| Revision as of 04:32, 9 April 2003 editJtdirl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,275 edits Good idea. bad article← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:43, 9 April 2003 edit undoJtdirl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,275 edits explanation for paragraph removalNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| Oh God. This is the sort of article I dread. I agree with its premise, that Holocaust denial people are a bunch of neo-fascist apologists and nutters. But how do you write an NPOV article on this rubbish? Certainly this isn't it. Facts should convince people, not rhetoric and this article is too POV to be of any use in undermining the 'deny the holocaust' industry. It has all the subtlety of a 'brick through the window', overplays terms (kill, murder, genocide - yet they all happened, but if you lay it on this thick, readers are going to dismiss the article as biased and so worthless.) and throws up all sorts of irrelevances; when it comes to the holocaust, petty flame wars on net talks are irrelevent. It needs pruning, rewriting and toning down. When toned down, it stands a far better of chance of actually convincing people about just how loopy holocaust deniers really are. ] 04:32 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) | Oh God. This is the sort of article I dread. I agree with its premise, that Holocaust denial people are a bunch of neo-fascist apologists and nutters. But how do you write an NPOV article on this rubbish? Certainly this isn't it. Facts should convince people, not rhetoric and this article is too POV to be of any use in undermining the 'deny the holocaust' industry. It has all the subtlety of a 'brick through the window', overplays terms (kill, murder, genocide - yet they all happened, but if you lay it on this thick, readers are going to dismiss the article as biased and so worthless.) and throws up all sorts of irrelevances; when it comes to the holocaust, petty flame wars on net talks are irrelevent. It needs pruning, rewriting and toning down. When toned down, it stands a far better of chance of actually convincing people about just how loopy holocaust deniers really are. ] 04:32 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| Removed the following | |||
| With the advent of the ] in the ] and early ], a small number of Holocaust deniers found a worldwide audience for their writings. Certain supporters of Holocaust denial made names for themselves by repeatedly (critics say "endlessly") re-posting their writings over and over in many ] newsgroups, sparking vicious ]. These online arguments appeared to be eternal and unending, because the supporters of Holocaust denial refused to particiate in logical discussions and repeatedly stated that the Holocaust was a hoax, refusing to admit the existence of the considerable evidence disproving their statements. In the end, the holocaust denial faction was largely ignored and ] online. | |||
| # Internet rows are irrelevent to this article, certainly when written like this. If it should be covered, it needs to be NPOVed. | |||
| # When it comes to the issue of holocaust denial, flame wars are about as irrelevant to the serious issue of the article as it can be. So what if there are flame wars? There are flame wars on just about everything on the net, from the war in Iraq to Kylie Minogue's bum size. Bringing in flame wars to an article like this trivialises the top (though the person who added in this no doubt never meant to) | |||
| # the last line is POV. That doesn't mean it isn't right, but NPOV means showing the evidence and letting the reader see for themselves, not have the author state something as gospel. | |||
| # 'critics say endlessly' - another POV piece that simply undermines the NPOV the article should have. | |||
| This paragraph throws up largely irrelevant information in an emotive form and a clear POV that undermines whatever chance the article has of undermining the nutters who deny the holocaust. Show the evidence, don't state things as fact. ] 04:43 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:43, 9 April 2003
I know we want to be NPOV here, but Holocaust denial is such a peculiar thing, "the belief that Germany did not kill millions of Jews, but certainly should have for making up a lie that Germany killed millions of Jews". I state the position crudely because I have never been able to understand what is the sense or function of Holocaust denial in the overall anti-Semitic scheme of things. Ortolan88 08:37 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)
It's hard to understand the reasons associated with hatred. I suppose hatred is, at bottom, completely irrational.
But Jews seem to have attracted a lot of hatred. This hatred has taken the form of discrimination, segragation and genocide.
Often people feel a need to justify their attitudes or actions. So, after doing something "bad" we either say it was really "good" or deny having done it at all.
- He hit me first.
- We were just playing
- I was only kidding.
- Fight? What fight?
As for as making restitution for past misdeeds, if the deed never occurred, how can I be required to make restitution? If Jews weren't nearly wiped out in Europe, why should anyone requite that injustice by giving the more fertile land in Palestine?
I know this is awfully simplistic, but I daresay much of the rhetoric about these issues aren't entirely rationally based. Ed Poor
Oh God. This is the sort of article I dread. I agree with its premise, that Holocaust denial people are a bunch of neo-fascist apologists and nutters. But how do you write an NPOV article on this rubbish? Certainly this isn't it. Facts should convince people, not rhetoric and this article is too POV to be of any use in undermining the 'deny the holocaust' industry. It has all the subtlety of a 'brick through the window', overplays terms (kill, murder, genocide - yet they all happened, but if you lay it on this thick, readers are going to dismiss the article as biased and so worthless.) and throws up all sorts of irrelevances; when it comes to the holocaust, petty flame wars on net talks are irrelevent. It needs pruning, rewriting and toning down. When toned down, it stands a far better of chance of actually convincing people about just how loopy holocaust deniers really are. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:32 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
Removed the following
With the advent of the Internet in the 1990s and early 21st century, a small number of Holocaust deniers found a worldwide audience for their writings. Certain supporters of Holocaust denial made names for themselves by repeatedly (critics say "endlessly") re-posting their writings over and over in many Usenet newsgroups, sparking vicious flame wars. These online arguments appeared to be eternal and unending, because the supporters of Holocaust denial refused to particiate in logical discussions and repeatedly stated that the Holocaust was a hoax, refusing to admit the existence of the considerable evidence disproving their statements. In the end, the holocaust denial faction was largely ignored and killfiled online.
- Internet rows are irrelevent to this article, certainly when written like this. If it should be covered, it needs to be NPOVed.
- When it comes to the issue of holocaust denial, flame wars are about as irrelevant to the serious issue of the article as it can be. So what if there are flame wars? There are flame wars on just about everything on the net, from the war in Iraq to Kylie Minogue's bum size. Bringing in flame wars to an article like this trivialises the top (though the person who added in this no doubt never meant to)
- the last line is POV. That doesn't mean it isn't right, but NPOV means showing the evidence and letting the reader see for themselves, not have the author state something as gospel.
- 'critics say endlessly' - another POV piece that simply undermines the NPOV the article should have.
This paragraph throws up largely irrelevant information in an emotive form and a clear POV that undermines whatever chance the article has of undermining the nutters who deny the holocaust. Show the evidence, don't state things as fact. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:43 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)