Talk:Paul Rassinier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit May 12 and overview of Wikipedia Rules[edit]

Revert To Modified Original: Changes Redundant and break Wikipedia rules

Dear David Mountolive:

Sigh. Ok, lets try again.

First, if you read through the discussion page, there’s a gentlemen’s agreement with dissenters from both sides of the fence to try to limit the size of this article, which in its early versions was overwritten, unwieldy, and redundant. All sorts of details could be included, such as how Rassinier’s home in Asnieres was a hostel for visiting Israeli students, friends of his son Jean-Paul Rassinier, who did graduate work in Israel; or how a lot of Rassinier’s lack of success at the polls in the 1930’s had to do with his divorce from his first wife, something deeply frowned upon in Catholic Belfort. Rassinier’s meeting with Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, Kurt Gerstein’s traveling companion at Belzac, is one of the truly intriguing moments in his life, and is little known.

And some of those details were included in early versions. But they are not necessary for the broad overview of an encyclopedia article, and add to the clutter.

I’ve included what I hope is a reasonable explanation for what I’ve done.

I hope you reply with reasonable arguments before vandalizing the page again.


A secondary source is a source that supplies material that is actually used in the article. Such works you listed that can be used as secondary sources were already there, either linked in the article, or noted in Footnotes.

Other works, such as Fresco’s, are currently not contributory to the article (though this can be explored), and cannot be listed as Secondary Sources, since they aren’t secondary sources for the article.

So, I’ve created a new section marked Further Reading. I hope you’ll accept the convention that only works not sourced in the article itself be placed in this category, to reduce redundancy.


A. As I previously said, Dictionnaire biographique du mouvement ouvrier Français is already noted in Secondary sources as well as twice in Footnotes; putting it in again is redundant, and Fresco isn’t the author of Rassinier’s entry.

B. The English language edition of Pierre Vidal-Naquet’s A Paper Eichmann is already linked, TWICE, in the article. Putting it in again, and in French, is redundant. This is why I still wonder if you’ve actually read the article, readers can read Vidal-Naquet’s essay in an English translation through the link provided.


A. If you’re going to refer to Seillier’s book, you should have included the English, not the French edition. I’ve corrected that.

B. You seemed to have missed the Moyn book, perhaps because there is no French edition? Moyn has some new and original material on Rassinier. I’ve included it.

C. Roque’s book contains original correspondence between Rassinier and Wilhelm Pfannenstiel.


Things like Brayard’s essay – it’s not really a book – and the web page Rassinier un Imposteur cannot be included under Wikipedia rules. Please respect them. Here is an overview for you.


Check out the section Extremist and Fringe Sources, this is why the webpage Rassinier: un Imposteur cannot be linked on this page. It’s the same reason any article about Rassinier by David Irving on Real History or by Faurisson on IHR cannot be linked.

For Rassinier: un Imposteur, authorship of the page (not some of the content, as you suggested) is unknown. There is a great deal of commentary and speculation on Rassinier from an unknown author, punctuated by extracts from other authors that are cherry-picked and taken out of context with obvious malicious intent, and with no pretense to neutrality.

Peer review of the page has not taken place, nobody does peer reviews of web pages. Some of the information is just plain wrong. For instance, Rassinier and Johann von Leers were never “amis” – Leers inquired about publishing his books in Egypt through Maurice Bardeche. Rassinier replied not to Leers but to Bardache, and Rassinier never met Leers. An exchange of letters doesn’t make anybody “amis”. Vidal-Naquet also exchanged letters with Rassinier, and they can scarcely be called “amis”. This is typical of the deceptions on this web page.

One of the sad things here is some of the research by Charles Provan, who has uncovered new facts about Rassinier’s meeting with Pfannensteil, cannot be put in here for the same reason.

Brayard’s How The Idea Came To Mr. Rassinier was rejected under peer review.

NIZKOR cannot be linked for the same reasons.


Rassinier: un Imposteur doesn’t even pretend to neutrality, cherry-picks quotes out of context, and has an obvious malicious and hostile intent towards Rassinier. The text, not the quotes, contains unfounded assertions by an unknown author that cannot be checked up on.

Because of this rule, I’ve been reluctant to insert material from Fresco’s Fabrication of an Anti-Semite. Instead of writing a biography, she set out to prove a psychological thesis, and the title itself tells you that she came in with an agenda. The text is full of malicious sneers she sends in his direction. Her pointless gloating over his move to Asnieres, which doesn’t even prove her thesis, is an example of the padding I mentioned.

Also, in the review of Fresco by Samuel Moyne, Moyne expresses his doubts that Fresco discovered how an anti-semite is fabricated or that Rassinier was anti-semitic.

For the same reason, Lipstadt’s Denying The Holocaust cannot be sourced here. Besides her obvious agenda, she also gets a great many biographical details wrong, since she never bothered to do any real research on him, and again cherry-picks quotes, sometimes down to mere words and sentences, with no clue as to what context they are in.

Brayard’s How The Idea Came To Mr. Rassinier also makes no pretense to neutrality, and again, is a psychological thesis, not a biography.


I could publish a lot here based on conversations I’ve had with members of his family and people who knew him, but as you can see, that’s not allowed.

This is another reason Rassinier un Imposteur cannot be used on Wikipedia. The text states original material, and from an unknown author, or authors, and there is no way of checking up on it.


You really made no contribution to the article. Your comment was “here are some sources that you could use to rewriting this propaganda article”, threw them up in secondary sources where they didn’t belong, and failed to note that two of them were already included.

Your demand is that somebody else rewrite the article? That isn’t an edit at all, which is why I created the new category for the works you listed.

If you want to make an edit, I tell you what. I’m already going through the Fresco book, and some of the info on Rassinier’s family and his campaign against Pierre Dreyfus-Schmitt seem like they could be added, even if Fresco’s book is hardly neutral.

You seem to be very familiar with the Igounet book. If you think there is something there that isn’t covered in this article that is broad enough in scope to be included in an encyclopedia article, please put it here as a proposed edit, and it can be discussed.

Raisonnable? Peu raisonnable?


The unsourced comments complaint is for comments in the article that are not sourced, not for books that are not included. If you're going to complain that comments in the article are not sourced, you have To Specify Which Comments You Are Referring To. Otherwise, there is no way to correct them, should you be right.


Is linked so people can read Rassinier themselves, and make up their own minds. There is a pirate translation of Plantin’s biography in English that could be linked, and once was, but the moderator is stating that one VHO link is probably enough, and I think he/she might be right.


There was no Wikipedia page on Marie Claude Vallient-Courterier when this article was first written; now there is, and it looks pretty good. Includes her dealings with Rassinier, I’ve linked it in the article, along to a link with the Deutsche Reichspartie.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenact (talkcontribs) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Negationist bibliography and contempt of historical sources : why this article is crap[edit]

Wich sources are used in this article ? The books of... Rassinier !!! Althought recent works of historians show that Rassinier is a liar, it seem's not to be a problem for wikipedia...

Well, about those works of historians, where are they ? In the secondary sources, we find Jean Plantin. Good, so, who is fr:Jean Plantin ? He is a FRENCH NEGATIONIST, who was condemned for contestation de crime contre l'humanité. He's not really a historical authority.

Then, what remains ? Historical works of Fresco, Igounet, Vidal-Naquet, etc. (those works are used on PHDN, so it's a lie to say that PHDN is original research). But, those works are refused. It is not the work of the wikipedians to decide if the historical works are reliable sources or not, because the ressources for writing articles on wikipedia ARE those historical works. The Wikipedians haven't to decide what is recevable in history.

I have no time to waste here, so my last message is the following : this kind of pseudo historical methods in use here are detestable. David Mountolive (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a question: WHERE is this guy of the article debunked? It'd make my day to know that. Ancient Alines is debunked, the DaVinci Code is debunked, but why can't I ever find this guy debunked? Seriously. I so want it debunked. Who'll help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:5200:4980:899A:E9C2:E8BE:61C1 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Le Rouge et le Bleu[edit]

Thought it worth pointing out that a journal he wrote for was certainly not underground (as previously stated), but Vichy-friendly collaborationiste. "The Red and the Blue" was founded in 1941 by Charles Spinasse, supporter of Pétain, and authorized by German ambassador Otto Abetz. Hexmaster (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)