Talk:Fred A. Leuchter

message: This article can be expanded. There's a video of Leuchter in YouTube which was uploaded about five years ago in which he talks about his life, his work and the many troubles he faced in Europe for his research regarding the Holocaust and the Gas Chambers and his claim of later being watched by the government and the Mosad. I believe we can expand and refine this article by the pieces of information that we can find out there and by keeping Wikipedia professional and to the date. This article does not have a neutral tone and approach and has a criticizing writing which causes the reader not to have a clear judgment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.248.40.90 (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use a YouTube video, we need sources that are reliably published. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, even if it is a legitimate video of Leuchter, it's a primary source. The article is not biased, it's completely neutral in that it presents the consensus of historians and other scholars about Leuchter and his "research". Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article does not have a neutral tone and approach and has a criticizing writing". Can you find a serious chemist, historian or engineer that gives any credit to Leuchter's 'research' at Auschwitz? If you can it will be included. Leuchter doesn't even have basic qualifications in any relevant field of expertise (toxicology?) and doesn't speak or read German, so was unable to read the original plans/orders from Nazi officials which made the purpose of the gas chambers explicit. Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Quite so.  As that saying goes: "Show me a man who never makes a mistake and I'll show you a man who never does anything."  70.178.140.205 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Leuchter continued not only to defend his report, but to appear at denialist forums to do so, long after his 'report' was wholly discredited on every scientific and historical basis. I think the man was a naive fool in many ways - but his 'mistakes' were not entirely innocent, nor honest. Pincrete (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased and Incomplete 

message: The lengthy quote from mass.gov in this section does not actually refute any of Leuchter's claims in the prior quote - while it confirms the state *has* licensure programs for many branches of Engineering, it says nothing to whether a license is a prerequisite to practice. I’m finding it oddly difficult to find an authoritative source which does speak to that; I think this may have something to do with contemporary prevalence of the 'Software Engineer' title, which challenges the historic statutory power of the professional societies over the 'Engineer' title? If someone has relevant knowledge on this domain a better source would be much appreciated as I'd prefer not to simply remove this quote without a substitute. 198.52.95.10 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article quite clearly notes that Leuchter was charged with practicing without a license, which certainly implies that a law or statute was violated, and the sources say that the charge was upheld, so I cannot see what the problem is.  I see no relationship to any dispute about software engineering.  The sources given are very reliable, so it would be improper of you to remove such sourced information without a consensus from editors on this page to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairly technical distinction, but the article says that Leuchter avoided prosecution by issuing a statement admitting that he was not a (registered) engineer, but had been presenting himself as one for the purposes of selling his equipment (and in his report). AFAIK he had no technical expertise whatsoever for any of the various execution methods he built and/or sold equipment for - beyond what he had 'picked up', working for his dad and by himself. With my limited knowledge of such matters - I would have expected a whole range of skills to have been needed to (effectively, safely and humanely) execute people by electric chair/lethal gas chamber/lethal injection - many of which would not be covered by a general engineering qualification anyhow! Even more to attempt to 'revise' history with no knowledge of history/German/chemistry/human and insect pathology etc. Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges of practicing without a license 

message: An ip recently removed text ostensibly 'disproving' Leuchter's claim that no other unlicensed engineers were ever prosecuted and that he was prosecuted because of his report. Our text is WP:OR of a primary source (the website of the Mass board of engineers), and it doesn't actually disprove any claim by Leuchter. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not seeking to in any sense defend Leuchter but it is very plausible that the law used against Leuchter is one that was very thinly implemented as he says and only used against him because of the attention he drew to himself.
The content is not weaker by omission of this quote - he was charged, which he interpreted as a "a spurious criminal complaint" since "Although the state's licensing law has been in effect since 1940, there has been no record of any prosecution for this offense." Our text doesn't contradict that claim, out text merely states that the board of engineers licenses all sorts of engineers. If Leuchter is to be 'disproved' it should be done better than this from a secondary or tertiary source. Pincrete (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges of practicing without a license again