Talk:Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust/Archive 2

message: "Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe." 
There is no evidence he said this. If there is, show me it and I will take back my statements.
:This is a part of an infamous speech given on 30 Jan 1939. Sources: Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1936-45, Nemesis, (2000) p 153. Also (partially) quoted in Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust, 1990, p 76 (his source given as Norman H. Baynes (Ed.) The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922 - August 1939, London, 1942. p 741). --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone ever been able to find a full complete English translation of this speech? I can't find the full transcript anywhere, only parts of it taken out of context. I've also noticed the translation slightly differs from different sources citing that quote.--Nazrac 19:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the translations differ. They are translations. The speech is more fun in German in any case. High German must be one of the best languages to say those things. Can't imagine him saying this kind of non-sense in Platt...;) Dietwald 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Translations are never perfect, but what I meant was there seem to be some very different excerpts of that speech floating around, and since I can't find a complete transcript of the entire speech either in German or for that matter any other language it seems highly dubious to me to be taking those words out of context.--Nazrac 17:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not really making an assertion there, however I don't really think it is good scholastic work to formulate opinions or theories based on a few bits and pieces of a speech taken out of context. That sort of cherry picking all too often creeps into articles on here, especially politically related articles.
--Nazrac 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, presumably the people who are quoting the words, originally, have done an in-depth study. Really, there is little debate that Hitler was a rabid anti-semite, and quotations about Jews are all over the place. Usually, "cherry picking" is when you review something (article, speech) to support your position when the gist of the work, in context, speaks against you. While this sort of thing goes on in revisionism/denial quite often (Irving is an example of this), I don't think that is what is happening here. However, if you can produce a credible analysis that has a different take on this speech/quote, I'm sure we'd be interested to review it. 06:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler never said this 

message: Couple of queries about the population section:  
The article suggests that the high post-war figure for the Jewish population is innaccurately cited by Holocaust sceptics.  Rather, as I understand it, it is correctly cited, but misunderstood.  The post-war figure was largely derived from 1939, not the year of publication.  This is why pre-war and post-war populations do in fact initially show up as being similar.  A revised figure was then provided by the American Jewish Committee with more relevant and contemporary information, giving the lower figure.  Atm the article suggests that the claim for a high post-war figure is simply invented.  This doesn't appear to be true.  02:50, 7 June 2006 Hakluyt bean
:Hakluyt, I have checked the volumes of the World Almanac from 1945 to 1948. It says very clearly at the top of the page (page 219, for the 1947 Almanac, for instance): "Compilation from latest available data, 1938, by the American Jewish Committee..." and so on. The next sentence says "The American Jewish committee, which gives the figures of the table below, estimated the Jewish population of the world, in 1939, as follows..." It is impossible to ignore or miss this note. Whoever built the "population argument" omitted this information. This is NOT a correct citation, or a misunderstanding. It is a deliberate distortion of data.Ninarosa 09:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here I agree with you. I don't see much to be gained from questioning the World Almanac, when it was already clear that the error is on the denier's part. The World Almanac obtained their figures from the AMerican Jewish Committee and other Jewish world organizations. THEIR methodology is not clear, and the figures are not, of course, as reliable as those from a census. But for "order of magnitude" and scale, it is not that bad. I would delete this paragraph.Ninarosa 16:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the following question from the article, because it didn't belong there, but I can answer it here:  	"Why would the 1949 almanac use Old numbers AFTER the holocaust, knowing that 6 million supposedly vanished into thin air, while the 1947 almanac uses lower numbers? Explain this one." The 1949 used new AND old numbers, comparing the last available data before the war and the new ones obtained AFTER the war, while the 1947 Almanac still didn't have hte new estimates. They used the 1938/39 data with a CLEAR WARNING that these were the "last available data" from those years. Nothing else.--Ninarosa 07:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  population section 

message: I agree with almost every assertion in this article, but that is not the point.  We are supposed to refer every opinion to someone notable that holds that opinion, and every fact to a reliable and verifiable source.  At the moment this article consists mostly of unsourced editorial. I don't want to add tags while the AfD is in progress, but it deserves at least the  and  tags. --Zerotalk 12:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for the offer. I'm sure this article won't be deleted as there is nowhere near enough consensus.  --Zerotalk 04:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing and Original Research. 

