example, should have full civil rights or not, will be considered "racists" by most scholars. People who deny Black people their rights because they think they are inferior, are racists. If an organization, namely the IHR, denies key facts about a historical event which have been agreed upon by all scholars and the international community, then it's committing the act of Holocaust denial. All respectable scholar who stated his opinion on the IHR have accused it of antisemitic. Also, Holocaust denial is antisemitic. Thus the template. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The IHR isn't questioning facts. It is calling facts lies, propaganda, and stating the holocaust did not happen, that nobody was gassed, and then cites revisionist writers as source for its conclusions. It's a bit like an ouroburos - circular reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:540:6B80:2C02:580C:D510:C3E6 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Earl Krugel

I'm not surprised that rense.com is not considered a reliable source for facts, but it may be a reliable source for the opinion from IHR supporters that Krugel was involved and may be notable in that context. There is ample precedent for the "suggested by some" type of notation here that pollutes myriad articles. Krugel has been established as willing to commit violence for his cause. He is established as a leader of the Jewish Defense League. I would argue that it is as notable as the unfounded accusation that the Clintons were involved in the death of Vince Foster which is effectively documented on that page. —BozoTheScary (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust denial as all of description

I agree that the lead should describe the Institute of Historical Review as a Holocaust denial group. But the group does more things than only Holocaust denial. They have published articles about other topics, such as Nazi Germany's considering supporting Zionism during the 1930s as a way of getting Jews out of Germany and its satellites, Hitler's decision to invade Russia and their arguments that going to war against Hitler was a mistake. Those are separate topics from Holocaust denial. Perhaps they should also be described in a broad sense as Nazi apologists in addition to Holocaust deniers. RandomScholar30 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to say that their notability stems primarily from the their Holocaust denial? Primarily from the court case that they lost? Perhaps they should be described as "a Nazi affinity group best known for their failure to defend Holocaust denial in court". —BozoTheScary (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute for Historical Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

They still promote Holocaust denial, they just call it revisionism

As this article states, "Under the banner of an academic-sounding name, the Institute for Historical Review and its publication, the Journal of Historical Review, changed the direction of the movement from outright denial of the Holocaust to a distortion of its reality. Mark Weber, an editor of the journal, wrote, “No one denies” that the political persecution of Jews was “a cruel thing.” But he insisted there was no evidence of the murder of millions in concentration camps." Their own leaflet[3] says'

"So just what constitutes "Holocaust denial"? Those who support criminal persecution of "Holocaust deniers" seem to be still living in the world of 1946 where the Allied officials of the Nuremberg Tribunal have just pronounced their verdict. But the Tribunal's findings can no longer be assumed to be valid. Because it relied so heavily on such untrustworthy evidence as the Höss testimony, some of its most critical findings are now discredited.


For purposes of their own, powerful special interest groups desperately seek to keep substantive discussion of the Holocaust story taboo. One of the ways they do this is by purposely mischaracterizing revisionist scholars as "deniers." But the truth can't be suppressed forever: There is a very real and growing controversy about what actually happened to Europe's Jews during World War II."

The article shouldn't suggest that they are no longer denying the Holocaust. See also our own article Holocaust denial. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly right, and reflect the reliable sources on this organisation. Very few Holocaust deniers claim that the Nazis didn't kill large numbers of Jews. Instead they make arguments such as the numbers being greatly exaggerated, the murders not being systematic, and Hitler being unaware of them. There's consensus among experts that this is Holocaust denial. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I fixed an error

There was an opinion stated as a fact in the first sentence of this article. I fixed the error by deletion of the opinion. I believe in free speech, but not manipulation of information. Please, folks, stick to the facts and let the smart people come up with their own conclusions. By stating opinion as fact one leaves themselves vulnerable to accusations of being a propaganda peddler and their original cause can backfire. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.55.157 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 April 2007

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Institute for Historical Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Beyond My Ken, regarding the term "American", please refer to Dictionary.com. See here. The term has three meanings as an adjective. The first refers to the United States, but the second is "of or relating to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere" and the third is "of or relating to the aboriginal Indians of North and South America, usually excluding the Eskimos, regarded as being of Asian ancestry and marked generally by reddish to brownish skin, black hair, dark eyes, and prominent cheekbones." So I was correct in stating that "United States-based" is more specific than "American-based". Regarding my reversion of your edit, and your immediate counter-reversion, without bothering to discuss the issue, please see WP:BRD. You should know better than to do something like this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Please refer to:
All of these are Wikipedia-specific uses of "American" or "America" to refer to the United States alone. The article name America redirects to United States - that, too, is a Wikipedia-specific choice.
See also:
  • this where the Demonym for "United States" is correctly given as "American"
Although "American" can refer to both the Americas, that is a very specific uses, and it is not the WP:COMMONNAME, which is what we go by.
Finally, what WP:BRD says is that when you make a Bold edit, changing "American-" to "United States-", and it has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, is for you to start a Discussion about it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring -- which is what you've been doing. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Laughable. You made the bold edit by altering "United States" to "American", and you started an edit war by reverting back when you were reverted, instead of discussing matters. The status quo version was "United States". You are perverting the point of the guideline. Aside from that, you have not suggested a single actual advantage to using "American-based" over "United States-based", simply providing an irrelevant list of pages. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
In reviewing the editing, I find that you are correct, I made the first change, so I should have started the discussion. I've struck-through my comment above, and I apologize for my mistaken memory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
However, you continue to be wrong on the substance of the issue, as Doug Weller reports in his edit summary: "American is common usage in our articles" [4]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
To Doug Weller, regarding this edit, with the edit summary, "American is common usage in our articles", I would simply note that whether a term such as "American" should be used or not depends on the context. I didn't suggest that there is something somehow wrong with the term "American"; I suggested that it is not the most accurate or specific term in this particular context. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, seen from Europe (and maybe other places too) in the case at hand America-based can mean anywhere on the piece of land you can find between Kodiak and Ushuaia. --Lebob (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and "shuttle" can refer to a part of a weaving loom, but that's not it's most common usage from any perspective.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That the most common usage of "American" may be to refer to the United States suggests no advantage to using the term "American-based" rather than "United States-based". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's an absurd statement, as I'm certain you would realize if we weren't in an editing dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your statement still suggests no reason whatever for preferring "American-based" to "United States-based". I've given my reason for preferring "United States-based": it is more specific. Your change is completely unjustified. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Meh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I've been out so a late reply. It's seriously clunky IMHO. Let's look at the use of "an American nonprofit" as a descriptor:[5] gives about 478 articles using it. I get 46 when I search for "United States" nonprofit" [6] Doug Weller talk 17:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"Non-profit" is a little too general for me - could be anything from a theatre to a senior citizen center. I canged it to simply "American organization" from "American-based organization" as -- a syou say -- less clunky. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh I actually hate the use of "nonprofit" so often, it was just an example. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I should say dislike, I was thinking of "non-partisan" which I see people try to apply to organisations with a clear political agenda but aren't aligned to any party. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I wouldn't say that the IHR is in any sense "nonpartisan" -- in fact, very much the opposite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Institute_for_Historical_Review/Archive_3&oldid=965698127"