This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Kollerstrom is said to be British. The actual surname sounds Skandanavian to me.

The surname is Scandanavian by origin but the subject was born in this country. Lockstone ( talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I invite Mhym to justify his attempts to revert the article to an earlier version. I have sought to amend it to produce a more rounded entry. I'm not seeking to disguise controversies but place them in a wider context and use non-emotive language. I think it good to start from the professional life and list the subjects on which he has written in a sort chronological order of when he began publishing. I have tried to show how some controversial views grew out of his professional experience. Lockstone ( talk) 01:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I revered the changes and plan to do so again. This is not much about the substance, but more about the style of the changes. You are making the article perhaps more logical from your point of view but non-standard from WP point of view, and of style which we consider poor. The top portion is supposed to be the summary of the rest of the article, no need to make it separate and long. It is *meant* to be short by WP style standards. You remove "holocaust denial" wikilinks, etc. which are clearly relevant and controversial. Such a removal needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I am looking at the history of your contributions, and understand that it's very short. You might want to read WP:FIRST and WP:Better before doing any big changes to the article. I realize that this is difficult for a newcomer to learn all the rules, so my suggestion would be to read and learn as you go, step by step, without insisting on revamping whole articles of controversial subjects. Mhym ( talk) 05:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not plan to spend time repeatedly changing and have raised this with editors. The subject is Nicholas Kollerstrom. The originator of the article may have deemed him worthy of an entry because he achieved prominence for certain views but then his whole life becomes of interest, it is not possible just to focus on the views. I have been attempting to set the views in context. It would be quite reasonable to state 'it was widely assumed he was removed from his position at UCL because...' and quote some journalism. If you wish to say that he has been called a 'holocaust-denier' by certain people, linking to that category that doesn't seem to me unreasonmable (at present), but it shouldn't come in the first line. I am glad that Mhym admits the subject is controversial, he ought to take grerat care over the opening line. I don't think I need to be referred to long wiki manuals to know what is fair and unfair, neutral or otherwise People should take great care over first lines because they appear when a subject's name is googled Lockstone ( talk) 10:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Further it is self-evident that the author is choosing to define the subject in the first line, where it will readily appear to anyone googling the subject's name, in a way which is contrary to the wishes of the subject (who calls himself a 'holocaust revisor') I don't think I need to read lots of guidelines to raise a question over that. Perhaps Mhym would care to state why he wishes to refer to the subject so prominently using an emotive term which the subject themself doesn't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockstone ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to my last first para but split this into two. The most important think is the opening line and I think I have given a balanced overview of the subject's life. I will suggest further revisions later when I have Mhym's response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockstone ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am quite happy for Mhym to give me advice on wiki procedures but there are general standards of fairness and natural justice and one doesn't need to know every detail of wiki procedures to know these. I have just removed one statemewnt unsupported by its reference another controversial statement with no reference which Mhym has just put back in. I pointed out that UCL haven't stated why they stripped him from his post. I'm not going to look for Wiki chapter and verse as justification for this. Would Mhym care to account for the existence of these? Lockstone ( talk) 13:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

I won't necessarily object to a link which leads to the wiki 'Holocaust Denial' page. I removed the link because it was in an unsubstantiated statement. Lockstone ( talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

I consider it courtesy that his characterisation of himself as 'reviser' should preced that of his critics as 'denier' - this is not a criminal trial where the prosecution speaks first. I'm not suggesting this is complete, I think there is certainly space for further material in the 'controversies' section, I deleted statements because they were not properly sourced rather than I thought the subject matter necessarily unsuitable. Lockstone ( talk) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

codoh and press TV are not reliable sources; please don't link to them again. Kollerstrom's Holocaust denial is obvious and attested to by reliable sources; please don't whitewash that again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I quoted CODOH as a source for what the subject has written, the subject is published there so it is a perfectly reliable source when quoting him. I don't feel I have tried to disguise the subject's views on the Holocaust in any way and those who wish to categorise him as a Holocaust Denier are free to do so. I have tried to allow him to speak for himself by linking to his words and then placing the critique. So far as I am concerend the editors interventions bring Wikipaedia into considerable disrepute.

Please review wikipedia policies WP:RS and WP:V. To return the information to the article, please supply reliable and verifiable sources. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 21:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am simply trying to quote the subject, the subject is quoted on CODOH why is this then an unreliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr E P Lockstone ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Pltuonium starred editor says I shouldn't use Press TV as a source but then procedes to insert a reference which quotes Press TV as a secondary source. I thought it was good historical practice only ever to use primary sources. Really Wikipaedia need to get another editor to look at this.

Please don't assume I share the subject's views - like Voltaire and I believe Noam Chomsky I simply defend his right to a fair hearing Lockstone Lockstone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr E P Lockstone ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not confuse wikipedia with a social website, a bulletin board, or a forum for proposing independant thought and research. Please review Wikipedia:No original research, specifically Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. We may rely on reliable secondary sources if they are quoting something. We may not rely on unreliable secondary sources. Therein lies the difference. -- Avi ( talk) 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So Press TV is considered unreliable but Jerusalem Post quoting Press TV is okay. Absurd. Wikipaedia's use of the terms Primary and Secondary Sources is quite unlike anything I have ever come across in academia where a primary source is X says something a secondary source y says x says something. Perhaps someone would care to explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr E P Lockstone ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I only wish to be Lockstone - there is nothing intentional about having two accounts, I have been trying to switch from one to the other but am using two separate computers. Lockstone ( talk) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC) LOckstone

I don't know whther I'll spend much further time on this - it's my first and probably last time involved in editing and I can only say that Wikiaepdia seems to employ methodologies so as to render it worthless in certain areas. I'll spend my energy telling others why they should simply disregard Wiki on certain issues. I am glad I resisted the impulse to donate. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 08:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

It has to do with the draconian measures we have to take to prevent people from using wikipedia as a vehicle to publish. Please see Wikipedia:No original research for more details. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you then trying to say that Wikipaedia entries must never link to a subject's own writings? I don't think anyone would suppose that the subject of this article began the article himself to promote his own research. Beware of being seen to use any excuse to try to deny the subject fair representation. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Avi - here is the first line of the first article I consulted by mhym, the originator of this artice. "Edmund L. Andrews is The New York Times economics reporter and the author of Busted: Life Inside the Great Mortgage Meltdown. An extended excerpt from the book has appeared in The New York Times Magazine titled My Personal Financial Crisis.[1]References^ My Personal Financial Crisis, by Edmund L. Andrews" You have edited out sentences of mine where I link to the subjects own words saying it is against wiki policy, surely this is also against wiki policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockstone ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. codoh does not qualify as a reliable source, so we cannot cite it. The Jerusalem Post does qualify as a reliable source, so we can cite it. Also, Wikipedia prefers to cite secondary sources over primary. The material posted on codoh is primary, the Jerusalem Post article is secondary. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg's reasons do not make sense to me and I can't see how they conform to Wikipaedia guidelines either.

"the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible"

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact."

There is no prohibition on quoting living persons - it doesn't seem to come under 'no original research'. I am seeking to quote from an original source CODOH. I am not arguing that CODOH is reliable for matters of fact only as a source of an author's opinion.

I have used Press TV similarly. Why should it be preferable to cite the Jerusalem Post quoting Press TV rather than Press TV directly is beyond me.

"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals. They may be used, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals,..."

That is precisely how I used CODOH and Press TV

I find Wikipaedia's uses of the terms 'primary', 'secondary' and 'tertiary' sources confusing, you use 'secondary' where I, and I think many others, may use 'primary' and 'tertiary' where I may use 'secondary'. I think jaypg is tending to use these in the same sense as me rather than Wikipaedia. I can't see how CODOH qualifies as a primary source under Wikipaedia's defintion

"The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."

It is rather a secondary source

"Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims"

I would say that in the link from Jerusalem Post which refers to Press TV Jerusalem Post is tertiary and Press TV secondary and therefore to be preferred. Lockstone ( talk) 08:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I await a response from jaypg to the points above - I find that my citation of CODOH is perfectly in accordance with editorial policy Lockstone ( talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I removed the term 'conspiracy threorist' - it hardly conforms to the definition given and is contentious. Throughout I have followed principles of fairness without quoting guidelines but have thus far found whatever I do to be in accord with guidelines Lockstone ( talk) 10:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

The reliable source in question has the following caption under a picture of Kollerstrom: "Conspiracy theorist: Nicholas Kollerstrom, who believes 7/7 was a set-up by the intelligence services, was interviewed for a BBC programme". Please note the words "conspiracy theorist". I've added two other reliable sources saying the exact same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restored previous opening. He is more a historian of sceince than an astronomer. There is nothing wrong with giving a list of his publications so people can judge him in his own words if they wish. I am in no sense trying to whitewash him - people can see what his views on the holocaust are and make their own judgements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockstone ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Previously people have given justifications for making changes, wiki guidelines at me every one of I believe I have shown to be inapplicable. Now nobody tries that, they just make changes. Lockstone ( talk) 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Codoh is not a WP:RS, nor is Press TV. In addition, they are not Nicholas Kollerstrom. The only place they could be cited would be in articles about codoh and Press TV respectively, and even then with extreme caution: that is what is meant by "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals." The guidelines you are quoting would allow, with caveats, the use of Nicholas Kollerstrom's personal website or blog in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I find Jayjg to be splitting hairs. If it meant what Jayjg claims it to mean then the word 'respectively' should appear at the end of the quote. Doubtless then Jayjg would object to a link to the subject's own writing. Jayjg seems to be making up the rules as he/she goes along just to deny users the opportunity to judge the subject by his own words. A lot of Wikipaedia is very good but what goes on here lets it right down Lockstone ( talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

Nick Kollerstrom - Here is a statement I wsh to make about this article. Kindly move it of this isn't the right place to put it.

