Talk:Adelaide Institute

message: If the affiliates of the Adelaide institute insist on editing this article to insert their own POV I suggest they at least attempt to word it in such a way as to be;
1) non-offensive
2) Factually correct 
3) non biased
Because if they don’t I’m happy to keep changing it back and each time I change it I will insert more and more material negative to the Adelaide institute.
Regards
Dave
:Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. It's good to know I'm not the only one. However. with regards to the following statement: "I will insert more and more material negative to the Adelaide institute". You will do nothing of the sort, or your edits will be deemed POV and rightly reverted. Please read our policy on the Neutral Point of View. The idea is to ensure the article remains objective and free of biased anecdotes. Thanks,--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article would benefit from some specifics - it's kind of vague in places. For example, "the activity of the Institute seems to have declined" - either it has it it has not; "seems" smells like one author's opinion.  Also, this sentence:
:It has been noted by human rights organisations that the Institute has failed to fully comply with the order of the Federal Court of Australia and still publishes materials that it was ordered to rememove in the 2002 judgement.
Which human rights organizations have noted this?  The article should name them and cite the statement specifically. CDC (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. --cj | talk 03:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed these statements - without better sourcing, they don't add anything to the article. CDC (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: specifics?

message: The current article is basically smear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.210.90.180 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 December 2005 (ACST).
:You're welcome to improve the article.--cj | talk 03:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction, the vast bulk of historians and academics do not necessary ACCEPT the number, they just don't dispute it. And if one observes the treatment of Dr Toben one gets a good idea why. --41.151.178.232 (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why those tactice? 

message: I've added a Neutral Point of View dispute header to this article. My personal views are not against the consensual historical view of the Holocaust, however it appears to me that the article contains quite a lot of smear that purports as mere fact and does not explore the actual organisation's contentions sufficiently. Being a "Holocause denier" organisation is not automatically interchangable as being a group of villains. 
I would suggest that these things really needs to be discussed because they are shaping the modern political world, (possibly destablising the Middle East from some POVs) and to merely silence and jail critics however distasteful seems to me to be the time honoured method of the facsist. From my own point of view, a great deal of my (British and Australian) family gave their lives in WW2, and it was not so that the survivors could loose the right to discuss anything and everything. The Holocaust and Israel should be no exception in my opinion. Sean --124.180.139.224 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of this article does not adhere to the neutral point of view, in your opinion? We're just here to discuss this article, not the Institute in general, much less the Holocaust.   Will Beback  talk   23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Warning added 

message: The statement: "The Institute does however still maintain a website (hosted in Adelaide by Adam Internet) on which statements on various issues are regularly posted." doesn't need to specifically mention the ISP host. This is clearly intended to be provocative and apply subtle pressure on the ISP. Anyone who is interested in the host can easily look it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.192.226 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  listing website host 

message: another slanderous statement: "An off shoot organisation named HHT is gaining popularity with its violent acts and racial intolerance within Adelaide." was removed, again no reference given and clearly designed to defame. The moderator needs to be much more vigilant with this poster.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.216.71 (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HHT group? 

message: Is it 'anti-semitic' to mention that according to sections of the Jewish Encyclopaedia published between 1901 and 1905, only a tiny number of Jews were semitic?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.84 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semitic? 

message: The Adelaide Institute website publishes material and communications from Jewish sources. Its archives are open and available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.84 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adelaide Institute is neutral 

message: Töben was imprisoned in Mannheim Prison in 1998. In 2009 he was imprisoned in South Australia for contempt of court. Enthusiast01 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this sourced? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See my last edit summary. Please add a reference, which you can get from the article about Toben. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: What prompted Töben to cease being director