Talk:Paul Rassinier/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Paul Rassinier. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
BIG TRIM
I've been searching Plantin's work out -- is it available anywhere?
I have it linked, in French.
Anyway, going through the complaints, I noted they almost all had to do with descriptions of his books, which told me that the article had gotten away from being a bio to a review of his books, which is for another page. I think I've really cleaned out the Augean Stable here, trimming over 2,400 words, a lot of info was extraneous. I also cleaned up the format a little, to make it more readable. Since a bio is supposed to be a review of the facts and events in a persons life, I think I've got those down cold.
In the part you'll all be interested in, I cut down descriptions of his two controversial books - nobody has ever condemned the first two, and there is no critical response I can find to The Trial. Drama is the one that generates all the controversy, and I've linked the three credible people who have specifically referenced Rassinier in book, review or article. I'm confident that can stand up to review.
It also eliminated a great number of footnotes.
As for Plantin, except for the addition at the end, just about everything he's used for is Rassinier's life story. Using that, did I get something wrong? He wasn't born in Bermont, or get kicked out of the PCF? If you think Plantin is wrong or biased somewhere, let me know, I'll contact the archives he lists in his primary sources and see if I can get the document. Of course, I can't print it here - original research you know.
I had avoided using Plantin's conclusions, since assessments in a biography, like a psychoanalysis (I HATE bios with psychoanalysis!) are too leading, at least in my opinion. The Wikipedia policy of letting the reader make the judgement seemed to prevail. But, Plantin's assessments are accurate, and you were all concerned that he was too biased, so I put them in.
And before there's another complaint about "Father Of Holocaust Revisionism" in the beginning, a reminder that that is one of his posthumous titles, liberally awarded by friend and foe. In France, it's actually called l'negationnisme but I've avoided that for obvious reasons.
I won't be back for 10-12 days.
Vache sainte, ceci a été beaucoup de travail. Mais bon en valeur elle.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenact (talk • contribs) 02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
English Version
I've been searching Plantin's work out -- is it available anywhere?
My goodness, there is an English version of Plantin's biography available. I have it linked.
- Sorry for not responding earlier; I was going through pieces of Plantin's work in French, as you have heavily relied on it as a source. It is unavailable from any of the public or any of the three University libraries in my immediate area, either in French or English. It's strange, because they all have sections of Holocaust Denial material.
- After your tough reviews of critics of Rassinier, I'm surprised by your heavy reliance on what is (obviously) a skewed piece of work. As "primary sources", he mentions Mark Weber, a leading denier/revisionist, and David Irving, a discredited history writer. In his introduction, he talks only about "revisionism", mentioning various sources like the IHR and Udo Walendy, and has Carlo Mattogno in the footnotes.
- It's no wonder that the incomplete Jury that judged this "thesis" were forced to resign. Using dubious sources as foundations for a Thesis, one could probably conclude that the earth was flat and that the sun revolves around it.
- I think this shows that far from being reliable, Plantin's work is controversial at best. If his work is solid, then some other scholar should concur -- and if none does, then he's in less then a minority view.
- I will take a peek at the English version of the work this week. 04:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Note the section heading, Irving and Weber are listed in sources in the section headlined "Translators and Postfaces". Weber for a postface on some edition of The Lie, Irving for a postface on some German publication. That's part of a review of the history of publications, something you do to prove that you didn't miss anything. Plantin would have been negligent not to note them. Nowhere are they used as a biographical source or cited in text, which makes sense, since neither knew much about Rassinier's background. Regarding Irving, et al, please keep in mind this was written in 1991.
Note that Plantin researched publication histories in five different languages. Wow.
Mattogno, who I'm not familiar with, is one of the sources "liberally cited from friend and foe" who give him his title, and is cited for a review of Nyisly; I'm not familiar with Walendy either, but the intro gives a good overview of the Revisionism controversy as it was known in 1991. What of it? Foes such as Fresco, Vidal-Naquet and Wellers are also noted here and there.
Do you have any knowledge of any biographical fact or detail that Plantin got wrong?
- Even in '91, Irving was already well known as a Hitler apologist and a right winger. If this was an undergrad paper, it should have gotten an F, for failing to even allude to the controversial nature of the various people. On Weber, he states "The American historian Mark Weber is member of the Editorial Advisory Committee of the Journal of Historical Review and collaborates regularly in this review. For several years he has prepared an in-depth study on the Final Solution from a revisionist point of view." As an Academic, Plantin should know the difference between a peer-reviewed Journal and propoganda piece, and be honest enough to at least allude to it (the Journal isn't an academically peer reviewed journal) in his discussion.
- The question I'm trying to tackle is -- Is Plantin a _reliable source_. I think I've established that Plantin is a controversial figure, and he's used some controversial sources. Of course, "we only report what reliable publications publish", and according to your translated Thesis link, "We thank the members of the teachers body of Lyon-III, who willingly gave us a copy of this document. It is considered untraceable in the libraries of the Lyons universities." This would seem to suggest it is an unpublished Thesis, and has now been "published" by an organisation of little repute.
- Further, we are asked as Wikipedians to "Find out what other people say about your sources"; but there isn't any information available about this work. The Jury who judged it resigned, and the University who conferred his title based on the work revoked the title -- but due to a technicality, he retained his title. I think these actions speak volumes about the work, though.
- Finally, "Conscious biases, unconscious biases, and errors are not always self-evident. The best way to expose them is to cross-check with another secondary source". As I've asked repeatedly for another 3rd party source and one has not been produced, the conclusion that must be drawn is that Plantin is at best outside the consensus, or at worst a novel opinion. As you've used Plantin for over 2/3rds of your citations (19/28 at present), and as I've pointed out a few times he's at least a controversial figure, I'm going to guess you aren't going to accept that he's an _unreliable source_, so I'll seek out an editor to give a 3rd opinion here. 16:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Where Is The Error?
I'm not completely familiar with Weber, but discover that he does indeed have a degree in history, and again, contributed only a post-face to an edition of The Lie, and an unauthorized one at that. Again, that's part of the publication history. This doesn't impact biographical fact.
Of course I'm not going to accept that Plantin is an unreliable source. You haven't disproved a word he's said. I have to see that he got something wrong. If any of these biographical facts are untrue, say so. What is incorrect about his biography? There's backup from Maitron.
There's almost a thousand sources and footnotes, and Plantin's bibliography lists twenty-eight books, revisionist, anti-revisionist and in between. Four National Libraries are consulted. He was able to review the complete records of Defense of Man by tracking down a private individual who kept the collections. The only thing I note missing is Rassinier's correspondence with Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, and their meeting in Marburg, Germany in September of 1963. Plantin didn't have access to those letters, they weren't published until 1993.
As for Plantin's conviction under the Fabius-Gayssot law - by the way, it was because he published the titles(!) of four "forbidden" books, not because of anything he wrote - I give that the same credibility as Salmon Rushdie's Muslim conviction for The Satanic Verses. I'm an American. I'm not about to give the slightest respect to an anti-free speech law created by a Communist.
You did know Jean-Claude Gayssot is a Communist, right?
Prove that something in the bio is incorrect! A third editor sounds good. I'm confident this accurate.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenact (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Not a article of history
That would be great if this article was based on some works of history, not on the declarations of Rassinier ; those declarations are sometimes contradictory, sometimes just false. And well, it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to diffuse the official hagiography of a negationist, isn't it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.198.216 (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE VANDALIZING IT
It’s a biography, not an historical essay, if you're going to contribute, contribute personal details.
Before you state anything is false, you have to prove it.
You can’t just say there are unsourced comments in the article. You have to be specific about which sources are unsourced, and request corrections.
Also, your changes have no signature.
The secondary sources you included are either already linked or noted in the article, and are redundant. OR they cannot be used under Wikipedia rules, please review those.
A link to an English translation of “A Paper Eichmann” by Vidal-Naquet was already included. If you read French, and were able to understand what “Un Eichmann de papier” means, you would have known that.
Rassinier’s entry in “Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier Français" was already noted, and in two languages.
Nadine Fresco is not the author of Rassinier’s entry in “Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier Français”. The author is Jean Maitron, Fresco just linked it to her own article.
"Rassinier, un Impostuer" is an unsourced webpage of unknown authorship. Those are not allowed under Wikipedia rules. This also counts as original research, and that also is not allowed.
The Brayard thesis was rejected even by Rassinier’s most bitter enemies (Fresco tore it to pieces), and was rejected by the university he submitted it to. Again, this is original research, and not allowed.
Igonuet’s book has very little on Rassinier, what she has is already in this article, and is redundant.
Fresco’s "Fabrication D’un Antisemite" might yet make for a source of biographical detail on Rassinier, but the published version is elusive. I have a galley copy, the copy sent to editors and critics before the official version is published – and have been working hard on a translation, but it is a galley, and can’t be used until it can be compared to the published version, which inevitably has changes in it. If you read it (I doubt it) you’ll know that of the 719 pages, only about 300 are about Rassinier, the rest is padding (at one point Fresco goes on for FOUR PAGES about how a church was built on the foundation of another church). Still, Fresco interviewed some of Rassinier’s family, and there might be some items that can be used about his early life and political campaigns. However, Fresco’s book ends in 1946 with his defeat at the polls by Pierre Dreyfus-Schmitt, and doesn’t cover his books or reaction to them at all. The part of Rassinier’s life of interest to most people happened after 1946, and she doesn’t cover that at all.
