What is it that deniers deny?

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:40 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
supervitor wrote:yes, maybe we are going off-topic, but isn't that what usually happens?

No.

Oh boy, you are upset...

I propose we request the opening of a new sub-forum: it should be called "Holocaust Denial: Statistical Mechanical's views"

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:48 am

Statistical Mechanical wrote:I didn't ignore your point "that Vichy's will is not isolated from Germany"; I disagreed with it as you stated it and I explained why - and when and over what issues in Jewish matters Vichy had its own course, Vichy had a course that converged with that of the Germans, and Vichy finally stepped back from the deportation program. I gave you three sources that you could challenge. You relied on Wikipedia without directly challenging the sources.


I guess the assumption is that we can rely on Wikipedia to only make assertions on settled matters. This shows to me that you're ideologically (very) charged in your selection of sources.

Or else, what's going on? Is Wikipedia just ignoring your sources? I challenge you to fullfil your civic dutty and put Wikipedia straight. What the {!#%@} is this? We lost our most reliable online source?

Civic dutty, SM. It should be first. Sorry.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18866
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:51 am

No, I am not upset. You asked a question and I answered it. In this subforum we usually keep on topic. Until now, David has been the worst offender at going off topic.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:54 am

Before we open up the new sub forum for you. Sorry, first is first. We can't allow Wikipedia to remain wrong any longer

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18866
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:58 am

supervitor wrote:
Statistical Mechanical wrote:I didn't ignore your point "that Vichy's will is not isolated from Germany"; I disagreed with it as you stated it and I explained why - and when and over what issues in Jewish matters Vichy had its own course, Vichy had a course that converged with that of the Germans, and Vichy finally stepped back from the deportation program. I gave you three sources that you could challenge. You relied on Wikipedia without directly challenging the sources.


I guess the assumption is that we can rely on Wikipedia to only make assertions on settled matters. This shows to me that you're ideologically (very) charged in your selection of sources.

You seem blithely unaware of the meaning of ideology. But do carry on. I am not saying you shouldn't cite Wikipedia - I am telling you that relying on Wikipedia when there are really good sources you need to take into account is a fail. The Wikipedia material you quoted didn't challenge the scholarship I referred to.

supervitor wrote:Or else, what's going on? Is Wikipedia just ignoring your sources? I challenge you to fullfil your civic dutty and put Wikipedia straight. What the {!#%@} is this? We lost our most reliable online source?

Civic dutty, SM. It should be first. Sorry.

Wikipedia is not our most reliable online source. I spelled out for you my disagreements and stated reasons for them.

On France, these are far better:

Marrus & Paxton

Julian Jackson

Renée Poznanski

Have you read them?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18866
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:00 am

supervitor wrote:Before we open up the new sub forum for you. Sorry, first is first. We can't allow Wikipedia to remain wrong any longer

Be my guest. Apparently you've run out of stuff to copy and paste and are having a bit of a hissy fit.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:05 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
supervitor wrote:Before we open up the new sub forum for you. Sorry, first is first. We can't allow Wikipedia to remain wrong any longer

Be my guest. Apparently you've run out of stuff to copy and paste and are having a bit of a hissy fit.

Not really. I do rely on Wikipedia, and I am appealing to your sense of duty. If you think it's wrong, you should really do something

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:09 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:You seem blithely unaware of the meaning of ideology. But do carry on. I am not saying you shouldn't cite Wikipedia - I am telling you that relying on Wikipedia when there are really good sources you need to take into account is a fail.

No, I'm not. I'm really saying you are selecticting your sources. And I dispute you that "we shouldn't rely on Wikipedia". It is your view, but again, I appeal to your sense of duty: please, do not let Wikipedia being wrong on such basic things. The whole world is counting on you!!

The Wikipedia material you quoted didn't challenge the scholarship I referred to.

