From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Link rm 2 "In 1991, Faurisson was removed from his university chair on the basis of his views under the Gayssot Act" 3 Core Statement 4 anti-semitism = 4.1 International law 4.2 Faurisson Credentials 4.3 Perplexed About Dualism

[edit] Link rm

Hi TickleMe, my reason for deleting the external link was that this article is on Robert Faurisson, not the holocaust in general. Any links should really be to articles rebutting his specific arguments. Readers interested in the holocaust or holocaust denial in general can go to those pages and see links to external articles rebutting them. I'm not disputing the quality of the link. I left the nizkor link as a sort of compromise, but I do feel that including multiple links to holocaust websites not directly related to Faurisson is a bad idea. Regards, Ashmoo 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "In 1991, Faurisson was removed from his university chair on the basis of his views under the Gayssot Act"

AFAIK (see fr:), he was not removed because of the Gayssot Act (which is a penal law), but he mas moved from the university to the center of distance education because the university could not protect him from potential assaults (ie. what mattered to the university was the threats against him, not the cause of these threats). Apokrif 18:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the removal was initiated by Lionel Jospin, who came in to power in 1997.

[edit] Core Statement

Robert Faurisson was the first to describe the technical impossibility of the mass gassings in the areas designated as gas chambers with Zyklon B, as testified to by eyewitnesses. The following sentence is a clear statement of the core of Faurisson's argument:

"If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and then, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making touching and carrying them a deadly business. The ventilation and exhaustion of cyanide gas is very time-consuming and difficult. It adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands. Contact through the skin alone may lead to intoxication."

Interestingly, this is a discussion of scientifically verifiable facts alone, yet some would assert it is a "denial" of the holocaust.

Doremifasolatido 12:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is not only whether it is verifiable, but also whether it is relevant:

"adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands'""

Where the nazis intersted in the health of the people who operated the gas chambers? Apokrif 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the long-term health effects that Faurisson is referring to as the instantaneous death of the workers removing bodies from the gas chambers. Hard to murder millions of people when the workers themselves are dying as rapidly as the victims. 69.109.116.216 10:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an even better, more succinct version edited by TickleMe:

As core arguments Faurisson claims that the Nazi gas chambers would have needed a perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making further handling lethal.

Doremifasolatido 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the core of his ideas - pretty straight forward and so far hasn't been refuted. No wonder he is hated.

Faurisson isn't hated -- he's mostly scorned and laughed at. His "ideas" are both idiotic and have been refuted almost since he started spouting them. But, then the "core" of his ideas isn't about truth, but about the truth as he'd like it to be, the historical evidence be damned.

Most of his arguement is about chemistry, a field he has no qualifications in. Cyanide gas is lighter then air -- so as long as it's not trapped in a room (all doors closed), it will rise by itself. And he provides no evidence that the gas "would adhere stubbornly to the bodies" in a lethal form. Cantankrus 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-semitism =

he's not anti-semitic, he just doesn't agree with they way things are told, but he is not an anti semitic, just if wikipedia holds the view that whoever disagrees with anything related to jew is a hate breeder anti-semitic scum. That's a typical ADL bullshit. And "unknown-importance biographies" it's just a way to diminish his work and his reflection on history. Subervision and subliminar crap it's also a typical ADL bullshit.

[edit] International law

"Faurisson was sued at least three times under complex French and international laws over" I think only French law was relevant in these cases (the Gayssot Law, which was passed later, contains a reference to the law about the Nuremberg trial, but only national penal law can be used as a basis of prosecution). Apokrif 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That would have been a good thing to change if the passage had been allowed to remain in the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Proskauer 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faurisson Credentials

Faurisson was, to his knowledge, the first person to publish the plans of Krema I and Kremas II and III. These crematories, located at Auschwitz-Birkenau, were the buildings which allegedly contained the homicidal gas chambers. For the purpose of studying gas chambers, Faurisson had gone to Baltimore, Maryland in the United States to investigate and photograph American gas chamber facilities. His objective was to see how convicts condemned to death were killed in the facilities through use of hydrocyanic acid. This was relevant to the study of the German gas chambers since the agent allegedly used to kill the Jews, Zyklon B, contained hydrocyanic acid.

In the early to mid 1980s, Faurisson was sued at least three times under complex French and international laws over his denial of essential points within Holocaust history. The potential for incitement of racial hatred was cited as a primary concern in at least one trial. Faurisson was convicted on reduced charges which carried virtually no penalties. He credits one such relative victory to the tactic of asking the opposition for one piece of evidence only: proof that any single homicidal gas chamber existed. No such proof was produced during any of his trials though numerous lawyers representing multiple interests from several nations were available to present evidence against him.

69.109.166.52 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Proskauer, your original research and copyright violations from Holocaust denial sites are always fascinating. Please login. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, my "copyright violation" accusation stemmed from an article I lifted from an ANTI-Holocaust-denial website written in a negative vein regarding Mark Weber, a well known Holocaust denier. I went back to the website and saw no claims of copyrighted material, so I guess the standard is they have to make an active release of copyright status in order to qualify for Wikipedia.

Also, it is impossible to violate strictures against "original research" and to violate copyrights at the same time, if you think about it. Copyright violation would mean using somebody else's original research, at best. Proskauer 17:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits consist of one or the other; sorry if my first comment wasn't clear enough about that. Your copyright violations almost always come from Holocaust denial sources; you only used the ADL source to test to see if that would be tagged as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, he's a mind-reader as well! Guilty as charged. Actually I figured that bad press is better than no press at all, and for all that it was deleted by NawlinWiki who does not contest its noteworthiness. What do you think, jayjg, should I re-write the "Mark Weber" article without violating copyright issues? (It's not clear to me thet WP's policies are strictly law-based so much as cautious. But I'm not a licensed attorney...) Will you or Jpgordon delete and block a Mark Weber article on the basis of non-noteworthiness, despite the fact that he is clearly a major player in the H-denier field? Please see NawlinWiki's talk page under Mark Weber heading.

As for violating the copyrights of Holocaust denial websites, I suspect you know as well as I do that they want to be violated, I mean yearn for it, because the abuser and the abused are often tough to distinguish between. Proskauer 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perplexed About Dualism

It's perplexing, though not surprising, that Jpgordon, jayjg, and at times SlimVirgin, patrol the Holocaust Denial page and revert edits which would tend to put a spin of rationality on the issue of things like gas chambers and other problems with the Holocaust monologue. Note, however, that rationality and the truth ultimately are not subject to spin, so what I'm saying is I'm working towards the truth.

What sometimes is surprising is that people like me keep going back and trying over and over again to explain differences of viewpoints in calm and logical ways. "That doesn't belong here" they say. "Put it on the Faurisson page" they say. Then when I follow directions, they revert my edits on the Faurisson page. For a while they were deleting even attempts to place the issues on the discussion page. I've been on this planet for more than forty years and I should not be surprised by hypocracy and a devotion to one's own self-interest above ALL ELSE. However, I am. Jpgordon, could you please enlighten me why it is that while I consider myself a rational being and according to the Declaration of Independence created equal to all other human beings, I cannot get equal treatment here on this most egalitarian of experiments, this brave new thing, this Wikipedia? Proskauer 05:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)