Talk:Robert Faurisson/Archive 1

Link rm
Hi TickleMe, my reason for deleting the external link was that this article is on Robert Faurisson, not the holocaust in general. Any links should really be to articles rebutting his specific arguments. Readers interested in the holocaust or holocaust denial in general can go to those pages and see links to external articles rebutting them. I'm not disputing the quality of the link. I left the nizkor link as a sort of compromise, but I do feel that including multiple links to holocaust websites not directly related to Faurisson is a bad idea. Regards, Ashmoo 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of education ( not fairness, that would be asking too much ) could you include some more links to the subjects actual writings, etc and not restrict your readers to nitzor,et al. Nitzor has its uses but trying to find out what an author originally said is not one of them. Thanks loads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 January 2007

"In 1991, Faurisson was removed from his university chair on the basis of his views under the Gayssot Act"
AFAIK (see fr:), he was not removed because of the Gayssot Act (which is a penal law), but he mas moved from the university to the center of distance education because the university could not protect him from potential assaults (ie. what mattered to the university was the threats against him, not the cause of these threats). Apokrif 18:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the removal was initiated by Lionel Jospin, who came in to power in 1997.

Would a citation get this changed or not?159.105.80.141 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Core Statement
Robert Faurisson was the first to describe the technical impossibility of the mass gassings in the areas designated as gas chambers with Zyklon B, as testified to by eyewitnesses. The following sentence is a clear statement of the core of Faurisson's argument:


 * "If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and then, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making touching and carrying them a deadly business. The ventilation and exhaustion of cyanide gas is very time-consuming and difficult. It adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands. Contact through the skin alone may lead to intoxication."

Interestingly, this is a discussion of scientifically verifiable facts alone, yet some would assert it is a "denial" of the holocaust.

Doremifasolatido 12:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is not only whether it is verifiable, but also whether it is relevant:
 * "''adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands'""
 * Where the nazis intersted in the health of the people who operated the gas chambers? Apokrif 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't so much the long-term health effects that Faurisson is referring to as the instantaneous death of the workers removing bodies from the gas chambers. Hard to murder millions of people when the workers themselves are dying as rapidly as the victims. 69.109.116.216 10:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an even better, more succinct version edited by TickleMe:


 * As core arguments Faurisson claims that the Nazi gas chambers would have needed a perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making further handling lethal.

Doremifasolatido 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the core of his ideas - pretty straight forward and so far hasn't been refuted. No wonder he is hated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)


 * Faurisson isn't hated -- he's mostly scorned and laughed at. His "ideas" are both idiotic and have been refuted almost since he started spouting them. But, then the "core" of his ideas isn't about truth, but about the truth as he'd like it to be, the historical evidence be damned.
 * Most of his arguement is about chemistry, a field he has no qualifications in. Cyanide gas is lighter then air -- so as long as it's not trapped in a room (all doors closed), it will rise by itself. And he provides no evidence that the gas "would adhere stubbornly to the bodies" in a lethal form. Cantankrus 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hated, and how!, he just exposes total follishness. Things like homicidial gas chambeers with windows and door handles on the inside - what an SOB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)


 * Most of what he contends is "follishness", and has been demonstrated to be false. But, like most revisionists/deniers, he (and you) will continue to parrot already debunked information. Cantankrus 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't debunk science and common sense. Those devilishly smart Germans put windows in a gas chamber - please come up with a better story. There method of keeping an industrial murder machine going was to have sonderkommandos die on their first job - really smart of those Germans ( you would think the doors would get clogged after a short time - how did they keep up the pace ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 January 2007


 * While its true that you can't debunk science and common sense, its too bad revisionists don't use either in most of their arguements. Keep it up though, I'm sure there are a few conspiracy theorists that might buy into it. Cantankrus 07:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're very witty and funny, Cantankrus, but why don't you back up your positions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.195.109 (talk) 20:32, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It would be worth including Friedrich Paul Berg's criticisms of Faurisson's scientific understanding which are described on this page here:

http://www.nazigassings.com/faurisson.html

I've avoided posting it myself since I know that some people are hyper-sensitive about having a revisionist link posted. The Berg article is relevant though because Berg is specifically taking issue with Faurisson's scientific competence. My own sense of Faurisson is that he was very good at reading through the orthodox histories (e.g. Hilberg, Poliakov) and pointing out gaps, but that Berg is correct that Faurisson overextended himself when claiming to offer scientific arguments beyond the level of merely raising questions. I think the Berg article would be a relevant companion link to the main page as a way of offering people a chance to see where Faurisson has been critiqued by other revisionists on scientific issues.

International law
"Faurisson was sued at least three times under complex French and international laws over" I think only French law was relevant in these cases (the Gayssot Law, which was passed later, contains a reference to the law about the Nuremberg trial, but only national penal law can be used as a basis of prosecution). Apokrif 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That would have been a good thing to change if the passage had been allowed to remain in the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Proskauer 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny sentence
"Faurisson was born in Shepperton, then in Middlesex, now in Surrey, England to a French father and a Scottish mother."

