![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 |
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 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
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.
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)
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
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)
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
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
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? ………………………………………………………………
N.Kollerstrom ( talk) 14:48, 18 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
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
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
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
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
well who has the authority to lock pages? Lockstone ( talk) 07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone
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'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)
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.'
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
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)
(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
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
"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
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
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
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
Yes I am posting from more than one computer 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone
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
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.
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'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
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
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.:
• 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
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 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
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.
March 2008, the original with byline | Revised and undated version with no byline |
---|---|
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; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its theatrical performances, including a children's opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly. Thus the past may not always be quite, as we were told. [7] | 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; and were shown paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children' s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly. Thus the past may not always be quite, as we were told. [8] |
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
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
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
ch 6 pp 60-61 (so I'm told) Lockstone ( talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone
http://www.nogw.com/download/2005_conclusions7-7.pdf may be of use Lockstone ( talk) 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 |
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 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
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.
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)
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
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)
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
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
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? ………………………………………………………………
N.Kollerstrom ( talk) 14:48, 18 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
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
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
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
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
well who has the authority to lock pages? Lockstone ( talk) 07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone
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'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)
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.'
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
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)
(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
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
"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
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
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
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
Yes I am posting from more than one computer 94.192.111.198 ( talk) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone
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
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.
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'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
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
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.:
• 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
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 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
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.
March 2008, the original with byline | Revised and undated version with no byline |
---|---|
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; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its theatrical performances, including a children's opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly. Thus the past may not always be quite, as we were told. [7] | 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; and were shown paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children' s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly. Thus the past may not always be quite, as we were told. [8] |
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
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
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
ch 6 pp 60-61 (so I'm told) Lockstone ( talk) 00:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone
http://www.nogw.com/download/2005_conclusions7-7.pdf may be of use Lockstone ( talk) 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Lockstone
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)