Talk:Mel Mermelstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Why does the newest version gets reverted by the vandals to the error-filled version?
--85.140.12.235 10:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Error-filled version, what is that version. The entire court proceedings looked a little high-handed. Judicial notice is another name for politically correct. Mermelstein says it's true therefore it is - yeah fat chance.
Contents |
[edit] OK, I'll keep an eye on this page
Looks like some holocaust denier revised this page earlier today to a version with a very pro-denial POV. I have reverted his changes. I'm adding this page to my watchlist. Samboy 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- As an addition, the IP in question has distorted facts. I will only waste my time with one example: The IP claims that "The [$50,000] judgement does not state that Mermelstein provided sufficient evidence of gassings". What the conveniently ignored is that the judgment states "the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944 [...] is not reasonably subject to dispute", [1]. Samboy 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Anon, this directly contradicts your claim that "It is a common misconception that the Holocaust deniers were forced to pay the reward itself to Mermelstein. ..." ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anonymous reply
Samboy:
And it looks like someone is not able to notice sensationalism and is quick to label people. One might therefore label you a Holocoust fanatic. "My" version of the page is something written by another user a year ago (see page history), and accurately describes the following point:
The trial was a breach of contract case concerning the gassings at Auschwitz, not the Holocaust as a whole. "Your" version claims the judge declared the Holocaust a legally incontestable fact, which is faking history and sensationalism. The judge, in fact, concluded the following:
- "Under Evidence Code Section 452(h) this Court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944." [2]
While I do agree "my" version is highly critical in presenting the facts, "your" version is highly sensational.
Perhaps you're troubled with the fact that the original author points to a disrepherence in Mr. Mermelsteins' claims concerning a tunnel that never existed? Nevertheless, it is the truth, and should not be censored. In my opinion, Mr. Mermelsteins' testimony did little to prove his claim, as he never saw the gassings themselves, which is also accurately portrayed in "my" version. It was common knowledge that really proved his claim.
If you wish to edit the page to a more neutral point of view, you're free to do so, but falsifying content and censoring disrepherences in testimony only makes me think you might be a Holocaust fanatic.
As per your complaint:
- As an addition, the IP in question has distorted facts. I will only waste my time with one example: The IP claims that "The [$50,000] judgement does not state that Mermelstein provided sufficient evidence of gassings". What the conveniently ignored is that the judgment states "the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944 [...] is not reasonably subject to dispute", [3]. Samboy 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
How does the judgement that "the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944 [...] is not reasonably subject to dispute" state that Mr. Mermelstein provided sufficient evidence of gassings?!? If anything, it clearly indicates the judgement was based on common knowledge, and not Mr. Mermelsteins' testimony. This, of course, does not neccessarily mean that the Holocoust did or did not happen, as you're fanatically trying to prove; it just means what I said above.
Humus sapiens:
You are correct.
To whoever completely removed the history:
Something in there you don't like?
For instance, the other version reveals it is highly dubious whether or not Mr. Mermelstein himself provided sufficient evidence. As I said above, this indicates it was not his testimony per se that proved his case.
Also, did you find that excerpts from Mr. Mermelsteins' testimony are fakes, or did you just not like what they indicated and so deleted any trace of them?
I also notice that you changed "declared the Holocaust a legally incontestable fact" to "Auschwitz during the Holocaust declared a legally incontestable fact", as was in the other version, while leaving no trace that it was the other version which was correct about this issue. How very sad.
- Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. In WP:RS: "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations [...] should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations [...] and their activities, and even then should be used with caution". The IHR is an extremist organization. Samboy 16:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unsupported claims
Humus Sapiens, Mermelstein's own book, By Bread Alone, page 277 directly contradicts the claim that his notarized account of his internment at Auschwitz states he witnessed "his mother and two sisters towards (as he learned later) gas chamber number five". It clearly states he witnessed "a column of women and children being driven into the tunnel that lead into the gas chambers," which he "later determined to be gas chamber number 5".
By Bread Alone, page 280, directly contradicts the claim that the IHR refused to pay the reward.
The final ruling was clearly not made on October 9, 1981.
This directly contradicts the claim that the IHR had to pay Mermelstein "$50,000, plus $40,000 for personal suffering", as clearly no specific reason is given for the sums listed.
The claim that "Holocaust revisionists have subsequently claimed that the proof offered by Mermelstein was "never released to the public," implying that it had been sealed by the court or otherwise kept secret." cannot be verified, as no source for this claim is given.
The judicial notice clearly contradicts the claim that the court took judicial notice of the Holocaust as a whole.
The Mazal Library article clearly shows Crematorium 5 is an above-ground building, same as stated in the IHR publication. Any resonable person should be able to verify this from multiple sources.
195.29.133.237 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
IHR ran into the same thing Irving did - an extremely brave judge who was willing to take on the powers that be - good for him. His judgement - if it really was made ( vague wording above - did he get the $$ or not?) seemed to require no proof, anyone could have collected.
[edit] DOB
There is a reason I added this link:
- History and 'Memory', by Theodore J. O'Keefe
This is the only source on the web where I found the exact place and date of birth. Despite other opinions in the file I judge this to be a reliable source. Please reinstate unless you see another source. Mhym 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The Institute for Historical Review (so called) is absolutely the definition of what is NOT a "reliable source". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] what proof
am i reading this article correctly? he submitted a letter describing himself witnessing his family members ushered into gas chambers as proof? the article says he "submitted a notarized account of his internment at Auschwitz and how he witnessed Nazi guards ushering his mother and two sisters towards (as he learned later) gas chamber number five". is that what he offered as proof that human beings were gassed at Auschwitz? by that standard of proof he could say he say flying saucers landing at the camp taking jews to disneyland. can someone help me here? Keltik31 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disneyland was not opened until 1955. Muad 11:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
