User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 6

1590:

major newspapers to describe them. It is by far the most common description: Google gives roughly 9K hits for "historical revisionism" and "Irving" (I added Irving to avoid most of the hits for legitimate historical revisionism), but only 1,600 for "negationism" and "Irving", 178 for "historical denial" and "Irving". So the page name should reflect the most common name. But we can't have two articles named "historical revisionism", so one or the other (or both) need a qualifier. Now one can argue the best qualifier. Once the (negationism) article was named "historical revisionism (political)", but for some reason that name was thought inappropriate. Since negationism is a commonly-used name for (a major part of) the movement, it was chosen as a qualifier. Maybe (denial) would be better, given that we have sources (see

3687:

use it as a proper noun. The other hits don't. Noam Chomsky uses title case; one of the first lines reads: "I'm aware that there has been a lot of debate about my alleged opinions on "historical revisionism," but I don't agree with your assumption that there is interest in my opinions, for several reasons." So the vast majority of your own sources, all but a single rant, don't use it as a proper noun. And while mainstream scholars such as McPherson, Shermer and Grobman, etc are aware of the pejorative use, they all champion the other as the main one. The footnote 2 we discussed explicitly uses "historical revisionism" in a non-pejorative way.

1730:. Somebody would monitor your edits. If the edits do not look helpful he or she would advise you to stop. If you do not stop you will be blocked. If you argue a valid point but argue poorly the mentor would argue your point on your behalf ten you would do something else. If mentor's advises do not prevent disruption he or she would loose his good name but you will be blocked. It is intimidating but probably better than a long block. The success is obviously depends on some trust between you and the mentor as well as between the community and the mentor. 2023:

just cannot resist - yet - such provocation. Perhaps, Jpgordon, you could mentor me on how to handle such condescension as you are an expert on proper Knowledge (XXG) Manners. This person is one of those who had/has a Content dispute with me, and I find the suggesion he makes now extremely offensive and provokative. I do not know yet how to handle that - except that I will ignore it on a Talk page of an Article. However, this person is insulting me here now on my talk page. Can I get some "mentoring" on how to handle such a confrontation? Thanx. --

2869:. "Negationism" is the literal translation of the French word which the French use for it ("holocaust denial"). The funny thing is that Footnotes 1 & 2 of the article ("Negationism") confirms that - but I've not been able to find any editor who actually was able to trace and examine (the "paper trail" to) these two footnotes a respond to this point - no matter how much verbosity I've extended on the matter. Would you please go to the trouble of reading these two footnotes and tell me why you think there is, or there is no WP:Forking? -- 1449:(an organization that, according to our article, definitely is no legitimate academic institute) as a speaker. So obviously historical revisionism as used by the "(negationism)" article, as an attempt of falsification of history, is a more general phenomenon than just holocaust denial. The article provides even more examples. Those opposing the merger have told you so. If the merge proposal had been successful, what would you have done with those examples? Remove them completely? Still include them in the 3744:

disingenuous, valid or not; and 2) the isolated realm of a user's talk page is not generally accepted as the correct forum for community-wide discussion. This discussion should go on the article talk page. Only if a significant article could be written on the perception held by majorities and significant minorities would I consider such a move to NOT be POV-forking. If a significant discussion cannot be represented here, separate articles would only serve to place

111: 3245:. That's an explicit reference claiming that historical revisionism has a "good" meaning. I also don't get your point about what the PDF reference supports. Yes, it talks about historical negationism, and it doesn't mean the Holocaust. Thus, negationism does not exclusively refer to holocaust denial. That's what the source is supposed to show, and to me that's what it shows. It doesn't say anything, one way or another, about historical revisionism. 31: 466:# (cur) (last) 23:07, 13 May 2008 El C (Talk | contribs) m (54,695 bytes) (Reverted edits by Ludvikus (talk) to last version by Paul foord) (undo) # (cur) (last) 14:45, 13 May 2008 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) (54,726 bytes) (RVT - the lat step WAS a typo - look at the Whole history) (undo) # (cur) (last) 14:19, 13 May 2008 Paul foord (Talk | contribs) (54,695 bytes) (rvt - pls note 1709: 2707: 2614: 3785:(5) Also, an abusive editor had appeared upon my page. I had the made a good faith effort to inform him as to the impropriety of his use of language - I tried - therefore- to correct his ways. And I think El_C misundertood my motives. I have no interests in causing disruption here - would only undermine the purpose of Knowledge (XXG) - which is to write good encyclopedic articles. 776:? Stop being defensive and let's deal with my editing which you must find "disruptive." Don't you think I'm raising an extremely more important issue now than the squabble between you and me? If so, address my question here and now, please - you've reverted my edit - that must have pissed you off. I'm now trying to show that you probably have made a Good Faith error. OK? -- 1684:

communicate - everyone becomes merely a click away. It's my own invention & no one else has object. I'm sorry you are pained by all this. However, I ask you to teach me - if you can - what Knowledge (XXG) rule I'm violating - or is it merely a matter of your personal distastes? I do wish to be able to accommodate you, but could you please meet me half way? --

3610:

majority-held views (including terminology), while simultaneously giving attention to minority-held views in proportion to the weight capable of being proven in other, secondary sources. Within the context of these views (e.g. within the subject articles), then, self-defined terminology can be discussed as a prelude to explaining how they are applied. -

1830:. (1) I know you. (2) I trust you. (3) I don't know anyone else as well with whom I have also worked on Content. (4) I appreciate very much that you stepped forward when my reputation is so poor. (5) I can guarantee (99.99% - hey, life is uncertain - just joking) that with you as my Mentor there will be no problem. (6) My second choice is 1043:" is your own view, which I (and I suspect nearly everyone else) do not share, or entirely comprehend, for that matter. Again, I was no involved in those move or merge discussions. Yes, I did, after blocking you, reverted your merge request, since you were the only supporting it and seeing as the aforementioned move already failed. 918:"Talking to the wall" is conclusive proof that I was unable to reach your mind no matter how much I talked to you. It seems to me that you were much more interested in disciplining me than dealing with Boodles. Why is Boodles allowed to get away with so much with you, but when I use the expression "pissed off" you object? -- 561:. I'm increasingly drawn to the conclusion that the user treats Knowledge (XXG) as a game of argumentation (seeing how far he can go), to the exhaustion of everyone else. (And no I received no email communication at the time of or before the block, so I'm not influenced by anything other than his on-wiki conduct, which is 3788:(6) As you must know, I received "warnings" from User:Boodlesthecat, and he's not an administrator. And I was not aware early enough that El_C was. I think in part I was disrupted in my thinking at the time - and that too contributed to my inability to be especially allert to what messages El_C was trying to convey to me. 3211:" First it is an accusation against all the editors who disagree with you that they are acting in bad faith, and secondly several editors have supplied several sources that state that historical revisionism is an accepted term among academic historians and hence the need for two articles. I supplied this reference 3834:. After delving quickly into the deeper realms of your activities, I cannot support your efforts to ingratiate yourself to me with soothsaying and feigning innocence. This is not a mere ignorance of the rules on your part, and I have been made a fool of by trusting your words. I think you need to take a 161:. I've made several contacts with him to make peace - but he refused to budge or respond in kind - I have no idea why he is so adamant about getting along with me except that he extremely disapproves of my editing of any article which he edits. Here's my (attempted) discussion with him on his talk page: 3131:

is about "negationism in India", and while I don't have access to the journal, it seems to be about the non-acknowledgement of muslim influences, but not about any crimes (and definitely not about the Holocaust). Apparently the word entered the English language via the French, and the French term may

3126:

Apparently people don't completely agree on what to call the falsification of history. Some use "historical revisionism" (or just "revisionism"), some use "historical negationism" (or just "negationism"), still others use "denial". I agree that "denial of historical crimes" isn't the best description

2043:

Considering that you still seem to think you're not at fault for any of this, no, I would not for a moment consider mentoring you; I don't see any indication that you're able to learn from your errors. The first thing you have to do is learn to shut the hell up at the right time. Your blatant refusal

1737:

Another idea would be to work by proxy. If you think of a good edit to make and somebody shares your opinion then he/she could make the actual edit crediting you in the edit summary. Obviously, nobody would do unhelpful or disruptive edits on your behalf. If you think to work that way you can suggest

1733:

I could volunteer myself as a mentor but if you could find somebody else it will be good, I am already failing my commitments to wikipedia. It maybe more than a single person. It would be better some of them have the block button. I think if we could arrange a mentorship it might be a reason to lift

565:

the same as the conduct which saw him blocked for six months and two months in 2007.) The contradictions cry out loud. The argument that I have not been communicating with him is false, outright. On the contrary. Take my talk page as an example: Ludvikus posts section after section but never follows

3686:

I had a look at the 10 Google hits you linked to. The second ("SMITH'S REPORT ARCHIVE") and sixth ("SolarGeneral News and Information Portal, breaking news, news updates") use title case and thus are inconclusive either way. Hits no. 3 and 7 are copies of the same antisemitic rant which does indeed

3493:

Because "historical revisionism" is a much more common name for the movement - actually, the name is so commonly associated with the movement that you claimed that this is the only meaning of "historical revisionism". "Negationism" is a less common name for the same movement; that's why the article

3448:

This is getting repetitive. You claim "Negationism is Holocaust denial". If you read footnote 2, it actually says: "The word is derived from the French term...". It doesn't say: "The word means the same as the French term..." - and judging from the French Knowledge (XXG) article, even in French the

2243:

consistently abused, attacked, vilified and outright lied about each and every one of these editors and admins, and considers anyone who does not agree 100% with his odd views as an enemy. He manipulates any editor he thinks can be used on his behalf, as he now will manipulate you below with hollow

2022:

But as an after-thought I find myself provoked by what I see as an insult to me by you. Why not have a much smaller list - why don't you edit any of those millions, and leave me the ones (how many - 3 or 4?) articles which you were in the Content dispute with me on? I apologize to the community - I

1800:

1589:

is one such institution. Yes, Holocaust deniers are prominent among this brand of practicioners of "historical revisionism", but they're by a long shot not the only ones. And as you have been told before, the name "revisionist historian" stuck to these people and is used by reliable sources such as

2566:

Here are the opening sentences of the 2 versions of the article El_C is concerned about. I hold that the article has significantly improved because of my editing. I believe, on the other hand, that El_C wants to show it as an example of my "Disruption." You may judge for yourself of course (My cut

266:

It just occurred to me that a good way to avoid Edit Wars is to encourage new editors who arrive at a page as Novices to identify first those other editors who have been particularly dedicated to the page (look at the history) - that way one can uderstand the issues to be addressed and the editors

185:

Had El-C been more communicative with me - and specific - perhaps the situation would have evolved otherwise. But he insisted in expressing himself in metaphors, and authoritarian threats, without directing any direction to specifics. If you look at his "threats" to Block me, you'll find that they

807:

Responsive: You have not communicated with me on the issue of the Disruption caused by Boodles & Malik Shabazz. That is a fact. What you own "evidence" above shows is that you were Heavily involved in Content conflicts with me - but where are the Diff's showing any Disruption. You cannot show

3842:

I will no longer debate this issue with you. I will not waste my time in providing diffs or examples of your flagrant sidestepping, because it continues to go deeper and deeper the more I dig. If you want a truly fresh start, "walk" away from Knowledge (XXG) and come back when you've seriously

1767:

El, no I do not want to unblock without consulting you first, I just want to be sure that Ludvicus is interested in the proposal before bothering other people. Ludvikus, there are concerns that I am along would not be able to monitor you close enough, so if you could propose another mentor or if

1683:

Here on my talk page - until there is some acknowledgment that (1) I'm understood, (2) and/or there's disagreement on the point at issue. Regarding the link, it's just a nice way of showing whom I'm talking about - or to whom. And it'd not "shouting". Also, it makes it easier for Wikipedians to

699:

I've rechecked your "script" above and discovered that you answered many of my question on May 1, 2008, on your Home page - but you never let me know you had done that. Therefore, I had no way of knowing that. Remember that you're required to Assume Good Faith. Furthermore, why am I required to

142:

showing any Disruption by me; quite the contrary, my conduct has been meticulously restrained under the provocation hurled at me by just 2 editors. I brought that concern to the attention of El_C - but he explicitly refused to help me. And since El_C could not find a single instance of specific

3778:

had written to me on his own talk page - but I was not informed of that. I believe that because I did not read what he said there - he had Blocked me. Furthermore, although I think the 2-year Block is too harsh, I wish, once again, to acknowledge that his Warning(s) - which I perceived as mear

2513:

I hope this brief and comprehensive answer will do: I'm a professional Holocaust archivist specialing in the history of Jewish resistance, DPs, and extensive matter about the attempted extermination of European Jewry. My to-do list revolves around those pages, including library research plus

3661:

I would surmise that the academic usage holds greater weight than that of popular usage (less informed and widely conflicting applications therein), which is governed by the unacademic court of popular opinion. It might be possible for articles to exist that discuss the negative opinion of

3743:

on this issue (I do not promote my own views as majority at all, as they are strongly and fundamentally divergent), and therefore I believe that meaningful and productive discussion here would not result in useful changes because, 1) your status as a banned user would mark your opinions as

3609:

by the majority is the neutral academic method, the same majority holds that the practitioners of negationism are practicing just that, a denial and distortion of historical facts that are widely accepted. From the standpoint of Wikipedians, the consensus is to address subjects by their

3449:

term has taken on a more general meaning. We have sources, including the UN report discussed in my above post, that use "negationism" for non-Holocaust-related subjects. Or if you claim that the UN report talks about "historical negationism" and not plain "negationism", how about this:

1954:

to drink from a well that has not been poisoned because without such an agreement it would be very hard for a mentor to be able to do what a mentor is supposed to do. As there are millions of articles to choose from, this should not be too onerous a restriction. BTW I also agree that

1719:

On the other hand you seems to managed to piss off quite a number of editors. I know some of them, they are reasonable people and they are not a member of single cabal I am aware off. They all seem to believe that Wikipdia developemnt would be better of without your contributions.

1183:

You're clearly mistaken. There is no greater "involvement" than a Reversion. And you reverted me! But its interesting that all you care about is how many disagreed with me. Isn't it also important to consider that the majority is wrong - especially on such an important article?

2514:

translation from (and sometimes into) Hebrew (interwiki). As a naturalized Israeli, I work ad lib on relevant pages. My wikiwork and other disposable-time activities are constrained by personal circumstances, so I'm determined to focus on what I do best and care for the most.

1214:

OK, Ostap, will you please discuss with me the proposed Move? I think I can show everybody that I'm an excellent Wikipedian. But not if I cannot talk to anyone. So will you please give me a chance to show that there is extremely strong evidence for the move I had proposed?

1753:

If you wish to unblock, you need to speak to me first. Because I'm not inclined to have Ludvikus unblocked so long as he maintains blame on everyone else and absolute innocence toward himself. So long as there's no progress on that front, I object to an immediate unblock.

3402:

Your last two additions to this thread in this section have finally convinced me that you either genuinely do not understand what I wrote, or you are using obfuscation to avoid addressing valid points that contradict some of what you have written. Eg you wrote

2184:

Thanxs Philip. I could not find Huon's comments. I appreciate your directing me to then, and I've read them. Let's assume that you are correct - that there's more to Negationism than just Holocause denial. But the justification for that seems to me like mostly

858:

It may be possible that I overlooked you answer on your talk page - expecting answers on mine. But also, you seem not to have understood me. But most of all, you refused to help me with Boodles & Malik. Had you done so, I would not have been in this mess.

1341:

That's OK, you did a great job. Oh - why don't you tell them how well you communicate with me (if you think so). I'm being depicted as somehow not able to do that. So since you have experience with me, why don't just express how you feel working with me. OK?

993:. The fact is, you are not dealing in Good Faith with me. You are in a Content dispute with me and you are unfairly using your authority as an Administrator to get your way. Isn't that why you refuse to deal with the Move proposal which you've Reverted? -- 3838:

for the duration of your 2 year block, and I am not opposed to restricting the editing of your talk page so as to enforce it. There are other means by which you can legitimately promote your agenda, but Knowledge (XXG) will not be one of those avenues.

1834:, but I did not work with him on content, but I've grown to respect his advice even when I do not agree. (7) Thanks for the Mentorship proposal, Jp. (8) Thank you very much to both of you. Much appreciated. (9) And I wish you both a very nice day. -- 1594:) which call the entire falsifier genre "denial" (note that they don't call it "historical denial", and note that they speak about denial in general and mention examples beside the Holocaust), while "negationism" indeed seems to refer to a part only. 2253:

I do not understand how such personal attacks - psychological analyses - are permitted at Knowledge (XXG). Is no one going to admonish Bootles for such clear violation of Knowledge (XXG) decorum? How is it that he is permitted to get away with such

147:

much too seriously and got in trouble for it. As Jpgordon informed me recently, I need to know how things go on here at Knowledge (XXG). In that regard I have not yet learned completely how to respond effectively to provocation. My version of OTJQ:

1858:

PS(1): El_C - I'm not into "Blame." That's not my way. I am ready to make peace with you - immediately. Right now. My purpose here is to write great articles for Knowledge (XXG) & to make Knowledge (XXG) a better place for everybody. So if you

2197:. Even if what you say is true - your own footnotes to the article say that Negationism is Holocaust denial. It's really that simple. I am not committed to denying the difference - but the article's footnotes currently explicitly say otherwise. -- 1991:

I do not think that a Content dispute with you on those articles is grounds for such a restriction. I must command you, however, for your civility. I have no recollection of any uncivil disagreement with you. So I think that we can get along very

723:

you can do is check —between submission of yet another section— to see if the user in question responded in their next edit to the page. You already knew that I respond to comments on my talk page (as you yourself do), because early on I told you

3554:

My Google search shows that when it is used non-pejoratively it simply means "revisionist historians" which all good historian are - they re-examine historical events, and "revise" their views in accordance with the evidence or archives they had

681:, and scores of unconventional (often mistyped) moves. It all speaks of careless and contempt to everyone around him. And yet, he still claims he is totally innocent and everyone else is out to get him. I cannot figure out if setting himself up 3122:

Searching the PDF file gave me the quote: "Given the ignorance with which it is treated, the slave trade comprises one of the most radical forms of historical negationism." Page 17, third bullet point. Actually that exact quote is part of the

2405:

That's absolutely wonderful!!!. But are you aware that I am Blocked for 2 years at the moment? I'm certainly interested in what you are doing. I will study that later. But are you aware that I am only able to use this Talk page at the moment?

3791:(7) I certainly am able to begin with a fresh start - and I think I'm capable of working here without again antagonizing him - especially know that we know one another better, and if he gives me another chance. Thanks for your consideration, 3771:(2) With regard to the 2-year Blockage, I've been advised by Jpgordon on what this page is for. He's been the clearest expressor of what Knowledge (XXG) culture is all about. Unfortunately, though, my lessons have been learned after the fact. 2311:

PS(2): I guess the question is now - is there a mentor who could handle such a clash between 2 editors like myself and Boodles. Is there such a mentor who could solve this problem? I'm completely at a loss at how to make peace with Boodles.

2105:". It got lost in an edit and I did not notice that I had missed it out when I saved it. I do not think it fair on any person who was to act as a mentor for you that you should edit those articles where you have recently been in dispute. 1867:

you. I do not want to cause you any pain, El_C. Also, I have no problems with any other users but 2 (you know who). If you could "mentor" me on that situation, would be great. But with a Mentor, that may not be necessary any longer.

1384:

Ukraine passed a law dropping "the" from its name (it still sounds a bit like a foreignism) but I remember that quite well. But why done you make your observation of me on that Admin. Notice Board? Are you not allowed to do that?

685:(see also image above) was originally planned, but definitely, in my mind, it looks very unseemly. If anything, the block was warranted a week or two before it was issued. I doubt most admins would have waited nearly as long. 175:

me. There is no explanation for that that I can figure out except that he is someone who had a dispute with me in the past - but I only recognize his name. I suspect this predicament I would not be in had it not been for the

1949:

should refrain from editing, (including merging or moving) any article that Ludvikus has edited since the 17:24, 6 April 2008 -- which is when Ludvikus started to edit in earnest after his/her last block. This should enable

2551:

Just noticed the observation by the blocking Administrator, El_C. I believe he and I are in a Content dispute which he holds to be a Disruption for which I'm Blocked for 2-years. Give me a moment to respond appropriately.

205:- but his admonishments appear of the same order - one is left in limbo in any attempt at comprehending exactly what it is that he wants - and just saying, "don't be disruptive" is not helpful when Knowledge (XXG) says be 3707:

On "H/h/istorical revisionism" in our discussion I'm not interested now in the capitalization issue. That's trivial in relation to the question of what it is. My more serious concern at the moment is that there's

3150:

Great work Huon. I so much appreciate being able to discuss the exact specifics of an issue. I have a sincere idea about ackledging that. But lets talk specifics. What you found is that the PDF reference supports

1436:

article gives us sentences such as: "Examples of historical revisionism (negationism) include: Japan's comfort women, Holocaust denial and Soviet history." Or, if you prefer, take a look at the website you found,

3083:

position): "It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism as (PDF) UNESCO against racism world conference." Where does the UN use the expression "historical revisionism" in this

1995:

Furthermore, since this is my talk page, why don't we discuss the Content dispute which I believe is the reason you desire me not to work on the articles we were both on. I maintain the the two footnotes in the

3712:

regarding the "good," the "bad," and the "ugly," versions of it (I believe that you gentleman know which articles I mean). Let's first talk about what this/these article(s) is/are supposed to be about. Thanks.

256:

stepped forward and admitted that there is absolutely no comparison of the current situation to that that existed in 2007 - or at any other time. There's just no grounds for the claim that I've been disruptive.

2146:", I am sure that other editors would have agreed with you -- I would have as it was a mistake that I had missed it out of my original suggestion -- and a compromise could be reached. But as you can see from 2099:

513:

If you had read the arguments I presented to you or if you had read the article then you would have understood that illegitimate revisionism takes place in other areas of history not just Holocaust denial.

1597:

Does this suffice as an explanation why the article is named the way it is, why it's not just about Holocaust denial and why none of your various merger and move proposals wold have meant an improvement?

3075:

The cited 57 page PDF pamphlet - I could not find it's relevance. Can anyone show us the exact page(s) which makes it relevant to the points at hand? I could not find anything in it - but I did not read

2296:

PS(1): Will any administrator out there please "mentor" me on how I am to deal with such a remark as Boodles has made above? Please, I truly wish to learn that! What is the appropriate response to that?

1255:

which explicitly says that "negationism" is the French for "holocaust denial." Yet the Article is named "Historical revisionism (negationism)." The problem I have is that there's no effective way to get

3524:

I have never seen "Historical Revisionism" used as a proper noun. We also cannot name the article "Historical revisionism" because that name is already taken by the legitimate academic use of the term.

1522:" The Future of a Negation is a crucial statement on the Holocaust -- and on Holocaust denial -- from Alain Finkielkraut, one of the most acclaimed and influential intellectuals in contemporary Europe." 2839:

My aunt (my father's sister) dated Bruno. I've got a photograph!!! And my dear mom was a housekeeper ("slave") for one of the Nazi (that's how she survived). She new the Nazi that murdered Bruno. --

3827: 3823: 2424:

Hadn't been aware of your blocked state; thanks for mentioning it though I'm not sure what conclusions and consequences this might entail. I'll try to be objective and give you the benefit of a

448:- do you think this is conclusive proof for you to Revert back to my Reversion? Will you please let me know if at least you are giving this matter some thought (or that you understand me)? -- 1792:

Alex, if you look through the voluminous history of this case, including above, you will see that a number of editors and admins made extraordinary efforts to advise and monitor and instruct

1314:

Ooops, sorry about that. But that really isn't my area of work on wikipedia. However, I still think the block should be shortened. I've tried all I can, I really don't know what else to do?

212:

Unfortunately, at Knowledge (XXG), the Prosecution does not have to prove you guilty, but rather the Defensive must prove itself innocent. I really think things are here quite the same as

3662:

historical revisionism held by the general population, but it would have to come from secondary sources that discuss this topic signficantly; we would not want to push this and "commit"

1919:

PS(3): If you look above, El_C (no link, as per your requst) I'm having a concise - not verbose - conversation with User Huon about the topic you find tedious or atticious with me. --

768:

But now respond to what we're about at Knowledge (XXG) - which is to build a great encyclopedia. Do you understand that I'm presenting conclusive scholarly evidence in the above that

3843:

entertained the views of those whom you are so bent on discrediting -- walk in their shoes, take their trials on as your own, and recognize that they are in fact, as human as you. -

1358:

I've never had problems communicating with you (and we argued quite a while about the "the" before Ukraine, remember?). I did notice you use that horizontal line in your posts.

3167:

look good when in fact we are unable to find any solid references for it. In fact, I suspect we have a 4-way Forking. But I'll put that aside for the moment. The UN article has

1716:

Ludvikus, I, personally enjoyed the work with you on a few Russian nationalists bios. I think that work was productive and important. I would rather continue to work with you.

3565:

One may call a good historian a "revisionist." But to call him a "historical revisionist" is to disparage and insult - him since term in the United States connotes today the

1652:. One solution would be for Administrators not to exercise their powers as such over mere editors with whom they happen to be in disputes with regard to the same articles. -- 1159: 3830:. It's also been brought to my attention that you did not choose to identify your IP address account usage after your block was imposed until after someone else performed a 1801:

promises and praise for your impartiality and fairness, and will play you against admins such as El_C who he will make out as his persecutors. And you will be disappointed.

3543: 3423:" IMHO the use of such rhetoric techniques -- whether intentionally or unintentionally) -- by you, makes it is impossible to have a constructive conversation with you. -- 1562:

and tried to turn it into an article - twice. That page is just the biography of one of those "revisionists". Apparently you didn't even read what people were on that list.

3375:

Please lets drop this discussion for now. I'm only concerned with Disambiguation at this moment. Continue that Talk below please. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

2097:

when I wrote the above I hurried to save it, as I was being harassed simultaneously by several people in the real world, I had included in the draft suggestion that you "

2350: 143:

disruptive behavior by me he has been reckless in confusing this situation with 2007 by pointing attention to what had occurred in 2007 at philosophy when I took being

3779:

editor's "threats" at the time - were probably the result of my failure to heed his advice. However, as his advice was all on his own talk page, I was not aware of it.

1569:

about holocaust denial. Sections such as "Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" or "Soviet and Russian history" should make that perfectly clear. I am well aware of the

476:

is not a typo - Undid revision 212106280 by Ludvikus (talk)) (undo) # (cur) (last) 13:42, 13 May 2008 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) m (54,726 bytes) (typo) (undo)

1445:, but I think we can believe it insofar as someone whose interest in "history" has nothing whatsoever to do with the holocaust can still attend conferences by the 1468:

Thanks for responding. I didn't notice that before. First, the situation is very complex, and confused at the moment there. I will not go into that at the moment.

2378: 2374: 1895:. It seems to me that one's reputation at getting along takes priority over actual Content contributions. That is a source of great disappointment to me. -- 239:'s only Diff against me consists of a "report" regarding my alleged "Disruption" in January 2007 for which I have already served my "sentence" so to speak: 2637:

by asking Luther for administrative assistance in the implementation of the "Endlösung der Judenfrage" (Final Solution of the Jewish Question). See the

3627:

Yes, I agree. And the majority usage is that of "historical revisionism" as a pejorative - not as things stand now - which is the other way around. --

1648:'s allegations, what we have currently is a Content dispute between a mere Editor and and Administrator working on the same Articles. That creates a 1453:

article? It seems extremely counterintuitive to merge something on Stalin's distortions of Soviet history into an article called "Holocaust denial".

2338:

Unfortunately, that came after the fact. I wish I was advised of that before. Nevertheless - I hope it's not too late - I'm going to heed it now.

2730:

by asking Luther for administrative assistance in the implementation of the "Endlösung der Judenfrage" (Final Solution of the Jewish Question).

2244:

promises and praise for your impartiality and fairness, and will play you against admins such as El_C who he will make out as his persecutors."

2381:

on this topic, and you'll see I've left you a note there too. My objective: to get things moving along productive channels. Take a look at my

3605:

The consensus on Knowledge (XXG) is to adopt the majority usage, while referencing significant majorities. Thus, while the current usage of

3370: 1591: 1574: 674: 121:

I would appreciate it if it was pointed out clearly that the current situation I'm in has nothing whatsoever to do with what had occurred at

3774:(3) I would appreciate it very much if you looked into my current Blocked predicament. I have learned - after the fact - that Administrator 607:

Complains he feels like he has been "Talking to the Wall" (i.e. myself being uncommunicative) —I explain that there has been no followup on

3455:. So while Holocaust denial is a special form of negationism, negationism in general is more than Holocaust denial. Do you still disagree? 3451: 3273: 3172: 1582: 1528: 1433: 1247:

Since Ostap is not around, will anyone there please listen to my observation that the Move I've proposed is justified by the article's own

1129: 1114: 1036: 986: 481: 365: 303: 3159:. Your own analysis of that specific part of the reference supports my analysis that we have an instance of very clever and sophisticated 1558:

You're understood perfectly, but you're not right. Concerning PS2: You may not have looked at that specific page, but you certainly found

532:

Thanks for you comment. I appreciate that. But I would like you to address my specific question please. The first 2 footnotes say that "

1670:

How many times will you to repeat that? How many times will you link (or fail to link) to my userpage? It comes across as attrition.

3415:" (the bold emphasis was added by you not me) and I have shown that is not correct, but instead of addressing that point you write " 3062:"Given the ignorance with which it is treated, the slave trade comprises one of the most radical forms of historical negationism." 2677:

as “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe.”The implementation of the Final Solution resulted in the most deadly phase of the

3128: 3033: 3566: 1586: 1446: 830:

My own evidence above shows that, as an admin, I was unable to reach you. Because you never followed up your own communiques.

3879: 3653: 3428: 3232: 2954: 2155: 1964: 519: 1581:

article, it's a legitimate part of the academic field of history. On the other hand, the falsifiers of history discussed in

3475: 3324:

Finally - my "attacks" are on the article - if one editor chooses to take that personally - that's his problem - not mine.

2762: 252:

Again - you will not find a single Diff showing I have been disruptive which requires a 2-year Block. It would be nice if

97: 395:

More specifically, those who hold the "consensus" and wish me Blocked from Knowledge (XXG) are the editors who deny that

3819: 3570: 1768:

somebody wish to help me with this please propose yourself. The candidates should be approved by both Ludvikus and EL_C

1260:

to listen. I'm again in the predicament of "talking to the wall" with him. And saying more, he tells me, is too much. --

240: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2949:

shows that in those few instances where it has been used in English it is not used exclusively for Holocaust denial. --

1565:

Now on to the article name: As the content of the article tells us, it's not about holocaust denial - or at least, not

3558:

The pejorative version of "Historial R/r/evisionisme" - on the other hand - is a creation (in 1979?0) of Caro and his

2186: 1295:

The "negation" in the title is the English rendition of le negationnisme, the French equivalent for Holocaust denial.

38: 3127:- one can falsify history in other ways and it would still be negationism; for example, the first journal article 2144:

I think an indefinite edit ban on those articles is unreasonable as they are subjects where I have a lot to offer.

1627:'s personal attack on my scholarship & my alleged inability to work with others here's proof to the contrary: 495:

I cannot read your mind - and you've repeatedly refused to be Specific when I asked you to be so. Please reply. --

3424: 3242: 3228: 2950: 2151: 1960: 1892:

PS(2): Also, El_C, I would appreciate it if you looked at my contributions to Knowledge (XXG) I've Archived here

515: 352:"Both terms--le negationnisme and denial--are meant to divest the self-styled claims of its advocates, wolves ... 2270:

Although I have accepted the idea of mentorship, I think the better option would be to put Boodles in his place.

752: 3849: 3754: 3672: 3656: 3616: 2719: 2626: 1158:

What about it? How did that "piss me off"? I wasn't involved at all, though I see that as usual, everyone else

1073: 611:

and that I have replied to everything he has written to me— and again, there's no followup to that, either (!)

2385:

for topics of possible mutual interest. For now, just thought you'd like to know you're not alone "here" :-)

2703:{{otheruses4|about the final stage of ], Nazi Germany's genocidal policy to exterminate the European Jews}} 1773: 1743: 719:

and are no longer a newcomer. When you submit tens of queries (often in succession) to someone's talk page,

3017: 2102:

until such time as the mentors consider it appropriate that Ludvikus can start to edit those articles again

1727: 3606: 3418: 3406: 3315: 3269: 3218: 3206: 3176: 3168: 3164: 3156: 3152: 3069: 3065:

The generalization: "is the denial of historic crimes" is a contribution by a Knowledge (XXG) editor only.

2481: 1578: 1570: 1504: 427: 404: 134: 3835: 3831: 3740: 3551:

But you just spoke of a "movement." The movement I thought you had in mind was "Historical Revisionism."

2329: 1649: 670: 558: 168: 198: 177: 172: 3782:(4) And if that caused him un-necessary frustration, please convey my sincere apology to him for that. 3041: 2341:

I'm off to "grind my ax" elsewhere. Exercise another endeavor. And I'm going to "shut the hell up." --

1252: 318: 3369:

with your last edit, you have pull the same stunt in this section on your talk page that you used in

3048:, January, 2001) It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism as 2827: 2520: 2434: 2392: 595:

Implies bad faith on my part for no apparent reason — I ask what's that about, and again, no followup

345:"The "negation" in the title is the English rendition of le negationnisme, the French equivalent for 3709: 3641:

Your Google search reveals the reality of the capitalization question: it is capitalised completely

3509:

I agree. So why not rename the article "Historical Revisionism" and redirect "Negationism" to it? --

3262: 3160: 2267:

like myself - to have 100% trust, if such disruption is tolerated - while it is I who is admonished?

2005: 1494: 571:

Ludvikus writes his first (and somewhat aggressive) comment on my talk page, I respond — no followup

541: 3845: 3792: 3750: 3668: 3612: 3079:

That's very important, because the unknown Knowledge (XXG) editor says this (as a "summary" of the

2476: 2189:, mostly with the aid of Google hit ment. WHAtioot understand is your to heed your own 2 footnotes 1250: 3645:, which takes precedence over usage within summary, dialog and prose; in context it is completely 1827: 3800: 3718: 3632: 3593: 3514: 3483: 3337: 3194: 3097: 2900: 2874: 2844: 2802: 2727: 2693: 2634: 2600: 2572: 2557: 2500: 2411: 2346: 2317: 2302: 2283: 2228: 2220: 2202: 2028: 2013: 1924: 1900: 1873: 1839: 1823: 1802: 1769: 1739: 1689: 1657: 1635: 1545: 1408: 1390: 1363: 1347: 1303: 1265: 1220: 1189: 1141: 1091: 998: 923: 864: 813: 781: 759: 705: 682: 500: 470: 453: 435: 415: 384: 329: 290: 272: 158: 47: 17: 3745: 110: 332:, translated by Mary Byrd Kelly. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998) 146 pp. $ 29.95. 225:

So in my defense here is my Diff regarding my successful contributions without any Disruption:

3876: 3866: 3171:. So why contrive and create an artificial and misleading and monstrous article title such as 2723: 2630: 2486: 1616: 1577:), the term "historical revisionism" has two meanings. On the one hand, discussed in the main 1513:. You must have me confused with someone else. I have not even looked at it until this moment. 1040: 990: 369: 3573:, - extremely discredited (by mainstream scholars) organization and periodical, respectively. 2862: 2048:

tried to assist you above is basically the last straw, as far as I'm concerned; I find you a

792:

Unresponsive and divertive as always. Therefore, I have nothing further to add at this time.

206: 144: 139: 3308: 3004: 2866: 2453: 2001: 1532: 1450: 1133: 1118: 773: 537: 492:- is this what you think constitutes "Disruption" for which I should be Blocked for 2-years? 400: 346: 336: 3663: 3049: 2362: 1086:

Thanks, Ostap. Could you discuss with me one of my proposed Moves which pissed El_C off? --

186:

are just that. It is unclear what exact rules I'm not following. That is not the case with

2823: 2782: 2744: 2652: 2647: 2516: 2471: 2430: 2388: 2382: 1645: 232: 2358: 2049: 1442: 3133: 3042:

The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide.(Review) (book review)

3692: 3548:

But that's not that important. I'll think that "Historical revisionism" is good enough.

3530: 3499: 3460: 3250: 3141: 3003:" in the title is the English rendition of le negationnisme, the French equivalent for 2908: 2732: 2535: 2461: 1603: 1458: 658: 652: 646: 640: 634: 628: 622: 616: 606: 600: 594: 588: 582: 576: 570: 3748:

on views that may not really have that much representation/significance/notability. -

3279:

Because the one supports the other - isn't that true? Neither article can stand alone.

1511: 1438: 3796: 3714: 3628: 3589: 3559: 3510: 3479: 3366: 3333: 3190: 3093: 2870: 2840: 2798: 2689: 2596: 2568: 2553: 2496: 2407: 2370: 2342: 2313: 2298: 2279: 2240: 2224: 2198: 2147: 2094: 2053: 2024: 2009: 1951: 1946: 1920: 1896: 1869: 1835: 1831: 1797: 1793: 1685: 1653: 1631: 1541: 1404: 1386: 1343: 1299: 1261: 1216: 1185: 1137: 1087: 994: 919: 860: 809: 777: 755: 701: 496: 449: 431: 411: 380: 286: 268: 187: 3854: 3804: 3759: 3722: 3696: 3677: 3636: 3621: 3597: 3577: 3534: 3518: 3503: 3494:

is at "historical revisionism (negationism)" and "negationism" is just a redirect.

3487: 3478:. Why don't you re-name the article "Negationism" and make life so much simpler? -- 3464: 3432: 3341: 3254: 3236: 3198: 3145: 3101: 2958: 2912: 2878: 2848: 2831: 2814: 2806: 2778: 2766: 2754: 2697: 2674: 2670: 2604: 2576: 2561: 2542: 2524: 2504: 2438: 2415: 2396: 2321: 2306: 2287: 2232: 2206: 2159: 2056: 2032: 2017: 1968: 1928: 1904: 1877: 1843: 1805: 1777: 1758: 1747: 1708: 1693: 1674: 1661: 1639: 1607: 1549: 1462: 1412: 1394: 1373: 1370: 1351: 1318: 1315: 1307: 1269: 1224: 1193: 1166: 1145: 1106: 1095: 1080: 1077: 1047: 1002: 956: 927: 897: 868: 843: 840: 834: 817: 796: 785: 763: 736: 709: 689: 523: 504: 457: 439: 419: 388: 294: 276: 2706: 2613: 2250:

Alex, didn't you say how much you enjoyed working with me? Did I "manipulate" you?

3871: 2945:

made higher up this talk page. I would also point out that an internet search on

309:

Here's an example, also, of Truth by Majority Rule currently at Knowledge (XXG):

3471: 3329: 3304: 3297: 3286: 3186: 3136:

suggests otherwise), but the English term obviously has a more general meaning.

3089: 3056: 3013: 3000: 2988: 2858: 2711: 2618: 2457: 2332:"The first thing you have to do is learn to shut the hell up at the right time." 2275: 1997: 769: 716: 533: 396: 213: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3581: 2638: 1432:

First of all, that was not a proposed move, but a proposed merger. Reading the

647:

Copy and pastes another user's comment without attribution — again, no followup

3768:

wanted to continue a discussion with me - and I've been pleased to oblige him.

3409:

sound like a legitimate historical field, yet none of the references supplied

3221:

sound like a legitimate historical field, yet none of the references supplied

3179:

sound like a legitimate historical field, yet none of the references supplied

122: 3650: 3775: 3765: 3688: 3526: 3495: 3456: 3246: 3137: 3052: 3024: 2942: 2904: 2854: 2818: 2770: 2678: 2539: 2045: 1956: 1755: 1671: 1624: 1599: 1454: 1257: 1163: 1103: 1044: 953: 894: 831: 793: 733: 686: 488: 445: 376: 260: 253: 236: 218: 202: 191: 181: 162: 129: 3212: 3036:

is the denial of historic crimes. The word is derived from the French term

1822:

Excellent Proposal. I Love the idea. I accept it 100%. And I nominate you,

2257:

I repeat. The cause of the so-called disruption is clearly him and not me.

3209:

look good when in fact we are unable to find any solid references for it.

2758: 2666: 2264: 246:

My learning gets better, but the punishments gets more severe each time:

114: 1403:

Is there anyone out there who will discuss with me the proposed Move? --

669:(and reflexive) criticism on his part, directed at everyone else, while 128:

My problem appears primarily to be a Content dispute with Administrator

1864: 1860: 1503:

PS1: Perhaps you are unaware that there is also another article called

2794: 2008:. The articles must be merged. Are you opposed to that? If so, why? -- 1893: 1723:

I am thinking how to make a compromise between those points of view.

715:

Take some responsibility for your own actions, you've been here since

226: 3045: 2662: 2538:

article, so I invite you to review our editing history there. בברכה,

1738:

edits on your talk page or by Email and somebody would do it for you

677:

descends into chaos; while article after article suffer low-quality,

342:"Events have by no means outpaced Finkielkraut's brilliant diagnosis. 259:

In fact, there has not been disruption caused solely by me for which

359:

This reference (used in the page above) justifies my Requested Move:

893:

were talking to the walls, also overlooking a response to that(!).

324:"The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide, 314:"The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide. 2774: 2705: 2612: 109: 3068:

We are also given another usage by a/the Knowledge (XXG) editor:

3059: 2715: 2686: 2622: 748: 3872:

Unanswered Questions: Nazi Germany and the Genocide of the Jews

3175:? To me, it's just a cleaver way - through forking - of making 1796:

while he rcklessly disrupted numerous articles and talk pages.

1559: 3405:

To me, it's just a cleaver way - through forking - of making

3217:

To me, it's just a cleaver way - through forking - of making

2610:{{otheruses1|the term with respect to the ] in World War II}} 2142:

If you had read what I wrote above and simply suggested that "

25: 2994: 1102:

Please tone down your language, this is not a free-for-all.

3080: 985:

Why don't you deal with what Knowledge (XXG) is all about:

1585:

also use the same label, partly to hide their agenda. The

2260:

I do not understand that the Community fails to see that!

407:. If there is an Agenda here - it certainly is not mine: 194:, who are much more exact in explaining what is required. 3261:

Huon! The fact is, this argument here made demonstrates

700:"admit a mistake" when the mistake was clearly yours? -- 462:

PS(3): Here's who doing what & when, there, to date:

379:

must have considered that to be a Disruptive request. --

3040:, which refers to Holocaust denial.(Kornberg, Jacques. 2938: 2593: 2150:

reaction, you made no friends by replying as you did.--

1628: 1473:

What I wish you to consider now is a very narrow issue.

1367: 729: 725: 678: 408: 247: 152: 149: 3371:

Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 3#Holocaust Denial

3452:

Negationism in India - Concealing the Record of Islam

480:

Does everyone now understand what's been going on at

335:"This is a translation of Finkielkraut's analysis of 2534:

Well, one of the problem areas here extended to the

1945:

I would suggest that if we go with mentorship, then

231:

On the other hand, in violation of the principle of

2769:, resulting in the final, most deadly phase of the 2223:. Here is how he describes me - above - to Alex. -- 1959:

should be consulted before the block is removed. --

1362:annoying :) By the way, you might be interested in 2792:And here's a more extensive list of my interests: 267:whose dedication must be peacefully confronted. -- 167:But perhaps my most serious problem is realy with 566:up any of them (here's a list of most of em): 3764:(1) I understand. I think, for whatever reason, 3282:I think each article must stand on its own feet. 2813:Wow, wait till I tell my coworkers (all fans of 2641:at the Memorial House of the Wannsee Conference. 197:A good counterexample is that advice above: the 180:by him. Here's my attemted discussion with him: 3012:There is also the usage - cited by the article 808:that because I did not engage in Disruption. -- 659:Violates move probation, and again, no followup 138:. He has not yet been able to produce a single 3421:- that is another issue with its own argument. 3318:- that is another issue with its own argument. 2669:against the European Jewish population during 8: 3183:use the expression - except as a pejorative. 3050:(PDF) UNESCO against racism world conference 2639:Transcription and translation of this letter 2219:It comes - as I've claimed all along - from 2004:are one and the same. Accordingly, there is 1479:If you trace it through, you will find that 3413:use the expression - except as a pejorative 3225:use the expression - except as a pejorative 3132:exclusively describe Holocaust denial (the 1490:So the article is about "Holocaust denial." 1035:Arguing that "Knowledge (XXG) is all about 839:Does that really deserve a two year block? 726:I prefer keeping conversations unfragmented 1573:article. As you've been told before (say, 426:PS(1): That's in their own Footnote #2 of 3215:which you must have read, so why state: " 1726:One of the ideas is to have some sort of 316:(Review) (book review) Kornberg, Jacques 3072:. Where does that come in, or come from? 2987:Whatever you say may be true - however, 2757:'s plan and execution of its systematic 1707: 1476:Consider only Footnote 2 of the article. 1380:Yes. I remember now. You taught me that 263:is justified in blocking me for 2 years. 3859: 3739:I am nearly exclusively concerned with 3417:I do not wish to discuss at the moment 3314:I do not wish to discuss at the moment 2939:the posting (17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)) 2456:is not on your list? Also, what about 1500:Therefore, the article must be Merged. 665:Everywhere else, it has been the same 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3476:Historical Rrevisionism (negationism) 3268:Why am I being induced to talk about 2052:and, frankly, an intractable case. -- 1366:'s opinion of working with you here: 7: 3580:on "Historical Revisionism" (1992): 3274:Historical revisionism (negationism) 3173:Historical revisionism (negationism) 3163:. It really is all designed to make 1583:historical revisionism (negationism) 1529:Historical revisionism (negationism) 1434:historical revisionism (negationism) 1130:Historical revisionism (negationism) 1115:Historical revisionism (negationism) 1037:Historical revisionism (negationism) 987:Historical revisionism (negationism) 482:Historical revisionism (negationism) 375:I can only guess that Administrator 366:Historical revisionism (negationism) 304:Historical revisionism (negationism) 2000:article actually state that it and 1510:PS2: I did not "find" said article 3542:I suggest the that you look here: 3205:It really is all designed to make 3155:. But that has nothing to do with 3023:Here's the exact wording of said " 2428:fresh start in our discourse :-) 2215:Where is the so-called disruption? 885:You think? Not only overlooked it 241:User:FT2/Evidence pages/Philosophy 24: 3875:. Schocken Books (1989), p. 182; 3292:The footnote I want discussed is 2263:How do you expect a minority - a 3818:I am going to decline, based on 3285:The article under discussion is 2781:termed it: "the solution of the 2495:Do any of these interest you? -- 2377:(on the same Project Talk page) 1712:A Flower for Peace - by Ludvikus 540:. So how do you account for the 157:My most serious problem is with 29: 3567:Institute for Historical Review 2665:' plan to engage in systematic 1587:Institute for Historical Review 1447:Institute for Historical Review 1441:. That website obviously is no 695:Theatre of the Absurd (Part II) 3470:But the article's name is not 3134:French Knowledge (XXG) article 728:, and you already had seen me 1: 1483:is the French equivalent of 339:in France, published in 1982. 3571:Journal of Historical Review 3321:We can deal with that later. 2718:, letter to German diplomat 2658:Die Endlösung der Judenfrage 2625:, letter to German diplomat 1560:http://www.revisionists.com/ 399:is the French equivalent of 3898: 2646:The Final Solution to the 1728:Knowledge (XXG):Mentorship 3027:" reference (footnote 2): 2673:. The term was coined by 2464:? And also the following: 2357:Project differentiation ( 1292:Here's the direct quote: 3855:16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3805:15:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3760:14:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3723:14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3697:13:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3678:13:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3637:12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3622:12:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3598:12:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3535:11:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3519:10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3504:10:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3488:02:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3465:17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 3433:16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 3342:12:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 3255:10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 3237:09:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 3199:15:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 3146:15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 3102:13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2959:12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2913:12:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2879:11:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2849:11:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2832:23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2807:13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2698:14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2605:14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2577:14:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2562:14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2543:03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2525:23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2505:13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2439:23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2416:12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2397:12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2351:15:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2322:15:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2307:14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2288:14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2233:14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2207:12:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2160:17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2057:14:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2033:14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2018:13:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1969:12:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1929:12:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1905:11:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1878:11:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1844:11:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1806:12:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1778:10:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1759:06:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1748:06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1694:11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1675:05:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1662:05:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1640:05:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1608:17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1550:12:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1463:10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1413:03:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1395:03:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1374:03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1352:03:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1319:03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1308:03:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1270:03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1225:02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1194:02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1167:02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1146:02:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1107:02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1096:02:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1081:02:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1072:You are being discussed 1048:06:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1003:03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 957:02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 928:02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 898:02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 869:02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 844:02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 835:02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 818:02:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 797:02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 786:02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 764:02:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 751:'s actions as we speek: 737:05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 710:05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 690:01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 524:08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 505:01:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 458:01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 440:01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 420:01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 403:, and not, as they say, 389:01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 295:22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 277:00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 2661:) refers to the German 3607:historical revisionism 3419:Historical revisionism 3407:Historical revisionism 3316:Historical revisionism 3272:when I'm dealing with 3270:Historical revisionism 3219:Historical revisionism 3207:Historical revisionism 3177:Historical revisionism 3169:Historical negationism 3165:Historical revisionism 3157:historical revisionism 3153:historical negationism 3070:Historical negationism 2736: 2642: 2482:On the Jewish Question 1713: 1579:historical revisionism 1571:historical revisionism 1505:Historical revisionism 428:Historical revisionism 405:Historical revisionism 135:On The Jewish Question 117: 3241:I have to agree with 3203:There you go again: " 3018:Holocaust negationism 2903:why it's not a fork. 2821:connection! Awesome! 2709: 2616: 1711: 1650:conflict of interests 1128:OK, what about this: 559:Theatre of the Absurd 553:Theatre of the Absurd 113: 42:of past discussions. 3425:Philip Baird Shearer 3294:Reference/Footnote 2 3243:Philip Baird Shearer 3229:Philip Baird Shearer 2951:Philip Baird Shearer 2152:Philip Baird Shearer 1961:Philip Baird Shearer 1160:opposed your request 679:disjointed additions 516:Philip Baird Shearer 3793:User:Cobaltbluetony 3741:community consensus 2733:English translation 2477:The Jewish Question 2187:WP:Originl research 1540:Am I understood? -- 125:about January 2007. 3649:capitalized (i.e.: 3020:. What about that? 2861:is an instance of 2857:, I conclude that 2737: 2728:Wannsee Conference 2726:follows up on the 2643: 2635:Wannsee Conference 2633:follows up on the 2452:Queries: How come 2379:your earlier query 2365:) - good question! 2221:User:Boodlesthecat 2050:tendentious editor 1824:User:Alex Bakharev 1714: 1364:User:Alex Bakharev 653:Again, no followup 641:Again, no followup 635:Again, no followup 629:Again, no followup 623:Again, no followup 617:Again, no followup 601:Again, no followup 589:Again, no followup 583:Again, no followup 577:Again, no followup 557:This is just like 330:Alain Finkielkraut 169:User:Malik Shabazz 159:User:Boodlesthecat 151:. El_C's version: 118: 18:User talk:Ludvikus 3664:original research 3373:where you wrote " 2724:Reinhard Heydrich 2631:Reinhard Heydrich 2487:Protocols of Zion 2044:to be quiet when 1617:Protocols of Zion 1041:Historical denial 991:Historical denial 370:Historical denial 199:gendre of silence 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3889: 3882: 3864: 3853: 3758: 3676: 3620: 3309:Holocaust denial 3038:Le négationnisme 3005:Holocaust denial 2997:says otherwise: 2867:Holocaust denial 2592:Before Ludvikus 2460:? And how about 2454:Holocaust denial 2002:Holocaust denial 1533:Holocaust denial 1485:Holocaust denial 1451:Holocaust denial 1134:Holocaust denial 1119:Holocaust denial 774:Holocaust denial 538:Holocaust denial 536:" is French for 475: 469: 401:Holocaust denial 347:Holocaust denial 337:Holocaust denial 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3897: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3867:Furet, François 3865: 3861: 3852: 3846:CobaltBlueTony™ 3844: 3757: 3751:CobaltBlueTony™ 3749: 3675: 3669:CobaltBlueTony™ 3667: 3619: 3613:CobaltBlueTony™ 3611: 3016:said footnote: 2991:'s own initial 2899:I've explained 2783:Jewish question 2685:After Ludvikus 2648:Jewish Question 2472:Jewish question 2367: 2335: 2217: 1863:me I certainly 1706: 1623:In response to 1620: 1443:reliable source 1123: 1070: 952:I'm done here. 697: 555: 477: 473: 467: 307: 233:double jeopardy 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3895: 3893: 3884: 3883: 3858: 3848: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3789: 3786: 3783: 3780: 3772: 3769: 3753: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3700: 3699: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3671: 3659: 3615: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3585: 3584: 3574: 3563: 3556: 3552: 3549: 3546: 3522: 3521: 3491: 3490: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3326: 3325: 3322: 3319: 3312: 3301: 3290: 3283: 3280: 3277: 3266: 3239: 3213:this reference 3184: 3124: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3086: 3085: 3077: 3073: 3066: 3029: 3028: 3021: 3010: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2853:Regarding the 2851: 2810: 2809: 2787: 2763:European Jewry 2741:Final Solution 2683: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2567:& paste -- 2564: 2546: 2545: 2536:Final Solution 2529: 2528: 2508: 2507: 2490: 2489: 2484: 2479: 2474: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2462:Ghetto benches 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2419: 2418: 2366: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2339: 2334: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2309: 2291: 2290: 2272: 2271: 2268: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2036: 2035: 2020: 1993: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1762: 1761: 1705: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1678: 1677: 1665: 1664: 1642: 1619: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1595: 1592:this paragraph 1563: 1553: 1552: 1537: 1536: 1524: 1514: 1508: 1501: 1498: 1491: 1488: 1477: 1474: 1470: 1469: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1398: 1397: 1355: 1354: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1311: 1310: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1122: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1099: 1098: 1069: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 800: 799: 789: 788: 766: 741: 740: 739: 696: 693: 663: 662: 656: 650: 644: 638: 632: 626: 620: 614: 604: 598: 592: 586: 580: 574: 554: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 527: 526: 508: 507: 493: 485: 465: 464: 463: 460: 442: 424: 423: 422: 392: 391: 373: 361: 360: 354: 353: 350: 343: 340: 333: 326: 321: 306: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 280: 279: 264: 257: 250: 244: 229: 223: 210: 195: 183: 165: 155: 126: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3894: 3881: 3878: 3874: 3873: 3868: 3863: 3860: 3857: 3856: 3851: 3847: 3840: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3787: 3784: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3770: 3767: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3756: 3752: 3747: 3742: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3711: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3685: 3684: 3679: 3674: 3670: 3665: 3660: 3657: 3654: 3651: 3648: 3644: 3643:within titles 3640: 3639: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3618: 3614: 3608: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3586: 3582: 3579: 3575: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3561: 3560:Barnes Review 3557: 3553: 3550: 3547: 3544: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3453: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3420: 3414: 3412: 3408: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3328: 3327: 3323: 3320: 3317: 3313: 3311:are the same. 3310: 3306: 3302: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3288: 3284: 3281: 3278: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3264: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3224: 3220: 3214: 3210: 3208: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3185: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3130: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3088: 3087: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3071: 3067: 3064: 3063: 3061: 3058: 3054: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3008: 3006: 3002: 2996: 2995: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2786: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2751: 2750:Die Endlösung 2746: 2742: 2735: 2734: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2720:Martin Luther 2717: 2713: 2708: 2704: 2701: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2682: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2627:Martin Luther 2624: 2620: 2615: 2611: 2608: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2565: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2544: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2480: 2478: 2475: 2473: 2470: 2469: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2310: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2274: 2273: 2269: 2266: 2262: 2259: 2256: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2245: 2242: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2214: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2104: 2103: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2058: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2021: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1948: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1866: 1862: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1832:User:Jpgordon 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1807: 1804: 1803:Boodlesthecat 1799: 1795: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1770:Alex Bakharev 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1760: 1757: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740:Alex Bakharev 1735: 1731: 1729: 1724: 1721: 1717: 1710: 1703: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1676: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1621: 1618: 1615: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1593: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1530: 1525: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1512: 1509: 1506: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1435: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1372: 1368: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1320: 1317: 1313: 1312: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1254: 1253: 1251: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1121: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1067: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 958: 955: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 929: 925: 921: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 899: 896: 892: 889:, but argued 888: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 870: 866: 862: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 845: 842: 838: 837: 836: 833: 829: 828: 827: 826: 819: 815: 811: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 798: 795: 791: 790: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 765: 761: 757: 753: 750: 749:Boodlesthecat 746: 743: 742: 738: 735: 731: 730:respond there 727: 722: 718: 714: 713: 712: 711: 707: 703: 694: 692: 691: 688: 684: 683:for martyrdom 680: 676: 672: 668: 660: 657: 654: 651: 648: 645: 642: 639: 636: 633: 630: 627: 624: 621: 618: 615: 612: 610: 605: 602: 599: 596: 593: 590: 587: 584: 581: 578: 575: 572: 569: 568: 567: 564: 560: 552: 543: 539: 535: 531: 530: 529: 528: 525: 521: 517: 512: 511: 510: 509: 506: 502: 498: 494: 491: 490: 486: 483: 479: 478: 472: 461: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 406: 402: 398: 394: 393: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 372: 371: 367: 363: 362: 358: 357: 356: 355: 351: 348: 344: 341: 338: 334: 331: 327: 325: 322: 320: 319: 315: 312: 311: 310: 305: 302: 296: 292: 288: 284: 283: 282: 281: 278: 274: 270: 265: 262: 258: 255: 251: 248: 245: 242: 238: 234: 230: 227: 224: 222: 220: 215: 211: 208: 204: 201:. That's not 200: 196: 193: 189: 188:User:Jpgordon 184: 182: 179: 174: 171:who has been 170: 166: 163: 160: 156: 153: 150: 146: 141: 137: 136: 131: 127: 124: 120: 119: 116: 112: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3870: 3862: 3841: 3817: 3746:undue weight 3646: 3642: 3604: 3578:Noam Chomsky 3523: 3492: 3450: 3447: 3416: 3410: 3404: 3374: 3293: 3222: 3216: 3204: 3180: 3037: 2998: 2992: 2946: 2822: 2815:Bruno Schulz 2793: 2785:in Europe." 2767:World War II 2755:Nazi Germany 2749: 2748: 2740: 2738: 2731: 2702: 2684: 2675:Adolf Hitler 2671:World War II 2657: 2656: 2645: 2644: 2609: 2591: 2515: 2429: 2425: 2386: 2368: 2331: 2238: 2218: 2194: 2190: 2143: 2101: 2098: 1736: 1732: 1725: 1722: 1718: 1715: 1704:Mentorship?? 1644:Contrary to 1566: 1527: 1521: 1517: 1484: 1480: 1431: 1381: 1359: 1294: 1293: 1248: 1113: 1071: 890: 886: 747:1st look at 744: 720: 698: 666: 664: 608: 562: 556: 487: 364: 323: 317: 313: 308: 217: 133: 78: 43: 37: 3472:Negationism 3330:Yours truly 3305:Negationism 3298:Negationism 3287:Negationism 3187:Yours truly 3129:listed here 3090:Yours truly 3057:7 September 3034:Negationism 3014:Negationism 2993:footnote 2 2989:Negationism 2947:negationism 2859:Negationism 2712:February 26 2619:February 26 2458:Negationism 2426:tabula rasa 2369:Greetings, 2276:Yours truly 1998:Negationism 1734:the block. 1493:So there's 1481:Negationism 1249:Footnote 2 770:Negationism 717:August 2006 534:Negationism 397:Negationism 214:Franz Kafka 178:WP:Stalking 173:WP:Stalking 36:This is an 3880:0805240519 3710:WP:Forking 3263:WP:Forking 3161:WP:Forking 2824:Deborahjay 2817:) of your 2517:Deborahjay 2431:Deborahjay 2389:Deborahjay 2375:reiterated 2148:jpgordon's 2006:WP:Forking 1520:has this: 1518:Footnote 1 1516:PS3: Even 1495:WP:Forking 667:reflective 542:WP:Forking 285:Cheers. -- 123:Philosophy 98:Archive 10 3836:Wikibreak 3832:checkuser 3776:User:El_C 3766:User:Huon 3555:examined. 3123:footnote. 3084:pamphlet? 3053:31 August 3025:annotated 2943:User:Huon 2855:Holocaust 2819:Drohobych 2771:Holocaust 2679:Holocaust 2383:User page 2046:User:Jc37 1828:WP:Mentor 1826:to be my 1625:User:El_C 1258:User:El_C 887:+15 times 721:the least 675:talk page 671:talk page 489:User:El_C 471:mergeinto 446:User:El_C 377:User:El_C 261:User:El_C 254:User:El_C 237:User:El_C 219:The Trial 203:User:El_C 192:User:Huon 130:User:El_C 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 3797:Ludvikus 3715:Ludvikus 3655:, & 3629:Ludvikus 3590:Ludvikus 3569:and the 3511:Ludvikus 3480:Ludvikus 3474:- it is 3367:Ludvikus 3334:Ludvikus 3191:Ludvikus 3094:Ludvikus 3001:negation 2871:Ludvikus 2841:Ludvikus 2799:Ludvikus 2761:against 2759:genocide 2690:Ludvikus 2667:genocide 2597:Ludvikus 2569:Ludvikus 2554:Ludvikus 2497:Ludvikus 2408:Ludvikus 2371:Ludvikus 2343:Ludvikus 2314:Ludvikus 2299:Ludvikus 2280:Ludvikus 2265:maverick 2254:remarks? 2241:Ludvikus 2225:Ludvikus 2199:Ludvikus 2095:Ludvikus 2054:jpgordon 2025:Ludvikus 2010:Ludvikus 1952:Ludvikus 1947:Ludvikus 1921:Ludvikus 1897:Ludvikus 1870:Ludvikus 1836:Ludvikus 1798:Ludvikus 1794:Ludvikus 1686:Ludvikus 1654:Ludvikus 1632:Ludvikus 1542:Ludvikus 1405:Ludvikus 1387:Ludvikus 1360:Slightly 1344:Ludvikus 1300:Ludvikus 1262:Ludvikus 1217:Ludvikus 1186:Ludvikus 1138:Ludvikus 1088:Ludvikus 995:Ludvikus 920:Ludvikus 861:Ludvikus 810:Ludvikus 778:Ludvikus 756:Ludvikus 702:Ludvikus 609:his part 497:Ludvikus 450:Ludvikus 432:Ludvikus 412:Ludvikus 381:Ludvikus 287:Ludvikus 269:Ludvikus 115:Socrates 3576:Here's 2863:WP:Fork 2765:during 2373:! I've 1865:forgive 1861:forgive 563:exactly 444:PS(2): 207:WP:Bold 145:WP:Bold 140:WP:Diff 39:archive 3303:By it 3046:Shofar 2999:"The " 2779:Hitler 2753:) was 2745:German 2653:German 2363:WP:JEW 2093:Sorry 1567:solely 673:after 106:Latest 3227:"? -- 2941:that 2775:Shoah 2710:In a 2663:Nazis 2617:In a 2359:WP:JH 1992:well. 1526:QED: 1371:Ostap 1316:Ostap 1078:Ostap 841:Ostap 190:, or 132:over 16:< 3877:ISBN 3850:talk 3828:this 3826:and 3824:this 3820:this 3801:talk 3795:. -- 3755:talk 3719:talk 3693:talk 3689:Huon 3673:talk 3666:. - 3633:talk 3617:talk 3594:talk 3531:talk 3527:Huon 3515:talk 3500:talk 3496:Huon 3484:talk 3461:talk 3457:Huon 3429:talk 3411:ever 3338:talk 3332:, -- 3307:and 3251:talk 3247:Huon 3233:talk 3223:ever 3195:talk 3189:, -- 3181:ever 3142:talk 3138:Huon 3098:talk 3092:, -- 3060:2001 2955:talk 2937:See 2909:talk 2905:Huon 2901:here 2875:talk 2865:for 2845:talk 2828:talk 2803:talk 2739:The 2716:1942 2694:talk 2623:1942 2601:talk 2573:talk 2558:talk 2540:El_C 2521:talk 2501:talk 2435:talk 2412:talk 2393:talk 2361:vs. 2347:talk 2318:talk 2303:talk 2284:talk 2278:, -- 2229:talk 2203:talk 2193:and 2156:talk 2029:talk 2014:talk 1965:talk 1957:El_C 1925:talk 1901:talk 1874:talk 1840:talk 1774:talk 1756:El_C 1744:talk 1690:talk 1672:El_C 1658:talk 1646:El_C 1636:talk 1604:talk 1600:Huon 1575:here 1546:talk 1459:talk 1455:Huon 1439:here 1409:talk 1391:talk 1348:talk 1304:talk 1266:talk 1221:talk 1190:talk 1164:El_C 1142:talk 1104:El_C 1092:talk 1074:here 1045:El_C 999:talk 954:El_C 924:talk 895:El_C 865:talk 832:El_C 814:talk 794:El_C 782:talk 760:talk 754:. -- 745:El_C 734:El_C 706:talk 687:El_C 520:talk 501:talk 454:talk 436:talk 430:. -- 416:talk 410:. -- 385:talk 328:"by 291:talk 273:talk 3296:of 3076:it. 2777:). 2747:: 2700:): 2688:(-- 2655:: 2607:): 2595:(-- 2387:-- 1382:the 1068:FYI 891:you 216:'s 3869:. 3822:, 3803:) 3721:) 3713:-- 3695:) 3658:). 3652:, 3647:un 3635:) 3596:) 3588:-- 3533:) 3517:) 3502:) 3486:) 3463:) 3431:) 3340:) 3253:) 3235:) 3197:) 3144:) 3100:) 3081:UN 3055:– 3044:, 3009:.) 2957:) 2911:) 2877:) 2847:) 2830:) 2805:) 2797:-- 2722:, 2714:, 2696:) 2681:. 2629:, 2621:, 2603:) 2579:): 2575:) 2560:) 2552:-- 2523:) 2503:) 2437:) 2414:) 2406:-- 2395:) 2349:) 2320:) 2312:-- 2305:) 2297:-- 2286:) 2231:) 2205:) 2158:) 2031:) 2016:) 1967:) 1927:) 1903:) 1876:) 1868:-- 1842:) 1776:) 1746:) 1692:) 1660:) 1638:) 1630:-- 1606:) 1548:) 1531:→ 1461:) 1411:) 1393:) 1385:-- 1369:. 1350:) 1342:-- 1306:) 1298:-- 1268:) 1223:) 1215:-- 1192:) 1184:-- 1162:. 1144:) 1136:-- 1132:→ 1117:→ 1094:) 1076:. 1039:→ 1001:) 989:→ 926:) 867:) 859:-- 816:) 784:) 772:= 762:) 732:. 708:) 522:) 514:-- 503:) 474:}} 468:{{ 456:) 438:) 418:) 387:) 368:→ 293:) 275:) 235:, 94:→ 64:← 3799:( 3717:( 3691:( 3631:( 3592:( 3583:. 3562:. 3545:. 3529:( 3513:( 3498:( 3482:( 3459:( 3427:( 3403:" 3377:" 3336:( 3300:. 3289:. 3276:? 3265:. 3249:( 3231:( 3193:( 3140:( 3096:( 3032:" 3007:" 2953:( 2907:( 2873:( 2843:( 2826:( 2801:( 2773:( 2743:( 2692:( 2651:( 2599:( 2571:( 2556:( 2519:( 2499:( 2433:( 2410:( 2391:( 2345:( 2330:' 2316:( 2301:( 2282:( 2239:" 2227:( 2201:( 2195:2 2191:1 2154:( 2027:( 2012:( 1963:( 1923:( 1899:( 1872:( 1838:( 1772:( 1742:( 1688:( 1656:( 1634:( 1602:( 1544:( 1507:? 1497:. 1487:. 1457:( 1407:( 1389:( 1346:( 1302:( 1264:( 1219:( 1188:( 1140:( 1090:( 997:( 922:( 863:( 812:( 780:( 758:( 704:( 661:. 655:; 649:; 643:; 637:; 631:; 625:; 619:; 613:; 603:; 597:; 591:; 585:; 579:; 573:; 544:? 518:( 499:( 484:? 452:( 434:( 414:( 383:( 349:. 289:( 271:( 249:. 243:. 228:. 221:. 209:. 164:. 154:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index