The present Wiki entry does not represent my life or my views. It is grossly untruthful, contrary to the stated ethics of wiki. A colleague who attempted to modify it in a direction of making it slightly more realistic had his entries deleted. Moreover, I suggest that the palpable motive of the distortions and omissions in this entry is simply, character defamation.

As an author who has published about seven books on a variety of topics, I fail to see why two of the three paragraphs in this Wiki entry should be about ‘Holocaust denial’ as if that were the sole point of interest. As someone who has worked for years as a science historian and school math teacher, I have difficulty in seeing why the opening sentence should describe me as an ‘astronomer.’ Admittedly most of my two dozen academically-published articles are about the history of astronomy, but I doubt whether that makes me an astronomer.

Only one easy of mine is alluded to, the controversial revisionist essay ‘The Auschwitz gas chamber illusion.’ If Wiki wants to allude to this, then it is ethically bound to insert a reference to where that essay is located, viz the CODOH library (Committee for open discussion of the Holocaust: www.codoh.com/author/kollerstrom.html). This is the world’s premier revisionist website, so I do appreciate how certain persons involved in constructing the present character-assassination masquerading as biography would be uneasy at having that reference.

If you want to allude to my revisionist researches then you should say what they are, namely an evaluation of the two main chemical studies, of residual cyanide in the walls of Auschwitz (see CODOH essays). If you want to allude to my astrological articles then you should explain, that my interest has been in attempts to enquire whether it can be verified - or preferably even allude to my book ‘Galileo’s Astrology,’ the only book on this topic. If you wish to describe me as a conspiracy theorist, then you should cite my book ‘Terror on the Tube, behind the Veil of 7/7’ which is the only published book giving a comprehensive review of evidence.

Instead of quoting this book title, you just quote the absurd newspaper title ‘7/7 was an MI5 plot’ (ref 1) – you will not find any statement to that affect in my book, and it is a total lie to say that I claimed that on any BBC film. Do you not blush at giving such untruthful quotes? Your motive in citing such a media-smear as a reference - instead of the book’s title - smells like simple character-assassination.

Instead of decent references outlining what I have been trying to do in my life, Wiki simply quotes liars as saying, that I claim Auschwitz was like a holiday camp (Rob Mendick, Evening Standard). Clearly, nobody ever could take such a mad view. Then it quotes me as saying the inmates ‘sunbathed’ around the swimming pool. No article with my name on says this. A couple of years ago I might have badly-quoted a source as saying this and then deleted it. If Wiki insists on citing this, it should say that Nick Cohen in the Observer (eg) claimed this, but NK rejects such a claim. Your bio also lies, in saying that I posted on a far-right website: I never have. Then you cite a reference claiming that I say Jews were not murdered at Auschwitz: yet another damned lie. Then you quote me as saying ‘the alleged massacre of Jews in WW2 was scientifically impossible’ – another damned lie, I never wrote that*. Quoting proper sources (or even consulting me) would be a way to avoid this shocking catalogue of character-assassinating lies.

The one political achievement in my life, IMO worth mentioning, was in the 1989 Euro-election, when I was press secretary of the West Surrey Green Party, and we came in from nowhere to beat both Labour and the Social Democrats, gaining 22% of the votes. The Green Party in Guildford was run for 12 years from my house. Also a Wiki entry might possibly wish to state that I have produced Britain’s main moon-gardening calendar for the last thirty years – compared to this, my interest in revisionism is a mere blip of the horizon.

If you are going to describe me as a ‘crop-circle enthusiast’ (ref 2) then I suggest you ought to point out that I published a book or maybe the book on the geometry of crop-circles (‘The Hidden form’), reviewed by the Association of Teachers of Mathematics as ‘a must for any school library.’ Otherwise it just sounds absurd. Or, is that your aim? ………………………………………………………………

• You allude (ref 6) to the Iranian website which copied my CODOH article, then added this ‘comment’ – without my permission and against my will. This is a reason why CODOH should quote from the articles posted by the author, and not quote comments by others as if they were his.

N.Kollerstrom ( talk) 14:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Few things first. Wikipedia has many rules. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought! We have this WP:NOR doctrine which says that we can only refer to something if it was published before in a reliable source. In other words, if a certain event in the bio of a person is not previously acknowledged in print or on the web, it's as if it never happened - we are simply not allowed to include such material (according to our rules). Second, why some portions of the bio are given more space than others is easy to explain: it's the notability concept. Basically, if someone like Susan Boyle becomes famous late in her life, there is relatively more space devoted to what made her famous than what she did all her previous life. Same thing happened to the subject of this article as well - as the media coverage shows, Mr. Kollerstrom is best known for his Holocaust denial/revision. Thus disproportional inclusion in this article.

Finally, there are actually many cases when the subject of the article bitterly complains on his or her WP article. Se e.g. Lawrence Solomon article and complaints by the subject of this article. All of them "lost" and left disappointed. I hope you can learn from their example. Mhym ( talk) 07:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No sources are provided, at all, for these two claims: "Despite his interest in astronomy, Kollerstrom takes astrology quite seriously. His particular interest is the effect of the sun, moon and planets on plant growth and chemical reactions, and he is interested in alchemy." Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a link to his works but it was removed, I think on grounds of 'no original research'. Can't link to subject's own website because that's 'original research', can't link to where he is published elsewhere with his permission, because it's an unreliable source, can't win because of numbers of others chaning things back! Lockstone ( talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Which link was to the subject's own website? -- Avi ( talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification, I'm not aware of subject's own website, but given way rules are applied I've little reason to doubt any links would be removed. Lockstone ( talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Per WP:SELFPUB, using a subject's own website as a source in the subject's own article is one of the rare times that we allow what would normally be an unreliable source (the other selfpub exceptions are when the sources ARE reliable - e.g. the blog of a recognized expert who has been published elsewhere). However, this does not allow using other unreliable sources, which is why I asked for the clarification. -- Avi ( talk) 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just who are the 'we' who do the allowing? In any event I think that if the subject is published on another website and has indicated that he is quite happy for you to link to that website then that is the equivalent of the subject's own website. Lockstone ( talk) 16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

"We" is the wikipedia community. Please review WP:V and WP:RS, which are core policies/guidelines of wikipedia. All articles must comply with wikipedia polices and guidelines. -- Avi ( talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And who appointed you their spokesperson? Am I not also a part of the community? I have edited this article in accordance with a core policy Wikipaedia which is that biographies of living persons should be neutral and I don't see anyone else doing that. Lockstone ( talk) 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

Nobody; I am pointing you to the policy pages in accordance with which you have already accepted to edit by editing here. These policies are not optional, they are mandatory, and refusal to abide by them may lead to measures being taken to protect the project. Once again, please review the policies, and if you have specific questions, you are always welcome to ask a question on their talk pages. -- Avi ( talk) 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lockston, with all due respect,have you read our core policies, wp:npov, wp:v and wp:nor]]? And in this case, also wp:blp? Have you read them carefully? I am just trying to give you constructive advice. If you are sure that your edits carefully and rigorously comply with these policies, you will find fewer and fewer people reverting or challenging you. It is true that to comply with these policies sometimes we cannot add what we want, or we have to add something we do not like. But this is our form of self-governance, it is our way of writing a quality encyclopedia without an editorial board that believe it or not might be much stricter in what can go into articles than us. If you wo not like Wikipedia's policies and still want to contribute to an encyclopedia, my advice is to get a job with Encyclopedia Britannica. I am being serious - the world is filled with venues for publishing all sorts of things. This is only one. Anyone can edit. That means you, and it means Avi. And the two of you can spend eternity reverting each other thanks to Wiki technology, and nothing will be accomplished. Or you can edit according to our policies, and you will find then that if someone deletwes what you wrote someone else will probably put it back in. This is the chance you take when you write something knowing anyone else in the world can delete or change what you just wrote. What might give us stability, unity? The policies I mentioned. study them, follow them, and maybe your contributions will last. These are the rules all of us play by. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read the five pillars, 2 is Neutral Point of View and 5 is No Firm Rules. I just apply common sense. So far as I am concerned every other contributer is hiding behing and misquoting lesser rules to write something perjorative to the subject. I am hopeful that a senior editor will be down on this before too long. Lockstone ( talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Lockstone, you are under a severe misconception: there is no such thing as a "senior editor" in wikipedia; no one editor has any more power when it comes to editing than any other and we all must agree to abide by the rules. -- Avi ( talk) 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

well who has the authority to lock pages? Lockstone ( talk) 07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

Administrators (or sysops, systems operators) can protect pages - this occurs when there is serious edit waring or regular vandalism, and is meant to help ensure that the ongoing process of writing articles, through the collaboraion of several editors who do not know one another, can happen in a relatively stable way. If an administrator protects a page that has been vandalized, she will undo the vandalism (e.g. "Joe is a prick!" or "Mary ROCKS") and thn potects the page. But if there is an edit war, the administrator simply protects the page as it is. She does not take a side in the edit war, she does not comen on content. She protects the page merely to provide editors time to cool off and discuss their disagrement on the article talk page until they have a consensus. The administrator does not care what the consensus is - as long as editors agree that there will be no more edit warring the aministrator unprotects the page. So you see, none of this has anything to do with content. Content is decided by editors following policy. Administrators are not "senior editors," they are like janitors.

