Talk:Institute for Historical Review

I fixed an error

There was an opinion stated as a fact in the first sentence of this article. I fixed the error by deletion of the opinion. I believe in free speech, but not manipulation of information. Please, folks, stick to the facts and let the smart people come up with their own conclusions. By stating opinion as fact one leaves themselves vulnerable to accusations of being a propaganda peddler and their original cause can backfire. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.55.157 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 April 2007

This article should not be "part of a series on antisemitism"

The Institute for Historical Review is simply questioning the facts. How is that anti-semitic? 69.120.3.38 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There are certain facts that if a person questions, he/she will probably be considered antisemitic. People who question whether Black people, for example, should have full civil rights or not, will be considered "racists" by most scholars. People who deny Black people their rights because they think they are inferior, are racists. If an organization, namely the IHR, denies key facts about a historical event which have been agreed upon by all scholars and the international community, then it's committing the act of Holocaust denial. All respectable scholar who stated his opinion on the IHR have accused it of antisemitic. Also, Holocaust denial is antisemitic. Thus the template. Yambaram (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is a hit piece

From beginning to end this article is meant to trash the IHR. It is full of bias and emphasis is on 'critics' and 'commentators' rather than just a factual encyclopedia-type article about an organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.92.77 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's because they deserve to be hit. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, one-sidedness is not interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:9512:7100:DD02:C797:A86C:E8B9 (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC) It's too bad that the article is written as an unabashed hack. This greatly reduces its ability to inform those who are trying to sort out reality from perception. It would be better, for example to discuss the organization's pedigree and the validity (or lack thereof) of its approach. For example, who are the main contributors and what are their credentials? Who supports them or opposes them and how? Merely labelling and screaming "Antisemitic!" just won't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.19.69 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"The world's leading Holocaust denial organization"

I've changed "the world's leading Holocaust denial organization" in the lead to "the centre of the international Holocaust denial movement" (something one of the sources, The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, has actually said[1]), because "leading" is a word with largely positive and flattering associations. Roget's online thesaurus gives best, dominant, famous, main, noted, outstanding, popular, preeminent, principal, prominent, top, well-known as the twelve most relevant synonyms for leading.[2] Bishonen | talk 07:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC).

"Critics have accused the Institute of antisemitism", etc

I was surprised to see the sentence "Critics have accused the Institute of antisemitism and having links to neo-Nazi organizations" in the lead. Turns out it's based on this sentence in the "Holocaust denial" section:

Critics have accused the Institute of antisemitism and having links to neo-Nazi organizations, and assert that its primary focus is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others

which is sourced to the Anti-Defamation League (twice, a little oddly), The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and an article by Jack R. Fischel from 1995, which I haven't been able to access. Using words like critics, accused and assert implies a false balance between these "critics" and.. and.. the opinion of the institute itself, I suppose. This contravenes our ineluctable neutral point of view policy, since, actually, the mainstream consensus for the supposed "accusations" is deafening. Compare WP:ALLEGED: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." It's not undetermined. I've changed it in the "Holocaust denial" section to

IHR is widely regarded as antisemitic and as having links to neo-Nazi organizations. Its primary focus is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews.

(There's no support in the sources for "the genocide of Jews and others", so I removed the others.) And changed the lead to correspond. Please feel free to comment/improve. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC).

I agree, this is the general consensus. Doug Weller (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denial as all of description

I agree that the lead should describe the Institute of Historical Review as a Holocaust denial group. But the group does things than Holocaust denial. They have published articles about other topics, such as Nazi Germany's considering supporting Zionism during the 1930s as a way of getting Jews out of Germany and its satellites, Hitler's decision to invade Russia and their arguments that going to war against Hitler was a mistake. Those are separate topics from Holocaust denial. Perhaps they should also be described in a broad sense as Nazi apologists in addition to Holocaust deniers. RandomScholar30 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)