Talk:Mark Weber

GFDL/CC-BY-SA?

According to this FAQ, this work may have been released under CC-BY-SA-3.0 as well as the GFDL. I'm not sure if it has, but I think we need clarification. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Add Mark Weber's middle name

I propose adding Mark Weber's middle name, Edward, to the first line (not the title) to distinguish him from the many Mark Webbers in Wikipedia, and to make the article more compatible with other biographical articles wherein the middle name is included. I have contacted Mr. Weber, and he agrees to the change. I am new to editing; anybody see a problem? --Rgherman (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I hear no dissent I'll go ahead and add the middle name --Rgherman (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops -- forgot to fill in the edit summary. Hope to do better next time. Rgherman (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

stop adding viewpoints

keep it to his bio. if this page must exist, it must stay limited to his significance vis a vis his significance as a public figure. crap about "holocaust denial" is not needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

So basically you're trying to say that even though Mark Weber is the director of an institution that denies the holocaust, he has nothing to do with denying the holocaust. Is that correct? -- O.Koslowski (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

that's your viewpoint. if you can provide a link where Weber "denies" the holocaust, then post it. please refrain from the references where he questions the details; those are well known. denial - your ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Again: Weber is the director of a group of holocaust deniers and has previously been with the National Alliance. He does not question details. Before we continue this discussion: do you deny that the holocaust has taken place? Because you reasoning ("questions the details") sounds a lot like the old (modern) spiel that we've heard from the IHR and their goons before. Saying this is my viewpoint is wrong. It's the viewpoint of the ADL and of a many scholars who have dealt with pseudo-historical stuff published by the IHR and by Weber. -- O.Koslowski (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not. the description that you lay out of "holocaust deniers" is a sham. i presume you're in a country in the Eurozone where such talk is illegal. my saying your viewpoint is a perfectly valid opinion and observation based on your obsessive pursuit of this relatively innocuous wiki. slamming those who "question the details" (your lame quotation marks - for whatever purpose) is wrong. the bottom line is that if this page is to be included on wikipedia it should only be restricted to the facts, not opinions. we obviously have our own. whether either of us is correct is not for wikipedia.

The point is: you removed the opinions of a dozen scholars and their publications from the article, claiming they are not reliable without having anything to back that up. You did not remove them because they're unreliable, you removed them because you do not agree with their findings. And you did so agains the judgement of several other editors. So don't even try to pretend that it's just my opinion against yours. -- O.Koslowski (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, once again, you are wrong. You posted a laundry list of POV "references" supporting your personal POV. This is not for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't my list. O.Koslowski (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't my list either. It was still POV.

This has nothing to do with NPOV. If them reliable sources revile Weber then Wikipedia shall reflect it, per WP:RS. If the same sources would say that Weber is white and furry: likjewise Wiki would say so.--Galassi (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How is it POV? Again: the references aren't just average Joes but people who offer a scientific analysis of the IHR's publications and mission. O.Koslowski (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You have nothing to offer other than one pay to view article that SUPPOSEDLY supports your position. You're obviously an anti-IHR shill. This article should either be removed or at the least held to the actual facts and not opinions of people like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

So somebody else's opinion is more important because they put it forth under the guise of "scientific analysis?" Just stop. 74.98.219.229 (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

PFD : this page

i propose this page be deleted. the subject is not relevant and yet already has several "editors" dedicated to correcting perceived edits to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The person is notable, so the article shouldn't be deleted. However, I have requested the page be protected until the dispute is resolved. I have no opinion on the matter pro or against. :-)

<3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How is this person "notable" when the debate against Dr. James Fetzer has raged for over 6 years?

He is notable because he has been subject of national and international reports on the subject of the extreme right, of revisionism and anti-semitism. I fail to believe you really question his notability. -- O.Koslowski (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care what you fail to believe. You obviously have a bias and I question your objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly about my statement is biased? I can cite reports from the L.A. Times and from the German DER SPIEGEL without even trying. It's not my fault these reports, the ADL and other institutions that watch the extreme right find him to be a center piece of that movement. O.Koslowski (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Cite the LA times piece, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The IHR is covered in Benjamin Hubbard's article "The Truth Must Be Shown When the Holocaust Is Denied" that was published on Mar 7, 1998. Mark Weber didn't like the way the IHR was characterized and sent a letter to the L.A. Times on March 15th. On Mar 29, 1998, Professor Nancy Fitch of Cal State Fullerton responded to that letter and offered an analysis of the university professors who allegedly support Weber and the IHR. O.Koslowski (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

where is the cite that i asked for? i don't care for your word.

Which part would you like me to cite? Do you expect me to do a copyvio by copy&pasting text that is behind a paywall? -- O.Koslowski (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

a link would be nice. like normal people would do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to Fitch's response to Weber -- O.Koslowski (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

pay to view=worthless. if you can't offer anything other than this i really don't see how you can continue this argument. you have NO sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not worthless. It's a perfectly valid source by wiki standards. Saying it's worthless because you have to pay to access the article is like saying we cannot use books as references because you might have to pay for them if your library doesn't hold them... And if Weber isn't notable, why the the German SPIEGEL print a report on him in 1994? O.Koslowski (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on your link it looks like the LA times "source" is an opinion piece. Are you serious?

It is not an opinion piece for heck's sake. It's an assessment made by a scholar on something that is very much within her domain. And even if this were an opnion piece, the fact that Mark Weber is mentioned in newspapers like the L.A. Times and the SPIEGEL should be more than enough to prove his notability. O.Koslowski (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability, perhaps. Not willing to pay so I can't verify your claim. SPIEGEL is not credible as it is not legal in Germany to question these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

But it is perfectly okay to report on people who question the murder of six million people. And if Weber wasn't notable because of the reports, he would be notable because of his publications. O.Koslowski (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're running off the tracks here. I am the one who questioned the notability of this article, not you. Your hypotheticals are insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have shown that he is notable by Wikipedia's standards on notability quite simply because he has made publications that have received national and international reception. And Weber's denial arguments are dissected in several works, among them "New Perspectives on the Holocaust: A Guide for Teachers and Scholar". O.Koslowski (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please cite "New Perspectives"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.49.183 (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're in luck, that portion can be seen on Google Books via this link O.Koslowski (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the above discussion and edit war, I think that uninvolved editors should also comment on this BLP issue. De728631 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually aside from my contributions on this talk page, I was not really involved. Still enough involvement for the IP to threaten to report me for editorial misconduct. I still think there is nothing to the IP's claim that the allegations of Mark Weber being a holocaust denier are POV. I believe that - if at all - that IP would have only believed that if Weber himself said so clearly. However, Weber's publications have been dissected by historians (which the IP called POV), and it shouldn't be surprising that the ADL considers the results so clear that they find that Weber embodies the Holocaust-denial movement. The IPs position that Weber does not deny the holocaust but merely "questions the details" cannot be held in good faith because this alleged questioning of details is exactly how modern holocaust denial is performed. Does Weber deny the holocaust? I guess that depends on how you interpret this quote attributed to him and referenced in Holocaust denial: "If by the 'Holocaust' you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the 'Holocaust' means the systematic extermination of six to eight million Jews in concentration camps, that's what we think there's not evidence for." In my humble opinion, it doesn't get much clearer than this. -- O.Koslowski (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any problem here except the IP's edit-warring. I see the IP has stopped editing. If removal of reliably sourced text continues here on a daily basis I'm willing to protect the page as I see no BLP issue here and it is clear that the IHR is a Holocaust denying organisation. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Only "problem" here is the IP with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem. Weber's a denier, by any objective definition. WP:V and WP:RS have been more than fully met. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see a problem with the article as is. Hope the RfC helps settle this. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 20:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that this person is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. United States Man (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Weber and the National Alliance

I see Weber's academic credentials cited but nothing is mentioned about his involvement with the National Alliance beginning in 1978. The National Alliance was very clearly a white supremacist organization whose founder (William Luther Pierce) was the author of The Turner Diaries. Weber was the editor of the organization's newspaper the National Vanguard in 1979. According to the ADL Weber maintained links with the National Alliance throughout the 80s and served as the treasurer for the NA's "cosmotheist church." I think these background facts contextualize what kind of "academic" Weber really is. Weber's supporters often try to pass him off as a dispassionate objective historian but his own record betrays strong links with the far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kairos1919 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Weber on holocaust revisionism

On January 7, 2009 Weber wrote an article on how relevant holocaust revisionism was. He got a lot of flack for this.

On February 13, 2009 he wrote 'Follow Up: A Reply to Critics of My Essay on the Relevance of Holocaust Revisionism'..

In 2011 he was challenged on this by Carolyn Yeager..

On August 5, 2012 Yeager compared Greg Johnson's views on the holocaust to Weber's.

On November 25, 2013, Carolyn Yeager commented on the "The Unforgivable Sins of Mark Weber"..

On December 2, 2013 also criticized him, where she "continues her criticism of Mark Weber, and includes radio show hosts Kyle Hunt, Rodney Martin and Deanna Spingola who have given Weber an easy time of it, rather than asking, and demanding answers to, tough questions. Mark Weber has been a disastrous director of the Institute for Historical Review and should be held accountable for it. Rewarding people for failure and weakness is the absolute wrong thing to do if we are serious about turning things around for ourselves. [By the way, I forgot to mention I sent an email to MW on Sunday inviting him to come on my Saturday Afternoon program; he has not replied. I knew he wouldn't, but still, he could take the opportunity to defend himself ... if he had a defense.]".

On December 11, 2013 she wrote 'Eight questions to ask Mark Weber on radio shows and other personal appearances'.

References

Scientology

Are there any reliable sources regarding Weber's affiliation with the Church of Scientology and whether he is still a member in good standing or not? Laval (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

How to describe the Institute of Historical Review. I agree that it denies the Holocaust but that's clearly not all it does so other things should be stated in the description also

The Institute of Historical Review was originally described as simply a Holocaust denial group. I agree that the group advocates Holocaust denial, but that's clearly not the only topic the group discusses, so I changed it to "Holocaust denial and right-wing organization". I agree with keeping Holocaust denial as part of the description, but they do focus on other topics also. For example Weber has written articles for the Institute of Historical Review about other topics such as Nazi Germany's period of consideration of the idea of creating a Jewish state as a way of getting the Jews out of Germany and its satellites [1], about the merits of whether the war against Hitler in general was a good war [2] about why Hitler decided to invade Russia, [3] and other topics. He also has argued Holocaust denial is not as relevant to criticizing the Jewish lobby as other Anti-Jewish authors perceive it as [4] Weber also seems to be less extreme in his views on the Holocaust than more extreme Anti-Jewish authors such Faurisson [5]. I'm not saying the Institute of Historical Review and Weber should not be described as Holocaust deniers, I think they should be described that way because it is accurate, but they are not fixated on Holocaust denial to the exclusion of other topics, so I don't think that should be all of the description of them, it should be included in the description but broader topics should also be discussed. RandomScholar30 (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mark Weber no longer a holocaust denier

Oh how the mighty have fallen...the director of the Institute for Historical Review himself now accepts homicidal gassings happened in the Aktion Reinhard death camps and is basically on the same line as David Cole, David Irving and Eric Hunt, that is to say, no longer denying mass gassings. See his interview with the denier Rizoli:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz7CQLECV9U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:500:D200:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Weber. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628184616/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/usa.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/usa.htm

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) 16:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This dude is not a reliable source and works that praise him are not reliable sources

Didn't think i would have to say this, but this dude and his blogs are absolutely and wholly unreliable sources and should never be treated as reliable sources by Wikipedia. Hope that everyone else can agree to this.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the statements sourced to the IHR website? These seem uncontroversial, and unless there is some indication that they are untruthful, there would seem to be no reason not to use that primary source. We wouldn't want to cite these people about the Shoa, but we can cite them about the dates of their own undergrad education. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about using his blogs in articles about Nazis--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)