You say this now, but that's not what I've read just now:

SM, just now wrote:I gave you three sources that you could challenge. You relied on Wikipedia without directly challenging the sources.

you have written this. Right after challenging my quotations, straight from the appropriate sections of Wikipedia. You replied with your minor details, saying later they were not minor details. What's going to be? Is Wikipedia wrong or what you're arguing doesn't really pinch my case?

supervitor wrote:Or else, what's going on? Is Wikipedia just ignoring your sources? I challenge you to fullfil your civic dutty and put Wikipedia straight. What the {!#%@} is this? We lost our most reliable online source?

Civic dutty, SM. It should be first. Sorry.

Wikipedia is not our most reliable online source. I spelled out for you my disagreements and stated reasons for them.

On France, these are far better:

Marrus & Paxton

Julian Jackson

Renée PoznanskiE

Have you read them?

Again, you have to decide. Is Wikipedia wrong or what you're throwing at me is not really that important for the point I am making?

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:18 am

Since SM sense of civic dutty is not enough, I appeal directly to the Holocaust Denial forum users to help me convince SM to take some vacations from here in order to set Wikipedia straight!

Even Mary Q and David! Please, help!!

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 18866
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:33 am

LOL, now that is funny!
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:45 am

(I'm only joking, SM. But you should know it: throwing heavy sources challenging Wikipedia direct quotations won't get you far)

I did read your points on foreign Jews in France being sent to occupied parts (and confirmed it on Wiki). I agree that Vichy was very right wing.

If you go back to my initial point you'll see where I'm coming from: I presented to David 3 cases from occupied countries:

Denmark, that was remarkable on how it handled the situation.

France in the middle that did some not so good things, but can't be fully condemned.

And the eastern countries (I believed I pointed out the baltic countries, Ukraine and Hungary) that gladly colaborated on the deportations

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby nickterry » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:04 am

supervitor wrote:
Statistical Mechanical wrote:I didn't ignore your point "that Vichy's will is not isolated from Germany"; I disagreed with it as you stated it and I explained why - and when and over what issues in Jewish matters Vichy had its own course, Vichy had a course that converged with that of the Germans, and Vichy finally stepped back from the deportation program. I gave you three sources that you could challenge. You relied on Wikipedia without directly challenging the sources.


I guess the assumption is that we can rely on Wikipedia to only make assertions on settled matters. This shows to me that you're ideologically (very) charged in your selection of sources.

Or else, what's going on? Is Wikipedia just ignoring your sources? I challenge you to fullfil your civic dutty and put Wikipedia straight. What the {!#%@} is this? We lost our most reliable online source?

Civic dutty, SM. It should be first. Sorry.


What on earth are you complaining about? Essentially everything that StatMech said can be found without great difficulty on the Wiki pages linked below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_on_Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_Fra ... te_on_Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_Vallat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Bousquet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurs_internment_camp - 5,500 turned over from unoccupied zone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Paxton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Marrus

The whole point of Wikipedia is to follow links to other pages; you can also google specific terms and then find out whether there is an article. Most of the links above are embedded into your source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_France
while the others were googled without great difficulty, e.g, looking up Marrus and Paxton.
When a historian like Paxton has a Wikipedia page that explains their thesis and notes their accolades (including being awarded the Legion d'Honneur and serving as an expert witness in the Maurice Papon trial) along with the reception of their ideas, then referencing him is hardly a surprise.

For the records, the 'Holocaust in France Wiki page is not well developed, which is also matched by other 'national' Wiki pages for the Holocaust. French Wikipedia doesn't even have an easily linked Wiki page on the Shoah in France, but covers all the related topics in considerable detail
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_sur_ ... _des_Juifs
and does have a useful chronology page
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronolog ... _des_Juifs

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:13 am

what I was complaining about was that if the general assertions taken of the introduction of the relevant sections of Wikipedia on the issue were so wrong, then they should be changed! It's not about the pages on the sources.

I may have joked with it a bit, but I'm also being serious, if such serious stuff is so plain wrong on the page "Holocaust in France"!

For the records, the 'Holocaust in France Wiki page is not well developed,

you might be right on this, nick, I'm not an expert, but it's 7 bilions of us that rely on that if we want to know a bit on the subject, I think it is not expecting too much of the handful of "experts" that they improve the situation.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:15 am

I do my own contributions to Wikipedia.. on LSD effects and stuff like that. I expect the same from the rest of the community.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby nickterry » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:16 am

supervitor wrote:(I'm only joking, SM. But you should know it: throwing heavy sources challenging Wikipedia direct quotations won't get you far)

I did read your points on foreign Jews in France being sent to occupied parts (and confirmed it on Wiki). I agree that Vichy was very right wing.

If you go back to my initial point you'll see where I'm coming from: I presented to David 3 cases from occupied countries:

Denmark, that was remarkable on how it handled the situation.

France in the middle that did some not so good things, but can't be fully condemned.

And the eastern countries (I believed I pointed out the baltic countries, Ukraine and Hungary) that gladly colaborated on the deportations


In all honesty, it might help if you got hold of an overview of recent historiography on the Holocaust. Dan Stone's Histories of the Holocaust appeared in 2010 and covers the 1990s and 2000s in considerable detail, including a chapter on the European dimension of the Final Solution which discusses collaboration from states and societies - the two things being far from identical. The book also discusses the historiography of perpetrator motivation, the decision making process, the camps, Nazi racial policies, genocide studies, and the cultural history of the Holocaust.

The other one-short-but-not-too-short-volume recommendation I would make is Donald Bloxham's The Final Solution: A Genocide. While there are parts of Bloxham's argument that are disputable, the book places the Holocaust in a broader context, outlines its course with an eye to the big picture, and concludes with a very detailed chapter entitled 'Why did they kill?', synthesising work on perpetrator motivation.

Both are on Kindle and in paperback.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:57 am

Ok, I appreciate that. But, if you see something plain wrong on the 3 examples I used to make a point to David (and I am simplistic by nature; I have a general interest on all subjects, not looking to become an expert, I can read The Bible (Hilberg), I got curious enough about Browning when SM talked about him, I'll definitely pick him up if I cross with in a library or something; and speaking to David, you should understand one should simplify even more) you should just express your view.

nickterry wrote:In all honesty, it might help if you got hold of an overview of recent historiography on the Holocaust.



Do you disagree with what I wrote?

Good - Denmark
Middle - France
Bad - Ukraine Lithuania Hungary

?

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Jehovah's Witnesses gassed

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:53 pm

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:What are you talking about? I told you I'd never heard of gassings of Dutch gays. End of story.

You, on the other hand, told us that "revisionism" is the revision of the IMT findings - yet you went silent when asked to show us where gassings of Dutch homosexuals were discussed in your so-called "official story." And you're still dodging the question! LOL



SM, You missed my earlier reply. Not all myths about persecution of people were created at Nuremberg.
"What about, "Tijsseling calls this image "a persistent fiction, created by the gay-emancipation movement in the 1970s don't you understand? It has nothing to do with the IMT except the idea of a "victim of Nazi persecution" status."

In the 1970's some members of various groups started to claim "victim status" for being persecuted by the National Socialist
government. They usually greatly exaggerated the extent of persecution.
"Victim status" actually had legal and economic ramifications. It was this investigation of Victim Status by Dr. Tijsseling and
others which "Denied" the whole Myth.

You are being a sneak with your "I know nothing, I know nothing" act.

He's not being much of a sneak. Everybody can see through it.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:07 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:He's not being much of a sneak. Everybody can see through it.

What is it that you're arguing, dear Mary?

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby nickterry » Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:40 pm

supervitor wrote:what I was complaining about was that if the general assertions taken of the introduction of the relevant sections of Wikipedia on the issue were so wrong, then they should be changed! It's not about the pages on the sources.

I may have joked with it a bit, but I'm also being serious, if such serious stuff is so plain wrong on the page "Holocaust in France"!

For the records, the 'Holocaust in France Wiki page is not well developed,

you might be right on this, nick, I'm not an expert, but it's 7 bilions of us that rely on that if we want to know a bit on the subject, I think it is not expecting too much of the handful of "experts" that they improve the situation.


