Talk:Leuchter report/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Conspiracy Theories/Crackpot umbrella classification?

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).

Just wondering if someone is bothering to take up the paperwork, purely an administrative matter. 220.245.239.93 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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. WilliamH (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Link would be usefull

I bet alot of people who read this article want to see this Leuchter report for themselves so wouldn't it be a good idea to have a link to it somewhere in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Google is your friend. We don't need to link to hate sites just for the convenience of a small number of people. It shows up on the first page of a search. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking to hate sites or random sites containing the report isn't such a good idea no. What about putting in a link to a site that debunks the report such as http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/ ?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent idea - I had been wondering about it, but am pleased someone else suggested it. I've added it.

I think it is ridiculous to NOT link this page to the actual report which the ENTIRE article describes. Obviously the WP article describes it in full detail, from both sides, so blocking the link to the article is as close-minded as those who totally deny the holocaust. What we shouldn't link is other holocaust-denial literature. But the article in question? Yeah. It's logical and should be linked. Angryapathy (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

2 days ago, in this talk area, I posted a request to have a link to the Leuchter report linked in the external links area of this article and that request in this talk area was deleted.

1. Is it considered an act of vandalism to delete a legitimate request in the talk area of an article?

2. Most of the articles on wikipedia if someone did a google search they could find more information about the subject, but those articles still have links to the relevant documents in discussion, why would a sensitive or taboo subject not have direct links to the specific documents the article is about?

How many external links or references are added to an article before it becomes a directory?

Background: The Leuchter Report article here on Wikipedia, is about a Genocide / Holocaust Denial research report / study (also a pseudo scientific and pseudo historical research study) done by American Execution Technician Fred Leuchter. The report purports to claim the Homocidal Gas Chambers during WWII were grossly exagerrated or fabricated.

On the Article Leuchter Report, I put a link to the actual Leuchter Report because it is a specifically valid and pertinent reference / link and the reference link was deleted over and over again in a revert war (I was punished for 48hrs), the deleter said WP is not a directory of links or W is not a hate directory.

So my question is what are the rules, regulations and so forth of linking Hate Sites, Revisionist Sites, Holocaust Denier / Genocide Denier sites from those actual WP articles about those subjects?

My purpose in adding these references is so the pseudo science / history could be seen by open minded adults so they could form a stronger opinion against these topics, but the links and references were "censored" or "deleted" for dubious emotional and political reasons in my opinion and I make NO PERSONAL ATTACKS against the deleters, my criticism of emotional and political reasons is on the deletions themselves, not the persons who deleted them.

The Links I added to the Article which were deleted are:

• on the VHO.org site, The Complete PDF Version of Pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report] PDF

• on the zundelsite.org site The Complete HTML Version of Pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report] HTML

Markacohen (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with the HTML site. It only lays out the report for people to read. There is no hatred or propaganda on the page. If the report is notable enough to be a topic on WP, then we have a duty to link to it, no matter how much you disagree with it. On the side note, Mark should read over the rules and policies of Wikipedia, though, as he has broken a few layers of protocol. The deleted section of this talk page included accustations that were not in good faith. Please look over the rules and policies of Wikipedia to find the proper venues for discussion. Angryapathy (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Markacohen, I think you just have to accept that other editors disagree with you. There's no 'right' to add such sites, and I personally detest the two sites you want linked to and think that adding them gives the sites unnecessary publicity. Although normally changing people's edits is considered a bad thing, you also need to understand that deleting the links was done in good faith, not as an act of vandalism. I've deleted the links again but people can find them if they search. The VHO.org site calls itself "The World's largest website for Historical Revisionism!" and has a webcounter on it so they can brag about their hits. Zundel is a neo-Nazi. If the links and information in our article aren't enough for people, there are search engines such as Google which will quickly find the articles. You say you want to see this stuff debunked, the Nizkor link is good for that. Neither of the two hate sites link to plain versions of the Leuchter report, they both have a lot of editorial comment we'd be giving publicity. I have no objections to this link however [1]. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't edit here, but I've found that scrapbookpages.com is run by a holocaust denier who also runs this site.[2] Doug Weller talk 10:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

One other point. You say you want people to read the actual report so they can debunk it. I'd challenge that, as I think the average reader would not have the information to debunk the report. In other words, I'm arguing that for your alleged purpose the links aren't really useful, and that they are not just links to the report but to hate propaganda about the report as well as links to hate sites. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are stretching alot on this, Doug. For one, your assumption that by simply visiting a site a person is validating it is silly. Your reasoning is POV, and you should take a step back and see how ridiculous it sounds. Let's put another way: If WP had an article on a report on abortion, should we force people to google the report because the report is only based out of pro-abortion sites because someone might say, "They promote baby-killing?" Stop trying to baby the public and allow the link to the report so they can draw their own conclusions. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be disallowed. Angryapathy (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article from a neutral site: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2582074/Leuchter-Report There is no agenda on the site, so there is no verifiablity issue. Will this link be allowed to be placed on the page? Angryapathy (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that some people always compare the Holocaust with abortion, and vice-versa? And why did Markacohen call Leuchter an "engineer" ([3]) when only Holocaust deniers claim he is one ([4])? Sorry, but this i really don't understand. And before you say that my questions are unrelated, let my tell you, no, they are not. --RCS (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not comparing the Holocaust to abortion, but I am comparing the POV pushing of WP editors to the dichotomy caused by abortion in order to try and get people to see the argument from a different angle. If you feel very strongly about a subject, remember WP:NPOV. Just for the record, I do not believe Holocaust deniers. I just feel that WP should stick to NPOV whether the article is Holocaust or Juicy Fruit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryapathy (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

DougWeller and RCS,

I think you DougWeller and RCS are on the light side of the force, but some of the things you said seem to be a bit questionable. Im not attacking you personally, but criticizing or discussing the things you said which seem to lack substance and merit. Other than that I think you are both great guys.

1. Dear RCS - A person can be an Engineer and a Holocaust Denier, a person can also be an Engineer and believe the true story about the Holocaust involving the murder of 6 to 8 million Jews. Not believing in the Holocaust does not make someone not an engineer. I believe Leuchter despite his abhorrent, disgusting and dispicable views on the Holocaust could be considered an Engineer if he has a lot of hands on experience working and doing real engineering type work, I dont buy the reasoning that someone absolutely must have a degree from a university in order to get the real hands on experience to become an Engineer. I'm merely criticizing your logic, i dont make any personal attacks against you. I think you are a great guy.

2. Dear DougWeller - Your statement: "I personally detest the two sites you want linked to and think that adding them gives the sites unnecessary publicity."

I dont think your personal disgust of Fred Leuchter and his message has anything to do with it. We need to be neutral here, and not let our own personal biases and point of views prevent specifically valid reference links directly to the Leuchter Report on the WP Leuchter Report Article.

I also despise Leuchter and his message, but this isnt about our personal feelings and emotions. What this is about: it's about putting in valid specific and pertinent information to the article, and I think it is very valuable to put a link to the actual Leuchter Report.

Quote you again : "I've deleted the links again but people can find them if they search."

This to me sounds like emotionalism and politics, sounds like, I dont want to make it any easier for people to read that actual report Leuchter Made, Ide rather they have to go the extra step and go to google. This is not very Neutral, reading between the lines it sounds like you are letting your own political views and emotions on this very sensitive topic, prevent a real useful valid reference link in the article.

I'm with you man, I know these guys are terrible, but its not like we are using them for sources in the article Holocaust for instance, we are providing useful information to the article itself.

Your quote: "Zundel is a neo-Nazi." Heck yeah he is, and he is doing time for it too, which he deserves to do, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't link to the article just because Zundel is a low life scoundrel genocide denier.

It would be the equivalent of you deleting a link to the Zundel site from an article about ernst zundel because you dont want people to read what he says and you fear people might get converted.

These hate sites get a zillion visitors a year, and no one is getting converted, infact extremists are more and more marginalized with each year. Dont delete content from wikipedia because of fears we might be breeding nazis or something, thats kinda silly :) and im not attacking you personally, just the notion :) I personally think your a great guy, sensitive, thoughtful and intelligent, despite some of the things you say to defend deleting these valid, useful, pertinent, specifically relevant links!

Do you guys know of any administrators or arbitrators who could put our shared hatred of Nazis aside and look at this from a Neutral, Unemotional, unpolitical standpoint, and arbitrate adding these links on their merit of being relevant to the article?

Markacohen (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if you noticed, Mark, but I added the link to the article, but from a neutral site. While I don't agree with Doug and RCS's reasons for deleting your links, I decided to avoid a drawn out discussion over whether or not linking relevent material from questionable sites is OK by taking the middle ground. The site which hosts the article has no agenda, so I removed the controversy from the discussion. Angryapathy (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to restate my position here.

No one is suggesting we use Holocaust Denial material as references for the Holocaust article on WP. However, on articles about Holocaust Denial, those holocaust denial references and links are specifically valid. As for what Holocaust deniers believe? They believe they are serious and correct, and they believe their "science" and "history" are closer to the truth than the mainstream established view on the Holocaust, which we know and believe is closer to the truth.

Can you recommend an arbitrator who can put our shared hatred of Nazis, Revisionists, and Hates aside, so we can look at this from a Neutral, Unpolitical and Unemotional stand point? I believe these references / links are valid to the article, and I wish to go through the proper channels of WP arbitration / Resolution in case of dispute.

I really don't think our personal opinions, our politics, emotions and feelings should prevent specifically relevant valid pertinent reference links from an article because our own personal fears, opinions and biases.

There is nothing documented in wikipedia that says we can't link to a hate site on an article about that hate site, or we cant link to a hate report on an article about that hate report.

There seems to be a real lack of neutrality here, and I haven't heard what I believe to be a reason with any substance, just a lot of emotional appeal.

Markacohen (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the edit above saying that there is now a link? And I did point you to our mediation procedure earlier this week on the talk page, and also to WP:Consensus. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting or Modifying my Discussion Posts

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing in wikipedia that says you can NOT link to hate site, holocaust denial sites, pseudo history or pseudo science web sites, so please stop deleting my discussion material.

Can we please keep this civilized and please stop editing and deleting my relevant discussion references, links and posts. I posted these two reference links here because I wish to discuss them, and it is necessary that people have access to these reference documents which specifically pertain to the Leuchter Report (the reports themselves) because I wish there to be an open discussion on them before I take this to Arbitration / Resolution.

The Links I posted which were deleted are and which I wish to discuss are: [editing out the links, the information is enough - User Dougweller] a link to the hate site at vho.org/ with The Complete PDF Version of Pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report] PDF

a link to the neo-Nazi Zundel's hatesite at zundelsite The Complete HTML Version of Pseudo-scientific Leuchter Report] HTML

Please Stop Deleting these links from this discussion, these reports are the actual Leuchter Report Documents that the pseudo scientist and pseudo historian executian Technician Fred Leuchter Wrote, and I believe in an article about the Leuchter report there should be links to the actual Leuchter report. I wish to discuss these links and the inclusion of them into the document. I was banned from posting for 48hrs because I got into a revert war over the inclusion of these links, and I would rather now go through the normal policies and procedures of having them included.

Please stop deleting the information I wish to discuss. There is NOTHING, Absolutely NOTHING that says on an article about hate or revisionism, that you cant post links to the actual hate or revisionism the article is about, and this is what I wish to discuss.

Can we please keep this civilized, im not making personal attacks against anyone, im criticizing the act itself of deleting my references, not the deleter.

Markacohen (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you are continuing to try to add the links. We know what they are. We can find them in the history of this page, so they aren't gone forever. Your insistence on adding the links is verging on edit-warring. Do you really think we don't know your opinions and can't find the links if we want to look at them? Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You got to love these tags

If you follow the "neutral" link to the LR, you'll notice that the report has been tagged as "culture" and "philosophy". Neutral, indeed.--RCS (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if the neutrality of the site, Scribd.com (which is a repository for any written works), isn't enough for you. Although I fail to see the neutrality of linking a site "to the report" which only aims to debunk the report. I'm sorry that a "neutral site" doesn't scream, "HOLOCAUST DENIALISM IS WRONG!" which seems the only sites you prefer. If you can't be objective about a subject, you might want to step away from editting an encyclopedia. WP gets enough POV pushing as it is. I highly suggest you read, WP:NPOV and think about what neutral is and what POV pushing is. Angryapathy (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd inject my two cents here. I was drawn to this by my review of Markacohen's unblock request, just for the record. Ok, WP:EL clearly says that in an article about a piece of media (such as this report) one should normally link to a copy of the media so long as none of the reasons to object to a link apply (see WP:ELYES number 2). Jpgordon summed up, quite nicely, the argument against including a link to the document on the sites Markacohen supports -- the issue is the well-placed concern that these sites are willing to present information in a misleading way; see WP:ELNO number 2. Whether or not Zundelsite's copy of this report is not trustworthy is another question: I take Jpgordon's point but I think Zundelsite probably would further their own goals more by not modifying the actual report. (And I note that the Nizkor.com site refers its readers to the Zundelsite-hosted report, without claiming that the document has been altered). So it's a minor point of concern but nonetheless it concerns people, and I don't see that anyone has any concern about the copy hosted on Scribd.com. And it's clear that a majority of editors at least consider linking to holocaust-denying sites is a sensitive issue, so we ought to just link to the neutral one. Markacohen -- is there any specific objection to linking to the document on Scribd.com? Mangojuice^talk 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that Holocaust denial is a fringe theory, and like all fringe theories, it is fundamental to an encyclopedia which strives to be neutral and object that fringe theories are not presented as fact. As a result, I have no objection to a bland text copy of the report being linked to, as it concerns it. What I do have an objection to is Wikipedia inadvertently becoming a repository of denialist material with which the reader is invited to come to their own opinion - about a matter whose occurance is not a matter of opinion. If this happens, Wikipedia does more harm than good. I therefore endorse the inclusion of this, as per WP:FRINGE, disparaging references are entirely legitimate. WilliamH (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I object to having a link in place to the Leuchter Report unless it is on a dedicated site, the debunking link for example is linked to a site that is "Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime" and it contains alot of information on the Holocaust and Holocaust denial. This link to scribd is however a link to nothing more than practicly some ftp site where a bunch of files are laying around, it is my opinion that wikipedia is not a torrent site or a directory but rather a relevant and respectable online encyclopedia and that links to random sites are therefor not apropriate. I suggest that those that want a link on the page A. Create a respectable site that contains the report. B. Find a respectable site that contains the report or C. Ask a respectable site such as Nizkor to host a copy of the report on its server.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions have nothing to do with WP policy. Please read WP:NPOV and make comments which have to do with the policies and guidelines of this site. Angryapathy (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant wikipedia is neither a torrent site or a directory. I object to this link being in place.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not a torrent site or a directory, we aren't linking to "random" holocuast denial sites, reports, or articles. We are linking a Wikipedia article on the Leuchter report to the Leuchter report itself. Again, your personal opinions on the matter are not rooted in WP policy. In WP:EL, it states, as Mango points out in What should be linked: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply." The site hosting the article is neutral, hence linking to the report is necessary accoring to WP. Angryapathy (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, we should include a link to a web version of the document if available. The Nizkor "debunking" page may be acceptable to you but I note that it doesn't actually include the document itself. Mangojuice^talk 20:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Links normally to be avoided

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[1] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. 16. Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time. 10 and 13 apply for obvious reasons if you simply take a look at the website, 16 applies due to the flag that on Scribd you can flag the document as "Hateful or offensive" and that might lead to it being removed from the page. The sites terms of service specifically state that 8. Prohibited Conduct. "8.4 post, upload, or distribute any User Content or other content that is unlawful or that a reasonable person could deem to be objectionable, offensive, indecent, pornographic, invasive of another’s privacy, harassing, threatening, embarrassing, distressing, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or otherwise inappropriate; " So the chances of this report being removed from that site are so high that it is unjustifiable according to wikipedia rules to have a link to it from this wikipedia article. I previously stated that I support having a link to the Leuchter report from the article but not from a random site or a hate site and I still support that but the fact is that the Leuchter report is not on any site that fulfills those requirements, I therefor object to this link being in place and ask that it be removed immediately.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

10: that's silly, this is not what that is meant to refer to. Scribd is not a social networking website or forum of any kind. 13: We're not proposing linking to the indirectly related www.scribd.com, we're linking to a very specific and obviously exactly related subpage, and yes, subpages are different from the site they are on. What do you expect, a whole domain dedicated to nothing but hosting one document? 16: The document has been up there consistently for more than a year; something gets established as unreliable if it is frequently broken. Mangojuice^talk 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Meant or not it applies to this and therefor it is not allowed to post this link. 13. Ok you have a point there. 16. No the fact that it can be flagged as Hateful or offensive and that the sites terms of service forbid it's presence on it and therefor it is not likely that the link is likely to continue being functional. Just read the rules aye, this link is a no no.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

10. So regardless of whether or not the rule actually applies, you want to apply the rule to suit your needs. Scribd is not a social networking site, nor is it a forum. I fail to see how this applies in any way, and you've given no evidence that this rules applies to Scribd in any way. 16. Anything on the internet has the possibility of being taken down. This rule refers to something being hosted temporarily, however the report has been one the site for over a year. This is meant to prevent link rot, not predict the future. Angryapathy (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How neutral is it to only link to sites that do not objectively cover the report? You, 194, want to block access to the report unless the site hosting it bashes the report. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. All we can hope to do is present the information. Obviously the Leuchter report isn't taken seriously in scientific circles, so Let the facts speak for themselves. You have a moral objection to the report itself, that is clear from what you have written here and your history of editting WP regarding anti-semitism. But put your bias aside and see that all we are doing to linking an article about a report to the report itself. That is the neutral path, and that is the goal of Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A. Who started the Link would be usefull section? B. What history of editing WP regarding anti semitism? C. The link is not allowed according to WP rules and therefor needs to go. D. No personal attacks. E. Assume good faith. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Nizkor source doesn't even host the document. Thought I should just point that out. 194x, you've made your arguments and they haven't been convincing to me or Angryapathy, and Dougweller and William H have supported this link as well. Markacohen hasn't specifically commented on this link, but obviously agrees we should link to the document. So it's 5 to 1 against you here. If you want broader input, start an WP:RFC. Otherwise, I think it's time for you to stop beating a dead horse. Mangojuice^talk 15:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mango. The consensus is keep the link to the article. Angryapathy (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything is Kosher Now! I'm glad we could link to the Leuchter report from a Neutral site. My only criticism and complaint is that the document will probably get deleted in the future. We should get the report put on Archive.org and then link to it on Archive.org which is more long term.

We DID IT GUYS, WE REACHED CONSENSUS! Praise G*D!

Markacohen (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't pose as a Jew! --RCS (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to Please stop with the personal attacks. Markacohen (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok you guys can have your link, happy?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fred Leuchter a Technician or Engineer

Yes I understand the Canadian Court, would not recognize Fred Leuchter as an Engineer, but I can't help but wonder if this was Political because of the taboo and controversy surrounding the case. So what makes one an engineer? Does one have to go to college to become an engineer? or can one become an engineer by working in the real world and gaining the skills of an engineer?

What is the difference between a technician and engineer? Why does the article describe him as a technician, when this is a man who has built execution equipment from scratch, wouldn't this qualify him as an engineer? My thought is a technician is someone who tweaks or repairs things, an engineer is someone who designs and builds things from scratch. I think Fred Leuchter does more than tweak and repair execution equipment, from the movie Mr. Death staring Fred Leuchter it was showing him designing and building execution equipment from scratch. I'll assume good faith here, and not make any assumptions the word technician was meant to minimize Fred Leuchters real innate status as an engineer.

Markacohen (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In many jurisdictions, engineering is a licensed endeavour. It's intended to keep people without the skills out of building bridges, railways or tall buildings. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What about states he worked in where you don't need an engineering license to practice engineering and engineering design?

Markacohen (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fred Leuchter's real innate status as an engineer" - now this is a love declaration or i've never seen one! --RCS (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren is correct. We don't call him an engineer because he doesn't have any qualifications or a licence, etc. Canada has 12 engineering licensing bodies. If he had a licence from one of those, we'd call him an engineer. Without it, we don't. A licence would be a reliable source, but what MarkaCohen is doing is what we call original research, trying to make a personal deduction from his own ideas. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Please Read it again with extra real added to it: "Real Innate Status as a Real Engineer". Anyone who can take the current at the time execution equipment and evolve it so it works significantly better is an engineer. Anyone who designs and builds execution equipment from scratch is an execution engineer. If we put the politics, taboo and controversy aside, he would be considered an engineer for what he does. I think the term technician tends to lower the true level of his execution equipment expertise. This doesn't change the fact, the way forensic evaluation went, had some serious holes in it. We are talking about truth and neutrality here, 'me thinks' technician sounds insufficient.

Markacohen (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

According to wikipedia: An engineer is a skilled technical professional. Engineers are concerned with developing economical and safe solutions to practical problems, by applying mathematics and scientific knowledge while considering technical constraints[1][2]. The term is derived from the Latin root "ingeniosus," meaning "skilled"[citation needed]. The industrial revolution and continuing technological developments of the last few centuries have changed the connotation of the term slightly, resulting in the perception of engineers as applied scientists[citation needed]. The work of engineers is the link between perceived needs of society and commercial applications. As far as I am concerned it is not the job of a Canadian court to decide for the rest of us if this Leuchter character is an engineer or not but if he really did build commercial execution equipment then I suppose that he could be considered an engineer by wikipedias standards.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And your reliable source for that will be? Technicians build things also. Are editors aware that he had to swear to stop calling himself an engineer in Massachusetts? Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well my reliable resource for wikipedias standards is its article regarding engineers, feel free to look it up yourself. As for my alleged reliable sources for anything else I did Not! claim to have any.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• "I, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., agree to immediately cease and desist from ... using in any manner whatsoever the title "engineer"." WilliamH (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you left out the key component here which is called selective editing.

I, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., agree to immediately cease and desist from the following, while I am in Massachusetts and remain unregistered pursuant to G.L. c. 112, a. 81D-T:

I am criticizing your selective editing, not you as a person. I am directed at this specific behavior, not a personal attack on you.

so in other words in some states he could practice as an Engineer without having to register as an Engineer, and thus Leuchter has practiced as an engineer in other states legally, because some states don't require it. And I wonder what the requirements are for registering in MA?

Markacohen (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for posting sources and information in these regards. My thinking was one becomes an engineer because they gained the skills to become an engineer by working in the real world or getting an engineering degree. It seems to be clear Fred Leuchter does not have an engineering degree, but from what I saw in the movie Mr. Death and read about him, he seems to reflect the skills, aptitude and knowledge someone who is an engineer. I can understand the states need in requiring people to register themselves, as in the past I have had experience with poor quality contractors. I'm not trying to Glow on the guy here RCS, but he is clearly a skilled engineer when it comes to designing and building execution technology. I think the main flaw in the Leuchter Report comes from samples from the "alleged" gas chambers, they were not analyzed properly. I wish someone would actually do the proper scientific forensic work on the Gas chambers so we can put Holocaust denial to bed already. I'm shocked with all the controversy surrounding Holocaust denial, no one has stepped forward to do the kind of scientific forensic study to end all the Holocaust "Revisionism".

Markacohen (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mark, I did not edit it out on the basis of a technicality, in that he might choose to refer to himself as an engineer outside of Massachusetts. That is a tremendous assumption of bad faith.

Leuchter is not an accomplished maker of execution equipment. The closest Leuchter came to building a gas chamber was submitting a proposal to Missouri. It was rejected. He visited Mississippi's execution facility - at his own request and no one elses, and the state did not make any financial agreement with him. He has not worked for Maryland or Arizona according to state officials, nor California or North Carolina as stated by Wardens Daniel B. Vasquez and Gary T. Dixon respectively. WilliamH (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, as editors we should not be trying to make a decision about this ourselves, that isn't our role. And I strongly object to the suggestion that somehow Holocaust denial hasn't been 'put to bed'. It will never end however because people will continue to lie about what happened. The suggestion that something more has to be done to prove Denialism is a lie could be read as a sideways suggestion that there may be some truth in it. Which, Markacohen, is one reason why you are having a bumpy ride. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can read here then Leuchter was indeed not an engineer, if there exists any credible evidence to the contrary that he really did build those things from scratch and such then fine we could call him an engineer but this question if Canada or some other country recognizes him as one or if he signed some statement to avoid prosecution and such things I do not see them as being of importance. If it can be proven that he has done what Mark claims he has then that along with the fact that he has referred to himself as en engineer should be sufficient for us to call him one.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia Fraud!

What offends me most is the "pseudo-scientific" label on this article. I have a Ph.D. in materials engineering from a top US university and I find the Leuchter Report more credible than the propaganda and out right lies that are passed off as truth on Wikipedia. Otherwise, the article reeks of POV. There is no almost serious technical discussion of the report. The article is mainly political in nature, that is not what encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.214.106 (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anybody could pretend having a Ph.D. and what not, in cyberspace there is zero credibility for claimed credentials. Your opinion, as a matter of fact, is absolutely worthless. --RCS (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia's verifiability policy and undue weight policy. We can only assemble articles based on what reliable, published sources say. Even if we could confirm that you has a PhD in a relevant discipline, that wouldn't give us the sourcing necessary. If you for example published an article in a peer reviewed journal or something similar we could maybe cite that. But we don't have that option in this sort of circumstance. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Without regard to whether the unsigned is indeed a Ph.D, we can evaluate the presented premises: does the discussed article 1. reek of POV?, 2. lack technical discussion? and 3. fall short of being encyclopedic? Themindsurgeon (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)talk:themindsurgeon

No, any technical discussion would have to be based on reliable sources discussing the report, otherwise it would be original research (see WP:OR, in what way? Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Parts per million (ppm)!

I referred to this Wikipedia entry after reading the arguments of a holocaust revisionist. What strikes me as most odd is that Leuchter's numerical results are omitted from this entry. We are told 'Insects have a far higher resistance to cyanide than humans, with concentration levels up to 16,000ppm (parts per million)...300ppm is fatal to humans in a matter of minutes.' Yet, why aren't Leuchter's figures anywhere presented? I.e., The walls of the delousing chambers had residual cyanide levels as high as 13,500ppm, while the rooms said to be gas chambers had on the average about 2 parts per million? Respectfully, I think a Wiki article on the 'Leuchter report' without his results is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.235.12 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

this article is absurd

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.102 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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. WilliamH (talk) 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 --196.207.33.197 (talk) 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.157.244 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have sources for that rumination? WilliamH (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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: A Response to J.-C. Pressac's Critique" by Paul Grubach. It should be linked at: http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html rdfuerle (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Because CODOH is an unreliable source. See WP:RS. WilliamH (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article in question is original research and on a biased web-site, though it is difficult for such material to get published in mainstream sources. My issue is that the same criticism appears to be valid for many if not all of the sources quoted in the article. Channelwatcher (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PS to the above. There is a link to a critique of the report on Nizkor. I have no problem with that, but Nizkor is a site devoted to countering Holocaust Revisionism and is, for that reason, as partisan as CODOH. If a link to the critique on Nizkor is acceptable, then so should be a link to a rebuttal of the critique on CODOH Channelwatcher (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Channelwatcher: Holocaust Historiography is fact. Holocaust Revisionism is fiction. They don't have the same weight. --RCS (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The troll again. Please stick to the topic under review and make a positive contribution or go away. Channelwatcher (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This article strikes me as so lacking in neutrality. I'd just say to those responsible for the overall tone that if you want to attack somebodies view it can sometime be advantageous to be subtle about it, anything so obviously partisan as this may have completely the opposite effect to that intended. Hardicanute (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Pseudoscientific

The very first significant word of the article is "pseudoscientific". That is a conclusion; its place, if at all, is after some supporting evidence has been presented. But in any case, the term pseudoscientific is inherently pejorative. Terms which are inherently pejorative are inappropriate in an encyclopedia, most definitely so in the opening definition of the subject. Parroting the sources quoted at the end does not count as evidence, unless they can be shown to be reliable within Wikipedia's definition. I have not investigated them, but at first glance they seem to be as partisan as CODOH.

"Pseudoscientific" suggests intent to deceive, or blatant and ignorant deviation from scientific procedure, neither of which I think has been demonstrated. I consider "flawed" or "invalid" are more appropriate, but neither should be inserted at the very beginning.

NPOV means that an encyclopedia should not be expressing opinions. The weight of evidence from sources considered reliable should be presented as such, and not in wording that expresses a personal view of a writer or writers.

I move for the removal of this word. Channelwatcher (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One always has to question the hidden motives of people who rush to the intellectual defense of thoroughly discredited people who, if they were in countries like Germany, France, Austria and several others where free spech and free academia are no dirty words, would find themselves in prison on behalf of a very solid set of democratically passed laws. User:Channelwatcher, in a word: don't. Please. --RCS (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to be very rude, but instead I'll let your stupidity and intolerance speak for themselves. This is a place for discussion of the content of an encyclopedia. Please limit your contributions to that. If you post again I shall ignore you as is appropriate for any troll. Channelwatcher (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And if you keep making personal attacks you are likely to end up blocked. I've left you a caution on your talk page. RCS, if you are questioning Channelwatcher's motives then I ask you to remember WP:AGF. As for the category, I think it's correct. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The personal attack was made on me, not by me, in the form of assumption of bad faith, but I have moved further discussion of this to your Talk page.

On the use of the word "pseudoscience" as the first significant word in an article, it is not helpful to simply state "I think". I set out in detail why I consider it is NPOV in what I think is a reasonable and balanced manner. It would be helpful, Doug, if you could address those points in the same way. Channelwatcher (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is pseudoscientific as it claims to be a scientific report, but is discredited by actual professionals in the field. It isn't a violation of NPOV, it is just the situation. As we are meant to inform readers of information regarding the subject, the reader should immediately know that the vast majority of mainstream scientists find this report to not be scientific. Angryapathy (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. It isn't a scientific report, it is pseudoscience and as you say, has been discredited. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede the psuedoscientificpseudoscientific word, with reservations. It's opening the article with it that I am really unhappy with. I contrast this with the article on Did Six Million Really Die, linked to from here, which in my view is an excellent NPOV job. It opens with factual statements about the book and then moves on later to give sourced evidence that it was discredited. I think this article would benefit from similar treatment.Channelwatcher (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The article deals fairly with the criticisms of the report, and shows it is flawed and unreliable. It is also clear that it was commissioned with the aim of proving a point of view (though this is probably equally true of the Krakow report, and Leuchter claims he told Zundel he would report what he found if it went against Zundel's thesis). But I don't consider there is sufficient to support the characterisation as pseudoscience, which implies dishonesty and disregard for methodology: it was, after all, carried out surreptitiously in dangerous circumstances behind the Iron Curtain. While I disagree on the word itself, I am prepared to be outvoted on that, but I really want to reraise the issue of opening the article with such a loaded and POV word. When it is used, the article should state that it is considered pseudoscientific by [insert authority here]. The opening to this article is simply unencyclopedic. Angryapathy: who are this vast majority of scientists? The vast majority of scientists have probably never even heard of it. An encyclopedia should state which authorities have come to this conclusion and based on what grounds. I happen to think most religions are a bag of claptrap, but I don't expect an encyclopedia to say that. An encyclopedia will say what specified people think. It doesn't tell its readers what to think. Channelwatcher (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading footnote number 1 - all the use of the word pseudoscientific come from political sources. Richard Green has been ambly rebuted on the web by people with at least his qualifications. The other users of pseudoscientific were just repeating a word that was being bandied about in the pro-holocaust literature - ie no basis other than good short term memory - ie no scientific study. The use of pseudoscientific describes footnote1 underpinnings. It's also childish - but that helps Fred's credibility I quess so leave it in is my vote.159.105.80.122 (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The Leuchter report is a pseudoscientific.... The link for this 'reference' is to a pro-Western christian/jewish POV holocaust site. Therefore it can not stand on its own as a credible, reliable third-party reference. A scientific study in contrast that disproves the document must be used to enable the label pseudo and that study must be used as the reference. I have removed the term until someone can post a reliable third-party neutral non-biased reference. Lostinlodos (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You've deleted a lot of text which had sources that are reliable sources by our criteria at WP:RS. You didn't just remove a term. I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Institut für Zeitgeschichte has characterised the Leuchter Report as follows:

"pseudowissenschaftliche, ziemlich plump gemachte NS-apologetische Propagandaschrift".

In English:

"pseudoscientific, rather crudely made nazism-apologetic propaganda piece ".

(Source for the quotation: von Ux: "Das Weltbild der Intellektuellen rechten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland", 2008, p. 139.) They are not alone: A large fraction of the German scholarly literature mentioning the Leuchter Report explicitly describes it as pseudoscientific when characterising it briefly. Hans Adler 22:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing published in Germany or by a German citizen can be considered reliable as German law still prohibits any discussion about the holocaust that may go contrary to the current majority view. Lostinlodos (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is neither true nor does your conclusion follow logically from your premise. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Absoutely Accurate

German Law

§ 130 Public Incitement (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005)

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law [related to the holocaust], in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.§

Lostinlodos (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. This law is about "acts [actually] committed". In particular, it's OK to say that the Nazis didn't industrially slaughter millions of native Americans because this simply didn't happen (and regardless of whether it would be covered by "Holocaust" if it had happened). In other words: Truth is a valid defence; belief in a conspiracy theory is not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with honest scientific research. The background of this law is a much better understanding of German history among the German population than can be assumed in Arabic countries, for example. Under these conditions it is extremely unlikely that someone denies the Holocaust due to an honest mistake. Hans Adler 21:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is written in a totally biased manner which is an obvious sign of prejudiced blind tolerant ponies who sing along with the official propaganda halting any attempt to find out what really happened. Where's the objectivity claimed by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.92.156 (talk • contribs) 8 August 2011

The use of "pseudoscientific" as the 5th word in the lede is less than ideal. I'd be fine using pseudoscience if Leuchter had went around with dowsing rods or performed psychic readings to "disprove" gas chambers. Yes, I looked up definitions for pseudoscience, but this is a case where other (also pejorative) terms such as "flawed", "discredited", "unscientific" would be a much better, when used appropriately. This is NOT about what the sources say, this is about choosing as editors the words to use in the lede whose nuances best describe the (sourced) text below. For me pseudoscience = tin foil-hattery, a very different kind of beast than the ugly and dark world of Holocaust denial. Make the first paragraph just about him and his report, summarizing sections 1 and 2, and then last 2 paragraphs in the lede summarizing the report's almost universal rejection as being unscientific. Jeez, what's the big hurry to skin this cat?

That is my opinion, based on how I use/perceive "pseudoscientific". However I think the first response by RCS to Channelwatcher's GF arguments were disgusting, in a most basic and objective sense. The fact that Channelwatcher responded with such anger, and yes, a personal attack, is not surprising and quite understandable considering most of us, Stormfront trolls excepted, would take great umbrage to be called a closet Nazi for discussing on the article's talk page a question of wording. The rebuke of RCS should have come first, as a case of WP:POKING. I know that all Holocaust-related have a constant influx of racist trolls who have a common tactic of "asking" very pointy questions. But people are being way too quick on the trigger here and elsewhere. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave up quite some time ago on removing the POV-use of the term. The fact that every listed quote/reference (see the archive) that was given to support 'Pseudo' is, or was sponsored by, a Jewish/Holocaust group makes said references equally POV. It's a lost cause and it appears to be a stain on Wikipedia that this term will forever remain non-neutral and very slanted. A quick look at the talk archives will also show that any attempt to balance this article will be responded too with personal attacks, blatant bias, and hate speak. A lost cause if ever there was one. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

a round of applause:

I want to take a moment to thank:
82.233.111.246
for attempting to restore balance and neutrality to this biased and factually incorrect article. Lostinlodos (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Emotional

I found this article to be extremely emotional and hostile to its subject matter. I have no opinion of this matter, one way or another, but I think it is an important issue. I think the victims deserve to have these issues fully and objectively investigated. It's clear that powerful forces are preventing any such investigation from happening. I think Wikipedia would do well to delete this page and start again - and this time stick to the objective facts. We all know that the murder of six million people was an horrific crime. We don't need to feel your moral indignation in every line. Objective reporting is far more powerful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.22.7 (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty objective. Please elaborate where the moral indignation is. Or just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannibalcaesar (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster in the section "Emotional." This article does not qualify for "good article" status as it is written. For example, it fails to meet the standard of Neutrality required for that status. It reads like a smear-screed, taking the utmost pains to represent a man who was employed as an expert consultant in the design of execution equipment, gas chambers in particular, as someone who didn't know anything about such things. Limitations in his educational background were magnified in importance, as a way of fabricating a misrepresentation of the man's qualifications as a whole. Using the same argument against, for example, Thomas Edison, one might deny that he was an electrical engineer, even though he could be judged one of the fathers of that science if you placed more importance upon ability than upon credentials. Most likely, Fred Leuchter knew his job despite lacking a doctorate in some relevant specialty, and, he evidently did his work well enough that people would pay him to do it, at least until the Jewish organizations began applying their well-known pressure tactics to deprive him of further employment. I dispute the neutrality of this article. Jenab6 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)