Talk:International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Polish Reaction, add please

Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the International Conference on the Holocaust, Teheran, 11-12 December 2006 On December 11-12, 2006 an International Conference on the Holocaust is being held in Teheran. The event has been organized by the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Institute for Political and International Studies. In the light of statements on the Holocaust made by prominent Iranians before the conference, it is not unfounded to fear that the event will be used to question the truth about the Shoah. Any attempt at contesting this truth arouses serious concern in Poland, where 6 million people were victims of the Nazi genocide. In order to guarantee respect for the historic truth, Poland, as well as other countries, must firmly respond to such attempts. We owe the truth about the genocide not only to our citizens but also to the memory of those killed by the Nazis in concentration camps and to their descendants. Polish authorities have consigned to the Iranian partners a set of information materials from the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oświęcim. We hoped that would contribute to deepen their knowledge about the tragic historical events in the occupied Poland during the WWII and above all about the greatest genocide and barbarism in human history. Victims of the Nazi regime were mainly Jews from all over Europe, but also Poles and citizens of other countries. Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs expresses its strong disapproval of the conference, which contradicts the idea of the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust established by the UN General Assembly, and celebrated on 27 January. Poland highly values its long-term tradition of good relations with Iran and intends to develop them. We wish to help Iran overcome problems that may arouse serious international controversies. We hope that a thorough study of the information materials will allow Iranian scholars to better understand the historic truth, the sensitivity of other nations and their desire that this truth be respected. Such an approach is in line with the Dialogue of Civilizations initiative promoted by Teheran. One of its main guidelines should be the study of the history of different civilizations.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.24.209.145 (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

• Added, and thank you very much for your contribution to Wikipedia. Jeffpw 15:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to mention their offer of historical materials from the Auschwitz museum? To me, this seems fairly special, since the reaction involves a gesture in addition to a rejection. I feel like the current selection for Poland's reaction makes Poland look simply hostile towards Iran, whereas the complete passage here on the talk page reveals a different attitude. The Behnam 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please feel free, Behnam, as far as I am concerned. I only shortened it in the interest of space. If you feel it's significant, you should add it. Jeffpw 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added the historical materials consignment. The Behnam 00:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Hate Crime

"Holocaust denial violates Canadian hate crime laws if it is found to wilfully promote hatred." Surely this means Holocast denial in itself is not illegal in Canada? brian_chat 19:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Conference - Cohen - Who?

Sorry if this edit breaks the formatting. I'm new. I just wanted to point out that in the 'conference section' it says "Cohen said at the conference, blah blah blah", but it doesn't say who Cohen is (in that section). I don't know if it says who Cohen is elsewhere, but I think he should be described in that section. 74.108.120.2 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Chris

hi Chris, I was confused on that point, too, the first time I read it, but it does indeed say who Cohen is. Jeffpw 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete?

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was speedy keep.

Why was it so nominated--4.68.249.3 02:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion here. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Alleged?

"...A meeting to discuss the alleged Holocaust..."

• I removed the word "alleged" and the quotation marks because I think they show allot of POV and because the tone of questioning the reality of the Holocaust does not lend anything good to this article. — James.S ^{(talk • contribs • count)}

• If anything, it's POV to take "alleged" and the quote marks out. Many people don't accept the mainstream account of the "Holocaust". (This unsigned comment by 66.11.54.71)

If we held a conference of people who think the world is flat, or that bacteria don't and dinosaurs never did exist, or if we held a discussion forum for people who believe that AIDS doesn't exist, would it make any of these absurd claims true? And would it be necessary for Wikipedia to put the word "alleged" in front of every claim that the world is round, just to satisfy the one or two wingnuts who think it's flat? Would you call it POV if I were to claim that gravity works? The Shoah did happen. Israel has a right to exist. If you want to deny some historical fact, at least pick one that's not in living memory. Maybe you can claim The Roman Empire never existed. We'll laugh you off all the same, but at least you won't force people who lost their loved ones to relive the world's worst nightmare over and over again. You can have your little conferences with discredited historians and some president who prefers violence to reason, maybe include a few self-hating Haredi to give it some 'credibility'. But don't expect us to say, "They held a conference on it, so it must be true!" Wandering Star 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We know there are always going to be disbelievers. If we have to cater to their (mostly unfounded) ideas, we'll have to call just about everything 'alleged'. Hell, there's probably someone out there who thinks the word 'the' is a figment of everyone's imaginations. What do we do about them? 'Earthquake - An earthquake is a tremor in alleged the ground, caused by motion of alleged the tectonic plates which make up alleged the Earth's crust.' Sounds like a good way to ruin Wikipedia to me. From what I can tell, we're sort of supposed to state things scientifically, rather than trying to please every last one of the 650000000 people on Earth. - green_meklar 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it is up to us to decide what is and isn't true. That is why Wikipedia must quote sources. If there is a recognizable organization that believes the earth is flat, then it should be documented and quoted exactly as their opinions and research say. If this is an emotional topic for anybody, i dont think they should be writing an article about it for an encyclopedia because, unfortunately, they hold a gread deal of bias. We should state the claims made by notable people, not our own. (Antonio.sierra 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Our article The Holocaust has a section on Holocaust Denial - it says "As the Holocaust is generally considered by historians to be one of the most documented events in recent history, these views are not accepted as credible by scholars, with organizations such as the American Historical Association, the largest society of historians in the United States, stating that Holocaust denial is 'at best, a form of academic fraud.'" Simesa 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

wtf? Is that a mainstream association that calls the holocaust "a form of academic fraud"?. What am i missing? --Striver 23:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Holocaust denial is a form of academic fraud, not the Holocaust itself. That is what the AHA stated. Atamasama 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now i see it. Thanks. --Striver 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"called for the destruction of the State of Israel"

The meaning of the original statement in his speech in which this is referring to is somewhat ambiguous and has been translated by many, yet it seems a consensus that an active call for the destruction of the State of Israel is not a realistic interpretation. Something more along the lines of a "...firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away" is more likely.

Who says? I have asked several Iranians for an exact translation, and they use terms like "clean from the map". Scott Adler 09:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22 —Barium 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I second this comment, as I think the comments by the Iranian President have been taken out of context. Further, "myth" means "story", not necessarily "fabrication" as is seemed to be implied. . — gavin6942 ^(talk

The objection to this interpretation is absurd. It has been cited in many newspaper articles around the world, and nobody that I have read questions his meaning that it calls for Israel's destruction. Jeffpw 09:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what media you read. Consider this quote by Juan Cole, who's not exactly a nobody in the field.

I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.

But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.

Plenty more text and links about the speech and the translation at [1]. Zocky | picture popups 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove this page

The confrence is not a major issue, we should delete it WikieZach| talk 04:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I listed it for deletion. Please vote here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Holocaust_conference. --Gabi S. 07:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Name

Although this may be the official name, is this really the name it's commonly known as? Per the guideline WP:COMMONNAME: use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things

As a first offer, I suggest Iranian Conference on the Holocaust AndrewRT(Talk) 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a page a few weeks ago called 2006 Iran Holocaust Conference If anyone searches they'll prolly find this page from there or somewhere else. There's a redirect up now that the Media has been talking about it and people have started to edit pages about it. Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Visas

...however Iran and Israel each forbid citizens of the other from obtaining entry visas...

I don't have time to chase down a citation, but this is not accurate. Iran and various other Muslim countries do not allow entry to individuals holding Israeli passports or (in the case of some countries) individuals with foreign passports with Israeli stamps. This is because those countries do not recognize the existence of the state of Israel and thus cannot accept a passport from a country that they do not officially recognize. In the case of stamps its a matter of boycotting people who do support Israel by visiting. Israel does NOT have a similar policy vis a vis Iran, because Israel does recognize Iran's existence even if they don't have diplomatic relations. However Iranians (or Syrians, Lebanese, etc.) very, very, rarely visit Israel because they will not be allowed back in their own country if they have an Israeli stamp in their passport. There was an article in Haaretz a few months ago about an Iranian choosing to visit Israel even though he knew that by doing so he wouldn't be able to return to Iran. GabrielF 03:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy in the Haartz article seems to have had a Canadian passport. But you are right; when I merged I had imagined this was basic cultural POV, but the visa issue does seem rather one sided (at least from the English web sources). The only thing I found was an IDF website that warned potential new recruits flying into Israel not to take a plane which stops (or even flies over) any Arab country, and specifically Iran.[2] Because... I dunno. First nukes, now pod people?

Anyway, I'll fix this. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC}

I'm not sure how relevant it is, but this is the discussion forum, so I'll say it anyways. When you enter Israel, you can ask for your passport not to be stamped, precisely so that you can later visit banning countries. Shachar 06:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The IDF isn't afraid that its soldiers will turn into pod people, only that they will be kidnapped if the plane is forced down. It is generally believed in Israel that the Iranians "bought" one of their airmen, Ron Arad, from Hezbollah for torture practice.Scott Adler 09:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but of course they obtained a confession to this effect via torture themselves, which validated their belief (i.e. they were told what they wanted to hear). There's never been any real evidence to support this allegation. -- Kendrick7^talk

MSNBC link mutated

Anyone know how to ref this? The Reuter's article "Iran opens conference that questions Holocaust" disappeared from the web as best I can tell, and the msnbc.com link ended up going to a different article. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

nevermind, found it. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, it broke again, but at least the link doesn't go to a different article. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind again, User:Jeffpw for the real McCoy. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

BLP

Reminder : All claims about living persons must be adequately sourced. See WP:BLP. WAS 4.250 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know why after the holocaust the Palastinians have suffered and the Germans have not, yet it was the Germans who committed the holocaust? Is it because the Germans are white and the Palastinians are Arab? I was born in the 60s and have failed to understand this.Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 10:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not message boards. This is not the correct place to ask this question and give your opinion. See WP:WWIN.--Burzum 10:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is one of the questions being dealt with at the conference and should be in the article (sourced of course). The claim is that Europe either committed "The Holocaust" or it did not and if it did then Europe should take in the Israelis so Palestine can revert to the Palestinians and if the did not then it was all a lie to saddle the arabs with Jews that Euope did not want and shouls take them back on that basis and furthermore if Europe won't take them back the North america should and if we won't then at least we should make Israel take back the Palestinians so they can vote Israel a Muslim government. Its all quite clever politically. But the fact is that many Jews were returning to what they perceive as their homeland in a world wide movement (Zionism) from around 1890 on - way before World War Two. As for the exact questionasked : the Germans suffered a great deal during and after WWII - especially at the hands of the Soviets. Britain who ruled palestine at the time refused to allow Jews to return and in fact caused additional harm to Jews who tried. But at the end of WWII the remaining Euorpean Jews had had enough and those who fought on the side of the allies used their knowledge and connections to move Jews to "the promised land" in spite of British wishes and even committed acts od terrorism against the British to force Britain to wash its habds of Palestine and leave - with the blessing of the US and USSR who both recognized the nation of Israel immediately for debateable reasons (I believe political mainly). As far as the average American is concerned, Arabs are "white" just as many Hispanics are "white". WAS 4.250 11:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence is not entirely true. The very same anti-semites (like David Duke, et al.) mentioned here refer to Arabs as "sand niggers' or 'towel heads' amongst themselves. And before any foreigners contemplate giving them your allegience, let me tell you this: while they hate Jewish and Black people worse than they hate you, once they feel they've 'dealt' with these groups, you're next on the list. They're just using you because alot of people have sympathy for the Palestinians. And once the world's media decides they're bored about hearing the whole Arab-Israeli conflict over and over again, and turn their attentions back to Brittany Spears' love life, you won't be useful to them anymore. They don't think you're white, they definitely don't think you're christian, and they certainly don't think you're pro-American. And those are the three things they judge a person's right to live on, so watch you backs. Wandering Star 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wandering Star, you are rapidly becoming my favorite person on Wikipedia!! Jeffpw 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Germans, the main culprits in the Jewish equation, are unusually silent about anything to do with the subject. A reasonable person (my kind of reasonablility) would imagine that they feel responsible for the monster they created, the Jewish killing machine, trying to get rid of Palastinians using any means, but mainly tactics used on them by the Germans. What amazes me is why the focus has never been on Germany. The German suffering from the Russians was voluntary, while the Jewish suffering from the Germans was imposed, just like the Palestinian suffering from the Jews is imposed. The west are very selective in whom they regard as worthy of life. They have intervened in Kossovo, in Iraq, etc but never in many similarly suffering African nations or in Palestine. Why? Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mai Chibwe (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Faurisson

The term "anti-Semite in relation to Faurisson was removed from this article with the rationale that we cannot call him that or say it is considered true since he denies it. Since he was convicted for spreading racial hatred, his denials seem a moot point. Just my thought. I would like that reinstated, but wont unless we have consensus. Here is a relavent quote I got from Nizkor.org: He has been found guilty of libel, racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred, and failure properly to discharge his responsibilities as a historian, both in his approach to evidence and testimony as well as in his research methods. He was a star witness for Zundel at both his trials. Thanks.Jeffpw 10:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it POV to refer to him as "disgraced"? Andrew Parodi 10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• well, he was removed from his university chair, fined, and given a 3 month prison term for incitement to racial hatred and defamation, so that seems pretty discraced to me. Jeffpw 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That may have been my mistake; I missed that in the ref and his wikipedia article must be incomplete. (I specifically removed it from Category:anti-Semitic people a while back when that cat was in WP:CfD specifically because it didn't have much to support it; though vandals might have gotten there first) -- Kendrick7^talk 11:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See Faurisson affair. His bio should be updated to reflect what is in the affair article. Jeffpw 11:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, "disgraced" is POV - someone else may call him a martyr. How about mentioning the firing, fine and prison in the sentence? Zocky | picture popups 13:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I disagree a little with Zocky. It seems like "disgraced" is more a reference to his sanctioning by the university (and the fact that that happened is not POV) than to the views for which he was sanctioned. I believe the term "disgraced academic" is usually used in this context. Dkostic 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Public Opinion in Iran

This section is a bit POV'd to me. To go to the extent of quoting "a student" against the conference, and nothing in its favor (there must be someone in Iran, if not most of the population, that supports the move) seems a bit...extreme.--SidiLemine 13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please find some supporters to include, Sidi. I am looking and not finding anything at all. Jeffpw 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither do I, and it bugs me a lot. I'm pretty sure if I me and my browser were arabic-friendly it'd be easier.--SidiLemine 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I found a kook to quote who supports this obscenity. Let nobody say Wiki is not neutral! :-) Jeffpw 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I can't be sure about Wikipedia, but you sure are! ;)--SidiLemine 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Foreign Minister Mottaki today called the Western criticism "predictable" and said the conference does not advocate anti-Semitism, which he described as unique to the West and unprecedented in Islamic countries.

Wolfgang Benz, a historian from the Center of Anti-Semitic Research in Berlin, said today that denial of the Holocaust reflects a current agenda for today, rather than a serious occupation with history:

"The Holocaust deniers know exactly what happened, they know about the scale of it, but they want to use the Holocaust for a different purpose," Benz said. "They want to articulate anti-Semitism against Israel and the Jews in the world to make an impression on the majority of people who are not informed and uneducated. It is all about politics, not about education or political correctness." --

Khaled Muhammed

If the fact that Israeli Arab Khaled Muhammed was invited to the conference is mentioned, then his views on the subject should also be mentioned: >>> Khaled Muhammed, who started a museum in his office in a bid to teach the Arab world that the Holocaust did take place, said he was denied a visa to Iran after he sent a copy of his Israeli passport to the Iranian Embassy in Amman, Jordan. "This is a political decision," Muhammed said, adding that when organizers invited him to attend the conference, they evidently thought he was a Palestinian. "I wanted to face the Holocaust deniers and prove to them that they should recognize the Holocaust,' the Yediot Ahronot daily quoted him as saying. "Recognizing the Holocaust could start a different policy based on acknowledging what makes up 90 percent of the Jewish identity," he added.[3] >>> 132.72.45.187 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see it is mentioned now.

Holocaust Denial POV?

Wouldn't the term Holocaust Denial or Holocaust Denier be considered point of view? None of these men that have been imprisoned for their "crimes" are holocaust deniers. They don't deny the holocaust happened, they just question if the historical account of it is completely accurate. These European states have labelled people holocaust deniers just to silence freedom of speech and debate. Imprisoning someone for having an opinion that differs from the mainstream is outrageous and reeks of tyranny! Something should be added to the effect that the charge is bogus. They aren't deniers, they are questioners. YourPTR! 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, several of them are explicit deniers indeed, in that they deny core facts about the Holocaust. I'm no fan of the European laws about Holocaust denial myself, but they are neither particularly over-broad nor over-strictly enforced. Discussing details of the Holocaust will not get you into trouble - European historians are doing it all the time. Denying that the Nazis had a systematic policy of killing Jews and other minorities, and carried it out on an industrial scale with millions of victims, will, even if you pay lip service to the word Holocaust. --Stephan Schulz 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of them are total deniers, but very few indeed. Most of them deny a part of the official holocaust theory (some the gas chambers, some the figures, some the methods, etc) but the general persecution-deportation scheme is clearly accepted by most. Then, you have to consider that they've been imprisoned for something that is a crime in their country, and any comment on that should be made in Holocaust denial.

When you have even people like Adolph Eichmann admitting the mass extermination of people, albeit with the excuse of just following orders, it is quite a stretch to deny this happened. 12.10.127.58 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that a number of the participants in this conference are listed under the Wikipedia category for Holocaust deniers (Holocaust_deniers#Notable_Holocaust_deniers). I think that, just to remain consistent with the rest of the site, it's not a POV to call at least some of them Holocaust deniers. On the other hand, it's true that some people deny or question only certain aspects of the Holocaust, and it's not clear-cut where the line is between outright denial and legitimate skepticism that's a part of scholarly inquiry. (Anti-semitism isn't the only reason a person might be skeptical of the accepted history of the Holocaust.) Dkostic 02:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Dkostic. I hate these situations where "antisemit" hangs in the air like a Damocles sword.--SidiLemine 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Attendees

Shouldn't it be mentioned that several rabbis participate?--SidiLemine 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is mentioned already, in two places. Jeffpw 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not. It says one rabbi in the lead,and then some jewish associations.--SidiLemine 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • I thought this covered it: Among the participants in the Tehran conference were six members of Jews United Against Zionism, assumed to be affiliated with the Neturei Karta,[1] including Aharon Cohen[11] who said he had come to the conference to put the "Orthodox Jewish viewpoint" across. Cohen also said that while the Holocaust indisputably happened, "in no way can it be used as a justification for perpetrating unjust acts against the Palestinians."[1] Moshe Aryeh Friedman, leader of The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria was quoted by the media as claiming that the Holocaust is, "a successful fiction".

. From what I read, though there were 6 Orthodox Jews in attendance, only one was a Rabbi. If I am wrong, please update the article. Jeffpw 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

David Duke

I didn't think this article needed to call David Duke Klu Klux Klan Imperal Wizard and a white nationalists idelogue (I think the two go hand in hand) so I added a more offical description of Former member of the House of Representatives, State of Louisiana, United States of America to describe him. It might be too long of a description, so if you feel the need to shorten it be bold! Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 18:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Former member of the House of Representatives is hardly what he is known for. His real claim to fame is as a KKKer and Racist. If I remember correctly, he was a Rep. for just one 2 term. Jeffpw 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still think a represenitive is more formal than "White Nationalists Idealogue" Maybe less POV too? Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More formal, perhaps, but it is not what he is most notable for. If you look at the White nationalists article, you will see is is listed as one of the most prominent. How 'bout a compromise? We could list him as convicted tax evader and fraudster; he does get prominent mention in his bio for that. :-) Jeffpw 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really sound like much of a compromise.Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already a compromise in effect. He is listed once as a KKKer, once as a white supremacist, and one as a rep. Far too much mention in my opinion, but there it is. Jeffpw 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a representative is included because it's important. That might not be what he is known for, but because he held that position, it's only right to put it in there. .V. 22:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it is there. Jeffpw 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So? .V. 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Very Good Job

I'd just like to say, this article is very well done in terms of NPOV. It doesn't seem as if there's anything slanted pro or con. Thanks! .V. 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I second this. Out of those that I have read, this seems to me the most NPOV of any article that involves Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Holocaust Denial, Anti-Zionism, etc. Let's see more articles like this. The Behnam 22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

John Hyams 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

POV in Goals section?

I want to draw everyone's attention to this paragraph in the "Goals" section...

"Ahmadinejad has been known to say that the Holocaust was a myth and has called for the destruction of the State of Israel.[4][5] He has pointedly questioned why "the West would not allow any investigation into the Holocaust".[1] Although this claim of investigation denial has no real basis, many of the participants have praised Ahmadinejad and have likewise expressed a belief that the Holocaust was a myth to allow the creation of Israel.[6]" (my emphasis)

I think this paragraph is POV, specifically the bit that "this claim of investigation denial has no real basis..." My reasons for believing this is POV are that...

• A number of western countries have laws specifically prohibiting Holocaust denial, incitement to racial hatred, etc. and they have been deployed against Holocaust skeptics like Ernst_Zündel and David Irving. One can certainly dispute the reliability and scholarly value of Zundel's and Irving's work, but I think their cases make it quite clear that there are limits (and in their cases, even serious consequences) to debating the Holocaust in the west.

• Even in countries where such laws do not exist (like the United States) there are respectable scholars who, even though they do believe the Holocaust occurred, question the popular version of events or believe that the sensationalism the event has become associated to has serious political consequences. Some of these scholars have suffered damage to their careers because they strayed too far from the accepted version of events. For example, Norman Finkelstein is frequent target of pro-Israel demonstrations and Daniel Goldhagen (who, incidentally, disagrees with Finkelstein quite a bit) was denied tenure at Harvard for his controversial writings on the Holcaust.

For these reasons, I'm deleting the segment in question. If you disagree with my edit, please post your thoughts here. Dkostic 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I talked about investigation here, and you deleted my all comments here, on the talk page!! It was not about they right ti deny, but the right to investigate, which EXISTS. John Hyams 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not going to revert your edit, though I do not believe the sentence was POV. I have, however, added the line "due to their laws against inciting racial hatred". To make clear why it is illegal in certain countries. I would like to add, as well, that I find it disingenuous of you to add Goldhagen to your supporting argument, as if he is a Holocaust denier. Jeffpw 22:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

here

The entirety of the text about Ahmadinejad's opinions is POV, since this article presents no evidence that Ahmadinejad's personal beliefs have anything to do with the Conference goals. I have therefore removed Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial. I ask fellow editors not to reinsert it (at least not in the Goals section) without a citation that Ahmadinejad himself is responsible for setting the Conference's goals. —Psychonaut 22:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant anymore, others have already changed it. John Hyams 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychonaut, this is from the website itself: 3. Aftermath and exploitation

3-5) Holocaust and Israel

3-6) Holocaust and compensations

3-7) Holocaust and Jews imigration into Palestine

3-8) Holocaust and carnage of Palestinians

This seems to me to relate to the sentence you deleted, about the conference being used to address the Holocaust in the creation of Israel. Additionally, Ahmadinejad is the one who organized the conference in the first place, so it is disingenuous to delete his anti-Semitic views from this article. Jeffpw 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

additionally, as you can see [4], it was his statements that led to the idea of the conference in the first place.

Also, the section you deleted about the conference calling Israel's reason for being into existence is also mentioned using a quoye from the forsign minister of Iran in a section below "goals", so I fail to see why you have deleted the material. Jeffpw 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to separate authoritative sources on the goals of the conference from speculation about the goals by those unconnected with it. I see now that someone has added a source (Neturei Karta) for the claim about the conference seeking to deny the justification for Israel's existence. Provided a citation can be given for this claim, that's fine. —Psychonaut 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the sentence about Ahmadinejad being responsible for the organization, I provided that in the external link above. Here is a relavent quote: That is what Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has frequently claimed, and it was Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statements that inspired the Foreign Ministry to hold the conference. The ministry said 67 people from 30 countries were participating in the two days of meetings.

I believe Psychonaut is referencing the third paragraph under "Goals." The sentence is a very strong claim and suggests a related political agenda. It's a big sentence to have in there without an explicit, strong citation, and I don't see one made. A citation tag was in there and someone removed it, and now it's back. I suggest cutting paragraph three under Goals unless a citation is provided. MarioCerame 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to assume good faith, but you seem to be pushing a POV with your edits.Jeffpw 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With respect to whether Ahmadinejad had or has any influence on the goals of the conference, you infer that he does because he organized the conference. However, I'm not sure that a mere inference is acceptable to present as fact on Wikipedia. It would, however, be appropriate to draw attention to other people's published inferences. For example, instead of saying outright that the goal of the conference is to deny the Holocaust, we could say that in such-and-such a newspaper, noted historical comentator Mr. So-and-so has drawn attention to Ahmadinejad's history of anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying remarks, and therefore believes that Ahmadinejad is using the conference as a venue to get his anti-Semitic beliefs expressed in a scholarly setting. —Psychonaut 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately obtuse. Ahmadinejad is the President of a theological dictatorship. His statements were the genesis of this conference. It is a government sponsored conference. He is the head of the political government. This is all fact and sources have been provided that back up these facts. Quite seriously, you seem to be pushing for a holocaust denial POV in this article, under the guise of "Objectivity". Jeffpw 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize for insisting that we apply the same WP:V and WP:NPOV standards to Holocaust and non-Holocaust articles. If it is so obvious that the conference is rigged to further an anti-Semitic viewpoint, it should be very easy to find a published statement to this effect we can use in the article as a citation. What's your problem? —Psychonaut 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

John Hyams, stop adding your own editorializing to the Goals section. If an objection to Ahmadinejad's statement about the lack of freedom to investigate the Holocaust has been published in the news or scholarly media, then say so and give a citation. —Psychonaut 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Investigation has never been denied in the west!! This is why my statement stands. If you have hidden motives here, simply say so. May I ask you please, how many Jews were murdered in the Holocause? I would like to see your answer. John Hyams 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not questioning the veracity of your statement that investigation is not illegal in the West. I do have an issue in the way you present this statement in the article, as if you (i.e., the writer of the Wikipedia article) are arguing with Ahmadinejad. You're also attributing motives to him which he might not have. How do you know that he is "ignoring" Western law, rather than just ignorant of it? This is why I suggested that you reword your statement by referring to a published source which criticizes Ahmadinejad's claim. —Psychonaut 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

John Hyams, you have persisted in adding POV statements about Ahmadinejad's motives even after I suggested an easy fix. I've left in the factual part of your statement (that investigation of the Holocaust is commonplace in the West) but removed the suggestion that Ahmadinejad was deliberately ignoring this. I hope this is an acceptable compromise until you can find a citation for this claim. —Psychonaut 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The goals, read be a layman, might be interpreted as legitimate goals. That is why we have to make it clear for the encyclopedia reader that these goals are not legitimate, by stating that the goal statements ignore basic facts. If Ahminijad complains that the West does not allow investigation, then he is ignoring, whether he does that with intent or without intent. The fact that he is ignoring should be mentioned. So please, you have the honour. John Hyams 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I perfectly agree that specious goals should be exposed. But we need to expose them in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutrality. Anyway, I see that some other user has already taken exception to your rejoinder and removed it, and I'm perfectly content to let the paragraph remain that way. —Psychonaut 00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I have to go to sleep. I live in Israel, and you know, tomorrow I may not wake up because Ahminijad has stated that he wants to destroy my country. Soon enough he will have nuclear weapons and you will not have to have debates with me, because I'll be gone (Holocaust No. 2). I have to take the bus in the morning to work, but hey, I might explode with it if a suicide bomber would take the bus as well. I must invite you to drink some coffee with in a nice Cafe here in Tel-Aviv, but I can't guarantee coffee without explosions. So keep your fingers crossed for me, I know you will. Good night. John Hyams 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You will be surprised to find out that the very reasons you present for why you should edit in a certain way are in fact reasons to confine your editing to the talk page. WAS 4.250 06:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I know better about the subject due to this fact. You, on the other hand, are appearantly trying along with other people here to present this conference as a ligitimate one. Let's make something clear, this conference is not legitimate. And, if the subject is foreign to you, do not meddle in it. John Hyams 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(<---)Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is not negated by being an expert on a subject. WAS 4.250 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the conference is not legitimate, regardless of who or how many other people agree with you. I doubt the organizers or the participants feel the same way. We cannot inject this viewpoint into the article. Dkostic 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, John Hyams, I didn't delete anybody's comments anywhere on the talk page. And don't forget that Wikipedians are supposed to be civil in their posts on the talk pages. Don't infer malicious intentions (specifically with your post immediately above this one). And to Jeffpw, I never claimed Goldhagen denies the Holocaust (quite the contrary; he wrote a very popular book about the Holocaust), and Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier either (his parents were both in concentration camps). Even though Goldhagen certainly believes the Holocaust occurred, his controversial writings about it caused serious damage to his career. My point was that unconventional scholarship about the Holocaust (whether in favor or against its memory) has potential consequences in western countries, and therefore the version I edited didn't seem appropriate to me. Dkostic 01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You or someone else deleted my posts here, as I was explaining my view with regard to your claim. The page's history contains everything. But that's way back. John Hyams 05:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the second time, I did not delete your (or anybody else's) posts on this page, or anywhere else. If you think this has been done, check the history and cite examples. If you find examples of this, please report it as vandalism. If you cannot provide evidence of this, let me remind you that repeated accusations of this sort can be construed as a personal attack against me. Either back up your allegations, or refrain from accusing me.Dkostic 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Appeasement to the General Public

In the Public opinion in Iran section, there is the following, "Iran is primarily a Muslim country. This conference brings appeasement to general public as it intends to attack on the existence of Israel in Arab region, especially because Israel was carved out by displacing millions of Palestenian Muslims out of their homelands."

The next reference I encountered did not seem to make this statement. Is there a reference that I am missing or was this statement just placed here without support? The Behnam 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think that was just added. I haven't read it before and I have been watching this page most of the day. If you feel the reference doesn't check out, you can make the text invisible, or post it here until a reference is added. Or just delete it with an explanation. If the edit was made in good faith, the person who added it will supply the proper reference. Jeffpw 22:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted it. The reference supports the sentence that came after that sentence. That sentence was not referenced at all. Jeffpw 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I wanted have deleted it with an explanation, I was just afraid that doing so might make you or another wrongly call me a vandal again. The Behnam 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Behnam, I apologize for thinking your earlier edit was vandalism. I don't even remember what it was, but I remember leaving a message on your talk page. IN my own defense, I have reverted more than a dozen instances of blatent vandalism on this page today. If I was trigger happy with you, please forgive me. Jeffpw 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thanks. The Behnam 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"displacing millions of Palestenian Muslims"

I'd like to see the source for 'displacing millions of Palestenian Muslims' in this quote:

"This conference brings appeasement to general public as it intends to attack on the existence of Israel in Arab region, especially because Israel was carved out by displacing millions of Palestenian Muslims out of their homelands."

When Israel was established as a state were "millions of Palestenian Muslims" displaced??

From the Wikipedia article on Palestinian people...."The British census of 1922 counted 752,048 in Palestine, comprising 589,177 Muslims, 83,790 Jews, 71,464 Christians (including Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and others) and 7,617 persons belonging to other groups (corresponding to 78% Muslim, 11% Jewish, and 9% Christian) (1922 census report)." --207.206.144.136 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is deleted (see above) Jeffpw 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta

I changed the sentence in the first paragraph about Moshe Aryeh Friedman because the Neturei Karta article (along with their own website[5]) states that their name is Aramaic. Either way, Neturei Karta isn't synonymous with "The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria," I think most of the sect's adherents live in Israel. Somebody's since changed the sentence back. I'm not trying to get into an edit war over this, but unless anyone registers objections in like the next few hours, I'm changing it back to my version. P4k 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As for "Austria", I don't know, Austria sounds strange to me. Nut the name of the group, Neturei Karta, is well known in Israel, I know, because I live here. John Hyams 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize their name is well known in Israel, but that doesn't mean it's Hebrew. I mean, Hamas is well known in Israel too. They claim the name is Aramaic, and so do some other internet sources[6][7][8]. I guess I don't really understand what your argument is. Anyway saying that "The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria," is "known in Hebrew as Neturei Karta" implies that they're the same group, which isn't true; I'm sure Israeli and American Neturei Karta adherents aren't part of The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria, and Moshe Aryeh Friedman isn't the head of Neturei Karta. The fact that the group exists in Austria is weird, but it does. I'm kind of grasping at straws here cause I don't really understand what your objection is. P4k 00:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if this is controversial, can you just let me say that Moshe Aryeh Friedman is a member of Neturei Karta and resolve the issue of what language their name is in on the Neturei Karta page? P4k 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

no, its not acctually controversial, just someone has been changing it recently on the nk page. it's discussed by people who know what they're talking about on that talk page. also here's nk usa's explanation [9]. (i assume the page number discrepancies are because the talk is citing within the chapter etc.) gemara is ussualy in aramaic, mishna is in hebrew, these changes where probably just confusion. otherwise, just about everything else about nk is controversial :)  ⇒ bsnowball  16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The question still remains

How come you can question Jesus Christ in Europe and go to jail for questioning the Holocaust? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.243.59.119 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Or why can you not criticize a number such as 6,000,000. It is a very vague number that should be allowed to be questioned. It is ignorant to say that this number is the absolute number and cannot be challenged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.161.97 (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? I'll tell you why. Because real people died in the Holocaust. Nobody knows for sure if Jesus existed. We have no written records from his lifetime that can be verified independently by sources not associated with the religion that worships him stating that he ever lived. There are many people who think that, if he did live, he certainly wasn't the same person Paul made him out to be. The gospels contradict each other, ascribe quotes to him that have since been theorized to have been added many years after his death for the sole purpose of making the religion more palatable to the Roman Empire in hopes that they'd stop persecuting christians. Half of the books that were part of daily religious life in the early church are no longer in the bible, probably because the Romans (and just about anybody else) would have thought them so bizarre that finding followers would have been almost impossible. But the Holocaust happened within living memory. There's people still alive today that experienced the Holocaust first hand. Everything about it can be independently verified. Why is it a crime to deny the Holocaust? Because to do so is to spit in the faces of those who suffered in the camps. Why is it not a crime to deny the divinity of Jesus? Because nobody's really sure he ever was, divine or otherwise. Now, here's a bigger question: In Europe, they jail you for denying the Holocaust. In America, it's not a crime at all. In countries where Sharia is law, they kill you for saying anything bad about Mohammad, who isn't even seen as being divine. Which do you think is more cruel? Wandering Star 18:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As an American, I find it weird that Europe limits freedom of speech in this way; but to answer your question, there is no current threat of killing people in Europe for believing or not believing in Jesus the Christ but there are still organized groups in Europe that think killing all the Jews is a good idea. America deals with this kind of craziness by having spies secretly join the KKK and similar idiot-groups and destroy them from within. Well, until Bush came along ... but that's another issue altogether. WAS 4.250 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• you may or may not know that Germany ranks 23rd (and Switzerland, which also has anti-denial laws, 8th) on the freedom of press index, while the USA ranks 53rd, tied with Botswana, Tonga and Croatia. dab (�) 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't true until Bush came along hence my comment about George "the constitution is only a piece of paper" Bush. WAS 4.250 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that defamatory statements about any living person in articles, talk pages, or user pages are prohibited in accordance with WP:BLP.--Burzum 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

...as are other defamatory statements. We just are extra careful for living people. But WAS's remark clearly was not defamatory, but a political commentary, a kind of speech that enjoys the highest form of protection under most modern constitutions.--Stephan Schulz 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP says no such thing. But you can insist on sources. Take your pick. And note I associate the quote with him in terms of it being a phrase associated with him and in terms of his behavior which provides meaning to that association; whether he actually said it is another issue and remains essentially unproveable either way. WAS 4.250 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree now that it has been pointed out that your statement was political commentary and not defamatory. But it is still not helpful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the editorial page of a newspaper. Your biased opinion does not give me great confidence in your ability to contribute in an unbiased fashion on this topic. It would be helpful if you followed the WP:WWIN soapbox policy. Cheers.--Burzum 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• WAS 4.250, you might not find that limit on freedom of speech so "weird" if you lived in a country where you were forced daily to remember that hundreds of thousands of your countrymen were, in the not so recent past, rounded up and forced to the gas chambers simply because of their religion. For those of us in Europe, the Holocaust is not some abstract, intellectual debating point, but a reality for which we still see the consequences today. I would also like to point out that in the U.S.A., speech is not completely free. One cannot advocate assassination there, and likewise, discussion of potential terrorist activities, even if not carried out, can lead to jail time. Jeffpw 09:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a dick but this is still totally off-topic. Don't feed the troll, etc. P4k 09:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps tangential, P4k, but not totally off-topic. The OP was referring to Duke's speech at the conference. Jeffpw 09:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely off-topic. The discussion is about laws & regulations in the UE, not this conference. Please take it to talk:Holocaust denial if you wish to continue it. --SidiLemine 11:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SidiLemine. It is OK to talk about how the accompanying article should discuss free speech laws and other related issues; NOT to debate the validity or morality of those laws. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Although those are important issues, there are other forums for that. Dkostic 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of the conference is to use arguments about validity and morality to de-legitimize the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, to de-legitimize the Zionist movement that created the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland and to de-legitimize the efforts of the west to sustain the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland. It is all about discussion of morality; with talk about the Holocaust merely a backdrop. Keep your eye on the ball, not the handwaving. WAS 4.250 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The conference was to examine and publicise the orchestrated campaign in the last 20 years or so (not for some 30 years after it happened) to exploit the Holocaust to legitimise Israel, Zionism and the actions of Israeli governments, military and settlers.89.243.104.117 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Some European countries forbid the open denial of the holocaust but not all. There are no legal restrictions on discussing the details as such.

David Irving does not question that the Holocaust happened. He thinks the number of 6 million quoted at Nurnberg is probably too high and that 3-4 million is probably nearer. He does not think (though he is open to evidence of this) that it was centrally directed by Hitler. (The leading Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg agrees with this and also suggests a lower number, in his case 5 million. Hilberg also believes that the Holocaust is exploited for the benefit of Israel. Hence his support for Norman Finkelstein.) Irving believes there were gas chambers in some camps, but doubts whether there was one at Auschwitz. In his own words he "does not accept a package", but reserves the right to examine the contents. Irving was sentenced to 3 years in an Austrian jail (he served 1 year). And there are no legal restrictions on discussing the details?89.243.104.117 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WAS 4.250 Your belief that: there are still organized groups in Europe that think killing all the Jews is a good idea. is utter nonsense. Such 'groups' as may be identified are little more than trouble makers who jump on this band-waggon because of the effect it creates. The problem in Europe and elsewhere is that any discussion of the WW2 murders that deviates from the official doctrine is attacked as anti-Semetic. Such prohibition of free speach are as intolerable as the prohibition of publication of the so called cartoons.Surfingus 12:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC) surfingus Surfingus 12:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Like the saying goes, "A picture speaks a thousand words". Thanks, Metaspheres, for adding that valuable photo to the article. Jeffpw 12:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I clicked the link for the source of that photo, but I don't see it on that page. Is that link right, or am I blind? .V. 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't see the pic either, when I clicked, but I have no reason to coubt it was there when it was downloaded. That website is not static, and the conference was ongoing, so I think they are probably revolving the pics they took. Jeffpw 15:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• I don't really think it's right to have this image here if the citation link doesn't contain it. 192.132.64.2 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If the citation link did contain it at one point, it is possible to check that. I am assuming good faith, and I think others should, too. There is a Wiki dept, to check for Fair Use. If this does not meet that, it will be removed by an admin. Jeffpw 15:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a policy that if you take an image from a website, it needs to be there. Not sure if it's a good faith issue. .V. 15:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I just checked WP:Images, and what you said is not listed there. As I stated earlier, images on websites change. If you are concerned, I suggest you contact an admin about it. However, I would oppose removing it until an admin has weighed in about the subject. Jeffpw 15:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Alright, I'll look into it. .V. 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I should add that all images on that repulsive site are freely licensed, so if necessary, another image can be taken from it. Jeffpw 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that may work. *shrug* I'd just feel better about an image with a more stable link. .V. 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

"even though the Holocaust can in fact be investigated in the West, and has been investigated for decades throughout the world.". There is somthing wrong with that line. It gives the impression that the intended words of the Iraninan presidend are taken to denote something else than what he intended, turning it into a straw man, and then procedes to give a straw man refutal. Of course he knows that it is "investigated", and it is obviously clear that he means "critical investigation that may reach other conclusions".I mean, c'mon, what kind of investigation is it, if you only may reach one single conclusion? "you may think what you whant, as long as you agree with me". I will not remove the text yet, since i don't want to provoke. --Striver 13:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This has alredy been discussed above. We are working for the layman reader here, who might not know that this statement of the president has no basis. Investigation can be done freely, depite what he said. Citations were given, and then some users came and removed them, so this is becoming quite tiresome. Again, please read above. John Hyams 13:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

the laws prohibiting denial do not prohibit any bona-fide investigation. They draw a line defining as off-limits what is obviously bad-faith misrepresentation. Just because laws are 'legalistic' doesn't mean they are devoid of any common sense, that's what the judicative is all about. Any reasonable scholarly debate about the Holocaust can easily take place legally in countries that have such laws. To allege that these laws hinder neutral investigation is simply an obvious bad-faith revisionist statement and shouldn't be considered as anything else. dab (𒁳) 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Further, the laws are in line with the UN resolution on the Holocaust, which rejects any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event. [10] Jeffpw 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not stating that investigations are prhibited, i am stating that you are attributing intentions to him that he might not have had, and that is the OR part. For all you know, he might have meant doing invetigations that raeach other conclusions, ie, it would have been illegal to have THIS investigation in the west. Again, it is OR to invent intentions to his words. The way it is presented, the quote is obviosly given a out of context interpretation. --Striver 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, he stated that unequivocally. It is you who are trying to reinterpret his statements. If you can find any statement or source to back up your interpretation of what he said, please feel free to add it. Otherwise, your argument seems like POV pushing to me. Jeffpw 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can change it to read "even though the Holocaust can in fact be investigated in the West, and has been investigated for decades throughout the world. However, in countries such as Germany and France, if the investigation results deny the Holocaust, it is illegal." or something. Because the current phraseology is very, very misleading. .V. 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• How 'bout "purpose of the investigation is to deny the Holocaust"? Jeffpw 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be inaccurate. If an investigation starts, regardless of the intent, and results in a conclusion that denies the Holocaust in whole or in part (the distinction is hazy), it would still be applicable. The phraseology you offered only covers when the investigation has an intent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by .V. (talk • contribs) 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Here is the problem sentence:

Ahmadinejad has pointedly questioned why "the West would not allow any investigation into the Holocaust"[4], even though the Holocaust has in fact been investigated in the West, and has been investigated for decades throughout the world.

The second half of the sentence, starting 'even though' has the effect of casting editorial doubt on Ahmadinejad's statement. This reasons for not using this type of device are detailed here: WP:WTA#However.2C_although.2C_whereas. it would be better to replace this editorialising with a reference to a published source with the contrary opinion (that the West does allow investigation into the Holocaust). If we leave this sentence as it is, the article looks more like an opinion piece than a summary of published sources about a subject. wp:npov is a non-negotiable policy yet the clear point of view of this sentence is that Ahmadinejad is incorrect. Striver is correct that the second editorial half of the sentence denies something that Ahmadinejad did not say and is therefore a straw man argument (note that Wikipedia articles should not be making arguments). I think it would be best to just remove the 'even though' half of the sentence as the publised arguments against the need for the conference are included in the article already. Curtains99 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple; here's a compromise edit.--Eloquence* 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

'In actual fact' is another editorial device for invalidating the previous clause. I am amending this to: Ahmadinejad has pointedly questioned why "the West would not allow any investigation into the Holocaust"[4], a reference to the illegality of denying the Holocaust in certain Western countries.. Curtains99 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The clause is invalid. If Ahmadinejad had said "freely investigating," that would be another matter. But the claim that "the West would not allow any investigation into the Holocaust" is simply incorrect and can be stated as such without violating NPOV. If Mr. Ahmadinejad said that France was in South America, we would not have to state that he is "referring to the geographic location of France"; we could say that France is, in actual fact, in Europe. There is no dispute that investigating the Holocaust is possible anywhere in the world. There is dispute that such an investigation may yield arbitrary results.--Eloquence* 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your compromise edit is perfect, eloquence, and as far as I am concerned, feel free to edit it that way. Jeffpw 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The current revision is perfect, shows the truth of the situation, and acknowledges the Iranian President's POV. Let's hope it can stand this way. Jeffpw 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(in actual fact, investigation into the Holocaust is not illegal, although Holocaust denial is illegal in certain Western countries.) Did'nt somebody above state that a investigation into the Holocaust that ends up disputing the official version would result in jail? If i start a investigation, and end up with other numbers than 6 million, i would end up in jail, right? --Striver 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong; not in any country that I have heard of. Do you have sources to the contrary? Weregerbil 18:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, look at the lead of this article. If i end up with 2 or 3 million people killed, i get jailed, if i end up concluding that they did not used gas in auswicth (spelling?), i end up in jail. Just ask Gerald Fredrick Töben and Robert Faurisson. Its basicly "sure, do your investigation, but damn you if you dont end up agreeing with us!"--Striver 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those two "ended up with other numbers than 6 million", they denied the Holocaust ever happened. Do you really not see a difference between an investigation that gives a different number of victims and denial? No worries; most adults can, so if you ever investigate something you are not in danger of ending up in jail. Weregerbil 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, respectfully, this question displays a remarkable lack of understanding of the subject. Comprehensive scientific investigations into the number of murdered Jews exist, such as Wolfang Benz (Ed).: Dimension des Völkermords. Die Zahl der jüdischen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus. Munich, 1991. Scientific investigations, based on documents maintained by the Nazis, photographs, witnesses (some of them Nazis), census information, etc. have, over time, pinned the number at around 5-6 million (it is difficult to get significantly more accurate than that because of systematic cover-up attempts towards the end of the war, e.g. seeding flowers over mass graves). Actual law on Holocaust denial does not state that one may not arrive at certain numbers. German law (§ 130 StGB §3) states: "Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost."

Briefly translated, this means that denying, downplaying or supporting any act of genocide (as defined in the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch) committed under the national socialist regime in a way which may disrupt the public peace can be punished by up to five years in prison or a fine. There is not even a specific mention of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, let alone anything about numbers. Whether or not a particular action meets this definition is interpreted by the courts. May I suggest that you stay away from this topic for a while? It is a sensitive issue and I'm not convinced that you are approaching it with a sound understanding of the facts.--Eloquence* 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that i have a lack of understanding in the subject, i will be the first one to admit it. My knowledge does not stretch farther that having seen to many discovery channel productions. But having a lack of understanding of the topic did not hinder anyone from editing the Muhammad cartoons, so i do not understand what merit the suggestion of me keeping away has. As for your quote, does it not support what i said? If i conduct my own investigations and then announce that i only arrived at a smaller number, don't i go to jail, just as several other people doing the same? --Striver 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're simply trolling this page. If you read the discussion above (and I am sure you did) you will see that legitimate investigation of the Holocaust is allowed in every country. Investigation with an agenda of disproving a historical fact, with the goal of delegitimizing the victims of Genocide, is illegal. That the Holocaust occurred, and in the level it has been described since the 1940s is not disputed by anybody except neo-Nazis and other anti-Semites. You truly should let this go. The simple fact that you could not spell Auschwitz (which I corrected for you above) tells me that you don't know much about this subject. Jeffpw 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the comment by Curtains99 on 16:10, 14 as a clear evidence of me not "only trolling" here, and actually take offense at your statement. And again, you did nothing more than prove me correct with your answer, "either you agree, or you are a nazi!". Now that you have taken this to a personal level, ill give you a person statment: I don't know much about this topic, really, neither am i interested in learning, and most certainly am i not advancing any position on this, but, BUT i do recognizes oppression against free thought and research when i see it. If they are so damn wrong, prove them wrong. Sending people to jail for ides? Yeah, the freedom of speech baner that the west champions is most certainly selective, i haven't forgotten about how proud the west was about publishing the cartoons a while ago. And now you are "advising" me to not edit here, and when i do not oblige, then i am "trolling"? You know what that makes me want me to call you? I better shut up before i regret it... --Striver 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, your post now clearly makes your POV clear for all to see. For the record, I didn't advise you not to edit here (though I would be ever so grateful if you would stop). Anyway, if you cannot see that "research" into the fact that something happened or not, when it has been historically documented for 60 years, and unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, is pseudo-science at most, and hate-mongering at the very least, then further dialogue with you on this subject will be impossible. Jeffpw 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, i did not mean that the research would conclude that Jews were not murdered systematically, i have not heard any valid argument for that not being true. And of course would a research concluding that it did not happen be nothing more than a farce. I mentioned researched that came to other conclusions that the number 5-6 millions. I have no idea if it is possible to arrive any other number, how could i considering that i know almost nothing about their methodoligy. For example if some professor would end up concluding that some of the material is discredited and only arrive to 4 million. That would most surely cause him to hesitate talking about his findings. Make no mistake, im not talking about hate speech, im talking about creating a atmosphere of fear of open debate and research. You tell me, have it never happened that people were sure about something, then ten years later, known history became re-visited? Just look at the Gulf of Toncin that started the Vietnam war for real, it proved 40 years later to be pure fiction. Would that have happened if it was a crime investigating in it? (note: i did not mean to imply via analogy or anything else that the holocaust is "pure fiction". Just to make it clear, I don't want any misunderstandings.) --Striver 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone has made their point. As someone from the "I-may-not-agree-with-what-you-say-but-I'd-die-to-preserve-your-right-to-say-it" school of American freedom of speech thought, I do think these other countries should clearly be embarassed that Iran has more progressive free speech laws than they do no matter how much quibbling is done over exactly how these rules are applied. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) first they came for the holocaust deniers, but I was not a holocaust denier...

