The revisionism in Wikipedia

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 456
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby Zulu » 7 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:31 pm)

I was thinking in an efficient way of dribbling the censure exercised by the squads of exterminationists which reign currently on Wikipedia. On the French site that situation is dramatical. I observed that each time I introduced some remark of revisionist aspect, although written on the "discussion" page, sourced and verifiable, my intervention was invariably borrowed from the site. After 2 or 3 remarks from a same IP or nickname. I was finally banned definitely from http://www.wikipedia.fr for "Vandalism" while I remain alive on the English version. Of course, I could use other IPs and nicknames but in the French site there is no possibility of introducing the revisionist vision of the holocaust. In such conditions, the revisionism appears only on the article "negationnisme de la Shoah" as well as on articles dedicated to revisionists like Faurisson, Rassinier, etc... with the bias you can easily guess, the total impossibility of corrections even rigorously justified and the threat of banishment if try to make anyone.
Now, It exists a way to do so: I mean the creation of a new article named "revisionist argumentation" or "The argumentation of the revisionism". In that case, it is obvious that only revisionist entries could be made. Well, I hope so because I can't see how some exterminationist entry could be made in it. This article could be divided in several chapters - maybe put latter in separated articles accordingly with their length - like "The claims", "The plan of extermination", "The death camps", "The gas chambers", "The eyewitnesses", "The persecution of revisionists", etc...
I propose to work together for redacting such article on that forum. To start, it could be a synthesis of specific entries already well treated in that forum on each subject. Then, after having something consistent in English, I could translate it in order to create the equivalent articles in French, Spanish and Portuguese sites.
What do you think about that idea?

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby Kingfisher » 7 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:36 pm)

Wikipedia already has an article Criticism of Holocaust Denial: the only such article I am aware of, as "Criticism of..." is normally a part of the main article. It would seem reasonable, given this, that there should be an article:Arguments of Holocaust Revisionism, but I don't give much for the chances of getting it accepted.

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby SevenUp » 7 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:31 pm)

Wikipedia has an article on holocaust denial, as well as an article on criticism of holocaust denial. Both articles written by Zionists. If you try to edit an article it must be approved by Zionists or it will not be incorporated into the article, and if it is not to their liking you will soon be banned. I speak from experience.

User avatar
White Wolf
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby White Wolf » 7 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:26 pm)

I've had similar experiences with Wikipedia on other topics, especially related to National Socialism and anything political that the "Goon Squad" does not agree with.

I finally gave up on most of their topics.

I was listening to someone on Reason Radio the other day and they said what I have been saying for years.

Wikipedia is great for general education on most topics, but unusable for anything Non-PC.
The truth fears no question.

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby EtienneSC » 7 years 9 months ago (Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:49 am)

It sounds well worth a try to me. You could cite Rudolf, Mattogno, etc and thus perhaps get the arguments across without endorsement. Then you would need to cite rebuttals for balance. How about 'Holocaust revisionist authors and literature'?

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby Kingfisher » 7 years 9 months ago (Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:37 am)

SevenUp wrote:Wikipedia has an article on holocaust denial, as well as an article on criticism of holocaust denial. Both articles written by Zionists. If you try to edit an article it must be approved by Zionists or it will not be incorporated into the article, and if it is not to their liking you will soon be banned. I speak from experience.

Right, and that article is pure propaganda: a travesty of what an encyclopaedia article should be. It refuses the term Revisionism in favour of Denial and dismisses it as "an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory".

Articles on Revisionist topics vary in quality. The one on Fred Leuchter, for example, is reasonably objective, but the one on the Leuchter Report opens by dismissing it as "a pseudo-scientific report" in the first line. Of, course they are entitled to quote authorities which say that, but not to express such an opinion as part of the article itself and certainly not to open with it. The article also cites without question the canard about cyanide only penetrating a few microns of the surface.

Articles on Holocaust topics freely cite Nizkor -- a clearly biased source -- as evidence of fact, rather than one side of the argument but ban any references to VHO or CODOH as "untrustworthy sources". The article on David Irving calls him "a discredited historian" but can cite as sources only a number of newspaper articles parroting each other.

Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby Mkk » 7 years 9 months ago (Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:12 am)

Kingfisher,

I completely agree with you. The Wikipedia pages on the Holocaust are just the same horror stories, and I too was put off by Leuchter's work being described as a "psuedoscientific" book.

Just look at the wikipedia page on "Generalplan Ost"! To establish several million soviets were killed by the Germans, they quote the Soviet Extraordinary State commision! They also quote another source, I don't have ascess to it, but I don't believe what it says at all. They also admit there is no documentation for the alleged Generalplan Ost, but mention supposed corroborating documents-however, I read some of these documents at the Axis Forum, I can't remember what they said exactly but there was nothing about extermination. That is just one example.

Wikipedia is a good place for normal everyday topics, but when it comes to historical controversies I advise everyone to stay well clear.
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

Carolyn Yeager
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:55 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby Carolyn Yeager » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:41 am)

SevenUp wrote:Wikipedia has an article on holocaust denial, as well as an article on criticism of holocaust denial. Both articles written by Zionists. If you try to edit an article it must be approved by Zionists or it will not be incorporated into the article, and if it is not to their liking you will soon be banned. I speak from experience.


Since it's well known that Wikipedia is controlled by Jewish interests and it's not going to change it's bias, the better course is to start a revisionist-controlled encyclopedia. This has been tried by a few -- Majority Rights had or has? some Wiki type pages and they're very good. It would, of course, be limited to many fewer topics. Those of you who have enough interest to post on this thread should work together to write some pages for it, using Wikipedia as a guide (that makes it easier). Whatever corrections you would make to Wiki pages you can put on these pages.

We need our own media, which is what CODOH is all about. Expanding it into the "encyclopedia" area, where our own language could be used rather than the polically correct, is a logical step. This takes devotion, and probably some money. Money for real, clearly defined projects by responsible people is much easier to get than money for past accomplishments. More folks should get past the talking stage, get fired up and start doing. :bom:
In Jewish history there are no coincidences ... Elie Wiesel
Learn more at http://eliewieseltattoo.com

Auschwitz: The Underground Guided Tour http://carolynyeager.net/auschwitz-unde ... uided-tour

User avatar
Webmaster
Administration
Administration
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 10:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby Webmaster » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:19 pm)

Many good thoughts here, but let me intervene. To maintain a good encyclopedia it doesn’t only include money, it takes diligent people too, at least 3-4 persons to maintain it, knowledgeable in the software. They should do modifications, monitor it and check so there is no spam, look that an article is put on the right place etc.

Carolyn Yeager wrote:We need our own media, which is what CODOH is all about. Expanding it into the "encyclopedia" area, where our own language could be used rather than the polically correct, is a logical step. This takes devotion, and probably some money. Money for real, clearly defined projects by responsible people is much easier to get than money for past accomplishments. More folks should get past the talking stage, get fired up and start doing. :bom:


Carolyn, when you were running around in your diapers, CODOH had their own encyclopedia. :mrgreen: Seriously, I too was tired of Wikipedia and one day a couple years ago (after several whiskeys) I put up an encyclopedia at CODOH. I also thought that day I was smart :roll: so I did a modification so only members of this forum could do submissions to the encyclopedia, to bypass a lot of nonsense and spam. Even as we are about 600 members here, it's of course not enough, we need all people we can get and then we need the 3-4 people I was talking about.

Drawbacks:
* The software is hard to maintain when it comes to upgrades and modifications.
* The learning curve is high to write and format good articles.
* The software is almost a shell; you must do lots of things by yourself.
* Easy to spam.

After us Eric Hunt started his encyclopedia. He is so spammed up, so it's nothing there more then spam:
The Revisionist Workshop Wiki

To view our encyclopedia
Revipedia
To keep the search engines away, we have protected the folder.
User: User
Password: none (blank)
You should be able to log in and edit with your username and password from this forum. If you or anyone else likes it, it's yours. :D As you see, we have some abandoned projects here and there because of time and money.

I suggest that we use Metapedia as they allow revisionist material and they are well-known and have also the people to maintain it.

User avatar
Jazz
Member
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:12 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby Jazz » 7 years 9 months ago (Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:01 am)

SevenUp wrote:Wikipedia has an article on holocaust denial, as well as an article on criticism of holocaust denial. Both articles written by Zionists. If you try to edit an article it must be approved by Zionists or it will not be incorporated into the article, and if it is not to their liking you will soon be banned. I speak from experience.


Here's a video about Zionists editing Wikipedia

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY[/youtube]

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby Kingfisher » 7 years 9 months ago (Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:54 pm)

Carolyn asked in another thread if anyone had looked at Revipedia.

I have, and I added a video: Anthony Lawson's Were the German's Really so Stupid? I put it as featured video on the front page as think this is a very good answer to the question that arose in the other thread as to what to recommend an interested newcomer to Revisionism to begin with. Lawson presents a good case, quietly and reasonably, and his mild Australian accent is equally pleasant to Brits and Americans, while remaining clear to speakers of other languages. At about half an hour it is long enough to get its points over but short enough to be digestible at a single sitting, unlike Denierbud's brilliant magna opera (think that's a correct Latin plural :) ).

I'd be interested in helping this get going, but I don't have the skills and knowledge to do it all on my own. I wonder if Borjastick and/or EtienneSC would be interested? Carolyn is already far too busy with other things, but in any case, as she has acknowledged herself, this needs someone with a different temperament :). Revipedia should aim at a neutral, non-polemic encyclopaedic style. It should avoid making direct assertions as to what is and is not true, but quote Revisionist (and other) scholars' arguments and opinions. We should attempt to teach Wikipedia a lesson in objectivity and neutrality. Not "Yankel Wiernik is completely unbelievable" (still less a liar!) but rather "Juergen Graf argues in The Giant with Feet of Clay that Wiernik's testimony is unreliable because..."

You need "User" (case sensitive) and a blank password to get in to view it, and then your personal username and password to edit.

User avatar
rerevisionist
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:01 am
Contact:

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby rerevisionist » 7 years 9 months ago (Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:09 pm)

There's a site called Metapedia which seems based on Wikipedia (even using the same software), and which seems to have been in existence for some years; and it has quite a few different languages, I think from internal evidence that it started in Sweden. It has a solidly revisionist outlook. I have no idea how popular it is, though. My only contact was putting up a short 'nuke skeptics' piece a few weeks ago, when I first heard of it - Wiki pretty much instantly removed the same piece from their site, as of course it's not a PC topic - a lot of science fraud is Jewish.

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby EtienneSC » 7 years 9 months ago (Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:00 pm)

In fact, there is quite a lot of interesting material on Wikipedia as it stands (e.g. "Holocaust denial"), though also a negative editorial tone. So why give up on Wikipedia? The Zionist lady above is quite right that attempts to add material are often removed or do not appear unless you know how the system works. All we want is to put across facts about who published what, which I think is within the guidelines. So why not learn the system rather than duplicating material already available on vho?

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: The revisionism in Wikipedia

Postby Kingfisher » 7 years 9 months ago (Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:37 pm)

EtienneSC wrote:In fact, there is quite a lot of interesting material on Wikipedia as it stands (e.g. "Holocaust denial"), though also a negative editorial tone. So why give up on Wikipedia? The Zionist lady above is quite right that attempts to add material are often removed or do not appear unless you know how the system works. All we want is to put across facts about who published what, which I think is within the guidelines. So why not learn the system rather than duplicating material already available on vho?

This article is particularly interesting:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_Kingdom

Even more interesting than the article is the Talk page. I don't know anything about the arbitration procedures except that they seem to be being used to defend the article against Zionist pressure. Can we not use the same procedures to appeal for greater objectivity in articles such as Holocaust Denial article and the Leuchter Report? At present it seems that those articles are sat upon by the Lobby and any amendments for balance are simply reverted.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests