Jump to content

Talk:International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust/Archive 2

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

Terminology

The term holocaust is used to describe this single event. It is not used in any other context as far as I know. The reason for this singling out of the collective deaths by murder of Jews and designating it a special position in degrees of deaths is interesting. That many Jews died is never in doubt. That their deaths were unique in human history is certainly not true. In my life-time I have witnessed or read about a few similarly gruesome periods in a country’s history where many citizens lose their lives in a manner that the mind cannot readily process. Rwanda, Cambodia, Australia, Sierra Lione, DRC, Uganda during Amin and after Amin, Zimbabwe, Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua, Burkina Faso, etc, yet in none of it have heard of the word Holocaust used. I certainly do not deny that Hitler targeted the Jews, but I prefer it if we use the usual terms to describe the event. The English language is full of suitable words such as: Extermination, Massacre, Slaughter, Butcher, Mass murder, Systematic murder, etc. Why was it necessary to invent the word Holocaust, and then to legislate against the avoidance of the word? What about the holocaust of the Palastinians or the Iraqis? Or is the magic figure six million the key to whether a death qualifies for certain terminology? More than 6 million Russians died during the same war, yet nobody talks about the holocaust of the Russians. Maybe I am not old enough to appreciate the special significance of a Jewish person that his death should be treated as a special case. When my uncle was beaten with sticks before being roasted alive on a bonefire, and subsequently denied a burial, so that he was left outside over two weeks for dogs to eat, I had a sense of a holocaust on my family. I have carried the image since 1980. I would say those who were collectively gassed compare favourably to my uncle. Why am I considered wrong? If I ask the German government to enact a law stating that denying my uncle's method of death should be criminalised, would they do it? I think not. Th UN should have intervened in such matters. Just because my uncle died in Rhodesia and the jewish people died in Europe should not make any difference.