The link to the Archive Rassinier was sabotaged. I have repaired it.
Finally:
Vous parlez français ? Si oui, savez-vous de ce que vous parlez ? Ou tirez-vous juste votre bouche ignorante au loin ?
I have a feeling it’s the latter. Of course, you can prove me wrong. Since it is available only in French, perhaps you can give me your analysis of Brayard’s rejected thesis?
Finally to whoever keeps linking the CODAH portrait of Paul Rassinier – please don’t put it up again, the article is incorrect. For instance, it says Rassinier served two years in the National Assembly. He actually served two months. Mkenact (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I speak french, but you write it very bad. And what you say is really funny. For exemple, in Igounet's book, there is about 50 pages on Rassinier, with a lot of ressources. An other exemple : "Rassinier, un imposteur" cites a lot of historical sources. And when you say only about 300 are about Rassinier, are you really serious ? If you wan't to write a article with only negationism sources, that 's not for Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs historical works : those that you delete from the bibliography... David Mountolive (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit May 12 and overview of Wikipedia Rules
Revert To Modified Original: Changes Redundant and break Wikipedia rules
Dear David Mountolive:
Sigh. Ok, lets try again.
First, if you read through the discussion page, there’s a gentlemen’s agreement with dissenters from both sides of the fence to try to limit the size of this article, which in its early versions was overwritten, unwieldy, and redundant. All sorts of details could be included, such as how Rassinier’s home in Asnieres was a hostel for visiting Israeli students, friends of his son Jean-Paul Rassinier, who did graduate work in Israel; or how a lot of Rassinier’s lack of success at the polls in the 1930’s had to do with his divorce from his first wife, something deeply frowned upon in Catholic Belfort. Rassinier’s meeting with Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, Kurt Gerstein’s traveling companion at Belzac, is one of the truly intriguing moments in his life, and is little known.
And some of those details were included in early versions. But they are not necessary for the broad overview of an encyclopedia article, and add to the clutter.
I’ve included what I hope is a reasonable explanation for what I’ve done.
I hope you reply with reasonable arguments before vandalizing the page again.
I. WHAT IS A SECONDARY SOURCE AND NEW SECTION – “FURTHER READING”
A secondary source is a source that supplies material that is actually used in the article. Such works you listed that can be used as secondary sources were already there, either linked in the article, or noted in Footnotes.
Other works, such as Fresco’s, are currently not contributory to the article (though this can be explored), and cannot be listed as Secondary Sources, since they aren’t secondary sources for the article.
So, I’ve created a new section marked Further Reading. I hope you’ll accept the convention that only works not sourced in the article itself be placed in this category, to reduce redundancy.
II. REDUNDANCY
A. As I previously said, Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier Français is already noted in Secondary sources as well as twice in Footnotes; putting it in again is redundant, and Fresco isn’t the author of Rassinier’s entry.
B. The English language edition of Pierre Vidal-Naquet’s A Paper Eichmann is already linked, TWICE, in the article. Putting it in again, and in French, is redundant. This is why I still wonder if you’ve actually read the article, readers can read Vidal-Naquet’s essay in an English translation through the link provided.
III. OMISSIONS IN FURTHER READINGS
A. If you’re going to refer to Seillier’s book, you should have included the English, not the French edition. I’ve corrected that.
B. You seemed to have missed the Moyn book, perhaps because there is no French edition? Moyn has some new and original material on Rassinier. I’ve included it.
C. Roque’s book contains original correspondence between Rassinier and Wilhelm Pfannenstiel.
IV. WIKIPEDIA’S THREE CONTENT POLICIES
Things like Brayard’s essay – it’s not really a book – and the web page Rassinier un Imposteur cannot be included under Wikipedia rules. Please respect them. Here is an overview for you.
A. RELIABLE SOURCES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Check out the section Extremist and Fringe Sources, this is why the webpage Rassinier: un Imposteur cannot be linked on this page. It’s the same reason any article about Rassinier by David Irving on Real History or by Faurisson on IHR cannot be linked.
For Rassinier: un Imposteur, authorship of the page (not some of the content, as you suggested) is unknown. There is a great deal of commentary and speculation on Rassinier from an unknown author, punctuated by extracts from other authors that are cherry-picked and taken out of context with obvious malicious intent, and with no pretense to neutrality.
Peer review of the page has not taken place, nobody does peer reviews of web pages. Some of the information is just plain wrong. For instance, Rassinier and Johann von Leers were never “amis” – Leers inquired about publishing his books in Egypt through Maurice Bardeche. Rassinier replied not to Leers but to Bardache, and Rassinier never met Leers. An exchange of letters doesn’t make anybody “amis”. Vidal-Naquet also exchanged letters with Rassinier, and they can scarcely be called “amis”. This is typical of the deceptions on this web page.
