Talk:International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust/Archive 1

message: Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the International Conference on the Holocaust, Teheran, 11-12 December 2006
On December 11-12, 2006 an International Conference on the Holocaust is being held in Teheran. The event has been organized by the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Institute for Political and International Studies. In the light of statements on the Holocaust made by prominent Iranians before the conference, it is not unfounded to fear that the event will be used to question the truth about the Shoah. Any attempt at contesting this truth arouses serious concern in Poland, where 6 million people were victims of the Nazi genocide. In order to guarantee respect for the historic truth, Poland, as well as other countries, must firmly respond to such attempts. We owe the truth about the genocide not only to our citizens but also to the memory of those killed by the Nazis in concentration camps and to their descendants. Polish authorities have consigned to the Iranian partners a set of information materials from the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oświęcim. We hoped that would contribute to deepen their knowledge about the tragic historical events in the occupied Poland during the WWII and above all about the greatest genocide and barbarism in human history. Victims of the Nazi regime were mainly Jews from all over Europe, but also Poles and citizens of other countries. Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs expresses its strong disapproval of the conference, which contradicts the idea of the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust established by the UN General Assembly, and celebrated on 27 January. Poland highly values its long-term tradition of good relations with Iran and intends to develop them. We wish to help Iran overcome problems that may arouse serious international controversies. We hope that a thorough study of the information materials will allow Iranian scholars to better understand the historic truth, the sensitivity of other nations and their desire that this truth be respected. Such an approach is in line with the Dialogue of Civilizations initiative promoted by Teheran. One of its main guidelines should be the study of the history of different civilizations. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.24.209.145 (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish Reaction, add please 

message: "Holocaust denial violates Canadian hate crime laws if it is found to wilfully promote hatred."
Surely this means Holocast denial in itself is not illegal in Canada? brian_chat 19:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Hate Crime 

message: Sorry if this edit breaks the formatting. I'm new. I just wanted to point out that in the 'conference section' it says "Cohen said at the conference, blah blah blah", but it doesn't say who Cohen is (in that section). I don't know if it says who Cohen is elsewhere, but I think he should be described in that section.
74.108.120.2 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hi Chris, I was confused on that point, too, the first time I read it, but it does indeed say who Cohen is. Jeffpw 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference - Cohen - Who? 

message: This article was nominated for deletion. The result was speedy keep.
:Why was it so nominated--4.68.249.3 02:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion here. --Tim4christ17 talk 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete? 

message: "...A meeting to discuss the alleged Holocaust..."
* I removed the word "alleged" and the quotation marks because I think they show allot of POV and because the tone of questioning the reality of the Holocaust does not lend anything good to this article. — James.S (talk • contribs • site=en.wikipedia.org count)
:* If anything, it's POV to take "alleged" and the quote marks out. Many people don't accept the mainstream account of the "Holocaust". (This unsigned comment by 66.11.54.71)
::If we held a conference of people who think the world is flat, or that bacteria don't and dinosaurs never did exist, or if we held a discussion forum for people who believe that AIDS doesn't exist, would it make any of these absurd claims true? And would it be necessary for Wikipedia to put the word "alleged" in front of every claim that the world is round, just to satisfy the one or two wingnuts who think it's flat? Would you call it POV if I were to claim that gravity works? The Shoah did happen. Israel has a right to exist. If you want to deny some historical fact, at least pick one that's not in living memory. Maybe you can claim The Roman Empire never existed. We'll laugh you off all the same, but at least you won't force people who lost their loved ones to relive the world's worst nightmare over and over again. You can have your little conferences with discredited historians and some president who prefers violence to reason, maybe include a few self-hating Haredi to give it some 'credibility'. But don't expect us to say, "They held a conference on it, so it must be true!" Wandering Star 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We know there are always going to be disbelievers. If we have to cater to their (mostly unfounded) ideas, we'll have to call just about everything 'alleged'. Hell, there's probably someone out there who thinks the word 'the' is a figment of everyone's imaginations. What do we do about them? 'Earthquake - An earthquake is a tremor in alleged the ground, caused by motion of alleged the tectonic plates which make up alleged the Earth's crust.'  Sounds like a good way to ruin Wikipedia to me. From what I can tell, we're sort of supposed to state things scientifically, rather than trying to please every last one of the 650000000 people on Earth. - green_meklar 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think it is up to us to decide what is and isn't true. That is why Wikipedia must quote sources. If there is a recognizable organization that believes the earth is flat, then it should be documented and quoted exactly as their opinions and research say. If this is an emotional topic for anybody, i dont think they should be writing an article about it for an encyclopedia because, unfortunately, they hold a gread deal of bias. We should state the claims made by notable people, not our own. (Antonio.sierra 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Our article The Holocaust has a section on Holocaust Denial - it says "As the Holocaust is generally considered by historians to be one of the most documented events in recent history, these views are not accepted as credible by scholars, with organizations such as the American Historical Association, the largest society of historians in the United States, stating that Holocaust denial is 'at best, a form of academic fraud.'" Simesa 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wtf? Is that a mainstream association that calls the holocaust "a form of academic fraud"?. What am i missing? --Striver 23:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Holocaust denial is a form of academic fraud, not the Holocaust itself. That is what the AHA stated. Atamasama 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now i see it. Thanks. --Striver 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged? 

message: The confrence is not a major issue, we should delete it WikieZach| talk 04:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed it for deletion. Please vote here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Holocaust_conference. --Gabi S. 07:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the discussion was speedy keep. --Tim4christ17 talk 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove this page 

message: Although this may be the official name, is this really the name it's commonly known as? Per the guideline WP:COMMONNAME: use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things
As a first offer, I suggest Iranian Conference on the Holocaust AndrewRT(Talk) 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a page a few weeks ago called 2006 Iran Holocaust Conference If anyone searches they'll prolly find this page from there or somewhere else. There's a redirect up now that the Media has been talking about it and people have started to edit pages about it. Sup dudes?User:Kitler005 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Anyone know how to ref this? The Reuter's article "Iran opens conference that questions Holocaust" disappeared from the web as best I can tell, and the msnbc.com link ended up going to a different article. -- Kendrick7talk 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nevermind, found it. -- Kendrick7talk 08:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, it broke again, but at least the link doesn't go to a different article. -- Kendrick7talk 09:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind again, User:Jeffpw for the real McCoy. -- Kendrick7talk 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSNBC link mutated 

message: Reminder : All claims about living persons must be adequately sourced. See WP:BLP. WAS 4.250 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages are not message boards. This is not the correct place to ask this question and give your opinion. See WP:WWIN.--Burzum 10:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this is one of the questions being dealt with at the conference and should be in the article (sourced of course). The claim is that Europe either committed "The Holocaust" or it did not and if it did then Europe should take in the Israelis so Palestine can revert to the Palestinians and if the did not then it was all a lie to saddle the arabs with Jews that Euope did not want and shouls take them back on that basis and furthermore if Europe won't take them back the North america should and if we won't then at least we should make Israel take back the Palestinians so they can vote Israel a Muslim government. Its all quite clever politically. But the fact is that many Jews were returning to what they perceive as their homeland in a world wide movement (Zionism) from around 1890 on - way before World War Two. As for the exact questionasked : the Germans suffered a great deal during and after WWII - especially at the hands of the Soviets. Britain who ruled palestine at the time refused to allow Jews to return and in fact caused additional harm to Jews who tried. But at the end of WWII the remaining Euorpean Jews had had enough and those who fought on the side of the allies used their knowledge and connections to move Jews to "the promised land" in spite of British wishes and even committed acts od terrorism against the British to force Britain to wash its habds of Palestine and leave - with the blessing of the US and USSR who both recognized the nation of Israel immediately for debateable reasons (I believe political mainly). As far as the average American is concerned, Arabs are "white" just as many Hispanics are "white". WAS 4.250 11:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last sentence is not entirely true. The very same anti-semites (like David Duke, et al.) mentioned here refer to Arabs as "sand niggers' or 'towel heads' amongst themselves. And before any foreigners contemplate giving them your allegience, let me tell you this: while they hate Jewish and Black people worse than they hate you, once they feel they've 'dealt' with these groups, you're next on the list. They're just using you because alot of people have sympathy for the Palestinians. And once the world's media decides they're bored about hearing the whole Arab-Israeli conflict over and over again, and turn their attentions back to Brittany Spears' love life, you won't be useful to them anymore. They don't think you're white, they definitely don't think you're christian, and they certainly don't think you're pro-American. And those are the three things they judge a person's right to live on, so watch you backs. Wandering Star 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wandering Star, you are rapidly becoming my favorite person on Wikipedia!! Jeffpw 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Germans, the main culprits in the Jewish equation, are unusually silent about anything to do with the subject. A reasonable person (my kind of reasonablility) would imagine that they feel responsible for the monster they created, the Jewish killing machine, trying to get rid of Palastinians using any means, but mainly tactics used on them by the Germans. What amazes me is why the focus has never been on Germany. The German suffering from the Russians was voluntary, while the Jewish suffering from the Germans was imposed, just like the Palestinian suffering from the Jews is imposed. The west are very selective in whom they regard as worthy of life. They have intervened in Kossovo, in Iraq, etc but never in many similarly suffering African nations or in Palestine. Why? Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP 

message: The term "anti-Semite in relation to Faurisson was removed from this article with the rationale that we cannot call him that or say it is considered true since he denies it. Since he was convicted for spreading racial hatred, his denials seem a moot point. Just my thought. I would like that reinstated, but wont unless we have consensus. Here is a relavent quote I got from Nizkor.org: He has been found guilty of libel, racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred, and
failure properly to discharge his responsibilities as a
historian, both in his approach to evidence and testimony as
well as in his research methods. He was a star witness for
Zundel at both his trials. Thanks.Jeffpw 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it POV to refer to him as "disgraced"? Andrew Parodi 10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may have been my mistake; I missed that in the ref and his wikipedia article must be incomplete. (I specifically removed it from :Category:anti-Semitic people a while back when that cat was in WP:CfD specifically because it didn't have much to support it; though vandals might have gotten there first) -- Kendrick7talk 11:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See Faurisson affair. His bio should be updated to reflect what is in the affair article. Jeffpw 11:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I disagree a little with Zocky. It seems like "disgraced" is more a reference to his sanctioning by the university (and the fact that that happened is not POV) than to the views for which he was sanctioned. I believe the term "disgraced academic" is usually used in this context. Dkostic 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faurisson 

message: This section is a bit POV'd to me. To go to the extent of quoting "a student" against the conference, and nothing in its favor (there must be someone in Iran, if not most of the population, that supports the move) seems a bit...extreme.--SidiLemine 13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Opinion in Iran 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that several rabbis participate?--SidiLemine 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attendees 

message: I didn't think this article needed to call David Duke Klu Klux Klan Imperal Wizard and a white nationalists idelogue (I think the two go hand in hand) so I added a more offical description of Former member of the House of Representatives, State of Louisiana, United States of America to describe him. It might be too long of a description, so if you feel the need to shorten it be bold! Sup dudes?User:Kitler005 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still think a represenitive is more formal than "White Nationalists Idealogue" Maybe less POV too? Sup dudes?User:Kitler005 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More formal, perhaps, but it is not what he is most notable for. If you look at the White nationalists article, you will see is is listed as one of the most prominent. How 'bout a compromise? We could list him as convicted tax evader and fraudster; he does get prominent mention in his bio for that. :-) Jeffpw 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't really sound like much of a compromise.Sup dudes?User:Kitler005 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a compromise in effect. He is listed once as a KKKer, once as a white supremacist, and one as a rep. Far too much mention in my opinion, but there it is. Jeffpw 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a representative is included because it's important. That might not be what he is known for, but because he held that position, it's only right to put it in there. .V. 22:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, it is there. Jeffpw 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? .V. 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Duke 

message: I'd just like to say, this article is very well done in terms of NPOV. It doesn't seem as if there's anything slanted pro or con. Thanks! .V. 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Good Job 

message: In the Public opinion in Iran section, there is the following, "Iran is primarily a Muslim country. This conference brings appeasement to general public as it intends to attack on the existence of Israel in Arab region, especially because Israel was carved out by displacing millions of Palestenian Muslims out of their homelands."
The next reference I encountered did not seem to make this statement. Is there a reference that I am missing or was this statement just placed here without support? The Behnam 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted it. The reference supports the sentence that came after that sentence. That sentence was not referenced at all. Jeffpw 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeasement to the General Public 

message: I'd like to see the source for 'displacing millions of Palestenian Muslims' in this quote:
"This conference brings appeasement to general public as it intends to attack on the existence of Israel in Arab region, especially because Israel was carved out by displacing millions of Palestenian Muslims out of their homelands."
When Israel was established as a state were "millions of Palestenian Muslims" displaced??
From the Wikipedia article on Palestinian people...."The British census of 1922 counted 752,048 in Palestine, comprising 589,177 Muslims, 83,790 Jews, 71,464 Christians (including Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and others) and 7,617 persons belonging to other groups (corresponding to 78% Muslim, 11% Jewish, and 9% Christian) (1922 census report)." --207.206.144.136 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "displacing millions of Palestenian Muslims" 

message: I changed the sentence in the first paragraph about Moshe Aryeh Friedman because the Neturei Karta article (along with their own website) states that their name is Aramaic. Either way, Neturei Karta isn't synonymous with "The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria," I think most of the sect's adherents live in Israel. Somebody's since changed the sentence back. I'm not trying to get into an edit war over this, but unless anyone registers objections in like the next few hours, I'm changing it back to my version. P4k 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for "Austria", I don't know, Austria sounds strange to me. Nut the name of the group, Neturei Karta, is well known in Israel, I know, because I live here. John Hyams 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize their name is well known in Israel, but that doesn't mean it's Hebrew. I mean, Hamas is well known in Israel too. They claim the name is Aramaic, and so do some other internet sources. I guess I don't really understand what your argument is. Anyway saying that "The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria," is "known in Hebrew as Neturei Karta" implies that they're the same group, which isn't true; I'm sure Israeli and American Neturei Karta adherents aren't part of The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria, and Moshe Aryeh Friedman isn't the head of Neturei Karta. The fact that the group exists in Austria is weird, but it does. I'm kind of grasping at straws here cause I don't really understand what your objection is. P4k 00:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway, if this is controversial, can you just let me say that Moshe Aryeh Friedman is a member of Neturei Karta and resolve the issue of what language their name is in on the Neturei Karta page? P4k 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no, its not acctually controversial, just someone has been changing it recently on the nk page. it's discussed by people who know what they're talking about on that talk page. also here's nk usa's explanation . (i assume the page number discrepancies are because the talk is citing within the chapter etc.) gemara is ussualy in aramaic, mishna is in hebrew, these changes where probably just confusion. otherwise, just about everything else about nk is controversial :)  ⇒ bsnowball  16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neturei Karta 

message: Like the saying goes, "A picture speaks a thousand words". Thanks, Metaspheres, for adding that valuable photo to the article. Jeffpw 12:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I clicked the link for the source of that photo, but I don't see it on that page. Is that link right, or am I blind? .V. 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If the citation link did contain it at one point, it is possible to check that. I am assuming good faith, and I think others should, too. There is a Wiki dept, to check for Fair Use. If this does not meet that, it will be removed by an admin. Jeffpw 15:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was a policy that if you take an image from a website, it needs to be there. Not sure if it's a good faith issue. .V. 15:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I should add that all images on that repulsive site are freely licensed, so if necessary, another image can be taken from it. Jeffpw 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that may work. *shrug* I'd just feel better about an image with a more stable link. .V. 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Those who repeatedly delete this from the Goals section, should state their reason here. John Hyams 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't done so, but, as far as I can tell, this is not one of the officially stated goals. You and I, looking at what they do, will come to that conclusion, but it remains our own conclusion and violates WP:OR. The source that was provided did not directly state this goal either. If you want this in, either find a direct statement by the organizers, or find a WP:RS that you can attribute it to, ("According to Knut Hardensford of the Daagenblaad, the aim of the conference was ... [ref here] ). --Stephan Schulz 18:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also haven't deleted this sentence but it does look suspect. The secondary goal, as stated by David Duke, the Iranian Foreign Minister and Neturei Karta, is to deny the legitimacy of existence of the Zionist State of Israel, which was founded a short time after the Holocaust in order to compensate for the "alleged" genocide of the Jews.[5]The Jerusalem Post reference quotes the Iranian foreign minister as saying "The objective for organizing this conference is to create an atmosphere to raise various opinions about a historical issue," he said. "If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt. And if, during this review, it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Muslim people of the region and the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?" David Duke and Neturei Karta are also quoted in this article but I donh't see them claiming this to be the goal of the conference and they are attendees rather than organizers, so how can they set the conference goals? Finally, the Iranian minister quoted above suggests two outcomes either that Israel will be found to be illegitimate or that the Palestinians will be found to be paying for the Nazis crimes. His sated goal appears to be to determine the reality of the Holocaust which is the same as the primary goal. So I think this sentence should be dropped or changed around to something about the Iranian minister's views of the conference outcome. Curtains99 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed this para because it was unreferenced. What Curtains99 said above makes perfect sense. -- Kendrick7talk 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All references appear below, and also they are always deleted again and again. Facts need no reference John Hyams 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose the replacement of 'The secondary goals...' sentence with this paragrpah: According to the Iranian Foreign Minister, the outcome of the conference will be as follows:"If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt. And if, during this review, it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Muslim people of the region and the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?"[6] Curtains99 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  This was already there before. I feel that turning a blind eye to the secondary goal of the conference, Israel's right to exist, is not done in good faith. There is no hiding, Israel and a link to it, Zionism and a link to it, and their denial by the conference must be mentioned. Ahminijad's every second word is "Israel" and "Zionist" in the context of the Holocaust. John Hyams 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should we put pure propaganda of an Iranian minister in Wikipedia without stating the very simple fact that they have stated numerous times that "Israel" has no legitimacy to exist and should even be "destroyed". Wikipedia readers deserve to know these simple facts, which are perfectly reflected in the events of the conference. By the way, this event is old news already, I have asked to remove it and be done with it. John Hyams 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dd is an attendant, he does not proclaim the goals of the meting. --Striver 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  If something is a very simple fact, it should be easy to to find actual reliable sources that state this fact. If it is an obvious deduction from well-established facts, state these (with their sources) and leave the obvious deduction to the reader. WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR are core policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself takes no stand, not even for the worthiest causes. And, by the way, assuming good faith (of other Wikipdia editors, not of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is also a Wikpedia policyguideline. --Stephan Schulz 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guideline, not policy. --Striver 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for reminding us all what we already know. Please do not try "making points" without the proper context or saying anything on the subject. We can all quote the guidelines, but we also have to give substantial points. Please try better than this, state your points. Provide your opinion on the subject, and show us your good faith. John Hyams 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My points are stated right up at the top of this section. You have not given any sources that one aim of the conference is to deny the legitimacy of Israel. As far as I can tell, you have not even given sources that someone thinks so. The current source attached to the claim  does not contain anything supporting this, either. It does state that Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped of the map, and that he denies the Holocaust. That makes him a verifiable asshole, but it does not support the claim. It also reports on the opening speech of Mottaki, who presents a propagandistic dichtonomy. But again, that is not a good source for your claim. I agree with your belief, but we do not put beliefs into Wikipedia, only verifiable information. --Stephan Schulz 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Issue closed. John Hyams 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry about all that. (i just hope no-one now claims its unsuported cos it takes some finding in the jpost art!) looks like i might have continue... :)  ⇒ bsnowball  19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed Duke; I think NK is somewhat supported by the ref. -- Kendrick7talk 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goal: to deny the legitimacy of Israel 

message: The "Foreign reaction" has a western bias, this should be looked into, possibly by including other non-western countries. --Striver 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as the Holocaust occured in European countries, and many of its survivors either ended up in the U.S. or Israel, I think the list here is much as you would expect. I don't think Japan or Palau, for example, are going to have much to say about all this. -- Kendrick7talk 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the Arab and the rest of the Muslim world? None of them is represented. --Striver 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... well. I hereby put you in charge of this! 
 -- Kendrick7talk 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol! --Striver 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another "I don't want to do it but someone should" thing: it would be good to cover the world press reaction as well official reactions from foreign governments. Judging from Google, it doesn't seem like Muslim countries' goverments are talking about this, but some of their journalists are. Here's some BBC stuff:  P4k 06:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign reaction 

message: Not sure if this counts as "foreign reaction" but here are some titbits from ZA media that does not seem to feature in the article.
# The conference has upset Iran's 25 000-strong Jewish community, said Moris Motamed, the sole Jewish representative in Iran's parliament.
# Many ordinary Iranians admitted to embarrassment about the event, which follows Iran's decision to hold a competition for cartoons about the Holocaust in October.
# A former senior government official, who declined to be named, said that hosting the conference was unwise given diplomatic pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme.
# A group of Iranian intellectuals (from Iran and the US) has criticised Iran for hosting the conference, saying it used human suffering in the Holocaust to make "political points". "We the signatories of this letter are of the opinion that such 'conferences', more than anything, harm the academic image of the Iranian universities," said the letter circulated on the Internet and signed by 23 academics, writers and artists. 
# And this  news item attempts to create a link between the Iran cartoon contest and the conference. -- leuce (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa 

message: American David Duke, a former Louisiana State Representative and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the original KKK was before David Duke's time. He was infact former Imperial Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. I believe the "knights" were heralded as the sixth resurrection ogf the KKK but there are myriads of splinter organizations who take up the KKK tag. -- Kerowren 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed -- Kendrick7talk 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KKK or K-KKK 

message: How come there are no major discussions, events, breakthroughs, and conclusions on this page? It mainly focuses on the goals and the opening statements but no newer information has been presented. This page, just like other controversial issues, has POV issues and I think we should hear what the conference attendees have to say instead of condemming the event. --Midnight Rider 01:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major events/ discussions at the conference? 

message: When is the conference supposed to end? I-baLL 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a two day conference so it should already be kaput. -- Kendrick7talk 06:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference length 

message: *SidiLemine, I assume you added the new photo. Do you honestly think adding a picture of Jews to a Holocaust denial conference is NPOV? It smacks of POV push to me. There are dozens of other images available, and I urge you or someone else to download another one. I do not have the time right now or I would do it myself. Jeffpw 12:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest photo 

message: Why are only the reactions of western/europeon countries shown. This article is already biased towards the aims of the conference being insulting and wrong.203.51.104.200 07:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...because the aims of the conference ARE insulting and wrong.  Jboyler 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Reaction 

message: Hi. I added the Results section after finding an interesting report regarding the conference at IRNA. Any improvements and comments are welcome, as this is my first time adding a section. Thanks! The Behnam 08:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results 

message: *claiming that an apparently iranian organisation represents the 'palestinian opinion' is um, misleading. there is a palestinian government. if there's a sourced comment from them, it can go in that section. leaving this here as i'm not otherwise sure what to do with it:
*  However, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, Secretary-General of the International Congress to Support the Palestinian Intifada, gave support to the conference, and said that the "Western and Zionist media have always been aggrandizing the dimensions of the reality of Holocaust, mixing a bit of truth with a great deal of lies."
  ⇒ bsnowball  09:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  claim about 'palestinian' opinion 

message: Don't you guys think it is un-necessary to put this article in that category? sure it may have anti semitic elements but as you can see here: http://www.mideastyouth.com/2006/12/12/good-jews/ there were jews (anti zionists) invited, and they were greeted personally by Ahmadinejad. thanks -anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.78.24 (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is questioning the reason for Palestine to have its own free state Islamophobic or anti-Arab? Is questioning the extent of Jewish/Israeli genocide against Palestinians inherently Islamophobic? No, not at all. Jews are not special. Questioning any historic event is anyones right and not anti-anything. MirzaGhalib 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Until this article is removed from the anti-Semitic category, it serves as a prime example of the under-represented view of the Muslim, Arab, and Iranian population on Wikipedia. What happened to NPOV? MirzaGhalib 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti Semitism 

message: could someone with tech skills please go trhough the references and fix them. I see that the code is there, but they don't show up on the page correctly (see #6 for one example). I tried to do it, but screwed it up even more, so I would ask that someone else who is good at that sort of thing do it. Thanks, Jeffpw 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The original Farsi name of this conference is "ھمایش بین المللی "برسی ھولوکاست: چشم انداز جھانی"" if someone wants to add it in bold after the translated English title please do so. MirzaGhalib 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian Name 

message: Did anybody see Sacha Baron Cohen's speech at the British Comedy Awards? He made a joke that Borat couldn't be there because "Borat is guest of honour at the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran". I wonder if this can be added into the article somewhere, as it's significant that a big Star is commenting about the conference, at a big event. There are plenty of sources about the speech on the net, so it wont be a problem getting citations. Here's one source for instance http://www.jewtastic.com/posts/3774 --Hibernian 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it belongs in this article. Sacha Baron Cohen is not a politician nor does he officially represent any state or other entity involved in or criticizing the conference. Cheers.--Burzum 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what does that matter to the fact that he's commenting on it? Is there a rule that says only the comments of state representatives can be listed? In my view, he said it, it was quite high profile and it's relevant to this article, so why not just include it? The only thing is, I don't know where exactly to put his remarks in the article. --Hibernian 02:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not include every statement that every actor, actress, comedian, painter, plumber, etc., makes about this conference? While Sacha Cohen may be a very famous person his statements were not notable as he is a comedian and not a person who has any significance in an article about an Iranian Conference about the Holocaust. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection (first pillar).--Burzum 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The real point is, between Letterman, Leno, and Stewart, almost every event that make the front page of an American Newspaper gets cut up upon. We'd end up having to have a "jokes section" for any number of current envent articles; and that's really not the purpose of the wikipedia. Of course, this might fit into the Borat page, but reciprocity doesn't work here. (Stewart's bit about Neturei Karta cracked me up; but his timing based humor would barely translate here.) -- Kendrick7talk 02:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacha Baron Cohen's comments about the conference 

message: I thought I brought up a good point, why was my post deleted?
Geoffrey C Vargo 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to reply, but replies to your talk page instead. This page is for discussing this article. Not metaphysics. -- Kendrick7talk 05:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I deleted your "rant", as you called it. I just posted an explanation to your talk page. Once you've seen this message, it would reduce clutter if you were to delete this section as well. —Psychonaut 05:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was my post deleted? 

message: Do we really need a section for "Pictures of Iran's president meeting Jewish participants at the conference"? I don't think linking to a bunch of photos is a common practice for a Wikipedia news article (correct me if I'm wrong) and it seems kind of biased. P4k 07:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: Kendrick, please learn how to edit. Why are you insisting on having that irrelevant sentence in the lead, and why on earth did you put it in quotation marks? Say here why it is relevant instead of mindlessly reverting! SlimVirgin (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I haven't looked at this article since yesterday, and I am concerned that some bias is creeping in, especially in relation to anti-Semitism. First off, the word is used in the lead, but not further in the body of the article. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the body, either the sentence referring to anti-Semitism needs to be deleted, or it needs to be reflected/expanded later in the article. Also, I feel putting an anti-Semitism table in the article body violates NPOV. It seems to me that that is subtly editorializing to the reader. I know the conference is anti-Semitic, most others editing this article know it, too. But shouldn't we be letting the reader decide for themselves? Other than this quibble, I think we can all be proud of ourselves here, for creating a very good article on a controversial subject with only a small amount of conflict. Jeffpw 09:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reliable sources regard it as an example of antisemitism, so no, we shouldn't let the reader decide for themselves; or rather, readers can decide for themselves regardless. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel that if we refer to anti-Semitism in the lead, we have to discuss it with that term in the body of the article as well, since the lead summarizes the body. The counter-conference is discussed in the lead, but no further mention is made of it. That could be expanded upon. Jeffpw 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we could expand on the counter-conference, and any further discussion of antisemitism could be made in the section about that. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, or at least the beginnings of it is. Jeffpw 10:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeffpw, your efforts to avoid conflict are not going unnoticed.Thanks about that. SlimVirgin, the reliable sources do not regard it as an example of antisemitism. The reliable sources quote members of governments, who themselves are not relible sources. --SidiLemine 12:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the vote of confidence, SidiLemine. That means a lot to me, considering we have had differences of opinion on this article. Getting back to the anti-Semitic table, I would feel a lot more comfortable with its inclusion if we had a neutral source that called this conference anti-Semitic. While I feel it is anti-Semitic, holocaust denying hogwash, the regime in Tehran says it is not so. To add this table seems contentious at best, and POV at worst. I am sure it was not added with the intention of shifting POV, but it certainly has the potential to do so. Anyway, off to the salt mines, nowJeffpw 12:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Furthermore, you have to consider the visual impact of these things. This is a huge navbox, for a not-so-big article. I think the category is OK for the reasons above, but the table isjust too much. This is not an article about antisemitism, in one way or the other. At best, I would consider a link to the box, or something like that. This is tagging almost all of the article, from top to bottom. Oh, and Jeff, I was very pleased to see how you reactedto the "attendees" photo. Great NPOVing.--SidiLemine 13:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism