Talk:Germar Rudolf

message: Partial translation from :de:Germar_Rudolf, some details and links added, most is still missing. --Marek Moehling 09:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll work on it, once we finish the other project. Fadix 15:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: People need to stop saying he is a denier. Where are the sources? he never said "HOLOCAUST DIDNT HAPPEN." How is he denying it? he is simply saying that statistics are wrong which they are since end of Communism and public records show.
Usurpsynapse 13:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a student, Rudolf was a member of the German party "Die Republikaner", which had been a Neo-Nazi organization at the time. (Today, this party has become insignificant, and German Neo-Nazis are more often organized within the "NPD" or "DVU".) Thus, the claim to be "idiologically not anywhere in the vincinity of National Socialism" is most likely an attempt to lend his arguments more credibility. --77.188.115.58 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Die Republikaner" were never a neo-Nazi organization, nor did the German authorities ever claim this. Such organizations are illegal in Germany and are always banned. There has never been a move to ban this party. The German authorities' monitoring of this party ever since its inception was eventually declared illegal and unconstitutional by a German court of law. GermarRudolf (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just ignore IP-man. Not being a nazi does not add ot take more credibility to anyone. His whole line of reasoning starts from a fallacy so there's no point in analizing anything that comes after that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.121.84 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article is catagorized as German neo-Nazi, which insinuates that Germar Rudolf is a neo-Nazi.  That is facutally wrong and, quite frankly, slanderous.
Germar Rudolf makes this clear in Dissecting the Holocaust
"It must be said here and now that none of the authors contributing to the present work considers himself ideologically anywhere in the vicinity of National Socialism.[150] This aside, however, such an accusation is no argument suited to invalidating our own. It seems reasonable to suspect that the establishment historians resort to this verbal garrote merely to distract attention from those factual questions, which they obviously do not feel competent to field. In any case, it is clear that anyone who evades factual arguments by means of political accusations cannot have any scientific motivation for doing so, since a scientifically motivated researcher is interested first and foremost in factual arguments. Political motivation is the only thing that could possibly prompt these historians to voice political accusations; this, however, places the charge of political choreography of our understanding of history squarely back on their own shoulders."
If someone wishes to associate him with neo-Nazis then that person needs to substantiate the accusation.  If that is not done.  The categorization of neo-Nazi should be removed from the article.
:As a student, Rudolf was a member of the German party "Die Republikaner", which had been a Neo-Nazi organization at the time. (Today, this party has become insignificant, and German Neo-Nazis are more often organized within the "NPD" or "DVU".) Thus, the claim to be "idiologically not anywhere in the vincinity of National Socialism" is most likely an attempt to lend his arguments more credibility. --77.188.115.58 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Die Republikaner" were never a neo-Nazi organization, nor did the German authorities ever claim this. Such organizations are illegal in Germany and are always banned. There has never been a move to ban this party. The German authorities' monitoring of this party ever since its inception was eventually declared illegal and unconstitutional by a German court of law. GermarRudolf (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just ignore IP-man. Not being a nazi does not add ot take more credibility to anyone. His whole line of reasoning starts from a fallacy so there's no point in analizing anything that comes after that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.121.84 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Accusations 

message: ====No Testing for Traces of Zyklon B====
No one has, as the article claims, tested for traces of Zyklon B. That is simply factually incorrect.  You cannot understand even the basic science involved and believe that anybody tested for traces of Zyklon B decades after the fact.  What has been tested for are traces of cyanide compounds.  When I attempted to correct that error, my modification was reverted.
If you test for cyanide you get results that agree with wiki. If you test for cyanide compounds you don't agree with wiki. If you understand the science brhind this you are a denier. Get the drift?159.105.80.63 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual and Scientific Accuracy

message: No one has, as the article claims, tested for traces of Zyklon B. That is simply factually incorrect.  You cannot understand even the basic science involved and believe that anybody tested for traces of Zyklon B decades after the fact.  What has been tested for are traces of cyanide compounds.  When I attempted to correct that error, my modification was reverted.
If you test for cyanide you get results that agree with wiki. If you test for cyanide compounds you don't agree with wiki. If you understand the science brhind this you are a denier. Get the drift?159.105.80.63 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Testing for Traces of Zyklon B

message: The following relevant and verifiable information was removed from the article:
Rudolf's contentions are indeed reasonable in view of the fact that cyanide does exist in the environment, as is described on the EPA's Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Website: Cyanide Compounds page.
It was removed? ( I checked and unless I missed it, it was removed. However,a footnote almost concedes the point I believe.) If the EPA is not a good citation then could an editor suggest approved ones? Removing a citation and a statement that supports both Rudolf and Cracow's work ( indirectly thought it may be ) leaves the scientific discussion rather hollow. Maybe the article could be more like the one for Dr Green - kinda friendly and low key ( if you don't want it too serious).159.105.80.63 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Sources of Cyanide Compounds

message: The article is still catagorized as neo-Nazi.  Germar Ruldof asserts clearly that this does not characterise his political views.  I provided an exact and verifiable quote stating his opinion.  There has been no effort to justify catagorizing this article as neo-Nazi.  Please either give clear and justifiable grounds for this catagorization, or remove it.--hetware 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, You have not provided verifiable references in support of this assertion.  Furthermore, being classified as such by a political advesaries hardly constitutes proof.  The accusation really needs to be supported by direct evidence such as verifiable statements by Germar Rudolf.  The charge of neo-Nazi is the modern equivalent of the medieval charge of Witchcraft.  Once it has been made, people no longer feel any obligation to think rationally or to follow traditional Anglo-American standards of justice.  It is a dangerous and infammatory epithet intended to get folks riled up in hatred and ill-will. I believe the German word for that is Volksverhetzung. 
Hetware 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree with Hetware here. Are we providing facts or opinions here? "Categories" like anti-semitic, neo-nazi, etc are not facts but simple stigmatizing. Hey, we can create category "bad people" also, it goes without saying that anti-semitic and neo-nazi are bad people. Lets stick to facts! Magabund 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am leaving the dispute tag until we have some clarification on this issue.  I have no reason to believe that Germar Rudolf has neo-Nazi leanings.  It seems to me the categorization of neo-Nazi is circulus in demonstrando. Hetware 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: neo-Nazi Catagorization is still there

message: I fixed the typo in Alexander Dewdney's name, but then took a short look to the linked article and it does not seem that they have "co-authored" anything. Maybe "tried to repeat" Dewdney's experiments would do. Or rather remove Dewdney altogether. --Magabund 11:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the reference that the work was done together with Dewdney. It was not, and I never claimed or gave the impression that it was. Dewdney merely had a copy of my paper posted on his website for a while, but he removed it after he found out about my controversial background. GermarRudolf (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 and Dewdney 

message: William, I am trying to publish reference links to works Germar Rudolf published. 
What constitutes a directory? how many links have to be posted, for there to be too many?
How does posting reference links to the actual books Germar Rudolf Wrote in the Germar Rudolf article
constitute me making wikipedia into a directory of links? 
What is a hate directory, or a directory of hate links, or a hate directory? There is nothing in wikipedia
that says you can not link to books in an article about the author, if that author is a hater?
Can you please explain, because in my own humble opinion, these deletions appear to be more political and
emotional, than reasons that have real substance or merit. Im not attacking you, im criticizing your behavior. 
Like DougWeller, I think you are a great guy. I have a feeling like me you lost a lot of relatives in the Holocaust,
and that maybe this is about sensitive feelings and emotional politics, so can we drop the Hitler Card and Hate card?
Find healing in your soul WilliamH, im not asking that Holocaust / Genocide deniers be used as mainstream resources on articles, but I feel we should mention these works he authored in an article about him. 
Im not attacking you, im criticizing your behavior. 
Markacohen (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WilliamH what is a directory, what is a hate directory? 