One of the sad things here is some of the research by Charles Provan, who has uncovered new facts about Rassinier’s meeting with Pfannensteil, cannot be put in here for the same reason.
Brayard’s How The Idea Came To Mr. Rassinier was rejected under peer review.
NIZKOR cannot be linked for the same reasons.
B. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Rassinier: un Imposteur doesn’t even pretend to neutrality, cherry-picks quotes out of context, and has an obvious malicious and hostile intent towards Rassinier. The text, not the quotes, contains unfounded assertions by an unknown author that cannot be checked up on.
Because of this rule, I’ve been reluctant to insert material from Fresco’s Fabrication of an Anti-Semite. Instead of writing a biography, she set out to prove a psychological thesis, and the title itself tells you that she came in with an agenda. The text is full of malicious sneers she sends in his direction. Her pointless gloating over his move to Asnieres, which doesn’t even prove her thesis, is an example of the padding I mentioned.
Also, in the review of Fresco by Samuel Moyne, Moyne expresses his doubts that Fresco discovered how an anti-semite is fabricated or that Rassinier was anti-semitic.
For the same reason, Lipstadt’s Denying The Holocaust cannot be sourced here. Besides her obvious agenda, she also gets a great many biographical details wrong, since she never bothered to do any real research on him, and again cherry-picks quotes, sometimes down to mere words and sentences, with no clue as to what context they are in.
Brayard’s How The Idea Came To Mr. Rassinier also makes no pretense to neutrality, and again, is a psychological thesis, not a biography.
C. ORIGINAL RESEARCH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
I could publish a lot here based on conversations I’ve had with members of his family and people who knew him, but as you can see, that’s not allowed.
This is another reason Rassinier un Imposteur cannot be used on Wikipedia. The text states original material, and from an unknown author, or authors, and there is no way of checking up on it.
V. WHAT IS AN EDIT?
You really made no contribution to the article. Your comment was “here are some sources that you could use to rewriting this propaganda article”, threw them up in secondary sources where they didn’t belong, and failed to note that two of them were already included.
Your demand is that somebody else rewrite the article? That isn’t an edit at all, which is why I created the new category for the works you listed.
If you want to make an edit, I tell you what. I’m already going through the Fresco book, and some of the info on Rassinier’s family and his campaign against Pierre Dreyfus-Schmitt seem like they could be added, even if Fresco’s book is hardly neutral.
You seem to be very familiar with the Igounet book. If you think there is something there that isn’t covered in this article that is broad enough in scope to be included in an encyclopedia article, please put it here as a proposed edit, and it can be discussed.
Raisonnable? Peu raisonnable?
VII. UNSOURCED COMMENTS
The unsourced comments complaint is for comments in the article that are not sourced, not for books that are not included. If you're going to complain that comments in the article are not sourced, you have To Specify Which Comments You Are Referring To. Otherwise, there is no way to correct them, should you be right.
VIII. ARCHIVE RASSINIER
Is linked so people can read Rassinier themselves, and make up their own minds. There is a pirate translation of Plantin’s biography in English that could be linked, and once was, but the moderator is stating that one VHO link is probably enough, and I think he/she might be right.
XI. NEW MATERIAL IN NEW EDITS FOR THE GENERAL READER
There was no Wikipedia page on Marie Claude Vallient-Courterier when this article was first written; now there is, and it looks pretty good. Includes her dealings with Rassinier, I’ve linked it in the article, along to a link with the Deutsche Reichspartie.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenact (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Negationist bibliography and contempt of historical sources : why this article is crap
Wich sources are used in this article ? The books of... Rassinier !!! Althought recent works of historians show that Rassinier is a liar, it seem's not to be a problem for wikipedia...
Well, about those works of historians, where are they ? In the secondary sources, we find Jean Plantin. Good, so, who is fr:Jean Plantin ? He is a FRENCH NEGATIONIST, who was condemned for contestation de crime contre l'humanité. He's not really a historical authority.
Then, what remains ? Historical works of Fresco, Igounet, Vidal-Naquet, etc. (those works are used on PHDN, so it's a lie to say that PHDN is original research). But, those works are refused. It is not the work of the wikipedians to decide if the historical works are reliable sources or not, because the ressources for writing articles on wikipedia ARE those historical works. The Wikipedians haven't to decide what is recevable in history.
I have no time to waste here, so my last message is the following : this kind of pseudo historical methods in use here are detestable. David Mountolive (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a question: WHERE is this guy of the article debunked? It'd make my day to know that. Ancient Alines is debunked, the DaVinci Code is debunked, but why can't I ever find this guy debunked? Seriously. I so want it debunked. Who'll help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:5200:4980:899A:E9C2:E8BE:61C1 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)