[WikiEN-l] Invitation for review

[stevertigo]

Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> Your arguments focus on the definition and description of the
> Holocaust as an event, not Holocaust denial as a phenomena. The
> counter argument, which you've chosen to ignore, is that Holocaust
> denial as a phenomena is nearly absolutely limited to the "Jewish"
> portion that you find has been the unfair focus of attention.

That's fine. Just say so, and why. That's my argument. The other
points I touched on about other kinds of "denial" were sensory, and
not advocated.
Note that articles like [[Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs]] are to
some degree conceptualized within the general Holocaust. So there is
no need to assume that another article, HD, should rely on another
without explanation.

> With your avowed great talent for debate, I'm surprised you find ignoring
> arguments an effective strategy.

Well, if some here can't presently deal with the rational arguments
suggesting a rational interpretation of WP:LEDE, then I don't see why
they couldn't spend their time dealing with other things. RQM has a
backlog.

> your claims of skill in "destroying" your opponents, or "[taking them]
> to the woodshed", >

I promise that my comments, regardless of how snarky or pointed, are
aimed at your concepts, not you, and that I am neither trying to ape
nor balderdash anyone, though the resulting sensations may be similar.

>But there is some similarity between [the above] and those rappers
> whose body of work mostly revolves around stating how incredibly
> talented they are. Maybe your next redirect can be [[WP:MADBEATS]].

While the Oral Tradition is alive and well, keep in mind that the
usage of the written word serves not just immutability, but also the
formation of rational arguments, and the recording of details. That I
am occasionally required to deal with irrational arguments has
consequences, and I simply prefer that those consequences belong
largely to the irrational arguer. :-)

> If you and Ray want to counter what you see as an inappropriate bias
> in the depth and breadth of Holocaust historical coverage, then you
> should pursue an academic post and start publishing. Good luck to you
> with that. Perhaps in academia the idea that no one actually "died" in
> the Holocaust will be met with something other than outright
> dismissal.

Again, as with the [[Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs]] article, the
issue isn't revisionism, or even consistent usage of terms - its about
conceptualization in accord to NPOV.

Trust me: I'm not an atheist.

-Stevertigo