User talk:BluePencils

The Holocaust
Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your edits to The Holocaust article. The policy on neutral point of view forbids giving undue weight to minority views. At present the views of "revisionist historians" are perhaps the very definition of an extreme minority; at present they are not really relevant to serious scholarship to even be in the article at all, even as counterpoint to a mainstream view. There is a section on estimation of the number of victims and the death toll from more mainstream sources. You are welcome to disagree, but please take discussion to the article talk page. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to this edit to Orange Marlin's page, on the issue of "POV", TeaDrinker already provided you with a link to the policy regarding the importance of the Neutral Point of View. Adding fringe views to an article as if they were mainstream is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy. Since you had already been warned and had the policy explained to you, it wasn't unreasonable for Orange Marlin to characterise your second edit as vandalism - after all, you knew what you were doing the second time around. Please refrain from edits of the sort you made to the Holocaust article and to Orange Marlin's talk page. Thanks. Guettarda 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I hadn't seen his message when I made my second edit to the Holocaust page; secondly, I don't - and neither would anyone of impartial turn of mind - regard my edits as representing "fringe" views. So-called "Holocaust Revisionism" is now widely respected and very much "mainstream", espoused as it is now by such eminent authorities on the period as David Irving.


 * But it was only to be expected that my edits would be treated in the way they have been treated, just as valid historical studies of the period by revisionist historians are regularly subjected to abuse in the press and even completely unjustified prosecution in the courts of countries like Germany and France.


 * But I hadn't imagined editors of Wikipedia wishing to protect these 'vested interests' of the Allied Consensus. The Holocaust page as it stands at present exhibits bias of an extreme nature (not to mention scientifically unsubstantiable claims) and should be flagged as doing so. This little episode has been an education for me, to say the least.


 * Now, kindly refrain from treating me like a pariah on this site. I am a Wikipedia editor of more than a year's standing, with no history whatsoever of "vandalism". Thanks. BluePencils 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A pariah? ROFL.  Once one changes "genocide" to "supposed genocide" in the face of all evidence to the contrary, one is indeed engaging in vandalism, or at best is espousing a fringe theory.  Period.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  07:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 'All evidence to the contrary?' - In the 62 years since the commencement of the Nuremberg show-trials, not a single scrap of original documentary evidence has been adduced supporting the claim that mass, intentional extermination of the Jews in German occupied territory was planned or contemplated by the National Socialists. Neither has any substantive evidence surfaced proving the existence of a gas-chamber in any of the Reich concentration camps, which were essentially for labour and transit. Those are facts, and are verifiable.


 * On the other hand, evidence is irrefutable that the Nazis' policy was, from the beginning, one of resettlement and emigration for the Jews of Europe. No Nazi documents mention 'killing' of the Jews as policy. Hitler intended to remove them from Europe, true, but not to exterminate them as an ethnic group. His concerns were with Germany, not Jewry itself. Another verifiable fact. BluePencils 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on! You have to be kidding me!  Baegis 08:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust (continued)
Please do not delete warnings from your talk page, especially if they are currently relevant in regards to your editing style. There doesn't exist any sort of conspiracy to stop you from editing but you must edit constructively and not insert needless POV pushing words. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable editing this article as it seems much more in line with your viewpoints. However all claims must be well sourced before they are included or they will be reverted. Finally, it doesn't matter how long you have been here, whether a day or a year, but everyone still needs to follow the rules. Your edits were vandalism by any sense of the word. Cheers!!! Baegis 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. However, I don't think I'll bother - especially considering that the Wikipedia title "Holocaust Revisionism" comprises only a 'protected redirect' to a wholly biased article entitled "Holocaust Denial", which itself is nothing but a tissue of prejudice typical of what I am rapidly coming to recognise as "Wikipedia standards". There's no neutrality among the editors who have taken possession of these articles, not even the pretense of it.


 * If I were able to start an article entitled "Holocaust Revisionism" and impartially survey the field and its history in it, then perhaps I might reconsider taking you up on your suggestion. Is it possible to lift the 'protected redirect' on this title? If so, how can it be done?


 * On your last point, I really must beg to differ. I wasn't expressing a POV - I have no POV on the matter. But I recognise bias when I see it, and the refusal to brook alternative interpretations of a subject which, in the consensus, is backed by no original documentary evidence whatsoever. There are well-documented arguments against that consensus already, none of them my own point of view (which is private). BluePencils 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Two quick things. Firstly, do you think that people cannot read your edit summaries?  Do not insert falsehoods into your edit summaries.  I did not threaten you by any means.  Secondly Holocaust Revisionism is merely another word for Holocaust Denial.  That is why they redirect.  There is ongoing debate within the community of Holocaust scholars (as there is with regards to any historical event) but it by no means encompasses what you inserted.  You edit showed a clear intent of inserting some sort of doubt with regards to the existence of the Holocaust when there is no such doubt.  If you plan on continuing with edits such as that I am afraid that your time at WP will be short, which is a shame.  Baegis 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Holocaust Revisionism is not 'merely another word for "Holocaust Denial"'. "Holocaust Denial" is an emotive term, whereas "Holocaust Revisionism" - which is how historians who refute the exterminationists' claim and all of its baggage prefer to be known - is sufficiently neutral and therefore preferable under Wikpedia's guidelines for editors. I was simply attempting to inject a little fairness and balance into the definitions. "Holocaust Denial" is a 'loaded' phrase, as is the term "Holocaust" itself, invented for the purpose of myth-making.


 * Or are you, Baegis, advocating the use of terms which promote bias and non-neutrality in the article in question?


 * With regard to inserting a note of doubt on the validity of the received arguments into the article, do you not agree that it is fair and in the interests of Wikipedian neutrality at least to make known that there are numerous historians and serious scholars in the field today who have presented documentary and material evidence to support a solid refutation of the version of events as promulgated by the Allies? Their names and publications are too many to number here, but suffice it to mention Butz, Rudolf, Rassinier, Faurisson, and Irving.


 * It is most daring of you to brand their work as 'falsehood', especially as I'd be willing to bet that you have never read them. Perhaps it is time you did; perhaps then you would be less inclined to claim that there is 'no such doubt' admissible in the Holocaust story.


 * I would be interested in your comments, if indeed you have any, since you are evidently one of those who have taken possession of the "Holocaust" article and who now, through prejudice or vested interest, refuse to brook even consideration of the many alternative versions of events.


 * I shall not even attempt further amendments to the article. I have given up Wikipedia as a lost cause. Neutrality seems to be 'ausgeschlossen' here.BluePencils 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)