Talk:Kurt Nimmo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Protection 2 Don't Threaten me 3 Regarding blog quote 4 Let's Make a Deal

[edit] Protection

Because of the constant re-insertion of material violating WP:BLP, despite a number of warnings and a block, I have taken the regretful step of protecting this article. I'm not sure what circumstances will allow this to be lifted, considering the users adding the material have made no response to attempts to communicate whatsoever. Morwen - Talk 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added sourced information about his endorsment of Irving and Publication in Holoucost denail sites.Why it was deleted?Shrike 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You added one or two sources that appear to indicate that the statements might well be correct. However, the sources added in no way covered the extent of the very serious accusations being made here. Please read WP:BLP. We need to take a very careful approach with this, as with all living person biographies. Have you got an instance of a reliable secondary source calling him by these rude words? Or is this just based on internet texts purporting to be by him? Morwen - Talk 22:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I only stated a fact.One my source go directly to the Nimmo site.The other one is Holoucost denial site that feuture Nemmo works.I don't endorse all other addition made by another userShrike 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. I should hope not. this sequence of edits, for example, makes a statement that isn't backed up by the sources provided. It says "numerous", it provides one example - we'd need a cast-iron source before saying thetruthseeker.co.uk was a neo-nazi website, as well. Morwen - Talk 16:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see it from the contents here is some examples.

Did Rothschild Write The Protocols of Zion? [1] Hidden and Revisionist History-Read all this section[2] I am not sure about Neo-Nazi but its defiantly anti-Semitic and Holoucost denial siteShrike 17:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a veriable secondary source saying that? Anyway, please read guilt by association. Based on the sources I've seen so far, it would be fair to say he endorsed David Irvine and has denied the holocauat. Morwen - Talk 17:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree to what you saying could you add this to the article.Shrike 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are not "numerous" references to "Holocaust denial" in my writings, so this linkage will not be possible. In a blog post (February 20th 2006), in regard to the conviction of David Irving, I wrote that the gas chambers were "discredited." If you bother to use a dictionary, you will notice that "discredited" is defined as "cause to be doubted." Indeed, this is the case with at least one historian, Franciszek Piper, a Polish scholar, historian, author, and former chair of the Historical Department at the Auschwitz State Museum (indeed, museum director) and is currently associated with the Państwowe Muzeum, Auschwitz-Birkenau, so I imagine that gives him a bit of credence. It should come as no surprise that people argue about historical facts surrounding the Holocaust and indeed the history of the Second World War. But for those intolerant of discussion, those who dispute the historical record, even in minor fashion, are "Holocaust deniers" and "anti-Semites." I suppose, as well, Lech Walesa is a "Holocasut denier," as he revised number of dead inscribed on the Birkenau monument downward from 4,000,000 to 1,500,000. I see no mention of this in his Wikipedia entry or accusations that he is a "Holoacust denier." But then, far as I can ascertain, he is not a critic of Zionism, so obviously he does not deserve the same treatment. As for the publication of my blog entries on other sites, related to the Holocaust or otherwise, Shrike should realize reposts happen continually, without my permission, so I have no control over where my writing appears. For the record, I do not submit my writing ANYWHERE, although anybody is free to repost it.

Besides, the case here is not the Holocaust, but vicious vandalism of the entry. I am satisfied the entry has been locked down. At least people will realize this behavior has stopped, although it went on for many weeks.

Please dont remove sourced material.Shrike 07:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Threaten me

I have a right to remove slanted and inaccurate information without being blocked. The article that is mentioned does not enodorse David Irving or Holocaust denial. It merely supports Irvings right to free speech. Nimmo himself has commented on this issue in the discussion page. This information was originally added by that nutjob shriek who's information in my mind has no business being anywhere on wikipedia. Don't dare threaten me Isarig, I know your history on wikipedia and since I know am a registered user that intimidation won't work a second time. annoynmous 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You have no right to remove well-sourced information, and certainly no right to violate (or game) WP:3RR as you have been doing. I have warned you, and will see to it that you will be reported and blocked if you continue. The article in question claims the Auschwitz gas chambers are "discredited" - which is text book Holocaust denial. Isarig 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To Abu Ali: Please review WP:ATT - self published blogs can be used as sources about the authors. Isarig 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As Nimmo himself state's the word dicredited means "cause to be doubted" not denied. Nowhere in his blog does Nimmo say that people weren't killed at Auschwitz. He simply states that gas chambers have been questioned, he doesn't say that it has been proven that they didn't exist. I happen to think that they did exist, but there are serious historians who have questioned them. Isarig stop using intimidation techniques. I am now debating you as you requested so let's debate it instead of threatening one another. annoynmous 00:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nimmo can say whatever he wants as he frantically backpedals, but the definition of "discredit", both according to the dictionary, as well as in common usage, is "to give no credence to; disbelieve" [3]. If you want, you can add that Nimmo tried to backpedal from this Holocaust denying comment using the above lame excuse (assuming you can find a reliable source where he said this), but stop removing well sourced content and gaming 3RR. Isarig 00:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The source you gave is an internet dictionary. Right below the passage you sighted is the Heritage dictionary definition which defines it as "cause to be doubted". There is nothing in this entry that directly endorses Holocaust denial or Irving, that is merely your own slanted version of what the blog entry says. This nothing more than a transparent attempt to smear Nimmo as an anti-semite because he criticises Israel. I am now debating you so further attempts to ban me now qualify as bullying and intimidation. annoynmous 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review Holocaust denial. Tewfik^Talk 08:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again there is nothing in this blog entry that fits under the definition of Holocaust denial. Saying something was descredited does not neccesarily mean it didn't happen, it just means that the way it was originally thought to have been used was wrong. If you listen to people like Raul Hilberg, he thinks that Holocaust deniers serve a useful purpose. By questioning certain things and proving certain things wrong they make people into better researchers. It's the devil's advocate principle. The person making the argument may be a scoundrel, but in there unwitting way there trying to help you. Yes of course there were gas chambers, but because of the questioning of some delusional Holocaust Deniers, researchers were forced to look at the matter more closely and come up with more detailed accounts. Kurt Nimmmo's point was that it is wrong to imprison someone for giving an alternate view of what happened during WW2, no matter how repellant there stance may be. I personally think it is wrong to jail someone for Holocaust Denial. It may be wrong, but you shouldn't go to jail for it.annoynmous 07:01. 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right that Holocaust denial serves a greater-good, which is perhaps another reason to present Nimmo's attributable foray into it. Tewfik^Talk 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blog entries are not reliable sources. Is there a WP:RS for this? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:ATT blogs are relaible sources for the opinions of their authors. Isarig 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "if it is not contentious". Are you claiming this isn't contentious? -- Kendrick7^talk 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not contentious - he does not deny he wrote it. Isarig 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It just seems like you are stretching the meaning of one sentence he wrote one time in one blog entry, and making it the forth sentence in his biography. It seems problematic on a number of levels. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to moving this further down, to the end of the3rd paragraph that describes his writing for Counterpunch, and I've already written to annoynmous that it's fine with me if he adds, after that, that Nimmo denies being a holocaust denier. But I don't think I'm stretching the plain meaning of someone saying the gas chambers are discredited. Isarig 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that if you type in the words "Holocaust" on Nimmo's site you will find numerous articles where he acknowledges the Holocaust did happen. One where he makes reference to the gestapo hauling people away to work and death camps. This would seem to contradict him being a Holocaust Denier.annoynmous 12:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true from a certain perspective, but Holocaust denial is a legal term of art in many parts Europe, where you have to be willing to admit that a certain number of people -- I'm not sure what the exact number is -- died during the Holocaust or else you can be sent to prison, which is what Nimmo is complaining about in his blog post. This is completely absurd from an American perspective where freedom of speech, if not thought, pretty much trumps everything; it's bizarre that Europeans have no qualm making fun of Mohammed and so have a fairly vapid double standard as to what is and is not taboo. There actually are no credible numbers for the Auschwitz#Death_toll beyond lower and upper bounds, but Nimmo is clearly implying, in agreement with Irving's past stance, that there were no gas chambers there. Which is a pretty dumb thing to write. I don't think it should be the fourth sentence in the article though when it's never been through a reliable secondary source. At worst I think we should quote it and let readers make up their own minds. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again the word discredited does not necessarily mean "did not happen", only "cause to be doubted" which is how it's defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, not the dubious internet source Isarig gave.

