Talk:Leuchter report

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Leuchter report was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 13, 2012, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia

The references are dead links
The references are lacking
The references are full of comment spam
The references are extremely dubious
There is little discussion of the actual contents of the report
The opening sentence is frankly insulting to the reader
If ever there was an example of NPOV, this is it.

As much as I am offended by the idea of people trying to rewrite this atrocity out of history, I am more offended by just how bad this article is. It is this kind of vandalism and trash that makes Wikipedia a non-academic junk-source.

I have submitted the article for deletion. As it stands this garbage piece has little to do with the title and more to do with pushing an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.2.70 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So people are still complaining that the pathetic "Leuchter Report" is being labelled "pseudoscientific"? In no way did I find the opening sentence "insulting". Not a word of the opening sentence is wrong. The Leuchter Report is pseudoscientific and it should be labelled as such. Frankly, referring to it is "pseudoscientific" rather than "total bullshit" is an act of kindness.74.215.219.209 (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone with half a brain knows why this article is so poorly sourced and written. 94.5.56.96 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly has huge NPOV issues. The correct way for a Wikipedia article to support a statement that a report (in this case the Leuchter report) is wrong, is to give references to qualified sources (published articles by chemists, for example). Calling it names ("pseudoscientific") and citing attacks by journalists, historians, and sociologists not only doesn't cut it, but is also completely inappropriate. I think that the Leuchter report's conclusions are wrong, but there is a right way and a wrong way to support that statement. Sayitclearly (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sayitclearly: I've removed the POV tag. Like most new editors, including me long ago, you don't seem to understand WP:NPOV. You also seem to think that it doesn't reference any chemists, although it does. What sources do you think we shouldn't be using? Doug Weller talk 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources under the first footnote are not scientific critiques of the report, they're all literary. The assertion that the work is pseudoscientific needs a scientific critique. 94.5.56.96 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leuchter report. 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) 10:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article appears to be highly prejudicial. It's also misleading to call the report 'pseudo-scientific', since that even misses the intention, which wasn't academic at all. And so it goes on. Also prejudicial is it to call a room "gas chamber" although on the document for it it is clearly indicated as a morgue. 196.25.221.94 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We go by reliable sources. I'm not sure what room or document you mean. If it's by Leuchter, it's useless. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]