• Kendrik, if you honestly think Iran has more progressive free speech laws than those of Germany, The Netherlands, France and The United Kingdom, you don't really know much about the country at all. Most Human Rights organizations find Iran has an atrocious record in this area, especially in the area of freedom of speech and expression. I suggest you read a little bit about the country here on Wikipedia, learn about how free their speech is, the country's human rights record, and its political history before posting further here. your last post seems quite naive.

I have also been under the impression that Iran's freedom of speech is not the best... sight. Anyway, i think the topic of this section is over. --Striver 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Goal: to deny the legitimacy of Israel

Those who repeatedly delete this from the Goals section, should state their reason here. John Hyams 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done so, but, as far as I can tell, this is not one of the officially stated goals. You and I, looking at what they do, will come to that conclusion, but it remains our own conclusion and violates WP:OR. The source that was provided did not directly state this goal either. If you want this in, either find a direct statement by the organizers, or find a WP:RS that you can attribute it to, ("According to Knut Hardensford of the Daagenblaad, the aim of the conference was ... [ref here] ). --Stephan Schulz 18:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also haven't deleted this sentence but it does look suspect.

The secondary goal, as stated by David Duke, the Iranian Foreign Minister and Neturei Karta, is to deny the legitimacy of existence of the Zionist State of Israel, which was founded a short time after the Holocaust in order to compensate for the "alleged" genocide of the Jews.[5]

The Jerusalem Post reference quotes the Iranian foreign minister as saying

"The objective for organizing this conference is to create an atmosphere to raise various opinions about a historical issue," he said. "If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt. And if, during this review, it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Muslim people of the region and the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?"

David Duke and Neturei Karta are also quoted in this article but I donh't see them claiming this to be the goal of the conference and they are attendees rather than organizers, so how can they set the conference goals? Finally, the Iranian minister quoted above suggests two outcomes either that Israel will be found to be illegitimate or that the Palestinians will be found to be paying for the Nazis crimes. His sated goal appears to be to determine the reality of the Holocaust which is the same as the primary goal. So I think this sentence should be dropped or changed around to something about the Iranian minister's views of the conference outcome. Curtains99 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not convincing. Gentlemen, to claim otherwise is a distortion of events, intent, and facts from that conference. This goal, as I posted it, stays. John Hyams 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this para because it was unreferenced. What Curtains99 said above makes perfect sense. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

All references appear below, and also they are always deleted again and again. Facts need no reference John Hyams 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose the replacement of 'The secondary goals...' sentence with this paragrpah:

According to the Iranian Foreign Minister, the outcome of the conference will be as follows:"If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt. And if, during this review, it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Muslim people of the region and the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?"[6]

Curtains99 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This was already there before. I feel that turning a blind eye to the secondary goal of the conference, Israel's right to exist, is not done in good faith. There is no hiding, Israel and a link to it, Zionism and a link to it, and their denial by the conference must be mentioned. Ahminijad's every second word is "Israel" and "Zionist" in the context of the Holocaust. John Hyams 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

john, would you agree to the statement simply refering to the foreign minister? i'm not particulary interested in what dd thinks of israel... but nk have a different reason for denying it's 'legitmacy', their issue with the shoah is they don't want it used to 'justify' israel. with the whole quote from the f m (or from "If the official version") it makes it quite clear what he's aiming at. ok that's now proposed, what would you modify curtains suggestion too? (i think the quote should be there, as it makes the point clear, no?)  ⇒ bsnowball  19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should we put pure propaganda of an Iranian minister in Wikipedia without stating the very simple fact that they have stated numerous times that "Israel" has no legitimacy to exist and should even be "destroyed". Wikipedia readers deserve to know these simple facts, which are perfectly reflected in the events of the conference. By the way, this event is old news already, I have asked to remove it and be done with it. John Hyams 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, didn't realize you object to his quote per se. i simply thought it necc. (with appropriate context) to establish the point. but do you mind if i remove the dd & nk bits & source it directly to the jpost art.?  ⇒ bsnowball  19:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

dd is an attendant, he does not proclaim the goals of the meting. --Striver 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If something is a very simple fact, it should be easy to to find actual reliable sources that state this fact. If it is an obvious deduction from well-established facts, state these (with their sources) and leave the obvious deduction to the reader. WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR are core policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself takes no stand, not even for the worthiest causes. And, by the way, assuming good faith (of other Wikipdia editors, not of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is also a Wikpedia policyguideline. --Stephan Schulz 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy. --Striver 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us all what we already know. Please do not try "making points" without the proper context or saying anything on the subject. We can all quote the guidelines, but we also have to give substantial points. Please try better than this, state your points. Provide your opinion on the subject, and show us your good faith. John Hyams 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My points are stated right up at the top of this section. You have not given any sources that one aim of the conference is to deny the legitimacy of Israel. As far as I can tell, you have not even given sources that someone thinks so. The current source attached to the claim [11] does not contain anything supporting this, either. It does state that Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped of the map, and that he denies the Holocaust. That makes him a verifiable asshole, but it does not support the claim. It also reports on the opening speech of Mottaki, who presents a propagandistic dichtonomy. But again, that is not a good source for your claim. I agree with your belief, but we do not put beliefs into Wikipedia, only verifiable information. --Stephan Schulz 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

thnx, that citation was what i've been trying to do (ed conf). can i now remove the dd & nk from that phrase as they're not supported by that cite?  ⇒ bsnowball  19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Issue closed. John Hyams 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry about all that. (i just hope no-one now claims its unsuported cos it takes some finding in the jpost art!) looks like i might have continue... :)  ⇒ bsnowball  19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed Duke; I think NK is somewhat supported by the ref. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) I think Jon Stewart put it best: If you're at a Holocaust denial conference, you don't want to be the guy ordering the kosher meal.

WP:NOR

Yeah, it's pretty easy to sidetrack and mistake your beliefs for verifiable facts. For example, the official name for the conference is the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, while the conference can be argued to be an International Conference to Deny the Holocaust (given the participants and the sorts of talk about the Holocaust that commonly get outlawed in European countries) or even an International Conference to Prepare the Path for a New Holocaust (yikes!). However, any such speculation is opinion. So where is there a soapbox wiki where folks can bullshit about it? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll find there are plenty of forums on the internet for discussing such things; this site is not supposed to be one of them. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiReason

Of course no one actually uses it. P4k 07:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreign reaction

The "Foreign reaction" has a western bias, this should be looked into, possibly by including other non-western countries. --Striver 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the Holocaust occured in European countries, and many of its survivors either ended up in the U.S. or Israel, I think the list here is much as you would expect. I don't think Japan or Palau, for example, are going to have much to say about all this. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the Arab and the rest of the Muslim world? None of them is represented. --Striver 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah... well. I hereby put you in charge of this!

-- Kendrick7^talk 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol! --Striver 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My comment doens't follow the rest of this conversation, but it does concern the section being discussed. This might be quibbling over nothing, but as the page is now, the list of countries giving a reaction to the conference goes Germany, France, Israel, US, and so on. I suggest that France be moved out of the #2 slot, and have the first 2 reactions listed to be Germany and Israel because those countries are so much more linked to the history of the Holocaust. France can be 3, or 4, or whatever. GutterMonkey 02:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Another "I don't want to do it but someone should" thing: it would be good to cover the world press reaction as well official reactions from foreign governments. Judging from Google, it doesn't seem like Muslim countries' goverments are talking about this, but some of their journalists are. Here's some BBC stuff: [12][13] P4k 06:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment about Germany and Israel doesn't make sense. Germany makes sense, though technically the Germany that was responsible for the Holocaust was destroyed for 40 years, and the new nation we call Gernmany was born in the reuniting of East and West Germany and is only related geographically to Nazi Germany; but how is Israel linked to the holocaust? It didn't even exist when the events took place. It is only linked in its own mind and those its propaganda influences. 82.81.175.10 13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

Not sure if this counts as "foreign reaction" but here are some titbits from ZA media that does not seem to feature in the article.

1. The conference has upset Iran's 25 000-strong Jewish community, said Moris Motamed, the sole Jewish representative in Iran's parliament.[14]
2. Many ordinary Iranians admitted to embarrassment about the event, which follows Iran's decision to hold a competition for cartoons about the Holocaust in October.[15]
3. A former senior government official, who declined to be named, said that hosting the conference was unwise given diplomatic pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme.[16]
4. A group of Iranian intellectuals (from Iran and the US) has criticised Iran for hosting the conference, saying it used human suffering in the Holocaust to make "political points". "We the signatories of this letter are of the opinion that such 'conferences', more than anything, harm the academic image of the Iranian universities," said the letter circulated on the Internet and signed by 23 academics, writers and artists. [17]
5. And this [18] news item attempts to create a link between the Iran cartoon contest and the conference. -- leuce (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

KKK or K-KKK

American David Duke, a former Louisiana State Representative and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the original KKK was before David Duke's time. He was infact former Imperial Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. I believe the "knights" were heralded as the sixth resurrection ogf the KKK but there are myriads of splinter organizations who take up the KKK tag. -- Kerowren 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

fixed -- Kendrick7^talk 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Major events/ discussions at the conference?

How come there are no major discussions, events, breakthroughs, and conclusions on this page? It mainly focuses on the goals and the opening statements but no newer information has been presented. This page, just like other controversial issues, has POV issues and I think we should hear what the conference attendees have to say instead of condemming the event. --Midnight Rider 01:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? We don't live in that kind of open-minded world. People aren't interested in "hearing what the other side has to say." They are only interested in promoting their own agendas, and fighting against those that disagree. Also, you're likely to be branded anti-semitic just for suggesting this. Tragic romance (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Conference length

When is the conference supposed to end? I-baLL 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a two day conference so it should already be kaput. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image seems fake

The headline of the Iran Daily is the one for 28 November Assisting Iraq Security a Duty -- see here. I'm going to remove the image unless there's an objection. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have reverted your edit on this, Kendrik. Just because an online version is dated 28 November does not mean that the print version was from the same day. Additionally, you do not know if that particular edition was set out at that table for a specific reason. You seem to be assuming bad faith on the part of the person who added the image. Have you discussed this image with him> If not, don't you have an obligation under WP:AGF to do so before declaring it a forgery in your edit summary and deleting it? Jeffpw 07:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I went to that website before the image was added, and after the image was added, and I never saw it there. I don't think I have an obligation to keep a fake picture in the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, this is clearly a desk in a hotel room, and not a conference table!) -- Kendrick7^talk 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree (strangely enough with both of you ;-). The fact that the paper is from November 29th (or 28th - the website lists 29th) in itself is not a good reason to decide it's a forgery. But I also could not find it on the claimed source website. Has anyone brought this up on the picture page? I would, but I'm on the run to catch a train now...--Stephan Schulz 08:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I will do that now. I will also repeat what I said earlier (above): there are other images from the conference from the same site that can be included, as they make their photos non-copyright. If the image is to be deleted, please have a substitute image to replace it. That would go a loing way towards good faith editing in my opinion. Jeffpw 08:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• The image is indeed from that site, and can be found here: [19]. Kendrik, please assume good faith of your fellow editors, and do not label their contributions as fakes and forgeries before you check for yourself. Please double check for yourself, and don't make other editors do your legwork for you before you make baseless accusations and remove content. Jeffpw 08:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So like I said, its a hotel room. There's no indication these items are for sale. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, it is not a hotel room. It is an official residence of the Iranian government, which (to my eyes, anyway) is even more damning and indicative of that Govt.'s true intentions. The website claims the items are on display in the Guesthouse of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, and the caption now reflects that. Jeffpw 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, its a really nice hotel room. More of a suite. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hotel: a commercial establishment offering lodging to travelers and and other paying guests, and often having restaurants, meeting rooms, stores, etc., that are available to the general public.

An official government residence doe not fall under this definition. Please do not deliberately be obtuse. Jeffpw 09:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone please enlighten me as to the value of a picture of a writing desk in a room of the Guest House of the Iran Foreign Ministry in this article? Yes, it can probably "allow the readers to know" the "Iranian Government's true intentions". I even feel like writing the following in caps, but I'll refrain: Verifiability, not truth. Who cares about truth? Not me. I too know the difference between good and evil. But a lot of times it happens that I prefer the methods of evil men. Cleaner. This picture belongs to Guest House of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, at best. I'll replace it. Oh, and to say that DVDs are antisemites? That's not only POV and OR, that's <refrained for causes of wp:civil>. --SidiLemine 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite your refrain, it does not seem you managed to avoid violating civility. Your intended attitude and meaning is clear, and the "refrained" part does not hide this. You should just try to be civil to begin with. However, I agree; the picture is questionable. The Behnam 10:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right, The Benham, I got a little overcarried. My appologies if I offended anyone. However I think that some of us are strongly pushing a POV here, and while I would have expected that from radical islamists, or white supremacists, it makes me a little uneasy. To accuse someone of being deliberately obtuse is not a nice thing to say. It just happens that a government can set its gest house in a hotel, and it is frequently the case in some countries. Some hotels are government-owned, too. And from what I gather, it being a hotel or not is actually not the point Kendrick was making: it is not directly related to the conference.

While I'm at it, the second reference is a wikipedia article, and that's a no-no. If it is sourced in the said article, sources need to be represented in this one. I'll delete the statement in the meantime.--SidiLemine 11:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest photo

• SidiLemine, I assume you added the new photo. Do you honestly think adding a picture of Jews to a Holocaust denial conference is NPOV? It smacks of POV push to me. There are dozens of other images available, and I urge you or someone else to download another one. I do not have the time right now or I would do it myself. Jeffpw 12:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Found the time to replace the image to a neutral one that we can (hopefully) all agree on. By the way, it is not permissable to download images from newspapers. Please see WP:FU for this. Jeffpw 13:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is me who added the photo. No, it is not a Holocaust denial conference. And I do think is the most NPOV photo I could think of, as you could read in the caption. It makes it interesing, and not one-sided, as I undertand you would have it. I am not assuming here, but extrapolating on calling the subject of the article "an obscenity" right here on this talk page. Please explain how you believe I am pushing a POV before changing the image, and propose a less POVd, more interesting one. I think what you feel about this conference is quite clear to everyone by now, whereas I would love to have my own POV explained to me: I couldn't care less about this thing. I just care about this wonderful project that Wikipedia is. I think that people too emotionally involved in some issues shouldn't take a part in it, as the encyclopedic tradition is a very cold-headed one. About the newspapers, could you please point out where it says so? I looked in WP:FU but couldn't find it. --SidiLemine 13:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• From WP:FU: Some people find it easier to understand the concept of fair use from what is not fair use. Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: # 5: A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles.

As to your claim that I should not edit this article because of any bias I might hold, I think my edits speak for themselves. I found the only quote in this article actually supporting this conference, among other examples. Jeffpw 13:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I didn't find that. Now, understand me. I am not saying you should not this article. The reason why I say people should be wary of emotionally charged issues is that they could get their feelings hurt. I salute your contributions, particularly knowing what you think of this. However, it may not always be easy to draw an objective line when so close to the matter at hand. I think the fact that you defended the "antisemitic DVDs" image when it was demonstrated it was not displayed at the conference illustrates this difficulty. Actually, I think that if the english-speaking world as a whole, including press & govt agencies, has a certain bias, it is quite normal that Wikipedia should reflect it.--SidiLemine 13:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that tempers have calmed somewhat, let me state why I found a POV push in your photo choice: to add that image, with the caption Orthodox Jews were present at the conference alongside declared Holocaust deniers, without explaining who they were and what their agenda was, gives a casual reader the idea that this is indeed a mainstream conference into the Holocaust, and not a conference that has a definite agenda, as stated in the goals. If that was an innocent mistake, I sincerely apologize for my breach ofgood faith assumption. Sincerely, Jeffpw 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that can happen to anyone. That being said, it was not "an innocent mistake", in that I do not feel it is my duty to give the reader one idea or the other. I don't know what you mean by "a mainstream conference" or "a conference with an agenda". I won't argue about "my" photo on the grouds of wp:fu you raised. But I still feel it was a positive addition. By any means, "mainstream conferences about the holocaust" do not invite declared deniers, so the reader couldn't have been made to think that. The current picture was my second choice anyway. All that apart, I still resent you accusing me of POV pushing. My picture was quite neutral compared to the one you defended previously. This is an accusation worse than vandalism, with no ground other than me not flowing in your direciton.--SidiLemine 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Reaction

Why are only the reactions of western/europeon countries shown. This article is already biased towards the aims of the conference being insulting and wrong.203.51.104.200 07:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

...because the aims of the conference ARE insulting and wrong. Jboyler 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So this article should be biased because the conference is insulting and wrong. Great. Wikipedia's credibility gone in one sentence. Tragic romance (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Results

Hi. I added the Results section after finding an interesting report regarding the conference at IRNA. Any improvements and comments are welcome, as this is my first time adding a section. Thanks! The Behnam 08:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent addition, The Behnam! I will look for more to see if there's anything I can add. That section really helps to complete the article. Thanks. Jeffpw 08:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

claim about 'palestinian' opinion

• claiming that an apparently iranian organisation represents the 'palestinian opinion' is um, misleading. there is a palestinian government. if there's a sourced comment from them, it can go in that section. leaving this here as i'm not otherwise sure what to do with it:
  

* {{flagicon|Palestine}} However, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, Secretary-General of the International Congress to Support the [[Palestinian Intifada]], gave support to the conference, and said that the "Western and Zionist media have always been aggrandizing the dimensions of the reality of Holocaust, mixing a bit of truth with a great deal of lies."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=47967&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs |title=Iranian Cleric: Holocaust no more than a myth |publisher=IranMania |location=London |date=2006-12-12 |accessdate=2006-12-14}}</ref>   ⇒ bsnowball  09:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bsnowball. It was originally in Iranian reaction, and I moved it. That was my bad. Sorry for creating confusion. Jeffpw 09:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti Semitism

Don't you guys think it is un-necessary to put this article in that category? sure it may have anti semitic elements but as you can see here: http://www.mideastyouth.com/2006/12/12/good-jews/ there were jews (anti zionists) invited, and they were greeted personally by Ahmadinejad. thanks -anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.78.24 (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

• As holocaust denial is in itself inherently anti-Semitic, I don't think the category is incorrect. Jeffpw 10:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is questioning the reason for Palestine to have its own free state Islamophobic or anti-Arab? Is questioning the extent of Jewish/Israeli genocide against Palestinians inherently Islamophobic? No, not at all. Jews are not special. Questioning any historic event is anyones right and not anti-anything. MirzaGhalib 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• The conference itself didn't advertise as a Jew-hatred conference, or a Holocaust denial conference. There were certainly some people who may be described as Jew-haters or Holocaust deniers, but its not like they cursed and spit upon the "good-jews"(see the URL name above!) that attended. However, the category should remain, simply because the issue is related to Antisemitism based upon its perception by many people. I believe this is similar to the classification on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page. The Behnam 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

-So this is the new way of Wikipedia, people's perception of things rather than how they are..Great stuff. --62.56.78.24 10:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You do understand that the inclusion of facts agreed to by mainstream sources is essentially a expression of the common perception of many? Right now, we abide by current mainstream expert opinion in articles, giving fringe views only side notes. As someone has said on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia is supposed to reflect the position of mainstream scholarship. And note that I said "related to". Believe it or not, quite a few significant individuals or groups have spoke of Antisemitism regarding this conference, and while it would not be neutral to blatantly call the conference Antisemitic, the conference definitely has a relationship to the issue of Antisemitism based upon these international voices. So the categorization should remain because this conference has been discussed by many notable parties in the context of Antisemitism. The Behnam 12:03, 15 December 2006

