This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has an extremely misleading and potentially malicious name, and the comment above made by User:Starbwoy is a clear example. The article was originally created with the title The Holocaust Industry (book), but for some reason the "book" was later deleted. Yesterday I changed it again to its former name, but User:PRODUCER reverted me and somehow even completely deleted the previous page's history. His argument is not policy based whatsoever. There are thousands of other Wikipedia articles on books that don't have other disambiguation pages with the same name, but still have the the word "book" in parentheses in their title, and rightly so. Therefore, I propose changing the article's name to The Holocaust Industry (book). Shalom11111 ( talk) 12:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Possible categorisations of this book include:
either or both depending on content.
I personally interpret the categories as follows:
The book has been placed in "Category:Books critical of Zionism" and there are "see also" links between the two category pages.
How would the book best be categorised?
Gregkaye (
talk) 00:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added a POV tag to section The_Holocaust_Industry#Reviews_and_critiques. Without any introduction or explanation, the section has selected negative critiques only. That is OR, and POV (rotten cherry picking). It also appears strange that the critiques appear before the cotnent description. - DePiep ( talk) 11:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
That's my thoughts about it. Peace BeefDaeRoastLXG praat 11:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Nice. BeefDaeRoastLXG praat 09:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who reads this quote from 2000 will think that Holocaust claims still have not been paid out due to a delay in the courts, even though the decision came down a few weeks after this review was published... Regarding this quote The chief reason why survivors have so far seen nothing of the $1.25 billion Swiss settlement, reached in 1998, is that U.S. courts have yet to rule on a method of distribution.
- using a book review as a source for this should be enough reason to remove this. In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation wasn't about a "method of distribution" and there's no discussion of Finkelstein's argument in the article, only this non-expert response ... Here is what happened in that case:
Seraphim System ( talk) 06:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
courts have yet to rule on a method of distribution, when the case was held up because ethnic Poles objected to being excluded from the settlement is suspect. And it is not a law source so it should not be considered a reliable source for a statement of why the courts were tied up or what the case was about—especially as no source is given for it (According to Chemerinsky, or something). Improving the content in the article is fine if there are sources for it, but this quote should be removed either way. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=pl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Holocaust+industry&btnG= The book has been quoted 980 times. Xx236 ( talk) 07:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
de:Norman Finkelstein#„Die Holocaust-Industrie“ Here generally ignored, partially copied from a French paper. Xx236 ( talk) 07:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Large sections of this article (mainly overviews) are sentences ripped straight from the book with a change of grammer, and according to multiple sources-including the ADL (and actually Wikipedia's own definition of Holocaust Denial), the main claim of Finklesteins book (that only 1 million Jews died in the Holocaust), is Holocaust denial. I am thus editing to remove ripped sections with a change of first to third person and updating as their was no major public debate as the article claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a1c0:6d40:95e6:7dbe:b904:964a talk ( talk • contribs) 07:32, September 6, 2021 (UTC)
Look back in previous edit of this, he claims the numbers were inflated.
Again, look at edit, including page 125 if you have the book (my brother does, sadly)
Did they say anything about this book, and if so, what? Unreferenced claim removed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In this diff I removed a section that appears undue. It places undue weight on parts of the book that represent small details compared to coverage in the article, so they seem undue as summary. RS support is not provided lending them external significance. Freelance-frank ( talk) 13:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Is his opinion noteworthy? Here he is: https://www.vipcare.org/news/2022/7/11/vipcares-global-reach-via-remote-education BobFromBrockley ( talk) 19:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Two comments by German historians removed from the reception section as irrelevant/useless quips:
According to Israeli journalist Yair Sheleg, in August 2000, German historian Hans Mommsen called it "a most trivial book, which appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices." [1] [2]
Do other editors agree these are irrelevant/useless quips, given they are the views of major historians of the topic at hand, and have secondary sources who considered them noteworthy? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
References
:0
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has an extremely misleading and potentially malicious name, and the comment above made by User:Starbwoy is a clear example. The article was originally created with the title The Holocaust Industry (book), but for some reason the "book" was later deleted. Yesterday I changed it again to its former name, but User:PRODUCER reverted me and somehow even completely deleted the previous page's history. His argument is not policy based whatsoever. There are thousands of other Wikipedia articles on books that don't have other disambiguation pages with the same name, but still have the the word "book" in parentheses in their title, and rightly so. Therefore, I propose changing the article's name to The Holocaust Industry (book). Shalom11111 ( talk) 12:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Possible categorisations of this book include:
either or both depending on content.
I personally interpret the categories as follows:
The book has been placed in "Category:Books critical of Zionism" and there are "see also" links between the two category pages.
How would the book best be categorised?
Gregkaye (
talk) 00:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added a POV tag to section The_Holocaust_Industry#Reviews_and_critiques. Without any introduction or explanation, the section has selected negative critiques only. That is OR, and POV (rotten cherry picking). It also appears strange that the critiques appear before the cotnent description. - DePiep ( talk) 11:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
That's my thoughts about it. Peace BeefDaeRoastLXG praat 11:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Nice. BeefDaeRoastLXG praat 09:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who reads this quote from 2000 will think that Holocaust claims still have not been paid out due to a delay in the courts, even though the decision came down a few weeks after this review was published... Regarding this quote The chief reason why survivors have so far seen nothing of the $1.25 billion Swiss settlement, reached in 1998, is that U.S. courts have yet to rule on a method of distribution.
- using a book review as a source for this should be enough reason to remove this. In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation wasn't about a "method of distribution" and there's no discussion of Finkelstein's argument in the article, only this non-expert response ... Here is what happened in that case:
Seraphim System ( talk) 06:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
courts have yet to rule on a method of distribution, when the case was held up because ethnic Poles objected to being excluded from the settlement is suspect. And it is not a law source so it should not be considered a reliable source for a statement of why the courts were tied up or what the case was about—especially as no source is given for it (According to Chemerinsky, or something). Improving the content in the article is fine if there are sources for it, but this quote should be removed either way. Seraphim System ( talk) 02:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=pl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Holocaust+industry&btnG= The book has been quoted 980 times. Xx236 ( talk) 07:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
de:Norman Finkelstein#„Die Holocaust-Industrie“ Here generally ignored, partially copied from a French paper. Xx236 ( talk) 07:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Large sections of this article (mainly overviews) are sentences ripped straight from the book with a change of grammer, and according to multiple sources-including the ADL (and actually Wikipedia's own definition of Holocaust Denial), the main claim of Finklesteins book (that only 1 million Jews died in the Holocaust), is Holocaust denial. I am thus editing to remove ripped sections with a change of first to third person and updating as their was no major public debate as the article claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a1c0:6d40:95e6:7dbe:b904:964a talk ( talk • contribs) 07:32, September 6, 2021 (UTC)
Look back in previous edit of this, he claims the numbers were inflated.
Again, look at edit, including page 125 if you have the book (my brother does, sadly)
Did they say anything about this book, and if so, what? Unreferenced claim removed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In this diff I removed a section that appears undue. It places undue weight on parts of the book that represent small details compared to coverage in the article, so they seem undue as summary. RS support is not provided lending them external significance. Freelance-frank ( talk) 13:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Is his opinion noteworthy? Here he is: https://www.vipcare.org/news/2022/7/11/vipcares-global-reach-via-remote-education BobFromBrockley ( talk) 19:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Two comments by German historians removed from the reception section as irrelevant/useless quips:
According to Israeli journalist Yair Sheleg, in August 2000, German historian Hans Mommsen called it "a most trivial book, which appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices." [1] [2]
Do other editors agree these are irrelevant/useless quips, given they are the views of major historians of the topic at hand, and have secondary sources who considered them noteworthy? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
References
:0
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).