Talk:Did Six Million Really Die?/Archive 1

Archive 1

What real evidence is their that Richard Harwood is the author

What real evidence is their that Richard Harwood is the author? Most of what we find is assumption with no sources. The World In Action piece simply says that Tyndall believes the association with Hardwood/Verrall/National Front, is a "left wing smear." In the piece, they show statements by Tyndall throughout, and interviews with him. Regarding the booklet, it is just the narrator stating this which I found odd. The only evidence in this piece is an unknown "expert" stating that their signatures are similar. But other than this World In Action piece, what real evidence is their for him being the author?

Problems with article

Multiple spelling and grammar errors, possible NPOV problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outlanderssc (talk • contribs) 13:28, July 1, 2005

Spelling and grammar errors fixed. Someone else has to do the NPOV checks, as I haven't read the book. — JIP | Talk 1 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)

How's that for neutrality? DS July 1, 2005 13:42 (UTC)

Revision

true or false according your source should be under a different heading or new article instead of next to what he has claimed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.204.125 (talk) 11:03, January 20, 2006 (UTC)

Would you mid explaining that comment a little more. When a man is lying and his lies are being cited, the TRUTH should be cited in the paragraph because they are part of the same subject matter.

Who are you?

-- Jason Palpatine 22:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

to say in brackets "by the way this is false" would be acceptable in an encyclopedia setting where facts are verifiable. for example if someone claims 2+2=3.

anything less brings into question the integrity of this site or any other encyclopedia.

the article should be explaining the book and what was presented by the author. if you insist on saying that he is lying this should be under another heading along with credible sources as i mentioned above. your source does not pass this test as a prime source while this issue remains controversial and should not be claimed here as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.204.125 (talk) 20:34, February 7, 2006 (UTC)

Zündel guilty?

Actually his article says something different: "Zündel was originally found guilty by two juries but was finally acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada which held in 1992 that section 181 (formerly known as section 177) was a violation of the guarantees of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Inspite of this aquital Zundel was forced to pay substantial legal fees..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.82 (talk) 14:22, June 22, 2006 (UTC)

Strange to see a court have such scholarly historical knowledge - Canadian courts are rarely this knowledgeable about events that occur right under their noses, but miracles happen I guess. As far as the article saying that the Red Cross had no access to the camps - goto the jewishvirtualibrary to get the exact opposite opinion from people who claim to know. Can't have it both ways - pick one please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk) 20:44, November 17, 2006 (UTC)

Unless the report I read is incorrect, Biedermann testified quite differently than the article implies. He conceded that the quotes from the Red Cross Reort on the camps was accurate ( any link to this report ) in the "Did Six M...". This article seems to have trouble with the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk) 15:29, February 1, 2007 (UTC)

Zündel never was convicted in Canada. He was found guilty but acquitted because the judgement was biased and illegal. Zundel was found guilty in the 1985 trial, but the verdict was set aside by the provincial appeals court. It ruled that the judge in that trial had, among other things, given improper instructions to the jury, and had improperly excluded defense evidence. Thereafter this article is biased, since it refers to a biased court to smear the Harwood book. In regard to the 1988 trial: on appeal, Canada’s Supreme Court threw out the conviction, declaring on August 27, 1992, that the archaic "false news" law under which he had been convicted was a violation of the country’s Charter of Rights.--83.52.209.234 (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Found false?

is there documentation of one autopsy that proves that even one person was gasses? are the any photos of otherwise healthy bodies laying in a pile? are we to believe that people just lined up to be killed and remained calm as they are shown in the photos i have seen? i am finding a lot of evidence that the claims that there were mass exterminations are just wartime propaganda. when you subject the claims to critical thinking and try to figure out exactly how these hundreds of thousands and millions of people were allegedly murdered, it falls appart. and then people want to start saying that you are anti-semetic. all i have searched for is the truth and i am finding little in the official version. sorry if that offends people Keltik31 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't believe "critical thinking" can be called "finding evidence", but I guess I'm just kind of dumb about these kind of things. Eaglizard 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Publishers?

Was the book published by both Zundel and Hancock? Was it Verrall who sued Hancock for royalties, or Zundel, or...? DS 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Institute for Historical Review

The link to the text of the pamphlet "Did Six..." has quotes from the Jewish World Congress stating that by the outbreak of WW2 the majority of Jews in Germany had already emigrated. Is this the link you meant to use - it seems to bolster the denial side ( not just the WJC quote but several others combined appear to increase the book's credibility ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:159.105.80.63 (talk)

Note that those links are provided by the Institute for Historical Review, whose credibility is limited. DS 03:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Reputable sources

This text states that Verral's claims regarding the demographics of the European jewry have been contradicted by reputable sources. Is there a reference to back this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AryeitskiySaldat (talk • contribs) 18:34, July 31, 2007

Text removed from article:

(it should be noted that the population estimates given by Verrall are contradicted by all reputable sources, including the Nazis' own counts: according to the Wannsee Protocol, there were eleven million Jews in occupied Europe in 1942)

I think it would be prudent to remove the unsourced text from the article until it can be sourced adequately, which I have done. __meco 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, "Aryeitskiy Saldat" is Russian for "Aryan Soldier". As such, any statements this user has made on Nazi-related topics (and would you look at that, that's all he's done) are to be considered extremely dubious; he's out on his worthless, lying, white-power ass and is not welcome back. Secondly, we have a photo of the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, open to the page that has the population figures for European Jews. It says "11.000.000". DS 15:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this makes the contentious snippet any more sourced. __meco 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article now links to the text of the Wannsee Protocol. DS 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jewish population in the Wannsee Protocol minutes

Just an explanation of my last edit: the Wannsee Protocol minutes list a total Jewish population of over 11 million in all of Europe, including areas (Britain, Ireland, Turkey, unoccupied USSR) never under Nazi control. However, the minutes are a little confused as some figures clearly take into account the work of the Einsatzgruppen (those for the Baltic states), those of Germany and Austria clearly take into account deportation to ghettos in the General Government which had already happened by the end of 1941, while others, especially Ukraine, seem to take no account of the hundreds of thousands of Jews murdered by Einsatzgruppen during 1941. Also, the 11 million figure seems to have been seen as a lower bound, in that the minutes themselves state that "some countries still do not have a definition of the term "Jew" according to racial principles"; i.e. on top of this 11 million there would be others who would be targted for death because of their Jewish heritage. Gerry Lynch (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of an inaccurate and contradictory statement

I deleted the uncited sentence under the subsection The Book which stated that the book claims "the Holocaust was a fabrication". In the same section the article states that the book claims "the scale of the Holocaust had been fabricated". As the book discusses the scale of the Holocaust it cannot be also claiming the holocaust never occurred. Thus I deleted the inaccurate and contradictory initial statement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and removed the citation tags. This is a synopsis of the main points of the book itself. What it does need are page refs. Your conclusion appears to be POV. A Sniper (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I do not understand your POV accusation. Can you explain? The problem is that a correct synopsis of the book cannot be that it argues both 1.)"the Holocaust was a fabrication" AND 2.) "the scale of the Holocaust had been fabricated". It MUST be one or the other. Is it the holocaust itself, or the scale of it which is claimed to have been fabricated? The title alone makes it clear that the book's subject matter deals with a question of the scale. Thus I have undone your undo. Page refs are required (WP:VER) so I have reinserted the citation required tags. Do you have the book? Could you provide the page refs?-- Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My POV statement is merely that you are reaching your own conclusion based on your interpretation of what you're reading (I believe your edit has been made in good faith). I am reverting your edit but adding the citation tag until the pages can be noted (I have read this pamphlet twice in law school and can verify the content & tone but no longer possess it, and it is hard to find here in Canada). Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now found and read an online PDF of the book and done a search within it for some of the statements made about it here in this wiki-article. To my surprise I discovered that some of the statements made here appear to me to be quite misleading and occasionally false. Therefore I have attempted to more accurately represent these parts of the article. But I was so suprised at what appears to be the apparent invention of certain accusations that I have left them intact and just added citation tags to two of them. Could it be that the PDF I accessed was not the complete book? If so, can somebody provide references for the claims that the booklet mentions the atomic bombing of Japan, Stalin's gulags and actions against the Palestinians? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wanasee and Lucy Dawidowicz population estimates.

Wanasee population figures are for the whole of Europe, NOT Nazi controlled territories. The same is true for the population figures of Lucy Dawidowicz. So I have deleted the references to these as they do not contradict Versall's figures. His figures relate ONLY to Nazi occupied territories in Europe NOT the whole of Europe. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, isn't providing information from primary sources (e.g Wanasee protocols) and even from a secondary source(e.g. Lucy Dawidowicz) - when neither of them make reference to nor are discussing the book - an original research violation? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitions and Bias

Just a general question to all frequenting in this page:

Do we claim that this Wikipedia artice is neutral and totally unbiased when in the first paragraph the usual "labels" start to appear? Antisemitism, Holocaust denial, etc. Should n't you first define what these terms mean and if they are accurate and most of all appropriate? Then a huge star of David with the Jude in it, strives to remind us of Germany's attitude towards the Jews during WWII, and the rest of the content is rather a pro-semitic and pro-holocaust propaganda instead of a description of this book. The article references the titleof the book. Characterization and epithets about the book is -clearly- the writer's point of view not what the book's content is. All in all, it is understandable that this article was written by Jews to promote a certain agenda. However, isn't neutrality the focus of Wikipedia? - ΠΔΓ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4E01:4582:C7B:29E2:3AA0:3E21 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Jews wrote this? Only Jews know what a nasty piece of work Zundel is? Doug Weller talk 19:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this booklet be in Category:Antisemitic publications?

Seeking consensus. Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Without a doubt it's Holocaust denial, but it shouldn't be classified as anti-semitism. Anti-semitism arises from a hatred of Jews, and it's material does exist. One of the most easily misconstrued ideas is that Holocaust denial is perpetuated by neo-nazis who want a real genocide, or people who believe it's a conspiracy to profit from the Germans and further the expansion of Israel into Palestine. One can even open a revisionist book, watch a documentary, or read an essay/article - they won't be able to find an instance of anti-Jewish slurs. Such material is created in an academic manner. Not all revisionists are even pro-Hitler. Watch "BuchenWald: A Dumb Dumb Portrayal of Evil" by Denierbud, or "Nazi Shrunken Heads" for a shorter version. That's my take. InternetSpartan (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)InternetSpartan

Thought I'd replied. You're wrong. I've added a source now, and Zundel, who published it, is not simply a guy who thinks not that many Jews died. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @InternetSpartan:. The book is not an antisemitic publication. BudJillett (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

And that editor was blocked for his attempts to whitewash holocaust denial publications. If you think holocaust denial isn't anti-Semitic which is what he claimed, or that Anne Frank didn't really die, you won't understand why he was blocked. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The book questions some of the Holocaust numbers, which does not rise to the level of hate or antisemitism. Your POV does not appear to be neutral. I wasn't aware Wikipedia listed reasons for blocking editors. If you claim the above editor was blocked for "whitewashing holocaust denial publications" then you should post the wiki link to that fact. Regardless, whether or not the above editor was blocked is irrelevant to the point at hand. This subheading is to vote on consensus. Wikipedia is not meant to be a discussion forum WP:NOTFORUM BudJillett (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)