User talk:68.60.68.203

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, 68.60.68.203, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] HIV trial in Libya

[edit] talk page User talk:68.60.68.203/Libya AIDS case

[edit] draft page User talk:68.60.68.203/Libya AIDS case/Draft

User talk:68.60.68.203/Libya AIDS case/Draft2

[edit] (was) Note on your text (this topic has moved)

Hello anonymous user 68.60.68.203!

I notice you have copied text from an article into this page, presumably to find references for the text. Please take care not to add this page (your user talk page) into categories meant only for articles.

Also, since this page is mainly for people to leave Wikipedia-related messages for you, I would strongly advise you to store the text as a subpage of this page, for example in User talk:68.60.68.203/Libya AIDS case. This will enable others to leave a message without accidentally disturbing or erasing your text, and also you can see others' messages different from your own text. Regards, Kimchi.sg 10:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi 68.60.68.203!
I've watched you gradually buildm this article and applaud your efforts. The only comment I have now is that your Intro is over twice too long for an Intro. Please try to move interesting but non-essential facts under some header. Again, an impressive display of work so far! Simesa 11:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
moving draft to User talk:68.60.68.203/Libya AIDS case/Draft68.60.68.203 19:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
moving talk on this topic to User talk:68.60.68.203/Libya AIDS case

User talk:68.60.68.203/misc-Draft


[edit] doctorsplot

Doctors_Plot

read the entire article contains contains exactly one cite in english

User talk:68.60.68.203/doctorsplot


[edit] Joachim Hoffmann

Green Party Inquiry Bundestag archives

In the question time of 28 of February 1996 we placed several questions to the political handling of the Federal Government with that Publication. There we expressed the fear that the support of the publication, the underlying support by Manfred Kehrig, or by the author in the preface by further high federal officials, the book is given quasi official reputation and could have an encouraging effect on the right-wing extremist scene....

Since the parliamentary State Secretary Michaela Geiger to whom several questions had been referred, had read neither the book nor the preface, (Plenarprotokoll 13/88, 7786 D, 7789 C) and an examination of the entire book in full, from 336 sides, had not yet taken place, she could answer not answer sufficiently numerous questions and demands. Therefore permit us to address some questions again to the Federal Government. We ask the Federal Government:...

3 a) How does the Federal Government react in particular politically, given the background of Joachim Hoffmann's former affiliation with the Military Historical Office for Research, on the publication of "Stalins war of extermination 1941--1945 " and expressions on "Auschwitzproblem", contained in it, and the statements, that for "affair of the gassing" “no proofs could be found, with the number of six million of murdered Jews, is attributable to "a number from Soviet propaganda “and” actually Stalin is just as guilty in the Russia campaign as Hitler “

Answer of the Federal Government

It is unmistakable that the preventive war thesis of Joachim Hoffmann as well as its remarks over the so-called Auschwitz problem and over the so-called affair of gas in the relevant scientific Literature, as far as this can be determined, are unanimously rejected. It stands firmly in today's level of knowledge that the Germans Preparations for the attack starting from 22 June 1941 against the Soviet Union was not accomplished in view of a preventive strike. The question over Soviet intentions, whether Russian archives will bring to light new realizations, must await the opening up of these archives to be deployed.

hxxp://dip.bundestag.de/btd/13/057/1305773.asc


Es spricht für sich, daß der ehemalige NPD-Vorsitzende Adolf von Thadden unter der Überschrift "Eine Wende im Krieg der Historiker ?" eine vierseitige lobende Rezension in "Nation & Europa" verfaßte. Die "National-Zeitung" verweist genüßlich darauf, daß Hoffmann sich auch als Kronzeuge gegen die "6-Millionen-Lüge" eigne, indem er die Rechenspiele um die tatsächliche Zahl der Opfer in Auschwitz mitmache. Daß es sich dabei nicht um ein Mißverständnis handelte, belegte Hoffmann im Herbst letzten Jahres in seiner jüngsten Veröffentlichung in den "Vierteljahresheften für freie Geschichtsforschung". Dabei polemisiert er vor allem gegen Zahlen der jüdischen Holocaust-Opfer, die "von niemand anderem als dem berüchtigten Ilja Ehrenburg in der sowjetischen Auslandspresse aufgebracht" worden seien, und erklärt wörtlich, "daß die Zeit für endgültige Aussagen hinsichtlich der großen Judenverfolgung noch nicht gekommen ist."