It should also be mantioned the circumstances under which this passage came to wikipedia. Several months ago a number of unkown users (supported by users like Shrike) began adding libelous remarks to this article. They included things like saying Nimmo was a neo-nazi and saying he favored Iran getting a nuclear bomb to use against the United States, all of which were untrue. Kendrick7, I suggest you go to the history section for October, November and December and see how outrageous these remarks got. Eventually around early decemeber it was decided that the article should be protected from vandalism after Nimmo complained himself as seen above. When the article became unprotected in January Shrike re-added this sentence dealing with Irving. Shrike as some may know recently got in trouble for adding some extremely libelous marks to the entry on Illan Pappe. I personally think any contribution he makes to any article should me reversed as they are untrustworthy.

Anyway, It seems to me that all this talk is for nothing as long as the article remains blocked.annoynmous 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the article locking and this Talk page - The article was lcoked so that the content dispute may be resolved here on Talk, and after it is, it will be unlocked and the consensus version put in. The circumstances under which this sentence came into the article are irrelvant, unless you are a proponennt of arguing using ad hominem circumstantial fallacies. The incorrect statements you complain about are not in the article, while the one you are constantly removing is clearly sourced to an article Nimmo wrote. As I've written before, I am ok with you adding Nimmo's excuses for why it is ok to call the gas chambers "discredited", including his (IMHO) lame semantic bickering, but you will not whitewash this statement of his away from the article through removal. On the substantila issue. Webster defines "discredit" as "to refuse to accept as true or accurate : disbelieve ". That is the common menaing of the word. Isarig 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! It just so happens that the article gets blocked after you've restored the sentence, perserving your own biased version of the article. It sends a rather dubious message about the paremeters of debate on wikipedia. Why should I even bother to make my case on the discussion page when no matter what I say, theres no chance any of my conributions will make it into the article. This is what I meant when I talked about intimidation tactics, If I ever try to edit any article I now have to worry about getting banned because I don't go along with the dogmatic consensus, or the article in general is blocked making it impossible for my viewpoint to be heard.

Please read m:The Wrong Version. If you are suggesting that the admin who protected this page did so in some sort of collusion with me, that is a pretty seriosu charge, which you should bring up in WP:ANI, with plenty of provable evidence. If that's not the charge you are making, you shoudl probably apologize. Isarig 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the definition of the word Discredited, Isarig you can't change the fact that the standard definition of the word as according to American Heritage Dictionary is "Cause to be doubted". It's even in the link you provided earlier above.

I gave you the standard definiton fromm both Webster and Random House Dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary also defines it as "To refuse to believe", alongside the other definition you prefer. That is the word's most common usgae and meaning. As I'v written, if you think this lame semantic backpedalling makes Nimmo look better - feel free to add this excuse to the article. Isarig 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, If you've checked the history sections as I suggested you will find Isarig's claims of "arguing using ad hominem circumstanial fallacies" slightly laughable. Is Isarig denying that these extremely libelous remarks were made and that they were demonstrably false.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the meaning of "ad hominem circumstanial fallacies". I am neither denying nor confiorming the statements were made and have not checked their veracity - I am saying that relying on the claim that the same editor also introduced a different false edit to the article in order to remove a well-sourced claim is an ad hominem fallacy. Isarig 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7 I'm sorry but I feel this is something I can't compromise on. It is an out of context blog entry that is irrelevant to describing this mans life and work. It is POV pushing plain and simple. Isarig doesn't like Nimmo because he criticizes Israel and he wants to defame him.annoynmous 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. Another baseless accusation like that and you will be reported and blocked. Isarig 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about! I try to have a conversation like a normal person and I get threatened with getting banned and scolded like a child that I have to apologize! Intimidation tactics through and through!

Kendrick7, Isarig is trying to prevent from contributing ot his article in any way possible. The tone of his previous comments speaks for itself. I am simply stating a plain fact that Isarig seems to have a particular affinity for biasing articles that have to do with Israel. If that offends his delicate sensibility well too bad. Notice his hypocritical reasoning here. He wails on me for disputing what the common usage is for the word discredited, but he backtracks on his previous statement on "Ad Hominem Fallacies". He readily admits that he didn't check the history section, and now readily changes his tune that he didn't accuse me of making up the libelous remarks in the history section.

Oh! and Isarig I know it's you who wrote that bullying statement on my talk page. Just because you didn't sign it, don't think I don't know it's you. If you persist with these intimidation tactics I will report you as well for your threatening and bullying tactics.

Kenderick7 I think it's rather obvious that Isarig and I have a dislike for each other. If my language regarding Isarig came off as strong I'm sorry, but I am not going to take being threatened lying down. I am not apologizing to Isarig, but if my comments offended anyone else, then in the interest of civility I am sorry.

I am not interested in this getting any more uglier than it already has. Kenderick7 I think it would be wise if Isarig and I cease communicating as it only seems to get more bitter with each resonse. I'd suggest that you serve as a intermediary between the two of us, that way maybe we can come to some kinda compromise. I think that would be better for everybody and it would make the atmosphere less tense. Despite what I said before I might be willing to compromise in having the passage posted in the notes section and stating what the blog entry actually says, instead of what Isarig wants it to say.annoynmous 19:41, 9 March (UTC)

This section has gone on long enough and has stopped discussing the article content. Let's continue in a new section; I should have started a new section when I came here to begin with. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding blog quote

So we can agree at least that either a quote from the blog, or our understanding of it, shouldn't be so prominant in the article? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving it to the end of the paragraph that describes his writing for COunterpunch. Isarig 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before I'd be okay with it being stated in the notes section, not in the article itself. It however must state what the blog entry actually says. I will not accept any passage that says Nimmo denies the Holocaust or that he endorses Irving.annoynmous 23:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving it to the nottes is not accepatble. I am ok with either quoting the blog entry verbatim, or saying "Nimmo has described the Auschwitz gas chanbers as "discredited" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Well I won't accept it in the actual article. It's irrelevant, as the article should deal with with Nimmo's life and what he does. This section is out of place no matter where you put it. If it's in the notes section with a small passage saying what it says that would be accepatable.annoynmous 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like we'll get very far, then. A subject's self-written opinions about the Auschwitz gas chambers is clearly relevant to an article about him - sourced to his own blog. This is what he did. Isarig 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't said it an't be included, just that it's out of place in the main part of the article. The article is supposed to be about his life and what he does. Citing an out of context blog entry makes it sound like this was the main focus of the entry which it wasn't. As I've said before I'd be willing to have a link to the entry with a a little passage next to it that says "Nimmo say's Gas Chambers discredited" or something to that effect.

the article currently has just a main part. If you want to create a section called "views" and put it there, that's ok by me. Isarig 04:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7, where are you, I'd really rather talk you about this given the contentious nature of the relationship between me and Isarig.annoynmous 04:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still around. Overdue for a wikibreak. Hard to stay interested until the article is unlock though. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems you miss the point of page locking and Talk page discussion, as well. Isarig 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest it be put in the external links section then. The Passage can then be written next to it.

No, the EL section is for ELs, not article content. Like I said, feel free to add a section for views, but don't think you will bury this somewhere where no-one sees it. Isarig 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Now can someone get Jayjg to unblock this article.annoynmous 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

why would we unprotect it, when we have not reached consensus yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isarig (talk • contribs) 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

This isn't article content though. You want this mentioned so I'm compromising and you get the entry mentioned with a passage next to it "Nimmo say's gas chambers discredited" or something like that. Your getting what you want, but No!! You want it prominent in the article as too bias the article. Why are you so afrsid to let the reader make up there own minds.

Of course it is article content - it is the opinions of the article's subject. I realize you want it out of the article, but that's not going to happen. Well sourced, relevant information belongs here. You are not going to bury it in 'notes', or 'external links' or anywhere else out of sights. As you say- let's let the readers make up their own minds, and for that, they actually have ot read it first Isarig 05:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also interesting that you said "Why should we unblock it" did you have some hand in blocking this article that we don't know about. Please don't get bent out of shape, I'm merely asking question, not attacking you. That's still permited on wikipedia isn't it.

"we" are you and I, possibly knedrick7, the participants in this debate. It's a word you have just used, too. should I be assuming you are colluding with someone in editing this article? Isarig

By the way Kendrick7 I have to say you've been very gracious and fair and I deeply appreciate your help on this topic. I also agree that any further debate is futile until the article is unblocked.annoynmous 05:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you don't get it, and the article will likely stay locked. It is locked in order that we get this sorted out here on this Talk page, so that when it is unlocked, no edit war will ensue. If you and Kendrick will not participate in the discussion, you will be waiting a long, long time for the unblock. Isarig 05:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again I have said there will be a passage next to the citiation in the EL section that say's "Nimmo say's gas chambers discrdited" your getting everything you want so what's the problem. Why is it so improtant for the entry to be so prominent in the article if not to bias the article. The article as it stands is pretty small, I'm sure that an attentive reader will be able to find it, how does this qualify to quote you "Burying it".

This is what I was talking about when I complained about blocking this article. Anything that I or Kendrick7 say means nothing because you have all the power because your version of the article is perserved. Why are you so afraid to stick up for your views in an honest and fair manner. If you truly believed in your viewpoint you'd argue it, instead of calling for a ban and arguing until someone submits to your viewpoint because you know they have no other choice. That's how unfair this position is.

What do you think I'm doing here, if not arguing for my view? My view is that if the subject of this biography believes the Auschwitz gas chambers are discredited, this is an important fact, and should be made available in the article. Not as a note to an external link - in the article. Isarig 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick7 I state once agin that you should talk to Jayjg or someone else who can get this article unblocked.annoynmous 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You should feel free to post something on Jayjg's page and ask him to unblock. Isarig 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to come back in a week and see if this discussion has died down. I don't see the point right now. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you have the advantage because your version of the article is perserved. If you want to know what I think I believe the only reason your on this discussion page is to wait until we accept your version of what the article is and then ask for the article to be unblocked once you get your way. What choice do we have but to accept because no matter what we say the article remains blocked with your version attached.

I ask again why don't you trust the reader to make up there own minds. I am willing to compromise with you and have the article mentioned with a passage mentioning what it say's. Do you honestly believe in an article this small that a reader will miss it because it's in the EL section.annoynmous 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The el section is not part of the article content - it's purpose, as its name indicates, is to send you elsewhere. If you want the readers to read it, why do you object to putting it in the article? Isarig 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it's out of place in the article. The article as it stands now deals with Nimmo's life and the different publications he wrote for. Then out of nowhere comes this blog entry that say's "Nimmo say's gas chambers discredited" it's out of place. Not to mention that it's a pretty obscure entry and the topic addressed in the entry has nothing to do with what the passage says. This entry makes it seems like the entry was all about denieing the Holocaust which it wasn't.

I thought the purpose of all this discussion was that we were supposed to be reaching a compromise. You want it mentioned in the article. Fine, my terms are that it can't be in the main article and has to be in the EL section with a passage next to it saying what it means. Your getting it mentioned in the article and the reader will obviously be able to see it. So what reason is there to have it in the main article other than to bias the article.

Once again this is why the block is unfair. You have your version of the article perserved and you get to argue till I agree to what you want because you know I can't do anything about it. Why do you have so little faith in the reader to make up there own mind. Why does this passage have to be shoved down there throat.annoynmous 19:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Indeed, it does seem transparent. However, it remains to be seen if the French people will rally behind the miscreant and Muslim-baiter Nicolas Sarkozy or like-minded individuals who have signed on to the “Clash of Civilizations” demagoguery. The French government may go over to the dark side. But the French people (and in fact most people in Europe) are steadfastly against the neocon plan for total war and “reshaping” of the Muslim Middle East. Of course, it would not be a historical milestone for the people of France and Germany to be dragged kicking and screaming into the deadly machinations of the neocon master plan. In fact, it was only 70 years ago the German people embraced fascism and there was very little kicking and screaming, save by those carted off into the night to the torture chambers and death camps by the Gestapo."

This is an entry from an article by Nimmo called "Sarko and the French strategy of Tension". Go to Nimmos sight and check it for yourself. It was written before the entry on Irving's conviction. Does this at least cast some doubt on him being a Holocaust Denier.annoynmous 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

many Holocaust deniers will happily admit that there were camps were people died - but they deny the existence of a genocidal plan, and the existence of gas chambers as part of it. I have no objections to adding this piece into the "views" section - we can have one quote where he denies the existence of gas chambers, and another where he says the gestapo carted off German people to death camps, and readers can decide what his opinions are. Isarig 21:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So if someone doesn't agree with your version of the Holocaust, he's denying it. I don't know, saying people are being hauled off to death camps and torture chambers sounds like an ackownledgment of a genocidal plan to me.

Isn't it rather obvious from this entry that Nimmo was telling the truth when he said discredited meant "Cause to be doubted". I'll accept that the word discredited has several meanings, but I think it's clear from the entry above that Nimmo was using the "Cause to be doubted" defintion. How can you be a Holocaust denier and at the same time say there were death camps and torture chambers. Both those things seems to imply Gas chambers to me. Isn't the point of denying something mean that it didn't happen. The fact that there are several aspects of the Gas chambers that have been questioned is a legitimate point. Of course they existed, but that doesn't mean that there still aren't questions about them. That was the point I was making earlier about Raul Hilberg saying Holocaust denial actually serves a useful purpose. If you don't ask questions you give the Holocaust deniers more power because it looks like your trying to hide certain inconsistencies. Asking questions makes you a better researcher. Didn't there use to be a controversy about Zyclon B when several Holocaust deniers sad it couldn't have been used in the Gas Chambers. Well then some researches came along said "Well actually they mixed Zyclon B with other substances", it made them better researchers. That's the point Nimmo was trying to make.

Im my opinion when you have this overly sensitive, strict, consensus serving attitude about the Holocaust you are giving Holocaust deniers the advantage. It looks like your trying to suppress inquiry into the subject people naturally start to say "AH! See! There trying to suppress he fact that it didn't happen".annoynmous 22:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not about "my version" of the Holocaust. It is about accurately describing Nimmo's statement that the gas chambers are discredited. You can add other opinions of his as well, which may place this statement in context, but you can't censor it out of the article. Isarig 15:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Make a Deal

I'll tell you what Isarig, how about we make a little tit for tat deal. The other article under contention between us is the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair. If you allow the inclusion of the similarities between dershowitz's book and Joan Peters, I will concede to having this entry in the Nimmo article. Hell, you can even keep it in the same position at the top of the aritcle if you want. As long as it say's what the entry say's and not "He's a Holocaust Denier and he endorses Irving".

I feel I am compromising here much more than I originally intended to. In exchange for this I want my edits perserved on the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair. Does that sound like a fair trade off.annoynmous 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a bazaar. Your edits on the Dershowitz-Finkelstein are origianl reserahc, which is not allowed, and have nothing to do with this article. Isarig 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a bold faced lie and you know it. The section on the similarities comes from Finkelsteins own website. Original research implies that I or someone else compared the books ourselves and then put our findings in the article. This is false and therefore your implication of original research is null and void.

I'm am offering you a compromise where you get something you want and I get something I want. You constantly berate me for removing valid information from this article, but when it comes to the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair all of a sudden your standards change.

I am trying to be decent and come to a mutual compromise that we can both agree on.annoynmous 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Nimmo blog linked to does the author deny that the Holocaust occured, unless the meaning of the term is redefined to refer to any and all criticism of the modern state of Israel. Saying that gas chambers are discredited at Aushwitz does not qualify as denying that the Holocaust occured, however offensive such a statement may at first glance seem at a surface level. But it is clear that this debate will go on endlessly because it is too tinged with emotionalism. It would perhaps be best to pare down the entry to a simple, unemotional biography of facts with a link to Nimmo's site and a note on the controversy (if any secondary source can be found to substantiate it). It's rather stunning though, for me as an outside observer of Wikipedia who is trying to figure this all out, that there is this much debate over one sentence, even one word "discredited". Isn't that rather disproportionately time consuming considering the article? What's the agenda here? --hyper_anonymous.