Talk:Leuchter report: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:35, 8 April 2009 editNug (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 edits rv, legitimate template← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:53, 14 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,279,352 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 8 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 7 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject European history}}, {{WikiProject Canada}}, {{WikiProject Jewish history}}, {{WikiProject Alternative Views}}, {{WikiProject Skepticism}}, {{WikiProject Germany}}, {{WikiProject Law}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Death}}.
(257 intermediate revisions by 69 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	{{skiptotoctalk}}
			{{WikiProject European history \|importance=Low}}
	{{Notpropaganda}}
			{{WikiProject Death \|class=b \|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Canada \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Jewish history \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Alternative Views \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Germany \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Law \|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 70K
			\|counter = 2
			\|minthreadsleft = 3
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(60d)
			\|archive = Talk:Leuchter report/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archivebox\|auto=yes\|age=60\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
			{{FailedGA\|13 August 2012\|oldid=505778475\|topic=War and military}}

			== This article is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages ==

			* The references are dead links
	== Conspiracy Theories/Crackpot umbrella classification? ==
			* The references are lacking
	Is there a wikip Crackpots project that this material and others can be linked under? Or would that just get too semantically confusing for wikip itself? I would lump WW2 Holocaust Denial in with the Moon Hoax, Intelligent Design and other such idiocies. The criteria would, in my opinion, be: "Massive denial of obvious and commonly available evidence." This distinguishes them from other crackpot'isms which work by "Clutching at straws", relying on massive mis-interpretation of facts or simply the complete synthesis of 'factoids' (In that category for instance could be lumped Nostradamus, The Rosecrucians, Illuminatus, etc and all that rubbish).
			* The references are full of comment spam
			* The references are extremely dubious
			* There is little discussion of the actual contents of the report
			* The opening sentence is frankly insulting to the reader
			* If ever there was an example of NPOV, this is it.

			As much as I am offended by the idea of people trying to rewrite this atrocity out of history, I am more offended by just how bad this article is. It is this kind of vandalism and trash that makes Misplaced Pages a non-academic junk-source.
	Just wondering if someone is bothering to take up the paperwork, purely an administrative matter.
	] (]) 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

			I have submitted the article for deletion. As it stands this garbage piece has little to do with the title and more to do with pushing an agenda. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*It's already like that. This article is in the Pseudoscience category and the Holocaust denial category, which itself is in the Pseudohistory and Conspiracy theories categories. ] (]) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
			: So people are still complaining that the pathetic "Leuchter Report" is being labelled "pseudoscientific"? In no way did I find the opening sentence "insulting". Not a word of the opening sentence is wrong. The Leuchter Report is pseudoscientific and it should be labelled as such. Frankly, referring to it is "pseudoscientific" rather than "total bullshit" is an act of kindness.] (]) 03:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
			: I think anyone with half a brain knows why this article is so poorly sourced and written. ] (]) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

			The article clearly has huge NPOV issues. The correct way for a Misplaced Pages article to support a statement that a report (in this case the Leuchter report) is wrong, is to give references to qualified sources (published articles by chemists, for example). Calling it names ("pseudoscientific") and citing attacks by journalists, historians, and sociologists not only doesn't cut it, but is also completely inappropriate. I think that the Leuchter report's conclusions are wrong, but there is a right way and a wrong way to support that statement. ] (]) 15:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
	== this article is absurd ==
			:{{re\|Sayitclearly}} I've removed the POV tag. Like most new editors, including me long ago, you don't seem to understand ]. You also seem to think that it doesn't reference any chemists, although it does. What sources do you think we shouldn't be using? ] ] 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
			::All of the sources under the first footnote are not scientific critiques of the report, they're all literary. The assertion that the work is pseudoscientific needs a scientific critique. ] (]) 21:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	the claim is that millions were gassed. but there is no trace of gas exposure and its supposed to be because it takes more to kill lice than humans? virtually NO residue is found in what is purported to be the homicidal gas chambers after killing hundreds of thousands and even millions? what a bunch of lies. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*That is not true - please read the article more carefully. Cyanide was found in '''all''' buildings where it was claimed it was used: "''all five crematoria, the cellars of Block 11 and the delousing facilities''", and '''only''' these buildings, as well as on ventilation equipment found in the ruins of Crematorium II gas chamber. No cyanides were detected in the living quarters. <font face="Century Schoolbook">'''] (])'''</font> 12:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
	:: What you quote originates from the pseudo-scientific Cracow Report, right? The cyanide residues claimed to be found at the places in question are a) very small and they also not necessarily resulted from gassing these pleases, since cyanide compounds can be found in nature. As for the living quarters, it is not clear what material was investigated there. One wonders why the attempts to refute the Leuchter Report are so full of deceptions --] (]) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
	::: The 'attempt to refute' seems pretty straightforward, though. Are you saying that this article is biased and omitting key information in order to promote that bias? On what basis might one say that? The basis would matter. Because the article is claiming that a) Prussian blue by itself renders further analysis redundant and moot, that its very existence points to an excess of cyanide contamination compared to surfaces or objects not so coated. And b) it's telling that the article does point out that for all the weathering over the years, that cyanide traces were still discovered where they were said to be expected, and were not found from ruins elsewhere in Auschwitz. Is the source in error? Is the article misquoting the source, or again omitting an convincing rebuttal? So again, a mere 'attempt' to refute? "deceptions"? on what basis can you say that? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:*Do you have sources for that rumination? ] (]) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	If cyanide is found in nature then why were there no traces of it found in the living quarters? How do you explain that discrepancy, if you want to advance the opinion that the gas chambers were not in fact gas chambers? This point should obviously be made AFTER you have admitted that cyanide is water soluble, and after having had decades of opportunity to be dissolved and washed away there still remains traces of it in the walls of the chambers. Then, after you have chased your tail in diversionary tactics you can explain why the camp guards told such interesting stories about the gas chambers when they were caught. But then, I am sure, you would say that it is a large conspiracy. It certainly seems that someone is advancing a conspiracy theory based on an agenda, though perhaps when you finally bite your tail you will admit that it is you. Nina] (]) 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	There are articles that support Leuchter's conclusions and attempt to refute the criticisms of his Report. Why are they not cited? Here is one: "The Leuchter Report Vindicated:
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604152626/http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/ to http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
	A Response to J.-C. Pressac's Critique" by Paul Grubach. It should be linked at: <nowiki>http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html</nowiki> ] (]) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302004021/http://www.hdot.org/trial/defense/van/ix to http://www.hdot.org/trial/defense/van/ix

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	*Because CODOH is an unreliable source. See ]. ] (]) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 10:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

			== NPOV ==

			This article appears to be highly prejudicial. It's also misleading to call the report 'pseudo-scientific', since that even misses the intention, which wasn't academic at all. And so it goes on. Also prejudicial is it to call a room "gas chamber" although on the document for it it is clearly indicated as a morgue. ] (]) 07:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

			:We go by reliable sources. I'm not sure what room or document you mean. If it's by Leuchter, it's useless. ] ] 09:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:53, 14 January 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Leuchter report was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 13, 2012, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages

The references are dead links
The references are lacking
The references are full of comment spam
The references are extremely dubious
There is little discussion of the actual contents of the report
The opening sentence is frankly insulting to the reader
If ever there was an example of NPOV, this is it.

As much as I am offended by the idea of people trying to rewrite this atrocity out of history, I am more offended by just how bad this article is. It is this kind of vandalism and trash that makes Misplaced Pages a non-academic junk-source.

I have submitted the article for deletion. As it stands this garbage piece has little to do with the title and more to do with pushing an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.2.70 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

So people are still complaining that the pathetic "Leuchter Report" is being labelled "pseudoscientific"? In no way did I find the opening sentence "insulting". Not a word of the opening sentence is wrong. The Leuchter Report is pseudoscientific and it should be labelled as such. Frankly, referring to it is "pseudoscientific" rather than "total bullshit" is an act of kindness.74.215.219.209 (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think anyone with half a brain knows why this article is so poorly sourced and written. 94.5.56.96 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The article clearly has huge NPOV issues. The correct way for a Misplaced Pages article to support a statement that a report (in this case the Leuchter report) is wrong, is to give references to qualified sources (published articles by chemists, for example). Calling it names ("pseudoscientific") and citing attacks by journalists, historians, and sociologists not only doesn't cut it, but is also completely inappropriate. I think that the Leuchter report's conclusions are wrong, but there is a right way and a wrong way to support that statement. Sayitclearly (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sayitclearly: I've removed the POV tag. Like most new editors, including me long ago, you don't seem to understand WP:NPOV. You also seem to think that it doesn't reference any chemists, although it does. What sources do you think we shouldn't be using? Doug Weller talk 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

All of the sources under the first footnote are not scientific critiques of the report, they're all literary. The assertion that the work is pseudoscientific needs a scientific critique. 94.5.56.96 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leuchter report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

This article appears to be highly prejudicial. It's also misleading to call the report 'pseudo-scientific', since that even misses the intention, which wasn't academic at all. And so it goes on. Also prejudicial is it to call a room "gas chamber" although on the document for it it is clearly indicated as a morgue. 196.25.221.94 (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. I'm not sure what room or document you mean. If it's by Leuchter, it's useless. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Categories: