Talk:Institute for Historical Review: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:40, 29 November 2017

Jewish history Start‑class Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by .

I fixed an error

There was an opinion stated as a fact in the first sentence of this article. I fixed the error by deletion of the opinion. I believe in free speech, but not manipulation of information. Please, folks, stick to the facts and let the smart people come up with their own conclusions. By stating opinion as fact one leaves themselves vulnerable to accusations of being a propaganda peddler and their original cause can backfire. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.55.157 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 April 2007

Holocaust denial as all of description

I agree that the lead should describe the Institute of Historical Review as a Holocaust denial group. But the group does more things than only Holocaust denial. They have published articles about other topics, such as Nazi Germany's considering supporting Zionism during the 1930s as a way of getting Jews out of Germany and its satellites, Hitler's decision to invade Russia and their arguments that going to war against Hitler was a mistake. Those are separate topics from Holocaust denial. Perhaps they should also be described in a broad sense as Nazi apologists in addition to Holocaust deniers. RandomScholar30 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to say that their notability stems primarily from the their Holocaust denial? Primarily from the court case that they lost? Perhaps they should be described as "a Nazi affinity group best known for their failure to defend Holocaust denial in court". —BozoTheScary (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Krugel

I'm not surprised that rense.com is not considered a reliable source for facts, but it may be a reliable source for the opinion from IHR supporters that Krugel was involved and may be notable in that context. There is ample precedent for the "suggested by some" type of notation here that pollutes myriad articles. Krugel has been established as willing to commit violence for his cause. He is established as a leader of the Jewish Defense League. I would argue that it is as notable as the unfounded accusation that the Clintons were involved in the death of Vince Foster which is effectively documented on that page. —BozoTheScary (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute for Historical Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628184616/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/usa.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/usa.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They still promote Holocaust denial, they just call it revisionism

As this article states, "Under the banner of an academic-sounding name, the Institute for Historical Review and its publication, the Journal of Historical Review, changed the direction of the movement from outright denial of the Holocaust to a distortion of its reality. Mark Weber, an editor of the journal, wrote, “No one denies” that the political persecution of Jews was “a cruel thing.” But he insisted there was no evidence of the murder of millions in concentration camps." Their own leaflet[1] says'

"So just what constitutes "Holocaust denial"? Those who support criminal persecution of "Holocaust deniers" seem to be still living in the world of 1946 where the Allied officials of the Nuremberg Tribunal have just pronounced their verdict. But the Tribunal's findings can no longer be assumed to be valid. Because it relied so heavily on such untrustworthy evidence as the Höss testimony, some of its most critical findings are now discredited.

For purposes of their own, powerful special interest groups desperately seek to keep substantive discussion of the Holocaust story taboo. One of the ways they do this is by purposely mischaracterizing revisionist scholars as "deniers." But the truth can't be suppressed forever: There is a very real and growing controversy about what actually happened to Europe's Jews during World War II."

The article shouldn't suggest that they are no longer denying the Holocaust. See also our own article Holocaust denial. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right, and reflect the reliable sources on this organisation. Very few Holocaust deniers claim that the Nazis didn't kill large numbers of Jews. Instead they make arguments such as the numbers being greatly exaggerated, the murders not being systematic, and Hitler being unaware of them. There's consensus among experts that this is Holocaust denial. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Institute for Historical Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Beyond My Ken, regarding the term "American", please refer to Dictionary.com. See here. The term has three meanings as an adjective. The first refers to the United States, but the second is "of or relating to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere" and the third is "of or relating to the aboriginal Indians of North and South America, usually excluding the Eskimos, regarded as being of Asian ancestry and marked generally by reddish to brownish skin, black hair, dark eyes, and prominent cheekbones." So I was correct in stating that "United States-based" is more specific than "American-based". Regarding my reversion of your edit, and your immediate counter-reversion, without bothering to discuss the issue, please see WP:BRD. You should know better than to do something like this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Please refer to:

All of these are Wikipedia-specific uses of "American" or "America" to refer to the United States alone. The article name America redirects to United States - that, too, is a Wikipedia-specific choice.

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 ::Finally, what [[WP:BRD]] says is that when '''''you''''' make a '''''B'''''old edit, changing "American-" to "United States-", and it has been '''''R'''''everted by another editor, the next step, is for '''''you''''' to start a '''''D'''''iscussion about it on the article talk page, '''''not''''' to re-revert it, which is the first step to [[WP:EW|edit warring]] -- which is what you've been doing.  During the discussion, the article remains in the '''''status quo ante'''''. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 07:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
-::Laughable. You made the bold edit by altering "United States" to "American", and you started an edit war by reverting when you were reverted. You are perverting the point of the guideline. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
+::Laughable. You made the bold edit by altering "United States" to "American", and you started an edit war by reverting when you were reverted. The status quo version was "United States". You are perverting the point of the guideline. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 :To [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]], regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institute_for_Historical_Review&diff=812685381&oldid=812684327 this] edit, with the edit summary, "American is common usage in our articles", I would simply note that whether a term such as "American" should be used or not depends on the context. I didn't suggest that there is something somehow wrong with the term "American"; I suggested that it is not the most accurate or specific term in this particular context. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 07:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)