Talk:Institute for Historical Review

Source for the claim "IHR . . . has links to neo-Nazi organizations"

Parts of this discussion happened outside this article's talk page so to bring everyone reading this up to speed—I checked all the linked sources for this specific claim: "IHR . . . has links to neo-Nazi organizations." and I couldn't find any so I added a "citation needed" tag. It was promptly removed by User:Doug_Weller and they left a note titled "Sentence in the lead do not need sourcing if the sources are in the body of the text". I asked them for clarification on these sources that I can't seem to find linked in the article and they presented me with these additional sources that were not originally present in the main wikipedia article: National Alliance[1][2][3][4]this. Looking at the references listed in the main article I can't find the following books/articles used as a source for citations: "Hate Groups and Extremist Organizations in America: An Encyclopedia" "encyclopedia.com" and "Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust". There is at least one source[[5]] within the article that claims that the institute director Mark Weber did once work for another organization National Alliance that has been described as a neo-nazi organization by others. Would that be enough to make the claim "IHR . . . has links to neo-Nazi organizations"? With that many degrees of separation it sounds an awful lot like original research to me. Unless I'm missing something (pardon me if I am, I'm new to this) none of the sources referenced in the article says "IHR . . . has links to neo-Nazi organizations".

One of the secondary sources[6] that User:Doug_Weller provided me does say 'Historians have accused it(IHR) of being an anti-Semitic "pseudo-scholarly body" with links to neo-Nazi organizations'. It sounds a bit like a vague attribution to me, but I'm not sure if wikipedia's standard on weasel words applies to the sources themself. I do not want to undo a revert made by an admin but if any of the new sources presented here are deemed worthy by Wikipedia's standard please add them as citations, and one a personal note I would ask others to confirm such things before making reverts. - PCRON^talk 21:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You are indeed missing something, and it is very surprising that you claim to have looked at the sources in the article and yet missed this, this, and this, all of which were in the article when you posted your "citations needed" tag. (These were three of the four first sources I checked, so I did not go on looking at the rest of the sources in the article.) Wikipedia does not need to bend over backwards to pander to neo-Nazis and call them by other names – certainly not when multiple sources call them exactly that. --bonadea contributions talk 10:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Like I said I am very new to this. I started checking the sources from the point the claim was made, and I'm very sure you didn't mean to link the same source twice. I assume "IHR's most significant recent activity was a conference it conducted together with the neo-Nazi National Alliance in Sacramento, California, in April 2004." from the ADL page qualifies as "link to Nazi sources" by wikipedia standards (Wonder if Nation of Islam inviting George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party to their rally qualifies for NOI to be characterized as an organization with "links to neo-Nazi organizations".) The Channel 4 page that you linked twice is broken for me. I tried loading the page directly as well without going through archive.org but it appears that they have taken the page down, but I'll take your word for it. -- PCRON^talk 20:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not mean to link the same source twice – this is the third one; again, these are three of the first four sources I checked, and they were already in the article (I have not added any new sources, just fixed the citations). The archived version of the channel4.com link works just fine for me, but the original link is in fact dead, which is why we use the archived page. --bonadea contributions talk 18:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to undo a revert made by an admin You should not undo a revert, period. See WP:BRD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that what we're doing right now? Love it when wikipedians throw random guideline pages at you. But I will take the "BRD . . . optional method of reaching consensus" into consideration if I encounter a situation like this in the future. Even when it clearly goes against the spirit of WP:DONTREVERT. But I'll WP:LETITGO for now. -- PCRON^talk 13:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know which "we" is doing it right now, and I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe about undoing the revert of a revert, which would be OK unless... do you really have to have this explained to you?

No matter. Forget it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm having a hard to committing to WP:LETITGO. Because we, being me and the people I've tagged and responded to above, were discussing the need to add more(any) citations to qualify the statement in the title of this section, and my attempts to do so were reverted, which I believe goes against the spirit of WP:DONTREVERT. So we were discussing it, before I make any more changes. But thanks again for directing me to that optional method of reaching consensus. -- PCRON^talk 15:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The spirit of DONTREVERT is: there are six special cases where you should not revert. It is not: you should not revert.

I do not see which of the special cases is supposed to apply here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

One moment - could it be that you are not reading carefully, and that when I write "You should not undo a revert" you read "You should not revert"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

For one, I have not done the thing you have accused me of... not doing? But if I get the itch to do it in the future I will consider the "optional method of reaching consensus" you linked above. I do not see which of the special cases is supposed to apply here. Do you really have to have this explained to you? Even if some people felt my edit was unnecessary, the revert of my addition clearly goes against the first case of WP:DONTREVERT "Do not revert unnecessary edits". Because adding a citation from one of the sources I've linked above or a better one would have been preferable. I would've done it myself if I felt any of the reliable sources linked in the article were indeed making that claim. If you'd like to personally convince me of the efficacy of the "optional method of reaching consensus" WP:BRD please take it to my talk page. -- PCRON^talk 16:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The other option is going to the Talk page first. Edit-warring is not an option. All I wanted was to correct one statement of yours. This has gone too meta and is not about the article, so I'll stop now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)