Talk:Holocaust denial: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 313:

Back. Hm:

# Skomorokh wrote: "WEIGHT in this instance is a stricter inclusion requirement than V/RS or NOR;" - Is it now? I do remember the WEIGHT policy being formed, and IIRC its place is directly subordinate to NPOV. "NPOV" itself has rarely been called "strict," it fact its actual application required more actionable sub-policies to be developed. WEIGHT is one of those sub-policies, formed to explain how certain concepts might, in context, be less relevant to the subject matter than others. Through deliberation and trial, we then decide on the proper place new material belongs - provided of course people agree that the new material is substantive, (as a couple of you have admitted here with regard to how '''the main source''' defines '''the main concept''' in this article. Otherwise, of course I agree that dealing with the definition of the Holocaust is irrelevant here).

# (continued): The first case I can remember having to do with WEIGHT was one of the Creationism-related articles, but in any case its general usage is to keep the FRINGE theories out of the substantive articles, while still satisfying NPOV by giving them appropriate inclusion via a mention. WEIGHT has a place in FRINGE articles as well, wherein such topics the critics need a place, but should not dominate the article just because they are the mainstream view.

# Skomorokh wrote: "..content that is original or not supported by reliable sources at all has no place in an article.." - Certainly. Now please provide a source for the claim that "The Holocaust" refers only to the "conventional definition." I only seek to remove this claim that by default there is no variance, or else that the mainstream view dominates - both of which are original research not supported by reliable sources. Removing the unreliable sources is not actually required, if I can simply put this article into the context of the "conventional definition," wherein its various statements, reliable or not, can be said to be within its limited scope.

Line 322:

:Steve, I asked you a simple and straightforward question, and you've responded with obfuscation and wikilawyering. Congratulations, you've succeeded in convincing me that you are editing here tendentiously. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="background: #222; color: #fff;"><font face="Goudy Old Style">&nbsp;Skomorokh&nbsp;</font></span>]] 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

: Hm. I '''do''' recall asking <u>you</u> for a source to backup your claim that limited scope equates to an omission of explanation - a claim that violates guides like [[WP:LEDE]]. I don't see how I can be any less obfuscative than that. -[[User:Stevertigo|Ste]][[User_talk:Stevertigo|vertigo]] 21:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)