Talk:Ernst Zündel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote section[edit]

This quote section contains numerous cherry-picked quotes in what seems to me an attempt to paint the subject in a certain light. How necessary is this section? Shouldn't this just be merged into the article? It seems to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy pretty badly to me. Some of these violate context pretty blatantly, for example - Zündel has presented himself delivering warnings to the Jews, not making threats to them as the holocaust quote would imply, for example. And how would you "balance" it? By just adding more quotes? What a mess, just merge them into the article if they are really that necessary.

I've deleted it once with this reasoning before, however it was simply restored. :bloodofox: 03:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations do not express the views of any editor or any source other than Zundel himself. I don't see an NPOV issue. Gazpacho 07:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the SELECTION of the quotes that are the problem. Selecting specific quotes can give an impression - it's context. I've since removed the quotes in question. If you need to use them, work them into the article, otherwise you're pushing the NPOV limits. :bloodofox: 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the quote in the Ancestry section to something that actually presents Zundel's opinion about his ancestry. The previous quote was of Zundel saying "No" to the question of whether he could be certain that he had no Jewish ancestry. This is really a meaningless statement, because Zundel was simply admitting a lack of certainty on a question about which nobody can be completely certain. Zundel was not expressing an opinion, merely conceding a possibility. Instead I put a different quote from the same source wherein Zundel says that in his opinion his maternal grandfather, Isidor Mayer, was not Jewish. Hadding (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the interview that the newspaper article (http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/Toronto-Sun-Zundel-Jewish-2005.html) quotes and which the wiki article is using as a source: https://archive.org/details/InterviewWithErnstZundel

Nowhere in that interview does he say he suspects he's part Jewish. I'm going to remove that section until someone finds a more credible source, or, if you can find any source at all ascribing this (I haven't found a single one and I've spent the last two months studying him for a paper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.34.86 (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very beginning of this article is nothing but an intentional, flagrantly kitsch attempt to mislead readers of the true motives of this man. Ernst Zundel is NOT AT ALL "promoting" "Holocaust Denial". He is simply questioning the "official" Holocaust story. He is a purveyor of the truth not a Nazi sympathizer. He is asking for credible, verifiable and above all accurate explanations on many aspects of the established Holocaust narrative, with one, and ONLY one, goal in mind: The quest for the TRUTH. There is a clear difference between denying and questioning. The ADL and the CBC (a network owned by jewish interests) that published a clearly biased article, cannot be accepted as serious reference sources. Wikipedia should remain neutral and unbiased, not becoming partisan in political debates. Wikipedia's role is not to promote unverifiable events only documented well established facts. Obsuring the truth, propagating lies and (70+ years after the end of WWII) maintaining all these half-truths by the jewish establishment is unacceptable. We should all help and protect people like Zundel who at the expense of destroying their well established prosperous lives have agonized to help the world discover the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.60.100 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like Jews much, do you? --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this last comment by Jpgordon supposed to promote the right to free thought/speech? Obviously not. Then why one of you "admins" did not remove it so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.176.243.174 (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation update[edit]

This probably needs inclusion in the artical somehow considering it's relevance. It's the ruling that Zundel was deported under. Although the ruling is suspended for one year current detainees have been granted bail and are free to leave the country.

"Canada's Supreme Court struck down a controversial anti-terror law on Friday (23/02/2007) that allows foreign suspects to be detained indefinitely without trial on the basis of secret evidence. The court ruled unanimously that the government had broken the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by issuing so-called security certificates to imprison people, pending deportation, without giving them a chance to see the government's case. The court suspended the ruling for a year to allow Parliament time to rewrite the relevant part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act -- under which the certificates are issued. The Supreme Court ruling said one way to improve the system of certificates would be to appoint a special advocate to challenge the security evidence." (c) Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Wayne 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above information - deported using an unconstitutional law, would fit in nicely at the end of the "detention and deportation" section of the article. I believe Zundel was hustled out of the country while this law was being questioned. 159.105.80.63 17:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions that he lost both constitutional challenges - I believe a rewrite is in order ( he won both eventually - maybe only the last? ). No mention either of the invaluable aid given by the US government in withholding evidence that he was not a security threat - give credit where it is due. Also the Canadian government helped by withholding evidence as long as they could - bravo ( I think they were hoping the old guy would die in solitary but he just wouldn't ). Both governments acted like they were under severe pressure but we all know that can't be true.159.105.80.63 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In the article it mentions that the West German government notified the Canadian Jewish Council of Zundel's publishing. Do governments usually notify various Jewish Councils if they want something done? What did the Jewish Council do - do they have an official role in Canadian government affairs?159.105.80.141 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the ban on his mailing lifted in 1983 - was it an illegal ban? The eventual overturning of bans, convictions, etc against Zundel in Canada by the Supreme Court seems to point to pressure on the government from someone ( CJC maybe?). You article in being partial fair to a close reader may undo itself - who edited this by leaving in some facts and still keeping the shrill(there is probably a better word, accusatory maybe) tone - bravo.159.105.80.141 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these articles ever get redone - uncited garbage seems to take precedence over facts. Editors who state that an article needs to be improved - toward the truth - get ignored. Even discussion pages get altered if they get too uncomfortable. Good work.159.105.80.141 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of his house being firebombed. No arresets I believe. No investigation? Maybe that it why he left Canada - RCMP seemed to be unable to act. Did Irving have similar problems? The dangerous deniers seem to get burned, beaten, etc by those nice liberals at will.159.105.80.141 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly hard to find articles on the arson and pipe bomb attacks against Zundel - Canadian sources seem to have alrgely dried up. However, and I hate to do use this as a source, nizkor has an article on Zundel that mentions the event ( arson and pipe bombs ) so I guess we can get past the question of whether it happened. Archives mention the JDL, the terrorist organization ( citation - FBI records )members, Krugel and Rubin, being involved. I believe Mr Rubin even boasted publically about the Zundel arson. I have seen extensive reports on these events and the news articles to go with them - maybe on Zundelsite, etc. But except for the good work of nizkor and McVay? this story appears to be headed for burial. 159.105.80.141 13:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


On the Zundelsite- from which you can get the details and citations - some really hilarious trivia. It appears that the FBI/CIA/USA evidence that was used in Canada to help claasify ( and justify US actions ) involved mut]ltiple steps. It appears that Mr Zundel had once known ( slightly) a Mr Pierce - long since dead - who had written the Turner Diaries. The Turner Diaries were in turn read by Mr McVeigh ( the world reknown bomb design expert of ok bombing fame ). Therefore Mr Zundel is a terrorist. It's the best humor piece you will ever read. There is far more on his site - original news articles, etc.159.105.80.141 14:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - the above report about Zundel/Pierce/McVeigh was actually a court document I believe, it just is amusing. Zundel also has the transcript used to jail Rubin or Krugel - the JDL terorists - where they bragged about the arson activities. The pipe bombs were known by the RCMP but they still got through the mail, but Zundel called them up and declined to open them himself.159.105.80.141 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE his ancestory. The mothers family is almost certainlt Jewish. The village where they came from was predominately Jewish. Zundel still thinks the holocaust is bunkum - he must be a self-hating Jew. Even Zundel, at one time, thought that Israel might be his best chance at emmigration ( until the got denial laws - fairly recently)( that he entertained that scenario seems to seal the deal).159.105.80.141 14:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation - aratoronto.com - they document the arson and pipe bombing. They appear to be in favor of arson and pipe bombs judging from their comments - they say they just got beat to the punch by some group with a similar name. The Zundel site gives the complete police deposition with lots of background info on the widespread police investigation - when others beyond Zundel ( and it escalated to murder attempts )got threatened the Canadians finally stomped on the festivities. 159.105.80.141 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Irving, Rudolf, Zundel, ... are just the tip of the iceberg. In a recent 12 month period there have been over 17,000 thought-crime prosecutions just in Germany. Even one 90+ year old woman who just wrote a letter. I never guessed that the high-profile cases were hiding a jail-busting surge. Singing the traditional first stanza of the German national anthem can get you a jail sentence and/or a big debt. One of Zundel's attorneys was forced to get a psychiatric evaluation when she tried to mount ( a good word in this situation )a defense. I have heard of that being done - but I thought it was only under Stalin ( I guess I was wrong - I wonder if this is part of the Patriot Act ie getting a psych test ).159.105.80.141 14:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unintended humor in these articles is endless. Reading the main article, the section on whether or not Zundel is part Jewish seems really childish - but for the hell of it I clicked the link to the newspaper article. It turns out that the quote comes from a tabloid ( ie the Enquirer Israeli style ). Do they do Paris and Britney stories, how about Elvis sightings. If a tabloid is a "reliable source" then where in the rankings of "reliable sources" does say nizkor stand ( let's have a poll - consensus of peer reviewed wikians or something along those lines).159.105.80.141 17:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)PS If the tabloid is really the primary source used by the author of this piece then I may want to deny/revise any comments on Zundels Jewsih origins. 159.105.80.141 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"local police" - the local police that arrested him were INS agents ( several - many ). They didn't bother with a warrant - or a hearing or much else. A hearing is supposed to be required, plus the fact that you are appplying for permanent residency status by reason of marriage to an American citizen usually gives you extra slack ( Zundel may have been the fastest deportation in INS history - certainly of someone married to a US citizen ). The memos floating around in the INS computers would make for some good reading I'll bet. Zundel appears to have been spirited out of the US for violating a fairly obscure provisional of immigration law which had actually lapsed ( no longer the law ) before he came to live in the US. His trial in Germany was not based on anything he had done in Germany ( he hadn't lived in Germany for decades ). Zuundel is unique, in that it seems that none of the legal manueveuring used by the US and Canada have ever been used in another case - we are all safer because of the good work of the INS, FBI, CICS and RCMP and our fast acting court systems who are not afraid to cut corners in an emergency. Of course we should not forget the various Jewish Councils who told these groups what and when and whatfor.159.105.80.141 19:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irme Finta - even the trivia of this article is good. Finta eventually won acquittal. Last time this law was used on a Canadian - Zundel actually hurt himself ( now Canada deports yuo to a country that will convict you - rendition of a sort ).The court of appeals said that a defense of following orders is okay - Canadian law sure has some strange quirks).159.105.80.141 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the bombing of zundels house i have a vhs video of his court cases thre is footage in there that i will make available this is taken from canadian television. it seems to me that in order for someone to be hounded like he has been seems like someone is after this holocaust denier bigtime. this holocast(shoah) is open to serious debate. in some countriesyou get IMPRISONED for denying that there were gas chambers if they existed let people believe that the earth is flat are you going to imprison them too. .zundel also made available all the hate calls he recieved death threats etc. i will make this video available where there reporters from canadian tv showing the pipe bomb damage Dwnndog (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC) robert schmidt[reply]

