|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
If the affiliates of the Adelaide institute insist on editing this article to insert their own POV I suggest they at least attempt to word it in such a way as to be; 1) non-offensive 2) Factually correct 3) non biased Because if they don’t I’m happy to keep changing it back and each time I change it I will insert more and more material negative to the Adelaide institute. Regards Dave
- Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. It's good to know I'm not the only one. However. with regards to the following statement: "I will insert more and more material negative to the Adelaide institute". You will do nothing of the sort, or your edits will be deemed POV and rightly reverted. Please read our policy on the Neutral Point of View. The idea is to ensure the article remains objective and free of biased anecdotes. Thanks,--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
When I say that I will insert material negitive to the Adelaide Institute I am not implying that the infomation will breach POV. Facts about the court cases that the institute have been involved in can still be objective, regards Mutty
Thought I might rewrite the article, hope the two of you don’t mind. If you don’t like a bit please edit and say on here what you found objectionable. AdelaideRandel 04:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This article would benefit from some specifics - it's kind of vague in places. For example, "the activity of the Institute seems to have declined" - either it has it it has not; "seems" smells like one author's opinion. Also, this sentence:
- It has been noted by human rights organisations that the Institute has failed to fully comply with the order of the Federal Court of Australia and still publishes materials that it was ordered to rememove in the 2002 judgement.
Why those tactice?
6 million was a number plucked from thin air for marketing reasons. The actual number was around 1.3m, still a lot mind you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't, the vast bulk of historians and academics accept a number that is far, far higher than that (most estimates put the number killed in Auschwitz alone at around 1.4 million) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
NPOV Warning added
I've added a Neutral Point of View dispute header to this article. My personal views are not against the consensual historical view of the Holocaust, however it appears to me that the article contains quite a lot of smear that purports as mere fact and does not explore the actual organisation's contentions sufficiently. Being a "Holocause denier" organisation is not automatically interchangable as being a group of villains.
I would suggest that these things really needs to be discussed because they are shaping the modern political world, (possibly destablising the Middle East from some POVs) and to merely silence and jail critics however distasteful seems to me to be the time honoured method of the facsist. From my own point of view, a great deal of my (British and Australian) family gave their lives in WW2, and it was not so that the survivors could loose the right to discuss anything and everything. The Holocaust and Israel should be no exception in my opinion. Sean --220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- What part of this article does not adhere to the neutral point of view, in your opinion? We're just here to discuss this article, not the Institute in general, much less the Holocaust. Will Beback talk 23:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Will - for example the article cites that "it is considered to be anti-semetic by Australian and human rights groups" yet fails to adress who says this and why. So this is merely attempting to criticise them without any relevant citation or discussion. It isn't so much relevant that nobody likes them, it is more important to my mind to discuss what the Adelaide Institute do and don't say, and why this is and isn't correct. Merely saying that some unspecified groups dislike them seems just like smear. I can't find much on the "Adelaide Institute" website, so how are these non-specified groups so well informed? It is also worth mentioning that the article cites "Australian groups" - this sounds like an official thing, perhaps a government organisation - but it is vague - it could mean absolutely nothing, or it could be "Amnesty International" or the "Australia Zionist League" or the "Death to the Muslim Terrorist Association" - we just aren't told either way so we can't make up our own mind.
Further the article says that they are "implicated in distributing Holocaust denials". Denying the Holocaust or disenting with mainstream view of the Holocaust is not something that one can be "implicated" in (at least not in the Australia). One may quite legally say whatever one wishes - it is not a crime. We do have an anti-discrimination act, but one may completely deny the Holocaust if one wishes. This would be an absurd position of course but there isn't a factual case presented that this is what the Adelaide Institute actually do. It may be that they are simply anti-Zionist or they dipute the claimed number of Holocaust deaths.
Use of this type of emotive biased language (eg "apparently targeting", "implicated" is found throughout the article - "members of the institute were implicated in distributing Holocaust denial pamphlets on the street and through the mail, apparently targeting those of Jewish background" - once again, one is allowed to distribute material to people of Jewish background through mail in this country without any crime or implication involved - if it incited a crime, threat etc, then it would be clearly illegal, but this wasn't the claim of the author. So the article takes exception that someone send a brochure to a Jewish person but fails to discuss what the article in fact said - so it attempts to condemn them but the condemntation contains no information or substance. This is clearly bias because it attempt to make my mind up for me. It takes the tone of a police officer who is discussing a crime so to speak, but there is not information, no outline of a crime - merely the facade of one.
It says "It has been noted by human rights organisations that the Institute has failed to fully comply with the order of the Federal Court of Australia" - yet does not specify what groups say this. Furthemore, it is actually not relevant as the Federal Court is the only real arbiter of whehter it has been complied with or not. It also doesn't describe the actual ruling in it's original legal terms (whatever they may be), but puts it instead into plain language without citation. Once gain, this appears to be bias.
It decribes the members of the Institute in a biased way for example "German Holocaust denier and pamphleteer". That seems to be highly emotive language. The term "German Holocaust denier" is being placed upon him as if an authority of some sort has found this to be so, but it fails to cite where and how. It is essentially a "weasel word" way of implying that he is a Nazi. This might be true, but there are no facts at hand. He may be a German man who hands out pamphlets about disputes the Holocaust. In my country (Australia), that is not a crime. Even the term "pamphleteer" sounds terribly serious when he could in fact just be a crazy guy that likes handing out pamphlets about how much he hates the Jews, Israel etc. I'll never know because the article doesn't allow me to see the facts for myself - it tries to steer me toward thinking a certain thing without allowing me to use my own brain. I don't want to be told what to think - I'd rather have the facts and decide for myself.
Finally, it links to the subjects of "AIDS denialism", "Antisemitism", "Black supremacy", "Holocaust denial", "Nation of Islam and antisemitism", "Racism and White supremacy". The article fails to factually establish how the Adelaide Institute is connected to "Black Supremacy", but in adding them as links, it helps to colour the association. This is commonly called arguing after the fact and is a propaganda technique. One would read on about these awful subjects, and the link will have been made in your mind so it again attempts to make your mind up for you. Some of these terms are also buzzwords - for example often one will hear the term "Antisemitism" from a "Zionist" in relation to Palestinian "terrorists". Strictly speaking, this term is redundant in this context because both of them are Semitic people in any case. The term should really be "anti-Zionist". Since many Arabs are also Semites, it is more a propaganda buzzword in the same way that "terrorist" is used for any and all people that a propagandist wishes to invalidate.
I should add, that I genuinely don't have a particular opinion on the Adelaide Institute having not seem many facts either for or against them, but the article clearly does, and so to my mind, is diplays a bias, and thereby doesn't contain a neutral point of view. Sean --18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Neo Nazi Claim
The statement "The Neo-Nazi group was also linked to the murder of a security guard at a Holocaust Museum in June 2009." is clearly libelous and blatant slander. No reference is given to back it up. The poster of this statement should be immediately banned.
listing website host
The statement: "The Institute does however still maintain a website (hosted in Adelaide by Adam Internet) on which statements on various issues are regularly posted." doesn't need to specifically mention the ISP host. This is clearly intended to be provocative and apply subtle pressure on the ISP. Anyone who is interested in the host can easily look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
another slanderous statement: "An off shoot organisation named HHT is gaining popularity with its violent acts and racial intolerance within Adelaide." was removed, again no reference given and clearly designed to defame. The moderator needs to be much more vigilant with this poster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)