Daß die dokumentarisch verbürgte Zahl von 74.000 nur einen Teil der tatsächlichen Verluste umfassen kann, dürfte im übrigen nicht zu bezweifeln sein.

Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945

Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, München 1995, Seite 302 f.

User talk:68.60.68.203/Joachim_Hoffmann

User talk:68.60.68.203/Joachim_Hoffmann/draft


68, I recommend getting a user account. When others complain about your work exposing revisionists, your edits will have more credibility if they're not coming from an IP address. -- TedFrank 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to deny that the Hoffmann article has been an ordeal for me, much worse than I imagined, and I would also like to thank you for what you did, in validating it as legitimate work. I did not exactly seek out Hoffmann to expose him. It was quite accidental. Oddly enough, I came to it through my work on the HIV Lybian thing -a certain writer for Nature magazine had made a comparison (on a blog somewhere) to the "doctors plot", an interesting, if not wholly appropriate analogy. I checked up on the wiki article (which by the way, I consider appallingly bad) I made a minor edit, added its first English citation, made a note of it and followed up on this Suvorov, who was used a source for some (not well reasoned) claims. I read his yet worse page, and discovered this Hoffmann who was cited (with some gratuitous, and specious claims) I googled this down & found that what was put on the Suvorov page was simply pasted verbatum from a Holocaust revision site, and suspiciously without attribution.I noted this on the talk page with no response or interest, all of which smelled increasingly ratty to me, but I am not one to jump in or provoke a firefight, nor do I really care about Suvorov or the WWII mulligans and fantasy games a lot of people seem to like playing, rather than dealing with real history. I left the comment and didn't touch the page. I had other interests. The Hoffman page had nothing on it, other than the fact that he wrote this book. No commentary no analysis nothing. So it seemed a nice far off corner, a little, inconspicuous back door, which is just the way I like to approach controversy. I though perhaps readers clicking on wiki links citing him as backup for various crackpot's (IMO) pet theories would find some things about this "historian" enlightening. He turns out to be quite a lot more important than I imagined, but not for the reasons one might have assumed. The "complaints" that followed- the sustained attacks and removal of plain incontrovertible, actually any fact, and all facts, and the lies, poses, and pretexts, bizarre rants, are actually what drove me-forced me somewhat unwillingly to continue to follow through. This may have affected how the article developed. Its not my fault that he was a very bad guy - deliberately so, and with a purpose. It is an extremely complex subject but the central fact simply had to be addressed before anything else could get done, and the lie had to be exposed. I do not think I went overboard, as the reaction taught me that this much needed to be done, in particular for this fellow, and that I needed to be relentless if it was to succeed. I actually think my perseverance in this confrontation with "reality" may have had some impact in a certain user leaving wikipedia, anyway I was half expecting it. But no doubt there are others. I realize that I may have to come to some decision about (getting user name) which I have been putting off on the theory that quality of edits matters, and anyone can check my edit history as easily as for a register user. Perhaps some people are emboldened to make Ad hominem attacks because I am an "IP". Whether this is good or bad I don't know -maybe I get clearer feedback that way. I think the nature of this subject, and the fact that some people have vested interests in not addressing the obvious is the cause of the problems with the Hoffmann article. The real shock was getting the vicious comments from Tel Aviv IP by a person who's comprehension of the article was mangled to a degree I would not have thought possible. Whether I bear some blame in this because the triggering paragraph is deadpanned in a way that could elude a non english speaker, I'm not sure although it evidently seems to have happened. There is plenty in the article to disabuse anyone who can read. I also do not consider this a remotely adequate excuse for what was written about me, and I am also not responsible for other peoples unbridled ignorance and stupidity, wherever they're from. This last is not very pleasant, and perhaps not worth it, user name or not. I have been reasonably conscientious elsewhere where I have edited, I actually write, as opposed to what appears to be the general habit on Wikipedia of happening by articles and removing whatever offends ones own sensibilities, accurate, factual or not. Once again, your advice is greatly appreciated. I have some more thinking to do about how to address this. 68.60.68.203 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space

User talk:68.60.68.203/space/

User talk:68.60.68.203/space/soviet

[edit] transuranium

User talk:68.60.68.203/transuranium/

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/8/2E/User_talk%7E68.60.68.203.html"