Revert / "citation needed"[edit]

Den meisten Revisionisten dürfte es nämlich nicht so sehr auf die Richtigkeit der aufgestellten Thesen ankommen, als vielmehr darauf, zu belegen, dass in Deutschland das Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit je nach geäußerter Gesinnung strafrechtlich beschnitten werde. Inwieweit die nun anstehende Revision diesbezüglich als Agitationsfeld genutzt wird, ist noch nicht absehbar.

is taken from the reference http://www.verfassungsschutz-bw.de/rechts/files/r_sonstige_2007_03.htm

English summary in article:

It is believed that the Holocaust deniers are using this process and the coming revisions to show that freedom of speech is impaired in Germany depending on the ideology of the speaker.

I reverted the incorrect edit of Jpgordon who moved this sentence out of the referenced paragraph and asked for citation. --85.181.42.117 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Did six million really die.jpg[edit]

FURs added for image use with Ernst Zündel and Holocaust denial articles. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"OTM"[edit]

New readers to this article should be certain to read the first archive, particularly the last section. The closest it appears that Mr Zundel came to being a "terrorist "was his "opposition to multiculturalism". I wonder what "o t m" means. Most of his fame is in saying that the Jews are lying about the holocaust, how "o t m" fits in is humorous. I hope the old guy has been given a chair, an upgrade from Canadian jails, and some paper and a pencil/pen/sharpener/stamps....159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a good rundown on the maltreatment of Ernst Zundel, you should read this:

Best, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Query[edit]

(moved from top of page)

Zundel was never a member of any neonazi organization and said in interviews that he was not a neonazi. It does not seem reasonable to me that he is described as a neonazi.
Also the term "Holocaust denier" is derogatory. Zundel calls himself an historical revisionist. Wikipedia has two entries on historical revisionism, one of which has "negationism" after it in parentheses and is derogatory toward its subject matter. Isn't that enough?
Can't we call Zundel by the label that he calls himself (historical revisionist), and not apply a label that he rejects (neonazi), when that label is unsubstantiated? And can we drop the use of derogatory terms like denier? Hadding
I have added references for Zundel as both neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier. These are the two reasons why the gentleman has notoriety - that he has spent most of his adult life publicly supporting Nazism and publicly denying the Holocaust. These are facts, any way you label it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zundel has notoriety mainly because he republished Did Six Million Really Die? in Canada, and stood trial for it from 1985 until 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared the law under which he had been charged unconstitutional. Zundel also has notoriety for the case that he assembled during this series of trials, including the commissioning of the Leuchter Report and other expert testimony.

Zundel has never called himself a neo-nazi and you have not really provided any direct evidence that he was a neo-nazi. You only provided examples of some people calling him that. This is not the way to write an objective article.

As for Holocaust denier, I don't think that it needs to be demonstrated that this is a pejorative equivalent to historical revisionist. You show bias in using this term, and you have not made the slightest effort to demonstrate that it is not derogatory. Hadding

Zundel is infamous for his neo-Nazi, Nazi-supporting activities - this isn't POV, it is what virtually all references support. If Zundel himself denied that he was a neo-Nazi, you can add that reference. As for Holocaust denial [1], this is what he did - he denied the factual existence of the Holocaust - in personal testimony and with his publishing activities. A Sniper (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he published a book called "The Hitler We Loved and Why"; were you under the impression it was a romance? and one called "Did Six Million Really Die?", which to nobody's surprise answered that with "no". if he's not a neonazi and a holocaust denier, then he's really fooling his customers. Gzuckier (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point that is being missed here is that denier has a negative connotation. It has that connotation because it implies a leap to a pre-determined conclusion without any demonstration. Robert Faurisson and Ernst Zundel reject the label "denier" because of that. If the revisionists have no arguments, then what are the Leuchter, Lueftl, and Rudolf reports? The application of the label denier, which has that negative connotation, is certainly POV. Hadding (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point you seem to be missing is how Zundel gained notoriety and what the world's press has reported. What would be POV is to not state what the RS sources have stated about him, whatever their conclusions. Best, A Sniper (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being dishonest with your refusal to acknowledge that Zundel has been labeled in a hostile manner. There is a good reason why people (like Deborah Lipstadt) actively opposed to Zundel insist on labeling him a "denier" rather than a revisionist, and a fairly good reason why Zundel and others allied with him see this label as undesirable. The uncritical parroting of that obviously hostile label is definitely POV. Hadding (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC) "Denier" is a dismissive term. To address Zundel's arguments would be fair, but to imply with the label denier that he has no arguments that deserve addressing is completely presumptuous. Hadding (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is simply untrue. I would suggest you check the articles Holocaust denial and Historical revisionism. Zundel is listed as a denier merely because all bona fide sources state he is one, not because I as an editor believe he is. Holocaust denial is an acceptable term, found in reliable literature, regardless of whether you as an editor find it hostile. Until Lipstadt is somehow not considered a reliable source, and Zundel and his peers are, well then the world would look different and so would Wikipedia. A Sniper (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This author doesn't deny the holocaust, he asks questions. He neither was a Nazist.

Where were crimes comitted[edit]

The article doesn't say, but where did Zundel publish his hate literature? Did he ever actually publish anything in Germany? --65.127.188.10 (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he hadn't lived in Germany since he was a child. His publishing was mostly in Canada, which has a similar constitutional free speech to the USA. 159.105.80.122 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it does not.

What is hate literature?

AntiSemitism Summary Box not Consistent with other Biographies[edit]

One does not find a "Communism" summary box when looking at the biography of Karl Marx, so why is the AntiSemitism summary box displayed on the right-hand side for Ernst Zundel. This would imply he is the 'poster child' for antisemitism. It is inconsistent with how other biographies are structured. Thanks. [dar] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkar3 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is consistent with the category and the listing of well-known, infamous antisemites. Best, A Sniper (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That just means that the other articles in the Antisemitism category need to be changed, and is not an excuse to have it on the right hand side like that for a biography. I'm taking it out. If someone feels the need to add it back then we can let a moderator decide this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.176.207 (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're all "moderators"; contents of Wikipedia articles are determined by consensus, not by authority. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems with pinning the label "Antisemitism" on Zundel. On the various occasions when he has been asked if he hated or disliked Jews, he has always said no. One of his early great influences and a friend was J.G. Burg, a Jew who wrote a Holocaust revisionist book called Schuld und Schicksal, and he has had other friends of Jewish heritage, including Ditlieb Felderer who worked in his defense team in the 1980s. Zundel's agenda is rehabilitation of the reputation of the German people, not attacking Jews. The label Antisemitism has been put on Zundel by some people who wanted to stigmatize his message as hate, but it's impossible to reconcile that label with some of the facts about him. Hadding (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this appears to be your POV as an editor. The fact remains that the only reason this article exists, and why Zundel has notoriety, is in the subject area of antisemitism. This is why the tag passes BLP. Almost all reputable sources would agree on this tag as appropriately encapsulating Zundel's notoriety, whether an individual editor likes it or not. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Sniper says that "the only reason this article exists, and why Zundel has notoriety, is in the subject area of antisemitism." This is completely untrue. Zundel's fame is based mainly on the fact that he was subjected to a series of trials in Canada because of something that he had published. He fought the False News charge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the law was ruled unconstitutional. Regardless of the subject-matter involved, Zundel would be notable for that.

When you say that the label "Antisemitism" is applicable to Zundel, you are alleging a motive. You are imputing a motive which many others have gratuitously imputed, but which is not in evidence. The label is unsupported by Zundel's own statements about his motive.

You are making the tacit assumption that antisemitism is the only possible reason why somebody would question the Holocaust, and it simply is not the case. With that assumption you have some difficult explaining ahead of you in regard to J.G. Burg, Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, Ditlieb Felderer, and a few other Holocaust revisionists of Jewish ethnicity that I could name.

In other words, what is missing is a demonstration that Zundel is antisemitic apart from the fact that a lot of people say so. Hadding (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other than your own POV or original research, there appears to be an endless number of reliable sources concluding that Zundel achieved notoriety as a Holocaust denier, publishing what is considered antisemitic material. I'd love to see your sources to suggest otherwise, and whether or not these ideas about Zundel that you express are fringe. What any administrator would allow on a BLP, however, are reliable sources that indicate why Zundel is notable, and this certainly rests within the Antisemitism tag. A Sniper (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to opinions, not facts. "Denier" instead of revisionist is an opinion.

When you say that Zundel published "what is considered antisemitic material," you are explicitly admitting that it is somebody's opinion. If some Jews are saying that they agree with what Zundel published, how is it even a tenable opinion?

People in various countries have published Did Six Million Really Die? without becoming famous, because they didn't endure a series of trials for it. It's the prosecution of Ernst Zundel that made him famous. Instead of Antisemitism, Zundel should be categorized under a banner that says Free Speech or something like that. Hadding (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion really isn't going anywhere - we are writing about two different things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it is about what can be verified with reliable sources. Show me reliable sources that show that any significant numbers of Jews deny the Holocaust, or think it is a gross exaggeration, and that would be perfectly acceptable. But there aren't any reliable sources. Period. Show me reliable sources that paint a picture of Zundel as anything other than an antisemitic publisher of hate literature, then it would be acceptable. You are entitled to your POV and to your opinion. You can even actually believe the Holocaust is a myth or a hoax - that's your business. I am only concerned about Wikipedia and what can be verified. If you want to drag an administrator to view these edits and our discussion, please do so. A Sniper (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about two different things. It's just that you insist on citing opinions as if they were facts. If 10,000 "reliable sources" (as you see them) says that Ernst Zundel is a very bad man, it does not thereby become an objective truth. It's still just somebody's opinion.

I think it would be very easy to "paint a picture of Zundel as anything other than an antisemitic publisher of hate literature" as I have already pointed out, simply by referring to Zundel's explanations of his own motives.Hadding (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the problem, Hadding: it isn't how I see it...it is how Wikipedia demands it. If Zundel can be reported from reliable sources as to what his own opinions are, go on and throw them in the article. As an aside, as to your quote about "10,000" I couldn't help but want to quote Joseph Goebbels' Big Lie theory, but figured it wasn't appropriate ;) A Sniper (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"reliable sources" seem to not be very reliable. for example medical journals used to publish that sex more than once a year was unhealthy. to say the contrary even to those that are thinking it is plainly obvious, there woould be no reliable source that could say that. but many sources state that zundel is not antisemitic although many people who read him are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.245.140 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I don't understand your point. A Sniper (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a reliable source that states what you do not understand. 98.64.245.140 (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry - you've lost me again. A Sniper (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think truth is based on credential and not reason. At least you can admit that you are lost. 98.64.245.140 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sniper is just making a simple misstep in reasoning here. If for instance the "Washington Post" or some other big "reliable source" says Zundel is a neo-nazi, and Zundel himself says he is not, than is he guilty until proven innocent? That judgment would be POV. Wikipedia should say "alleged neo-nazi" rather than simply "neo-nazi". Looking at it this way it seems flat out bizarre to limit the info in this wiki to anything less. This phrasing would cover, subtly, quite a bit more information, all easily verifiable.

That said, I have deleted the "neo-nazi" tag from the intro for the time being, as the sources provided do not directly label Zundel as a neo-nazi, only his "actions" and his "type of actions". If better sources can be provided, they should be. If/when that happens, I assert my case that the word "alleged" should precede "neo-nazi". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFPUB limits the use of self-published sources, as does WP:BLPSPS. Specifically there is a problem with it is not unduly self-serving - given that Ernst Zündel published Holocaust denial material, there is a strong reason not to take his denials of being a neo-Nazi at face value.Autarch (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lived in Canada" .. where?[edit]

Does anyone know where in Canada he lived? I recall reading somewhere that he resided in Yale, BC, or somewhere in the Lower Fraser Valley. Does anyone know for sure? -- Ϫ 05:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of so-called Holocaust denial[edit]

This guy is listed as a Holocaust denier but the article seems to lack examples demonstrating this. Could someone provide them? The closest I could find of actions of his that might actually evidence it are his publication company producing:

pamphlets and books devoted to Holocaust denial

However that's pretty vague and lacks quotes from this literature. It's possible that the intrepretation of his literature might be extreme and he's not actually a denier. To allow readers to choose for themselves I think an excerpt or two with examples of phrases that indicate he's actually denying it.

The one quote I did see here spoke of embellishment, but speaking about Holocaust being embellished (as opposed to concocted) is holocaust revisionism, not denial. While he did publish (though not write) "Did Six Million Really Die?", that too sounds like a potentially revisionistic rather than denial book. DB (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your view and you're entitled to it - however, I would say it is on the fringe to suggest so-called revisionists are not considered Holocaust Deniers by the bona fide press, Holocaust experts and professors of history. Besides, as long as secondary sources state that Zundel is a Holocaust Denier, than that is what is written here. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The press is run by Jewish people. All the major news outlets are run by Jews, have Jews among their upper executive staff, or have boards full of Jews including chairmen. Rupert Murdoch is a Jew too but people always say he isn't. Pointing this out is considered antisemitic which is odd considering it is just fact and not a secret and can be verified in minutes. Virtually every holocaust "expert" is Jewish because they're the ones most passionate on the subject. Many professors of history including the overwhelming majority who have written on the topic are Jewish too. Considering Jews make up less than 2% of the USA population and .2% of the global population, the fact that they have a tight grip on the story and revisionism is included in the definition of denial, that's troubling. What is undeniable fact is the holocaust generates billions, it makes people sympathetic, and it justifies Israel. It is a powerful tool for a Jew. Undoubtably I am sure that just about all Jews by faith believe it to be true. But rational non-Jewish people have a right to examine and argue facts that don't add up in history. It is a little strange you can go to prison for questioning it in some nations. Denying the holocaust and questioning the mass extermination methods and the unbelievable death toll are two separate things. You disagree because you are offended and so are your people, but being offended is never a reason to undermine the truth, it only further exposes that there is something to hide. Your argument is an excuse used to discredit people and keep wandering eyes from reading about it (considering it is a fragile story that normal people will question when presented with facts). We do not expect anything less in response, people have been imprisoned and even murdered trying to expose it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.226.145 (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er...eleven uses of the words Jew or Jewish, equating a little bit of foaming around the mouth, keyboard-wise. Even if what our esteemed collegue Mr/Ms Unsigned wrote were true, the way s/he wrote it indicates an unrealistic portrayal of a multi-generational group of millions, all personally taking part in a vast cover up of events that mainstream historians strangely agree upon. The above comment should be removed for lack of impartiality, if only (it's only been two months since it was written, so this is normal pace as far as wiki goes). Pennarin Alex (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry section[edit]

Really? It looks like an attempt at discrediting his views and seriously, it has no importance whether he has Jewish ancestry or not.

Drosldrosl (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Because of no other comments since, I am removing it. Zezen (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ernst Zündel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not believe in UFO's[edit]

The article is confused. On one hand it is said that he admitted that the UFO claims were just for publicity, yet it is said that "Zündel continued to defend these views as late as 2002". That implies that he continued to claim that the UFO claims were real - at least that is how the Wikipedia article on the Nazi UFO's interprets the same statement. Yet that claim follows immediately after him being quoted as admitting that it is fiction - which incidentally is surely obvious. Why doesn't the article simply state that he has admitted that the books are fiction?Royalcourtier (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Why doesn't the article" - maybe someone wants to imply something. Just a possibility. They must not be Star Wars/Trek fans, maybe another bunch of nuts. 2601:181:8000:D6D0:C41D:4BC2:C8E2:260D (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

It seems he died today. I got an unconfirmed report on this. --105.7.182.244 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "anti-racist"[edit]

I have tried to put quotation marks around this term as it implies or rather gives the impression Herr Zündel is a racist, which is without foundation, but twice it was removed. Here is the passage in question: "The anti-racist efforts included participation by numerous Toronto activist groups". Now the lack quotes around the term "anti-racist" would suggest that the efforts were indeed objectively and demonstrably anti-racist and not merely the claims of a person, group, organization etc. We see this quite frequently in the media in order for journalists to avoid imparting a personal meaning or understanding of a word as would appear to the public, thus ensure neutrality. Lastly, I tried changing the term to "anti-racists'" which would be more fitting and less charged and was again shot down. For an encyclopedia that claims to be open, it takes an awful lot of effort to add two bytes of data into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.105.34 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

(1) New comments go at the bottom of the page.
(2) Please sign your comment by adding four tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end. The system will add your IP address and a date/time stamp.
{3) When your edit has been disputed by other editors, and especially when one of them says "take it to talk", that is not the cue for you to revert your edit back into the article. Per WP:BRD, your next step is to discuss it here on the article talk page. Anything else is edit warring. I have reverted back to the status quo ante until a consensus of the editors here decides whether to accept your edit or not.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK buddy don't tell me what to do or not, I perfectly understand what "take it to talk" means but it doesn't preclude me from modifying changes which I judge as unfair. This is an open encyclopedia remember that boyo? Take your God complex down a notch. Sincerely, 108.63.105.34 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you don't understand what is allowed and what is not allowed, because you are engaged in edit-warring with three other editors. You have now been officially warned on your talk page. The next revert takes this to WP:EWN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in any edit-warring war, I made a legitimate edit that was in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and I even explained my move in the Wikipedia talk page. I don't care what you and your "colleagues" view as allowed or not, my only crime was to change "anti-racist" to "anti-racists'". I will make a report to Wikipedia and put an end to your "career". Sincerely,108.63.105.34 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All that aside, the IP's last edit, simply changing "racist" to "racists'", is indeed a good edit, changing it from an unsourced characterization to a reference to the organization. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 05:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this interview may reveal what Mr. Zunde's views on race were: https://archive.org/details/ErnstZundelInterviewedByBlackStudent480p 105.8.7.1 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good try. Not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifist[edit]

The article omits that Ernst Zuendel was a convinced pacifist. Can it be worked in? --105.4.6.207 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:RS would be required. First day on WP? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RIR: WP:BITE much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a series on Antisemitism template[edit]

I don't believe it is NPOV to have a template named Part of a series on Antisemitism included here, as Ernst Zündel is listed as part of the series. Clearly by any reasonable definition, Zündel's views are antisemitic, but that is not a good enough reason to include the template. Lmatt (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Lmatt:, open your eyes please. The subject is a Holocaust denier, which means that he's ipso facto an anti-semite. You've been fiddling around with articles about antisemitism, and your edits are decidely not improvements, as numerous editors have now informed you on your talk page, on article talk pages, and in edit summaries. Get a clue, please, or you are likely to be blocked very soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Ernst Zündel is an antisemite, that's our common ground. The sidebar Antisemitism is titled Part of a series on Antisemitism. There is no mention of Ernst Zündel in the sidebar, therefore Ernst Zündel can not be considered part of the series. We need a better reason then the fact somone is an antisemite to include them in this sidebar. Lmatt (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ernst_Zündel&oldid=1216337593"