Talk:Germar Rudolf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Translation
Partial translation from de:Germar_Rudolf, some details and links added, most is still missing. --Marek Moehling 09:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll work on it, once we finish the other project. Fadix 15:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
In 1990, after a military service, he had an employment at the Marx-Planck, research in natural science, as a part of his studies to complete a PhD degree from which, he was expelled for his unauthorised use of the institute's name to get samples analysed that were illegitimately taken from the gas chamber sites at Auschwitz and Birkenau. He was trialed in Stuttgart on 22 November 1994, and sentenced (June 1995) to fourteen months in prison. His appeal was rejected in March 1996, but since, Rudolf had fled to Spain, and then to the UK. Knowing him as a fugitive, British authorities have not arrested him. Since the, his revisionist movement worldwide hasn’t stop growing. From his home in Kent, Rudolf runs the "Stiftung Vrij Historisch Onderzoek", which he took control of from the Belgian far rightist Herbert Verbecke, mainly because of its financial and legal problems. Fadix
The correct English legalese for Volksverhetzung seems to be "incitement of the people", as found at this unhchr url (use ctrl+F). As it is a peculiarity of German law and ofthe an issue with German based holocaut denial, pardon my stuffiness. --Tickle me 21:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The discussion on this page is inacurate and biased. My edits have been repeatedly removed. It is clear that someone is attempting to present only one side to this issue. -- Hetware
I believe it is illegal to question the holocaust or any part of it in Germany - this explains the name changes ( not some nefarious plot to create co-authors). There is only limited free speech in Europe, etc. His trial had no mention of the merits of his science - neither did the Planck institute ever discuss his scientific work - they could go to jail for even supporting him.
[edit] NPOV
The page automatically assume Germar Rudolf is wrong. Germar Rudolf is a very intelligent scientist who is fully qualified to analyse the evidence he collected. When I attempted to add factual and verifiable information to the article, my edits were removed.
[edit] False Accusations
The article is catagorized as German neo-Nazi, which insinuates that Germar Rudolf is a neo-Nazi. That is facutally wrong and, quite frankly, slanderous.
Germar Rudolf makes this clear in Dissecting the Holocaust
"It must be said here and now that none of the authors contributing to the present work considers himself ideologically anywhere in the vicinity of National Socialism.[150] This aside, however, such an accusation is no argument suited to invalidating our own. It seems reasonable to suspect that the establishment historians resort to this verbal garrote merely to distract attention from those factual questions, which they obviously do not feel competent to field. In any case, it is clear that anyone who evades factual arguments by means of political accusations cannot have any scientific motivation for doing so, since a scientifically motivated researcher is interested first and foremost in factual arguments. Political motivation is the only thing that could possibly prompt these historians to voice political accusations; this, however, places the charge of political choreography of our understanding of history squarely back on their own shoulders."
If someone wishes to associate him with neo-Nazis then that person needs to substantiate the accusation. If that is not done. The categorization of neo-Nazi should be removed from the article.
[edit] Factual and Scientific Accuracy
[edit] No Testing for Traces of Zyklon B
No one has, as the article claims, tested for traces of Zyklon B. That is simply factually incorrect. You cannot understand even the basic science involved and believe that anybody tested for traces of Zyklon B decades after the fact. What has been tested for are traces of cyanide compounds. When I attempted to correct that error, my modification was reverted.
If you test for cyanide you get results that agree with wiki. If you test for cyanide compounds you don't agree with wiki. If you understand the science brhind this you are a denier. Get the drift?159.105.80.63 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other Sources of Cyanide Compounds
The following relevant and verifiable information was removed from the article:
Rudolf's contentions are indeed reasonable in view of the fact that cyanide does exist in the environment, as is described on the EPA's Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Website: Cyanide Compounds page.
It was removed? ( I checked and unless I missed it, it was removed. However,a footnote almost concedes the point I believe.) If the EPA is not a good citation then could an editor suggest approved ones? Removing a citation and a statement that supports both Rudolf and Cracow's work ( indirectly thought it may be ) leaves the scientific discussion rather hollow. Maybe the article could be more like the one for Dr Green - kinda friendly and low key ( if you don't want it too serious).159.105.80.63 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quotations
Germar Rudolf stated what his motivations for his research are. When I quoted that statement, the quotation was removed.
