Talk:Arthur Butz

message: Per MOSBIO, "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability".  If Butz is indeed Jewish, that is incredibly relevant to his notability as a Holocaust revisionist, but I doubt the claim.  If the claim can be verified, however, it should be allowed to remain. johnpseudo 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The surname Butz is originally Austrian.  People who share his interests and have a Germanic surname are much more likely to be ethnically German than ethnically Jewish. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lipstadt 1994 book says Butz is of German and Italian ancestry but that not much else is known about him beyond his academic history.  I don't remember whether Butz is solely a denialist or also interested in exculpating the Axis powers, but will look into this for an upcoming revision of the article. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Arthur Butz ethnicity

message: Butz is listed as an associate professor and tenured. Are associates tenured, just curious.159.105.80.141 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, yes. They are at least tenure track. But, academic standards generally establish his right to free speech as long as it is not somehow impacting his duties or criminal. Since he doesn't preach revisionism in the classes that he does teach, there is really nothing to nail him on. 75.3.227.236 (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tenure

message: The article claims that Butz sustains his revisionist work with a large amount of figures. I don't quite see what is remarkable in this fact. Raul Hilberg sustains his historiographic work with a lot of figures too, most if not all of them in complete contradiction with Butz's. A researcher, be it a crank or a serious person, will always employ figures, and the larger the amount, the better for his thesis, be it true or a lie. --RCS (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Figures" claim 

message: what is butz alogrithm ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftadot (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the sort of thing you could see on Fox News. It is about a very specific domain of science. Try to Google it and you'll find 380 references for "Butz algorithm" like citations in scientific publications such as "A new algorithm for N-dimensional Hilbert scanning." "There are several algorithms for N-dimensional Hilbert scanning, such as the Butz algorithm and the Quinqueton algorithm. The Butz algorithm is a mapping function using several bit operations such as shifting, exclusive OR, etc." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18267509. There are 11 related records in PubMed.  You know, it is not so common to have his name associated to a particular Mathematical tool. It should be enough for mentioning that invention on Butz 's credit unless you are against anything positive coming from that guy.Zrigla (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  butz algorithm 

message: In Wikipedia I noticed that the norm is not to refer directly to deniers' works, Such rule is particularly respected on the French pages. Butz doesn't even exist in Wikipedia for a French. Generally, external links drive exclusively towards anti-denial works. I wonder why there is no link of that sort here in order to check something which refutes "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" written in 1976. Any tip?Zrigla (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a work which could refute the But'z book? 

message: Prior to my edit the first sentence of the article was as follows: "Arthur R. Butz is a Holocaust-denier, associate professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University, and author (...)". This struck me as rather unprofessional when i first read it.
I find it problematic to list a person's (historical) viewpoints before their degrees and current occupation. Even if he's actively promoting a Holocaust-denying stance, the placement and use of a noun seems like an attempt to discredit his person; not neutral information.
It would be comparable to starting the article on David Duke as "David Duke is a racist, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, activist and writer, and former Republican Louisiana State Representative." While Mr. Duke undoubtedly expresses racist views, one would never word it that way.
I have moved the statement further back within the first sentence, which should be sufficient, unless somebody has an axe to grind.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSUGRA (talk • contribs) 00:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the first phrase describing his person. 

message: Truther111 seems to have gone on a campaign to delete most of this page on the basis of Butz being "famous solely for his holocaust denial".  This is simply not true. Most of Butz's notoriety is due to his combination of Northwestern tenure and holocaust denial. But his contributions to science are also notable, and are of course an important part of his personal story. johnpseudo 11:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truther111 edit war 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arthur Butz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310121248/http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2006/02/14/Forum/Iran-Has.The.U.s.s.Number-1920928.shtml?norewrite200608091532&sourcedomain=www.dailynorthwestern.com to http://www.ece.northwestern.edu/~butz/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Debunking section of article seems pointless.  Holocaust denial is debunked both as a whole, and with reference to particular arguments that various deniers may use, but generally there is no individual rebuttal to specific deniers outside of court cases involving them.  If Butz' supporters claim he did not get a personal rebuttal that is meaningless and not noteworthy.  The general article on Holocaust denial has links to Nizkor etc and other material on debunkings, there is no need to enter into it here. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It should stay. People who look for that specific information - Butz said x, I want to know why that is wrong - will appreciate it. It's not like that tiny section takes too much space. In articles about evolution deniers and climate change deniers, such sections are welcome too, although those subjects are also debunked as a whole. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should have expressed the question better.  The problem is not a Debunking section that links to some resources ("see X, Y, Z for refutations of Holocaust denial, both in general and including Butz' arguments"), but the current paragraph presented as a back and forth between Butz supporters and the ADL.  It is written not as a refutation of Butz per se but of the claim that nobody had answered him, or some implied idea that unlike other deniers he had a stronger case or something.  An all-purpose link to sites like Nizkor could be useful but playing along with the idea of a debate is not. As with other denial-related articles some of the text here is a residue of earlier tendentious edits and counter-edits that fixed particular points but kept the structure. Sesquivalent (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Yes, I see. I retract my statement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  good catch, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 11:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lipstadt's book has a chapter on Butz, I will add some information from there over the next week or two and rewrite the section. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reminder.   I will try to get to it but not sure how long it might take to go through the relevant chapter of Lipstadt's book. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove Debunking section as redundant?