But it's not a valid argument to rely on Wikipedia, find out that a particular page is unclear on a particular point, then demand that someone who knows the correct answer from books goes off and rewrites Wikipedia pages just because you were shown to be somewhat wrong by the presentation of other information. It's even more invalid when other Wikipedia pages give the same information, citing sources you blithely attacked as 'ideological' without having read them, and when those self-same pages are hyperlinked from the original 'incorrect' page.

The problem with your 'why can't Wiki be perfect' argument is that the discussions in this subforum, just as for most other subjects, rely on a multiplicity of sources and don't just stay on the level of Wiki. Matthew Ellard often posts documents and photos taken from separate websites, the same goes for many other discussions here where primary sources in translation can be used, while others refer to history books to varying degrees.
You yourself arrived here and touted Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, a book that many but not all have read; it would be very difficult to find a complete copy of that book online legally, so in effect you arrived saying 'go to the library/buy this from Amazon' or 'reach for your bookshelf'.

The other problem with the 'go away and rewrite Wiki' argument is that none of the people here, myself included, are experts on the Holocaust in France. StatMech is pretty damn well read, but even he hasn't read more than a dozen works exclusively on Vichy and the Holocaust in France. He also isn't that fluent in French, which would seem to be an important requirement here. I am an academic historian, can read French, and have read quite a bit on the Holocaust in France, but I don't specialise in Vichy.

Given how uneven Wiki is, it seems a bit unrealistic to expect that some unknown community of expertise would decide to improve the pages and evenness of the pages on a systematic basis, when the whole point is that Wiki improves incrementally. Quite a few pages have been translated from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia, a feat that requires good German language skills and potentially, zero knowledge of the content. Some have been translated in the same way from French etc Wikipedia. Overall, Wiki is better than it was a decade ago, but a lot of the time that's because some editor summarised a book very accurately and organised a page around that book. I'll give two examples:

The Wiki page on historiography substantially follows the narrative of John Barrow's A History of History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography

The Wiki page on the historical method is heavily indebted in section 2 to C. Behan McCullagh's Justifying Historical Descriptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

In both cases, these are very accurate summaries of the books in question, but neither Barrow nor McCullagh is the last word on either subject.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:47 pm

nickterry

you really write too much. and then it becomes boring. Can't you speak plainly? concisely? I'll show you how it's done:

The argument is: if wikipedia is plain wrong, on its main page of an important subject, then it is your civic dutty to go change it. My assumption is that "your sources" are not that good, or else Wikipedia would be changed (many many people are good citizens). So, yes, my case stands!

And please, don't try to invent rules on "how to argue on this particular forum". I'm not stupid
Last edited by supervitor on Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:53 pm

and what I mean with not that good is "disputed", "not settleted"

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby nickterry » Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:06 pm

supervitor wrote:Ok, I appreciate that. But, if you see something plain wrong on the 3 examples I used to make a point to David (and I am simplistic by nature; I have a general interest on all subjects, not looking to become an expert, I can read The Bible (Hilberg), I got curious enough about Browning when SM talked about him, I'll definitely pick him up if I cross with in a library or something; and speaking to David, you should understand one should simplify even more) you should just express your view.

nickterry wrote:In all honesty, it might help if you got hold of an overview of recent historiography on the Holocaust.


Do you disagree with what I wrote?

Good - Denmark
Middle - France
Bad - Ukraine Lithuania Hungary

?


Well, this side-track started because you wouldn't accept a fairly polite correction from StatMech on a point of detail. The general classification of Danes good, Ukraine Lithuania bad is true enough, but France - there's a bit of a split between state and society, and there were divisions in both. Measured by survival rates, France comes out very well with 75% surviving.

Rates of victimisation don't necessarily correlate to the degree of antisemitism in a country (in society or among collaborating political movements) or the state structures - the classic comparison is Netherlands vs France. Another one is Romania, where domestic antisemitism was considerable, Romanian conduct vilely murderous, yet the Romanian state in all its fascist glory refused to hand over the Jews of core Romania to the Nazis.

Hungary, meanwhile, is even more contradictory, having fobbed off Nazi demands until occupied, done a deal after occupation for partially domestic reasons in a changed political context, and then shut down a deportation operation that was fairly popular in the provinces, while allowing fascist elements to run amok in Budapest. The mere fact of German troops being present is an insufficient explanation for the Hungarian action, since Romania was awash with German troops in spring 1944 yet there was no escalation of anti-Jewish policy at that time.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:22 pm

Ok, I accept your answer (and appreciate your concisenessishness

I would also put Netherlands (in atittude of its people) between Denmark and France (if I read you correctly)

I remembered Hungary, probably because of reading of Eichmann's travels and works there (there's also a diplomat Schindlereske figure who saved something like 20000).

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby nickterry » Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:38 pm

supervitor wrote:nickterry

you really write too much. and then it becomes boring.

Can't you speak plainly? concisely? I'll show you how it's done:

The argument is: if wikipedia is plain wrong, on its main page of an important subject, then it' i your civic dutty to go change it.


Wiki was not "plain wrong" on this issue, and provided further correct information a click away. This page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_France
definitely mentioned the Vel d'Hiv roundup (in Paris in the occupied zone) conducted by the French police, and it then said very clearly, before discussing the occupation of Vichy:

In the unoccupied zone, from August 1942, foreign Jews who had been deported to refugee camps in south-west France, in Gurs and elsewhere, were again arrested and deported to the occupied zone, from where they were sent to extermination camps in Germany and Poland


While the page could do with improvement, the essential information was there under your nose all the time.

My assumption is that "your sources" are not that good,


LOL but StatMech cited Marrus/Paxton, whose book is listed on the bibliography of the very same Wiki page that you went to. Many of the other pages in English and French Wiki cites Marrus/Paxton.

or else Wikipedia would be changed


This is an exceedingly dubious assumption, judging by hundreds if not thousands of Wiki pages on historical themes of all kinds that I have read, in English Wikipedia. The latest scholarship is often incorporated with a significant time-lag. Many pages don't even list any scholarship at all, even where there are excellent works on the person or location or event in question.

The bigger problem is that StatMech could have substituted the same sources with others,arriving at the same points by other means. Those sources might equally not be cited by Wikipedia, but this wouldn't matter, as whether or not Wikipedia cites a work is not even vaguely an indication of poor quality, merely of the ignorance of the Wiki page writers.

Including a full-scale historiography of the Holocaust in France would probably result in the creation of a separate Wiki page just for the historiography.

(many many people are good citizens). So, yes, my case stands!


This is not a valid argument, as it's not the civic duty of any individual to correct Wikipedia, which is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia.

And please, don't try to invent rules on "how to argue on this particular forum". I'm not stupid


I didn't post any such rules. (I did draft some remarks that were couched as guidelines, but then didn't post them.)

Instead I merely observed that discussion in this sub-forum has traditionally relied on multiple types of source, including Wikipedia, the same as any other sustained discussion on a particular topic, and pointed out that you arrived here citing a non-Wikipedia source, namely Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:06 pm

The best is to quote acessible sources, that's how I view it.
Going "scholarly" on the "France was in the middle" point risks alienating the discussion

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:10 pm

And the Arendt book is a topic of discussion: "banality of evil", not a source. It's for who's interested. I did made the synopse, it's not "required read"

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby nickterry » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:30 pm

supervitor wrote:The best is to quote acessible sources, that's how I view it.
Going "scholarly" on the "France was in the middle" point risks alienating the discussion


Well, sorry, but discussions of the Holocaust and Holocaust denial here and elsewhere (eg at JREF/ISF) have historically been based around primary sources and proper secondary literature. A great many primary sources are online, and so are a lot of secondary works, eg the expert witness reports from the Irving vs Lipstadt trial at hdot.org. Tertiary sources like Wikipedia are used because they're convenient, is all, but there is no convention of 'online sources only'. This is the 'debate culture' relating to this subject, and that's really that.

Most participants in these discussions (which historically stretch back to the Usenet era via Axis History Forum and other locations) appreciate the opportunity to learn about new scholarship and appreciate the book recommendations.

The deniers on here as well as elsewhere don't exactly read much, but are given to asserting that 'believer' literature argues x when they haven't read any of it.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:35 pm

Again with the "this place is special?". Come on, nick..

Look, ok, I accept it. I guess I already knew this place would be weird, before coming here. I guess I was expecting weirdness from the Denial part..

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 902
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby nickterry » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:57 pm

supervitor wrote:Again with the "this place is special?". Come on, nick..

Look, ok, I accept it. I guess I already knew this place would be weird, before coming here. I guess I was expecting weirdness from the Denial part..


There are a great many debates/discussion topics online that revolve around primary sources and can involve a lot of reading. So no I don't think this topic is 'special' in that regard.

The whole culture of Axis History Forum, where several members here have certainly posted in the past, is based around sharing knowledge using up-to-date secondary literature and sharing primary sources, it's absolutely not based around arguing over who really won the Battle of Kursk or whatever, using Wiki-level knowledge.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:15 pm

hehehehe, I noticed you despise of Wiki-level knowledge, you might as well put in quotation marks.

I'm just saying,
the experts write good scholarly,
the maniacs discuss it on foruns,
the interested quasi-expert citizens update Wikipedia

(when it's stable, sound knowledge or together with the disputes if it is a disputable topic)

and the general population can get a good grasp on a subject easily.

It's a good system. Think on the 7 billion! Going towards the 9 billion!

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:17 pm

Trust me, it makes you feel good. I've tried it before. Like helping an old man crossing the street. You'll lose 5 minutes, but feel good for the rest of the day

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:18 pm

Come on, nick. Let's do it together? I'll go with you to Wikipedia's offices. Come on.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:28 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:She also picked "Petro's" awkwardly worded description of the estimated capacity of the building and measurement of each chamber wall. Out of I don't know how many others. Probably a favorite one of the typo prone contortionist and another example of how it's done.

And then claims the numbers derived from the initial post came from elsewhere. They sure did:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Poodle wrote:"... It was not too small, square shaped, roughly five meters along each wall. Large enough to hold the seven to eight hundred people who I had seen enter before the last transport ..."

25 square metres for 700 to 800 people? That's 28 to 32 people per square metre. You think that credible?

Of course it's credible. You are probably having difficulty visualizing it because it's the metric system. One square meter is the same as 10.8 square feet. So 28 to 32 people per 10.8 square feet is only 28/10.8 to 32/10.8 which is between 2.6 and 2.9 people per square foot.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=25005&p=444253#p444253

Good job, Mary.

Thank you for tracking that down for me. I knew Poodle never mentioned being able to move about the UFO as the reason my eyewitness wasn't credible.


And he never claimed he did. What he said here is this:
Poodle wrote:It seems I have to remind Mary that he quoted that density of bodies at the same time as saying that his 'abductee' was moving around freely, which is patently ridiculous.


and which is absolutely in accord with the above linked to "alien abduction" story relayed by you.

Sorry scrm but you still haven't found any mention of being able to freely move about. But if you say so then at least all three of us have come an agreement: An eyewitness to a UFO who claims 2.9 people per square foot were packed aboard an alien spacecraft doesn't take a credibility hit for saying so because 2.9 per square foot is perfectly plausible.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21050
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:33 pm

:yawn:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1177
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby Mary Q Contrary » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:30 pm

supervitor wrote:Since SM sense of civic dutty is not enough, I appeal directly to the Holocaust Denial forum users to help me convince SM to take some vacations from here in order to set Wikipedia straight!

Even Mary Q and David! Please, help!!
Wikipedia can sometimes provide you with real sources of information if you follow the footnotes. But never believe what wikipedia tells you without checking. Look at their entry for the Holocaust
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby supervitor » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:31 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
supervitor wrote:Since SM sense of civic dutty is not enough, I appeal directly to the Holocaust Denial forum users to help me convince SM to take some vacations from here in order to set Wikipedia straight!

Even Mary Q and David! Please, help!!
Wikipedia can sometimes provide you with real sources of information if you follow the footnotes. But never believe what wikipedia tells you without checking. Look at their entry for the Holocaust


I feel you're trying to tell me something.. what is it, Mary? What are you trying to tell me that's so erroneous on Holocaust's wiki page?

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: What is it that deniers deny?

Postby David » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:16 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:David seems blissfully unaware - might as well let him know while he works on his explanation of Browning's following Irving - that Browning was one of the expert witnesses against Irving in the lawsuit Irving brought against Lipstadt and Penguin.

E.g., http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/browning/530.html


SM, you are such a liar. Or maybe just very, very confused on the history of the collapse of Intentionalism, that is the
collapse of Hitler as having the key role in the decision making process.

Browning was a witness generally against Irving but I was specifically referred to Irving taking the lead on the
amazing, disappearing "Hitler Order."

To quote the Irving v. Penguin Trial transcript

Q. [Mr Irving] Aberhard Jackel, would you agree in that passage, or as it
was rendered here in the court, suggested that until my
book 'Hitler's War' was published, there had been no real
investigation of the Holocaust apart from the Reitlinger and the Hilberg books?
A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] Yes, I think I would not agree with that statement.
4I would say that there had been substantial study of the
5Holocaust; the Trunk book, in terms of the Jewish
6Council's, Hilberg in terms of the apparatus, Schloenus in
7terms of the preHolocaust bureaucratic process. What had
8not been studied before you published was a particular
9focus on decision-making process and Hitler's role.
That
10is one part and, in so far as we can confine ourselves to
11that, indeed, your publication of 'Hitler's War' was the
12impetus for the research in that area.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

To finish up with the legend of the Hitler Order

Postby David » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:20 pm

Q. [Mr Irving] Do you know what his opinion is on whether Adolf Hitler
2actually issued an order or not?
3 A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning] I think his feeling is if you are looking for an order in
4a formal sense, that such a thing probably was not given.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Slithering around the Hitler Order

Postby David » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:31 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:What David means by "To simplify" is actually "To misrepresent." Functionalists, unlike David, well, I will quote from the Wiki article David wants to lie about: "neither side [functionalist/intentionalist] disputes the reality of the Holocaust, nor is there serious dispute over the premise that Hitler (as Führer) was personally responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism that allowed the Holocaust to take place."


"reality of the Holocaust?" You are such a goofball, SM, Intentionalist Believers and Functionalist Believer still proclaim their faith in the Holocaust.
What they disagree upon is how the whole thing started and was organized.
Do you understand that?

The Revision that you and I both accept is the collapse of Intentionalism, ie. the Nuremberg Lie that there was a secret Hitler Order and
a centrally organized plan.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Dutch Gays gassed- I know nothing, nothing

Postby David » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:You missed my earlier reply. Not all myths about persecution of people were created at Nuremberg.

Well, now you're just confusing yourself - what exactly is the set of myths you claim to have existed - and that need revising? You keep changing your claims - so how can anyone trust you?


Hello SM-
There is nothing confusing about the creation, evolution and revision of various Stories about the Germans and their concentration camps
except that there are lots of stories.

The Nuremberg Tribunal scooped up the most lurid Tales and packaged under the Intentionalist label, officially approved and proven.
That is a logical place to start with revisions.

But you are even stupider that suspected if you think that the Story-making stopped with the Tribunal
and you are being particularly obdurate if you think Revisionism should be confined to the Showtrial at
Nuremberg.

As has been pointed out to you several times, Tales of a "Homocaust" of over 250,000 Gay men sprang to life in
the 1970's rifting off the horror tales paraded through the Nuremberg Court.
The first book was Männer mit dem rosa Winkel ' ('Man with the Pink Triangle'). "First published in 1971, the German book opened the lid on a part of history that had remained hidden for so long.

The Pink Triangle, published in the 1980's was "a chilling book sheds light on a corner of twentieth-century history that has
been hidden in the shadows much too long."


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests