Talk:The Holocaust Industry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

[Untitled]

ok, whether or not you agree or disagree with the book's espoused notions, its pretty obvious this page has been the victim of considerable ideologically-motivated vandalism. its readily apparent not everyone agrees with finkelstein in the critiques section; biased, opinionated speech in descriptions of authors and their ideas shouldnt be appropriate or tolerated anywhere on here. or at least thats what ive been led to believe. 16:35 08 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.32.59 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Description of book too short

The section on the book should be at least as long as the section on the criticism. Or else the article is just looks like a battlefield between a bunch of people over a controversial topic. I haven't read the book and have no opinion; I'm just passing through.--70.227.131.14 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Other claims in book

Under the section name above, I added: The book also describes how Israel helped its ally Turkey deny the massacre of one million Armenians in 1915. "Acting at Israel's behest, the US Holocaust Council practically eliminated mention of the Armenians in the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Jewish lobbyists in Congress blocked a day of remembrance for the Armenian genocide." (p.69 of 2000 Edition)

PR continues: The reference in this case wouldn't normally amount to an RS, but it's intended as icing on the cake, the page number and edition of this book are given and would be entirely adequate without the reference I've provided. The account linked to is by the grandson of Holocaust Victims and is interesting and significant in it's own right, fleshing out the claim that other descendants also have problems with "received wisdom". I can see no reason not to include the section (for expansion later), the particular topic and the reference. PR^talk 08:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Makow is a conspiracy nutcase. Not normally an RS doesn't begin to cover it. Bartleby (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Please don't give your own summaries of the books contents; that, of course, is original research. Instead, please rely on secondary sources to give proper summaries of the salient points in the book. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this interpretation of policy at all. Merely describing or summarizing a book's contents cannot in my view be considered "original research". If the description itself includes original theses or analyses, then that obviously has to be dealt with, but mere description is surely not, as a matter of principle, illegitimate. Gatoclass (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to be "sorry" at all, Gatoclass. Summarising, paraphrasing and (sometimes) quoting sources is how we build the encyclopedia. Since this is an article about the book, it would be absurd to say that we cannot summarise its contents. But if anyone thinks the summary is inaccurate or misleading, then by all means bring it here for discussion. BTW, I haven't (yet) read the book, so can't express an opinion on the summary.

--NSH001 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well exactly. I didn't think the summary was particularly good, but claiming as a matter of principle that summarizing a book's contents can't be done at all strikes me as an alarming misinterpretation of policy. Have there been any previous discussions of this issue? Gatoclass (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:PRIMARY:

"Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic... examples include... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs... Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Any other questions? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've read the policy and I still think you are misinterpreting it (The Holocaust Industry is not a novel BTW), but I was actually more interested to know if there have been any previous debates about this, because I would have thought, if this was your position, that others would have challenged you on it prior to now, and so we might all save ourselves some time and trouble if we could review those previous debates first. Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it's not a novel. However, when you are writing an article about it, it is definitely a primary source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes teacher I have a question. Why did you describe Night (book) as your favorite article, given that the entire 5-part second section consists of summaries of the book, sourced to the book?--G-Dett (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's brilliantly written and moving original research. And I'm so pleased you've followed me here to yet another page to "support" me in that mysterious way of yours that involves disagreeing with everything I say. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Diggin' the helpful hyperlink, but I didn't "follow" you here, I started watching this page after it was brought to my attention that you were harassing PalestineRemembered again.

For the record I'm not 'supporting' you, inverted commas or no. The idea that a summary of a book in an article about the book is original research is silly.--G-Dett (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, right, you followed me to Ryan Postlethwaite's Talk: page to "support" me there, and then waited several days until I commented here, before you suddenly thought to comment here as well, entirely unrelated to looking my own comment made here minutes before. Ah well, at least you've dispensed with that "supporting Jay" fiction, so things are more straightforward now. So, what do you think of PR's original research in this article - brilliantly written and moving? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was alright. Not brilliant and moving – how many things are? (Nor was it original research, as you know.) I reserve those words for – I don't know – the last section of Sabbath's Theater, the last chapter of Ulysses, the last sentence of The Trial.