I'm pretty sure he wasn't born three different times... Does it mean that sources are inconsistent on his place of birth? This should be clarified. Grand master  ka  21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed it so that it isn't funny. At the time if his birth, Shepperton was in Middlesex, but now it's in Surrey. I removed the bit about Surrey. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The short paragraph about the alleged Anne Frank Forgery
not one single source sited in this paragraph, the paragraph seems like it is more interested in refuting Robert Faurissons claims on Anne Frank rather than telling his view point on it. More bias and lack of neutrality. What is the formula here for this equation? A short mention of the book he wrote alleging anne frank is a forgery, and then majority of the paragraph refuting his claim? How does it work here in regards to what percentage you use the space for explaining what he was writing about, and what percentage of the material you use to push one ideology or another for / or against it?

Markacohen (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would very much like to have a link on the Fourisson page to the following article, written by Fourisson himself, which goes far beyond what is stated on Wikipedia as his own issues with the veracity of The Diary of Anne Frank.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p147_Faurisson.html

Although, having read this discussion page, and having seen that there are some very die-hard moderators who believe that any challenge to conventional theory is somehow illegal, in whatever respect, I doubt anybody will ever be able to clarify Fourisson's position on The Diary of Anne Frank on this website.

-Unsigned, 19:57, 10 October 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.126.9 (talk)
 * See WP:FRINGE. Fringe theories must be treated as such. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure and Quality of the Article
I am sorry to say, but whoever structured the article was not neutral. It starts that Faurisson is a French Holocaust denier. Is that the single most defining point about a person in a wikipedia article? Because then I would assume that this would ALWAYS have to go before the profession of a given person in EVERY article. It puts the focus on this issue, and I believe this is not neutral. I have no problem at all if Holocausts deniers are getting flamed for their lies, but there is a fine line between information, and putting up information disguised as propaganda in ANY direction. Do we have articles of Osama bin Laden starting as "is a terrorist mastermind"? No, it first says that he is a member of the Saud family, and then goes on to state that he is a founder of a terrorist organization. The article of Adolf Hitler is even more neutral than both of these guys, yet he was also a true mass murderer. Can't wikipedia try to use unified rules in which they try to be as objective as possible? (Btw the article of Adolf Hitler has a much higher quality than both other articles, and the article of Osama has a higher quality than the article here. I guess the old rules of "more eyes looking at the same", improving quality, still is accurate....) 80.108.103.172 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I recently restructured the article and am responsible for leading with that statement. I still feel like it is correct. I believe it is the crux of the man's career, and that all of his research, at least in as much as it reaches the media, is based on advancing this political end.  That is, he is an activist trying to disprove or cast doubt on or negate the Holocaust.  Because, in my understanding, that is the core of his fame and identity, that seemed to me to be the proper way to lead.


 * Your concern is particularly important given that he is a living person. Here are the edits I made to the intro: .  How should it be restructured?  Any other opinions? DBaba (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing that makes Faurisson a noticable person is the fact that he is a holocaust denier. Without that aspect of his person no one would know this guy exists.  There is thus absolutely no reason to change the lead that is perfectly neutral as it states a very obvious and well known fact.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Poor redaction
I think there is a completly wrong phrase at the beginning of the article, in which says: "Robert Faurisson is a holocaust denier and former professor of literature"; do you think that holocaust denier is a profession? It's obvious that you'll got put as his profession "former professor of literature" but not holocaust denier. --190.172.224.151 (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What made Faurisson a known person is not his writtings about literature but his positions about the holocaust. And since more than 30 years he apparently spend most of his time developping his holocaust denial ideas, books and speaches.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still don't see a reason for a change. His occupation seems to be Holocaust denier more so than literature professor, so I believe that very logic affirms the intro rather than calling it into question. DBaba (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, all you say that this man is just know for his position about the holocaust and without his declaration about this, maybe, he'd never been know is right, but you should understand that holocaust denier isn't a profession and as a IP has told before (I don't read this before wrote my words) you can't put this. Look at other articles, there always is mentioned first the occupation or something similar, an example is the Hitler's article, does it start with "he was the most murderer person that has existed in all the history in all the world"? no, it starts with other things, even if these things are not more important than the mentioned fact. Greetings --190.172.225.31 (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the main thing he is notable for, it's referenced in the main article, and the lead should be a summary of the article. So I don't see a problem. Hohum (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Section headings
I took out the section headings, since they did not really delimit meaningful sections. Once they are removed, it becomes clear that the article is structured chronologically, rather than by topic. I would favor a topical structure if it was warranted, but currently the article is too brief to warrant it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.89.116 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with a number of these changes. The 'principal claims' section is particularly questionable; what constitutes a 'principal' claim?  I find that the edit summaries are not forthcoming, also, which is troubling. For instance, this single edit, summarized as (Added "principal claims" section), does much more than that, cutting a lot of text and citations, while doing a lot of rewording.  I also found the Anne Frank quote illuminating, in its previous, fuller version.  An answer will have to be found.  I'm going to roll some of these changes back per WP:BRD, and see if we can get some discussion going as to what people think of this.  DBaba (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jean Beaufret
What is his relationship with Jean Beaufret ?!

Faurisson Credentials
Faurisson was, to his knowledge, the first person to publish the plans of Krema I and Kremas II and III. These crematories, located at Auschwitz-Birkenau, were the buildings which allegedly contained the homicidal gas chambers. For the purpose of studying gas chambers, Faurisson had gone to Baltimore, Maryland in the United States to investigate and photograph American gas chamber facilities. His objective was to see how convicts condemned to death were killed in the facilities through use of hydrocyanic acid. This was relevant to the study of the German gas chambers since the agent allegedly used to kill the Jews, Zyklon B, contained hydrocyanic acid.

In the early to mid 1980s, Faurisson was sued at least three times under complex French and international laws over his denial of essential points within Holocaust history. The potential for incitement of racial hatred was cited as a primary concern in at least one trial. Faurisson was convicted on reduced charges which carried virtually no penalties. He credits one such relative victory to the tactic of asking the opposition for one piece of evidence only: proof that any single homicidal gas chamber existed. No such proof was produced during any of his trials though numerous lawyers representing multiple interests from several nations were available to present evidence against him.69.109.166.52 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide sources for these claims? Markacohen (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Proskauer, your original research and copyright violations from Holocaust denial sites are always fascinating. Please login. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, my "copyright violation" accusation stemmed from an article I lifted from an ANTI-Holocaust-denial website written in a negative vein regarding Mark Weber, a well known Holocaust denier. I went back to the website and saw no claims of copyrighted material, so I guess the standard is they have to make an active release of copyright status in order to qualify for Wikipedia.

Also, it is impossible to violate strictures against "original research" and to violate copyrights at the same time, if you think about it. Copyright violation would mean using somebody else's original research, at best. Proskauer 17:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits consist of one or the other; sorry if my first comment wasn't clear enough about that. Your copyright violations almost always come from Holocaust denial sources; you only used the ADL source to test to see if that would be tagged as well. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, he's a mind-reader as well! Guilty as charged. Actually I figured that bad press is better than no press at all, and for all that it was deleted by NawlinWiki who does not contest its noteworthiness. What do you think, jayjg, should I re-write the "Mark Weber" article without violating copyright issues? (It's not clear to me thet WP's policies are strictly law-based so much as cautious. But I'm not a licensed attorney...) Will you or Jpgordon delete and block a Mark Weber article on the basis of non-noteworthiness, despite the fact that he is clearly a major player in the H-denier field? Please see NawlinWiki's talk page under Mark Weber heading.

As for violating the copyrights of Holocaust denial websites, I suspect you know as well as I do that they want to be violated, I mean yearn for it, because the abuser and the abused are often tough to distinguish between. Proskauer 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The discovering of the plans by Faurisson in the archives of Auschwitz's museum would have occurred in his 2nd visit at this camp on March 19th, 1976. On his article "A look back at my discovery, on March 19, 1976, of the building plans for the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria", September 14, 2010 (http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com.es/search/label/%22Interviu%22), he explains that during many years he couldn't find any French newspaper or historical revue which wanted to publish his findings "And for good reason: they refuted the case for “the Holocaust”!" as he says. On the same writing, there is also a reference to the very first publication of the plans of the crematories of Auschwitz; it was on a 3 pages article published in the popular Spanish weekly magazine "Interviu" dated on February 23th-28th 1979. The cover claims ''"R. Faurisson, Hitler's defensor: The gas chambers are a lie"(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ToVywHm4m2Q/TJud6Pg_dbI/AAAAAAAAAM4/STSYVjHwuTs/s1600/couv.jpg). The corresponding text(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ToVywHm4m2Q/TJudk4b6R6I/AAAAAAAAAMw/C1GFQQZMbGM/s1600/Page1.jpg, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ToVywHm4m2Q/TJudTV7eDaI/AAAAAAAAAMo/Xjw2lS7D9lM/s1600/page2.jpg, http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ToVywHm4m2Q/TJudCyZy_II/AAAAAAAAAMg/9keGrNzblRQ/s1600/page3.jpg), in that sensationalist magazine (including mandatory naked women) is a bit depreciative and tends to present Faurisson as a crazy man who acts as a "Nazi Quixote" with his inedited "treasure". However, the plans' copies exhibited on the photos are authentic so that such credential can't be denied to him. Jean-Claude Pressac presented the same plans, among many others, on his book published 10 years after and edited by The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation in 1989: "AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" . Grizouk (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to insert material into articles, you must find reliable sources for it. Please review WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky and Faurisson's Near-Death Beating
No mention of the fact that Faurisson was beaten within an inch of his life in an attempt to shut him up, nor of Chomsky's response. The article keeps shrinking for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.64.85 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Faurisson has been attacked by Jews ten times — this has included attempted murder. By his own admission, the lives of his wife and children have been ruined. No mention at all of any of this, but it quotes some throwaway line by Christopher Hitchens. Go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.125.236 (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would be too much to ask for a reliable source for these claims. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do you expect to get a reliable source? Who would dare print such things? Markacohen (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I found something that could maybe satisfy the usual censors of that article. It is a video extract of TV news (Antenne 2 French State Channel) of September 16, 1989 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x99k7f_l-agression-de-robert-faurisson_news which reports the brutal aggression of Robert Faurisson in Vichy claimed by a group called "Les fils de la mémoire juive" (The Sons of the Jewish Memory). The badly injured Professor was sent to the hospital of Clermont-Ferrand. The video is labeled "ina.fr" which is a French official audiovisual archives (see www.ina.fr). There is also that photo www.radioislam.org/faurisson/fr/faurisson-blesse.jpg. Would it suit?Grizouk (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Little as I like being involved in anything that might smack of a defense of Faurisson's views or Chomsky's poor judgment in what became the notorious Faurisson Affair, the mention of Chomsky in this article cried out for correction, which I did, based on the (apparently accurate and balanced) Faurisson Affair article on Wikipedia. AFAIK, Chomsky nowhere said that Faurisson was "absolutely" not an anti-Semite; he did say he couldn't tell one way or the other from some reading of his work and also engaged in what was arguably tedious hairsplitting about whether simply expressing incredulity about the Holocaust is anti-Semitic per se. I also don't think Chomsky wrote anywhere that Faurisson was a "respected professor" (wording that admittedly was in the petition he signed), though he did say Faurisson was some sort of apolitical liberal and I have no idea how he reached that conclusion. I realize Chomsky's views are a hot button issue for many people, but there are reliable sources about him, and he's certainly not shy about publishing and speaking widely, so there's no reason not to cite him (or sources about him) directly when you think he said or wrote something. As it stood, the mention of Chomsky here flirted dangerously with (perhaps even constituted) violation of WP:BLP. If you have never read that guideline, or haven't read it in a while, I suggest a careful review. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Noam Chomsky's opinion of Robert Faurisson is described in Manufacturing Consent. Hundreds of people signed the same petition – including Christopher Hitchens  – but only Chomsky was singled out for criticism. Dynablaster (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You forget that Chomsky experienced severe anti-semitism when he was younger, so his definition is stricter than your average person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 00:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Perplexed About Dualism
It's perplexing, though not surprising, that Jpgordon, jayjg, and at times SlimVirgin, patrol the Holocaust Denial page and revert edits which would tend to put a spin of rationality on the issue of things like gas chambers and other problems with the Holocaust monologue. Note, however, that rationality and the truth ultimately are not subject to spin, so what I'm saying is I'm working towards the truth.

What sometimes is surprising is that people like me keep going back and trying over and over again to explain differences of viewpoints in calm and logical ways. "That doesn't belong here" they say. "Put it on the Faurisson page" they say. Then when I follow directions, they revert my edits on the Faurisson page. For a while they were deleting even attempts to place the issues on the discussion page. I've been on this planet for more than forty years and I should not be surprised by hypocracy and a devotion to one's own self-interest above ALL ELSE. However, I am. Jpgordon, could you please enlighten me why it is that while I consider myself a rational being and according to the Declaration of Independence created equal to all other human beings, I cannot get equal treatment here on this most egalitarian of experiments, this brave new thing, this Wikipedia? Proskauer 05:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this article doesn't want to link to his writings then at least let the Zionist article link to it. Show what a good hatchet job looks like. 159.105.80.141 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a serious doubt about the objectivity of Wikipedia. Since when works authored by the man portraited shouldn't be relevant on an article on him in Wikipedia? The external links I introduced on May 3 which correspond to Faurisson's writings were all removed. It seems that the only external links authorized here are those who represent the opposition to the views of Robert Faurisson. Have you verified whether the same bias is also employed for Charles Darwin article? Would creationists' opinions or works be the unique available external entries on the article corresponding that searcher? I wonderGrizouk (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline for external links is WP:EL. Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Physical attacks
Is that article objective? Where are the mentions of all the physical attacks perpetrated by several Jewish Terrorist Organizations that this man as well as other French revisionists have suffered? http://ihr.org/books/ztn.html Aren't they important despite they costed to him several days in French hospitals? As such aggressions are consequences of his work it seems that, in order to be complete, an article on this man at least must mention them in a good place. Why not a specific Chapter?Grizouk (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to insert material into articles, you must find reliable sources for it. Please review WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Extract of French TV news (Antenne 2 State Channel) on September 16, 1989 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x99k7f_l-agression-de-robert-faurisson_news reporting the brutal aggression of Robert Faurisson in Vichy claimed by a group called "Les fils de la mémoire juive" (The Sons of the Jewish Memory). The badly injured Professor was sent to the hospital of Clermont-Ferrand. The video is labeled "ina.fr" which is a French official audiovisual archives (see www.ina.fr). Is it a reliable source? Grizouk (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dailymotion doesn't qualify at a WP:RS. Is there a link on the www.ina.fr. website? Jayjg (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Faurisson, JA2 20H - 16/09/1989 - 01min57s _ http://www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/justice-et-faits-divers/video/CAB89038663/faurisson.fr.html It is the same extract. However I have substituted previous Dailymotion links.
 * O.K., so decades ago 3 guys calling themselves "Les fils de la mémoire juive" attacked him and sent him to hospital. As far as I know, this "group" was never heard from again. What were "all the physical attacks perpetrated by several Jewish Terrorist Organizations"? How do you even know this "group" was Jewish? Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The facts are reported as such on that video. It is clearly said that the attack was claimed by "Les fils de la mémoire juive". However AFAIK, facts of that sort involving Jewish terrorists like LDJ, BETAR or TAGAR, are rarely investigated by the French police and not too much treated by the medias. Then it could be difficult to know who are the actual responsible e.g. recent Alain Soral and Dieudonné aggressions. In that case, the absence of investigation's results could be an indication, that wouldn't happen for Muslim terrorists attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.108.161 (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Claim for the discovery of the Nazi plans of Crematories of Auschwitz
Mi add for that Faurisson's claim was erased by Mr.Hohum. I quoted an interview on which Faurisson makes himself such claim and comments it. What is the problem?
 * Robert Faurisson claims to have discovered the genuine Nazi plans of the Crematories during his researches in the archives of the Museum of Auschwitz on March 19th, 1976. Commenting his discovery, he told "I managed to find that since 1945 the archives in Auschwitz had those plans they had never been shown... because once you have those plans you can see that what those people accuse Germany is absolutely stupid! What they use to call gas chambers were...morgues. When you see the place. When you see the poor dimensions of it. When you see that you have nothing specific for the ventilation and so on, you couldn't believe what you see! That it is a silly story! It's like someone showing...any room in your own flat and saying, oh, this was a gas chamber because we have witnesses!"Until now, no contradiction has been advanced in order to contest that Faurisson's claim.

I gave a source which allows the download of the genuine interview made on May 9, 2011. As being the own page of The Voice of Reason, the station where Faurisson was interviewed by Carolyn Yeager, I suppose that there is no Copyright issue. http://reasonradionetwork.com/20110509/the-heretics-hour-interview-with-prof-robert-faurisson  Interview with Prof. Robert Faurisson by Carolyn Yeager, "The Heretics’ Hour" at The Voice of Reason, US Radio. There is another link. http://archive.org/details/TheHereticsHourInterviewWithProf.RobertFaurisson I don't see where is the issue in giving an interview as source for the alleged claim by the man himself. That claim was made by Faurisson yes or no? If yes, please, why can't we mention it in the article Mr.Hohum? Zrigla (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

PHDN as source
In answer to a question raised by about PHDN while commenting a change on the article, this explains what PHDN exactly. This website has been cited in the article of the Encyclopedia Universalis on the denialism and is also widely used as references by websites depending of the French Ministry of education. It has furthermore been used by the Aladdin project launched under the patronnage of the UNESCO. The use of this website is perfectly in line with WP rules on the sources, as is the use of the Nikzor project website.

Beside I also noticed that Zrigla tries to impose a change according to which the best friends of Faurisson would be left-wing people which is an obvious forgery:
 * La Vieille Taupe has become an extreme-right and antisemetic publication since 1979
 * Pierre Guillaume is not considered as belonging to the far-left since several decades and almost everyone France rank him among the extreme-right
 * has ceased all contacts with Faurisson since 30 years
 * Serge Thion, "former searcher at the C.N.R.S, has been dismissed from the CNRS for his denialist writtings.

As a matter of fact, Faurisson has not many friends and they all share the caracteristic of being holocaust deniers and (for most of them) antisemits. --Lebob (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, do you really have the complete list of Faurisson's friends? Serge Thion is not from far right, he is an anti-colonialist leftist militant who is so antisemitic that he married a Jewish woman. Pierre Guillaume, Dieudonné, Marie Poumier or Paul-Éric Blanrue are not "far-right" as you wish. And "La Vieille Taupe" IS NOT a far-right and antisemitic house of edition although it has published revisionist works. So, be your restricted list of Faurisson's friends the only information available for the reader here, for the sake of Wikipedia encyclopedic neutrality. Mr, Lebob, you are so obsessional to make any revisionist, oops, "denier", appears as an antisemitic and neo-nazi fellow that, as a proof of you honest neutrality, you removed from the French site all allusions to Jewish revisionists like Joseph G. Burg (Josef Ginzburg), David Cole or Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce. The same trick happened when, in a ridicule attempt to make true your idiotic axiom "there are no revisionist (oops, "denier") historians", you also removed systematically all allusions to actual academic historians like Mark Weber, Harry Elmer Barnes, James J. Martin, Karl Otto Braun, Robert Countess, Alan John Percivale Taylor, David L.Hoggan, John Toland, Anthony Kubek, Dariusz Ratajczak, Reuben Clarence Lang, Theodore O'Keefe, Oleg Platonov, Claudio Moffa, Paul-Éric Blanrue, Alain Guionnet and so on...In opposite, you don't mind that Léon Poliakov or Georges Wellers who never had an academic title in history receive the qualification of "historian" on Wikipedia. Faurisson doesn't care for such title despite accordingly with the own Wikipedia definition he would deserve it. The future will say whose French works deserve more respect for their quality and exactitude in the field of historical research. BTW, as usual on the antirevisionist side, the site PHDH is far from being clean considering its rigorousness. See what Vincent Reynouard has to say about it: "When the one you fight is really wrong, you do not need to distort what he says..."(Quand celui que l'on combat a vraiment tort, on n'a pas besoin de déformer ce qu'il dit) http://www.phdnm.org/uploads/3/0/0/1/3001973/nouyrig-1.htmZrigla (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Political Views
What are his political views? --154.69.12.70 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

His political views are irrelevant. What is relevant is if the "facts" he claims to have discovered are truly ...factual or not. Problem is we will never know unless the people who oppose honest, thorough and serious re-examination of the "holocaust" lore can be stopped and a healthy exchange of information and discussion develops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.96.178 (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What utter rubbish. Define "a healthy exchange of information and discussion". Because it certainly isn't any of the denier camp's bogus claims, from prussian blue having to form in gigantic quantities in the gas chambers, over there being "no holes" on Krema II's roof to calling the Aktion Reinhard camps 'transit camps' without being able to explain where all these Jews that allegedly 'transited through them' ended up going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:502:3D80:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable
This is an unacceptable attack page. From reading the lead all I know about this man is how he is a monstrous Hitler-worshiping psychopath. If the "neutrality" is that he has only been described in this way, then no page is necessary. Especially since some wild claims are made that are completely unsourced. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, this is exactly that: An attack page. There is no neutrality what so ever, and the goal is to discourage "holocaust" revisionism and in essence any kind of questioning of the "official version" of pretty much any story propagaded and propagandized in our so called "free world". Truly, it's disgusting to have to deal with all this, I am very surprised people like Faurisson had the nerve the patience and the guts to do it. I do not know about all of you out there but the more I read about the "holocaust" and the revisionists struggle against the establishment, the more I feel "someone" out there for their own reasons, does not want us to "get to the bottom" of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.96.178 (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that article serious? I read ¨In September 1989, Faurisson was allegedly beaten severely¨, ¨allegedly seems not to be the exact word if we see the picture of that man after that event http://www.alterinfo.net/photo/art/default/6211236-9280277.jpg?v=1389183154 Are the writers attempting to put a doubt on the hard persecution he has been enduring all his life by violent hateful opponents?186.214.205.31 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact Faurisson has apparently been beaten once. But he has never been persecuted unless you call "persecution" what has in fact been a thorough refutation of his crackpot theories. --Lebob (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, in this talk page section there is even a picture of Faurisson after being beaten with an obviously broken jaw and bloodied face. It's known he was beaten, I don't know why it's alleged – maybe the group responsible may be alleged because I suppose it's not certain if a such a group existed or did they just send a fake statement to the media. I'm going to revert you and add a new source from LA times 1989 which decribes the assault. --Pudeo (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, when this information was originally added in May 2009, it did not contain the "alleged" wording diff. --Pudeo (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Faurisson. 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/20060211111313/http://www.amnistia.net/news/enquetes/negauniv/faurisson/faurisson.htm to http://www.amnistia.net/news/enquetes/negauniv/faurisson/faurisson.htm

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) 23:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Faurisson's historical discovery
Here are secondary sources showing the first published article about the plans Faurisson exhumed from the archives of Auschwitz's Museum. It was in the Spanish magazine Interviú (22-28 February 1979, pp 64-66). Those plans appeared for the first time in a footage exhibited at Nuremberg by the soviets. Since, there were not mentioned anymore by any historian until that publication by Faurisson. Fac simile of the Interviú's cover and internal pages showing Faurisson with a plan of Krema II of Birkenau in his hands Zrigla (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"Neutrality" banner
I added this banner because it seems that mostly court rulings are available in this biography. At no point are the theses of R.F. expressed, which is an incredible bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Js73fr (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What theses do you mean, and why would this indicate "bias"? Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, "denier" is per se a biased qualification. Accordingly with RF himself, he doesn't deny nothing. In opposite he affirms things because he develops a scientific argumentation to support them. What is his sin? He dares to tell publicly that he has researched and found documents which contradict allegedly known facts including the plans of the controversial chambers at Auschwitz. He visited many Nazi camps for his investigations contrarily to Hilberg who visited none before writing his holocaustian Bible "The Destruction of the European Jews". A Bible "revised" for its new 1988's edition beneath to Faurisson remarks. For instance, the alleged "2 orders of extermination of Hitler" were suppressed because Faurisson showed to Hilberg that he had no sources for such reckless affirmation. See Zundel's trial transcripts of Hilberg's cross examination, Toronto 1985, http://vho.org/aaargh/engl/ancestors/RH85toronto1.html. Is it the Faurisson's fault if the Nazi plans he discovered in the archives of the Auschwitz's Museum show functional morgues properly labeled by their constructors as "Leichenhalle" or "Leichenkeller" and not those homicidal gas chambers as alleged without any documentary proof? Should be Darwin quoted as a creationism denier or as the originator of the theory of biological evolution?Grizouk (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on the consensus of reliable secondary sources. Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste is not a reliable source, and trial transcripts are primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say that "Association des anciens amateurs de récits de guerre et d'holocauste" is NOT a reliable source. Who/How/When/Why decided about the reliability of this source. I for one can quote many "reliable" sources about the so called "Holocaust" that do not appear to be so reliable under the scrutiny of newer evidence discovered by people such as Robert Faurisson, but like him, if I do so, I'll be labeled a "denier". My point is why this subject is off-limits to any kind of historical research, examination, questioning and (why not) reassessment? Is n't this how the study of history works. Why is it forbidden to freely discuss the "Holocaust" without a predetermined goal in mind except for discovering and presenting to the rest of the world of the true facts, i.e. "the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth, so help us God?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.96.178 (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

