Talk:Ernst Zündel

message: This quote section contains numerous cherry-picked quotes in what seems to me an attempt to paint the subject in a certain light. How necessary is this section? Shouldn't this just be merged into the article? It seems to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy pretty badly to me. Some of these violate context pretty blatantly, for example - Zündel has presented himself delivering warnings to the Jews, not making threats to them as the holocaust quote would imply, for example. And how would you "balance" it? By just adding more quotes? What a mess, just merge them into the article if they are really that necessary.
I've deleted it once with this reasoning before, however it was simply restored. :bloodofox: 03:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the SELECTION of the quotes that are the problem. Selecting specific quotes can give an impression - it's context. I've since removed the quotes in question. If you need to use them, work them into the article, otherwise you're pushing the NPOV limits. :bloodofox: 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't like Jews much, do you? --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote section

message: This probably needs inclusion in the artical somehow considering it's relevance. It's the ruling that Zundel was deported under. Although the ruling is suspended for one year current detainees have been granted bail and are free to leave the country.
"Canada's Supreme Court struck down a controversial anti-terror law on Friday (23/02/2007) that allows foreign suspects to be detained indefinitely without trial on the basis of secret evidence.
The court ruled unanimously that the government had broken the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by issuing so-called security certificates to imprison people, pending deportation, without giving them a chance to see the government's case.
The court suspended the ruling for a year to allow Parliament time to rewrite the relevant part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act -- under which the certificates are issued. 
The Supreme Court ruling said one way to improve the system of certificates would be to appoint a special advocate to challenge the security evidence."
(c) Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. 
Wayne 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deportation update 

message: :Den meisten Revisionisten dürfte es nämlich nicht so sehr auf die Richtigkeit der aufgestellten Thesen ankommen, als vielmehr darauf, zu belegen, dass in Deutschland das Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit je nach geäußerter Gesinnung strafrechtlich beschnitten werde. Inwieweit die nun anstehende Revision diesbezüglich als Agitationsfeld genutzt wird, ist noch nicht absehbar.
is taken from the reference http://www.verfassungsschutz-bw.de/rechts/files/r_sonstige_2007_03.htm
English summary in article:
:It is believed that the Holocaust deniers are using this process and the coming revisions to show that freedom of speech is impaired in Germany depending on the ideology of the speaker.
I reverted the incorrect edit of Jpgordon who moved this sentence out of the referenced paragraph and asked for citation. --85.181.42.117 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert / "citation needed" 

message: FURs added for image use with Ernst Zündel and Holocaust denial articles.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Did six million really die.jpg

message: New readers to this article should be certain to read the first archive, particularly the last section. The closest it appears that Mr Zundel came to being a "terrorist "was his "opposition to multiculturalism". I wonder what "o t m" means. Most of his fame is in saying that the Jews are lying about the holocaust, how "o t m" fits in is humorous. I hope the old guy has been given a chair, an upgrade from Canadian jails, and some paper and a pencil/pen/sharpener/stamps....159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want a good rundown on the maltreatment of Ernst Zundel, you should read this:
*Alan Cabal. "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel", CounterPunch (reprinted at HistoriansBehindBars.com), February 1, 2004.
Best, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "OTM"

message: (moved from top of page)
:Zundel was never a member of any neonazi organization and said in interviews that he was not a neonazi. It does not seem reasonable to me that he is described as a neonazi.
:Also the term "Holocaust denier" is derogatory. Zundel calls himself an historical revisionist. Wikipedia has two entries on historical revisionism, one of which has "negationism" after it in parentheses and is derogatory toward its subject matter. Isn't that enough? 
:Can't we call Zundel by the label that he calls himself (historical revisionist), and not apply a label that he rejects (neonazi), when that label is unsubstantiated? And can we drop the use of derogatory terms like denier? Hadding
::I have added references for Zundel as both neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier. These are the two reasons why the gentleman has notoriety - that he has spent most of his adult life publicly supporting Nazism and publicly denying the Holocaust. These are facts, any way you label it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zundel is infamous for his neo-Nazi, Nazi-supporting activities - this isn't POV, it is what virtually all references support. If Zundel himself denied that he was a neo-Nazi, you can add that reference. As for Holocaust denial , this is what he did - he denied the factual existence of the Holocaust - in personal testimony and with his publishing activities. A Sniper (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: he published a book called "The Hitler We Loved and Why"; were you under the impression it was a romance? and one called "Did Six Million Really Die?", which to nobody's surprise answered that with "no". if he's not a neonazi and a holocaust denier, then he's really fooling his customers. Gzuckier (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The point you seem to be missing is how Zundel gained notoriety and what the world's press has reported. What would be POV is to not state what the RS sources have stated about him, whatever their conclusions. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, this is simply untrue. I would suggest you check the articles Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism. Zundel is listed as a denier merely because all bona fide sources state he is one, not because I as an editor believe he is. Holocaust denial is an acceptable term, found in reliable literature, regardless of whether you as an editor find it hostile. Until Lipstadt is somehow not considered a reliable source, and Zundel and his peers are, well then the world would look different and so would Wikipedia.  A Sniper (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Query

message: One does not find a "Communism" summary box when looking at the biography of Karl Marx, so why is the AntiSemitism summary box displayed on the right-hand side for Ernst Zundel.   This would imply he is the 'poster child' for antisemitism.   It is inconsistent with how other biographies are structured. Thanks. [dar]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkar3 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is consistent with the category and the listing of well-known, infamous antisemites. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

text: We're all "moderators"; contents of Wikipedia articles are determined by consensus, not by authority. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, this appears to be your POV as an editor. The fact remains that the only reason this article exists, and why Zundel has notoriety, is in the subject area of antisemitism. This is why the tag passes BLP. Almost all reputable sources would agree on this tag as appropriately encapsulating Zundel's notoriety, whether an individual editor likes it or not. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, other than your own POV or original research, there appears to be an endless number of reliable sources concluding that Zundel achieved notoriety as a Holocaust denier, publishing what is considered antisemitic material. I'd love to see your sources to suggest otherwise, and whether or not these ideas about Zundel that you express are fringe. What any administrator would allow on a BLP, however, are reliable sources that indicate why Zundel is notable, and this certainly rests within the Antisemitism tag. A Sniper (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: This discussion really isn't going anywhere - we are writing about two different things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is about what can be verified with reliable sources. Show me reliable sources that show that any significant numbers of Jews deny the Holocaust, or think it is a gross exaggeration, and that would be perfectly acceptable. But there aren't any reliable sources. Period. Show me reliable sources that paint a picture of Zundel as anything other than an antisemitic publisher of hate literature, then it would be acceptable.  You are entitled to your POV and to your opinion. You can even actually believe the Holocaust is a myth or a hoax - that's your business. I am only concerned about Wikipedia and what can be verified. If you want to drag an administrator to view these edits and our discussion, please do so. A Sniper (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: There is the problem, Hadding: it isn't how I see it...it is how Wikipedia demands it. If Zundel can be reported from reliable sources as to what his own opinions are, go on and throw them in the article. As an aside, as to your quote about "10,000" I couldn't help but want to quote Joseph Goebbels' Big Lie theory, but figured it wasn't appropriate ;) A Sniper (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry - I don't understand your point. A Sniper (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Uh, sorry - you've lost me again. A Sniper (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: WP:SELFPUB limits the use of self-published sources, as does WP:BLPSPS. Specifically there is a problem with it is not unduly self-serving - given that Ernst Zündel published Holocaust denial material, there is a strong reason not to take his denials of being a neo-Nazi at face value.Autarch (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AntiSemitism Summary Box not Consistent with other Biographies 

message: Does anyone know where in Canada he lived? I recall reading somewhere that he resided in Yale, BC, or somewhere in the Lower Fraser Valley. Does anyone know for sure? -- œ™ 05:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lived in Canada" .. where?

message: This guy is listed as a Holocaust denier but the article seems to lack examples demonstrating this. Could someone provide them? The closest I could find of actions of his that might actually evidence it are his publication company producing:
:pamphlets and books devoted to Holocaust denial
However that's pretty vague and lacks quotes from this literature. It's possible that the intrepretation of his literature might be extreme and he's not actually a denier. To allow readers to choose for themselves I think an excerpt or two with examples of phrases that indicate he's actually denying it.
The one quote I did see here spoke of embellishment, but speaking about Holocaust being embellished (as opposed to concocted) is holocaust revisionism, not denial. While he did publish (though not write) "Did Six Million Really Die?", that too sounds like a potentially revisionistic rather than denial book. DB (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your view and you're entitled to it - however, I would say it is on the fringe to suggest so-called revisionists are not considered Holocaust Deniers by the bona fide press, Holocaust experts and professors of history. Besides, as long as secondary sources state that Zundel is a Holocaust Denier, than that is what is written here. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The press is run by Jewish people. All the major news outlets are run by Jews, have Jews among their upper executive staff, or have boards full of Jews including chairmen. Rupert Murdoch is a Jew too but people always say he isn't. Pointing this out is considered antisemitic which is odd considering it is just fact and not a secret and can be verified in minutes. Virtually every holocaust "expert" is Jewish because they're the ones most passionate on the subject. Many professors of history including the overwhelming majority who have written on the topic are Jewish too. Considering Jews make up less than 2% of the USA population and .2% of the global population, the fact that they have a tight grip on the story and revisionism is included in the definition of denial, that's troubling. What is undeniable fact is the holocaust generates billions, it makes people sympathetic, and it justifies Israel. It is a powerful tool for a Jew. Undoubtably I am sure that just about all Jews by faith believe it to be true. But rational non-Jewish people have a right to examine and argue facts that don't add up in history. It is a little strange you can go to prison for questioning it in some nations. Denying the holocaust and questioning the mass extermination methods and the unbelievable death toll are two separate things. You disagree because you are offended and so are your people, but being offended is never a reason to undermine the truth, it only further exposes that there is something to hide. Your argument is an excuse used to discredit people and keep wandering eyes from reading about it (considering it is a fragile story that normal people will question when presented with facts). We do not expect anything less in response, people have been imprisoned and even murdered trying to expose it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.226.145 (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Er...eleven uses of the words Jew or Jewish, equating a little bit of foaming around the mouth, keyboard-wise. Even if what our esteemed collegue Mr/Ms Unsigned wrote were true, the way s/he wrote it indicates an unrealistic portrayal of a multi-generational group of millions, all personally taking part in a vast cover up of events that mainstream historians strangely agree upon. The above comment should be removed for lack of impartiality, if only (it's only been two months since it was written, so this is normal pace as far as wiki goes). Pennarin Alex (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishment of so-called Holocaust denial

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Really? It looks like an attempt at discrediting his views and seriously, it has no importance whether he has Jewish ancestry or not. 
Drosldrosl (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ernst Zündel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140103223145/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20030214.wxzund0213%2FBNStory%2FInternational&ord=1160201521047&brand=theglobeandmail to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20030214.wxzund0213%2FBNStory%2FInternational&ord=1160201521047&brand=theglobeandmail
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929104434/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c61ce061-50b2-42a5-bb2f-a7bbaecccceb&k=32537 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c61ce061-50b2-42a5-bb2f-a7bbaecccceb&k=32537
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article is confused. On one hand it is said that he admitted that the UFO claims were just for publicity, yet it is said that "Zündel continued to defend these views as late as 2002". That implies that he continued to claim that the UFO claims were real - at least that is how the Wikipedia article on the Nazi UFO's interprets the same statement. Yet that claim follows immediately after him being quoted as admitting that it is fiction - which incidentally is surely obvious. Why doesn't the article simply state that he has admitted that the books are fiction?Royalcourtier (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not believe in UFO's 

message: It seems he died today. I got an unconfirmed report on this. --105.7.182.244 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: I have tried to put quotation marks around this term as it implies or rather gives the impression Herr Zündel is a racist, which is without foundation, but twice it was removed. Here is the passage in question: "The anti-racist efforts included participation by numerous Toronto activist groups". Now the lack quotes around the term "anti-racist" would suggest that the efforts were indeed objectively and demonstrably anti-racist and not merely the claims of a person, group, organization etc. We see this quite frequently in the media in order for journalists to avoid imparting a personal meaning or understanding of a word as would appear to the public, thus ensure neutrality. Lastly, I tried changing the term to "anti-racists'" which would be more fitting and less charged and was again shot down. For an encyclopedia that claims to be open, it takes an awful lot of effort to add two bytes of data into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.105.34 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
:(1) New comments go at the bottom of the page.
:(2) Please sign your comment by adding four tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end.  The system will add your IP address and a date/time stamp.
:{3) When your edit has been disputed by other editors, and especially when one of them says "take it to talk", that is not the cue for you to revert your edit back into the article.  Per WP:BRD, your next step is to discuss it here on the article talk page.  Anything else is edit warring. I have reverted back to the status quo ante until a consensus of the editors here decides whether to accept your edit or not.
:Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK buddy don't tell me what to do or not, I perfectly understand what "take it to talk" means but it doesn't preclude me from modifying changes which I judge as unfair. This is an open encyclopedia remember that boyo? Take your God complex down a notch. Sincerely, 108.63.105.34 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you don't understand what is allowed and what is not allowed, because you are engaged in edit-warring with three other editors. You have now been officially warned on your talk page.  The next revert takes this to WP:EWN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in any edit-warring war, I made a legitimate edit that was in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and I even explained my move in the Wikipedia talk page. I don't care what you and your "colleagues" view as allowed or not, my only crime was to change "anti-racist" to "anti-racists'". I will make a report to Wikipedia and put an end to your "career". Sincerely,108.63.105.34 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

text: All that aside, the IP's last edit, simply changing "racist" to "racists'", is indeed a good edit, changing it from an unsourced characterization to a reference to the organization. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  05:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this interview may reveal what Mr. Zunde's views on race were: https://archive.org/details/ErnstZundelInterviewedByBlackStudent480p 105.8.7.1 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good try.  Not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The term "anti-racist"

message: The article omits that Ernst Zuendel was a convinced pacifist. Can it be worked in? --105.4.6.207 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A WP:RS would be required. First day on WP? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: RIR: WP:BITE much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacifist 

message: I don't believe it is NPOV to have a template named Part of a series on Antisemitism included here, as Ernst Zündel is listed as part of the series. Clearly by any reasonable definition, Zündel's views are antisemitic, but that is not a good enough reason to include the template. Lmatt (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, , open your eyes please.  The subject is a Holocaust denier, which means that he's ipso facto an anti-semite.  You've been fiddling around with articles about antisemitism, and your edits are decidely not improvements, as numerous editors have now informed you on your talk page, on article talk pages, and in edit summaries.  Get a clue, please, or you are likely to be blocked very soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ernst Zündel is an antisemite, that's our common ground. The sidebar Antisemitism is titled . There is no mention of Ernst Zündel in the sidebar, therefore Ernst Zündel can not be considered part of the series. We need a better reason then the fact somone is an antisemite to include them in this sidebar. Lmatt (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Antisemitism|Part of a series on Antisemitism template]]