PR asked me to look at your report on him. As a whole, I found it failed WP:AGF. In one particular, I found it maliciously dishonest.

Why do you keep saying I'm "supporting" you when in fact I'm refuting you?--G-Dett (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't claim "I know" something to be true when it is, in fact, false. As for my report, it was true in each and every aspect. As for your question, why indeed to you keep claiming you are "supporting" me when in fact you're disagreeing with (though singularly failing to "refute") me? And finally, regarding the question of whether or not a summary of a book is original research, yes I say yes it is Yes! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your last seven words here are gallant and witty, my favorite thing you've said. If you love Leopold and Molly I may have to rethink my tone. If you can talk to me about Mickey Sabbath I'll hold my tongue for a month.

For the moment, instead of telling you you're wrong I'll ask you if you might be wrong.

Do you really think it's a violation of policy to summarize a book in an article about the book? Jay, look at me, honest to G-d cross my heart hope to die that seems crazy.

From a common-sense and precedent perspective, just nuts. I'll study the policy if you insist, but this is not the done thing, not by you, not by anybody.--G-Dett (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but regardless, will definitely have to rethink your tone, as this constant stream of insults and personal comments must end. As for your question, yes, I think summarizing books in articles is original research, as is summarizing movies, television program episodes, etc. I've said the same before, regarding articles entirely unrelated to the I-P conflict. How does an editor decide which parts of a lengthy work are relevant and worth mentioning, and which not? That should be left up to secondary sources. Should there be exceptions to this? Perhaps, but even then only for, well, brilliant and moving writing. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, to clear up an apparent misapprehension, let me state clearly that I had nothing to do with writing the book summary found in Night (book). I'm not nearly that good a writer. I made some minor formatting changes and the like to the article - dablinks, ISBN numbers, etc. That's it. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's brilliantly written and moving original research

I can only assume from this comment that Jayjg wasn't actually serious when he claimed that summarizing a book's content is "original research", and that what really bothered him about the summary here was its quality. That's fine by me, but I'd really appreciate it if Jayjg were to confirm that's what he meant, because it may help to prevent future misunderstandings. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make false and pejorative assumptions about other editors, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Assuming you weren't serious is a "pejorative assumption"? That's a rather novel twist on an innocuous comment. I thought you were making a joke.

I am simply making what seemed a reasonable assumption in the circumstances, given that your comment regarding Night is completely inconsistent with your previously stated position, expressed only a moment earlier. Either you think summarizing a book's contents is "original research" or you don't. Arguing that such a summary is justified in one context because the "original research" is "brilliantly written and moving" is just nonsense in policy terms, as I'm sure you must realize. What else could I assume except that one or other of your statements were not serious?

So my question to you remains essentially the same. Which of the two positions do you sincerely hold? I think we're entitled to know. Gatoclass (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I see from Jay's comment above that he has already answered the question: apparently he really does think that summarizing a book's contents is "original research" and must therefore be excised - except, apparently, when it comes to a book summary he agrees with, in which case he is prepared to champion it. I guess the fact that holding such a position makes a complete mockery of his own argument simply doesn't bother him. However, he can hardly expect anyone to take his argument seriously when he plainly is not prepared to apply it consistently himself.

All the same, I would like to get this point settled because I myself am planning at some stage to add some book summaries to the project, and I fancy I won't be at all pleased if Jay decides to come along and delete it all as "original research". Is there some place this debate could be taken where we might test community consensus on the issue? It might conceivably save some future unpleasantness. Gatoclass (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I was quite serious. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please see my comment above. I didn't write the Night (book) article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't write this one either, but it didn't stop you deleting it! Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because it was brilliantly written and moving prose. On extremely rare occasions WP:IAR trumps WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that "brilliant and moving" will ever be a matter of consensus is beyond sillyPersonal attack removed.--G-Dett (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In any event, that's a different article, and not one I've authored or contributed to in any significant way. Let's discuss this article here. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I think PR's narrative here is "brilliant and moving" and therefore deserving of inclusion. I mean, you can see the problem here, surely? Once you make the criteria for inclusion dependent upon what you personally happen to like, then there is no policy, but only a free-for-all. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but do you honestly and truly believe his narrative was "brilliant and moving"? Good enough that it merited one of the extremely rare times that people should ignore all rules? Or are you just saying it as a rhetorical point? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PR's summary "brilliant and moving"? Hardly. I'm simply taking your argument to its logical conclusion, in order to demonstrate its impracticality. Gatoclass (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I assumed you would be honest in your assessment, and you were, so practically speaking, there was no disagreement after all. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. --G-Dett (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he may not have, but I'd like to think the community does :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Having book summaries in articles about books seems to be not only acceptable to the community but in fact quite standard, even ubiquitous. I can't imagine you'll encounter much resistance there. Personal attack removed. --G-Dett (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed ubiquitous, but that doesn't make it good practice, or in line with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, Wikipedia policy is ultimately what Wikipedians do in practice... Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC) [1] --G-Dett (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true, to an extent. Wikipedians also regularly do a lot of things that violate policy. There's no need to do so, in this case; plenty of comprehensive reviews etc. have been written about the book. BTW, here's an article about a fictional work that manages to rely almost exclusively on secondary sources: The Simpsons. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that summarizing a book is original research is original research is ridiculous. There may be OR issues with a specific summary, or other problems like a non-neutral point of view or undue weight, but simply saying what the book is about cannot be original research. --NE2 08:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So if you quote directly from this book then it is a copyvio. [2] If you summerize the content it is OR. How convenient! There is no way Wikipedia can tell you what the content of this book is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.69.47 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Quoting directly from the book is "fair use". In fact you can summarise the book, provided, per WP:PRIMARY, that your summary consists only of descriptive claims, rather than "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". Descriptive claims do not have to be direct quotes, but they should be close. The key here is "the accuracy and applicability ... is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". —Ashley Y 08:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Results of policy discussion and consensus

I've looked again at the material added and am fairly sure the contents are reported exactly to the book eg Foreword to the Second Edition: "... I requested of my publishers, and they generously consented, to put out a second paperback edition focusing on the Swiss banks case. My main concern is to provide readers and, especially, future researchers with a clear picture of what happened and a guide to what to look for amid the heaps of disinformation. Regrettably, the trial record cannot be fully trusted. The presiding judge in the case elected - for reasons not divulged but fairly simple to deduce - not to docket crucial documents. In addition, the Claims Resolution Tribunal (CRT), which could have produced an objective assessment of the charges against the Swiss banks, also can't any longer be trusted. Midway in its work and heading towards vindicating the Swiss banks, the CRT was radically revamped by key figures in the Holocaust industry. Its only function now is to protect the blackmailers' reputation. These developments are copiously documented in the new postscript for this edition."

Startling though a great deal of this material may appear to be be, this book is very well-cited, 105 times in the English version alone (as at today's date). According to Finkelstein "Mainstream critics allege that I conjured a "conspiracy theory," while those on the Left ridicule the book as a defense of "the banks." None, so far as I can tell, question my actual findings." Finkelstein dismisses the "conspiracy theory" jybe with "In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith observes that capitalists "seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." Does this make Smith's classic a "conspiracy theory"?" We do our readers a serious dis-service if we leave them with the impression that this is a trivial book beset with questionable assertions or other serious flaws.

Editor	Inclusion?	Inclusion?	Comment
User:Jayjg	No		Please don't give your own summaries of the books contents; that, of course, is original research. Instead, please rely on secondary sources to give proper summaries of the salient points in the book. 22:02, 1 July 2008 - You're correct, it's not a novel. However, when you are writing an article about it, it is definitely a primary source. 01:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Gatoclass		Yes	I cannot agree with this interpretation of policy at all. Merely describing or summarizing a book's contents cannot in my view be considered "original research". 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
User:NSH001		Yes	Summarising, paraphrasing and (sometimes) quoting sources is how we build the encyclopedia. ... absurd to say that we cannot summarise its contents. 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
User:G-Dett		Yes	The idea that a summary of a book in an article about the book is original research is silly. 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Having book summaries in articles about books seems to be not only acceptable to the community but in fact quite standard, even ubiquitous. I can't imagine you'll encounter much resistance there. Personal attack removed. 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Contrib:88.249.69.47		Yes (seemingly)	So if you quote directly from this book then it is a copyvio. If you summerize the content it is OR. How convenient! There is no way Wikipedia can tell you what the content of this book is! 18:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Ashley Y		Yes (subject to no OR)	... you can summarise the book, provided, per WP:PRIMARY, that your summary consists only of descriptive claims, rather than "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". Descriptive claims do not have to be direct quotes, but they should be close. The key here is "the accuracy and applicability ... is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". 08:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
PR		Yes	Can see no policy objections to a precis of it, and can't see any OR included in it. Everything easily verifiable.

Judging by the preceeding dicussion, I detect zero policy objections, and overwhelming consensus to include the deleted passages. PR^talk 17:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Using Holocaust denial sites as sources

Can PalestineRememebered or John Nagle explain why they are using Holocaust Denial sites as sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Because VHO appears to be a French web-site and there was absolutely no reason to think it's objectionable. I picked it up in Google because it happens to host the "From the Israeli Prime Minister's Office - Number of Living Holocaust Survivors" (in English) and I inserted it as an (unnecessary) reference for the fact that the number of Holocaust Survivors mushroomed from 100,000 in 1945 Henry Friedlander, "Darkness and Dawn in 1945: The Nazis, the Allies, and the Survivors," in US Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1945 - the Year of Liberation (Washington: 1995), 11-35. to "nearly one million" in 1997. PR^talk 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg: this is a bit of topic, but since you are (quite rightly! IMO) concerned with not using Holocaust Denial sites as sources...- could you please explain to Amoruso that we do not use Kevin Alfred Strom, National Vanguard and Adelaide Institute as source about other people? Since he apparently just doesn´t believe me [3].

Come to think of it, I distinctly recall "some" using Islamonline and David Duke as a source both for one of the "Allegation of Apartheid" articles...and for "Israel Shahak".... Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone

As a reminder here, for best results, please keep discussions focused on the actual article content, and not the other editors. No more sniping please. --Elonka 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reviews and critiques

The article reads a whole lot better than the discussion page would suggest - without knowing the book or the subject matter, it seems reasonably balanced and it's not a half bad article. However, I do think the reviews section is flawed in that it contains long excerpts from third party sources. Per our summary style we should succinctly summarize the most notable comments to the extent those comments shed light on the notability of the book itself...but not just long quotes. Those may even violate our WP:NONFREE policy because they are copyrighted material taken under claim of fair use that could be replaced. Happy editing! Wikidemo (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The disputed edit is [4]. --NE2 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this book not anti semetic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.226.29 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find an explanation here or in the edit history for the removal of the following:

"Historian Omer Bartov, one of the world's leading authorities on the subject of genocide,Bildner Center Event: Omer BartovBrown University German Studies</ ridiculed the notion of Holocaust profiteers as a "novel variation of `The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - only a few months later he railed against the "growing list of Holocaust profiteers," and fingered "The Holocaust Industry" as a prime example. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=4</

Can anyone explain?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be covered more thoroughly and accurately in the "reviews and critiques" section of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It omits Bartov's railing against the "growing list of Holocaust profiteers,". Any reason for that? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unclear what the relevance is to the topic of the book. Also, the source for that claim regarding highly-respected academic and living person appeared to be a personal website. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust profiteers are those who profit from the Holocaust Industry, no? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This line is not accurate: "Questioning a survivor's testimony, denouncing the role of Jewish collaborators, suggesting that Germans suffered during the bombing of Dresden or that any state except Germany committed crimes in World War II are all evidence of Holocaust denial according to Deborah Lipstadt" - Deborah Lipstadt does not claim these things; the source offered for this is Lipstadt, quoted in Finkelstein. You need to look at what Lipstadt actually argues, not what Finkelstein thinksn Lipstadt argues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.168.252.178 (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The book may not be accurate and that's why there is a criticism section, within which the whole book or individual statements within it may be attacked as inaccurate. However, we have a reference for this statement and it would be WP:SYNTH to look up Lipstadt and accuse the book of being false. Nor would it help the reader, who wants the published opinions of experts, not our opinions. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Line

I do not understand what this line means:

Historian Omer Bartov, one of the world's leading authorities on the subject of genocide,[4][5] ridiculed the notion of Holocaust profiteers as a "novel variation of `The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," - only a few months later he railed against the "growing list of Holocaust profiteers," and fingered "The Holocaust Industry" as a prime example.

Can someone please rewrite it? I don't feel comfortable doing it myself because I don't know enough about the subject. Carneadiiz (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapters - POV cleanup and removal of link to Holocaust Denial site

(revised original post to suggest more changes or merging sections 2 and 3) --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Added "Finkelstein asserts" and variations thereof in keeping with WP:SYNTH

even if chapter by chapter summations are considered appropriate (which seems debatable)...

This editor (berr) feels it would be better that someone merge / replace Sections 2 and 3 with a single section on the book's assertations to go along with the single section on critical response (positive and negative). I'm not intrinsically hostile to Finkelstein's book, but it seems this article has been POV-twisted by persons with extreme viewpoints.

Edited and replaced:

• Chapter 3: The Double Shakedown - the number of Holocaust Survivors increased from c. 100,000 in 1945 to nearly (link: 1 million) in 1997. "Fraudulent" claims were made on Switzerland, while accounts and assets in the US and Israel were ignored. Payments were made to the wrong people and real survivors lost out.

Removed pothole link to an archived e-mail from a Holocaust Deniers website:

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/revu/TI97/TI971122.html (WP:FRINGE) (WP:COAT) (WP:SPS)

This site, for those who don't care to visit, is an e-mail "communique" that, while it contains information on the Israeli study, is a coatrack for Holocaust "revisionist" Carl Nordling.

The person who posted this link (or left it in) justified it somewhere up above by saying it was the best summary they could find of the 1997 Israeli Prime Minister's report on expanded estimates of persons considered to be Holocaust survivors (see footnote 6, added by me in order to delete the WP:FRINGE HD link. Even if this were true, which I strongly doubt given the contemporary controversy over the Israeli report's identification of only persons of Jewish descent as Holocaust victims, it would mean that this "just-so" story would be a violation of WP:V (WP:RS) since the editor did not read it closely or viewed a Holocaust denial site as an acceptable source.

replaced with:

• Chapter 3: The Double Shakedown - in this chapter, Finkelstein claims that the number of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust recognized by relief groups increased from c. 100,000 in 1945 to nearly 1 million<ref>1997 study commissioned by the Israeli Prime Minister's office.{{citation needed}}</ref> owing to definitional changes in who was considered to be a survivor. Because of this, Finkelstein asserts, "fraudulent" claims were made on Switzerland,, while accounts and assets in the US and Israel were ignored. Payments were made to the wrong people and real survivors lost out.

--berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim is referenced in the book and appears to come from an e-mail from an assistant of the PM of Israel, I think I've seen it in Nizkor, as good a reference as anyone could ask. Unlike many Dershowitz's claims in his books, Finkelstein is generally robust and dependable. 92.3.4.129 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Section 3 - blatant synthesis

Tagged this with WP:POV tag since I can't make out where summation ends and synthesis begins. If this is part of the book summary then Sections 2 and 3 should be merged.

Otherwise this section and all its subheaders need to be renamed to make clear who or what is making these claims and POV attributions cleaned up and properly sourced. Right now it reads as a screed.

--berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious that a book is the opinion of the author, there's no need for a tag. 92.3.4.129 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust industry Article

This is on the book itself? Where is the article on the industry itself and the various organizations that make it up?Starbwoy (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The "industry itself" is fictional while the book is very real, which is why there's no article on the former, sort of like why there is no article on the "real" Elders of ZionEricl (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)