Talk:Nizkor Project

Usenet posts

This page seems only to exist to host a set of links to anti-Ken McVay Usenet posts. Can someone please write either write an NPOV encylopedia article here, or delete this? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.106.233 (talk • contribs)

There's not a single allegation in the McVay Files that isn't supported by public sources. If McVay and his cyber-Stasi goons find the contents of those files embarassing...too bad. The article is a stub. Feel free to balance it by adding more information, but deleting the article because it's not flattering to Nizkor/McVay...sounds suspiciously like censorship. -- Anon. 2

Notice that all those claiming that Ken McVay is a 'cyber-Stasi goon' post anonymously. That should give you a clue as to their credibility.

Just go to http://www.nizkor.org and see for yourself.

Only a denier would say that! Autarch 15:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To anonymous user/LaylaD:

Please read up on NPOV again. Rhetoric like this:

. . .the maintainers of the web site display only those messages and material that are friendly to their ultra-Zionist agenda. . .

Google has also been instrumental in documenting the anti-Arab sentiments on the anti-revisionist side of the debate.

The Nizkor web site has been accused by revisionists and various Web sites as being funded by Israel and other Zionist sources. There is a good deal of evidence to support these accusations. . .

Regardless of McVay's strenuous denials, extremism clearly taints both sides of the debate. Ken McVay has been criticized for his obvious anti-Arab, anti-Black prejudices and ties with the ultra-Zionist fringe. For example, McVay has befriended racists who refer to Arabs as 'diaperheads' and tends to take a hard pro-Israel line matched only by Christian fundamentalists and others on the extreme right.

Unsurprisingly, McVay is uncritical of racists who happen to be Jewish and/or Zionist.

Nizkor itself is increasingly seen as a hate group, since it aggressively supports the Israeli Holocaust against the Palestinian people.

does not fit the policy. And I'm not even a Zionist, so your allegations of "extremist-Zionist censorship" are rather silly. — No-One Jones (talk) 09:10, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That kind of smears you cited are alas, all too typical of denier tactics. Autarch 15:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What we're seeing here is a micro-thumbprint of what's been happening on alt.revisionism itself for at least the past ten years. And it hasn't even begun to get nasty...and hopefully it never will. --Modemac 10:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hopefully we won't - some of the deniers just don't seem organised enough to sustain such an attack on Wikipedia - those that are, don't seem too inclined to try, possibly because their lies will be pointed out very quickly, IMHO. Autarch 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Other Site of Story:

Material Refuting Nizkor claims can be found at: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/found.html http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/

George

In other words, more revisionist stuff. Nizkor already has a counterpoint to this guy, Germar Rudolf: http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/forensic.html

--Modemac 12:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Name

What does the name mean? Mikkalai 00:54, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Nizkor", as far as I recall, means "we will remember" in Hebrew. A fitting title. [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 07:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Zinkor

Metzer seems to refer to Nizkor as Zinkor. Sholud Metzger speak German, then this could be a wordplay on the German word 'zinken' (verb) or 'Zinken' (noun) -- the verb describes a number of criminal activities, such as marking game cards, while the noun refers to the signs left in old days by hobos or gypsies on houses or other places to communicate with each other.

However, this is only if Metzger speaks German well enough to actually be aware of those meanings. Thought it might be interesting.

Dietwald 22:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Spurious claims

I note that Matt Giwer denied posting anti-semitic statements - this is laughable, as I distinctly remember him posting such statements over the last decade to alt.revisionism. Indeed, he became something of an embarrassment to the denier cause, given that they were pretending to be objective historians and Giwers' support clearly showed the appeal of their nonsense to its' true audience. Autarch 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The Trial Of Adolf Eichmann

There is a number of youtube posted the Eichmann trial sessions. McVay published the Record of Proceedings in the District Court of Jerusalem of The Trial Of Adolf Eichmann. It's disappointing to see how unprofessionally it was done. I spent some time listening the Session no 46. Both witnesses H. Salz and A. Arnon spoke German. Comparing the original of the testimonies to the ones recorded by McVay it is not possible to recognise McVay's toponyms in his Volume II: Session no 46: Licca (actually Lika), Ossetz (Osijek), Peniek (Tenje), Zarzecze (?) etc. McVay recorded in the same session "in Jasenovac, where 60,000 people perished", but Arnon said "in Jasenovac, where 600,000 people perished". Long ago, on some internet forum, McVay was warned about this wrong number but he refused admit it and correct it.--Taribuk (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Malware?

This was probably a false alarm but, whatever it was, it is OK now.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Browsers such as Chrome, Firefox and Seamonkey are warning that nizkor.org is infected with malware. I think it is probably a false positive and my guess is that the site has been falsely reported by its enemies as I can't see anything obviously suspicious in its HTML. That said, it is best not to take any risks (It is possible that a compromised site might serve malware only to users running vulnerable browser versions so my check is not 100% conclusive) so I am about to edit the article and comment out all the URLs for nizkor.org. Please feel free to undo this once the matter is resolved and the site is no longer flagged as unsafe by browsers. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC) OK. I have done that now. It has made a bit of a mess of the references in the reflist but I think this is better than sending people to a site that might be a risk to them. As I said before, please revert my changes once the site is no longer flagged as dangerous. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC) I have fixed the url in the template then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) I can't see any problems now so I've uncommented the remaining commented out URLs. Not all of them work, as the site has been reorganised. If anybody wants to have a go at fixing them then please go ahead. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)