Talk:Fred A. Leuchter/Archive 1

message: Why is it that all links are to anti-revisionist sites?
Wound't be better to include some links to revisionist sites?
Because revisionist sites are the exact opposite of credible sources. REGULAR-NORMAL (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is even not even the question. The question is whether they are relevant to the subject. Anyway Are Nizkor and THHP "credible sources"? At best they are extremely biased and polemical, I'd say. --196.207.33.197 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Where are the sources for eg. the claim that "Newsweek claimed that "Leuchter was running a death row shakedown scheme: if a state didn't purchase Leuchter's services, he would testify at the last minute for the condemned man that the state's death chamber might malfunction.""? What Newsweek!? When? In what media? Who did?
:The source for that is the article 'Truth Prevails'  published in Newsweek, Oct. 22, 1990AndyL 22:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsweek citation 

message: OK, I've removed the POV language bias to my own satisfaction. I'm still dubious over some of the facts. The linked Anti-Leuchter site says there is no evidence he consulted on gas chambers. Perhaps he did some drawings for himself, but nothing to give him credibility as a gas-chamber expert. (Same for gallows). Mackerm 17:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mackerm's edits 

message: The controversy over this article took place four months ago, and apparently has died down and been very quiet since then.  I propose removing the "disputed" header on this article unless it is shown that its accuracy is still in doubt. --Modemac 07:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It had some pretty bad language bias (most of which I fixed some time ago), but I can't vouch for some of the facts. On the internet, there is dispute on whether he "consulted" on gallows and gas chambers, or just worked on them for his own self. I was not the one who put up the "dispute" header, and I personally have no problem with taking it down. Mackerm 08:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that was another one I was thinking about. As I recall, his court testimony was discarded because he was ruled not an expert. Mackerm 17:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed header (2004) 

message: Looks like it's been awhile since anyone's taken a crack at this article. Let's put the messy talk page above behind us, hey? While all the holocaust stuff seems more or less fine, the account of Leutcher's actual status as an execution expert seems POV to me -- as AaronSW says, it just doesn't make sense. What does everyone else think about this section? (I'm referring primarily to the paragraphs before any of the section headers.)  —  Adam Conover † 05:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
It's not POV, it's a series of quotes and other cited information from credible sources. AndyL 11:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try again 

message: Great Errol Morris film. I would greatly appreciate anyone with some specific expertise in inorganic chemistry to shed some light on a single issue. I am referring to the commentary provided by James Roth of Alpha Analytical Laboratories. I am certainly no expert on execution, inorganic chemistry or the formation and migration of inorganic cyanide salts, complexes or any other types of cyanide residues through 1940's Polish brickwork (unless the brickwork was imported).  As far as I know, the gas chambers used to delouse clothing and personal effects developed prussian blue staining even on their exterior surfaces. This meant that the cyanide had managed to migrate through the walls of the chambers used to delouse clothing and personal effects. They demonstrated prussian blue [(Fe7(CN)18(H2O)x}] deposits on their exterior surfaces visible to this day. As far as I know the concentrations required in the homicidal chambers were far lower than those used in the chambers used for delousing clothing and possessions. Therefore, the amounts of HCN used and the associated deposits would be so much more significant in the delousing vs the homicidal chambers.  
However, the analogy used by Dr Roth about the blinded analysis of pulverised samples smashed from the masonry of the destroyed Krema's and provided to him by Leuchter did not make sense to me. He stated that the pulverisation and analysis of whole brick samples was inappropriate as this diluted the concentrations of any cyanide residues present in an uncontrolled fashion. He then emphasised that the analysis of isolated surface samples would have been the correct approach and that the cyanide residues would not have penetrated through the brickwork. 
Could someone with a better grasp of inorganic chemistry please comment on whether there would have been specific reaction conditions required for the formation of prussian blue or other insoluble cyanide residues [e.g. concentrations of cyanate (CN-) or ferric ions (Fe3+), temperature, pH or moisture] that would have been present in the delousing chambers but not in the homicidal chambers? I realise this is in effect a minor detail of the holocaust, since the main agents of murder were bullets, carbon monoxide, starvation and disease. 
Perhaps it has been answered elsewhere (although I have not been able to turn much up). Can anyone shed more light or provide a link? 
Another Errol Morris Film (also with Phillip Glass soundtrack) "Fog of War" - which based on interviews with Robert McNamara is worth seeing. I am pretty sure it won the "Best Documentary" Oscar a several years back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cob403 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone provide some credible detail on a relatively minor inorganic/analytical chemistry detail that is of interest 

message: Regarding this statement: In October 1990, the state of Massachusetts brought criminal charges against Leuchter for representing himself as an engineer without a license., does anyone know the exact outcome of the trial. Was Leuchter convicted and if so what was the sentence imposed? Piercetp 02:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial in the state of Massachusetts 

message: The complete documentary "Mr Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A Leuchter" has been on google video for several months, so I have added a link to this at the bottom of the article. I don't know what the copyright situation regarding this is, but given its length I'd be suprised if google had left it up for this long if it weren't meant to be there. It's a ghoulish film, but required viewing for anyone who might be inclined to believe Leuchter's holocaust denial "report". Watching him scramble around the ruins of the Auschwitz death camp armed with a chisel and a measuring tape, it's difficult to know whether to fell pity or utter contempt.
You should have utter contempt for the fact that noone but Leuchter has even bothered to scientically check anything. Of couorse the gist of any other reports - including the Polish government attempt - has been to basically confirm this "pitiable" man's work. Maybe you can get someone with a better chisel and clear this up. Hate to see this contemptuous piece of research stand as the best there is - maybe the truth but at least try to disprove it by something more substantial than an ad hominem wikipedia article.
An odd bit of trivia about Morris' documentary. It was previewed with a bunch of Harvard students - it seems that about 50% of them came away with the wrong message - they thought Leuchter was correct. The other half were just mad( it appears they either thought he was right or imputant)( hard to fool Harvard students - not hard to get them mad). My understanding is that none of the students had much previous background on any of this. When I saw it I thought it was a low-blow hit piece. Leuchter appeared blindsided by a professional who was doing all he could to belittle the man. I appeared that Morris had no knowledge of the subject matter, or no interest in it other than making Leuchter look bad. I remember little chemical, etc analysis - but a really good ad homimen piece for all to study.159.105.80.63 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mr Death" on Google Video 

message: The link for Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. redirects to this page, and also this discussion page has a header for the WikiFilms project.  Although the film is mostly about Leuchtner, it is a different entity; can someone switch this over?  I'd do it myself but it's beyond my wikipedia editing abilities and I don't have time right now to learn how.  Andymussell 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  film link redirects here -- change it? 

message: Something I just thought of - why didn't anyone check for cyanide in the crematorium. That many bodies might? leave traces of cyanide in the room, furnace, chimney,  ashes... 159.105.80.141 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Alleged gas chambers" - now this is a noteworthy statement.--RCS (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust questions 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating 

message: Does anybody know whatever happened to Fred Leuchter? Where he is now or how he can be contacted? Yellowstone County Girl 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever happened 

message: I just made a series of edits to this article to attempt to bring it within Wikipedia standards regarding source citation, bias, etc. I sincerely hope that the edits stand -or- that any of my deletions are properly sourced and cited. As damnable as the man's actions were, his actions speak ill enough on their own without drawing nameless, un-cited and unidentified "critics" into the mix. I neither support nor sympathize with Leuchter's impugnable findings -- I just prefer to let the facts stand on their own without the addition of highly questionable, anonymous content. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series of Edits I Just Made 

message: There is an AWFUL LOT of UNSOURCED information here, and appears to be solely bias and opinion
207.81.252.28 (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias and Opinion 

