Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Holocaust denial/1: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→Holocaust denial: agreement with Buidhe with problematic examples |
|||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<!-- Please add the rationale for reassessment below this comment. Subsequent discussion should be added below, until the reassessment is closed.--> |
<!-- Please add the rationale for reassessment below this comment. Subsequent discussion should be added below, until the reassessment is closed.--> |
||
I am concerned that the article does not meet the GA criteria. In particular, not all the content is verifiable to "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", as required by [[WP:NOR]], and the article contains excessive material on tangentially related aspects that are not extensively treated on reliable sources on the subject, failing GA criteria 3 (focus). See talk page for further discussion. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">[[User:Buidhe|<b style="color: White">b</b>]][[User talk:Buidhe|<b style="color: White">uidh</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|<b style="color: White">e</b>]]</span> 01:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
I am concerned that the article does not meet the GA criteria. In particular, not all the content is verifiable to "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", as required by [[WP:NOR]], and the article contains excessive material on tangentially related aspects that are not extensively treated on reliable sources on the subject, failing GA criteria 3 (focus). See talk page for further discussion. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">[[User:Buidhe|<b style="color: White">b</b>]][[User talk:Buidhe|<b style="color: White">uidh</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|<b style="color: White">e</b>]]</span> 01:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:I whole heartedly agree. In my opinion the article has many other problematic issues. This one for example: Patton is quoted with this accompanying text: "''Eisenhower, upon finding the victims of the '''death camps''', ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead''." The problem with this statement is that Patton NEVER, EVER visited what is now regarded as a ''"death camp"'' as those camps are all in Poland. Patton had visited Ohrdruf concentration camp, which was a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany. Both of which are now acknowledged to NOT have been "death camps" or "extermination camps". So what has his visit and statement in Ohrdruf got to do with what later came to be unanimously called 'the Holocaust'? Especially when that nomenclature didn't become widely used and accepted until the mid-60's. I.e. what has a misappropriation of a quote by Patton got to do with '''"denial"''' of a narrative that didn't appear as we now accept it and refer to it, until nearly two decades later? Here is another example: Norman Finkelstein has been called a 'holocaust denier'. Yet both his parents were interned in concentration camps for being Jewish. His mother survived the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and the Maijdanek concentration camp. Yet he is regarded by some people as a holocaust denier for critical statements he has made, particularly his book called 'the Holocaust industry'. He fits the following categorisation of denier in this wiki article. Because his book can and has been regarded as promoting the idea of a ''"Jewish conspiracy designed to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other people. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic"''. Yet he is not mentioned in the article. Nor is DAVID COLE another person who is both Jewish and considered a 'denier'. But Professor Nolte '''is''' mentioned AND in great detail. Yet it is acknowledged that he was NOT a 'denier'???? So why has he a wholoe sub-section? And he is curiously described as "operating on the borderlines of Holocaust denial". Borderline??? Can somebody be a borderline 'denier'? Surely, either you deny something or you don't. Such a description of Professor Nolte I believe demonstrates the vague and imprecise nature and usage of the perjorative term upon which this wiki article is based. Etc., etc., etc. So I agree, the article does not meet the GA criteria.[[User:Mystichumwipe|Mystichumwipe]] ([[User talk:Mystichumwipe|talk]]) 12:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:00, 23 June 2020
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result pending
I am concerned that the article does not meet the GA criteria. In particular, not all the content is verifiable to "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", as required by WP:NOR, and the article contains excessive material on tangentially related aspects that are not extensively treated on reliable sources on the subject, failing GA criteria 3 (focus). See talk page for further discussion. buidhe 01:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I whole heartedly agree. In my opinion the article has many other problematic issues. This one for example: Patton is quoted with this accompanying text: "Eisenhower, upon finding the victims of the death camps, ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead." The problem with this statement is that Patton NEVER, EVER visited what is now regarded as a "death camp" as those camps are all in Poland. Patton had visited Ohrdruf concentration camp, which was a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany. Both of which are now acknowledged to NOT have been "death camps" or "extermination camps". So what has his visit and statement in Ohrdruf got to do with what later came to be unanimously called 'the Holocaust'? Especially when that nomenclature didn't become widely used and accepted until the mid-60's. I.e. what has a misappropriation of a quote by Patton got to do with "denial" of a narrative that didn't appear as we now accept it and refer to it, until nearly two decades later? Here is another example: Norman Finkelstein has been called a 'holocaust denier'. Yet both his parents were interned in concentration camps for being Jewish. His mother survived the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and the Maijdanek concentration camp. Yet he is regarded by some people as a holocaust denier for critical statements he has made, particularly his book called 'the Holocaust industry'. He fits the following categorisation of denier in this wiki article. Because his book can and has been regarded as promoting the idea of a "Jewish conspiracy designed to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other people. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic". Yet he is not mentioned in the article. Nor is DAVID COLE another person who is both Jewish and considered a 'denier'. But Professor Nolte is mentioned AND in great detail. Yet it is acknowledged that he was NOT a 'denier'???? So why has he a wholoe sub-section? And he is curiously described as "operating on the borderlines of Holocaust denial". Borderline??? Can somebody be a borderline 'denier'? Surely, either you deny something or you don't. Such a description of Professor Nolte I believe demonstrates the vague and imprecise nature and usage of the perjorative term upon which this wiki article is based. Etc., etc., etc. So I agree, the article does not meet the GA criteria.Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)