message: Would it be normal to have ISBN References to those works of literature that Markacohen has been trying to add links to?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Works of "literature". It's a way of qualifying them. "Fiction" would also be appropriate.--RCS (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN References 

message: On his website, Germar Rudolf stated that he withdrew his application for his final PhD program at the Max Planck institute after only three years of research (although he claims to have finished his thesis). This means he does NOT have a PhD so this claim should be removed. I think even the 'controversials' among us will not argue with me when I say that if Rudolf would have 'finished his PhD after military service' he would proudly put this on his website (as he did with his Diplomprüfung für den Studiengang Chemie).
Sources: http://www.germarrudolf.com/shortbio.html and http://www.germarrudolf.com/pics/Diplom.gif.Annika27 (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it reads now quite rightly points out that Rudolf did not complete his Ph.D. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It WAS temporary, as I had only a limited three year contract with the MPI which would have expired at the end of Sept. 1993 anyway, three months after my dismissal. GermarRudolf (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: PHD

message: "iron-based cyanide compounds, which are not a reliable indicator of the presence of cyanide" This point is bizarre and frankly retarded. You might as well claim detecting oxygen gas is not a reliable indicator of the presence of oxygen.  Green obviously quote mines Rudolf, which his response makes clear.
From Rudolf:
"'The Prussian-Blue staining indeed owes its presence to exposure to HCN, but the conditions under which it formed were not universally present in all facilities exposed to HCN. The rate of Prussian-Blue formation may be very different under the conditions used in homicidal chamber versus the conditions in delousing chambers.' And again, I agree with Green that this is the correct approach to this problem.
But I strongly disagree when Green continues arguing:
'Answer number one is, of course, untenable. We know that homicidal gassings occurred from historical evidence independently of the chemistry involved."'
Green simply quotes the first point as if this means Rudolf agrees finding iron-based cyanide compounds is meaningless to see whether bricks were exposed to cyanide.  This is obviously false, hence he wrote the report.  Green also dishonestly quote mines at the top of the article, Rudolf says "Green's second prerequisite is that I have to "demonstrate rigorously" "that the kinetics involved with the formation of such pigments dictate that significant quantities should be formed in all of the homicidal gas chambers." I stated before that this is nearly impossible. Consequently we must conclude that chemistry is not a science with the power to prove or refute human gassings in Auschwitz "rigorously." But when considering that..(goes on to list his many reasons)..Certainly, this is not a "rigorous" proof, but it is a well founded expert opinion. I never claimed to have rigorously proved this." Obviously, Rudolf is only saying such evidence is not like a proof of Euclid, or even more precisely he's saying it doesn't meet Green's standards but Green's standards are intentional, arbitrary bar raising to an absurd degree. Such piss poor citations are, unfortunately, all too common amongst wikipedia articles on the subject of the Second World War. This only helps the heretics.
Cake (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:NOTAFORUM..Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.  Fleenier (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: None of what I said falls under what that is talking about. I am discussing flaws with the article's biased sourcing and sins of omission in the discussion section of the article. What you said is just a total non-response. The article might as well say "Green totally owned Rudolf by pointing out that cyanide isn't cyanide. Rudolf disagreed." Cake (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to take a look at WP:OR as well. If you can find WP:RS reliable sources that make your argument, then cite them. Having said that, Holocaust denial of the Rudolf sort is considered WP:FRINGE here. Fleenier (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't bring up any original research as if I posted my own study, nor did I argue for the article on the holocaust to be half about "holocaust denial" as WP:FRINGE talks about.  I simply showed the bias of the article in how it presents really dreadful sources in a manner of "Green totally owned Rudolf by pointing out that cyanide isn't cyanide. Rudolf disagreed," instead of providing Rudolf's counterargument in his own article, or even caring if his opponents sound sane, which makes it look like a farce having no neutral point of view. Cake (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

text:  Well, look at it from their perspective.. this is wikipedia and they need to put something up there to make the "denier" look bad...  I guess if illogical and non-sensical statements are all that's available then you just go with what you got.  They may as well just drop the pretense and write "Rudolph's report was flawed because he's a denier".  72.73.107.161 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Green's Criticism

message: He's a writer for Veterans Today a very unpleasant right-wing website featuring conspiracy theories and anti-antisemitism. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonas E. Alexis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Germar Rudolf. 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/20080604152626/http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/ to http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
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) 03:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified