Talk:Leuchter report

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia

 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * 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:
 * 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/
 * 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.

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)