Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 18:58, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust controversy

This isn't an article, completely POV. AndyL 04:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • DeleteAndyL 04:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin 05:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even an article, just links already in Holocaust denial. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 05:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Holocaust denial already covers the subject. --Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Holocaust denial, and add redirect. Megan1967 08:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge etc. per Megan. Mikkalai 09:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. -Sean Curtin 17:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shanes 19:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. Improve. Check out the talk page and explore scholarly journals if you have access. Holocaust denial does not seem to be what the article was created for. There are lots of debate about different points of the Holocaust that have nothing to do with whether it occurred or not, which is what is covered under Holocaust denial. unsigned vote from 160.39.194.93
    • Note: 160.39.194.93's 15th edit. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 19:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all other POV forks. Szyslak 19:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. Severely cleanup. I see nothing wrong with the intention of the article, and it is obviously not a POV fork. It is a separate article on points of contention on histories of the Holocaust, not representing any single point of view. The Holocaust article is huge already and this is a way of allowing it to tell the mainstream history while this article can talk about what points are disputed or may be slanted.
    • Note: 128.59.156.197's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: That may be, but looking at the history page of the Holocaust article I see a rash rv from your side recently (see last two days). unsigned comment (and second edit) by 128.59.156.197
  • Delete. What is in this that isn't in Holocaust denial? HyperZonktalk 02:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay, anything of value already covered in Holocaust denial. Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This "128.59.156.197" again. Please substantiate your claims. What in the Holocaust Denial article is covered in the Holocaust Controversy article? What between the two articles is the same in terms of intention? I also see no responses in the talk page of the Holocaust Controversy article. I strongly see controversies that do not have to do with Holocaust Denial, meaning not having to do with whether the Holocaust really occurred, whether there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy, or in numbers of Jews that died. There is healthy debate in academia regarding the politicization (and commercialism) of the memory and history of the Holocaust, its uniqueness, and its moral implications. Ariel Sharon, for example, recently justified Israeli foreign policy on the basis of the Holocaust. I'm not saying he's wrong, but that's quite a statement. I would hope Wikipedia could reflect the debate within academia.

This "128.59.156.197" again again. Take a look at the talk page for Holocaust Denial. You will Jayjg completely denies any possibility for legitimate revisionism when it comes to Holocaust histories when for academics, nothing is beyond revision. He seems to be either using multiple identities or working in conjunction with a group to shout down anyone that tries to differentiate between deniers and serious academic revisionists. I think it's gross that people would deny the actual occurence of the Holocaust. But do you think the strong feelings of nationalism during the time of state-formation of Israel would influence their view of the history of the Holocaust? This is a well-known phenomenon that is illustrated here: The Future of the Past: Historiographical Disputes and Competing Memories in Germany and Israel. Daniel Levy. History and Theory, Vol. 38, No. 1. (Feb., 1999), pp. 51-66. He talks about nationalism influence German and Israeli views. That's why I think Sharon's statement is important. He's not necessarily wrong but he has a lot more incentive to take one perspective over another in order to justify current Israeli foreign policy. I apologize for listing here, but no one is going to the talk page of the article to discuss there so I felt this was the best way to encourage substantial debate.

Three other editors reverted your changes before I ever even saw them. I have no idea who two of those editors are. Get a grip. Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
128.59.156.197, are you the same person as IP 160.39.194.93 who created the Holocaust controversy page? SlimVirgin 07:56, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not him, though you know what's interesting? That paper is from a class I took on the Holocaust. I wouldn't be surprised if he's at another university taking a similar class.--160.39.194.93 08:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Or even the same university. Both 128.59.156.197 and 160.39.194.93 are registered to Columbia University in New York. Also, 128 complains that no one's going to the talk page, but hasn't done so himself/herself; but 160 has, so I think even 128's getting confused about which IP address s/he's used to post where. You're not supposed to vote twice. SlimVirgin 08:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Okay great, now see, I'm the one that brought up the university connection and I guess I should've done a reverse lookup, but doesn't that make even more sense that two university students, now I suspect having taken/taking probably the same class even, would be the only one posting serious papers? Don't you think if I wanted to I could register a bunch of names and do it that way in a lot more concealed way? I think we should focus on the issues here.--160.39.194.93 18:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think there's any info worth merging. Carrp | Talk 06:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Linnwood 07:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.