Talk:Robert Faurisson

Link rm

Hi TickleMe, my reason for deleting the external link was that this article is on Robert Faurisson, not the holocaust in general. Any links should really be to articles rebutting his specific arguments. Readers interested in the holocaust or holocaust denial in general can go to those pages and see links to external articles rebutting them. I'm not disputing the quality of the link. I left the nizkor link as a sort of compromise, but I do feel that including multiple links to holocaust websites not directly related to Faurisson is a bad idea. Regards, Ashmoo 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of education ( not fairness, that would be asking too much ) could you include some more links to the subjects actual writings, etc and not restrict your readers to nitzor,et al. Nitzor has its uses but trying to find out what an author originally said is not one of them. Thanks loads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 January 2007

"In 1991, Faurisson was removed from his university chair on the basis of his views under the Gayssot Act"

AFAIK (see fr:), he was not removed because of the Gayssot Act (which is a penal law), but he mas moved from the university to the center of distance education because the university could not protect him from potential assaults (ie. what mattered to the university was the threats against him, not the cause of these threats). Apokrif 18:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the removal was initiated by Lionel Jospin, who came in to power in 1997.

Would a citation get this changed or not?159.105.80.141 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Core Statement

Robert Faurisson was the first to describe the technical impossibility of the mass gassings in the areas designated as gas chambers with Zyklon B, as testified to by eyewitnesses. The following sentence is a clear statement of the core of Faurisson's argument:

"If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and then, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making touching and carrying them a deadly business. The ventilation and exhaustion of cyanide gas is very time-consuming and difficult. It adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands. Contact through the skin alone may lead to intoxication."

Interestingly, this is a discussion of scientifically verifiable facts alone, yet some would assert it is a "denial" of the holocaust.

Doremifasolatido 12:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is not only whether it is verifiable, but also whether it is relevant:

"adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands'""

Where the nazis intersted in the health of the people who operated the gas chambers? Apokrif 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the long-term health effects that Faurisson is referring to as the instantaneous death of the workers removing bodies from the gas chambers. Hard to murder millions of people when the workers themselves are dying as rapidly as the victims. 69.109.116.216 10:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an even better, more succinct version edited by TickleMe:

As core arguments Faurisson claims that the Nazi gas chambers would have needed a perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making further handling lethal.

Doremifasolatido 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the core of his ideas - pretty straight forward and so far hasn't been refuted. No wonder he is hated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Faurisson isn't hated -- he's mostly scorned and laughed at. His "ideas" are both idiotic and have been refuted almost since he started spouting them. But, then the "core" of his ideas isn't about truth, but about the truth as he'd like it to be, the historical evidence be damned.

Most of his arguement is about chemistry, a field he has no qualifications in. Cyanide gas is lighter then air -- so as long as it's not trapped in a room (all doors closed), it will rise by itself. And he provides no evidence that the gas "would adhere stubbornly to the bodies" in a lethal form. Cantankrus 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hated, and how!, he just exposes total follishness. Things like homicidial gas chambeers with windows and door handles on the inside - what an SOB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Most of what he contends is "follishness", and has been demonstrated to be false. But, like most revisionists/deniers, he (and you) will continue to parrot already debunked information. Cantankrus 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't debunk science and common sense. Those devilishly smart Germans put windows in a gas chamber - please come up with a better story. There method of keeping an industrial murder machine going was to have sonderkommandos die on their first job - really smart of those Germans ( you would think the doors would get clogged after a short time - how did they keep up the pace ).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 January 2007

While its true that you can't debunk science and common sense, its too bad revisionists don't use either in most of their arguements. Keep it up though, I'm sure there are a few conspiracy theorists that might buy into it. Cantankrus 07:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're very witty and funny, Cantankrus, but why don't you back up your positions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.195.109 (talk) 20:32, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It would be worth including Friedrich Paul Berg's criticisms of Faurisson's scientific understanding which are described on this page here:

http://www.nazigassings.com/faurisson.html

I've avoided posting it myself since I know that some people are hyper-sensitive about having a revisionist link posted. The Berg article is relevant though because Berg is specifically taking issue with Faurisson's scientific competence. My own sense of Faurisson is that he was very good at reading through the orthodox histories (e.g. Hilberg, Poliakov) and pointing out gaps, but that Berg is correct that Faurisson overextended himself when claiming to offer scientific arguments beyond the level of merely raising questions. I think the Berg article would be a relevant companion link to the main page as a way of offering people a chance to see where Faurisson has been critiqued by other revisionists on scientific issues.

International law

"Faurisson was sued at least three times under complex French and international laws over" I think only French law was relevant in these cases (the Gayssot Law, which was passed later, contains a reference to the law about the Nuremberg trial, but only national penal law can be used as a basis of prosecution). Apokrif 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That would have been a good thing to change if the passage had been allowed to remain in the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Proskauer 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Faurisson Credentials

Faurisson was, to his knowledge, the first person to publish the plans of Krema I and Kremas II and III. These crematories, located at Auschwitz-Birkenau, were the buildings which allegedly contained the homicidal gas chambers. For the purpose of studying gas chambers, Faurisson had gone to Baltimore, Maryland in the United States to investigate and photograph American gas chamber facilities. His objective was to see how convicts condemned to death were killed in the facilities through use of hydrocyanic acid. This was relevant to the study of the German gas chambers since the agent allegedly used to kill the Jews, Zyklon B, contained hydrocyanic acid.

In the early to mid 1980s, Faurisson was sued at least three times under complex French and international laws over his denial of essential points within Holocaust history. The potential for incitement of racial hatred was cited as a primary concern in at least one trial. Faurisson was convicted on reduced charges which carried virtually no penalties. He credits one such relative victory to the tactic of asking the opposition for one piece of evidence only: proof that any single homicidal gas chamber existed. No such proof was produced during any of his trials though numerous lawyers representing multiple interests from several nations were available to present evidence against him.

Can you please provide sources for these claims? Markacohen (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

69.109.166.52 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Proskauer, your original research and copyright violations from Holocaust denial sites are always fascinating. Please login. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, my "copyright violation" accusation stemmed from an article I lifted from an ANTI-Holocaust-denial website written in a negative vein regarding Mark Weber, a well known Holocaust denier. I went back to the website and saw no claims of copyrighted material, so I guess the standard is they have to make an active release of copyright status in order to qualify for Wikipedia.

Also, it is impossible to violate strictures against "original research" and to violate copyrights at the same time, if you think about it. Copyright violation would mean using somebody else's original research, at best. Proskauer 17:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits consist of one or the other; sorry if my first comment wasn't clear enough about that. Your copyright violations almost always come from Holocaust denial sources; you only used the ADL source to test to see if that would be tagged as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, he's a mind-reader as well! Guilty as charged. Actually I figured that bad press is better than no press at all, and for all that it was deleted by NawlinWiki who does not contest its noteworthiness. What do you think, jayjg, should I re-write the "Mark Weber" article without violating copyright issues? (It's not clear to me thet WP's policies are strictly law-based so much as cautious. But I'm not a licensed attorney...) Will you or Jpgordon delete and block a Mark Weber article on the basis of non-noteworthiness, despite the fact that he is clearly a major player in the H-denier field? Please see NawlinWiki's talk page under Mark Weber heading.

As for violating the copyrights of Holocaust denial websites, I suspect you know as well as I do that they want to be violated, I mean yearn for it, because the abuser and the abused are often tough to distinguish between. Proskauer 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perplexed About Dualism

It's perplexing, though not surprising, that Jpgordon, jayjg, and at times SlimVirgin, patrol the Holocaust Denial page and revert edits which would tend to put a spin of rationality on the issue of things like gas chambers and other problems with the Holocaust monologue. Note, however, that rationality and the truth ultimately are not subject to spin, so what I'm saying is I'm working towards the truth.

What sometimes is surprising is that people like me keep going back and trying over and over again to explain differences of viewpoints in calm and logical ways. "That doesn't belong here" they say. "Put it on the Faurisson page" they say. Then when I follow directions, they revert my edits on the Faurisson page. For a while they were deleting even attempts to place the issues on the discussion page. I've been on this planet for more than forty years and I should not be surprised by hypocracy and a devotion to one's own self-interest above ALL ELSE. However, I am. Jpgordon, could you please enlighten me why it is that while I consider myself a rational being and according to the Declaration of Independence created equal to all other human beings, I cannot get equal treatment here on this most egalitarian of experiments, this brave new thing, this Wikipedia? Proskauer 05:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this article doesn't want to link to his writings then at least let the Zionist article link to it. Show what a good hatchet job looks like. 159.105.80.141 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jean Beaufret

What is his relationship with Jean Beaufret ?!

Funny sentence

"Faurisson was born in Shepperton, then in Middlesex, now in Surrey, England to a French father and a Scottish mother."

I'm pretty sure he wasn't born three different times... Does it mean that sources are inconsistent on his place of birth? This should be clarified. Grandmasterka 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it so that it isn't funny. At the time if his birth, Shepperton was in Middlesex, but now it's in Surrey. I removed the bit about Surrey. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky and Faurisson's Near-Death Beating

No mention of the fact that Faurisson was beaten within an inch of his life in an attempt to shut him up, nor of Chomsky's response. The article keeps shrinking for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.64.85 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Faurisson has been attacked by Jews ten times — this has included attempted murder. By his own admission, the lives of his wife and children have been ruined. No mention at all of any of this, but it quotes some throwaway line by Christopher Hitchens. Go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.125.236 (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a reliable source for these claims. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do you expect to get a reliable source? Who would dare print such things? Markacohen (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Little as I like being involved in anything that might smack of a defense of Faurisson's views or Chomsky's poor judgment in what became the notorious Faurisson Affair, the mention of Chomsky in this article cried out for correction, which I did, based on the (apparently accurate and balanced) Faurisson Affair article on Wikipedia. AFAIK, Chomsky nowhere said that Faurisson was "absolutely" not an anti-Semite; he did say he couldn't tell one way or the other from some reading of his work and also engaged in what was arguably tedious hairsplitting about whether simply expressing incredulity about the Holocaust is anti-Semitic per se. I also don't think Chomsky wrote anywhere that Faurisson was a "respected professor" (wording that admittedly was in the petition he signed), though he did say Faurisson was some sort of apolitical liberal and I have no idea how he reached that conclusion. I realize Chomsky's views are a hot button issue for many people, but there are reliable sources about him, and he's certainly not shy about publishing and speaking widely, so there's no reason not to cite him (or sources about him) directly when you think he said or wrote something. As it stood, the mention of Chomsky here flirted dangerously with (perhaps even constituted) violation of WP:BLP. If you have never read that guideline, or haven't read it in a while, I suggest a careful review. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky's opinion of Robert Faurisson is described in Manufacturing Consent. [1] Hundreds of people signed the same petition – including Christopher Hitchens [2] – but only Chomsky was singled out for criticism. Dynablaster (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You forget that Chomsky experienced severe anti-semitism when he was younger, so his definition is stricter than your average person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 00:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See Also

I attempted to add a see also section in the article, but the regular reverters are preventing valuable additions to the article. Why cant we also have see also to holocaust denial? Yes it is in the article or mentioned, but why not a link to the holocaust denial section of wikipedia?

Markacohen (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The short paragraph about the alleged Anne Frank Forgery

not one single source sited in this paragraph, the paragraph seems like it is more interested in refuting Robert Faurissons claims on Anne Frank rather than telling his view point on it. More bias and lack of neutrality. What is the formula here for this equation? A short mention of the book he wrote alleging anne frank is a forgery, and then majority of the paragraph refuting his claim? How does it work here in regards to what percentage you use the space for explaining what he was writing about, and what percentage of the material you use to push one ideology or another for / or against it?

Markacohen (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure and Quality of the Article

I am sorry to say, but whoever structured the article was not neutral. It starts that Faurisson is a French Holocaust denier. Is that the single most defining point about a person in a wikipedia article? Because then I would assume that this would ALWAYS have to go before the profession of a given person in EVERY article. It puts the focus on this issue, and I believe this is not neutral. I have no problem at all if Holocausts deniers are getting flamed for their lies, but there is a fine line between information, and putting up information disguised as propaganda in ANY direction. Do we have articles of Osama bin Laden starting as "is a terrorist mastermind"? No, it first says that he is a member of the Saud family, and then goes on to state that he is a founder of a terrorist organization. The article of Adolf Hitler is even more neutral than both of these guys, yet he was also a true mass murderer. Can't wikipedia try to use unified rules in which they try to be as objective as possible? (Btw the article of Adolf Hitler has a much higher quality than both other articles, and the article of Osama has a higher quality than the article here. I guess the old rules of "more eyes looking at the same", improving quality, still is accurate....) 80.108.103.172 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)