"Secondly - and this is the most important argument - the ethically correct evaluation that even one victim would be too many must not be a pretext for prohibiting scientific research. This is intolerable for the simple reason that science must always be allowed to find precise answers. What would we think of an official who demanded that a physicist not be allowed to determine the exact value of his stress experiment, because even a small value would be bad enough? A physicist subjected to such an absurd demand would quickly arrive at incorrect results and would be a threat to any company that hired him. The same holds true for the historian. If the historian is forbidden to conduct critical investigations because they might be considered morally untenable, then we have to assume that the results of such skewed historiography are unreliable. And since our knowledge of contemporary history exerts a direct influence on politics, our public policies are mistaken and unreliable as well. It is the key function and responsibility of every branch of science to provide accurate figures and values. The principles which hold true for engineering, physics, and chemistry can not suddenly be abandoned in historiography for political reasons - unless one is intellectually prepared to retreat deep into the darkest middle ages."[1]
[edit] Legal Matters
The rejection of Germar Rudolf's appeal for asylum was a violation of US statute. When I quoted that statute, it was removed from the article.
The following are varifiablly accurate quotations of applicable US Statute.
[edit] Applicable Statutes
[edit] Real ID Act of 2005
The "Real ID Act of 2005" was signed into law (Pub. Law No. 109-13) on May 11, 2005, as Division B of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, and became effective on the date of enactment.
(Sec. 101) Amends Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions concerning asylum to:
- authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security, in addition to the Attorney General, to grant asylum (retroactive to March 1, 2003);
- require asylum applicants to prove that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be (if removed) the central reason for their persecution; and
- provide that an applicant's testimony may be sufficient to sustain this burden of proof only if the trier of fact determines that it is credible, persuasive, and fact-specific. Requires corroborating evidence where requested by the trier of fact unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain it without departing the United States. States that the inability to obtain corroborating evidence does not excuse the applicant from meeting his or her burden of proof.
[edit] The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[edit] Supporting Evidence
The following supporting evidence that the denial of Rudolf's appeal for asylum was was illegal was also removed from the article.
[edit] ICE DEPORTS "HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST" TO GERMANY
ICE DEPORTS "HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST" TO GERMANY
Rudolf, a former chemist from Stuttgart and author of "Dissecting the Holocaust," was sentenced by the German government to 14 months in prison for publishing a "scientific" [2] report refuting the deaths of thousands of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Rudolf tested bricks in the gas chambers for traces of Zyklon B[3], deadly cyanide used to kill Jews during the Holocaust. His report claimed that because he did not find evidence of Zyklon B on the sampled bricks it was unlikely that the mass gassings of Jews occurred at Auschwitz.[4]
[edit] External Links
The article provides a link to a supposed refutation of the Rudolf Report, but when I added a link to the report that was supposedly refuted, that link was twice removed.
- ^ [http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndintro.html Disecting the Holocaust: Introduction
- ^ Quotation marks in the original.
- ^ This is factually incorrect. Rudolf tested for cyanide compounds, not for Zyklon B.
- ^ See The Rudolf Report for further discussion of Rudolf's scientific work.
-- hetware 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- I added the Rudolf report link and changed Zyklon B to cyanide compound. Presently his homepage and two vho.org sites are linked too - enough to allow for further information to all interested. What you're are doing with the rest of your edits amounts to POV, as you're trying to prove he's right. You may do so at vho.org. --tickle me 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- A number of things that you should consider, Wikipedia does not establish 'Truth' it only present positions. That you claim things about him which you consider as facts are your opinions that have no place in Wikipedia unless they are claimed by a notable source or that you are Rudolf and you are defending yourself. The material in this article can be backed from reputable materials about what is said about Rudolf. You are right though about Zyklon B vs cyanide traces. The rest has no bearing with the text, sorry. Regards. Fad (ix) 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have made no modification to the article without providing direct references to authoritative sources. --hetware 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just saw you wanted to add a link to vho.org. That website is known for it's antisemitic and right-wing extremist articles and should not be considered a reliable
source for information on sensitive themes like the holocaust. Yours, Braveheart.
-
-
- There were already links to vho.org in the article. I simply added a link to the actual document under descussion. If the document under discussion is not a reliable source as to what is in the document under discussion, what is? As for vho.org being anti-Semitic, or right-wing extremeist, your claim that it is such does not make it so.
-
Hetware 17:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] neo-Nazi Catagorization is still there
The article is still catagorized as neo-Nazi. Germar Ruldof asserts clearly that this does not characterise his political views. I provided an exact and verifiable quote stating his opinion. There has been no effort to justify catagorizing this article as neo-Nazi. Please either give clear and justifiable grounds for this catagorization, or remove it.--hetware 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well - because Rudolf is classified by the official "protection of the constitution" (German: Verfassungsschutz) authorities of Germany as a right-wing extreme and Neo-Nazi. If you want to tell us, that he is not - I´m sorry - I think you are trying to sell us white for brown! --KarlV 06:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Karl, You have not provided verifiable references in support of this assertion. Furthermore, being classified as such by a political advesaries hardly constitutes proof. The accusation really needs to be supported by direct evidence such as verifiable statements by Germar Rudolf. The charge of neo-Nazi is the modern equivalent of the medieval charge of Witchcraft. Once it has been made, people no longer feel any obligation to think rationally or to follow traditional Anglo-American standards of justice. It is a dangerous and infammatory epithet intended to get folks riled up in hatred and ill-will. I believe the German word for that is Volksverhetzung.
Hetware 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Absolutely agree with Hetware here. Are we providing facts or opinions here? "Categories" like anti-semitic, neo-nazi, etc are not facts but simple stigmatizing. Hey, we can create category "bad people" also, it goes without saying that anti-semitic and neo-nazi are bad people. Lets stick to facts! Magabund 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am leaving the dispute tag until we have some clarification on this issue. I have no reason to believe that Germar Rudolf has neo-Nazi leanings. It seems to me the categorization of neo-Nazi is circulus in demonstrando. Hetware 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with Hetware here. Are we providing facts or opinions here? "Categories" like anti-semitic, neo-nazi, etc are not facts but simple stigmatizing. Hey, we can create category "bad people" also, it goes without saying that anti-semitic and neo-nazi are bad people. Lets stick to facts! Magabund 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unclear claim that the work is disputed
It is claimed that the work is disputed, but no description of that dispute is given. It is not explained what is meant by "disputed".--Hetware 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- It has been refuted succinctly by Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy. Rudolf acknowledged this, stating:
- "Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust »rigorously«." [1]
- He went on with denial though, switching to historical and forensic argumentation, fields of study he's not qualified for. However, that's not the topic of the report. So the report is at least disputed, but in fact, it's been refuted, I amended accordingly. --tickle me 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I note that Rudolf is more than willing to cite and provide references to works presenting opposing view points. Rather the antithesis of Hitlarian - silence the opposition - propaganda. It is not Rudolf who imprisons, harasses or otherwise attempts to silence those with whom he disagrees.--Hetware 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Reading in context I believe Rudolf was saying that chemistry could disprove the gassing story but other areas of research would have to be used in other areas. Chemistry in chemical disputes, document verification with documents, etc. This doesn't seem too hard to understand but it seems to have become a slogan ( ie chemistry is not the ......). He is more than ready to step aside for others outside chemistry - ( by the way Green never refuted him, but he did try.)159.105.80.63 14:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unsupport alleged motivation for pseudonyms
The article asserts that Rudolf's motivation for using pseudonyms is to give the appearance that multiple experts agree with him. Rudolf himself, however, provides a different explanation for his behavior. Namely, that it was an effort to avoid persecution. I will provide a citation as soon as I find the exact wording.--Hetware 05:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Give us all a brake, had this been the cases he would have used one pseudo and not various agreeing with eachothers when reviewing his work. He used various pseudonyms attempting to give credence to his work. If I were to submit for a wider audience a thesis, and then to answer critics invent pseudonyms, not one but various, I wonder how can it be interpreted in anyway as being done to avoid persecution. To the contrary it is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty. Fad (ix) 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the denying of the Holocaust in Germany is a criminal offence - and of course he tried - in his coward attitude - not to be noticeable to much with his clear name. But - also a welcome side effect - right wing extremes and Holocaust denyers always are (and were) on the search for a "scientific explenation" for their crimes (or for their view of what had happened in concentration camps), so more "experts" indeed should also give the impression that multiple experts agree with him.--KarlV 10:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- It may be a crime in Germany, yet the focus of Wikipedia is Anglo-American. By the superior vlues of our ancestors, it is not Germar Rudolf who is the criminal. Instead it is the totalitarian oppression of free speech on the part of the German government that we deem criminal. --Hetware 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] General Remer...
