Talk:Gerald Fredrick Töben
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Australia||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Yeah, there's mega-bias in the article. Here's why:
(1) Regarding the below, here are the facts. Toben is German-born. Toben lives in Australia. Toben has been convicted in Germany of the charge listed. (Note this is not a matter of whether he actually did it; it's a matter of what he was charged with and whether he was found guilty -- he was.) Finally, Toben is a Holocaust denier given the definition set out in Irving v. Lipstadt.
(2) The "Views" section is not tempered with either counterpoints or modulating statements that, e.g., "This is what Toben believes," etc. Rather, it flatly states that belief in the Holocaust is a belief in a conspiracy theory. THIS IS BIAS!
(3) The article states that Raul Hilberg (note correct spelling!) admitted a well-known fact under oath. Hilberg had written as much in 1961, almost thirty years before Canada v. Zundel.
Those edits, by the way, come from Adelaide. So just who do you think made them, eh?
Although I agree that denial of the holocaust is denial of one of the most important events of the 20th century, the opening quote: "German-born Holocaust denier who lives in Australia and who has been convicted in Germany of inciting racial hatred" definitely adds negative bias to this article. In the view of freedom of speech, people such as this holocaust denier should not be forced to believe in certain events in history, science, philosophy, etc. In addition, they should not be charged viewed with a negative attitude by those opposing their views. If it happens that these "deniers" or "non-believers" are being hated, cannot it also be said that the haters are also committing "hatecrime"? (though it may not be on the level relative to that of the "deniers". (Now a piece of my own opinion: As an editor of wikipedia, I am finding many biographical articles and people being branded as "anti-semite", "anti-Jewish", or "anti-zionists". While I believe in the hope of decreasing racism in the world, the steps that these editors have taken in their "racist" labeling can be seen as over-excessive. From my experience (pardon me for original research), these steps often create an anti-Jewish or anti-Israel sentiment.)Count de Chagny 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why is there no mention of Holocaust Denial or Revisionism in this article? I refer you to the Adelaide Institute entry. 18.104.22.168 06:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
this man sits in prison, this article should at least reflect some of his points of reasoning so we can understand where he is coming from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
History should not fear examination
Why is holocaust denial such a crime? Surely Nazis are entitled to their opinions. There are no shortage of Nazi sympathisers Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Bush family (Google "Prescott Bush"). Millions of Africans were murdered by Europeans and Americans, genocide has been allowed to happen on numerous occasions since WW2. As many as a million Iraqis have been killed in the last 20 years many of whom had little choice in the matter. None of these "holocaust deniers" insight violence or further killing. I have many questions regarding the holocaust, I am not evil, I would like to know what happened before I was born. I don't like one sided history (often written by the victors), everyone is biased. The numbers killed at Auschwitz was quietly revised down from 4 million to 1.1 million (the plaque was even changed), I'd like this explained. I also wonder about the laws of physics, statistics and logistics. Should I be arrested for these thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I came to this article to put in a bit about 1st October 2008 and Toben's detention in the UK. Because this is a biography article about a living person I think that the following references should be replaced with what are considered reliable sources:
- Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial in the Iranian Media,Special dispatch No. 855, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) 28 January 2005 -- The Wikipedia article Middle East Media Research Institute says "When founded in 1998, MEMRI's staff of seven included three who had formerly served in Military Intelligence in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)". It would be better if main stream news paper or a peer reviewed journal can be used for this information (WP:SOURCES).
- Mike Jeffries, Sydney Radio Interview , 13 April 13, 1999 -- This transcript is held on David Irving's website. I would point you to what Richard J. Evans said about Irving "Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian."(Holocaust Denial On Trial).
- USA/Canada: The Crucifixion of Ernst Zündel, Adelaide Institute, Newsletter 186, March 2003. This is Toben's own website and should be avoided see WP:SPS
- i disagree: see "Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" WP:SPS. adelaide has toben's self-published words, cited here to show what he personally claims. so this meets standards for self-published sources, "especially in articles about themselves." Kiphinton (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As I am not a regular contributor to this page, I am not going to do the donkey work to find other sources and as they are all marginal and not clearly unreliable, I will not flag them as such, but I hope a regular contributor to this page can find better sources to cover the facts that these citations currently cover.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Heres a source with info on court dates --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7652274.stm hope that helps. (Hypnosadist) 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:TBR42.jpg
The image Image:TBR42.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
link 4 which has been used to support this ..."Töben has frequently been called a Holocaust denier" looks to me like it fails to meet wikipedia reliable source. It looks more like an online blog and appears to be a charity reporting on anti semetism and requests donations to aid this mission. So it looks like neutrality is an issue. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
Revisionist? Bias is evident
"Revisionist works?" And yet; from his, and many other's POV it is considered that claiming the holocaust occurred as jewish and christian history reports is revisionist. Try making such blatant POV statements neutral. Lostinlodos (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's why I continue to contest the notion of Faurisson's "challenge" that Töben's biography contains.
First of all, there was a big problem with this bio in so far as the portion of the bio in question had heavy, heavy bias. So that was edited to remove POV statements. The problem now, however, is that Faurisson's challenge, included still in the bio, has been met. To not allow the statement that the challenge has been met is to implicitly imply that it has not been met.
That is not acceptable. This is not a debatable issue. Faurisson said, "Show me or draw me a gas chamber." His former acolyte, Jean-Claude Pressac, went to Auschwitz and provided an entire book that shows gas chambers and how they worked:
If this book is not an acceptable third-party source for the FACT that he answered Faurisson's challenge, then please tell me what would be.
It is nonsense to claim Pressac met Faurisson's challenge - to date no-one has provided the physical evidence of fact: six million died - claim made during World War One; systematic state execution = no written order; the murder weapon = homicidal gas chambers. Like the 9/11 tragedy, the physical facts are not proven, i.e. the overarching narrative trying to explain the physical facts is a reality in memory only, not in space and time. Note Van Pelt/Dwork claiming in 1996 that no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz Stammlager in their work: Auschwitz: From 1270 to the present. Fredrick Toben - Adelaide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous IP substituted the hagiographic advertising copy on Töbin's own website for the biography section here; I've undone that for being clearly WP:POV. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Toben editing this article?
- Assuming it is Töben, I left a COI note on his talk page. I've also reverted the unsourced information, but not before trying to find possible reliable sources to support the content. I discovered the text was nearly identical to an article in The Journal of Historical Review, a non-peer reviewed journal. The WP:COPYVIO was unacceptable, the source in question isn't a reliable source, and the subject's statements about himself cannot indicate any significance or due weight at all. The information should be included only when reliable sources indicate it merits mention because of some amount of enduring biographical significance. JFHJr (㊟) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've started a dialogue, assuming it is the subject, inviting the IP to contact OTRS post further concerns and edit requests here instead of his own talk page. So far, some of the content has needed POV treatment while other content just needed better sourcing. FWIW, I've come across lots of citations and references to one of his Australian court cases, indicating it has had some impact in Australian jurisprudence. The subject wants information on his company added, but I haven't looked into it. Also, per his request, I've cited to another court case as well; his claims to have won appear in a valid secondary source. I think the request pretty well waives concerns of WP:BLPPRIMARY. JFHJr (㊟) 05:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I've removed a section labeled "Bibliography" because it was not a bibliography in regards to any content in this article. It was just a list of the subject's publications, none of which is demonstrably notable or even noteworthy, as in worth any mention according to WP:WEIGHT. Because I've removed an entire section, I thought I'd open this thread in case anyone wants to discuss. I'll welcome huzzahs and boos alike, if there are WP:POLICY based comments. JFHJr (㊟) 04:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Toben (allegedly) again
29/12/2012 I am amazed how childishly and fearfully the editorial team perverts the article about my person. I have attempted to correct the glaring factual errors contained within Ben Moshe's nonsense report. Then my university qualifications and the fact I am a qualified and registered teacher is airbrushed out, as is the whole issue of being bankrupted because I refuse to believe in the myth and lies that make up Holocaust-Shoah propaganda. Surely, the fight for truth in history is such a fundamental challenge that the young minds who do the editing are already aware how living on a lie cripples one's mental wellbeing. My crime is what? Asking probing questions about what the official Holocaust-Shoah narrative throws out as factually true - and which is legally protected. Why this legal protection? When the Bolshevik Revolution established itself the GuLags began to fill with dissenters who were labelled REVISIONISTS. Those who had been labelled ANTISEMITE were shot. Such is the Talmudic-Communist legacy that today is flowing through GLOBAL WARMING/sustainable living and HOLOCAUST-SHOAH that the free and democratic west is adopting as its new substitute religion and where free expression-natural justice is considered to be the new heresy.
- Nice rant. Besides the fact that there is no editorial team, you don't seem to have a clue as to how Wikipedia works. We really don't care what you say here, what we care about are sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS, and your problem is that you either haven't provided them, don't like them, or change material sourced to them. Plus of course per WP:COI you shouldn't be making major changes to the article. You've been told about OTRS and probably about WP:BLPN. Until you follow our policies and guidelines you aren't going to get very far. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Since my mental well-being has been "crippled", I guess I'm not qualified to comment substantively. Funny how it works out that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Have a view of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parncutt and you will note the list of publications and detailed study course, etc. that are listed. In my case you delete my publication list and then fiddle about again, and smirk that my comments are just a 'nice rant'. It appears to me you are young and you still think you are going to get somewhere in life the easy way by distorting and smearing those individuals you fear and hate, for whatever reason. I would like to see your maturity develop as well, but when you state above: 'We really don't care what you say here', that indicates to me your personal problem. So be it - I seek comfort in the knowledge that I am not the only one who objects to the editorial team's political bias. If you view this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld you will be interested to know this man spends at least $1,000 a month on trying to defeat any adverse articles and entries about his person from surfacing. In conclusion, my objections rest on the fact that you are distorting and justifying with your biased mindset a world view that is morally and intellectually corrupt if not outright bankrupt. So, good luck to you and your fiddling the books, and a Happy New Year 2013. Fredrick Toben, Adelaide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Lol. Toben couldn't have gotten that more wrong, calling me young. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
FT replies 3 January 2013: I judge the attitude and values embodied within your contribution as being 'young' or perhaps I should have stated 'infantile', 'immature', 'unbalanced', 'prejudiced' 'fearful' - and much room for improvement/development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)