Talk:International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-12. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Archives

1 2

Contents 1 Neturei Karta 2 The question still remains 3 Photo 4 POV 5 Goal: to deny the legitimacy of Israel 6 WP:NOR 7 Foreign reaction 8 KKK or K-KKK 9 Major events/ discussions at the conference? 10 Conference length 11 Image seems fake 12 Latest photo 13 Foreign Reaction 14 Results 15 claim about 'palestinian' opinion 16 Anti Semitism 17 References 18 Persian Name 19 Sacha Baron Cohen's comments about the conference 20 Why was my post deleted? 21 external links 22 Lead 23 Illegality of Holocaust denial in lead 24 Anti-Semitism 25 Terminology 26 Is this on-topic? 27 Edits by Shamir1 28 Who here denied 6 million died? 29 Category: Historians of the Holocaust 30 Shiraz Dossa, Ph.D. 31 POV 32 Public opinion in Iran 33 Better source 34 Merge proposal 35 Goal 36 Reactions

[edit] Neturei Karta

I changed the sentence in the first paragraph about Moshe Aryeh Friedman because the Neturei Karta article (along with their own website[1]) states that their name is Aramaic. Either way, Neturei Karta isn't synonymous with "The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria," I think most of the sect's adherents live in Israel. Somebody's since changed the sentence back. I'm not trying to get into an edit war over this, but unless anyone registers objections in like the next few hours, I'm changing it back to my version. P4k 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As for "Austria", I don't know, Austria sounds strange to me. Nut the name of the group, Neturei Karta, is well known in Israel, I know, because I live here. John Hyams 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize their name is well known in Israel, but that doesn't mean it's Hebrew. I mean, Hamas is well known in Israel too. They claim the name is Aramaic, and so do some other internet sources[2][3][4]. I guess I don't really understand what your argument is. Anyway saying that "The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria," is "known in Hebrew as Neturei Karta" implies that they're the same group, which isn't true; I'm sure Israeli and American Neturei Karta adherents aren't part of The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society of Austria, and Moshe Aryeh Friedman isn't the head of Neturei Karta. The fact that the group exists in Austria is weird, but it does. I'm kind of grasping at straws here cause I don't really understand what your objection is. P4k 00:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if this is controversial, can you just let me say that Moshe Aryeh Friedman is a member of Neturei Karta and resolve the issue of what language their name is in on the Neturei Karta page? P4k 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

no, its not acctually controversial, just someone has been changing it recently on the nk page. it's discussed by people who know what they're talking about on that talk page. also here's nk usa's explanation [5]. (i assume the page number discrepancies are because the talk is citing within the chapter etc.) gemara is ussualy in aramaic, mishna is in hebrew, these changes where probably just confusion. otherwise, just about everything else about nk is controversial :)  ⇒ bsnowball  16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The question still remains

How come you can question Jesus Christ in Europe and go to jail for questioning the Holocaust? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.243.59.119 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Why? I'll tell you why. Because real people died in the Holocaust. Nobody knows for sure if Jesus existed. We have no written records from his lifetime that can be verified independently by sources not associated with the religion that worships him stating that he ever lived. There are many people who think that, if he did live, he certainly wasn't the same person Paul made him out to be. The gospels contradict each other, ascribe quotes to him that have since been theorized to have been added many years after his death for the sole purpose of making the religion more palatable to the Roman Empire in hopes that they'd stop persecuting christians. Half of the books that were part of daily religious life in the early church are no longer in the bible, probably because the Romans (and just about anybody else) would have thought them so bizarre that finding followers would have been almost impossible. But the Holocaust happened within living memory. There's people still alive today that experienced the Holocaust first hand. Everything about it can be independently verified. Why is it a crime to deny the Holocaust? Because to do so is to spit in the faces of those who suffered in the camps. Why is it not a crime to deny the divinity of Jesus? Because nobody's really sure he ever was, divine or otherwise. Now, here's a bigger question: In Europe, they jail you for denying the Holocaust. In America, it's not a crime at all. In countries where Sharia is law, they kill you for saying anything bad about Mohammad, who isn't even seen as being divine. Which do you think is more cruel? Wandering Star 18:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As an American, I find it weird that Europe limits freedom of speech in this way; but to answer your question, there is no current threat of killing people in Europe for believing or not believing in Jesus the Christ but there are still organized groups in Europe that think killing all the Jews is a good idea. America deals with this kind of craziness by having spies secretly join the KKK and similar idiot-groups and destroy them from within. Well, until Bush came along ... but that's another issue altogether. WAS 4.250 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• you may or may not know that Germany ranks 23rd (and Switzerland, which also has anti-denial laws, 8th) on the freedom of press index, while the USA ranks 53rd, tied with Botswana, Tonga and Croatia. dab (�) 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't true until Bush came along hence my comment about George "the constitution is only a piece of paper" Bush. WAS 4.250 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that defamatory statements about any living person in articles, talk pages, or user pages are prohibited in accordance with WP:BLP.--Burzum 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

...as are other defamatory statements. We just are extra careful for living people. But WAS's remark clearly was not defamatory, but a political commentary, a kind of speech that enjoys the highest form of protection under most modern constitutions.--Stephan Schulz 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP says no such thing. But you can insist on sources. Take your pick. And note I associate the quote with him in terms of it being a phrase associated with him and in terms of his behavior which provides meaning to that association; whether he actually said it is another issue and remains essentially unproveable either way. WAS 4.250 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree now that it has been pointed out that your statement was political commentary and not defamatory. But it is still not helpful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the editorial page of a newspaper. Your biased opinion does not give me great confidence in your ability to contribute in an unbiased fashion on this topic. It would be helpful if you followed the WP:WWIN soapbox policy. Cheers.--Burzum 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• WAS 4.250, you might not find that limit on freedom of speech so "weird" if you lived in a country where you were forced daily to remember that hundreds of thousands of your countrymen were, in the not so recent past, rounded up and forced to the gas chambers simply because of their religion. For those of us in Europe, the Holocaust is not some abstract, intellectual debating point, but a reality for which we still see the consequences today. I would also like to point out that in the U.S.A., speech is not completely free. One cannot advocate assassination there, and likewise, discussion of potential terrorist activities, even if not carried out, can lead to jail time. Jeffpw 09:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a dick but this is still totally off-topic. Don't feed the troll, etc. P4k 09:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps tangential, P4k, but not totally off-topic. The OP was referring to Duke's speech at the conference. Jeffpw 09:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely off-topic. The discussion is about laws & regulations in the UE, not this conference. Please take it to talk:Holocaust denial if you wish to continue it. --SidiLemine 11:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SidiLemine. It is OK to talk about how the accompanying article should discuss free speech laws and other related issues; NOT to debate the validity or morality of those laws. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Although those are important issues, there are other forums for that. Dkostic 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of the conference is to use arguments about validity and morality to de-legitimize the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, to de-legitimize the Zionist movement that created the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland and to de-legitimize the efforts of the west to sustain the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland. It is all about discussion of morality; with talk about the Holocaust merely a backdrop. Keep your eye on the ball, not the handwaving. WAS 4.250 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Some European countries forbid the open denial of the holocaust but not all. There are no legal restrictions on discussing the details as such.

WAS 4.250 Your belief that: there are still organized groups in Europe that think killing all the Jews is a good idea. is utter nonsense. Such 'groups' as may be identified are little more than trouble makers who jump on this band-waggon because of the effect it creates. The problem in Europe and elsewhere is that any discussion of the WW2 murders that deviates from the official doctrine is attacked as anti-Semetic. Such prohibition of free speach are as intolerable as the prohibition of publication of the so called cartoons.Surfingus 12:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC) surfingus Surfingus 12:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Like the saying goes, "A picture speaks a thousand words". Thanks, Metaspheres, for adding that valuable photo to the article. Jeffpw 12:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I clicked the link for the source of that photo, but I don't see it on that page. Is that link right, or am I blind? .V. 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't see the pic either, when I clicked, but I have no reason to coubt it was there when it was downloaded. That website is not static, and the conference was ongoing, so I think they are probably revolving the pics they took. Jeffpw 15:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• I don't really think it's right to have this image here if the citation link doesn't contain it. 192.132.64.2 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If the citation link did contain it at one point, it is possible to check that. I am assuming good faith, and I think others should, too. There is a Wiki dept, to check for Fair Use. If this does not meet that, it will be removed by an admin. Jeffpw 15:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a policy that if you take an image from a website, it needs to be there. Not sure if it's a good faith issue. .V. 15:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I just checked WP:Images, and what you said is not listed there. As I stated earlier, images on websites change. If you are concerned, I suggest you contact an admin about it. However, I would oppose removing it until an admin has weighed in about the subject. Jeffpw 15:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Alright, I'll look into it. .V. 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I should add that all images on that repulsive site are freely licensed, so if necessary, another image can be taken from it. Jeffpw 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that may work. *shrug* I'd just feel better about an image with a more stable link. .V. 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"even though the Holocaust can in fact be investigated in the West, and has been investigated for decades throughout the world.". There is somthing wrong with that line. It gives the impression that the intended words of the Iraninan presidend are taken to denote something else than what he intended, turning it into a straw man, and then procedes to give a straw man refutal. Of course he knows that it is "investigated", and it is obviously clear that he means "critical investigation that may reach other conclusions".I mean, c'mon, what kind of investigation is it, if you only may reach one single conclusion? "you may think what you whant, as long as you agree with me". I will not remove the text yet, since i don't want to provoke. --Striver 13:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This has alredy been discussed above. We are working for the layman reader here, who might not know that this statement of the president has no basis. Investigation can be done freely, depite what he said. Citations were given, and then some users came and removed them, so this is becoming quite tiresome. Again, please read above. John Hyams 13:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

the laws prohibiting denial do not prohibit any bona-fide investigation. They draw a line defining as off-limits what is obviously bad-faith misrepresentation. Just because laws are 'legalistic' doesn't mean they are devoid of any common sense, that's what the judicative is all about. Any reasonable scholarly debate about the Holocaust can easily take place legally in countries that have such laws. To allege that these laws hinder neutral investigation is simply an obvious bad-faith revisionist statement and shouldn't be considered as anything else. dab (𒁳) 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Further, the laws are in line with the UN resolution on the Holocaust, which rejects any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event. [6] Jeffpw 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not stating that investigations are prhibited, i am stating that you are attributing intentions to him that he might not have had, and that is the OR part. For all you know, he might have meant doing invetigations that raeach other conclusions, ie, it would have been illegal to have THIS investigation in the west. Again, it is OR to invent intentions to his words. The way it is presented, the quote is obviosly given a out of context interpretation. --Striver 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, he stated that unequivocally. It is you who are trying to reinterpret his statements. If you can find any statement or source to back up your interpretation of what he said, please feel free to add it. Otherwise, your argument seems like POV pushing to me. Jeffpw 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can change it to read "even though the Holocaust can in fact be investigated in the West, and has been investigated for decades throughout the world. However, in countries such as Germany and France, if the investigation results deny the Holocaust, it is illegal." or something. Because the current phraseology is very, very misleading. .V. 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• How 'bout "purpose of the investigation is to deny the Holocaust"? Jeffpw 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be inaccurate. If an investigation starts, regardless of the intent, and results in a conclusion that denies the Holocaust in whole or in part (the distinction is hazy), it would still be applicable. The phraseology you offered only covers when the investigation has an intent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by .V. (talk • contribs) 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Here is the problem sentence:

Ahmadinejad has pointedly questioned why "the West would not allow any investigation into the Holocaust"[4], even though the Holocaust has in fact been investigated in the West, and has been investigated for decades throughout the world.

The second half of the sentence, starting 'even though' has the effect of casting editorial doubt on Ahmadinejad's statement. This reasons for not using this type of device are detailed here: WP:WTA#However.2C_although.2C_whereas. it would be better to replace this editorialising with a reference to a published source with the contrary opinion (that the West does allow investigation into the Holocaust). If we leave this sentence as it is, the article looks more like an opinion piece than a summary of published sources about a subject. wp:npov is a non-negotiable policy yet the clear point of view of this sentence is that Ahmadinejad is incorrect. Striver is correct that the second editorial half of the sentence denies something that Ahmadinejad did not say and is therefore a straw man argument (note that Wikipedia articles should not be making arguments). I think it would be best to just remove the 'even though' half of the sentence as the publised arguments against the need for the conference are included in the article already. Curtains99 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple; here's a compromise edit.--Eloquence* 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

'In actual fact' is another editorial device for invalidating the previous clause. I am amending this to: Ahmadinejad has pointedly questioned why "the West would not allow any investigation into the Holocaust"[4], a reference to the illegality of denying the Holocaust in certain Western countries.. Curtains99 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The clause is invalid. If Ahmadinejad had said "freely investigating," that would be another matter. But the claim that "the West would not allow any investigation into the Holocaust" is simply incorrect and can be stated as such without violating NPOV. If Mr. Ahmadinejad said that France was in South America, we would not have to state that he is "referring to the geographic location of France"; we could say that France is, in actual fact, in Europe. There is no dispute that investigating the Holocaust is possible anywhere in the world. There is dispute that such an investigation may yield arbitrary results.--Eloquence* 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your compromise edit is perfect, eloquence, and as far as I am concerned, feel free to edit it that way. Jeffpw 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The current revision is perfect, shows the truth of the situation, and acknowledges the Iranian President's POV. Let's hope it can stand this way. Jeffpw 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(in actual fact, investigation into the Holocaust is not illegal, although Holocaust denial is illegal in certain Western countries.) Did'nt somebody above state that a investigation into the Holocaust that ends up disputing the official version would result in jail? If i start a investigation, and end up with other numbers than 6 million, i would end up in jail, right? --Striver 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong; not in any country that I have heard of. Do you have sources to the contrary? Weregerbil 18:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, look at the lead of this article. If i end up with 2 or 3 million people killed, i get jailed, if i end up concluding that they did not used gas in auswicth (spelling?), i end up in jail. Just ask Gerald Fredrick Töben and Robert Faurisson. Its basicly "sure, do your investigation, but damn you if you dont end up agreeing with us!"--Striver 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those two "ended up with other numbers than 6 million", they denied the Holocaust ever happened. Do you really not see a difference between an investigation that gives a different number of victims and denial? No worries; most adults can, so if you ever investigate something you are not in danger of ending up in jail. Weregerbil 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, respectfully, this question displays a remarkable lack of understanding of the subject. Comprehensive scientific investigations into the number of murdered Jews exist, such as Wolfang Benz (Ed).: Dimension des Völkermords. Die Zahl der jüdischen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus. Munich, 1991. Scientific investigations, based on documents maintained by the Nazis, photographs, witnesses (some of them Nazis), census information, etc. have, over time, pinned the number at around 5-6 million (it is difficult to get significantly more accurate than that because of systematic cover-up attempts towards the end of the war, e.g. seeding flowers over mass graves). Actual law on Holocaust denial does not state that one may not arrive at certain numbers. German law (§ 130 StGB §3) states: "Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost."

Briefly translated, this means that denying, downplaying or supporting any act of genocide (as defined in the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch) committed under the national socialist regime in a way which may disrupt the public peace can be punished by up to five years in prison or a fine. There is not even a specific mention of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, let alone anything about numbers. Whether or not a particular action meets this definition is interpreted by the courts. May I suggest that you stay away from this topic for a while? It is a sensitive issue and I'm not convinced that you are approaching it with a sound understanding of the facts.--Eloquence* 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that i have a lack of understanding in the subject, i will be the first one to admit it. My knowledge does not stretch farther that having seen to many discovery channel productions. But having a lack of understanding of the topic did not hinder anyone from editing the Muhammad cartoons, so i do not understand what merit the suggestion of me keeping away has. As for your quote, does it not support what i said? If i conduct my own investigations and then announce that i only arrived at a smaller number, don't i go to jail, just as several other people doing the same? --Striver 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're simply trolling this page. If you read the discussion above (and I am sure you did) you will see that legitimate investigation of the Holocaust is allowed in every country. Investigation with an agenda of disproving a historical fact, with the goal of delegitimizing the victims of Genocide, is illegal. That the Holocaust occurred, and in the level it has been described since the 1940s is not disputed by anybody except neo-Nazis and other anti-Semites. You truly should let this go. The simple fact that you could not spell Auschwitz (which I corrected for you above) tells me that you don't know much about this subject. Jeffpw 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the comment by Curtains99 on 16:10, 14 as a clear evidence of me not "only trolling" here, and actually take offense at your statement. And again, you did nothing more than prove me correct with your answer, "either you agree, or you are a nazi!". Now that you have taken this to a personal level, ill give you a person statment: I don't know much about this topic, really, neither am i interested in learning, and most certainly am i not advancing any position on this, but, BUT i do recognizes oppression against free thought and research when i see it. If they are so damn wrong, prove them wrong. Sending people to jail for ides? Yeah, the freedom of speech baner that the west champions is most certainly selective, i haven't forgotten about how proud the west was about publishing the cartoons a while ago. And now you are "advising" me to not edit here, and when i do not oblige, then i am "trolling"? You know what that makes me want me to call you? I better shut up before i regret it... --Striver 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, your post now clearly makes your POV clear for all to see. For the record, I didn't advise you not to edit here (though I would be ever so grateful if you would stop). Anyway, if you cannot see that "research" into the fact that something happened or not, when it has been historically documented for 60 years, and unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations, is pseudo-science at most, and hate-mongering at the very least, then further dialogue with you on this subject will be impossible. Jeffpw 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, i did not mean that the research would conclude that Jews were not murdered systematically, i have not heard any valid argument for that not being true. And of course would a research concluding that it did not happen be nothing more than a farce. I mentioned researched that came to other conclusions that the number 5-6 millions. I have no idea if it is possible to arrive any other number, how could i considering that i know almost nothing about their methodoligy. For example if some professor would end up concluding that some of the material is discredited and only arrive to 4 million. That would most surely cause him to hesitate talking about his findings. Make no mistake, im not talking about hate speech, im talking about creating a atmosphere of fear of open debate and research. You tell me, have it never happened that people were sure about something, then ten years later, known history became re-visited? Just look at the Gulf of Toncin that started the Vietnam war for real, it proved 40 years later to be pure fiction. Would that have happened if it was a crime investigating in it? (note: i did not mean to imply via analogy or anything else that the holocaust is "pure fiction". Just to make it clear, I don't want any misunderstandings.) --Striver 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone has made their point. As someone from the "I-may-not-agree-with-what-you-say-but-I'd-die-to-preserve-your-right-to-say-it" school of American freedom of speech thought, I do think these other countries should clearly be embarassed that Iran has more progressive free speech laws than they do no matter how much quibbling is done over exactly how these rules are applied. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) first they came for the holocaust deniers, but I was not a holocaust denier...

• Kendrik, if you honestly think Iran has more progressive free speech laws than those of Germany, The Netherlands, France and The United Kingdom, you don't really know much about the country at all. Most Human Rights organizations find Iran has an atrocious record in this area, especially in the area of freedom of speech and expression. I suggest you read a little bit about the country here on Wikipedia, learn about how free their speech is, the country's human rights record, and its political history before posting further here. your last post seems quite naive.

I have also been under the impression that Iran's freedom of speech is not the best... sight. Anyway, i think the topic of this section is over. --Striver 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goal: to deny the legitimacy of Israel

Those who repeatedly delete this from the Goals section, should state their reason here. John Hyams 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done so, but, as far as I can tell, this is not one of the officially stated goals. You and I, looking at what they do, will come to that conclusion, but it remains our own conclusion and violates WP:OR. The source that was provided did not directly state this goal either. If you want this in, either find a direct statement by the organizers, or find a WP:RS that you can attribute it to, ("According to Knut Hardensford of the Daagenblaad, the aim of the conference was ... [ref here] ). --Stephan Schulz 18:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also haven't deleted this sentence but it does look suspect.

The secondary goal, as stated by David Duke, the Iranian Foreign Minister and Neturei Karta, is to deny the legitimacy of existence of the Zionist State of Israel, which was founded a short time after the Holocaust in order to compensate for the "alleged" genocide of the Jews.[5]

The Jerusalem Post reference quotes the Iranian foreign minister as saying

"The objective for organizing this conference is to create an atmosphere to raise various opinions about a historical issue," he said. "If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt. And if, during this review, it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Muslim people of the region and the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?"

David Duke and Neturei Karta are also quoted in this article but I donh't see them claiming this to be the goal of the conference and they are attendees rather than organizers, so how can they set the conference goals? Finally, the Iranian minister quoted above suggests two outcomes either that Israel will be found to be illegitimate or that the Palestinians will be found to be paying for the Nazis crimes. His sated goal appears to be to determine the reality of the Holocaust which is the same as the primary goal. So I think this sentence should be dropped or changed around to something about the Iranian minister's views of the conference outcome. Curtains99 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not convincing. Gentlemen, to claim otherwise is a distortion of events, intent, and facts from that conference. This goal, as I posted it, stays. John Hyams 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this para because it was unreferenced. What Curtains99 said above makes perfect sense. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

All references appear below, and also they are always deleted again and again. Facts need no reference John Hyams 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose the replacement of 'The secondary goals...' sentence with this paragrpah:

According to the Iranian Foreign Minister, the outcome of the conference will be as follows:"If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt. And if, during this review, it is proved that the Holocaust was a historical reality, then what is the reason for the Muslim people of the region and the Palestinians having to pay the cost of the Nazis' crimes?"[6]

Curtains99 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This was already there before. I feel that turning a blind eye to the secondary goal of the conference, Israel's right to exist, is not done in good faith. There is no hiding, Israel and a link to it, Zionism and a link to it, and their denial by the conference must be mentioned. Ahminijad's every second word is "Israel" and "Zionist" in the context of the Holocaust. John Hyams 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

john, would you agree to the statement simply refering to the foreign minister? i'm not particulary interested in what dd thinks of israel... but nk have a different reason for denying it's 'legitmacy', their issue with the shoah is they don't want it used to 'justify' israel. with the whole quote from the f m (or from "If the official version") it makes it quite clear what he's aiming at. ok that's now proposed, what would you modify curtains suggestion too? (i think the quote should be there, as it makes the point clear, no?)  ⇒ bsnowball  19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should we put pure propaganda of an Iranian minister in Wikipedia without stating the very simple fact that they have stated numerous times that "Israel" has no legitimacy to exist and should even be "destroyed". Wikipedia readers deserve to know these simple facts, which are perfectly reflected in the events of the conference. By the way, this event is old news already, I have asked to remove it and be done with it. John Hyams 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, didn't realize you object to his quote per se. i simply thought it necc. (with appropriate context) to establish the point. but do you mind if i remove the dd & nk bits & source it directly to the jpost art.?  ⇒ bsnowball  19:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

dd is an attendant, he does not proclaim the goals of the meting. --Striver 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If something is a very simple fact, it should be easy to to find actual reliable sources that state this fact. If it is an obvious deduction from well-established facts, state these (with their sources) and leave the obvious deduction to the reader. WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR are core policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself takes no stand, not even for the worthiest causes. And, by the way, assuming good faith (of other Wikipdia editors, not of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is also a Wikpedia policyguideline. --Stephan Schulz 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy. --Striver 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us all what we already know. Please do not try "making points" without the proper context or saying anything on the subject. We can all quote the guidelines, but we also have to give substantial points. Please try better than this, state your points. Provide your opinion on the subject, and show us your good faith. John Hyams 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My points are stated right up at the top of this section. You have not given any sources that one aim of the conference is to deny the legitimacy of Israel. As far as I can tell, you have not even given sources that someone thinks so. The current source attached to the claim [7] does not contain anything supporting this, either. It does state that Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped of the map, and that he denies the Holocaust. That makes him a verifiable asshole, but it does not support the claim. It also reports on the opening speech of Mottaki, who presents a propagandistic dichtonomy. But again, that is not a good source for your claim. I agree with your belief, but we do not put beliefs into Wikipedia, only verifiable information. --Stephan Schulz 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

thnx, that citation was what i've been trying to do (ed conf). can i now remove the dd & nk from that phrase as they're not supported by that cite?  ⇒ bsnowball  19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Issue closed. John Hyams 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry about all that. (i just hope no-one now claims its unsuported cos it takes some finding in the jpost art!) looks like i might have continue... :)  ⇒ bsnowball  19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed Duke; I think NK is somewhat supported by the ref. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) I think Jon Stewart put it best: If you're at a Holocaust denial conference, you don't want to be the guy ordering the kosher meal.

[edit] WP:NOR

Yeah, it's pretty easy to sidetrack and mistake your beliefs for verifiable facts. For example, the official name for the conference is the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, while the conference can be argued to be an International Conference to Deny the Holocaust (given the participants and the sorts of talk about the Holocaust that commonly get outlawed in European countries) or even an International Conference to Prepare the Path for a New Holocaust (yikes!). However, any such speculation is opinion. So where is there a soapbox wiki where folks can bullshit about it? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll find there are plenty of forums on the internet for discussing such things; this site is not supposed to be one of them. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiReason

Of course no one actually uses it. P4k 07:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign reaction

The "Foreign reaction" has a western bias, this should be looked into, possibly by including other non-western countries. --Striver 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the Holocaust occured in European countries, and many of its survivors either ended up in the U.S. or Israel, I think the list here is much as you would expect. I don't think Japan or Palau, for example, are going to have much to say about all this. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the Arab and the rest of the Muslim world? None of them is represented. --Striver 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah... well. I hereby put you in charge of this!

-- Kendrick7^talk 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol! --Striver 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My comment doens't follow the rest of this conversation, but it does concern the section being discussed. This might be quibbling over nothing, but as the page is now, the list of countries giving a reaction to the conference goes Germany, France, Israel, US, and so on. I suggest that France be moved out of the #2 slot, and have the first 2 reactions listed to be Germany and Israel because those countries are so much more linked to the history of the Holocaust. France can be 3, or 4, or whatever. GutterMonkey 02:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Another "I don't want to do it but someone should" thing: it would be good to cover the world press reaction as well official reactions from foreign governments. Judging from Google, it doesn't seem like Muslim countries' goverments are talking about this, but some of their journalists are. Here's some BBC stuff: [8][9] P4k 06:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KKK or K-KKK

American David Duke, a former Louisiana State Representative and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the original KKK was before David Duke's time. He was infact former Imperial Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. I believe the "knights" were heralded as the sixth resurrection ogf the KKK but there are myriads of splinter organizations who take up the KKK tag. -- Kerowren 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

fixed -- Kendrick7^talk 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major events/ discussions at the conference?

How come there are no major discussions, events, breakthroughs, and conclusions on this page? It mainly focuses on the goals and the opening statements but no newer information has been presented. This page, just like other controversial issues, has POV issues and I think we should hear what the conference attendees have to say instead of condemming the event. --Midnight Rider 01:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conference length

When is the conference supposed to end? I-baLL 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a two day conference so it should already be kaput. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image seems fake

The headline of the Iran Daily is the one for 28 November Assisting Iraq Security a Duty -- see here. I'm going to remove the image unless there's an objection. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have reverted your edit on this, Kendrik. Just because an online version is dated 28 November does not mean that the print version was from the same day. Additionally, you do not know if that particular edition was set out at that table for a specific reason. You seem to be assuming bad faith on the part of the person who added the image. Have you discussed this image with him> If not, don't you have an obligation under WP:AGF to do so before declaring it a forgery in your edit summary and deleting it? Jeffpw 07:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I went to that website before the image was added, and after the image was added, and I never saw it there. I don't think I have an obligation to keep a fake picture in the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, this is clearly a desk in a hotel room, and not a conference table!) -- Kendrick7^talk 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree (strangely enough with both of you ;-). The fact that the paper is from November 29th (or 28th - the website lists 29th) in itself is not a good reason to decide it's a forgery. But I also could not find it on the claimed source website. Has anyone brought this up on the picture page? I would, but I'm on the run to catch a train now...--Stephan Schulz 08:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I will do that now. I will also repeat what I said earlier (above): there are other images from the conference from the same site that can be included, as they make their photos non-copyright. If the image is to be deleted, please have a substitute image to replace it. That would go a loing way towards good faith editing in my opinion. Jeffpw 08:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• The image is indeed from that site, and can be found here: [10]. Kendrik, please assume good faith of your fellow editors, and do not label their contributions as fakes and forgeries before you check for yourself. Please double check for yourself, and don't make other editors do your legwork for you before you make baseless accusations and remove content. Jeffpw 08:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So like I said, its a hotel room. There's no indication these items are for sale. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, it is not a hotel room. It is an official residence of the Iranian government, which (to my eyes, anyway) is even more damning and indicative of that Govt.'s true intentions. The website claims the items are on display in the Guesthouse of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, and the caption now reflects that. Jeffpw 09:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, its a really nice hotel room. More of a suite. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hotel: a commercial establishment offering lodging to travelers and and other paying guests, and often having restaurants, meeting rooms, stores, etc., that are available to the general public.

An official government residence doe not fall under this definition. Please do not deliberately be obtuse. Jeffpw 09:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone please enlighten me as to the value of a picture of a writing desk in a room of the Guest House of the Iran Foreign Ministry in this article? Yes, it can probably "allow the readers to know" the "Iranian Government's true intentions". I even feel like writing the following in caps, but I'll refrain: Verifiability, not truth. Who cares about truth? Not me. I too know the difference between good and evil. But a lot of times it happens that I prefer the methods of evil men. Cleaner. This picture belongs to Guest House of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, at best. I'll replace it. Oh, and to say that DVDs are antisemites? That's not only POV and OR, that's <refrained for causes of wp:civil>. --SidiLemine 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite your refrain, it does not seem you managed to avoid violating civility. Your intended attitude and meaning is clear, and the "refrained" part does not hide this. You should just try to be civil to begin with. However, I agree; the picture is questionable. The Behnam 10:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right, The Benham, I got a little overcarried. My appologies if I offended anyone. However I think that some of us are strongly pushing a POV here, and while I would have expected that from radical islamists, or white supremacists, it makes me a little uneasy. To accuse someone of being deliberately obtuse is not a nice thing to say. It just happens that a government can set its gest house in a hotel, and it is frequently the case in some countries. Some hotels are government-owned, too. And from what I gather, it being a hotel or not is actually not the point Kendrick was making: it is not directly related to the conference.

While I'm at it, the second reference is a wikipedia article, and that's a no-no. If it is sourced in the said article, sources need to be represented in this one. I'll delete the statement in the meantime.--SidiLemine 11:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest photo

• SidiLemine, I assume you added the new photo. Do you honestly think adding a picture of Jews to a Holocaust denial conference is NPOV? It smacks of POV push to me. There are dozens of other images available, and I urge you or someone else to download another one. I do not have the time right now or I would do it myself. Jeffpw 12:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Found the time to replace the image to a neutral one that we can (hopefully) all agree on. By the way, it is not permissable to download images from newspapers. Please see WP:FU for this. Jeffpw 13:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is me who added the photo. No, it is not a Holocaust denial conference. And I do think is the most NPOV photo I could think of, as you could read in the caption. It makes it interesing, and not one-sided, as I undertand you would have it. I am not assuming here, but extrapolating on calling the subject of the article "an obscenity" right here on this talk page. Please explain how you believe I am pushing a POV before changing the image, and propose a less POVd, more interesting one. I think what you feel about this conference is quite clear to everyone by now, whereas I would love to have my own POV explained to me: I couldn't care less about this thing. I just care about this wonderful project that Wikipedia is. I think that people too emotionally involved in some issues shouldn't take a part in it, as the encyclopedic tradition is a very cold-headed one. About the newspapers, could you please point out where it says so? I looked in WP:FU but couldn't find it. --SidiLemine 13:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• From WP:FU: Some people find it easier to understand the concept of fair use from what is not fair use. Here are a few examples of uses that would almost certainly not be acceptable as fair use: # 5: A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g. a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low resolution versions of the photos may be fair use in related articles.

As to your claim that I should not edit this article because of any bias I might hold, I think my edits speak for themselves. I found the only quote in this article actually supporting this conference, among other examples. Jeffpw 13:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I didn't find that. Now, understand me. I am not saying you should not this article. The reason why I say people should be wary of emotionally charged issues is that they could get their feelings hurt. I salute your contributions, particularly knowing what you think of this. However, it may not always be easy to draw an objective line when so close to the matter at hand. I think the fact that you defended the "antisemitic DVDs" image when it was demonstrated it was not displayed at the conference illustrates this difficulty. Actually, I think that if the english-speaking world as a whole, including press & govt agencies, has a certain bias, it is quite normal that Wikipedia should reflect it.--SidiLemine 13:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that tempers have calmed somewhat, let me state why I found a POV push in your photo choice: to add that image, with the caption Orthodox Jews were present at the conference alongside declared Holocaust deniers, without explaining who they were and what their agenda was, gives a casual reader the idea that this is indeed a mainstream conference into the Holocaust, and not a conference that has a definite agenda, as stated in the goals. If that was an innocent mistake, I sincerely apologize for my breach of good faith assumption. Sincerely, Jeffpw 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, that can happen to anyone. That being said, it was not "an innocent mistake", in that I do not feel it is my duty to give the reader one idea or the other. I don't know what you mean by "a mainstream conference" or "a conference with an agenda". I won't argue about "my" photo on the grouds of wp:fu you raised. But I still feel it was a positive addition. By any means, "mainstream conferences about the holocaust" do not invite declared deniers, so the reader couldn't have been made to think that. The current picture was my second choice anyway. All that apart, I still resent you accusing me of POV pushing. My picture was quite neutral compared to the one you defended previously. This is an accusation worse than vandalism, with no ground other than me not flowing in your direciton.--SidiLemine 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Reaction

Why are only the reactions of western/europeon countries shown. This article is already biased towards the aims of the conference being insulting and wrong.203.51.104.200 07:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

...because the aims of the conference ARE insulting and wrong. Jboyler 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results

Hi. I added the Results section after finding an interesting report regarding the conference at IRNA. Any improvements and comments are welcome, as this is my first time adding a section. Thanks! The Behnam 08:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent addition, The Behnam! I will look for more to see if there's anything I can add. That section really helps to complete the article. Thanks. Jeffpw 08:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] claim about 'palestinian' opinion

• claiming that an apparently iranian organisation represents the 'palestinian opinion' is um, misleading. there is a palestinian government. if there's a sourced comment from them, it can go in that section. leaving this here as i'm not otherwise sure what to do with it:
  

* {{flagicon|Palestine}} However, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, Secretary-General of the International Congress to Support the [[Palestinian Intifada]], gave support to the conference, and said that the "Western and Zionist media have always been aggrandizing the dimensions of the reality of Holocaust, mixing a bit of truth with a great deal of lies."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=47967&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs |title=Iranian Cleric: Holocaust no more than a myth |publisher=IranMania |location=London |date=2006-12-12 |accessdate=2006-12-14}}</ref> ⇒ bsnowball 09:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bsnowball. It was originally in Iranian reaction, and I moved it. That was my bad. Sorry for creating confusion. Jeffpw 09:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Semitism

Don't you guys think it is un-necessary to put this article in that category? sure it may have anti semitic elements but as you can see here: http://www.mideastyouth.com/2006/12/12/good-jews/ there were jews (anti zionists) invited, and they were greeted personally by Ahmadinejad. thanks -anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.78.24 (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

• As holocaust denial is in itself inherently anti-Semitic, I don't think the category is incorrect. Jeffpw 10:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is questioning the reason for Palestine to have its own free state Islamophobic or anti-Arab? Is questioning the extent of Jewish/Israeli genocide against Palestinians inherently Islamophobic? No, not at all. Jews are not special. Questioning any historic event is anyones right and not anti-anything. MirzaGhalib 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• The conference itself didn't advertise as a Jew-hatred conference, or a Holocaust denial conference. There were certainly some people who may be described as Jew-haters or Holocaust deniers, but its not like they cursed and spit upon the "good-jews"(see the URL name above!) that attended. However, the category should remain, simply because the issue is related to Antisemitism based upon its perception by many people. I believe this is similar to the classification on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad page. The Behnam 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

-So this is the new way of Wikipedia, people's perception of things rather than how they are..Great stuff. --62.56.78.24 10:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• You do understand that the inclusion of facts agreed to by mainstream sources is essentially a expression of the common perception of many? Right now, we abide by current mainstream expert opinion in articles, giving fringe views only side notes. As someone has said on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia is supposed to reflect the position of mainstream scholarship. And note that I said "related to". Believe it or not, quite a few significant individuals or groups have spoke of Antisemitism regarding this conference, and while it would not be neutral to blatantly call the conference Antisemitic, the conference definitely has a relationship to the issue of Antisemitism based upon these international voices. So the categorization should remain because this conference has been discussed by many notable parties in the context of Antisemitism. The Behnam 12:03, 15 December 2006

Until this article is removed from the anti-Semitic category, it serves as a prime example of the under-represented view of the Muslim, Arab, and Iranian population on Wikipedia. What happened to NPOV? MirzaGhalib 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is in the Antisemitism category, not the "anti-Semitic" category. This is because the conference has been discussed in the context of Antisemitism, not because the conference is necessarily Antisemitic. Anyway, the article content itself, and not its categorization, should be responsible for representation of international views towards the conference. If you feel that these views are under-represented, I suggest that you try to contribute based upon verifiable sources. I agree that such under-representation may be problem sometimes on Wikipedia, but I think that this can be remedied if people of those groups just start contributing in an appropriate manner. So, any help you can provide would be great, thanks. The Behnam 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

could someone with tech skills please go trhough the references and fix them. I see that the code is there, but they don't show up on the page correctly (see #6 for one example). I tried to do it, but screwed it up even more, so I would ask that someone else who is good at that sort of thing do it. Thanks, Jeffpw 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persian Name

The original Farsi name of this conference is "ھمایش بین المللی "برسی ھولوکاست: چشم انداز جھانی"" if someone wants to add it in bold after the translated English title please do so. MirzaGhalib 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sacha Baron Cohen's comments about the conference

Did anybody see Sacha Baron Cohen's speech at the British Comedy Awards? He made a joke that Borat couldn't be there because "Borat is guest of honour at the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran". I wonder if this can be added into the article somewhere, as it's significant that a big Star is commenting about the conference, at a big event. There are plenty of sources about the speech on the net, so it wont be a problem getting citations. Here's one source for instance http://www.jewtastic.com/posts/3774 --Hibernian 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in this article. Sacha Baron Cohen is not a politician nor does he officially represent any state or other entity involved in or criticizing the conference. Cheers.--Burzum 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But what does that matter to the fact that he's commenting on it? Is there a rule that says only the comments of state representatives can be listed? In my view, he said it, it was quite high profile and it's relevant to this article, so why not just include it? The only thing is, I don't know where exactly to put his remarks in the article. --Hibernian 02:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not include every statement that every actor, actress, comedian, painter, plumber, etc., makes about this conference? While Sacha Cohen may be a very famous person his statements were not notable as he is a comedian and not a person who has any significance in an article about an Iranian Conference about the Holocaust. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection (first pillar).--Burzum 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The real point is, between Letterman, Leno, and Stewart, almost every event that make the front page of an American Newspaper gets cut up upon. We'd end up having to have a "jokes section" for any number of current envent articles; and that's really not the purpose of the wikipedia. Of course, this might fit into the Borat page, but reciprocity doesn't work here. (Stewart's bit about Neturei Karta cracked me up; but his timing based humor would barely translate here.) -- Kendrick7^talk 02:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was my post deleted?

I thought I brought up a good point, why was my post deleted?

Geoffrey C Vargo 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to reply, but replies to your talk page instead. This page is for discussing this article. Not metaphysics. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted your "rant", as you called it. I just posted an explanation to your talk page. Once you've seen this message, it would reduce clutter if you were to delete this section as well. —Psychonaut 05:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links

Do we really need a section for "Pictures of Iran's president meeting Jewish participants at the conference"? I don't think linking to a bunch of photos is a common practice for a Wikipedia news article (correct me if I'm wrong) and it seems kind of biased. P4k 07:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Kendrick, please learn how to edit. Why are you insisting on having that irrelevant sentence in the lead, and why on earth did you put it in quotation marks? Say here why it is relevant instead of mindlessly reverting! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegality of Holocaust denial in lead

This belongs in the lead. Not sure why it keeps getting removed. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of it to this conference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment in the goals subsection is quite adequate. I support the removal from the lead and not listing specific countries. WAS 4.250 08:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, especially since the instance we had ("questioning the extend of the Holocaust" is simply wrong. I checked the relevant German laws (latest German version, (slightly older English translation), and what is illegal is public denial (or excuse or approal) of the the Holocaust "in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace". Serious scientific work is totally unaffected, and I'm not aware of anyone prosecuted for it in Germany. --Stephan Schulz 09:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I did reword this with a cite from a reliable source. This was very much the way this was covered in the American press as a free speech issue gone awry. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't explained the relevance of the sentence. I hope you're not arguing that, because Holocaust denial is illegal in a few countries in Europe, this conference had to be held in Iran. And I haven't seen any stories in the American press portraying it as a "free speech issue gone awry"; that's your opinion and it's probably the attendees' opinion too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this provides important context. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please say how. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, Duke alludes to this in his speech as quoted later on. If the reader isn't away of the free speech issues here they'd be left mystified by what he is talking about. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia to put something in the lead because David Duke refers to it? There are no free-speech issues, Kendrick, or are you saying you agree with David Duke and the others who attended the conference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kendrik has already gone on record as stating that s/he feels Iran has more progressive free speech laws than Germany, the Netherlands, France and the U.K., so this current difference of opinion does not surprise me. I support Slim and Stephan on this. Leave that out of the lead. Jeffpw 10:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

More progressive in this respect; that's absolutely true. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole historical background to the Iranian president's deciding to invite these wackos to Iran for this conference -- correct me if I'm wrong -- goes back to the Mohammed cartoon controversy, where several European nations, in the President's view, lorded it over the Muslim word that in Europe they were free to ridicule whomever they pleased, even the Prophet Mohammed. This is his attempt to make a point, writ large. Of course I don't agree with these idiots; at the same time, I don't believe people should be imprisoned for their beliefs. That's the kind of thinking which lead to the Holocaust in the first place, lest we forget, and these European laws just seem to demonstrate a failure of their citizenry to outgrow such an inclination. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV, Kendrik. I have not read that the Iranian President has stated a connection between the two, If you have a source, please bring it. As to the last sentence in your post above, that is also your POV, and I ask you not to be so inflammatory here. Jeffpw 10:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You do agree with them, in other words.

The Holocaust was not caused by legislation that protects people from antisemitism; it was caused by an absence of it. You're trying to add your and David Duke's personal opinions to the lead. Please stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out, Kendrik, that you are over WP:3RR on this. you can be blocked for reinserting it at this point. Jeffpw 10:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, Slim Virgin, that you and I have just drawn different lessons from the Holocaust. You seem to have drawn the lesson that it is wrong to imprison and kill people because their beliefs are Jewish; I draw a larger lesson that it is wrong to imprison and kill people no matter their beliefs. That does happen to be something I feel rather strongly about. In any case, when google turmoil dies down a little, I'll try to find the sources which explain the free-speech/mohammed cartoon background to how this whole affair started. I find it odd I'm the only person who remembers this. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kendrik, I know what you are referring to, but I do not remember the President saying it. I remember many analysts inferring it. That's a whole different thing. Further, I hate to use the word naive again, but it does seem naive to say nobody should be imprisoned for their beliefs, if expression of those beliefs leads to violence against others. I understand your advocacy for the right to free speech, but with rights come responsibilities. That is what the holocaust denial laws address. Jeffpw 11:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am apalled and shocked by SlimVirgin's attitude. So what if Kendrick shared these people's oppinions? What if I do? Should I be put in Wikiprison? To me this is some form of bullying. It may be horrifying, but I feel that Nazis have as much right to read and edit Wikipedia as Holocaust victims. This is an encyclopedia, and right and wrong have nothing to do with the matter. Jeffpw, I politely disagree with you. I would be glad to discuss this on talk pages, as I have come to believe that you are a reasonable person. With opinions, but who hasn't? However, this is not the place to discuss what caused the Holocaust. To do so, please go to talk:Free speech or talk:Holocaust. As for the matter at hand, SlimVirgin said that "this was probably the attendee's oppinion too". How more relevant can that be? I am not inclined to have this detailed in the lead, as it is made clear enough in the goals section, but I felt the need to point out a contradiction in reasoning.--SidiLemine 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism

I haven't looked at this article since yesterday, and I am concerned that some bias is creeping in, especially in relation to anti-Semitism. First off, the word is used in the lead, but not further in the body of the article. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the body, either the sentence referring to anti-Semitism needs to be deleted, or it needs to be reflected/expanded later in the article. Also, I feel putting an anti-Semitism table in the article body violates NPOV. It seems to me that that is subtly editorializing to the reader. I know the conference is anti-Semitic, most others editing this article know it, too. But shouldn't we be letting the reader decide for themselves? Other than this quibble, I think we can all be proud of ourselves here, for creating a very good article on a controversial subject with only a small amount of conflict. Jeffpw 09:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The reliable sources regard it as an example of antisemitism, so no, we shouldn't let the reader decide for themselves; or rather, readers can decide for themselves regardless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I still feel that if we refer to anti-Semitism in the lead, we have to discuss it with that term in the body of the article as well, since the lead summarizes the body. The counter-conference is discussed in the lead, but no further mention is made of it. That could be expanded upon. Jeffpw 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we could expand on the counter-conference, and any further discussion of antisemitism could be made in the section about that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, or at least the beginnings of it is. Jeffpw 10:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeffpw, your efforts to avoid conflict are not going unnoticed.Thanks about that. SlimVirgin, the reliable sources do not regard it as an example of antisemitism. The reliable sources quote members of governments, who themselves are not relible sources. --SidiLemine 12:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, SidiLemine. That means a lot to me, considering we have had differences of opinion on this article. Getting back to the anti-Semitic table, I would feel a lot more comfortable with its inclusion if we had a neutral source that called this conference anti-Semitic. While I feel it is anti-Semitic, holocaust denying hogwash, the regime in Tehran says it is not so. To add this table seems contentious at best, and POV at worst. I am sure it was not added with the intention of shifting POV, but it certainly has the potential to do so. Anyway, off to the salt mines, nowJeffpw 12:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Furthermore, you have to consider the visual impact of these things. This is a huge navbox, for a not-so-big article. I think the category is OK for the reasons above, but the table isjust too much. This is not an article about antisemitism, in one way or the other. At best, I would consider a link to the box, or something like that. This is tagging almost all of the article, from top to bottom. Oh, and Jeff, I was very pleased to see how you reactedto the "attendees" photo. Great NPOVing.--SidiLemine 13:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am always amazed at how often the simplest solution is the best one. WAS moved the anti-Semitism to the See Also section, and I now feel it doesn't push a point of view at all. By the time a reader makes it that far, his or her mind is already made up one way or another on the subject. The article looks really good now, and I am impressed with us as Wikipedians for making something so NPOV out of something so controversial. Jeffpw 21:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

The term holocaust is used to describe this single event. It is not used in any other context as far as I know. The reason for this singling out of the collective deaths by murder of Jews and designating it a special position in degrees of deaths is interesting. That many Jews died is never in doubt. That their deaths were unique in human history is certainly not true. In my life-time I have witnessed or read about a few similarly gruesome periods in a country’s history where many citizens lose their lives in a manner that the mind cannot readily process. Rwanda, Cambodia, Australia, Sierra Lione, DRC, Uganda during Amin and after Amin, Zimbabwe, Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua, Burkina Faso, etc, yet in none of it have heard of the word Holocaust used. I certainly do not deny that Hitler targeted the Jews, but I prefer it if we use the usual terms to describe the event. The English language is full of suitable words such as: Extermination, Massacre, Slaughter, Butcher, Mass murder, Systematic murder, etc. Why was it necessary to invent the word Holocaust, and then to legislate against the avoidance of the word? What about the holocaust of the Palastinians or the Iraqis? Or is the magic figure six million the key to whether a death qualifies for certain terminology? More than 6 million Russians died during the same war, yet nobody talks about the holocaust of the Russians. Maybe I am not old enough to appreciate the special significance of a Jewish person that his death should be treated as a special case. When my uncle was beaten with sticks before being roasted alive on a bonefire, and subsequently denied a burial, so that he was left outside over two weeks for dogs to eat, I had a sense of a holocaust on my family. I have carried the image since 1980. I would say those who were collectively gassed compare favourably to my uncle. Why am I considered wrong? If I ask the German government to enact a law stating that denying my uncle's method of death should be criminalised, would they do it? I think not. Th UN should have intervened in such matters. Just because my uncle died in Rhodesia and the jewish people died in Europe should not make any difference.

The number of people with Hitler’s mentality has increased since Hitler. Perhaps the highest number of people with fascistic tendances is in countries which have not experienced localised holocausts. Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the Holocaust talk page, not here. The Holocaust article describes the etymology of the term (which should answer your questions). Cheers.--Burzum 23:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The holocaust in the English language means the WWII systematic killings especially by the Germans especially against the Jews. But "holocaust" is used (and properly) for other atrocities too. English is defined by its useage. The people decide. WAS 4.250 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The common usage in the case of this conference leaves no room to question what holocaust they were discussing so it really isn't an issue. The conference could have been called the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the European Genocide of the 1930s and 1940s against Jews, Roma, and other Selected Enemies (excluding the Soviet democides), but the term Holocaust is the more common usage. Cheers.--Burzum 05:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's kind of too late to change the terminology now and Wikipedia would be very point of view if it tried to take the lead with any such proposal. Metamagician3000 05:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mai Chibwe, Holocaust is spelled with capital H. I am surprised to see how these views of yours come up every once it a while, as a conscious/unconscious part of the deniers efforts. This was the first time in the history of humanity that people were put to death in a FACTORY-like mass-death production. Imagine yourself, your mother, your sister, your daugher, your grandfather, your grandmother, all together, naked, along with your old school mates - put inside a gas chamber, while still somehow believing that you are going to get a warm shower (and then perhaps work in the field or something like that). The doors are slammed shut, no light at all, and suddenly - screamings, agony, death. Then, imagine your family's (gassed-to-death) bodies taken out of the gas chamber, along with a whole bunch of other families' bodies, put in the crematorium. Imagine trains, loaded with people, travelling to a place from which they will never return. Dear Mr. Mai, Russian soldiers died bravely in the battle field, other civilians died in other means of war, but this event is history, named Holocaust, belongs to the Jews, and the to Jews only. Yes, other genocides have happened throughout history, the Mongols butchered, the regimes in Africa butchered, and many others butchered, but not it such a way, not in a such systematic, factory-like extemination, like the "civilized" German civilization could concuct. And, of course, there is the whole context, of the Jews, who were murdered/procecuted before in history, but not in such a way ever before. That was the peak of violece, it was the height of the human innovative thinking, of how to put a whole "race" of people to death and extinction, efficiently, documented, in the most "clean" and "cost-effective" way, just like putting rats to death, and yes, Jews were rats in the eyes of the Nazis. You see, this is part of this, not just the extemination act, but the whole context. So, dear sir, what are you talikng about??? This has always been the problem with Jews throughout history, I mean the way people like yourself are so "envious" of them and their history of death - this is so amazing!! So why do you "envy" so much? I mean, just like those people in the conference, who fume because they cannot accept these simple facts of unique death-context, numbers per period, and that simple fact that the Holocaust belongs only to the Jews, the "rat" Jews (I am of course saying this with irony!). And, of course, so says the English language. If you don't like it, you can buy yourself a ticket to next-year's conference. John Hyams 10:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It was indeed the jarring juxtaposition of modern scientific advanced European Germany with the deliberate choice of beastial ethics (we are all animals - it is ok to treat others as only animals) that so unnerved European intellectuals who had thought of Europe as superior to other less advanced cultures and peoples who needed Europe's "help" ("white mans' burden") justifying European dominance. Europe got a good look in the mirror and was horrified. WAS 4.250 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My Dear John Hyms. First, I am a Mrs Chibwe, not Mr as you seem to forcibly want me to be. Mai Chibwe means I am a mother of the Chibwe family. I write here in possibly your language English, a language forced on my grand parents by Europeans who, used tactics not disimilar to those used on Jews by Hitler, who himself was a European, and therefore does not surprise me after I have read my country Zimbabwe’s history on what killing methods were used. My current president has many European tendencies in his make up, which saves me the bother of having to (as you put it) Imagine. Many of the imaginations you asked me to indulge in are not too far from the reality that I grew up in during my country’s war of independence. I have seen a lot of atrocities in person and have suffered untold things. I do not have to waste time imagining as you possibly have to do. I have no envy for the Jewish Holocaust spelt with a capital. I had my own and survived to tell the story. The reason that Mugabe has not used the tactics you describe is one of shortage of foreign currency to construct the factory with. Besides, gas is not that common in Zimbabwe. The Darfor region is having a holocaust now as we tap tap on the computer keyboard to argue the toss about what we cannot change, while doing nothing about what we can change. Rwanda was systematic in that the government used national registration records and national Ids to identify candidates for death. This is decades after Hitler. I have no reason to deny that the Jews were targeted for special kind of killing. My contention is that the Jewish survivors and their progeny have used their experience to do the same on the Palastinians, proving beyond reasonable doubt that they did not learn anything from what you describe. Furthermore, the culprit was the German nation, but they have got away with it and have stood by while the Palestinians are punished for German’s misdeeds. Its almost like who is the easiest to pick on and lets pick on them, never mind who is the guilty party. The irony of the whole debacle is that the Germans now partly fund the Jews to continue what they started. Hitler could never have exterminated the Jews or made them extinct. He was cleaverer than that. He was just using the Euroversal hate of Jews to rally support for his colonisation programme. The current hate of Islamists has been successfully exploited by some in a similar fashion. Nobody seriously supposes that it is possible to exterminate Islamists. Before you start pronouncing the new envies you have observed in me, I am a practising Christian, who has never read the Quran, but I still believe every human life is of the same value. I do not excuse mass killers or try to afford them special notoriety, nor do I belittle the death of a little African child after rape by the armed forces. I do not belive in wars of any kind, seeing that "violence always begins where brains end". I do not have to imagine. I do not and will not ever doubt that the Jews suffered. I merely advocate the examination of the use of specialised words for their particular suffering as if at the point of delivery, suffering is different. Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 21:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article on which this talk page is associated. Please continue this discussion on your own personal talk pages. Jeffpw 22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so far for your contributions to Wikipedia, but I must still insist that we stay on topic. This talk page is not a discussion forum. It is just used to sort out conflicts on factual information in the article. If you believe that the article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has factual inaccuracies, you are free to discuss it on that article's talk page. But since this article is about the recent Holocaust discussion conference it is off topic. This article is an encyclopedic article and therefore it isn't discussing the validity of arguments of the conference itself in detail, but instead is just listing the arguments and the responses. You may find this link helpful if you have any other questions (or you can contact me on my talk page. I have also added some welcome information on your talk page for your own reference. Cheers.--Burzum 22:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why has it? The terminology used in the laws in question is HOLOCAUST is it not? Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It has already been suggested to you that the Holocaust talk page might be more appropriate for your rant. I don't agree, and think you and John could better discuss this privately. In any event, this debate has nothing at all to do with the Holocaust conference, and is distracting to those who are actually trying to edit the article. Thank you. Jeffpw 22:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please go to talk:Holocaust to pursure this conversation on a very interesting topic.--SidiLemine 10:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this on-topic?

As context is in order (see previous declarations of attendees, laws, etc), I was wondering if the fact that Jews were not the only people who suffered from the Holocaust should warrant mention. The fact that the attendees focus on Jews might be a sign of anti-semitism.--SidiLemine 10:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• That is a question I had never considered, and I do think it warrants mention. But first you might want to go to the conference website and double check if it wasn't mentioned. I am just about to walk out the door, or I'd do that myself. Jeffpw 12:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Shamir1

Your statement about a decrease in the number of Iranian Jews is not relevant to this article. This article is about the Iranian conference about the Holocaust not about Persian Jews. Nobody that I have read has inferred that this conference is about the change in population of Iranian Jews. Cheers.--Burzum 09:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. Burzum. I have also noticed Shamir1's POV edits on this page, and have suggested on his talk page that he try to remain neutral--he did not take kindly to my suggestion, I must say. Jeffpw 09:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why even add the current population? What makes the post-revolution population have any more to do with the conference? It is brief fact of how the majority of Jewish Iranians have already been driven away by the government that is hosting this conference. As for Jeffpw's laughable statement, saying "may I suggest you do not edit articles relating to them?" is not a suggestion to try to remain neutral. I am very kind, and I respond the way I should to people who not only assume bad faith and immediately label someone because of his own prejudgment, but try to drive them away from editing the article general. So Jeffpw, once again, you have not "read carefully" (and to your own words). Last note: Simple and brief facts are not POV edits, but removing them may be. --Shamir1 09:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from your talk page: Considering you have Iran listed on your userpage as a "Government I don't like", may I suggest you do not edit articles relating to them? Your edits to this article were reverted, and rightly so, for POV pushing. I am among the contributers to this article, and we all worked very hard to make sure it was as neutral as possible. I would hope that all of us here at Wiki would try to edit with neutrality in mind. Thanks. I hardly think this is trying to "drive you away from the article". Please try to keep the dramatics to a minimum and edit this article constructively. And by the way, adding that content again will put you at the WP:3RR limit. Jeffpw 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that your edit was to expose how Iranian revolutionary policies have driven Jews out of Iran. This isn't disputed. What is disputed is whether this edit belongs in this article. It is well documented in the Persian Jews article. Including it in this article is not helpful in my opinion because no part of the conference dealt with the change in population of Iranian Jews. This conference is not what drove away the Jews from Iran--it was the policies of the Iranian government. The change in population of Iranian Jews for this article is at best adding trivia and at worst POV pushing. As for your question, the current population is only relevant because it is the population of Iranian Jews when the conference took place. In reality, the number is extremely small so it may be valid to debate that it isn't notable. But I think most people will agree that the Iranian Jewish legislator criticizing the conference is notable. Cheers.--Burzum 09:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To Jeffpw, even after going through the trouble of copying my talk page, you still could not find where you suggest me edit neutrally. Requesting that I completely stay out of the picture when it comes to editing the article violates good faith and is not a suggestion to edit neutrally (as you try to cover it up as) but a suggestion to be gone from it. It is really common sense. So yes, keep the the "dramatics" out of how you so innocently just asked to remain neutral while I reacted unkindly. I get frustrated when people mislead or omit information, and especially frustrated when people introduce themselves in a rude and uninviting manner. As for Burzum, who has been much more appropriate, I will respond to your response soon. For the time being: Cheers. --Shamir1 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(Indent Break) There is a good point in all that: Is the 25000 figure really justified? I mean, all we've got to say they are angry is a paper saying so, with no other argument whatsoever (no poll, no union, no declaration of representative, no demonstration....) It is obvious they will be pissed, but as it is, I don't like to reproduce blindly anything any paper says. Between that and Burzum's argument about WP:N, I think it might be better off. Something else: someone added the "Ahmedinejad claimed that Israel will be destroyed, saying:...." again, when it has been discussed that his claim is not to destroy Israel, and it is not supported by the citation. I think we should just keep the citation (strong enough IMO) and avoid interpretation altogether.--SidiLemine 10:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

SidiLemine, the citation says "wiped out", which has a translation of the arabic (Farsi?). This has been discussed on his article talk-page, as well. Most newspapers and diplomats (including the Secretary general of the U.N.--see reaction section) interpret this as calling for the elimination/destruction of Israel. Thus, I think it is not POV to leave it in. Thesentence about the Jewish community is supported by a reference, and backed by a Jewish member of the Iranian Parliament. The reference spells this out explicitly, so I think it is likewise NPOV. Jeffpw 10:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The citation says the Zionist regime will be wiped out. This is not the same as to destroy a country. To wipe out a regime is what the USA set out to do in Irak (well they ended up destroying the country too, but that's another story) and in Afghanistan. I know it has been discussed, but I think the discussion was more on past speeches that took Khomeini's wording. This one is pretty clear to me, it is about overthrowing an alledgedly corrupt regime. I don't think the interpretation of diplomats is relevant here. This would be OR as in "A is ok, B is ok, therefore C". I largely prefer to avoid interpretation when a citation is already given. At the very least, it is redundant.

About the jewish community, I think the Jewish MP stands on his own. It is his opinion. The fact that the reference spells it out makes it NOR; not necessarily NPOV. I hope I am not being too much of a pain here, but I think this is an excellent exercise for both of us. At the very least, this should be "According to ______ , the 25000 were angry."--SidiLemine 11:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• The headline of the reference about his insane remarks is "Israel will be wiped out". So the reference supports the interpretation in the article. The consensus among diplomats and news sources is that he is calling for the destruction of Israel. I think it should stand the way it is now written. As to the Jewish remarks, the article says that the MP states he has upset the Jewish community. If you want the article to reflect that, make the change. But I do think the MP represents the interests of the Jewish citizens if Iran. Id he says they're upset, I believe him. Jeffpw 15:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who here denied 6 million died?

Much criticism is coming from people who have no idea what this conference is specifically about. They hear the words "question", "Holocaust", and "Israel" and jump to their own conclusions and call them anti-Semites. I don't believe anyone at this conference actually denied the Holocaust happened. Some provided lesser numbers then 6 million but nobody outright denied it. As for Ahmadinejad's out of context comment about the Holocaust not happening, I believe he was just attemping to instigate and knew his comment was false. The purpose of the conference was to discuss the Holocaust from various points of view and provide evidence for their claims without having to fear any persecution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.33.224.22 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

The conference was about politics and not about history or science. It was about aligning political agendas and not about the flowering of knowledge. It was designed to advance the careers of the participants at the expense of Israel. The deaths of millions of people in WWII (many were Jews) was a tool in this effort used to indicate that Europe should take back the Jews (because they were guilty of the Holocaust or because they lied about the Holocaust - one or the other, take your pick). WAS 4.250 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of speech. No matter how important freedom of speech is, we always seem to take it for granted. We are fortunate we can engage in open discussion and at times present our views on this sensitive topic. But are those who get thrown into jail so lucky? I think not, you tell me how historians are supposed to research when the only conclusion they can BY LAW come to is one that is concurrent with the government's wishes... We should learn to appreciate the gift of free speech rather than condemn it. Rather than questioning the Iranian president's view on the holocaust we should be criticising why the general public and imparticular academics - whose life and expertise is this topic - are continually being imprisoned for factually proving something that goes against the will of the residing Government. Putting aside how extreme - either way - one's view on the holocaust is, is it just for one particular type of view to be established as history whilst the other is sentenced to prison? This, is the crux of the issue that the Iranian president wished to address in his conference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arash123 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

One can legally deny the Holocaust happened at the top of your lungs almost any place on the planet including in every state and territory of the United States. The places you can't are a one hour plane trip from where you can. No one goes to Iran for freedom. They come by the millions to America for freedom. WAS 4.250 08:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, can both of you focus more on the article? It is nice to hear your opinions, but this isn't a general forum for discussing the topic; this page is to discuss improvement of the article itself. So again, please discuss the article in an appropriate manner. Thanks. The Behnam 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Historians of the Holocaust

Truly, this category cannot be appropriate. The attendees are not considered mainstream Holocaust historians; from what I can tell, none of them even fall under this category. Would I be wrong in removing it? The Behnam 08:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of being in a category is to help people find stuff. Maybe instead of deleting that one category, it might be more helpful to add one or more other categories to help people find this psuedo-history conference. WAS 4.250 09:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think, that may be good idea to add in the part "Results" some information about iranian sciencists, send to check out different claims about gas chambers in Auschwitz and about that polish goverment refused them to allow this. I believe it have relation to subject of this article. As it is known, there no remaining gas chambers, used to kill people, and there are no proofs that they ever existed except words and rumours. Of course, it does'nt prooves that there was no policy to exterminate jews, but lie is lie. If there were no gas chambers, then jews will lose their status of the most "poor victims" in world history. So poor, that they are allowed to expell other people from their homes. There are many peoples who suffered much more then they. Zionists fear to achieve status of the greatest liars in world history, as they deserve, IMHO--Igor "the Otter" 10:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiraz Dossa, Ph.D.

He is a muslim political science "professor," with tenure, in a Catholic university in Nova Scotia, Canada. He attended the Holocaust denial "conference," and read some nonsense there in support of Holocaust minimization; and possibly, as well, outright denial. This should be in the article.

[edit] POV

Does "Holocaust historians attending a separate conference in Berlin organized to protest the Iranian one called it "an attempt to cloak anti-Semitism in scholarly language." Need to be in here? It's too POV. Also, shouldn't the attendees be lower on the page? Why on top? Top should just be a neutral description of the conference. Crud3w4re 08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public opinion in Iran

The opening paragraph of the section Public opinion in Iran could be improved with a rewording from

There are more than 25,000 Jews living in Iran today. Jewish Iranians were upset that their government has sponsored such a conference.[11] Many other Iranians have also expressed embarrassment.[11] Iran's sole Jewish member of parliament, Maurice Motamed, said that: "Holding this conference after having a competition of cartoons about the Holocaust has put a lot of pressure on Jews all over the world and it can give nations and governments a very negative impression of Iran."[7]

to

Iran's sole Jewish member of parliament, Maurice Motamed, said that: "Holding this conference after having a competition of cartoons about the Holocaust has put a lot of pressure on Jews all over the world and it can give nations and governments a very negative impression of Iran."[7] Motamed also said "The conference has upset Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community", and an unidentified former senior government official said "Such conferences should not be held".[11]

the numbers in brackets are the current reference/cite from the article and same for this rewording, any further thoughts? This attributes the number of Jew in Iran to a direct quotes from a WP:RS. The part about about many other... I couldnt find within cited source article so I replaced with the quote from the former government official. Gnangarra 12:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I second you on the change. Please go ahead and do it.--SidiLemine 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support but since two other editors have expressed concerns over this section I'll give them a reasonable opportunity to respond first. Gnangarra 13:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better source

Could someone find a better source for Russia's statements. Our current one is: "Russia slams mullah buddies over Iran conference". The title kind of gives it away that it's not even close to being a reliable source. 203.109.240.93 19:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Please examine Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision to determine what, if anything, might be useful to add here. Then I would ask that someone AfD it. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge completed - nothing to add to this article. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goal

I have removed this statement: Another goal of the conference is to question the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel.

No where does the quote by the Iranian foreign ministry mention anything about Israel's RIGHT to exist, but questions the reasoning for why Israel exists, saying that if the Holocaust happened, why should the Palestinians pay for it...

That statement was purely the POV and interpretation of the author of the article. I think its just best if we leave the quote and let the readers judge.Azerbaijani 15:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions

Shouldnt the reactions section be removed? It is obviously biased, they are all western governments.Azerbaijani 15:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Um...This has been here for days now and no response. So I have removed the government reactions for now.Azerbaijani 00:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Put in some other gouvernments to balance, if they have reacted at all. If they haven't, too bad! Reception of the conference in the world is an important and notable piece of information. I've put them back in. And neither the UN nor Russia are classical "western government". --Stephan Schulz 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok well, I left this comment here for days, and got no response. Thanks for finally voicing some sort of opinion atleast.Azerbaijani 02:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. This is not high on my watchlist, I only became intersted when I saw the large deletion. --Stephan Schulz 07:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed higher on this page under the heading "foreign reaction." My impression is that non-Western governments either didn't respond or their responses can't easily be found on the internet. Like Stephan Schulz said, if you can find any other governments' responses by all means add them. --P4k 02:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Its fine. Thanks for responding.Azerbaijani 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)