... was never a member of the NSDAP, hence calling him "Nazi activist" is attributing something wrongly to him.
[edit] Erronious representation of Rudolf's work
The representation of Germar Rudolf's work in this article is misleading. I have attempted to correct this deficiency by adding clarifying phrasing. The most recent such edit was reverted to the incorrect form. I'm not really sure why that was done. I apologize for adding an edit comment when I submitted. I am not a frequent contributor, so I don't always remember the details of how it works when I do contribute.
Nonetheless, my edits should have been self-explanatory.
Hetware 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I still think this is a hatchet job, but I remove this objection if the footnote and link to TRR I added remains. Hetware 01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 9/11 and Dewdney
I fixed the typo in Alexander Dewdney's name, but then took a short look to the linked article and it does not seem that they have "co-authored" anything. Maybe "tried to repeat" Dewdney's experiments would do. Or rather remove Dewdney altogether. --Magabund 11:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EXTREMELY BIASED article
I'm tagging this with NPOV because reading this article feels as though the author is attempting to make Germar Rudolf appear as a neo-Nazi as well as being a quack which he is not, there are many flaws in this article. It needs to be re-structured and written in a more apporpiate context. Piecraft 02:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- While the article has its faults, your critique is vague and hard to tie down. His politics are all listed as "alleged", and followed up with his rebuttals, so I don't think that is on point.
- I don't think he's portrayed as "a quack", but his questionable academic methods and approaches do cast serious doubt on his work and therefore the conclustions he draws from it. Cantankrus 14:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Who really read the book ??? Judging about something you have not personally read is like following the Führer again.
You can only make your own mind It is God dammned easy to believe what others say.
By the way there has been a holocaust but even by saying something like that you are called very quickly NEO NAZI--80.142.216.35 15:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Even without reading "the book" (he's written a few works now), someone can review his method. He's used a number of psuedonyms, each purporting to be in a different specialty, and then having them cite each other. While it might make sense to have ONE psudeonym, the only purpose having several, and then cross citing them can have is to have it appear that several "colleagues" are backing the same thesis.
- So, casting aside his political leanings, his method and approach are not academic and cast doubt on his work.
- Now, most revisionists deny any links to right wing groups, but plenty of them have definate links. I haven't researched his politics to know, but the presentation here seems to present his critics and his own statements. In any case, I don't think there is anything that is of "extreme bias". Cantankrus 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well of course this pseudonym number has not done anything good for his reputation but are we really judging his book or are we trying to avoid further questions because he has done this pseudonym nonsens. What counts is what is in his books. And it is interesting to try to use a side track avoiding the facts out of his book.--80.142.216.16 10:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, Rudolf has written a few works now, so "his book" might refer to any of a number of things, but people are usually most familiar with the "Rudolf Report".
- In this report, he (without permission) used the name of the Max Planck institute, where he was studying, to obtain access and lend credence to his conclusions, for which he was expelled from the institute for.
- Now, as for "what is in his book", he's trying to use a scientific arguement to advance a position, from a scholarly perspective. However, by not using the academic method and not following academic procedure, his report must be viewed with suspecion by any true academic.
- What I'm saying is that since his method and approach are obviously and transparently flawed, his "report" can no longer be held up as a scientific document, which is how he proposed it. And if it's not scientific, why is it more interesting to discuss it rather then something written by say a historian? Cantankrus 14:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