By the way, "five pillars" was just one editor's way of sumarizing key points for newbies. Some editors did not like it, but over time most editors decided it was a reasonable way to introduce newbies to Wikipedia, and that the name is clever and not offensive. But the "number" of a policy is arbitrary. NPOV is in fact the one non-negotiable policy at Wikipedia. Jimbo and Larry Sanger created it when they first created Wikipedia and it is absolutely at the core of the encyclopedia. In the early years, "Be bold" was an important maxim because we were young and a big experiment and we wanted to encourage experimentation just so see what works.

Wikipedia is now more than eight years old and we have had a lot of expeimentation, and we have learned from it. The other core policies (V and NOR) derived from NPOV i.e. with experience we realized that for NPOV to work in a meaningful way, we needed the V policy as well. And after that we realized that for people to use V in a constructive way, we also needed NOR, so V and NOR grew out of NPOV, which is why they are so important. We still welcome experimentation, but nowadays peopl do a kind of calculation: when someone experiments, in a way that is not in accord with a policy, does it really lead to a better encyclopedia article? If so, what usually happens is we change the policy. So yes, we still keep "No firm rules" prominently because an editor might just come up with an edi that violates a rule yet is clearly an improvement and it is the rule that has to change. This can still happe, but understanably, it happens less and less each year. That is because each year our policies are further refined based on continuous experience.

The bottom line is this: you can make any edit you wish, but any other editor can change or revert it. It is anarchy, but that is what it means to have an encyclopedia "anyone can edit, at any time." Anyone means anyone, that is what Avi was referring to when he said that there are no senior ecitors, anyone can edit, all editors are equal. Given what I just said - that anyone can change or revert any edit you make - I would think you would understand why it is in your interests that there be a policy, or policies, that impose some restrictions on editors ... otherwise anyone could delete every edit you ever made without proiding any justificaion! Surely you can see how this is in your own inerest? But if we have policies that govern how everyone else edis, sure you can undersand that they have to apply to you, too.

Yes, you can "be bold" because there are "no firm rules." If you make an edit that violates NPOV, V or NOR but all other editors agree that your edit was necessary or a significant improvement, my guess is someone will start rewriting one of the policies. I am just being realistic with you: after eight years, the chances of this happening have delined considerably. Now it is much easier for you to edit while complying strictly with NPOV, V and NOR - it is in your own self-interest, because if anothe editor comes around and deletes what you wrote, and you can show other editors that your edit was fully compliant with NPOV, V and NOR, other editors will support you instead of Mr. deletion. Doesn't this make sense?

I wrote an essay on it you may with to read, of course it is just my own opinion: Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy but I wrote it to help explain to newcomers how hings really work here. But more important is your studying NPOV, V and NOR. I really am trying to give you practical advice, comply with these (and in this case BLP) and the work you do here is much safer. And if you see someone editing an article and violating NPOV, V, or NOR, you can delete or change what they wrote and once again YOUR edits will be safer. I am just trying to be practical. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is good of SLRubinstein to take so much trouble to write to me - s/he seems a very reasonable person. Unfortunately I just don’t have time to get bogged down by all these policies. I am afraid what happens on this article seems like mob-rule and I feel that as I’ve no hope of getting the mob to speak in more reasonable terms, the best thing I can do is to encourage others not to pay too much attention to them. Anyone googling the subject’s name will find many partisan attacks on him, I would just encourage them to regard the Wikipedia article as one more. Press reports in the UK today seem to me to suggest that there may be more control from above and I feel this may be necessary to avoid Wikipedia becoming known as a site where individuals may be attacked rather than the public informed. I am afraid that as the result of my experience and despite the vast amount of useful material on the site I may conclude that the demise of the project would be on balance a good thing. Lockstone ( talk) 16:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Slim, why did you move the references out of the reference section? It is much neater to just leave the named anchor in the text, and have the full reference in the reference section using |refs= as was done. If you do not have a particular issue, I'm going to move them back. Also, thank you for finding the better references. -- Avi ( talk) 22:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the comment above about linking to CODOH before seeing how the article had been changed. I am delighted - it's just the way I as a complete newbie had hoped it would develope even though I wasn't familiar with detailed policies. My faith in Wikipedia is considerably restored. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 01:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I was having difficulty working with it, because when I removed a ref, it remained in the References section and showed up in red. If you want to change it back, would you mind waiting until I've finished the writing? It shouldn't be much longer. SlimVirgin 22:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure; thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this for now, because it's not in any of Kollerstrom's articles that I can see, though it may have been in an earlier version. I'm continuing to look around, and I'll restore it if I can find where it originated from. SlimVirgin 20:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found older versions of Kollerstrom's articles but still can't find the claim published by the Observer, namely:

Admittedly, if the philosopher had lived long enough to hear the conspiracy theories of the 21st century, even his defence of free speech might have weakened. Once he was away from his scientific studies, Kollerstrom embraced them all. 'Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water polo matches,' he said of the Nazi genocide. 'Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, where the postman would collect the mail twice weekly.'

These words appear in an article called "School trips to Auschwitz" on the CODOH site, but there is no byline. [1] (I don't know what the policy is on linking to material like this, so if someone wants to remove the link, that's fine.) It says the article was first published in Smith's Report on the Holocaust Controversy, 2008. Do we know why these words are being attributed to Kollerstrom? SlimVirgin 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I just found the Smith report, and the words are indeed there, with Kollerstrom's byline. [2] Search for the word "elegant". SlimVirgin 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But don't forget according to some editors here are not allowed to quote CODOH (although for some absurd reason you are allowed to quote people who quote CODOH) 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

We can quote Kollerstrom in an article about himself, and we can cite that publication to support the quote, though I'm less sure about linking to it. If there is doubt that he said it, it might make sense to link to it, but I'm happy to be guided by consensus. SlimVirgin 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

CODOH is not a reliable site, but in this case, we are actually quoting Kollerstrom himself, not someone on CODOH talking about Kollerstrom, so if we would link, it would be a convenience link, and I'm not certain about the policy on that. At this point, I would lean to thinking this one link would be allowed as it would be no worse than linking to Kollerstrom's own site in this article; but this should not be construed as thinking that CODOH is considered a reliable source. I would like others to weigh in, however. -- Avi ( talk) 01:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead is ultimatelty important and no need to whitewash the material on which there is a consensus. First, he admits holocaust revisionism, so no need to characterize his work by denegrating the website - the actual website is irrelevant to the story (if he posted the same material on bbc.com what would you write then?) Second, the book titles - as he did not become a household name by writing these (as opposed to say Dan Brown and his books), no need to delay the description of what he is best known for by obscuring the lead with all these titles. It doesn't mean the books shouldn't be mentioned on the page at all, but WP:LEAD is clear on this. Mhym ( talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mhym, not sure what you mean about LEAD being clear on this. It's quite standard to add the books that a subject has written to the first paragraph, or a selection of them if there are too many to list them all. He was known for these books before the Holocaust denial situation blew up. Not as well known, to be sure, but known nevertheless. Not that that's relevant—if we call someone a writer, it's quite standard to list what they've had published, notable or otherwise.

How would you phrase the holocaust denial part if not as currently written? SlimVirgin 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. On the last issue - see the lead as I corrected it. On the lead. I means this quote from WP:LEAD: The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible. Since I don't see sources saying these books are very important (try GoogleScholar to see the low citation index), arguably if not for the controversy Kollerstrom wooud not be notable. Thus, I see how listing these not-too-notable books and comply with the above lead guideline. Again, books themselves might be notable - but NOR requires RS to say so about each of these titles, before you include them in the lead. At least that's my understanding of the guidelines. Mhym ( talk) 04:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see you added it. I've retained the way he described his posts, though we need a source for it: "after posting what he described as 'Holocaust revisionist' material." Do you have one? I've restored the book titles and the nature of the website. Both are relevant to the lead. SlimVirgin 04:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle article is already mentioned in the article, close to the end of the page - this is the one with "revisionist"... I strongly disagree with the book restore, but won't rv as I am getting close to 3RR. Hopefully, other editors can join the discussion and voice their opinion on the issue. Mhym ( talk) 04:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I added it to the lead and fixed the text so it said what he said. Why do you object to the book titles in this lead in particular? It's quite normal to do this in author bios. SlimVirgin 05:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. Like I said above, the lead should be a summary of why the subject is notable. Just because one might have played basketball in HS, doesn't mean one's WP page should have that, with a possible exception of basketball stars with a notable HS career. Same here - his books are not notable, except perhaps the Neptune history which does have more than a few citations. Having them all in the lead in the first paragraph suggests the subject is notable for these books, which is misleading at best and false at worst. Again, continuing analogy, it's ok to list books by Dan Brown in his lead, as this is what he is famous for. And as I explained above, WP:LEAD strongly suggests having the source of notability as early as possible, preferably in the first sentence (this is how the article was when I created the early first draft). Finally, when the person is known for both books and something else, like Jenna Jameson e.g., the more notable part comes first (book titles came close to the end of the lead in the latter WP article). Mhym ( talk) 05:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's important with an article like this not to over-egg the pudding. The previous lead said, "Nicholas Kollerstrom (born c.1947) is a British astronomer, Holocaust denier, and conspiracy theorist regarding the 7 July 2005 London bombings." That doesn't really tell us anything about him, and the astronomer part wasn't right.

It's not correct to say that a lead should include only notable material. His date of birth is not notable, yet we lead with it. According to you, that he was an astronomer (as was thought) was not notable, yet you had it right at the start. A lead must answer two questions, "Who is this person?" and "Why should we care?" The answer should be as three-dimensional and nuanced as possible if the issue is sensitive, especially with a BLP. Otherwise we would have leads that say nothing but, "X is a rapist," or "X abuses children," if that is the only thing X is notable for.

We also want the lead to be interesting. It's much more interesting that he is a science writer who has published this, that, and the next, and who then goes on to make these really quite offensive claims. There is an incongruity in that. It will make people want to read more, which is part of the point of a lead. SlimVirgin 06:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with some/much of this, especially the last paragraph. His DOB is useful to know, as is his affiliation, etc. In the version [3] I tried to keep his book published credentials, exactly to underline what you call "incongruity". I just don't see the need for the long list of titles - executive summary would do IMHO. The version you have takes attention elsewhere. Really, really. Mhym ( talk) 07:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could shorten the list of titles a little, if you think it's too long. But I think there's a danger in what you say about "the version you have takes attention elsewhere." We're not really supposed to being drawing attention to anything specific. We should include why he has become particularly notable, but we don't want giant illuminated signs pointing at it, as though it's the only thing in his life that he has done, or has been known for.

He's a three dimensional human being, and one of the things he has done was somewhat odd, very offensive (by any reasonable standard), and has been written about a lot. But it can't define him, not for Wikipedia, because even a cursory check of the sources finds a great deal more that predates the offensive thing. It has to be presented as a package, with no deliberate attempt to make one part of the package overwrite the rest. SlimVirgin 07:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All true, but still contradictory to (my own) common sense and (more importantly) WP:LEAD: The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. Note the last four words here. Again, the summary of the work will suffice, no gardening book titles are need or even wanted to describe his three dimensions, I believe. Mhym ( talk) 07:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry - just noticed your changes to the article which I didn't acknowledged earlier. Still too specific... Mhym ( talk) 07:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

LEAD can't help us here (it's just a guideline, and not all sections of it are clearly written, as you can tell by the split infinitive), except that it says we should include notable controversies, which we have done, and should make it interesting, which I've tried to do. Including samples of a person's work is not what's meant by "too specific." We have to write this the way any other bio is written, and per BLP that means erring on the side of caution and good faith. When we write about authors, we include a sample of their publications. Offhand, I can't of a bio lead I've written in which I've not done that, and I've written or edited a lot of bios. SlimVirgin 07:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand and respect your position. Still, in this case just like in the Jenna Jameson case, the books are somewhat secondary and their titles are not relevant enough to be included in the first paragraph. Without trying to match your record, let me mention that I also created and edited a large number of people articles, mostly of scientists and mathematicians. Very few if any of them have book titles in the lead. That's just not what we do with academics. Even for people like Jean-Pierre Serre, winner of the Steele prize for mathematical writing, not a single of his very famous monographs is included in the lead (even Local Fields (book) which has a rare distinction for a math book to have its own WP article). I am not giving WP:OSE argument here, just illustrating the trend in the scientists' WP articles. In summary, I am simply trying to conform this article to what we do in the sciences, and countering your "we do it elsewhere" argument.

Since it looks like we are far apart, let me reiterate the invitation to other editors to join the discussion and help resolve this issue. Mhym ( talk) 07:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) I don't think we need to make this article conform to whatever is done in the sciences, especially as you're arguing that he's not notable for his scientific work. (And he's not a scientist so far I can tell, but an historian.)

My concern is this: the aim cannot be to make him look bad. The aim must be to write as disinterested Wikipedians. This is particularly important when it's a living person.

We often have people who want to start articles about animal rights activists with, "X is an arsonist," or "X is a terrorist." Or articles about people who've been convicted of child abuse with "X is a paedophile." But it's not the wiki-way. It's also not how other decent encyclopaedias write about people. The lead must present a rounded summary of the material that has been published about this person, the good and the bad. You want to focus on the bad, but quickly summarize the good so that readers don't get the full flavour of it, and that can't be right.

The fact is that this person has a somewhat impressive publishing record, both academic and non-academic, and there's no good reason to bury it. It is, indeed, the only reason he became as notable as he is. Had he been Joe Blow in the street, no one would have paid the slightest attention to his ideas about 7/7, and it was his expression of those ideas that caused the Holocaust denial articles to be found and written about by the mainstream press. So we're looking at a package here, a scholarly(ish) person who wrote about this and that, and then wow, look at this. It all needs to be there. They are all key ingredients. SlimVirgin 08:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a source saying he worked for five years as a government scientist. Could the editor who added this say where he found it? SlimVirgin 18:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm told it is on the rear cover of 'Lead on the Brain' 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I'm finding conflicting sources about what he studied at Cambridge. Most just say a "science degree," which doesn't really mean anything. Some say "natural sciences," which suggests the Natural Sciences Tripos. Another academic source says his degree is in the history and philosophy of science. Does anyone know, or know which faculty he belonged to? SlimVirgin 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored 'Crop Circles'. To my knowledge it is one of his best-selling titles: I have frequently seen it in shops in areas where such circles appear. It gives an idea of the range of his writing - his views are 'unorthodox' for an academic in areas other than the Jewish Holocaust. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

What he wrote about the Holocaust wasn't "unorthodox." His sunbathing remark was one of the most extreme comments I've ever read—he managed to outdeny the deniers. SlimVirgin 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that his views on the Jewish Holocaust are 'orthodox'? A revised version of the article where he mentions swimming pools appears on CODOH appears without the sunbathing comment. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 21:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

No, I mean to say they're offensive. Describing them as "unorthodox" confers on them a degree of legitimacy that they lack entirely. SlimVirgin 21:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Unorthodox" and "Offensive" are not mutually exclusive categories. Perhaps there is a difference British and American English at play here.

I have twice been unable to justify my removal of 'far right' from descriptions of CODOH. It is an imprecise term. I quote from the Wikipedia Article 'Far Right' 'Usage' "The term far right has been used by different scholars in at least two somewhat conflicting ways:[1] These categories are not universally accepted, and other uses exist, making comparative use of the term complicated." If it's important to characterise these sites I think another way should be found, perhaps described as 'far right' by Searchlight, linking to to Wiki article on the term. It may also be worth distinguishing the nature of the content of the site from the political views of the founders. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Are you Nick Kollerstrom? SlimVirgin 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do I write like him? I am the same person who has always edited under this name. BTW I put unorthodox in quote marks when I first used it tonight. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 22:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Would you mind answering the question, please? You're editing with several accounts and IPs. Are you Kollerstrom? SlimVirgin 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No I am not and don't know how you thought I could be - our writing styles are very different. I have only used two user names and there was no intention to deceive - I was a complete newbie and when I was told it caused a problem I immediately reverted to one. Please can you explain what you mean about 'several' different accounts and IPs please. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Could you please pick one name or IP and stick to it? Otherwise your contributions history is split. It also makes it hard for people to ask you questions on your talk page, because when they do, you don't see them if you're logging in as someone else. I asked you, for example, what source you used for your edit that Kollerstrom used to work for the government, as I've never been able to find one, and also what your source was for saying he had a Natural Sciences degree. [4] SlimVirgin 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I only ever use one name, initally there were two very similar names. Were I trying to deceive I would have used very different names. What does IP stand for here ? My sources for those two pieces of information are the subject himself and I'll make sure he is aware of the question. If there are any other questions I have missed please repeat them here. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

An IP address is the series of numbers that identifies which device you're posting from: 94.192.111.198. If you want to post as Lockstone, you need to log in.

Yes I am posting from more than one computer 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

We can only add material to articles if it has been published by reliable sources, not taken from someone we've spoken to. Please see our policies on this: WP:NOR and WP:V. I'd be surprised if Kollerstrom told you he had a degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge, because the published record suggests his degree was in History and Philosophy of Science, a different faculty. Some clarification would be appreciated. SlimVirgin 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough about sources. His Department at UCL was Department of History and Philosophy of Science so I presume this was how your source concluded this was his first degree.

On the subject of CODOH as 'far right' by putting this in the lead paragraph, unqualified, you lead readers to think that he is 'far right' and following the links to the political parties he says has been involved with at the end of the article these are not at all 'far right' - the Respect Party is left wing, according to Wiki and the Green Party doesn't really fit on the left right spectrum. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

This is the source here for his degree, p 277, an academic publisher, which would be unlikely to make that mistake. It would be good to get it cleared up. Are you saying you know he has a degree in Natural Sciences?

The CODOH website is far right by any definition. I see no reason to leave out that description of it. SlimVirgin 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have more faith in academic publishers than me. I know only what he has told me and I expect he will tell you himself shortly. Yes I agree it is important.

As far as I have looked at CODOH I would say that the content appear 'libertarian' more than 'far right' and there is clear overlap in the use of the two terms. It may well be that the founders of the website do not reveal all of their political interests on the site. The subject is also quoted on Press TV and I don't know where the current Iranian regime fits in terms of right - left, the spectrum seems really only to apply to mainstream democratic politics. I think greater efforts could be made to avoid confusion but I am not going to get into an edit war on this.

In my view the subject doesn't fit into any categories, his views are heterodox, that's what makes him interesting. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Is he the same Nick Kollerstrom that wrote a book about atmospheric lead? What about the work on alchemy? And the lunar planting calendars? And a book called "Astrochemistry: A Study of Metal-Planet Affinities", published 1984? This is not meant as further criticism, only to try and sort out who is who. Wombat140 ( talk) 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

He is. They both have the same e-mail address. I'm still not sure about the lead book, though. Wombat140 ( talk) 20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

from N.K., 2nd December: Help! I posted a 'talk' contribution here, and supposed it would go into the 'Discussion forum - as it has done before. Instead it has gone onto the main page. Could someone kindly move it into this section? Thank you, NK . —Preceding unsigned comment added by N.Kollerstrom ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AS per title. - TB ( talk) 23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

from N.Kollerstrom:

Thank you for this improvement.

I believe you should try to adhere to historical fact a bit more, in the section ‘H-D Controversy,’ and quoting the primary-source would be a help here, preventing your general misquotation and misrepresenting of my views.

• Para 3: I have already explained that I never wrote the absurd words you quote ‘the alleged massacre of the Jewish people by gasses ...’ Do you enjoy writing lies about people? If not why do you persist in such fictitious remarks?
• My early comments on how many Jews died during the H. and also my comment on ‘the only intentional mass extermination program...’ were deleted from my essay over a year ago, in response to criticism. I suppose because you are not prepared to quote my actual CODOH essay, ( http://www.codoh.com/author/kollerstrom.html ) you cannot see this. If you insist in including these deleted comments, you need to say that they have been deleted.
• Para 4: Likewise for the ‘School Trips’ article, you should quote the present text, http://www.codoh.com/incon/incontrip.html which has not got the ‘sunbathing’ ref (it turned out there was no proper source for this).Also, it is vitally important that this paragraph has its five references: that is a culminating last paragraph of an essay, and it will sound very absurd if it is stripped of these.

I have never heard of ‘Britain’s Index of Censorship’ which you say requested ‘comment’ from ‘Unity’ of Liberal Conspiracy and from Brendon O’Neill. Can you give a ref for this? These two gentlemen certainly experienced no limits to their mendacity in defaming me – I could give details at length, but will refrain. Is Wikipedia now quoting anonymous character-assassins by way of character-refs?

If this Wiki bio is to have 5 paras on the H-D issue,it ought to have at least one sentence about how I got interested in this topic, namely from chemical studies of the old walls of the German labour-camps, as giving clear evidence of where the cyanide gas was used. I do appreciate that this is a subject that attracts interest from Neo-Nazis, but you need to try, if you can, to appreciate that this does not apply to me.

The fact that an Iranian TV station chooses to reproduce (very badly) an essay of mine, on its website, has nothing to do with my biography. About 4 different sites copied that essay, and you should either cite them all of none. My far-left politics

Para 2: I have always been in political movements that are perceived as far-left and my Mother used to worry about my far-left political bias – I could give details. I would have nothing to do with CODOH were it as you aver ‘far-right’ (ie pro Nazi). Mark Weber has nothing to do with running it nor does he ever contribute. There is one pro-Nazi ‘far-right’ contributor(M Berg) and I could cite a couple of instances where his contributions have been banned just for that reason –and where Bradley smith has rebuked him. CODOH is a historical not a political website, dedicated to finding out truth: do you lot dislike the concept of ‘Open Discussion Of the Holocaust’? Yes you do, be honest. I request that CODOH be described (if you wish to describe it as anything) as the world’s number one revisionist website. Smears about ‘far-right’ are irrelevant on my Bio.

You, as Jews, cite three Jewish accounts of my expulsion from UCL (in The JC, Jerusalem Post and Observer (Cohen)) – I object, and query whether this accords with Wiki ethics? For a more truthful account I request inclusion of this ‘Sci.Sceptic’ view: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/d0a46c5a6acbf9ab ‘University College London Sacks Honorary Fellow for Not Believing in the Holocaust;’ and deletion of the Cohen account (averring that NK ‘promotes the Nazi agenda’). N.Kollerstrom ( talk) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PS I was born 13 December 1946; for evidence of my work for the Govts Medical Research Council over 5 yrs, see my book 'Lead on the Brain, a guide to Britain's Number One Pollutant' 1982.

Some things I've been doing:

• I've begun the process of removing material sourced to you by secondary sources if I can't find it in the articles they say they took it from (e.g. "the alleged massacre of the Jewish people by gasses ..." I'm also adding citations and links to your articles if I do find that you said those things.

• I've removed the reference to Iranian TV, if in fact you're saying you had no control over them reproducing your articles.

• I've added the birthday you gave us for yourself.

• You still need to tell us whether you did the Natural Sciences tripos or History and Philosophy of Science.

• Index on Censorship: the source is in the article. [5]

• I've left the "far right" issue out for now, but I think it's described that way by multiple secondary sources, so I see no problem in restoring it.

• The School Trips article: I've referred to the original version published in Smith's report as that seems to be the one that triggered the university's statement and the press reports.

• Finally, I have to ask you to stop referring to the editors on this page as Jews, or "you Jews." If that continues, you're likely to be blocked from commenting further. Please focus on the content only. Also, please post further comments here, on the talk page, and not in the article itself.

I'll continue working on this at a later date, perhaps tomorrow. SlimVirgin 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin - you have not removed 'far right' from the lead. I think if you wish to characterise the political affiliation of CODOH then the place to do this is the body of the article rather than the lead. If you wish to say that the website has been 'described that way by multiple secondary sources' and cite some of these in the article that would not be so bad but even if there are such sources does it make their description appropriate? Lockstone ( talk) 09:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Sorry, that was a misunderstanding. I thought someone else had removed it; what I meant above was that I hadn't restored it in the series of edits I've just made. As I recall from reading through the sources, multiple sources describe it that way, but I'll check again. SlimVirgin 09:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the Iranian TV material, because it's clear that the article was picked up by them with Kollerstrom's consent; he gave them an interview several days beforehand. SlimVirgin 10:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Slimvirgin I haven't removed 'far-right' from the lead because I expect someone would restore it again. I'd be interested in your 'multiple-sources' but you seem to be invoking a principle that if enough people say something then it is acceptable for Wikipedia. 'widely perceived as far-right' with a link or two in the body of the article would seem reasonable to me. Putting 'far-right' into the lead as though it is an objective and universally accepted label makes the subject appear to hold Nazi views and he has rejected this. Lockstone ( talk) 11:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

You're right that if several mainstream sources have called CODOH "far right," then we do the same. I haven't looked yet to see how widespread that description of them is. I don't accept that it necessarily implies Kollerstrom holds Nazi views. The sentence is quite clear: that he lost his fellowship after posting articles about Auschwitz on a far-right website known for its Holocaust denial. That's a purely factual description of what happened. SlimVirgin 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Slimvirgin. It is factual but you should take account of casual readers and seek to avoid any misunderstanding and make clear in the lead that the subject disavows any far-right position. If I wrote 'I think many of the editors of this article are highly partisan. I had long discussions with Slimvirgin, one of the editors' it would be purely factual but a casual reader might think that I find you personally highly partisan when this is not the case. I would have to wrod it in a way that didn't allow a casual reader to form a mistaken impression. Would you enter in the lead a note to the effect that the subject did not consider himself to be 'far right'?

A couple fo f further questions

Q1 If you find 10 'mainstream' sources which call CODOH 'far right' and 50 which don't call it anything at all what do you do?

I quote again (below) from the Wiki article 'Far Right' to which the term is now linked.

Q2 if the term is used in "at least two somewhat conflicting ways" don't you think you need to be more specific in what you mean by it?

"The term far right has been used by different scholars in at least two somewhat conflicting ways:[1] These categories are not universally accepted, and other uses exist, making comparative use of the term complicated. The terms far right, extreme right or ultra right are used by some scholars to discuss only those right-wing political groups that step outside the boundaries of traditional electoral politics. This generally includes the revolutionary right, racial supremacists, religious extremists, neo-fascists, neo-Nazis, and other ultra-nationalist or reactionary ideologies and movements.[2][3][4][5][6] In this usage, the terms are distinct from other forms of right-wing politics such as the less-militant right-wing populists.[7]" Reform-oriented right-wing movements or rightist factions of conservative political parties are sometimes called the dissident right, activist right or right-wing populists. These participants are found outside mainstream electoral politics, but they generally produce a movement of reform rather than revolution. Lockstone ( talk) 12:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone ............... From N.K.:

• My BA was in Natural Sciences Tripos, majoring in History & Philosophy of Science. I took a PhD in History of Science (astronomy) at UCL decades later.

• I may have originally agreed to the Iranian TV website having my article up, but since then I have repeatedly written to them requesting that it be removed, in vain. This is mainly on account of that offensive opening sentence (which you seem to want to quote) which they will not remove. If you do wish to cite this copy, then (a) you should cite the original CODOH source, and (b) you presumably are obliged also to cite other copies of my CODOH articles, eg of ‘Illusion’ on the David Icke website.

• Index of Censorship – OK, thanks for pointing that out, yes this is a vital ref.

• The ‘far right’ issue – One appreciates that many view any open debate concerning ‘The H.’ as ‘far-right’ – and plainly some far-right elements will join such a debate. But, it is a travesty of logic to describe the open-ended historical enquiry of CODOH as if it were politically conditioned or directed, in this manner. NB, I have above provided you with evidence against this, in terms of ‘far-right’ postings being deleted from the CODOH forum. Wiki definition of far-right is here helpful, and I am happy to request details of CODOH banning precisely such views; in my experience CODOH bans impolite comment, off-topic comment and such far-right sentiments. So I can come back when I have details.

• ‘You Jews’ – thanks, apology and rebuke accepted.

• If you want to quote a historic web-text later deleted by the author, then surely the onus is on you to state that you are doing this, ie that it has since been deleted or altered, and to cite the modern ref, which I gave you. We may agree that calumny against me was perpetrated by taking that last para of the ‘School trips’ essay, stripping out its references and quoting it out of context - yes, the media loved it. Also we may agree that I made a bad mistake – citing the ‘sunbathing’ from the Faurisson essay (see ‘The Swimming pool at Auschwitz’ – normally he is a reliable source). But I think Wiki should give a correct and up to date citation, if the primary aim of a bio is to convey what the individual was trying to do, rather than in merely abusing him.

I think there is an undue focus upon this one little deleted bit of text. Eg I did a 12-page biography of Isaac Newton for the Biographical Encyclopaedia of Astronomers (Ed Hockey, 2007), would this not be more worth mentioning in the space available?

• ‘he lost his fellowship after posting articles about Auschwitz on a far-right website known for its Holocaust denial. That's a purely factual description of what happened.’ – No it isn’t. My loss of fellowship said nothing about ‘far right’. My loss of Fellowship could equally well have been because they heard that the BBC was filming me over their ‘Conspiracy Files’ program on the 7/7 London bombing – the JC reporter got that story out of UCL. I received a brief letter from my Head of Department alluding to a copy of my CODOH ‘Illusion’ article on the David Icke website, implying that he disapproved of it, that was all. N.Kollerstrom ( talk) 14:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Slimvirgin - I think referring to the nature of the website in the lead is not only irrelevant but a distraction because, as subject says, where he expressed his views didn't seem to be an issue. Discussion of the nature of the site would in my view be best confined to the section on controversy. I rejigged the lead poutting the reference in a more appropriate place but think it would be best to omit any description of the nature of the website from the lead. Lockstone ( talk) 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Okay, I've left it out, but it's practically the very definition of a "far right" website, and it's odd to suggest otherwise. SlimVirgin 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why leave it out? It's obviously "far right", and reliable sources refer to it that way in the context of Kollerstrom's writings. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1946 and 1947 are both given as the year of birth of Kollerstrom in the current text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.73.6 ( talk) 11:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it is 1946 and suspect the 1947 births at foot of article is left from an old version. Of course there is no source for the date. Wikipedia seems to prefer online sources, which may be third hand and innacurate to information received direct from the subject, which is likely to be more accurate. It seems to me that this policy can make for innacuracies. I'll notify the subject on the question of age 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 11:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I found a date of birth for him—December 13, 1946—on an astrology site, but I was reluctant to use it as a source. A date of birth is the kind of thing we can take from the subject, unless it's a bone of contention, but it's not in this case. SlimVirgin 12:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm the date of birth as 1946, the first degree being in Natural Science and five years government work, from email from the subject. I expect he will confirm this in person in due course. 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

We can take the date of birth from him, possibly the degree from him, but we'd need a published source for his having worked for the government. SlimVirgin 13:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Slimvirgin - please can you justify your statement 'that's exactly what it is' for restoring the term 'far right' before CODOH? Despite finding some of the subjects views offensive you have been meticulous in being fair in what you right about him directly and giving sources, yet you described CODOH as 'far right' without any reference or justification. Surely Wikipedia should be scrupulous throughout and not just in direct descriptions of living persons. By describing them as 'far right' you suggest that the subject is also 'far right'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 16:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Preceding question to Slim Virgin by Lockstone 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

The web-site www.astro.com says that Kollerstrom was born in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.182.155 ( talk) 12:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

N.Kollerstrom has said several times that it's unfair to cite his original School Trips to Auschwitz article, because he updated the paragraph that is being widely quoted. I'm quoting the original, in part because it is the original and it's the one that caused uproar, and also because Kollerstrom has removed his byline from later versions, which allowed him to say on this page that we won't find that material anywhere with his name on it—thereby giving the impression that it didn't exist and that he had been misquoted. [6] It's therefore important to use a version that does have his name on it.

However, a more substantive point is that there is barely any difference between the versions. If Kollerstrom believes he tidied it up and made it less controversial, I would say he is mistaken. I'm posting both paragraphs below side by side to show that they're almost identical.

SlimVirgin 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it was the sunbathing reference which allowed critics to suggest that he was protraying Auschwitz as Butlins (even though this would only have taken place two afternoons a week). Lockstone ( talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

So you figure that Kollerstrom's portrayal of a slave labor/death-camp as a place where residents watched water-polo matches, browsed through a huge library in their copious spare time, and attended musical concerts, theatre, opera, and cinema, and even availed themselves of a "brothel", had nothing to do with it? It was all about the word "sunbathing", nothing else? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Jayjg, where is your sense of fun? It's no worse that pointing out that the great thing about the Blitz was the way it brought families together. And all those people who point to the firemen crying over the lack of water-pressure, how many of them acknowledge the positive side, like, the way all that rubble provided the landfill underneath the FDR Drive in NY, and how it fueled a post-war construction boom? And why is it that no one ever talks about how much fun it was for people to watch the dazzling displays of skill in the dog-fights during the Battle of Britain? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can Lockstone or NKollerstrom direct me to a reliable source that discusses Kollerstrom's role in exposing the 7/7 train times discrepancy? I know that the Home Secretary was forced to make a statement about it, and I've seen several references on blogs to Kollerstrom's involvement in clarifying that the 7:40 a.m. train (writing from memory) was cancelled that day, but I can't find a mainstream source that clearly connects Kollerstrom to uncovering this. If such a source exists, I'd like to add something about it to the article. SlimVirgin 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link: http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-0740-cancellation-confirmation.html Lockstone ( talk) 10:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

Thank you, but we'd need a mainstream published source. Even that source doesn't say that Kollerstrom was responsible for the Home Secretary's confirmation of the error. It's a reliable source connecting those two issues that I can't find. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the email is in his book 'Terror on the Tube' I'd expect you would find the Home Secretary's confirmation in Hansard. I'll make further enquiries if either would be of use. Lockstone ( talk) 10:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I took a look through his book but couldn't see anything definitive where he says he was the one who uncovered this. If you have a page number, I'll look again. I also saw the Home Secretary's confirmation, but I didn't see any mention of Kollerstrom. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ch 6 pp 60-61 (so I'm told) Lockstone ( talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Thank you. The problem is this: if it's true that Kollerstrom discovered a train time error in the British government account, and if it's also true that the Home Secretary was therefore forced to make a public retraction (note the "therefore"), that is quite a major issue, and it belongs in this article. However, I need a good source. I have sources, including Kollerstrom, that say Kollerstrom looked into the train times issue, and I have sources that say the Home Secretary corrected the error, but I can't find a source that links those two points. That is, there is no source that says Kollerstrom was the first or the only person to uncover the error, and no source saying or implying that the British government fixed the mistake in response to Kollerstrom's work. Not even Kollerstrom himself takes credit for it in his book. And yet various blogs do say it was him who uncovered it—but we can't really use them as sources.

What I'm looking for, ideally, is a newspaper report (or documentary or book) that gives the background to the Home Secretary's correction and which mentions Kollerstrom's role in exposing the mistake. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to continue: we have this, which is a copy of Chris Hudson's (the Thameslink manager) email to Kollerstrom in August 2005, and that says that the relevant train didn't run that day. But it is a primary source. We can't use that email alone to say that, because of it, the British govt had to issue a correction. Ideally, we need a secondary source (e.g. a newspaper story) that links the various points: Kollerstrom's research, the email from Chris Hudson, and the govt's correction. Even if the source only links the e-mail from Chris Hudson to the Home Secretary's correction, that would be good enough, I think. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nogw.com/download/2005_conclusions7-7.pdf may be of use Lockstone ( talk) 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

That seems to be an anti-Semitic conspiracy website. It's not quite what I had in mind. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Wiki piece, June 2011 N.Kollerstrom The hit-piece by Rob Mendick of the Evening Standard on me has been taken down, so that web-link can be deleted - from both ref 2 and ref 11. The link to abusive anonymous comments made in 'further reading’ (actually by Tony Gosling, he filmed me at the NUJ headquarters) ‘Kollerstrom, Nicholas. Discussing the sinking of the Belgrano and 7/7’ needs to be removed - I believe that is against Wiki guidelines.

You are misquoting me as saying there were ‘no lethal gas chambers’ in the German WW2 labour camps: I surely never said that.  The article to which you allude makes no such statement. Wiki seems not to want to put in a link to my actual article here 
http://codoh.com/newrevoices/nrillusion.html  from which you are claiming to quote (‘The Auschwitz gas-chamber illusion.’). Surely, you should insert this link in your ref. 15 instead of the dud ref. you have there at present.

You need to use the word ‘cyanide’ if describing my position here – I make no comment at all about the carbon-monoxide/diesel gas chambers which were traditionally ‘one-third of the holocaust’. How about, ‘He has argued that the chemical evidence from residual wall iron-cyanide analysis fails to support the notion of mass human cyanide gas chambers as functioning within the German WW2 labour-camps.’ That would be accurate. That same CODOH article does not have the words you quote: ‘[he says] the only intentional mass extermination program in the concentration camps of World War Two was targeted at Germans in French and American-run concentration camps’ – or anything resembling them. There may have been an earlier text three years ago that did have something like that. I believe you should delete this quote.

Likewise (as discussed above) the CODOH article ‘School trips to Auschwitz’ has the words, 'Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates who watched the water-polo matches (6) ...' And not the words you quote: 'Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches ....' I suggest you should give the proper reference for that essay: http://codoh.com/incon/incontrip.html The sunbathing comment was simply a misquote, soon deleted - but, if you really need to quote from the original then you surely need to say how the text has since been corrected by the author. ‘SlimVirgin’ removed it on 26.11.09 so why has it gone back up again? For ref. 10 ‘Brief bio of a truth activist’ here is the link which works: http://terroronthetube.co.uk/bio/, and it’s ‘peace activist’ not ‘truth activist.’ If you must link to the poisonous hate-piece from Searchlight ‘Williams, David. The apologist for terror and the BBC, Searchlight, July 2008’. (your ref. 13, alluding to my analysis of the 2005 London bombings), then how about balancing that with a more recent Sky TV interview on Rich Planet about 7/7: (which normal, decent people would consider a more fair account) http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=56&part=1 ?

My main career has been as a school math teacher not physics – you could say here that the Association of Teachers of Mathematics reviewed my geometry opus ‘Crop Circles – the Hidden form as ‘a really lovely book,...a must for any school library;’ http://www.atm.org.uk/reviews/books/86_crop-circles-the-hidden-form.html also that I have an online geometry course www.hypermaths.org which is the world’s number one forum on crop circle geometry. I request this in place of the abusive comments to which you link (‘a crop circle fanatic’).

But, thank you for the last paragraph and thank you for correctly listing the twelve books I’ve had published. I also express gratitude for the ‘discussion’ section which is very interesting - concerning, my identity. (My interests have always been alchemical. Thus my entry into ‘the holocaust’ subject was caused by two chemical investigations of residual wall-cyanide at Auschwitz agreeing with each other, your bio does not bring this out (you try to pretend that I’ve got ‘far-right’ views).

You should add somewhere that my biography of Isaac Newton was published in ‘Biographical Encyclopaedia of Astronomers’ by Tom Hockey, 2009. Of late the prestigious history of science journal 'Isis' has called for this 1400-page 2-volume opus to be ‘pulped’ because it has articles written by a wicked H-D i.e. me: discussed on http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/. Kollerstrom ( talk) 14:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Kollerstrom published an article on Galileo and Astrology in 2001. It seems to be the basis of his 2004 article on the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.66.76 ( talk) 13:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Fetzer's blog is reliable as a report of what Fetzer has said, which was on behalf of the subject. If the subject wishes to object let him otherwise it should stand. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Change reverted. Sorry, some random guy's blog isn't sufficient as a source. It may be reliable for what that random guy said, but that doesn't make it important enough to include in Wikipedia. Frizzmaz ( talk) 00:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It was a reply on behalf of the subject of the article. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 05:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Or to be more [precise, Fetzer had replied on behalf of Kollerstrom in Isis and this blo was a follow-up. He is definitely not 'some random gut' in this context. And you have conceded that the blog is reliable as a source for what he said. I'd remind you that this article has been watched by a senior administrator. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 05:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"It was a reply on behalf of the subject of the article." That alone is not sufficient to make it notable enough for inclusion. Fetzer is WP:FRINGE, and as such his inclusion here is wildly WP:UNDUE. Any "senior administrator" worth his or her salt will see this plainly. Frizzmaz ( talk) 14:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

His first reply to Swerdlow was in Isis itself and it would doubtless be okay to print that. The fact that he was allowed to reply once in Isis should be enough. Let's ask a senior administrator. If they don't want to quote from his blog we can quote from his first reply in Isis - it's all the same. Is it written anywhere that Fetzer is 'Fringe'? Sceptic1954 ( talk) 18:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Swerdlow's ISIS response to the Holocaust denier Fetzer re the Holocaust denier Kollerstrom is relevant and reliably sourced. It should not be whitewashed out of the article for partisan reasons. It's not Wikipedia's mission to seek "balance," but rather to accurately reflect what reliable sources have to say. If the bulk of what reliable sources say about Kollerstrom's Holocaust denial is highly negative, as it is, then the article must reflect this, rather than assert some mythical balance point. Frizzmaz ( talk) 15:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a BLP and was revised thoroughly by a very senior editor some time ago and has changed very little since then. It is not a space for people to attack the subject at length. Sorry can't find four Tilden on this I Pad.

Note that I have again restored the WP:RS material. A third consecutive attempt to remove it would most likely constitute a violation of WP:3RR, and as such I recommend User:Sceptic1954 choose wisely. Frizzmaz ( talk) 02:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've copy edited the article to tighten and tidy it a little. That included removing almost all the Swerdlow–Fetzer material. I left: "In 2010 historian of science Noel Swerdlow suggested in Isis that three entries Kollerstrom wrote for the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers be removed." To add letters from Fetzer and Swerdlow is too much for the body of the article, but I've cited them in the footnote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Swerdlow did more than request the removal of articles. Removal of selected articles from a hard copy work already published is impossible. He requested that owners of copies return them to be destroyed. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 00:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

http://terroronthetube.co.uk/bio/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.74.205 ( talk) 06:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the detail about the publisher of 'Breaking the Spell' is unnecessary. It's trying to damn the subject by association. It wouldn't be relevant if he had book published by Castle Hill Press about astrology. Let's focus instead on the content of the book. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 14:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This book should be mentioned in the lead, however I do not agree with categorising the publishers as a 'Holocaust denial imprint' . I think that the fact of his being a revisionist should go in the first sentence. But I prefer to keep 'denial' out of this bio because it stifles rational debate on his points. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 04:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sceptic, I'm about to revert your edits. The term for this is Holocaust denial, and we already mention that in the lead. Re: including the book in the lead, we can't include every new book he publishes (there were five in 2013 and 2014 alone), so I chose a selection to illustrate the breadth and left it there. I'm concerned that you want to remove that its publisher specializes in Holocaust denial. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging JamieRitter who first added the Castle Hill material. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I think that 'Breaking the Spell' is now so central to his output that it should be featured. Please don't make any assumptions as to my opinion on this book. I also think that his activities in relation to the Holocaust are central to his life that they should be featured in the first line. Again, please don't make any assumptions about my views on this. I think that 'revisionist' is a much better term than 'denier' which is so loaded, and prevents rational discussion. And I think that if he has treated new areas of research in the book these should be mentioned, again don't make any assumptions about my views on his research. Have you read this book? I am in process of studying it. Don't assume my opinion on it, if that went into the article it would be OR and unfortunately there are no RS reviews. And I think that the film of as his action in trying to turn himself in has had 18,000 views on YouTube it is worth a mention. I didn't post it, and only learned about it from this article. It gives people a chance to see him in action and form their own view. Again don't make any assumptions about my views. And I think that the publisher specialises in Holocaust denial/revisionism doesn't need to be mentioned, it seems like an excuse to get the words 'Holocaust denial' repeated here. To be consistent why not provide details of the publishers of all his other works, such as the independent publisher who publish his work on Newton's lunar theory. And I am a bit disappointed that you feel a need to ping editors rather than seek consensus. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 06:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is the common term for this, so please don't remove it again or add in WP's voice that he's a revisionist. Re: Breaking the Spell and YouTube, we need reliable secondary sources discussing them; I've seen one for the book and none for the video. Re: the publisher, it was highlighted by a secondary source.

I see from your contribs that you used to be Hardicanute, Lockstone, Dr E P Lockstone and 94.192.111.198, among others, which means you've been removing the term from this article since 2009. Kollerstrom called you his colleague. Nick-D unblocked you in 2012 on condition that you stay away from topics related to Holocaust denial, [9] [10] yet here you are. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:11, 9 April 2015 (

I most certainly do not consider myself to be his colleague, and moreover do not consider there is a COI in my editing this page. If you were to go to https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/astro3 you will read "He has become somewhat known for conspiracy-type research, but is here endeavoring to turn over a new leaf." That is September 2013. How that squares with his book of the Holocaust from December 2014 I don't know. You may suspect that the subject is trying to play down his views on the Holocaust in certain quarters, by putting them in the first sentence I am hardly assisting him in that. Since the publication of the book questioning the existing view of the Holocaust is very central to his notability that I think it should be stated at the outset. The book has got a lot of reviews on amazon in quite a short time. It seems time very inconsistent that you don't want to list the book amongst his publications yet later on you want describe the nature of the publishers. Re the terms if lifting the block that was a long time ago, I'm not edit-warring or being discourteous and am trying to improve a BLP where Holocaust- related activity is one part of their life. I know a bit about the subject. Why not call him a denier if it is such a helpful term? I don't use it because I think it prevents rational debate.I wouldn't call an atheist a 'God-denier'. Re the video are you saying that it doesn't exist? The fact of it being there proves it's existence. It would be helpful to give links to several videos of him so that people can get a good idea. If you want to report me for evading the terms of the unblock do so, I have a long history of constructive contributions with just one block when I quite unknowingly breached rules. I don't argue the toss on talk pages where I know I won't get anywhere. I deplore the widespread use of terms on Wikipedia like 'pseudoscience' 'pseudo history' 'anti-semitism' 'holocaust denial' but actually they are quite helpful in making biases obvious. But I know I'm not going to win on these issues. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 22:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring or being discourteous and am trying to improve a BLP where Holocaust-related activity is one part of their life ... a bit like calling someone who chucks a stone through a window "engaged in activity related to the moving of minerals." The way to improve articles is to add facts, not deliberately obfuscatory euphemisms like "Holocaust revisionism" for Holocaust denial.

Apparently, I missed by a single day the opportunity to reply to the latest incarnation of Lockstone, judging from his talk page. He'll be back. JamieRitter ( talk) 18:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jontel correctly notes that we should not call Fantom a Holocaust denier without a citation. [11] However, I had provided a citation for it. [12] This was one of many edits I made to provide solid sourcing that was reverted in one swoop with minimal explanation by SlimVirgin. [13] I think this revert substantially weekens the article by removing several noteworthy incidents and several sources. It also makes us reliant on primary sources for the Holocaust denial content - see WP:PRIMARY, which cautions against basing key claims on primary sources - and specifically CODOH's own Holocaust negationist website which is an inappropriate link on Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've removed "In 2019 St Anne's Church, Soho apologized for having hosted one of its meetings, during which Miko Peled gave a speech entitled Journey of an Israeli in Palestine". That's about the group, not Kollerstrom, and the group has its own article now, so details about its troubles should go there.

Bob, as for the rest, you made a large number of changes, including changing the citation style (against CITEVAR) and removing primary sources (added because K denied having said some of these things). Therefore I reverted. Please suggest changes here to the sourcing or regarding any significant additions. The article has been written quite carefully and has been stable for years. What has caused this flurry of interest in Kollerstrom? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair point about St Anne's Church, but it's worth noting that the headline says "a group founded by Holocaust denier", referring to NK, starts with a picture of NK, and has the lede "A London church has apologised for “inadvertently” hosting an event by a group founded by Holocaust denier Nick Kollerstrom." Kollerstrom is mention 5 times in the short article. [14]

Re CITEVAR, I apologise I used a different citation method than has been used up to now. I should have used the existing format, although I'm not sure that's a reason to remove cited material and citations.

The more important issue is the reliance on a Holocaust negationist primary source. I think it is important to replace it with reliable secondary sources. I will look at the deleted material and re-edit using the consensual citation method. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

On the St. Anne's meeting, the article throws a load of mud, but, reading it carefully, there is no specific assertion that Kollerstrom had anything to do with it, apart from founding the group that held the event. Jontel ( talk) 12:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley, the article has been written and sourced quite carefully, in places for good reason. The primary sources are there because K denied having said some of those things, and the original links to his articles went dead (I assume at his request). Therefore, we restored archived links that lead directly to his own byline. I would normally agree about not linking directly to such material, but in this case it was important to do so. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this, appreciate the clarification. Our article doesn't mention his claim not to have said this and I hadn't seen that mentioned in any reliable sources, but I see in the archived part of the talk page that he made the objection here. My view is that we should rely on reliable sources and not use original research because a subject is unhappy about what reliable sources have written. At the very least, I would press for more rather than fewer reliable secondary sources, even if we keep the dodgy primary source. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Bob, re: "revisionist" material, it's better just to say "material". It wasn't revisionist; it was a most extreme and absurd form of denial. It's enough to say he posted it on a Holocaust denial site. They don't publish anything that could be regarded as acceptable. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Vagueness can lead to misunderstanding and is being used to mislead, so it is better to be specific and true to the source. Also, his fellowship was withdrawn for his views, not for where he posted them. Why not just say "...after he published an article claiming that the gas chambers of Auschwitz never existed." Jontel ( talk) 22:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

From Help:Reverting#Before_reverting 'In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea.' Jontel ( talk) 10:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have slightly amplified and clarified the existing content on Kollerstrom's views for greater clarity. I fail to see why that is a problem and would be interested to hear why it might be. Jontel ( talk) 20:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Jontel, please stop reverting. EdJohnston warned rather than block you on 13 May, then warned you again on 23 November.

In addition to POV problems about antisemitism, you're adding poor writing to these articles (here and Keep Talking (group)), then you expect others to take the time to explain on talk what's wrong with it.

Regarding your latest reverts, the article has said for years: "UCL withdrew his fellowship in 2008 after he posted material about the Auschwitz concentration camp on a Holocaust-denial website." First you add that it was "revisionist" (it wasn't; that's how Holocaust deniers describe it). Now you've added "as a result of views he expresseed in material about the Auschwitz concentration camp which he posted on a Holocaust-denial website". That is poorly written, and adding unnecessary extra words isn't an improvement. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sarah,

You seem to be suggesting that no-one can make a change to articles you take an interest in as that would be an illegitimate reversion. That is incorrect. WP:OWN

In fact, you are the one reverting my additions without explanation, contrary to WP:REVEXP.[ [15]

You are making a false personal attack on my supposed opinions. Personal attacks are unacceptable according to talk page guidelines. WP:TPG

Please talk about articles on their own talk pages, not other ones. It is not helpful, as I have already explained to you.

I do not think my writing is poor and you have not explained why you think it is. Even if you think that it is, that is not a justification for reverting without explanation.

You seem to think you do not have to explain your changes and reversions. That is what edit summaries and talk pages are for and there are many Wikipedia policies supporting that.

I did not add revisionist; that was another editor.[ [16]] You acknowledged this on this talk page! [ [17]

As I have already said on this talk page, Kollerstrom was suspended explicitly for his views, not for where he posted them, according to the UCL statement. It is not enough to say where he posted it, as you have suggested on this talk page, as that requires additional inferences. If you are keen to keep it short, it could be "UCL withdrew his fellowship in 2008 as a result of his views on Auschwitz." You could add "which he posted on a Holocaust-denial website."

You have threatened me with discretionary sanctions.[ [18]

Sarah, all I have done with recent edits on this page is add a little detail consistent with the approach of this and other articles on the subject. If you can just focus on ensuring the content is clear instead of on me, collaborative editing will go more smoothly. WP:TALK#TOPIC

Jontel ( talk) 08:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)