Jump to content

Talk:Mel Mermelstein

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


[Untitled]

[edit]

Why does the newest version gets reverted by the vandals to the error-filled version?

--85.140.12.235 10:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll keep an eye on this page

[edit]

Looks like some holocaust denier revised this page earlier today to a version with a very pro-denial POV. I have reverted his changes. I'm adding this page to my watchlist. Samboy 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition, the IP in question has distorted facts. I will only waste my time with one example: The IP claims that "The [$50,000] judgement does not state that Mermelstein provided sufficient evidence of gassings". What the conveniently ignored is that the judgment states "the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944 [...] is not reasonably subject to dispute", [1]. Samboy 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, this directly contradicts your claim that "It is a common misconception that the Holocaust deniers were forced to pay the reward itself to Mermelstein. ..." ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anonymous reply

[edit]

Samboy:

And it looks like someone is not able to notice sensationalism and is quick to label people. One might therefore label you a Holocoust fanatic. "My" version of the page is something written by another user a year ago (see page history), and accurately describes the following point:

The trial was a breach of contract case concerning the gassings at Auschwitz, not the Holocaust as a whole. "Your" version claims the judge declared the Holocaust a legally incontestable fact, which is faking history and sensationalism. The judge, in fact, concluded the following:

"Under Evidence Code Section 452(h) this Court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944." [2]

While I do agree "my" version is highly critical in presenting the facts, "your" version is highly sensational.

Perhaps you're troubled with the fact that the original author points to a disrepherence in Mr. Mermelsteins' claims concerning a tunnel that never existed? Nevertheless, it is the truth, and should not be censored. In my opinion, Mr. Mermelsteins' testimony did little to prove his claim, as he never saw the gassings themselves, which is also accurately portrayed in "my" version. It was common knowledge that really proved his claim.

If you wish to edit the page to a more neutral point of view, you're free to do so, but falsifying content and censoring disrepherences in testimony only makes me think you might be a Holocaust fanatic.

As per your complaint:

As an addition, the IP in question has distorted facts. I will only waste my time with one example: The IP claims that "The [$50,000] judgement does not state that Mermelstein provided sufficient evidence of gassings". What the conveniently ignored is that the judgment states "the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944 [...] is not reasonably subject to dispute", [3]. Samboy 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does the judgement that "the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944 [...] is not reasonably subject to dispute" state that Mr. Mermelstein provided sufficient evidence of gassings?!? If anything, it clearly indicates the judgement was based on common knowledge, and not Mr. Mermelsteins' testimony. This, of course, does not neccessarily mean that the Holocoust did or did not happen, as you're fanatically trying to prove; it just means what I said above.


Humus sapiens:

You are correct.


To whoever completely removed the history:

Something in there you don't like?

For instance, the other version reveals it is highly dubious whether or not Mr. Mermelstein himself provided sufficient evidence. As I said above, this indicates it was not his testimony per se that proved his case.

Also, did you find that excerpts from Mr. Mermelsteins' testimony are fakes, or did you just not like what they indicated and so deleted any trace of them?

I also notice that you changed "declared the Holocaust a legally incontestable fact" to "Auschwitz during the Holocaust declared a legally incontestable fact", as was in the other version, while leaving no trace that it was the other version which was correct about this issue. How very sad.

Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. In WP:RS: "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations [...] should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations [...] and their activities, and even then should be used with caution". The IHR is an extremist organization. Samboy 16:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported claims

[edit]

Humus Sapiens, Mermelstein's own book, By Bread Alone, page 277 directly contradicts the claim that his notarized account of his internment at Auschwitz states he witnessed "his mother and two sisters towards (as he learned later) gas chamber number five". It clearly states he witnessed "a column of women and children being driven into the tunnel that lead into the gas chambers," which he "later determined to be gas chamber number 5".

By Bread Alone, page 280, directly contradicts the claim that the IHR refused to pay the reward.

The final ruling was clearly not made on October 9, 1981.

This directly contradicts the claim that the IHR had to pay Mermelstein "$50,000, plus $40,000 for personal suffering", as clearly no specific reason is given for the sums listed.

The claim that "Holocaust revisionists have subsequently claimed that the proof offered by Mermelstein was "never released to the public," implying that it had been sealed by the court or otherwise kept secret." cannot be verified, as no source for this claim is given.

The judicial notice clearly contradicts the claim that the court took judicial notice of the Holocaust as a whole.

The Mazal Library article clearly shows Crematorium 5 is an above-ground building, same as stated in the IHR publication. Any resonable person should be able to verify this from multiple sources.

195.29.133.237 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOB

[edit]

There is a reason I added this link:

This is the only source on the web where I found the exact place and date of birth. Despite other opinions in the file I judge this to be a reliable source. Please reinstate unless you see another source. Mhym 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute for Historical Review (so called) is absolutely the definition of what is NOT a "reliable source". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mermelstein picture

[edit]

Even a casual reading of this Talk section will show that, incredibly, in 2016 Holocaust deniers still try to undermine Mermelstein's veracity. I just noticed that somebody added to the iconic picture of Mermelstein in Elie Wiesel's bunk in the camp, that it is "reportedly" Mel Mermelstein. "Reportedly?" Well, that's a new one. In 1977 or 78 I helped Mel (whose second language was English) write the first draft of Mermelstein's autobiography, which eventually became his book. Perhaps you can't tell from pictures of Mel now, but forty years ago there was no question that the picture was of the man sitting with me, writing. I also heard many circumstantial details Mel remembered about them taking the picture, as we put together the first draft of the book. Finally, Mermelstein and Wiesel have been friends now for seventy years. Would Nobel Prize winner Wiesel have been friends with, would he even have tolerated some imposter claiming to share the glory of being in the most famous Holocaust picture with him? Come on. It's all too familiar a tactic from the Holocaust deniers. Whoever inserted that "reportedly" is doing the same endless nibbling at Mermelstein, trying to impugn his veracity. One thought they'd finally give up. Now I wonder what they'll try to do with the Holocaust once the eyewitnesses like Mermelstein (89 now) are no longer with us, confronting them. Profhum (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Profhum (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to us why Simon Toncman [the man standing by the post] is absent in the version of the photo published on the cover of all three editions [1979, 1981 revised, 1991] of Mr. Mermelstein's memoirs By Bread Alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.152.180 (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. Extensive discussion of the picture: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-denier-logic-at-its-finest-famous.html Profhum (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mel Mermelstein. 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) 21:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mel Mermelstein. 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) 01:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mel_Mermelstein&oldid=1209009909"