Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 7

message: Can everyone just look at the above 3+ sections?  Not read, as that would take far to long, but to just look at it?  This is not a debate forum, this is not a soap box, this is not the place or time for this nonsence.  Can I ask everyone to just stop feeding the trolls and to move on?  Really I hope this isn't too much to ask...  --T-rex 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like discussion on a talk page, then the old adage applies: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." .V. (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  T-rex is correct and .V. is wrong. Please review WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Large amounts of discussion on the talk page of a controversial issue? Who ever saw that one coming? I mean, it's completely out of the blue. You'd think that every editor who came across a controversial subject would agree... right? .V. (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All I can say is, take a look at the "censorship" section here. So far, I've seen numerous allegations that the censorship category is POV. However, I have seen no reasoning behind this, only assertions. I made an indepth post regarding why it's NPOV, and it seems to be going ignored. So you can imagine why the discussion is so long; there's one set of people claiming it's not neutral but not saying why, and I'm still trying to discuss this issue. If all reply posts directly addressed the question before it, then it would be far, far shorter. It's frustrating to say the least. .V. (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least part of the reason it's being ignored is that the page is also full of people trying in good faith to deal with another editor who is raising temperatures without any hope of creating light. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. I just don't want anyone taking it out on me though. .V. (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. You're just wrong; you're not insanely wrong. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the best way to prove someone wrong is to address their points directly and show those points to be incorrect. Nobody's done that yet, it seems. Hopefully someone will at least make an attempt. It seems the favored method here is to just say "this person's wrong" or "this is POV" and not waste time with actual explanations. .V. (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nonsense. People have been (overly) patiently presenting fact after fact to a someone who is practicing the classic Holocaust denier techniques of denying the validity of all evidence that doesn't coincide with their beliefs. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was referring specifically to my section on this page. .V. (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But there is a question: Why this page attracts such attention if it is so neutral?  Or may be it is something wrong with it indeed?--Igor "the Otter" 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because a small but noisy fringe group has access to computers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because you are a troll --T-rex 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling me troll is a personal attack:). In my opinion, some admins here are looking much more "trollish" then me. The tone of this article is provocating. Therefore this article is trollish one.--Igor "the Otter" 13:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. It should be obvious by now that you are not going to get what you want here; I suggest you move on to articles in your other areas of interest. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be frank, I'm not even interested in the Holocaust Denial. But it became a matter of principle. This article is horrible one, and this is not only my opinion. But some admins here don't show any good will to improve it. I don't see the reason to critisize articles which are neutral indeed. It seems silly suggestion for me. --Igor "the Otter" 16:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There does seem to be an outright hostility (or at least, unwillingness) for compromises. .V. (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: For someone not intersted in holocaust denial you have a very interesting pattern of editing --T-rex 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion about my patterns of editing can't make this article better. --Igor "the Otter" 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but getting you baned can... ironic isn't it? --T-rex 15:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is clear, of couse, that if you have nothing to objective, the only way to deal with somebody is to ban him. So what?--Igor "the Otter" 09:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait a minute. That does it mean, "feeding him with comments"? Somebody comment me, I answer. That's wrong there? Please, explain yourself. Nobody is owed to accept your opinion. --Igor "the Otter" 10:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DFTT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll not feed you anymore--Igor "the Otter" 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough

message: I've removed the following uncited claim from the article:
:In Belgium, Filip Dewinter, the charismatic leader of one of the country's largest political parties, the Vlaams Belang (formerly named Vlaams Blok, Flemish Bloc), was involved in the Flemish nationalist youth group NSJV whose prime campaign was promoting and defending Holocaust denial.
A bit of Googling suggests that the NSJV existed only during World War II, and is thus unlikely to have had Holocaust denial as its "prime campaign", since the existence of the Holocaust was largely unknown at that time. This seems to me to cast doubt on the rest of the sentence. Cite, please? -- The Anome 10:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I can only find references to that group existing in WWII. I also can't seem to find any sources for this claim. I googled the name + NSJV and found a couple entries, but they were in a foreign language and may or may not be related. Even so, there was only a few of them and they don't seem to be reliable. The only English source which seems to carry this claim is a page which copies from Wikipedia... .V. (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also not particularly likey that Filip Dewinter was nvolved with NSJV, given that he was born in 1962, twenty years after that organization ceased to exist. Perhaps someone from the West Flemish Wikipedia might know more, but for the moment, it looks like a political attack only. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed uncited claim from article 

message: Could someone define what is "notable" for wikipedia? Just because someone has a blog that denies the holocaust is not enough, in my understanding. I've cleaned up some names that didn't show any "juice" (outside usenet/internet) in a simple google search. But please check to see if I didn't delete any legitimate new inclusion.--Ninarosa 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always keep an eye on that section. It seems a name gets added to it every once and a while as a defamatory jab. .V. [Talk|Email] 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Holocaust Deniers 

message: Deborah Lipstadt has coined the phrase "soft-core denial" versus "hard-core denial". 
Lipstadt: "When groups of people refuse to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day unless equal time is given to anti-Muslim prejudice, this is soft-core denial." 
Accusing Jimmy Carter of "soft-core denial": "When a former president of the United States writes a book [Palestine, Peace not Apartheid] on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and writes a chronology at the beginning of the book in order to help them understand the emergence of the situation and in that chronology lists nothing of importance between 1939 and 1947, that is soft-core denial."[Jerusalem Post Holocaust scholar warns of new 'soft-core' denial Feb. 6, 2007
Can someone add it into the article as a new type of denial? Thanks DJSemtex 20:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Deborah Lipstadt coins a phrase and it immediately becomes WP content. I see she already has it on her personal page. I will cut & paste it here. Fourtildas 07:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that "soft-core denial" and "hard-core denial" are neologisms as per WP:NEO and not fit for inclusion. Actually, these would technically be "Protologisms", because I don't believe this usage has caught on in any significant manner. .V. [Talk|Email] 13:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soft Deniers?

message: Yeah, this is a totally neutral, unbiased, encyclopedic statement. The "Jewish People" wouldn't lie to us about their nukes and Iraqi wmd's either.
Fourtildas 07:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is unreasonable to ask these claimants to prove that their evidence is "really real"