Talk:Nicholas Kollerstrom

British

Kollerstrom is said to be British. The actual surname sounds Skandanavian to me.

The surname is Scandanavian by origin but the subject was born in this country. Lockstone (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

Other work

Is he the same Nick Kollerstrom that wrote a book about atmospheric lead? What about the work on alchemy? And the lunar planting calendars? And a book called "Astrochemistry: A Study of Metal-Planet Affinities", published 1984? This is not meant as further criticism, only to try and sort out who is who. Wombat140 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

He is. They both have the same e-mail address. I'm still not sure about the lead book, though. Wombat140 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I invite Mhym to justify his attempts to revert the article to an earlier version. I have sought to amend it to produce a more rounded entry. I'm not seeking to disguise controversies but place them in a wider context and use non-emotive language. I think it good to start from the professional life and list the subjects on which he has written in a sort chronological order of when he began publishing. I have tried to show how some controversial views grew out of his professional experience. Lockstone (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I revered the changes and plan to do so again. This is not much about the substance, but more about the style of the changes. You are making the article perhaps more logical from your point of view but non-standard from WP point of view, and of style which we consider poor. The top portion is supposed to be the summary of the rest of the article, no need to make it separate and long. It is *meant* to be short by WP style standards. You remove "holocaust denial" wikilinks, etc. which are clearly relevant and controversial. Such a removal needs to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I am looking at the history of your contributions, and understand that it's very short. You might want to read WP:FIRST and WP:Better before doing any big changes to the article. I realize that this is difficult for a newcomer to learn all the rules, so my suggestion would be to read and learn as you go, step by step, without insisting on revamping whole articles of controversial subjects. Mhym (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not plan to spend time repeatedly changing and have raised this with editors. The subject is Nicholas Kollerstrom. The originator of the article may have deemed him worthy of an entry because he achieved prominence for certain views but then his whole life becomes of interest, it is not possible just to focus on the views. I have been attempting to set the views in context. It would be quite reasonable to state 'it was widely assumed he was removed from his position at UCL because...' and quote some journalism. If you wish to say that he has been called a 'holocaust-denier' by certain people, linking to that category that doesn't seem to me unreasonmable (at present), but it shouldn't come in the first line. I am glad that Mhym admits the subject is controversial, he ought to take grerat care over the opening line. I don't think I need to be referred to long wiki manuals to know what is fair and unfair, neutral or otherwise People should take great care over first lines because they appear when a subject's name is googled Lockstone (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Further it is self-evident that the author is choosing to define the subject in the first line, where it will readily appear to anyone googling the subject's name, in a way which is contrary to the wishes of the subject (who calls himself a 'holocaust revisor') I don't think I need to read lots of guidelines to raise a question over that. Perhaps Mhym would care to state why he wishes to refer to the subject so prominently using an emotive term which the subject themself doesn't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockstone (talk • contribs) 10:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to my last first para but split this into two. The most important think is the opening line and I think I have given a balanced overview of the subject's life. I will suggest further revisions later when I have Mhym's response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockstone (talk • contribs) 10:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am quite happy for Mhym to give me advice on wiki procedures but there are general standards of fairness and natural justice and one doesn't need to know every detail of wiki procedures to know these. I have just removed one statemewnt unsupported by its reference another controversial statement with no reference which Mhym has just put back in. I pointed out that UCL haven't stated why they stripped him from his post. I'm not going to look for Wiki chapter and verse as justification for this. Would Mhym care to account for the existence of these? Lockstone (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

I won't necessarily object to a link which leads to the wiki 'Holocaust Denial' page. I removed the link because it was in an unsubstantiated statement. Lockstone (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

I consider it courtesy that his characterisation of himself as 'reviser' should preced that of his critics as 'denier' - this is not a criminal trial where the prosecution speaks first. I'm not suggesting this is complete, I think there is certainly space for further material in the 'controversies' section, I deleted statements because they were not properly sourced rather than I thought the subject matter necessarily unsuitable. Lockstone (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

codoh and press TV are not reliable sources; please don't link to them again. Kollerstrom's Holocaust denial is obvious and attested to by reliable sources; please don't whitewash that again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I quoted CODOH as a source for what the subject has written, the subject is published there so it is a perfectly reliable source when quoting him. I don't feel I have tried to disguise the subject's views on the Holocaust in any way and those who wish to categorise him as a Holocaust Denier are free to do so. I have tried to allow him to speak for himself by linking to his words and then placing the critique. So far as I am concerend the editors interventions bring Wikipaedia into considerable disrepute.

Please review wikipedia policies WP:RS and WP:V. To return the information to the article, please supply reliable and verifiable sources. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am simply trying to quote the subject, the subject is quoted on CODOH why is this then an unreliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr E P Lockstone (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Pltuonium starred editor says I shouldn't use Press TV as a source but then procedes to insert a reference which quotes Press TV as a secondary source. I thought it was good historical practice only ever to use primary sources. Really Wikipaedia need to get another editor to look at this.

Please don't assume I share the subject's views - like Voltaire and I believe Noam Chomsky I simply defend his right to a fair hearing Lockstone Lockstone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr E P Lockstone (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not confuse wikipedia with a social website, a bulletin board, or a forum for proposing independant thought and research. Please review Wikipedia:No original research, specifically Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. We may rely on reliable secondary sources if they are quoting something. We may not rely on unreliable secondary sources. Therein lies the difference. -- Avi (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So Press TV is considered unreliable but Jerusalem Post quoting Press TV is okay. Absurd. Wikipaedia's use of the terms Primary and Secondary Sources is quite unlike anything I have ever come across in academia where a primary source is X says something a secondary source y says x says something. Perhaps someone would care to explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr E P Lockstone (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I only wish to be Lockstone - there is nothing intentional about having two accounts, I have been trying to switch from one to the other but am using two separate computers. Lockstone (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC) LOckstone

I don't know whther I'll spend much further time on this - it's my first and probably last time involved in editing and I can only say that Wikiaepdia seems to employ methodologies so as to render it worthless in certain areas. I'll spend my energy telling others why they should simply disregard Wiki on certain issues. I am glad I resisted the impulse to donate. 94.192.111.198 (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

It has to do with the draconian measures we have to take to prevent people from using wikipedia as a vehicle to publish. Please see Wikipedia:No original research for more details. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you then trying to say that Wikipaedia entries must never link to a subject's own writings? I don't think anyone would suppose that the subject of this article began the article himself to promote his own research. Beware of being seen to use any excuse to try to deny the subject fair representation. 94.192.111.198 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Avi - here is the first line of the first article I consulted by mhym, the originator of this artice. "Edmund L. Andrews is The New York Times economics reporter and the author of Busted: Life Inside the Great Mortgage Meltdown. An extended excerpt from the book has appeared in The New York Times Magazine titled My Personal Financial Crisis.[1]References^ My Personal Financial Crisis, by Edmund L. Andrews" You have edited out sentences of mine where I link to the subjects own words saying it is against wiki policy, surely this is also against wiki policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockstone (talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. codoh does not qualify as a reliable source, so we cannot cite it. The Jerusalem Post does qualify as a reliable source, so we can cite it. Also, Wikipedia prefers to cite secondary sources over primary. The material posted on codoh is primary, the Jerusalem Post article is secondary. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg's reasons do not make sense to me and I can't see how they conform to Wikipaedia guidelines either.

"the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible"

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact."

There is no prohibition on quoting living persons - it doesn't seem to come under 'no original research'. I am seeking to quote from an original source CODOH. I am not arguing that CODOH is reliable for matters of fact only as a source of an author's opinion.

I have used Press TV similarly. Why should it be preferable to cite the Jerusalem Post quoting Press TV rather than Press TV directly is beyond me.

"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals. They may be used, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals,..."

That is precisely how I used CODOH and Press TV

I find Wikipaedia's uses of the terms 'primary', 'secondary' and 'tertiary' sources confusing, you use 'secondary' where I, and I think many others, may use 'primary' and 'tertiary' where I may use 'secondary'. I think jaypg is tending to use these in the same sense as me rather than Wikipaedia. I can't see how CODOH qualifies as a primary source under Wikipaedia's defintion

"The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."

It is rather a secondary source

"Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims"

I would say that in the link from Jerusalem Post which refers to Press TV Jerusalem Post is tertiary and Press TV secondary and therefore to be preferred. Lockstone (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I await a response from jaypg to the points above - I find that my citation of CODOH is perfectly in accordance with editorial policy Lockstone (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I removed the term 'conspiracy threorist' - it hardly conforms to the definition given and is contentious. Throughout I have followed principles of fairness without quoting guidelines but have thus far found whatever I do to be in accord with guidelines Lockstone (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

The reliable source in question has the following caption under a picture of Kollerstrom: "Conspiracy theorist: Nicholas Kollerstrom, who believes 7/7 was a set-up by the intelligence services, was interviewed for a BBC programme". Please note the words "conspiracy theorist". I've added two other reliable sources saying the exact same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restored previous opening. He is more a historian of sceince than an astronomer. There is nothing wrong with giving a list of his publications so people can judge him in his own words if they wish. I am in no sense trying to whitewash him - people can see what his views on the holocaust are and make their own judgements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockstone (talk • contribs) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Previously people have given justifications for making changes, wiki guidelines at me every one of I believe I have shown to be inapplicable. Now nobody tries that, they just make changes. Lockstone (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Codoh is not a WP:RS, nor is Press TV. In addition, they are not Nicholas Kollerstrom. The only place they could be cited would be in articles about codoh and Press TV respectively, and even then with extreme caution: that is what is meant by "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals." The guidelines you are quoting would allow, with caveats, the use of Nicholas Kollerstrom's personal website or blog in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I find Jayjg to be splitting hairs. If it meant what Jayjg claims it to mean then the word 'respectively' should appear at the end of the quote. Doubtless then Jayjg would object to a link to the subject's own writing. Jayjg seems to be making up the rules as he/she goes along just to deny users the opportunity to judge the subject by his own words. A lot of Wikipaedia is very good but what goes on here lets it right down Lockstone (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

Comments by article subject

Nick Kollerstrom - Here is a statement I wsh to make about this article. Kindly move it of this isn't the right place to put it.

The present Wiki entry does not represent my life or my views. It is grossly untruthful, contrary to the stated ethics of wiki. A colleague who attempted to modify it in a direction of making it slightly more realistic had his entries deleted. Moreover, I suggest that the palpable motive of the distortions and omissions in this entry is simply, character defamation.

As an author who has published about seven books on a variety of topics, I fail to see why two of the three paragraphs in this Wiki entry should be about ‘Holocaust denial’ as if that were the sole point of interest. As someone who has worked for years as a science historian and school math teacher, I have difficulty in seeing why the opening sentence should describe me as an ‘astronomer.’ Admittedly most of my two dozen academically-published articles are about the history of astronomy, but I doubt whether that makes me an astronomer.

Only one easy of mine is alluded to, the controversial revisionist essay ‘The Auschwitz gas chamber illusion.’ If Wiki wants to allude to this, then it is ethically bound to insert a reference to where that essay is located, viz the CODOH library (Committee for open discussion of the Holocaust: www.codoh.com/author/kollerstrom.html). This is the world’s premier revisionist website, so I do appreciate how certain persons involved in constructing the present character-assassination masquerading as biography would be uneasy at having that reference.

If you want to allude to my revisionist researches then you should say what they are, namely an evaluation of the two main chemical studies, of residual cyanide in the walls of Auschwitz (see CODOH essays). If you want to allude to my astrological articles then you should explain, that my interest has been in attempts to enquire whether it can be verified - or preferably even allude to my book ‘Galileo’s Astrology,’ the only book on this topic. If you wish to describe me as a conspiracy theorist, then you should cite my book ‘Terror on the Tube, behind the Veil of 7/7’ which is the only published book giving a comprehensive review of evidence.

Instead of quoting this book title, you just quote the absurd newspaper title ‘7/7 was an MI5 plot’ (ref 1) – you will not find any statement to that affect in my book, and it is a total lie to say that I claimed that on any BBC film. Do you not blush at giving such untruthful quotes? Your motive in citing such a media-smear as a reference - instead of the book’s title - smells like simple character-assassination.

Instead of decent references outlining what I have been trying to do in my life, Wiki simply quotes liars as saying, that I claim Auschwitz was like a holiday camp (Rob Mendick, Evening Standard). Clearly, nobody ever could take such a mad view. Then it quotes me as saying the inmates ‘sunbathed’ around the swimming pool. No article with my name on says this. A couple of years ago I might have badly-quoted a source as saying this and then deleted it. If Wiki insists on citing this, it should say that Nick Cohen in the Observer (eg) claimed this, but NK rejects such a claim. Your bio also lies, in saying that I posted on a far-right website: I never have. Then you cite a reference claiming that I say Jews were not murdered at Auschwitz: yet another damned lie. Then you quote me as saying ‘the alleged massacre of Jews in WW2 was scientifically impossible’ – another damned lie, I never wrote that*. Quoting proper sources (or even consulting me) would be a way to avoid this shocking catalogue of character-assassinating lies.

The one political achievement in my life, IMO worth mentioning, was in the 1989 Euro-election, when I was press secretary of the West Surrey Green Party, and we came in from nowhere to beat both Labour and the Social Democrats, gaining 22% of the votes. The Green Party in Guildford was run for 12 years from my house. Also a Wiki entry might possibly wish to state that I have produced Britain’s main moon-gardening calendar for the last thirty years – compared to this, my interest in revisionism is a mere blip of the horizon.

If you are going to describe me as a ‘crop-circle enthusiast’ (ref 2) then I suggest you ought to point out that I published a book or maybe the book on the geometry of crop-circles (‘The Hidden form’), reviewed by the Association of Teachers of Mathematics as ‘a must for any school library.’ Otherwise it just sounds absurd. Or, is that your aim? ………………………………………………………………

• You allude (ref 6) to the Iranian website which copied my CODOH article, then added this ‘comment’ – without my permission and against my will. This is a reason why CODOH should quote from the articles posted by the author, and not quote comments by others as if they were his.

N.Kollerstrom (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Few things first. Wikipedia has many rules. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought! We have this WP:NOR doctrine which says that we can only refer to something if it was published before in a reliable source. In other words, if a certain event in the bio of a person is not previously acknowledged in print or on the web, it's as if it never happened - we are simply not allowed to include such material (according to our rules). Second, why some portions of the bio are given more space than others is easy to explain: it's the notability concept. Basically, if someone like Susan Boyle becomes famous late in her life, there is relatively more space devoted to what made her famous than what she did all her previous life. Same thing happened to the subject of this article as well - as the media coverage shows, Mr. Kollerstrom is best known for his Holocaust denial/revision. Thus disproportional inclusion in this article.

Finally, there are actually many cases when the subject of the article bitterly complains on his or her WP article. Se e.g. Lawrence Solomon article and complaints by the subject of this article. All of them "lost" and left disappointed. I hope you can learn from their example. Mhym (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No sources are provided, at all, for these two claims: "Despite his interest in astronomy, Kollerstrom takes astrology quite seriously. His particular interest is the effect of the sun, moon and planets on plant growth and chemical reactions, and he is interested in alchemy." Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a link to his works but it was removed, I think on grounds of 'no original research'. Can't link to subject's own website because that's 'original research', can't link to where he is published elsewhere with his permission, because it's an unreliable source, can't win because of numbers of others chaning things back! Lockstone (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Which link was to the subject's own website? -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification, I'm not aware of subject's own website, but given way rules are applied I've little reason to doubt any links would be removed.Lockstone (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Per WP:SELFPUB, using a subject's own website as a source in the subject's own article is one of the rare times that we allow what would normally be an unreliable source (the other selfpub exceptions are when the sources ARE reliable - e.g. the blog of a recognized expert who has been published elsewhere). However, this does not allow using other unreliable sources, which is why I asked for the clarification. -- Avi (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just who are the 'we' who do the allowing? In any event I think that if the subject is published on another website and has indicated that he is quite happy for you to link to that website then that is the equivalent of the subject's own website. Lockstone (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

"We" is the wikipedia community. Please review WP:V and WP:RS, which are core policies/guidelines of wikipedia. All articles must comply with wikipedia polices and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And who appointed you their spokesperson? Am I not also a part of the community? I have edited this article in accordance with a core policy Wikipaedia which is that biographies of living persons should be neutral and I don't see anyone else doing that.Lockstone (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

Nobody; I am pointing you to the policy pages in accordance with which you have already accepted to edit by editing here. These policies are not optional, they are mandatory, and refusal to abide by them may lead to measures being taken to protect the project. Once again, please review the policies, and if you have specific questions, you are always welcome to ask a question on their talk pages. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lockston, with all due respect,have you read our core policies, wp:npov, wp:v and wp:nor]]? And in this case, also wp:blp? Have you read them carefully? I am just trying to give you constructive advice. If you are sure that your edits carefully and rigorously comply with these policies, you will find fewer and fewer people reverting or challenging you. It is true that to comply with these policies sometimes we cannot add what we want, or we have to add something we do not like. But this is our form of self-governance, it is our way of writing a quality encyclopedia without an editorial board that believe it or not might be much stricter in what can go into articles than us. If you wo not like Wikipedia's policies and still want to contribute to an encyclopedia, my advice is to get a job with Encyclopedia Britannica. I am being serious - the world is filled with venues for publishing all sorts of things. This is only one. Anyone can edit. That means you, and it means Avi. And the two of you can spend eternity reverting each other thanks to Wiki technology, and nothing will be accomplished. Or you can edit according to our policies, and you will find then that if someone deletwes what you wrote someone else will probably put it back in. This is the chance you take when you write something knowing anyone else in the world can delete or change what you just wrote. What might give us stability, unity? The policies I mentioned. study them, follow them, and maybe your contributions will last. These are the rules all of us play by. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read the five pillars, 2 is Neutral Point of View and 5 is No Firm Rules. I just apply common sense. So far as I am concerned every other contributer is hiding behing and misquoting lesser rules to write something perjorative to the subject. I am hopeful that a senior editor will be down on this before too long. Lockstone (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Lockstone, you are under a severe misconception: there is no such thing as a "senior editor" in wikipedia; no one editor has any more power when it comes to editing than any other and we all must agree to abide by the rules. -- Avi (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

well who has the authority to lock pages? Lockstone (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

Administrators (or sysops, systems operators) can protect pages - this occurs when there is serious edit waring or regular vandalism, and is meant to help ensure that the ongoing process of writing articles, through the collaboraion of several editors who do not know one another, can happen in a relatively stable way. If an administrator protects a page that has been vandalized, she will undo the vandalism (e.g. "Joe is a prick!" or "Mary ROCKS") and thn potects the page. But if there is an edit war, the administrator simply protects the page as it is. She does not take a side in the edit war, she does not comen on content. She protects the page merely to provide editors time to cool off and discuss their disagrement on the article talk page until they have a consensus. The administrator does not care what the consensus is - as long as editors agree that there will be no more edit warring the aministrator unprotects the page. So you see, none of this has anything to do with content. Content is decided by editors following policy. Administrators are not "senior editors," they are like janitors.

By the way, "five pillars" was just one editor's way of sumarizing key points for newbies. Some editors did not like it, but over time most editors decided it was a reasonable way to introduce newbies to Wikipedia, and that the name is clever and not offensive. But the "number" of a policy is arbitrary. NPOV is in fact the one non-negotiable policy at Wikipedia. Jimbo and Larry Sanger created it when they first created Wikipedia and it is absolutely at the core of the encyclopedia. In the early years, "Be bold" was an important maxim because we were young and a big experiment and we wanted to encourage experimentation just so see what works.

Wikipedia is now more than eight years old and we have had a lot of expeimentation, and we have learned from it. The other core policies (V and NOR) derived from NPOV i.e. with experience we realized that for NPOV to work in a meaningful way, we needed the V policy as well. And after that we realized that for people to use V in a constructive way, we also needed NOR, so V and NOR grew out of NPOV, which is why they are so important. We still welcome experimentation, but nowadays peopl do a kind of calculation: when someone experiments, in a way that is not in accord with a policy, does it really lead to a better encyclopedia article? If so, what usually happens is we change the policy. So yes, we still keep "No firm rules" prominently because an editor might just come up with an edi that violates a rule yet is clearly an improvement and it is the rule that has to change. This can still happe, but understanably, it happens less and less each year. That is because each year our policies are further refined based on continuous experience.

The bottom line is this: you can make any edit you wish, but any other editor can change or revert it. It is anarchy, but that is what it means to have an encyclopedia "anyone can edit, at any time." Anyone means anyone, that is what Avi was referring to when he said that there are no senior ecitors, anyone can edit, all editors are equal. Given what I just said - that anyone can change or revert any edit you make - I would think you would understand why it is in your interests that there be a policy, or policies, that impose some restrictions on editors ... otherwise anyone could delete every edit you ever made without proiding any justificaion! Surely you can see how this is in your own inerest? But if we have policies that govern how everyone else edis, sure you can undersand that they have to apply to you, too.

Yes, you can "be bold" because there are "no firm rules." If you make an edit that violates NPOV, V or NOR but all other editors agree that your edit was necessary or a significant improvement, my guess is someone will start rewriting one of the policies. I am just being realistic with you: after eight years, the chances of this happening have delined considerably. Now it is much easier for you to edit while complying strictly with NPOV, V and NOR - it is in your own self-interest, because if anothe editor comes around and deletes what you wrote, and you can show other editors that your edit was fully compliant with NPOV, V and NOR, other editors will support you instead of Mr. deletion. Doesn't this make sense?

I wrote an essay on it you may with to read, of course it is just my own opinion: Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy but I wrote it to help explain to newcomers how hings really work here. But more important is your studying NPOV, V and NOR. I really am trying to give you practical advice, comply with these (and in this case BLP) and the work you do here is much safer. And if you see someone editing an article and violating NPOV, V, or NOR, you can delete or change what they wrote and once again YOUR edits will be safer. I am just trying to be practical. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is good of SLRubinstein to take so much trouble to write to me - s/he seems a very reasonable person. Unfortunately I just don’t have time to get bogged down by all these policies. I am afraid what happens on this article seems like mob-rule and I feel that as I’ve no hope of getting the mob to speak in more reasonable terms, the best thing I can do is to encourage others not to pay too much attention to them. Anyone googling the subject’s name will find many partisan attacks on him, I would just encourage them to regard the Wikipedia article as one more. Press reports in the UK today seem to me to suggest that there may be more control from above and I feel this may be necessary to avoid Wikipedia becoming known as a site where individuals may be attacked rather than the public informed. I am afraid that as the result of my experience and despite the vast amount of useful material on the site I may conclude that the demise of the project would be on balance a good thing.Lockstone (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

Elegant swimming pool/holiday camp claim

I've removed this for now, because it's not in any of Kollerstrom's articles that I can see, though it may have been in an earlier version. I'm continuing to look around, and I'll restore it if I can find where it originated from. SlimVirgin 20:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found older versions of Kollerstrom's articles but still can't find the claim published by the Observer, namely:

Admittedly, if the philosopher had lived long enough to hear the conspiracy theories of the 21st century, even his defence of free speech might have weakened. Once he was away from his scientific studies, Kollerstrom embraced them all. 'Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water polo matches,' he said of the Nazi genocide. 'Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, where the postman would collect the mail twice weekly.'

These words appear in an article called "School trips to Auschwitz" on the CODOH site, but there is no byline. [1] (I don't know what the policy is on linking to material like this, so if someone wants to remove the link, that's fine.) It says the article was first published in Smith's Report on the Holocaust Controversy, 2008. Do we know why these words are being attributed to Kollerstrom? SlimVirgin 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I just found the Smith report, and the words are indeed there, with Kollerstrom's byline. [2] Search for the word "elegant". SlimVirgin 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But don't forget according to some editors here are not allowed to quote CODOH (although for some absurd reason you are allowed to quote people who quote CODOH) 94.192.111.198 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Lockstone

We can quote Kollerstrom in an article about himself, and we can cite that publication to support the quote, though I'm less sure about linking to it. If there is doubt that he said it, it might make sense to link to it, but I'm happy to be guided by consensus. SlimVirgin 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

CODOH is not a reliable site, but in this case, we are actually quoting Kollerstrom himself, not someone on CODOH talking about Kollerstrom, so if we would link, it would be a convenience link, and I'm not certain about the policy on that. At this point, I would lean to thinking this one link would be allowed as it would be no worse than linking to Kollerstrom's own site in this article; but this should not be construed as thinking that CODOH is considered a reliable source. I would like others to weigh in, however. -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference structure

Slim, why did you move the references out of the reference section? It is much neater to just leave the named anchor in the text, and have the full reference in the reference section using |refs= as was done. If you do not have a particular issue, I'm going to move them back. Also, thank you for finding the better references. -- Avi (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the comment above about linking to CODOH before seeing how the article had been changed. I am delighted - it's just the way I as a complete newbie had hoped it would develope even though I wasn't familiar with detailed policies. My faith in Wikipedia is considerably restored. 94.192.111.198 (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Lockstone

I was having difficulty working with it, because when I removed a ref, it remained in the References section and showed up in red. If you want to change it back, would you mind waiting until I've finished the writing? It shouldn't be much longer. SlimVirgin 22:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure; thanks. -- Avi (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)