Until this article is removed from the anti-Semitic category, it serves as a prime example of the under-represented view of the Muslim, Arab, and Iranian population on Wikipedia. What happened to NPOV? MirzaGhalib 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is in the Antisemitism category, not the "anti-Semitic" category. This is because the conference has been discussed in the context of Antisemitism, not because the conference is necessarily Antisemitic. Anyway, the article content itself, and not its categorization, should be responsible for representation of international views towards the conference. If you feel that these views are under-represented, I suggest that you try to contribute based upon verifiable sources. I agree that such under-representation may be problem sometimes on Wikipedia, but I think that this can be remedied if people of those groups just start contributing in an appropriate manner. So, any help you can provide would be great, thanks. The Behnam 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

References

could someone with tech skills please go trhough the references and fix them. I see that the code is there, but they don't show up on the page correctly (see #6 for one example). I tried to do it, but screwed it up even more, so I would ask that someone else who is good at that sort of thing do it. Thanks, Jeffpw 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Persian Name

The original Farsi name of this conference is "ھمایش بین المللی "برسی ھولوکاست: چشم انداز جھانی"" if someone wants to add it in bold after the translated English title please do so. MirzaGhalib 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sacha Baron Cohen's comments about the conference

Did anybody see Sacha Baron Cohen's speech at the British Comedy Awards? He made a joke that Borat couldn't be there because "Borat is guest of honour at the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran". I wonder if this can be added into the article somewhere, as it's significant that a big Star is commenting about the conference, at a big event. There are plenty of sources about the speech on the net, so it wont be a problem getting citations. Here's one source for instance http://www.jewtastic.com/posts/3774 --Hibernian 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in this article. Sacha Baron Cohen is not a politician nor does he officially represent any state or other entity involved in or criticizing the conference. Cheers.--Burzum 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But what does that matter to the fact that he's commenting on it? Is there a rule that says only the comments of state representatives can be listed? In my view, he said it, it was quite high profile and it's relevant to this article, so why not just include it? The only thing is, I don't know where exactly to put his remarks in the article. --Hibernian 02:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not include every statement that every actor, actress, comedian, painter, plumber, etc., makes about this conference? While Sacha Cohen may be a very famous person his statements were not notable as he is a comedian and not a person who has any significance in an article about an Iranian Conference about the Holocaust. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection (first pillar).--Burzum 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The real point is, between Letterman, Leno, and Stewart, almost every event that make the front page of an American Newspaper gets cut up upon. We'd end up having to have a "jokes section" for any number of current envent articles; and that's really not the purpose of the wikipedia. Of course, this might fit into the Borat page, but reciprocity doesn't work here. (Stewart's bit about Neturei Karta cracked me up; but his timing based humor would barely translate here.) -- Kendrick7^talk 02:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was my post deleted?

I thought I brought up a good point, why was my post deleted?

Geoffrey C Vargo 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to reply, but replies to your talk page instead. This page is for discussing this article. Not metaphysics. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted your "rant", as you called it. I just posted an explanation to your talk page. Once you've seen this message, it would reduce clutter if you were to delete this section as well. —Psychonaut 05:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

external links

Do we really need a section for "Pictures of Iran's president meeting Jewish participants at the conference"? I don't think linking to a bunch of photos is a common practice for a Wikipedia news article (correct me if I'm wrong) and it seems kind of biased. P4k 07:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Kendrick, please learn how to edit. Why are you insisting on having that irrelevant sentence in the lead, and why on earth did you put it in quotation marks? Say here why it is relevant instead of mindlessly reverting! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Illegality of Holocaust denial in lead

This belongs in the lead. Not sure why it keeps getting removed. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of it to this conference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment in the goals subsection is quite adequate. I support the removal from the lead and not listing specific countries. WAS 4.250 08:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, especially since the instance we had ("questioning the extend of the Holocaust" is simply wrong. I checked the relevant German laws (latest German version, (slightly older English translation), and what is illegal is public denial (or excuse or approal) of the the Holocaust "in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace". Serious scientific work is totally unaffected, and I'm not aware of anyone prosecuted for it in Germany. --Stephan Schulz 09:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I did reword this with a cite from a reliable source. This was very much the way this was covered in the American press as a free speech issue gone awry. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't explained the relevance of the sentence. I hope you're not arguing that, because Holocaust denial is illegal in a few countries in Europe, this conference had to be held in Iran. And I haven't seen any stories in the American press portraying it as a "free speech issue gone awry"; that's your opinion and it's probably the attendees' opinion too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this provides important context. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please say how. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, Duke alludes to this in his speech as quoted later on. If the reader isn't away of the free speech issues here they'd be left mystified by what he is talking about. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia to put something in the lead because David Duke refers to it? There are no free-speech issues, Kendrick, or are you saying you agree with David Duke and the others who attended the conference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kendrik has already gone on record as stating that s/he feels Iran has more progressive free speech laws than Germany, the Netherlands, France and the U.K., so this current difference of opinion does not surprise me. I support Slim and Stephan on this. Leave that out of the lead. Jeffpw 10:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More progressive in this respect; that's absolutely true. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole historical background to the Iranian president's deciding to invite these wackos to Iran for this conference -- correct me if I'm wrong -- goes back to the Mohammed cartoon controversy, where several European nations, in the President's view, lorded it over the Muslim word that in Europe they were free to ridicule whomever they pleased, even the Prophet Mohammed. This is his attempt to make a point, writ large. Of course I don't agree with these idiots; at the same time, I don't believe people should be imprisoned for their beliefs. That's the kind of thinking which lead to the Holocaust in the first place, lest we forget, and these European laws just seem to demonstrate a failure of their citizenry to outgrow such an inclination. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV, Kendrik. I have not read that the Iranian President has stated a connection between the two, If you have a source, please bring it. As to the last sentence in your post above, that is also your POV, and I ask you not to be so inflammatory here. Jeffpw 10:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You do agree with them, in other words.

The Holocaust was not caused by legislation that protects people from antisemitism; it was caused by an absence of it. You're trying to add your and David Duke's personal opinions to the lead. Please stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out, Kendrik, that you are over WP:3RR on this. you can be blocked for reinserting it at this point. Jeffpw 10:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, Slim Virgin, that you and I have just drawn different lessons from the Holocaust. You seem to have drawn the lesson that it is wrong to imprison and kill people because their beliefs are Jewish; I draw a larger lesson that it is wrong to imprison and kill people no matter their beliefs. That does happen to be something I feel rather strongly about. In any case, when google turmoil dies down a little, I'll try to find the sources which explain the free-speech/mohammed cartoon background to how this whole affair started. I find it odd I'm the only person who remembers this. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kendrik, I know what you are referring to, but I do not remember the President saying it. I remember many analysts inferring it. That's a whole different thing. Further, I hate to use the word naive again, but it does seem naive to say nobody should be imprisoned for their beliefs, if expression of those beliefs leads to violence against others. I understand your advocacy for the right to free speech, but with rights come responsibilities. That is what the holocaust denial laws address. Jeffpw 11:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am apalled and shocked by SlimVirgin's attitude. So what if Kendrick shared these people's oppinions? What if I do? Should I be put in Wikiprison? To me this is some form of bullying. It may be horrifying, but I feel that Nazis have as much right to read and edit Wikipedia as Holocaust victims. This is an encyclopedia, and right and wrong have nothing to do with the matter. Jeffpw, I politely disagree with you. I would be glad to discuss this on talk pages, as I have come to believe that you are a reasonable person. With opinions, but who hasn't? However, this is not the place to discuss what caused the Holocaust. To do so, please go to talk:Free speech or talk:Holocaust. As for the matter at hand, SlimVirgin said that "this was probably the attendee's oppinion too". How more relevant can that be? I am not inclined to have this detailed in the lead, as it is made clear enough in the goals section, but I felt the need to point out a contradiction in reasoning.--SidiLemine 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

I haven't looked at this article since yesterday, and I am concerned that some bias is creeping in, especially in relation to anti-Semitism. First off, the word is used in the lead, but not further in the body of the article. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the body, either the sentence referring to anti-Semitism needs to be deleted, or it needs to be reflected/expanded later in the article. Also, I feel putting an anti-Semitism table in the article body violates NPOV. It seems to me that that is subtly editorializing to the reader. I know the conference is anti-Semitic, most others editing this article know it, too. But shouldn't we be letting the reader decide for themselves? Other than this quibble, I think we can all be proud of ourselves here, for creating a very good article on a controversial subject with only a small amount of conflict. Jeffpw 09:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The reliable sources regard it as an example of antisemitism, so no, we shouldn't let the reader decide for themselves; or rather, readers can decide for themselves regardless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I still feel that if we refer to anti-Semitism in the lead, we have to discuss it with that term in the body of the article as well, since the lead summarizes the body. The counter-conference is discussed in the lead, but no further mention is made of it. That could be expanded upon. Jeffpw 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we could expand on the counter-conference, and any further discussion of antisemitism could be made in the section about that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, or at least the beginnings of it is. Jeffpw 10:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeffpw, your efforts to avoid conflict are not going unnoticed.Thanks about that. SlimVirgin, the reliable sources do not regard it as an example of antisemitism. The reliable sources quote members of governments, who themselves are not relible sources. --SidiLemine 12:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, SidiLemine. That means a lot to me, considering we have had differences of opinion on this article. Getting back to the anti-Semitic table, I would feel a lot more comfortable with its inclusion if we had a neutral source that called this conference anti-Semitic. While I feel it is anti-Semitic, holocaust denying hogwash, the regime in Tehran says it is not so. To add this table seems contentious at best, and POV at worst. I am sure it was not added with the intention of shifting POV, but it certainly has the potential to do so. Anyway, off to the salt mines, nowJeffpw 12:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Furthermore, you have to consider the visual impact of these things. This is a huge navbox, for a not-so-big article. I think the category is OK for the reasons above, but the table isjust too much. This is not an article about antisemitism, in one way or the other. At best, I would consider a link to the box, or something like that. This is tagging almost all of the article, from top to bottom. Oh, and Jeff, I was very pleased to see how you reactedto the "attendees" photo. Great NPOVing.--SidiLemine 13:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am always amazed at how often the simplest solution is the best one. WAS moved the anti-Semitism to the See Also section, and I now feel it doesn't push a point of view at all. By the time a reader makes it that far, his or her mind is already made up one way or another on the subject. The article looks really good now, and I am impressed with us as Wikipedians for making something so NPOV out of something so controversial. Jeffpw 21:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)