The number of people with Hitler’s mentality has increased since Hitler. Perhaps the highest number of people with fascistic tendances is in countries which have not experienced localised holocausts. Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the Holocaust talk page, not here. The Holocaust article describes the etymology of the term (which should answer your questions). Cheers.--Burzum 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The holocaust in the English language means the WWII systematic killings especially by the Germans especially against the Jews. But "holocaust" is used (and properly) for other atrocities too. English is defined by its useage. The people decide. WAS 4.250 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur. The common usage in the case of this conference leaves no room to question what holocaust they were discussing so it really isn't an issue. The conference could have been called the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the European Genocide of the 1930s and 1940s against Jews, Roma, and other Selected Enemies (excluding the Soviet democides), but the term Holocaust is the more common usage. Cheers.--Burzum 05:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it's kind of too late to change the terminology now and Wikipedia would be very point of view if it tried to take the lead with any such proposal. Metamagician3000 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mai Chibwe, Holocaust is spelled with capital H. I am surprised to see how these views of yours come up every once it a while, as a conscious/unconscious part of the deniers efforts. This was the first time in the history of humanity that people were put to death in a FACTORY-like mass-death production. Imagine yourself, your mother, your sister, your daugher, your grandfather, your grandmother, all together, naked, along with your old school mates - put inside a gas chamber, while still somehow believing that you are going to get a warm shower (and then perhaps work in the field or something like that). The doors are slammed shut, no light at all, and suddenly - screamings, agony, death. Then, imagine your family's (gassed-to-death) bodies taken out of the gas chamber, along with a whole bunch of other families' bodies, put in the crematorium. Imagine trains, loaded with people, travelling to a place from which they will never return. Dear Mr. Mai, Russian soldiers died bravely in the battle field, other civilians died in other means of war, but this event is history, named Holocaust, belongs to the Jews, and the to Jews only. Yes, other genocides have happened throughout history, the Mongols butchered, the regimes in Africa butchered, and many others butchered, but not it such a way, not in a such systematic, factory-like extemination, like the "civilized" German civilization could concuct. And, of course, there is the whole context, of the Jews, who were murdered/procecuted before in history, but not in such a way ever before. That was the peak of violece, it was the height of the human innovative thinking, of how to put a whole "race" of people to death and extinction, efficiently, documented, in the most "clean" and "cost-effective" way, just like putting rats to death, and yes, Jews were rats in the eyes of the Nazis. You see, this is part of this, not just the extemination act, but the whole context. So, dear sir, what are you talikng about??? This has always been the problem with Jews throughout history, I mean the way people like yourself are so "envious" of them and their history of death - this is so amazing!! So why do you "envy" so much? I mean, just like those people in the conference, who fume because they cannot accept these simple facts of unique death-context, numbers per period, and that simple fact that the Holocaust belongs only to the Jews, the "rat" Jews (I am of course saying this with irony!). And, of course, so says the English language. If you don't like it, you can buy yourself a ticket to next-year's conference. John Hyams 10:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It was indeed the jarring juxtaposition of modern scientific advanced European Germany with the deliberate choice of beastial ethics (we are all animals - it is ok to treat others as only animals) that so unnerved European intellectuals who had thought of Europe as superior to other less advanced cultures and peoples who needed Europe's "help" ("white mans' burden") justifying European dominance. Europe got a good look in the mirror and was horrified. WAS 4.250 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My Dear John Hyms. First, I am a Mrs Chibwe, not Mr as you seem to forcibly want me to be. Mai Chibwe means I am a mother of the Chibwe family. I write here in possibly your language English, a language forced on my grand parents by Europeans who, used tactics not disimilar to those used on Jews by Hitler, who himself was a European, and therefore does not surprise me after I have read my country Zimbabwe’s history on what killing methods were used. My current president has many European tendencies in his make up, which saves me the bother of having to (as you put it) Imagine. Many of the imaginations you asked me to indulge in are not too far from the reality that I grew up in during my country’s war of independence. I have seen a lot of atrocities in person and have suffered untold things. I do not have to waste time imagining as you possibly have to do. I have no envy for the Jewish Holocaust spelt with a capital. I had my own and survived to tell the story. The reason that Mugabe has not used the tactics you describe is one of shortage of foreign currency to construct the factory with. Besides, gas is not that common in Zimbabwe. The Darfor region is having a holocaust now as we tap tap on the computer keyboard to argue the toss about what we cannot change, while doing nothing about what we can change. Rwanda was systematic in that the government used national registration records and national Ids to identify candidates for death. This is decades after Hitler. I have no reason to deny that the Jews were targeted for special kind of killing. My contention is that the Jewish survivors and their progeny have used their experience to do the same on the Palastinians, proving beyond reasonable doubt that they did not learn anything from what you describe. Furthermore, the culprit was the German nation, but they have got away with it and have stood by while the Palestinians are punished for German’s misdeeds. Its almost like who is the easiest to pick on and lets pick on them, never mind who is the guilty party. The irony of the whole debacle is that the Germans now partly fund the Jews to continue what they started. Hitler could never have exterminated the Jews or made them extinct. He was cleaverer than that. He was just using the Euroversal hate of Jews to rally support for his colonisation programme. The current hate of Islamists has been successfully exploited by some in a similar fashion. Nobody seriously supposes that it is possible to exterminate Islamists. Before you start pronouncing the new envies you have observed in me, I am a practising Christian, who has never read the Quran, but I still believe every human life is of the same value. I do not excuse mass killers or try to afford them special notoriety, nor do I belittle the death of a little African child after rape by the armed forces. I do not belive in wars of any kind, seeing that "violence always begins where brains end". I do not have to imagine. I do not and will not ever doubt that the Jews suffered. I merely advocate the examination of the use of specialised words for their particular suffering as if at the point of delivery, suffering is different. Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 21:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article on which this talk page is associated. Please continue this discussion on your own personal talk pages. Jeffpw 22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so far for your contributions to Wikipedia, but I must still insist that we stay on topic. This talk page is not a discussion forum. It is just used to sort out conflicts on factual information in the article. If you believe that the article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has factual inaccuracies, you are free to discuss it on that article's talk page. But since this article is about the recent Holocaust discussion conference it is off topic. This article is an encyclopedic article and therefore it isn't discussing the validity of arguments of the conference itself in detail, but instead is just listing the arguments and the responses. You may find this link helpful if you have any other questions (or you can contact me on my talk page. I have also added some welcome information on your talk page for your own reference. Cheers.--Burzum 22:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why has it? The terminology used in the laws in question is HOLOCAUST is it not? Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It has already been suggested to you that the Holocaust talk page might be more appropriate for your rant. I don't agree, and think you and John could better discuss this privately. In any event, this debate has nothing at all to do with the Holocaust conference, and is distracting to those who are actually trying to edit the article. Thank you. Jeffpw 22:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Please go to talk:Holocaust to pursure this conversation on a very interesting topic.--SidiLemine 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this on-topic?

As context is in order (see previous declarations of attendees, laws, etc), I was wondering if the fact that Jews were not the only people who suffered from the Holocaust should warrant mention. The fact that the attendees focus on Jews might be a sign of anti-semitism.--SidiLemine 10:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That is a question I had never considered, and I do think it warrants mention. But first you might want to go to the conference website and double check if it wasn't mentioned. I am just about to walk out the door, or I'd do that myself. Jeffpw 12:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Shiraz Dossa, Ph.D.

He is a muslim political science "professor," with tenure, in a Catholic university in Nova Scotia, Canada. He attended the Holocaust denial "conference," and read some nonsense there in support of Holocaust minimization; and possibly, as well, outright denial. This should be in the article.

Edits by Shamir1

Your statement about a decrease in the number of Iranian Jews is not relevant to this article. This article is about the Iranian conference about the Holocaust not about Persian Jews. Nobody that I have read has inferred that this conference is about the change in population of Iranian Jews. Cheers.--Burzum 09:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Burzum. I have also noticed Shamir1's POV edits on this page, and have suggested on his talk page that he try to remain neutral--he did not take kindly to my suggestion, I must say. Jeffpw 09:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why even add the current population? What makes the post-revolution population have any more to do with the conference? It is brief fact of how the majority of Jewish Iranians have already been driven away by the government that is hosting this conference. As for Jeffpw's laughable statement, saying "may I suggest you do not edit articles relating to them?" is not a suggestion to try to remain neutral. I am very kind, and I respond the way I should to people who not only assume bad faith and immediately label someone because of his own prejudgment, but try to drive them away from editing the article general. So Jeffpw, once again, you have not "read carefully" (and to your own words). Last note: Simple and brief facts are not POV edits, but removing them may be. --Shamir1 09:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Copied from your talk page: Considering you have Iran listed on your userpage as a "Government I don't like", may I suggest you do not edit articles relating to them? Your edits to this article were reverted, and rightly so, for POV pushing. I am among the contributers to this article, and we all worked very hard to make sure it was as neutral as possible. I would hope that all of us here at Wiki would try to edit with neutrality in mind. Thanks. I hardly think this is trying to "drive you away from the article". Please try to keep the dramatics to a minimum and edit this article constructively. And by the way, adding that content again will put you at the WP:3RR limit. Jeffpw 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that your edit was to expose how Iranian revolutionary policies have driven Jews out of Iran. This isn't disputed. What is disputed is whether this edit belongs in this article. It is well documented in the Persian Jews article. Including it in this article is not helpful in my opinion because no part of the conference dealt with the change in population of Iranian Jews. This conference is not what drove away the Jews from Iran--it was the policies of the Iranian government. The change in population of Iranian Jews for this article is at best adding trivia and at worst POV pushing. As for your question, the current population is only relevant because it is the population of Iranian Jews when the conference took place. In reality, the number is extremely small so it may be valid to debate that it isn't notable. But I think most people will agree that the Iranian Jewish legislator criticizing the conference is notable. Cheers.--Burzum 09:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
To Jeffpw, even after going through the trouble of copying my talk page, you still could not find where you suggest me edit neutrally. Requesting that I completely stay out of the picture when it comes to editing the article violates good faith and is not a suggestion to edit neutrally (as you try to cover it up as) but a suggestion to be gone from it. It is really common sense. So yes, keep the the "dramatics" out of how you so innocently just asked to remain neutral while I reacted unkindly. I get frustrated when people mislead or omit information, and especially frustrated when people introduce themselves in a rude and uninviting manner. As for Burzum, who has been much more appropriate, I will respond to your response soon. For the time being: Cheers. --Shamir1 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(Indent Break) There is a good point in all that: Is the 25000 figure really justified? I mean, all we've got to say they are angry is a paper saying so, with no other argument whatsoever (no poll, no union, no declaration of representative, no demonstration....) It is obvious they will be pissed, but as it is, I don't like to reproduce blindly anything any paper says. Between that and Burzum's argument about WP:N, I think it might be better off. Something else: someone added the "Ahmedinejad claimed that Israel will be destroyed, saying:...." again, when it has been discussed that his claim is not to destroy Israel, and it is not supported by the citation. I think we should just keep the citation (strong enough IMO) and avoid interpretation altogether.--SidiLemine 10:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

SidiLemine, the citation says "wiped out", which has a translation of the arabic (Farsi?). This has been discussed on his article talk-page, as well. Most newspapers and diplomats (including the Secretary general of the U.N.--see reaction section) interpret this as calling for the elimination/destruction of Israel. Thus, I think it is not POV to leave it in. Thesentence about the Jewish community is supported by a reference, and backed by a Jewish member of the Iranian Parliament. The reference spells this out explicitly, so I think it is likewise NPOV. Jeffpw 10:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The citation says the Zionist regime will be wiped out. This is not the same as to destroy a country. To wipe out a regime is what the USA set out to do in Irak (well they ended up destroying the country too, but that's another story) and in Afghanistan. I know it has been discussed, but I think the discussion was more on past speeches that took Khomeini's wording. This one is pretty clear to me, it is about overthrowing an alledgedly corrupt regime. I don't think the interpretation of diplomats is relevant here. This would be OR as in "A is ok, B is ok, therefore C". I largely prefer to avoid interpretation when a citation is already given. At the very least, it is redundant.
About the jewish community, I think the Jewish MP stands on his own. It is his opinion. The fact that the reference spells it out makes it NOR; not necessarily NPOV. I hope I am not being too much of a pain here, but I think this is an excellent exercise for both of us. At the very least, this should be "According to ______ , the 25000 were angry."--SidiLemine 11:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The headline of the reference about his insane remarks is "Israel will be wiped out". So the reference supports the interpretation in the article. The consensus among diplomats and news sources is that he is calling for the destruction of Israel. I think it should stand the way it is now written. As to the Jewish remarks, the article says that the MP states he has upset the Jewish community. If you want the article to reflect that, make the change. But I do think the MP represents the interests of the Jewish citizens if Iran. Id he says they're upset, I believe him. Jeffpw 15:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who here denied 6 million died?

Much criticism is coming from people who have no idea what this conference is specifically about. They hear the words "question", "Holocaust", and "Israel" and jump to their own conclusions and call them anti-Semites. I don't believe anyone at this conference actually denied the Holocaust happened. Some provided lesser numbers then 6 million but nobody outright denied it. As for Ahmadinejad's out of context comment about the Holocaust not happening, I believe he was just attemping to instigate and knew his comment was false. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the Holocaust from various points of view and provide evidence for their claims without having to fear any persecution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.224.22 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

The conference was about politics and not about history or science. It was about aligning political agendas and not about the flowering of knowledge. It was designed to advance the careers of the participants at the expense of Israel. The deaths of millions of people in WWII (many were Jews) was a tool in this effort used to indicate that Europe should take back the Jews (because they were guilty of the Holocaust or because they lied about the Holocaust - one or the other, take your pick). WAS 4.250 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Freedom of speech. No matter how important freedom of speech is, we always seem to take it for granted. We are fortunate we can engage in open discussion and at times present our views on this sensitive topic. But are those who get thrown into jail so lucky? I think not, you tell me how historians are supposed to research when the only conclusion they can BY LAW come to is one that is concurrent with the government's wishes... We should learn to appreciate the gift of free speech rather than condemn it. Rather than questioning the Iranian president's view on the holocaust we should be criticising why the general public and imparticular academics - whose life and expertise is this topic - are continually being imprisoned for factually proving something that goes against the will of the residing Government. Putting aside how extreme - either way - one's view on the holocaust is, is it just for one particular type of view to be established as history whilst the other is sentenced to prison? This, is the crux of the issue that the Iranian president wished to address in his conference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arash123 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
One can legally deny the Holocaust happened at the top of your lungs almost any place on the planet including in every state and territory of the United States. The places you can't are a one hour plane trip from where you can. No one goes to Iran for freedom. They come by the millions to America for freedom. WAS 4.250 08:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, can both of you focus more on the article? It is nice to hear your opinions, but this isn't a general forum for discussing the topic; this page is to discuss improvement of the article itself. So again, please discuss the article in an appropriate manner. Thanks. The Behnam 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Historians of the Holocaust

Truly, this category cannot be appropriate. The attendees are not considered mainstream Holocaust historians; from what I can tell, none of them even fall under this category. Would I be wrong in removing it? The Behnam 08:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of being in a category is to help people find stuff. Maybe instead of deleting that one category, it might be more helpful to add one or more other categories to help people find this psuedo-history conference. WAS 4.250 09:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, that may be good idea to add in the part "Results" some information about iranian sciencists, send to check out different claims about gas chambers in Auschwitz and about that polish goverment refused them to allow this. I believe it have relation to subject of this article. As it is known, there no remaining gas chambers, used to kill people, and there are no proofs that they ever existed except words and rumours. Of course, it does'nt prooves that there was no policy to exterminate jews, but lie is lie. If there were no gas chambers, then jews will lose their status of the most "poor victims" in world history. So poor, that they are allowed to expell other people from their homes. There are many peoples who suffered much more then they. Zionists fear to achieve status of the greatest liars in world history, as they deserve, IMHO--Igor "the Otter" 10:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

Does "Holocaust historians attending a separate conference in Berlin organized to protest the Iranian one called it "an attempt to cloak anti-Semitism in scholarly language." Need to be in here? It's too POV. Also, shouldn't the attendees be lower on the page? Why on top? Top should just be a neutral description of the conference. Crud3w4re 08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Public opinion in Iran

The opening paragraph of the section Public opinion in Iran could be improved with a rewording from

There are more than 25,000 Jews living in Iran today. Jewish Iranians were upset that their government has sponsored such a conference.[11] Many other Iranians have also expressed embarrassment.[11] Iran's sole Jewish member of parliament, Maurice Motamed, said that: "Holding this conference after having a competition of cartoons about the Holocaust has put a lot of pressure on Jews all over the world and it can give nations and governments a very negative impression of Iran."[7]
to
Iran's sole Jewish member of parliament, Maurice Motamed, said that: "Holding this conference after having a competition of cartoons about the Holocaust has put a lot of pressure on Jews all over the world and it can give nations and governments a very negative impression of Iran."[7] Motamed also said "The conference has upset Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community", and an unidentified former senior government official said "Such conferences should not be held".[11]
the numbers in brackets are the current reference/cite from the article and same for this rewording, any further thoughts? This attributes the number of Jew in Iran to a direct quotes from a WP:RS. The part about about many other... I couldnt find within cited source article so I replaced with the quote from the former government official. Gnangarra 12:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I second you on the change. Please go ahead and do it.--SidiLemine 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support but since two other editors have expressed concerns over this section I'll give them a reasonable opportunity to respond first. Gnangarra 13:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Better source

Could someone find a better source for Russia's statements. Our current one is: "Russia slams mullah buddies over Iran conference". The title kind of gives it away that it's not even close to being a reliable source. 203.109.240.93 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please examine Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision to determine what, if anything, might be useful to add here. Then I would ask that someone AfD it. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed - nothing to add to this article. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Goal

I have removed this statement: Another goal of the conference is to question the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel.

No where does the quote by the Iranian foreign ministry mention anything about Israel's RIGHT to exist, but questions the reasoning for why Israel exists, saying that if the Holocaust happened, why should the Palestinians pay for it...

That statement was purely the POV and interpretation of the author of the article. I think its just best if we leave the quote and let the readers judge.Azerbaijani 15:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reactions

Shouldnt the reactions section be removed? It is obviously biased, they are all western governments.Azerbaijani 15:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Um...This has been here for days now and no response. So I have removed the government reactions for now.Azerbaijani 00:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Put in some other gouvernments to balance, if they have reacted at all. If they haven't, too bad! Reception of the conference in the world is an important and notable piece of information. I've put them back in. And neither the UN nor Russia are classical "western government". --Stephan Schulz 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok well, I left this comment here for days, and got no response. Thanks for finally voicing some sort of opinion atleast.Azerbaijani 02:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem. This is not high on my watchlist, I only became intersted when I saw the large deletion. --Stephan Schulz 07:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed higher on this page under the heading "foreign reaction." My impression is that non-Western governments either didn't respond or their responses can't easily be found on the internet. Like Stephan Schulz said, if you can find any other governments' responses by all means add them. --P4k 02:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Its fine. Thanks for responding.Azerbaijani 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lie about Iranian vote

Article says: "On 26 January 2007, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution condemning Holocaust denial, with only Iran voting against." This is not true. The resolution was adopted without a vote. Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10569.doc.htm. The General Assembly today adopted by consensus a resolution condemning, without reservation, any denial of the Holocaust, with the United States (...)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.164.233.147 (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Having consulted the cited reference and the UN web site with the text of the resolution and UN press release about it, I agree with you on this issue. There was no vote and only 54% of UN members co-sponsored it. Iran was the only country to speak against the resolution, however. -- leuce (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this article about the conference, or about world reaction?

This article should be called, "Reaction TO [the conference]."

The article is not about the conference itself, but about people's reactions to it. Very little actual knowledge is provided about what was said and done at the conference. After reading an article about humming birds, I come away understanding humming birds. After reading this article, all I "understand," is that some non-whites got together in Iran to "talk bad about the Holocaust," and lots of people are upset about it.

Also, regarding this Talk page, I'm disappointed that even on Wikipedia, there are some things you "can't talk about" without being branded and having people get upset at you.

Just for the record, I don't doubt or deny the holocaust. I'm only frustrated that people are still so knee-jerk and anti-intellectual that they cannot allow someone else to express a viewpoint different from their own. Tragic romance (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is too much of a quote farm. We already know it was condemned, that doesn't mean we need (literally) dozens of quotations to verify the condemnation. It almost comes off as a POV-push (and I'm not a "holocaust denier" either, before I get labeled as such). This article should focus more so around the conference itself; as of right now, there is more coverage of the criticisms than of the conference itself. In its current state, this article is amongst the most poorly written on Wikipedia. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations?

There are more than 40 citations on this page, but there is no bibliography. Could someone please include this bibliography or delete this article? It is pointless to have an article with non-existent sources and suggests falsification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonerdottiearebel (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

inaccurately described as a "denial" conference

this conference allowed mainstream holocaust views to be expressed as well as controversial views to be expressed. so it needs to be corrected. and i did. Bannedtruth (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

References in lead

What's with all the references in the lead after the sentence The conference was widely described as a "Holocaust denial conference" or a "meeting of Holocaust deniers"? Looks like someone trying to make a point after a disagreement on the statement or something. Anyway, it's intrusive and unnecessary, so could we please just have the most important few and ditch the rest? Miremare 15:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What Jan Bernhoff really said

Mention is made of Jan Bernhoff saying that only 300 000 Jews died in the holocaust. However, this quote is based on a newspaper report [1] in which the interviewed person (who is the chairperson of the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism) admitted that he did not read Bernhoff's full paper. The newspaper report's first paragraph states that Bernhoff believes in a 300 000 figure, but the journalist does not say where he gets his information from (and I don't expect it -- one can't expect journo's to cite references for everything they wrote).

However, if you read Bernhoff's paper yourself, here [2], you'll notice that he never supports or proposes a 300 000 figure. What he does, toward the end of his paper, is to discuss a number of alternative figures proposed, and one of them is a figure of 304 000 by a demographist. The conclusion of Bernhoff's paper does not specifically favour or reject the 300 000 figure, and he said that regardless of whether the figure was 6 million or 300 000, both would have been a tragedy whichever way you look at it. Perhaps this statement of his was seen as endorsement of the 300 000 figure...? -- leuce (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of the UN resolution

The bit about the UN resolution is interesting, but it does not seem relevant to the conference. Holocaust deniers spoke at the conference, and the resolution was about holocaust denial, but that is the only connection. The resolution itself makes no mention of the Iran conference, and only one country at the UN referred to it during the discussion (the United States). Even so, the US representative made it clear in his speech that the reason for proposing the resolution was to oppose "claims for the destruction of Israel", and not specifically the Iran conference. [3] [4] I think this item does not belong in this article. -- leuce (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A list of the presentaions given?

Tis a pity the conference's own web site is non-functional. It would have been nice to see a list of presentations that were given at the conference. Does anyone have any links? -- leuce (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

pov/context issue

per this: 1. the part about haarestz's quot eo f the arab lawyer that is quotes above the quote box is not relevant b/c its a quote from the article not the person. we dont need that as its not th e words of the chap being quoted, that is the notable aspect, 2. need the context ot f the majlis not the pov that hes the "sole" member. the position is RESERVED for the Jewish member the rest of the details can go ont he majlsi page.Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Haaretz quote, it's attributed directly to Haaretz. Regarding the Jewish Iranian MP, we're just repeating what the source says, and that's what he is. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"in the Western media"

Lihaas has changed the longstanding consensus phrase "The conference was widely described" to "The conference was in the Western media".[5] Aside from being grammatically incorrect, it's also factually incorrect. The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the White House, for example, are not "Western media". Can Lihaas explain why he reverted out this material but made no comment defending it on the article Talk: page? Could he also please try to explain his change and get consensus for it? Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEDE

Lihaas has removed the text from the lede describing notable reactions to the conference.[6] The text was in the lede for over three years, and complies with WP:LEDE, which notes that the lede must summarize the article. Can Lihaas explain why he reverted out this material but made no comment defending it on the article Talk: page? Could he also explain why he is removing this longstanding, notable, relevant material that ensures the article complies with WP:LEDE? Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Category "Holocaust Denial In Iran"

I am removing the category mentioned in the above heading, as if you read the stated goal on the wikipedia article of the conference, you can see that it plainly states that it is not about denying anything.--122.108.159.145 (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read what reliable sources say about the conference, it was a meeting of Holocaust deniers, and its stated purpose was not its actual purpose. Jayjg (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
DarkGreen, it was not meeting of deniers, it was a meeting which happened to include deniers. The most reliable source I can have on a subject's purpose is the subject itself. Remember, the meeting was not to deny or agree with the holocaust, which a reliable source (Al Jazeara according to the page) recorded.--122.108.159.145 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, this article has nothing to do with Islam, which is why I am removed the category "Islam and anti-semitism". And even if it had something to do with Islam and that it was denying the Holocaust, then I fail to see how talking about a historic event or even denying the event happened is anty-anything.--122.108.159.145 (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it was a meeting of deniers, as reliable sources attest. And it was held by the government of جمهوری اسلامی ایران, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Jayjg (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Where in the article does it say that it is a meeting of deniers? The only instances that I get the gist from are the "International reactions" and "Counter Conferences", which I inferred that a large number of people misinterpreted the very purpose of the meeting. --122.108.159.145 (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Footnote 3 in the article lists over twenty reliable sources that describe it as a meeting of deniers, and the "large number of people" didn't in any way misinterpret the purpose of the meeting. Jayjg (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Jayjg, how can you say it was a denial conference when they allowed all points of view to be heard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.205.221 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That was the consensus of reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, but, if they allowed everyone's point to be heard, then how was it a "denial" conference? That doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.205.221 (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "they allowed everyone's point to to heard"? Who was speaking there? Certainly not legitimate historians of the Holocaust or World War II - rather, it was a ragtag band of the usual Holocaust deniers and other assorted non-experts and non-scholars; politicians, activists, professors of literature, actresses, radio broadcasters etc. In any event, it's a moot point; Wikipedia describes the conference in the way that reliable sources do. Jayjg (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So anyone who says that the holocaust needs to be reexamined is a "denier"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.205.221 (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Please review straw man and WP:NOTAFORUM. Are there specific changes based on reliable sources that you would like to make to the article? Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


Were proHolocaust people allowed to speak? Did any of them speak? 159.105.81.107 (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the npov-banner. It was ridiculous to have it here because some anonymous IP's do not like the article. And to answer the last question: just see the "denied permission"-section.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=47967&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
    Triggered by \biranmania\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations gone overboard

I understand the need to properly cite the information, but 25 citations for a single sentence is absurd. Does anyone object to remove all but two or three citations to the second paragraph of the lede? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no doubt that the statement is true but 25 citations looks ridiculous. WikiGust221 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust/Archive_2&oldid=1257816490"