Talk:Jew/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 →

Contents

Quoted figure of 6 million Jews killed in holocaust is a symbolic figure

This has been accepted as such by official historians. Due to the former invalid claim that Auswitz was the site of 4 million Jewish deaths, the number of 6 million was qouted as an official figure for a number of decades, however the true figures for Auswitz are closer to 1.3 million killed (officially accepted by the Polish Government since 1999) and as such the revised figure for the total number of jewish deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime is closer to 2/3rds of the 2,850,000 estimated to have been present in Europe prior to German occupation. A total figure of 1.9 million jews killed by the nazis. This figure, including statistical evidence outlining the number of internees, escapees, transferees and deaths at Auswictz was removed from the main wikipedia Jew thread by the editors. Whether in time wikipedia will allow a revised figure to be shown or will continue to approve only the symbolic figure remains to be seen and is entirely in the hands of the editorial staff.

The number 6 million was not based on the inflated numbers of Auschwitz deaths promoted by Soviet bloc countries, which in any event insisted that the 4 million number consisted of 2 million Jews and 2 million non-Jews killed. Historians have always been well aware of the Soviet death inflation and discounted it, and quote Jewish deaths in the Holocaust as ranging somewhere between 5 and 6 million, though numbers as low as 4.5 million and as high as 7 million have been proposed. The "4 million killed at Auschwitz" red herring is one the more consistently promoted and easily refuted claims of Holocaust deniers. Jayjg 02:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is a differance between Holocaust deniers and Historical Revisionists and there is often an erroneous tendendancy to confuse the two.

As is pointed out in the Holocaust denial page, the differences tend to be purely semantic; Holocaust Deniers try to appropriate the term "Revisionist" in order to gain legitimacy. In any event, your response was not relevant to the issue at hand. Jayjg 14:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Addressed to the anonymous poster: Could you please IDENTIFY YOURSELF whoever you are when making such sweeping observations with a tone of "pious objectivity" when in fact you sound like you are nothing but a Neo-Nazi. IZAK 23:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I might add that there is still no absolute evidence of a systematic policy of extermination of European Jewery by the Nazi party. A lot of deaths in internment camps could be put down to the rapid spread of infectious disease and the lack of medical supplies and drugs to treat it. A nation at war is going to be reserving its medication and medical supplies for front line troops, as opposed to political and criminal prisoners.

Izak, you are right. Thus guy has outed himself as a Holocaust denier. We should treat his edits as trolling and vandalism. RK 21:11, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Well, there's "no absolute evidence of a systematic policy of extermination of European Jewery by the Nazi party" aside from all the absolute evidence of a systematic policy of extermination of European Jewery by the Nazi party. But you're right, there is no possible evidence that will ever satisfy a Holocaust Denier. Jayjg 21:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think researchers should read: The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering by Norman G Finkelstein, before they trust vested jewish interests to selectively edit information on the Holocaust. Turning a historically insignificant event into a cash generating enterprise for a whole race was certainly an insidious yet clearly highly productive enterprise. User:62.252.0.5

Go away, idiot. JFW | T@lk 23:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To be more elaborate: if you would like to have your views represented here, you'll need to be a lot more circumspect, and realise how many people will get intensely annoyed with you for writing such things. You must be quite imbecile to believe that a perfectly documented historical period never occurred. I'm glad I've never heard to Norman Finkelstein, but he's probably no better than Irving and other notorious deluded folk. Holocaust denial is proof of only one thing: that human beings are perfectly capable of holding utterly untenable views and claiming that they're "proven". As I said on your talk page, you will be instantaneously banned for trolling if you manage to repeat the above exercise. JFW | T@lk 23:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since you are quite correct to label this anon an idiot, that should have warned you to not draw conclusions from anything it wrote. For example, Norman Finkelstein is definitely not a holocaust denier. I'm pretty sure that Finkelstein has never questioned the standard scholarly estimates of the number of victims. --Zero 00:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Finkelstein's own parents are Holocaust survivors. Finkelstein's issue is that they didn't get enough compensation money. Jayjg 14:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's not Finkelstein's "issue" at all, Jayjg. Finkelstein, like many people, is sick of seeing the Holocaust exploited for political and financial gain. The whole point of his book is to denounce what he (rightfully) terms the 'Holocaust industry'. Either you're a bald-faced liar and you're deliberately misstating Finkelstein's views to support your own arguments, or you're an idiot who can't read. -- Igor.
Igor, (User:149.99.133.209), you're sidetracking the issue. We're debating whether 6,000,000 is symbolical or real, with or without Norman G. Finkelstein. Your ad-hominem attack is also quite disturbing. Finkelstein might not necessarily agree to his views being advanced in support of Holocaust denial (as User:62.252.0.5 tried to do). JFW | T@lk 17:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Your ad-hominem attack is also quite disturbing." Yes, JFW, I am also quite disturbed by the numerous ad hominem attacks you have launched unprovoked against people on this very page (i.e. calling people "idiots" in response to polite queries). Case of pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one! Maybe you should be banned, too. -- Igor.
Igor, Jayjg is not lying. You are misrepresenting his statements, and attributing an agenda to him that he does not have. Further, Finkelstein is nearly universally regarded as a crank; his views that "the Jews" abuse the Holocaust for money and political power are not accepted by most historians as accurate. Finally, Finklestein is not a Holocaust denier in the slighest; he admits that six million Jews died, so using him to advance your cause makes no sense. Finklestein doesn't deny the Holocaust, he just imagines that Jews use it in an unethical fashion. RK 17:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Would you care to quote the exact phrase where I said Finklestein was a 'Holocaust denier'? I'll save you the trouble - you can't quote me saying that because I never said it. Proving, basically, that you are also a liar and misrepresenting my statements. No surpise there. -- Igor.

I am not suggesting that there were not jewish deaths during 1939 to 1945 at the hands of various instruments of the state. I was challenging the figure of 6million wildly banded about in the popular press and politically ambigious media sources and turning a historically insignificant event (if you look at the number of people killed by other regimes since Nazi Germany, there are far worse examples of mans inhumanity to man) into a money making exercise. Jewish interpretations of the tragedy are often at variance with actual historical events to as much a degree as those that deny anything took place. If Wikipedia is not going to rely on independant information and is going to continue to promote the holocaust lies rather then publish holocaust fact then how can it claim to be an independent source of information? Finklestein by the way, is a widely published jewish political scientist who is internationaly renowned for his book that details how the Zionist movement uses the holocaust to portray Jews as perennial and eternal victims of an irrational gentile hatred so as to drum up misplaced sympathies for Jewish people today and for the state of israel and its varying criminal activities. User:62.252.0.5

You are clearly pushing neo-Nazi Holocaust denial. RK 17:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
What a load of codswallop! --Zero 00:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Holocaust is one of the most massively well documented events in the history of the world. Put away that Finkelstein nonsense and read Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War. There's THOUSANDS of footnotes and references you can check. Holocaust denial is ignorant, stupid and despicable. Antandrus 00:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Close minded dogmatic mantra '6 million died, 6million died' is ignorant and stupid and despicable. Revising the information we have on a subject as new information and research comes to light, is the appropiate course of action and attemting to use that age old trick of branding anyone that Jewish people with zionist political opinions dislike as 'a holocaust denier or an anti semite' is just ludicrous. User:62.252.0.5

The product of the research of thousands of scholars is not "closed minded and dogmatic." 6 million DID die. Look it up. Study the books. Read something besides the propaganda of the hate-groups that harmonize with your little verminous world-view. There's no one as blind as the one who WON'T see. Antandrus 00:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous slander about mainstream scholars

Scholars? such as the this Martin Gilbert you mention, whose book continues to promote lies such as 'German Concentration camps producing thousands of lampshades for loyal nazi party members, made with human skin, and soap for front line troops made from corpse fat from the furnaces, what nonsense. This myth built up around the fact that the then OC of Buchenwold (one Karl Koch) and his sadistic wife Ilsa had committed some barbaric acts against the prisoners, including killing and keeping the skin of one inmate whose tattoo she liked. It is not known if she had this made into a lampshade or not. As soon as the SS Command found out about this, they appointed an independant investigator who found that the reports were true and SS Judge Konrad Morgen sentenced Koch to death for his involvement in 'incitement to murder' inmates. Strangely Isla Koch was acquitted, despite arguably being the one responsible, but was later sentenced to life imprisonment by the German state at the end of WWII. It was noted that the Judge was particularly keen to point out that under no circumstances must prisoners be mistreated in Buchenwold and that the SS command would deal with any transgressors in the same way as Karl Koch (eg execution). That hardly strikes me as a organisation hell bent on prisoner extermination. User:62.252.0.5

Holocaust Deniers are not debated, they are ignored. There is no amount of evidence that can shake their faith in their religion. Jayjg 02:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Troll is banned

Not true. Horrible trolls are banned (24 hours in this case), and they will be banned again if they remain incorrigible (?sp). User:62.252.0.5 should be taking this to Talk:Holocaust anyway... when he comes back JFW | T@lk 14:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Banning people for correcting information that is biased and untrue is hardly a sign of a valid editorial policy. It's been conclusively proven that the horror stories about lampshades of human skin and soap made from human fat is manifestly untrue and yet these so called 'scholars' you mention continue to keep that story alive.

The comment was made here as opposed to under the Holocaust section, as it was an amendment of the number of dead in the Nazism section of the Jew encyclopedia entry that triggered what can only be described as biased editing by Jewish members of the wikipedia editorial/membership.

Call a spade a spade

"To this day, Holocaust deniers continue to deny the extent of the slaughter of Jews."? What is that? I know its not NPOV... Sam [Spade] 21:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your sentence is worse. The Wikipedia article is aboutHolocaust denial, and it explains why. There is no "debate" between historians and Holocaust deniers. And historians are not "Jewish organizations". Jayjg 21:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, if you want this article to be an opinionated polemic, so be it. Let me know if you want to discuss the bias and factual innacuracy which you are currently enforcing in this article. The short comings of the Holocaust revisionism page (which I have repeatedly suggested should not be a redirect to Holocaust denier's, btw..) should be no basis for the POV rant you are turning this article into. Sam [Spade] 21:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We should be clear about the terminology! In the academic discipline of history, "revisionism" has a well-defined and respectabl meaning. It is the re-analysis of old events from a new perspective, or based upon new information. In that sense, many modern studies by historians on the Holocaust are technically "Holocaust revisionism". However, the problem is that phrase has been disingenuously appropriated by Neo-Nazis and the Christian Identity movement. They use the phrase "holocaust revisionism" to refer to their writings on the Holocaust. However their writings are in no way actual historical revisionism. Rather, they are anti-historical rants that distort facts, contain fabrications and slander, and which distort history in order to push Nazi ideology and holocaust denial. RK
Current Wikipedia articles do contain information about modern day historical re-analysis of the Holocaust (technically, revisionism), and these are covered in our Holocaust and related articles. Information about Nazi and Christian Identity propaganda masked as "revisionism", however, is correctly placed in our article on Holocaust denial. RK 22:26, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
It is where the line is drawn that concerns me. Sam [Spade] 22:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you called this "totally disputed". You have indicated the POV issue. What is the factual issue? -- Jmabel 22:40, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

"Slaughter", "first built concentration camps to incarcerate and kill its opponents". Those do not strike me as simply POV, but rather as factual innacuracies. Sam [Spade] 22:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wow. If the word "slaughter" does not apply to what the Nazis did to Jews (and Gypsies, and homosexuals), do you feel it ever applies to what any group of humans does to another? -- Jmabel 23:34, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
It would almost never apply in an NPOV, encyclopedic sense, but might in cases of people being vigorously hacked apart, which is not what the nazi's generally did. They mainly worked people to death in reletively unhealthful conditions, gassing the weak (young, old, disabled, etc...). I don't find "slaughter" much more relevent in an encyclopedic sense here than it would be in describing... say the slave ships carrying africans to the new world. Sam [Spade] 23:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, "...first built concentration camps to incarcerate and kill its opponents" is factually inaccurate; to my knowledge, they weren't used to kill people originally, but as a sort of storage house for political dissidents (Communists, anarchists, etc...and Jews came later). --Tothebarricades.tk 23:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My point entirely. No one disputes that people wern't intentionally killed somewhere along the way, but taking a stand on why the camps were first built is not what we are here to do. Sam [Spade] 23:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why and What is Sam Spade disputing about this ENTIRE article? Is he Anti-Semitic?

Are people here in agreement with User:Sam Spade placing a {{msg:TotallyDisputed}} symbol at the head of this article? (I have tried to remove it but he thinks it belongs there). Is this all because he likes the subject of Holocaust "revisionism"? Can anyone verify that Sam Spade is NOT anti-Semitic? Thank you. IZAK 23:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  1. I don't think an ad hominem attack on Sam is useful or appropriate.
  2. As I understand it, a single person can raise a dispute. "Totally disputed" doesn't mean he disputes the entire article, just that he disputes both facts and POV. The term is not his invention. It may be ill-chosen, but it's been around longer than I have. -- Jmabel 23:36, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Jmabel: You know the old line, that if walks like a duck and looks like a duck it's a.... (you fill in the blanks) . IZAK 23:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Vote to remove the {{msg:TotallyDisputed}} symbol on the Jew article:

IZAK

For the record I don't dispute all of the article. I dispute 2 sentances (last I checked). I have advised IZAK about his personal attcks on his talk page as well, and thank you (User:Jmabel) for your mediation and thoughtful comments on this matter. Sam [Spade] 23:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade ups the ante declares war on this article

Not only is User:Sam Spade declaring this article as "Totally Disputed" he now has upped his aggression against this article by adding the {{attention}} sign to it. What will he do next call for it to become a candidate for "deletion"?" He has chosen to wage a campaign on behalf of the Holocaust deniars and now wishes to talk in "calm" terms after offending the truth about the Holocaust and those who seek to deny it. Shame on him. IZAK 23:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I choose not to allow you (or anyone) to push a POV and remove the dispute header, but rather decided to call in the cavalry (more editors). Sam [Spade] 00:08, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IZAK, you're verging on personal attacks here. Reread Wikipedia:No personal attacks and calm down. Blocks for personal attacks are increasingly generally accepted policy, particularly on a contentious article. "Play the ball, not the man" - David Gerard 00:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(I've also warned IZAK on his talk page on this issue. - David Gerard 00:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))
As have I, though elsewhere, and many others. I doubt he'll listen--Josiah 10:27, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So? Next will be a 24-hour block after multiple warnings. I would hope this won't be needed - David Gerard 16:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam: it would be very helpful if you would (1) list what you consider factually inaccurate in the article and (2) list the specific words or phrases that you find POV. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric all around, I suspect that the actual argument is over a few words and it may not be hard to get consensus if everyone will just put down their guns. -- Jmabel 00:15, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Seconded! - David Gerard 00:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disputed sentances

Since I made the edits that got some wikipedia's editors on defence here, I'm obligated to join in this discussion.
1st dispute: "Since the aftermath of World War II there has been an ongoing debate between holocaust revisionists and jewish organizations as to the extent and nature of the Holocaust." This modification is a better version of my addition closely following the spirit of wikipedia's policy of "be polite and tolerate other people's opinions" or in short NPOV. On the other hand the edit that Jayjg made is obviously passionate, or in the ADL's words, a "bigot" like stance on the issue: "To this day, holocaust revisionists continue to deny the extent of the slaughter of Jews." The sentence basically says that there is nothing to debate about and holocaust revisionist are stupid, evil people whose opinion should not be even let heard in wikipedia, which is of course against the NPOV policy.
Sorry, that sentence wasn't mine, it was written by someone else. I just changed "revisionist" to "denier", since that is the name of the Wikipedia article. As for your statement, there is no "debate" between Holocaust Deniers and Jewish Organizations; historians have a view of the Holocaust, and Holocaust Deniers deny it. No debates go on, and historians are not "Jewish organizations". Attempts to frame this as a debate between two interest groups are both inaccurate and highly POV. Jayjg 04:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Comment: Are you saying that the "holocaust revisionists" are smart and saintly people? You are taking Jew-hatred too far. What do you have against the "ADL" usually it is only Neo-Nazis who care about the ADL positions in any case. See the web for that. IZAK 01:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

(Just by the way, is there any particular reason you keep on spelling "jewish" with a "small" "j" instead of the correct way: "Jewish"? IZAK 00:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Yes, it's odd that he can manage to capitalize Russians, Soviet Union, Stalin, etc. but consistently can't seem to manage it for the word "Jew". Jayjg 19:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2nd: Jayjg is right in saying that the edit I made into the soviet union section does not fit in. But: What I said is true and secound isn't it kind of disrespectful to the 30-70 ? million ethnic Russians, that died between 1917~1955 in the hands of bolsheviks (of which great many were jews), to say the Soviet Union in fact, atleast after the death of Lenin, was 'anti-semitic' while in fact anti-semitism was punishable by death in Stalins own words.
This is a non-sequiter; this is an article about Jews, and the deaths of many Russians (including Jews) at the hands of the Communist government (which in its earliest days included a number of Jews, but which later was purged of them) is an important historical fact, but has little to do with the article itself. Jayjg 04:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Comment:You are not making any sense. Are you saying because among the Bolsheviks there were ethnic Jews that therefore the USSR was "not" Anti-Semitic? What poor logic and distortion of reality that is! It does not matter who the Bolsheviks were, the reality is that the majority of all Jewish people in Russia - who were decidedly NOT Bolsheviks - were subjected to Anti-Semitic treatment and active state suppression of their Judaism. IZAK 01:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

3rd: Since you claim that "inmates were killed in concentration camps as well, by many different means, and certainly not accidentally" then let's hear the numerous (proven?) ways Nazis used to kill the jewish population in the concentration camps, if we are here assuming that people were gassed to death in separate extermination camps. I'l help you by stating one obvious reason: typhus. 80.221.0.204 00:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Over-work, over-crowding, starvation, improper medical care, beatings, shootings, hangings, etc.; none of these were unintentional, and all led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Jayjg 04:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Comment:Oh really, it was "typhus" that caused a lot of the Holocaust. How quaint. Oh, and by the way, if it was "typhus" why did the "nice" efficient Germans put people into those places to start off with?This is Holocaust denial of the highest order and should be seen for the trash that it is espousing! IZAK 01:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Question: Just who is "80.221.0.204" ? IZAK 00:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC))

  • "To this day, Holocaust deniers continue to deny the extent of the slaughter of Jews."
I dispute these two sentances. Sam [Spade] 00:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comparing with the previous version "Since the aftermath of World War II there has been an ongoing debate between holocaust revisionists and jewish organizations as to the extent and nature of the Holocaust.", the actual "point 1" looks more accurate. There is no semantic distinction between Holocaust denier and Holocaust revisionist and there is no proper debate about the extent and nature of the Holocaust. --Vasile 04:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam: For two points, out of hundreds, you are prepared to knock this entire article out? Hmmmm. IZAK 01:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about "knock this entire article out"? I disputed the article. When its fixed, the disputes go too (assuming concensus). I think you need to go take a break, and come back to this refreshed, ready for a new perspective. Sam [Spade] 01:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)