message: I noticed the following was removed
However, critics argue that Leuchter had a profitable career as an "expert witness" for hire who would say whatever his contractor wanted him to say and, according to trial testimony, Zündel paid Leuchter $35,000 for his report. 
Anyone have any source on how much Leuchter was paid? WWORBERTS (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zundel payment 

message: I am in no way a supporter of this man, but to read this article, one cannot help but read it as character assasination, warranted or not.  A true encyclopedic article would not read this way.
You can't continue to say He "Claims" then immeditely dispute it with an opposing viewpoint and expect it to be read as fair and unbiased.  Also some of it reads like narrative as if the author was there in the moment explaining what was going on...some of the citations are footnotes are not verifiable.
This article reports facts about events in the person's life from the headings --leaving contrasting viewpoints to a seperate section or at the end.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.111.97 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality issues 

message: uspto.gov shows 2 patents for Frederick A. Leuchter: 3,968,570 (July 13, 1976) and 4,339,198 (July 13, 1982).  I changed the slightly hagiographic and uncited description of his patents "Leuchter holds patents for numerous highly sophisticated technical devices..." to a more accurate and cited description: "Leuchter holds patents for a geodetic instrument and an electronic sextant."Caveat: Leuchter may hold other patents but it's difficult to ascertain information about any patents acquired prior to 1976, since uspto.gov only allows searches for patents by name from 1976 and later.  If someone finds further information on earlier patents, make the appropriate emendation.--Petzl (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we're discussing patents he currently holds it doesn't seem to matter.  Anything granted before 1976 would have expired years ago. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leuchter's patents 

message: What is the wikipedia policy on English section to linking to articles in languages completely not in english? See the external links for
the french link
Markacohen (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Links in External Links 

message: WilliamH why do you keep deleting links from Fred Leuchter to the Holocaust 
denial area on wikipedia? What is your purpose in this? You are deleting
relevant links in this article without a reason which has substance or merit. 
Explain yourself.
Markacohen (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at the article's history. --RCS (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WiliamH deleting links to other Wikiepdia Holocaust Denial Areas 

message: "I would like to state for the record that there is no question in my mind that during the Holocaust of Europe's Jews during World War II, the Nazis employed gas chambers in an attempt to commit genocide against the Jews. At camps in both Eastern and Western Europe, Jews were murdered in gas chambers which employed such poison gases as Zyklon B and carbon monoxide (in the Auschwitz camp, for example, the gas chambers used Zyklon B). The evidence for this is overwhelming and unmistakable" -- David Cole
This must be a quote from Cole's recantation. What about his 46 questions? Was this quote from before or after his life was threatened?
Right. The idea that David Cole actually meant this is absurd. To go from questioning the evidence to the extend that he did, to believing wholeheartedly in 100% of the Jewish version of the truth is asinine to say the least. Trueethnic (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "Jewish version of the truth". Please review WP:TALK; are there any changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Cole 

message: Partly contradictionary to the German version. --House1630 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profession and qualifikation 

message: Were parts of the article written by some modern "Hitlerjunge"????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.49.128 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAZI article?! 

message: It is rare that the subject of such a Wikipedia article has their place of residence so prominently, nay conspicuously, displayed. Is there a reason for this?
denierpphud×  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.180.134 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of Residence 

message: The opening paragraph of this article needs a better reference - the article referenced is of statements made by Leuchter - he is claiming to be "an American Federal Court qualified expert in execution technology" and having been "employed by State authorities within the United States to improve the design of instruments for capital punishment as a result of which he has fulfilled execution equipment contracts with several states" are based on an article containing statements made by Leuchter.  There are many references available that contradict Leuchter's claims - it seems that is what he is famous for - being a thoroughly discredited "expert". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.60.81 (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2013‎
I removed it. 71.108.139.254 (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph Veracity & Reference 

message: The German article lists it as 7 February 1943 and the Polish article lists it as just 1943. The current revision lists it as just 1944. Which is it? 68.46.9.6 (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Preface to "First Leucter Report" in The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition, published by The Barnes Review, gives his YOB as 1942.  BMK (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Stephen E. Atkins' Holocauist Denial as an International Movement gives it as 1943. BMK (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

text: According to Ancestry.com "Fred Arthur Leuchter Jr." was born in Malden. Massachusetts in 1943. BMK (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  His actual birth date? 

message: An IP editor, 70.79.157.186‎, is attempting to make changes in the article which, to my eye, appear to be an attempt to cast Leuchter in the most positive possible light.  These are being presented, of course, as making the article "more accurate and balanced".  That does not seem to be the case to me and I reverted them.  Since the IP reverted back, I reminded them on their talk page about WP:BRD and WP:NPOV.
I assume that this IP is the same person as 71.20.8.226, who made some similar edits last month.
The opinions of other editors are requested as to whether the current edits improve the article and make it "more accurate and balanced" or not. BMK (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits and not following BRD 

message: " ... and later conducted post-graduate studies at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics." It is not mentioned in the reference given, the wording of it had other sites picking out that he attended Harvard University based on Wikipedia. It is clear from court documents that he only has a degree in history. Re-add this if you can find the exact wording for what he did at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, did he take a summer class, or attend a lecture, did he work there for a summer? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Post graduate studies

message: I am not seeing any evidence that Spokeo is unreliable. If you believe it is, you should work to have it blacklisted as unreliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the very bottom of the Fred Leuchter page on Spokeo, and you'll see:Original Authors of this text are noted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter.In other words, the page is using Wikipedia as a source, and, as we all know, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  Fundamentally, the information is being bootstrapped.Please refresh your memory of what a reliable source is by reading WP:RS.  I mention this because you've got it backwards.  A source needs to have evidence that it is reliable, we do not take lack of evidence that it is unreliable into account.  But in this case: does Spokeo have a reputation for checking facts?  Not if they're copying them from us they don't.  So the prima facie case is tht Spokeo is not reliable.  If you think that's incorrect, please bring it to WP:RSN and start a discussion there. BMK (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you reverted without comment, please see this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. BMK (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The other website you cited appears to be a blog, which are not reliable per WP:SPS. BMK (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch for Spokeo, but the date is correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you were able to find an actual reliable source. Well done. BMK (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spokeo as reliable reference

message: Any ideas anyone?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The older discussions have been archived.  Look to the right for the link to Archive 1. BMK (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the talk page for this article empty? 

message: I disagree with this revert. Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." The navbox  does not include Fred A. Leuchter, so the reverse transclusion is inappropriate. For the same reason,  is not on the articles Vernon, Florida, Stephen Hawking, Robert McNamara, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Mormon sex in chains case, Donald Rumsfeld, or pet cemetery, despite all these topics being covered in films listed in the navbox. Why should the Leuchter article be any different? jnestorius(talk) 22:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL -- which, of course, is an editing guideline, and not a mandatory policy -- without a doubt ranks as among the stupidest guidelines on Wikipedia.  Nevertheless, since you are concerned about it, I have added to the Errol Morris navbox the subjects of his films, so that everything's now properly bidirectional.  BMK (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Let's see how editors on those other articles feel about them being cluttered with a template of marginal relevance. jnestorius(talk) 10:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errol Morris navbox 

message: "When questioned in court, Leuchter admitted he had not seen a document by the Waffen SS Commandant for construction issued when the gas chambers were constructed, which estimated they had a 24-hour capacity of 4756 people, more than 30 times Leuchter's estimate of 156."
Could you site the document mentioned here. I have never heard of the 4756 number mentioned anywhere in a German document. Leuchter also giving a murder rate of 156 seems new also.
Thank you - I will check back for the citation 2601:181:8000:D6D0:85DD:C4E0:45A8:354E (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Leuchter in court

message: I came here to learn about the man in an objective way: what I got is an ADL-level charge on about everything he ever said and done. After reading the article I was left with the impression that he was the antichrist.
Having an exagerrate list of sources does not mean a fair article, if they all come from the same side. My suggestion? Scrap it all and make a new one that wouldn't be written by Hasbara people. The fundation of the article is rotten - there's nothing valid that can be built or rebuilt on it. 
I understand that he is a polemic man, but that shouldn't mean that POV is mandatory in his case - to the contrary. MVictorP (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, obviously what you were looking for is a hagiography.  You won;t find that here.  The article as it is is objective and accurate. BMK (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-Sided Article 

message: Added to external links a scathing documentary of Holocaust Denier Fred A. Leuchter by Errol Morris. Mr. Death The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter A documentary about the life and failings of Holocaust Denier Fred A. Leuchter (1999). HarveyGoldman (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. Death The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter

message: This is another article that is:
* entire paragraphs are unreferenced
* references that do exist are garbage sources
* an end to end ad-hominem
This is just getting embarrassing.  This is so bad I am going to submit it for deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.2.70 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another embarrassing article

message: This article is a travesty from start to finish. You editors who conspired to concoct this sewage should all be ashamed. I'd like to try to improve it, but it's hard to know where to begin.
Most of it, manifestly, does not comport with BLP -- so I think gutting large chunks of content is the first order of business. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a decent reference on the issue of cyanide testing procedures: Differential Exposure of Brickwork to Hydrogen Cyanide during World War Two. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A rejected article by convicted Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf is irrelevant to this article and fails our criteria for sources. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet you accept "An ADL Backgrounder"? Please tell me you're not serious. I had started to suspect systematic bias in WP, but I haven't really wanted to believe it. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, that's what we are. If you are unhappy with that there's other venues, eg Conservapedia or Metapedia. They also have their biases of course. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smear job from the gutter - not worthy of WP 

message: My change is here. The phrase "Leuchter's scholarly failures" is a give-away that this was written with a non neutral POV. For one thing, it seems wrong to characterize Leuchter's efforts as "scholarly", since he was hired to do investigative work for an ongoing criminal trial. Furthermore, that characterization of van Pelt's contribution to the documentary is written in WP voice, but it's the opinion of the editor, and not sourced. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Holocaust denial is itself a demonstration of scholarly failure. Period. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.   (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with HW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say it again, that's an absurd rationale for allowing this smear to remain in a BLP. It's a clear-cut case of affirming the consequent: "Holocaust denial" is an odious label you guys have branded him with, which abolishes all possibility of reasonable discourse. Don't you get even a twinge of discomfit from the irony? Indiscriminately wielding your "holocaust denial" bludgeon is just about the most unscholarly thing I can think of. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, the only people who don't believe that "Holocaust denier" is an appropriate label for Leuchter are other Holocaust deniers, or, possibly, fools.  The only "scholars" working overtime to provide evidence for Leuchter not being a Holocaust deniers are other Holocaust deniers, or, possibly, fools. The Earth is not flat, the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, the Alchemist's Stone does not exist.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed non-NPOV material from the "Documentary" section. 

message: There's no evidence available to show that Fred Leuchter was either a "holocaust denier" or "antisemitic." Mr. Leuchter was a recognized expert in the field of execution chambers. 
This article/stub appears to be just another hatchet job, launched to protect what N. Finkelstein refers to as the religion of "Holocaust-ianity." Sbattles 19:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is abundant evidence, and your revisionism will not be reflected in this article.  I suggest you peddle your ideas somewhere else, perhaps a neo-Nazi website. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Bashing the Expert

message: Why is there a bot auto archiving the discussion on this article?
2.121.174.48 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the archive is right on this page, in a box that say "Archives". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't address the issue of the overzealous archiving. It's far more than a talk page with this amount of activity needs as the whole archive of discussion for the last three years barely fits on three screens for me. Few articles I've read with this amount of discussion on it are this readily archived. 2.121.174.48 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I think the config should be extended to well over 30 days as it is now, and to something in the order of years and not days. The configured size limit is 125k, which the whole archive barely reaches half of. The talk page guidelines recommend archiving at 75k even, which the archive still doesn't reach. 2.121.174.48 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And why do you think that.  One look at the archive page will show that nothing of import or consequence has been discussed here for ages, just the complaints of poor, benighted Leuchter apologists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so this is your personal fiefdom and this article is not up for discussion. Got it. 2.121.174.48 (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, couldn't be more wrong, but since you don't seem to have anything to say about improvements to the article -- the purpose of the talk page -- there's no reason to continue this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Improving the talk page is very relevant to improving the article I think but your actions betray an attitude that you already know what's best despite that. By hiding this discussion and imposing your will on here you've just put another person off editing this Wikipedia page. I don't think any criticism I've made was unwarranted or unprecedented so why does it deserve to be collapsed? 94.5.161.92 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, improving the talk page is about improving the talk page, it is not about improving the article.  Got anything to say on that topic?  Onbiously noy, so I'm re-collapse this non-relevant discussion (which could actually be deleted in its entirety, per WP:TPO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto archive

message: According to the WaPo, Leuchter signed a 'consent agreement' admitting that he had falsely represented himself as an engineer. On the same day he, through his his lawyer, issued a statement which included "There is no finding nor has there been any admission of guilt". Whether this statement is the 'I didn't need a licence' claim, I don't know, but Leuchter was clearly wanting things both ways (making a plea bargain and claiming innocence on the same day). I presume a consent agreement is part of a plea bargain, though I cannot find a suitable link on WP. There were various conditions to the bargain, such as not publishing or promoting the report.
,
I'm going to remove the unreffed claim which has wasted so much time immediately above, though I have no objection to anyone expanding precisely what happened before and after the bargain - and may do so myself.
The ADL links on para 1 of the lead are dead and the other two refs aren't readable unless one has access to Lipstadt's book. They cover the 'shakedown' accusation, everything else has many sources.Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having access to Lipstadt's book doesn't invalidate the references -- in fact, references in published books are generally considered to be pretty authoritative.  If you want to check the refs, and don;t trust the editor who added them, try interlibrary loan, or buy a cheap copy from Amazon or Half.com - you can probably find it for under $5.00, including shipping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing the content or validity of the refs, just hoping that someone might be able to add 'readable' refs (I was surprised, that I couldn't find the ADL archived anywhere). Amazon don't ship to where I now live (ex-pat), so books in English are like Red Cross Parcels! Pincrete (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like, e-mail me your shipping address and I'll make you a gift of the Lipstadt book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequence of events

message: Re end of lead:  Leuchter's work is often presented by Holocaust deniers as scientifically-based evidence for Holocaust denial. However, his research methods and findings were discredited in a 1999 Errol Morris documentary on the controversy, entitled Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., as well as elsewhere.
Is it not the case that 1) there are many 'dis-credits' both scientific and historical and the documentary is not notable for being the main 'discrediter' … 2) equally, the main subject of the documentary is the man, rather than the claims or report (the documentary rather assumes the claims to be absurd, it does not especially refute them).
I propose a change to:
Leuchter's work is often presented by Holocaust deniers as scientifically-based evidence for Holocaust denial, despite his research methods and findings having been widely discredited on both scientific and historical grounds. Leuchter appears in a 1999 Errol Morris documentary entitled Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
Somebody might want to improve/expand the who/why/how discredited + refs. Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored this talk section today. Pincrete (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neither way round? 

message: I've done a series of edits, the main purpose of which is to establish a more chronological sequence and secondarily to rename sections such that they more accurately reflect the moved content. There seems little point in covering his 'downfall', under "career", before covering the Zundel trial (which is after all both the main reason for his being notable and the primary cause of his 'downfall'). 
I think there is probably room for even further re-ordering, in order to establish a coherent chronology but perhaps someone else would like to do that! Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological ordering