Talk:Leuchter report/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Autoarchiving

I'm not going to revert the autoarchiving but I think the discussion is very interesting and worthwhile, seeking to auto-archive it seems illiberal to me - not only have a certain group of people won the argument as far as the content of the article is concerned but it seems they wish to disguise the fact that there has ever been any dissent. After I made my previous comment someone posted this comment elsewhere "Please don’t Wiki the Holocaust you definitely will be a denier by the time you’ve finished". It looks like I got called a 'troll' for suggesting that an article might play into the hands of Holocaust revisionists, that to me looks like personal abuse. I'm afraid articles like this one are a reason why I would never donate to Wikipaedia and would strongly encourage others not to donate. Much of Wikipaedia is very good, but so many articles on the Holocaust reek of POV and this one is about the worst I have come across. I don't know why senior editors don't do something about this. There seems to me many faults in the Leuchter report but that he nonetheless raises some reasonable questions. There may well be reasonable answers to them but at present I can't hope to find them here. Hardicanute (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

It has long been an open secret that Wikipedia is more reliable as an impartial source of information on some subjects that on others. If you're interested in Fourier transforms, or in Keplerian orbits, Wikipedia's reliability is at least equal to almost any other source. For biology, especially where matters pertaining to racial equality are touched upon, Wikipedia is somewhat less reliable with respect to accuracy. Wikipedia's "neutral" point of view is actually biased in favor of the racial equality doctrine, though perhaps less so now than it once was. And likewise for relatively recent history, especially anything pertaining to the Second World War, and most especially to the Holocaust story in its current form. In general, the nearer you get to Adolf Hitler or the disputed existence of Nazi gas chambers, the more likely a biased point of view is to be misrepresented as a neutral point of view by Wikipedia's senior editors, who will often shut down debate and lock an article until everyone who dissents with them has given up and gone away. By its own history, Wikipedia has joined a large number of other repositories of reference material about which one must "consider the source." Jenab6 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Having come across the guidelines for archiving I do not see that 'to reduce trollbait' is a valid reason for archiving discussion. And given that it has been put forward as a valid reason I don't think anyone should attempt to archive this discuussion on any grounds for some time to come, lest it be suspected that the stated reason is not the actual one. If anyone wishes to revert would they please discuss first. Hardicanute (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Ok, now you're being deliberately disruptive. After 30 days with no comment, the threads are clearly dead. Most of them have no value with regard to article improvement anyway. Furthermore, since you didn't comment in any of the archived material I can hardly see how you can claim that you're being called a troll. The reason this article and others on the Holocaust read the way they do is not that they "reek of POV" or for any other imagined reason. It's because the reliable sources all say the same thing about the subjects concerned: The holocaust happened. The Leuchter report is pseudoscientific and incompetent. The deniers are dishonest. I instituted autoarchiving (which you initially said you were fine with, until it actually happened) because the threads were uniformly meritless and only served to attract further disruption and griefing. Please leave it alone. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think the auto-archiving but when it happened I found myself directed to the guidelines and realised the reason given wasn't mentioned there. Your comment didn't necessarily suggest that the authors of comments were 'trolls' but that the comments attracted 'trolls', and given the timings who else could that refer to but me. I find the comments useful because they show there are quite a few other people who share my reaction to the article. I know there's a certain line that people must take about the Holocaust on wiki and there's no point in challenging this but there are ways of putting things. I think that for example that statements put out by Nizkor are in the main a good deal more temperate than this article. Hardicanute (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

The reason the article is considered by some to be biased is NOT because "the reliable sources all say the same thing" but because the majority view of what is reliable is beaten and bashed on the rest of the public's proverbial heads and anything that goes against that lock-step view is considered to be pseudoscientific. Your statement itself declares POV!Lostinlodos (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

We generally don't write articles about conspiracy theories with an 'open mind', and Wikipedia doesn't have the bad habit of the US press of seeking out opposing views for 'balance', no matter how fringe they are. Hans Adler 21:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A rather ironic statement all things considered. The number of people who actually blindly accept the "facts" as presented in western media are a an over-represented minority of the greater world population. Lostinlodos (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit by Sportfury

User:Sportfury's recent edit was copyvio from [1] - the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denying organisation. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that the Krakow Institute Of Forensics in Poland did in fact corroborate Leuchter's findings. This wikipedia article is blatantly lying when it states that the Krakow Institute found the correct traces of cyanide to substantiate the claims of the Holocaust. Let's keep things honest. Wikipedia would be more respected in doing so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportfury (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 February 2014

Ok then, we can quote the actual report (emphasis mine}:

The present study shows that in spite of the passage of a considerable period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B have been preserved. This is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers. The cyanide compounds occur in the building materials only locally, in the places where the conditions arose for their formation and persistence for such a long time.

In his reasoning Leuchter (2) claims that the vestigial amounts of cyanide combinations detected by him in the materials from the chamber ruins are residues left after fumigations carried out in the Camp "once, long ago"(Item 14.004 of the Report). This is refuted by the negative results of the examination of the control samples from living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a single gassing, and the fact that in the period of fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau Camp. The first crematorium (Crematorium II) was put to use as late as 15 March 1943 and the others several months later.

This is summarised in the article, maybe this needs to actually be quoted to help keep people like you from distorting the truth. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, I like that idea. But rather, please quote the Krakow Institute of Forensic's report on Auschwitz, IN FULL. Not only include it with the Leuchter Report article, but please allow it to exist as it's own separate Wikipedia entity. That will solve everything! Sportfury

Questions on the Polish follow-up Investigation

It is my understanding that there were two separate follow-up investigations by the Krakow institute. This seems important but is not mentioned in the article.

It is also my understanding that the original Krakow institute report corroborated Leuchter's data to a significant degree. True or false?

What is more curious is that, in reading the current section on the Polish investigation, it is not clearly explained how it refuted Leuchter's findings. There is no mention of Leuchter's data being flawed. There is only a small discussion on where fumigation would or would not have taken place.

More importantly, the point is made that the Krakow institute discovered traces of cyanide in the crematorium areas as if this is a refutation to Leuchter, but didn't Leuchter's own findings show traces of cyanide? So what is being refuted exactly?

Some clarity would be nice. 71.254.9.202 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In regards to wishful thinking

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing constructive ways to improve articles, and are not forums for Holocaust deniers to push their views Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Due to Leuchter's ignorance of the large disparity between the amounts of cyanide necessary to kill humans and lice, instead of disproving the homicidal use of gas chambers, the small amounts of cyanide which Leuchter detected actually tended to confirm it.[8]" It doesn't explain how it tended to confirm it, also this whole sentence is presented as fact like everything else in this biased article. Thus I'm assuming it's wishful thinking and only here to discredit Leuchter. 62.255.104.106 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Trivial point. Leuchter is discredited in a multitude of ways. Jim1138 (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC) I'm only talking about this quote, although other lies on this article should be removed as well. 62.255.104.106 (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC) EDIT: The statement can be removed just on the basis that it adds no value to the article by making it even more biased towards enabling the Holocaust all over wikipedia. It assumes that - Leuchter doesn't know the amounts of cyanide needed to kill, and it assumes that Leuchter tried to disprove the gas chambers through ignoring the facts. Both of these without any proof that that's actually the case. Also, even if that was the case - what does "tended to confirm it" mean? Even safe amounts of gas found by any interested parties would "tend to confirm" that gassings took place, so it's irrelevant. In general, the whole article is focused on disproving the Leuchter report instead of displaying the Leuchter report - that's why it needs to be rewritten. 62.255.104.106 (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC) The article displays the report, in all its fraudulent glory. Wikipedia does not "enable" the holocaust, it reflects the reality of it, as established by a vast body of historiography and disputed only by a lunatic fringe. Holocaust denial is not welcome at Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC) The article doesn't display the report impartially, as with everything on the Holohoax, only a multitude of biased assumptions that are mostly made by very interested parties is displayed, rather than you know, a neutral article on what Leuchter claims. Wikipedia certainly promotes the Holocaust by brainwashing tools like you into painting a sob story that never really happened and thus breaking Wikipedia's own rules such as NPOV. Best example of this is the Holocaust denial page - pure pro-semitic propaganda, and from what I've seen, there are atleast 3 more imbiciles in the admin position who are locking articles before they go back to the NPOV that was originally intended. Holocost denial costs nothing. 91.125.33.173 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality still in question

Is this article ever going to be allowed to have the slanderous, libelous, term pseudoscientific removed from the first sentence? Againthe reference is from an organisational web site who's only goal is to further the status-quo mandate of acceptance without debate. Sourcing a holocaust focus/memorial group as an unbiased and reliable source for such a term is the equivalent of sourcing an atheist as stating religion is pseudoscientific, or more accurately as sourcing the bible as the fact that evolution is pseudoscientific. Lostinlodos (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the sources for "pseudoscientific" are almost all Zionists/Jews, and one of the sources (Evans) was the lawyer who worked against David Irving (editor of this book) in a trial; that is, he has a vested interest in calling this book "pseudoscientific". Atrocious credibility. The word should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlightlyInsane (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Particular users equally have shown on log page notations that they are incapable of neutrality in editing this article. Most recently Dougweller falsely claimed that user Erlend79 "Made a mess" by editing the opening to be factual, removing the inaccurate and libelous statement of pseudo from the sentences. I wish to applaud Erlend79 for his great attempt at bringing factual balance to this slanderous article of character assassination on a sufficiently scientifically accurate report.
For Erlend79's attempt at bringing fair balance to this page despite the ongoing debate over it's neutrality I have awarded him with the Outlaw Halo Award. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm kinda new to the editing world ... but much of this article reads like a personal-character assassination smearing the reputation of the author as opposed to a sober reporting of the content of the actual document. Is this appropriate? 14:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Falsely claimed 'a mess'? See[2] - the lead paragraph didn't even have a sentence in it, just a fragment saying "The Leuchter report is a scientific" - that's all. It was then followed by a bunch of quotations stating it was pseudo-scientific, quotations that had been in a footnote until the editor created what was clearly a mess. You prefer that most of the lead being quotations making it clear that this is pseudo-scientific? Lol, you obviously didn't even look at it after the edits. That's ironic.

Libelous sounds like a possible legal threat, I'll post to your talk page about that. But for others who might read this, WP:NLT applies. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea what 'the reference' is, I count 7. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So I see I've erred in my comparison. "mess" is actually a correct statement. Though I will still applaud the attempt. I'm not sure what two versions I was looking at but... oops. The /m version is set out differently on screen and not sure what I clicked. Thank you for pointing that out.

And to state what has been asked I make it explicit that I do not intent do take legal action. Nor do I directly encourage anyone else to do so. But I maintain that claiming a peer-reviewed study to be pseudoscientific is not a good idea.Lostinlodos (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2016

This article is clearly an attack piece. Why do you keep reverting the NPOV tag and now the submission for deletion? Now the article has been "protected". What exactly is going on here? Do you actually think this kind of garbage belongs on wikipedia?

Oscar.hauser (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oscar.hauser: Not an attack piece. Everyone can revert a PROD tag if they feel it does not fall under WP:PROD. I've warned you for disruptive editing, and that's not a edit request. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

DatGuy Are you for real? Did you read the article? The first reference is dead. It is clearly biased nonsense. All the references have "notes" written into them. —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want the article deleted, and have reasons for deletion based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please read WP:AFD on how to proceed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I already wrote why it should be delete. It is an unreferenced ad-hominem attack article. Anyone can see that. JUST READ THE DAMN THING! Hiding behind wikipedia bureaucratic nonsense like protecting the article is simply petty and lame. Many people have tried to fix this article but people like you keep reverting. What exactly is the politcal agenda you are trying to push on wikipedia?

Please mark this article for deletion. Reason: Extreme low quality.

NeilN, would you like to take it from here? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Oscar.hauser, refer to my note above. Do not activate the edit request again or you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is clearly ridiculous. The references are dead. Wrongly entered and utterly biased. All attempts at fixing it are reverted and now I am getting tag-teamed by an admin and some other "poweruser". This utterly stinks. This article is absurd and you are protecting it for some unknown reason. How is anyone supposed to fix junk like this when users like you just block them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar.hauser (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oscar.hauser:Poweruser? You are currently editing disruptively. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding NPOV == Editing disruptively? Maybe your endless reversion of the NPOV is the only disruptive editing here?

The opening line of the article is slanderous and unreferenced. Why are you more concerned bullying and preventing me from fixing the article than even fixing the article yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar.hauser (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've had enough of this discussion, if someone wants to take over (such as Doug Weller, feel free. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Oscar.hauser, I need an unequivocal statement from you that you do not intend any legal action concerning this article, Wikipedia, or its editors, nor do you intend to suggest that others do so. See WP:NLT. We don't delete articles because someone doesn't like them or because they are low quality. See WP:AfD for our criteria. Which references are dead or wrongly entered? Obviously we allow opinions, if we didn't we'd have very few articles. It's simply untrue that the article is unreferenced. And of course holocaust deniers won't like the article, but we are a mainstream encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

messed up my ping. @Oscar.hauser: although I see he's stopped posting. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Why I am I repeating myself? I have written he same thing about 4 times now. THE FIRST REFERENCE IS DEAD. THE FIRST REFERENCE WAS TO AN OPINION PIECE. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO WRITE THIS?? No I will not state that I will not take legal action. This is ridiculous. Have you read the article? It is an end to end ad hominem attack. Go ahead and read then with a strait face write back here you do not think it is NPOV and defaming of a living person. As users with an agenda REFUSE to allow anyone to fix it, it MUST be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar.hauser (talk • contribs) 00:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Editor blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ref absence

Why doesn't the second paragraph of this article have any references to anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.189.139.145 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The second paragraph, like the first, is part of the lead of the article and summarizes the rest of the article, which includes extensive citations. The lead doesn't require any citations. General Ization ^Talk 02:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The report as a source

Yone Fernandes seems very determined to include the report itself as a source for the words "The Leuchter Report". I think three different people have reverted this now, the reason is obvious: the report is not a source for anything in the lede, nor is it needed as such. Everything in the lede is referenced to reliable independent sources. Yone Fernandes seems to think that the report needs to be included in the references, and that this is the only way it should be done. Neither is true. We link to the report in External Links, that is sufficient. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If we're not using the document to verify anything in the article, then it should not be used as a reference. External links is the right place. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If we are sure it's not copyvio, then we can use this link. There's a German version archived also.[3] Doug Weller talk 11:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)