When will be noticed in that article the discovering as well as the first divulgation by Faurisson of the genuine Nazi plans of the crematories of Auschwitz whose morgues (Leichenkeller on the drawings) are supposed to be the "homicidal gas chambers" ? http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/search/label/%22Interviu%22 At least, such discovering is important in the Professor's life because it started the "Faurisson affair" through his letters to the newspaper "Le Monde" mentioning the technical consequences of his amazing discovery. Moreover, the remark in the Chapter "In 1991, Faurisson was removed from his university chair on the basis of his views under the Gayssot Act" about the actual reason for the move of Faurisson is not taken into account. See the French article "De 1979 à 1990, il est détaché au Centre national de télé-enseignement (CNTE) rebaptisé ensuite Centre national d'enseignement à distance (CNED)." http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson [ From 1979 to 1990 he is seconded to the National Centre for Education at Distance (CNED)]. Please take note that 1979 is BEFORE the invention of the Gayssot Act in France! The reason invoked by the Dean was that the Professeur was being threatened [by Jewish activists] and his safety was not secured anymore at his University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizouk (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to insert material into articles, you must find reliable sources for it. Please review WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but it seems that you don't consider here the own writings of Faurisson as reliable sources for what he thinks. Paradoxical. What should be "reliable" then? However, I observe that you are not so rigorous on what is written by his opponents. For instance, I see a link to a text of Gilles Karmasyn, famously unknown editor of a French antirevisionist site and fierce critic of Faurisson. You must know that in France Faurisson can't give legally any answer to his critics because the Gayssot Act. Is a fanatic adversary the more qualified source to express what the subject of this article thinks? Neutrality have you said? I don't see Creationists as main sources on the Darwin's article on Wikipedia. Serious issue of objectivity or simply censorship? It is extraordinary to notice that by reading all that article one can't have any idea of what that so controversial Professor actually writes or says. Go Google then. En revanche, one will have an extended panorama on all what certain people writes against him. That's so fair that one should call such absurd material an "anti-article" about Faurisson. Are you serious here?Grizouk (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems we have the same user as the one that has already been banned on WP (fr) and who also regularly intervenes on the talk pages using a spanish IP. What Faurisson writes is very to everyone who reads this article.  And that his arguments haven been proven wrong by many historians is very obvious as well once you read the article.  So what could be more neutral than that?  --Lebob (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems also that we have not here the same kind of dictators as we have in the French side, people like you Mr. Lebob, who erases everything he doesn't like even if the information is accurate and duly sourced. Thanks God, the English side is more neutral than your French field of censorship. There, you could ban Grizouk and you want even to ban me. That's easy, you are the big boss. Now you expect that your realm of terror has to be extended to the english site. Good luck Mr Lebob!Zrigla (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
 * After having checked the nine contributions you have posted on WP (fr) before being banned I have realised that 8 of them were posted on the Robert Faurisson article talk page and that nothing was sourced. In fact your only contribution in the main was a picture of your hero for which one can reasonnably assume that existing copyrights are violated.  Well, that's very impressive.  With respect to the removal of your messages the fact is that Faurisson is better known from French speaking people (especially in France, Belgium and Switzerland) than from native English speakers.  This is the reason why users on WP (fr) are probably less prone to accept that you post messages which do clearly not help to improve Faursson article but change the talk page into a discussion forum (which is obviously not the purpose of such a page) and even in a kind of propaganda page (which is even less the purpose of a talk page).  --Lebob (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am curious about the citations "not sourced" that you erased from that page. Can you make a list here? And, please, FACTS are not "propaganda" even if you don't like them until not putting them on the article in French. The "View history" of the French discussion page is full of teachings on that matter. For instance, you banned of the discussion the discovering of the plans of crematoriums by RF (sourced by his own writings) or the results of his trial in appeal of 26th April, 1983 of which attendees you don't like because they rebate the accusation of "falsifier of history" and of "lightness" against RF by "lack of pertinence". Sure, the sources which are available on internet are rejected here while Gilles Karmasyn is accepted as "reliable source". Nevertheless, had RF not discovered the plans, I bet we would read here a lot of links treating him of "liar". As there is none, that could be a slight evidence the guy is right... Moreover, if you want really a source for the 1983's appeal other than those usually rejected here, I could manage to put on line the copy of that judgement you want so hard your readers to ignore.Zrigla (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The discovery of the plans of Auschwitz by Faurisson (sourced by Faurisson's writting). This is not acceptable under WP:Sources as this is typically a primary source.  Forget about the 1983 court decision, Faurisson has been condemned several times since then and has also among others lost his case against Robert Badinter who called him a "faussaire de l'histoire" (needless to translate I guess).  The fact is that there is no historian who takes the work and the conclusions of Faurisson seriously.  And finally Karmasyn is much more reliable on the question of the shoah than Faurisson who has been proven again and again by qualified historians (what he is not, by the way) to be a complete liar and, yes, a real forger.  --Lebob (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those plans exist or not? The discovery of the plans is a fact or not? If it was not Faurisson, who discovered first them? Show us a "reliable source" which denies convincingly that Faurisson's finding. OK, the source cited is judged "not reliable", so don't even mention that fact because Faurisson must appear as a "not serious scholar" on Wikipedia. That's the aim. Now, how typical is yout analysis of the last F-Badinter's affair. Badinter was unable to exhibit any evidence for his claim (« échoué en son offre de preuve ») "I made Faurisson condemned for being a faussaire de l'histoire". However, as he supposedly made that claim "in good faith", Faurisson lost his trial for defamation and was charged for the expenses. Badinter defamed but "in good faith", that's a fact and you twisted it. You are not alone on this, the serious scholar Deborah Lipstadt makes the same error ad borrowed my comment on such mistake. http://lipstadt.blogspot.com.es/2007/04/robert-faurisson-is-forger-of-history.html...
 * http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/zigounette-et-doucette-sont-dans-un.htmlZrigla (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read this article available in English and French where a professor of law at Brussels University explains why Faurisson interpretation of the French court ruling of 1983 is complete bullshit. And I notice that Faurisson tries to use the same method again: using half a sentence of the court ruling in his case again Badinter for trying to make people believe that the court rejected Badinter's arguments.  In doing that he clearly shows that he is not only a bad historian but also a poor lawyer.  It is the same kind of forgeries again and again.  People who still give credit to this kind of arguments are either not intelligent or dishonest.  --Lebob (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know this "interpretation" of the judgment. Fallaciously the matter is distorted. You put 30 lawyers on that trial and you'll have 30 different opinions. To be short, I bet that Badinter won't say again "I made Faurisson condemned as faussaire de l'histoire". In a new trial he would fail again in his presentation of evidence (« échouer en son offre de preuve ») because no new elements have benn brought until today. Nevertheless, be sure that this time he won't have the benefit of "good faith". That shot has been wasted. Wait and see.Zrigla (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact the interpretation of a court ruling does not depend on a few words (being "échouer en son offre de preuve" or anything else) completely taken out of context (an exercice where Faurisson has become an expert). This is the work of a poor lawyer or of a lawyer who feels short of valuable arguments.  The article explains very well how Faurisson has tried during 25 years to build his on some parts of the 1983 ruling that were poorly drafted.  The ruling of 2007 has made things much clearer to everyone but Faurisson and his fans.  I rather bet that should Badinter or anyone else call Faurisson again "faussaire l'histoire" that it will be Faurisson who will think twice before going in front of a court again.  --Lebob (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you say Badinter CAN do it. Hmmm, did he do it since that trial? Why not?Zrigla (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should he? The court has publicly confirmed he is right.  --Lebob (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I say: wait and see.Zrigla (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; shouldn't HISTORY be the judge of who was correct, and not INTERNET CONTRIBUTORS on Wikipedia?!?! Let's just put all the arguments out there and let readers decide who is "correct" and who's the "revisionist".  TRUTH should be evident to the person reading the facts.  Let us all decide for ourselves.  "The court has confirmed"....yeah and the court confirmed that OJ was innocent.  Get real.  99.93.255.7 (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Get reaL". How true! Indeed! However, if he wanted to really "get real" he wouldn't be defending with such silly arguments the "lie of the century". True, real history has to be decided by the people not paid historians with hidden (most of the time) political agendas. All this "holocaust" fighting about what can be discussed and what not is becoming sickening. Truth has become so elusive in this matter and at the same time it has revealed the deeper problem of our "modern" societies: Representative "democracy" as it has evolved and how we know today is -basically- a complete failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.96.178 (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is not the job of Wikipedia to judge what's silly or what's not. In addition the term "Holocaust denier" is not neutral as it was popularized by activists against Faurisson, Zundel and others as a form of Denialism, considered an "an essentially irrational action".Charrua85 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Professor Robert Faurisson.jpg