message: As a Jew, There are many noticable things that I get to see each and every week. The first is, most my family keeps very reliable family tree information, which isn't something unique about my family, but a tendency for Jewish families to keep records. Many elderly Jews spend their final days piecing together the past. What is of interest here, we have witness statements made by survivors, perhaps as the deniers would say, exaggerated, perhaps due to the terrible conditions they faced. But, how can one explain lost family members who disappeared from the face of the earth?
My family remembers all who were lost during the holocaust, we have a list of names of family members lost. Now, please explain to me, where these people went to, if they weren't in fact killed? I'd love to know, so would many of my family. If the holocaust isn't real, which we're prepared to accept, if it's true, then where did these people go?(Brijones 06:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family ties 

message: The first photograph under the "Evidence of the Holocaust" is probably one of the worst
examples of proof I have seen.  It is a photo-montage (like the Beatles Sgt. Pepper Album).
* The officer who is shooting does not have any shadow in the picture.
* He does, though, have a white outline around him.  This is an obvious cut and paste job.
* All the other Germans are lined up behind a hill, which makes the collage job much easier.
* The group in the background seem to have some problem matching their legs with the rest
of their bodies.
Recall that the Nazis uncovered mass graves in the Ukraine after they occupied it.  They catalogued almost 10,000 bodies the Soviet NKVD murdered during the Stalinist purges in the
1930's.  That may be the true origin of part of this photo.71.132.230.99 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture looks to be taken with Orthochromatic film which treats lights and shadows in a different manner than newer pictures.  Film is a good deal more sensitive to contrast than our eyes our; this picture appears to be taken on a cloudy day with diffused shadows.  The outline was probably not visible to the human eye when the picture was taken.  The legs look unusual because the soldiers are at an various angles relative to the camera.  I don't see any evidence that this picture is a Photoshop job. Samboy 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  It's not a Photoshop job.  Adobe didn't exist back then. 71.132.210.164 03:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please choose a better photograph for evidence 

message: Guys, I just reverted some pro-denial propaganda added by an IP to the Mel Mermelstein article.  People with this page on their watchlist should also keep an eye on Mel Mermelstein. Samboy 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your photos were taken with different lighting conditions which wouldn't cause that.  Basically, the white lines are caused when the light is coming from behind someone, but the light source is somewhat diffused by clouds.  This is a somewhat unusual lighting situation, but apparently the one in the photo above.  Oh, and also please look at Wikipedia:Civility.  Don't just assert that our arguments are bad; show us why the arguments are flawed.  Samboy 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guys, add [[Mel Mermelstein]] to your watchlist 

message: This line Photographs of Treblinka taken by the camp commandant show ash piles being distributed by steam shovels. was marked as "citation needed". I'm having trouble figuring out which of the Kurt Franz photographs this is referring to. (Franz, the deputy commander at Treblinka, kept a nice photo album entitled "Schöne Zeiten" -- "Good Times" -- which was used as evidence against him in his 1965 trial.) Is the actual album online anywhere? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the requested citation, you can take a peek there. Cantankrus 03:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: I reworded the subtitles for the External Links. The main focus of this article is not whether the Holocaust happened or not--this is a false issue and it is not taken seriously by reputable scholars--but the claims made by holocaust deniers. Therefore the links should not be organized under "resources that support that the Holocaust took place", but under "Resources that support/refute Holocaust denier claims".Ninarosa 08:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. .V. -- (TalkEmail) 08:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Some of the article seems to be written in a factual, but non-encyclopedic way. Wikipedia doesn't usually start a section with "Argument: foo bar". Also, "However, as is typically the case," seems to be a conversation-like, even though  it is true. Andjam 04:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be afraid to be bold in your edits. I'm kind of on the fence about the "Argument" line. I think it's useful in that it gives a short summary of the claims so that a reader that's unfamiliar with the topic can understand it better. However, it's bothersome that those argument lines are not cited. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with andjam, particularly with reference to the "unreasonable burden of proof" section, I think this needs to be written in a more encyclopaedic fashion. Perhaps this section also does not meet NPOV guidelines?
Andy4226uk 13:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic concerns 

message: This article's existence is a POV violation. 
Criticism of criticism of the Holocaust is not a subject for an encyclopedia and this is tautologically so. With the two sides of the issue both given proper attention in two VERY large wiki article, why must establishment have both the first AND the last word? Wikipedia is not to be used as a source to discredit "holocaust denial", only to present it for what it is. Why the back and forth? The "Holocaust Denial" article is already loaded with reference to disputed claims, misleading evidence and the like. Recommended for deletion unless links can be provided to ANY other article that presents a criticism of a criticism of an article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:POVFORK. "Criticism" articles constitute what we on Wikipedia call "POV forks", and while a good deal of debate has occurred over their place on Wikipedia, no community consensus exists that can justify simply deleting them on these grounds. For instance, Criticism of Wal-Mart, Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Mormon sacred texts, Criticism of communism... Kansan (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the point is that the actual article already does "criticize" revisionism (starting with calling it "Holocaust denial") instead of informing in a neutral way about the position of the revisionist view point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.5.34 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

text: If it is true that Wikipedia's role is about reporting the truth, then how comes that the untrue statements pointed out here are still in the Article after several month? Is it because the article couldn't fulfill its purpose if it would stick to the truth? 62.226.23.179 (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly so. You see, there is a vast conspiracy going on - the Endlösung der Nationalsozialistenfrage. And you know it. --Insert coins (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Though conspiracy is not exactly the right word to describe it, I appreciate your honesty.  62.226.0.187 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Criticism of