Talk:Fred A. Leuchter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Supporters of Zundel and Leuchter claim that Fred was harrased by Jewish groups, lost his job and his family life was consequently ruined. Critics, however, state that Leuchter's testimony in the film was more damning to himself, and Zundel, then the subject of the gas chambers. Famed critic Roger Ebert stated in his review of the film: "anyone who leaves Mr. Death in agreement with Leuchter deserves to join him on the loony fringe."

You are suggesting that claiming that Leuchter lost his job as a consequence of Jewish groups (which is a fact clearly shown in the documentary) tantamounts to being a supporter of Zundel and holocaust revisionist - this insults intelligence of anyone who has seen the movie. Also, what "famed critic Roger Ebert" said has nothing to do with Mr. Leuchter - if you removed reference to Morris from Zundel post, then you shouldnt put reference to Roger Ebert here. His opinion is a very offensive judgement in itself, and putting it into this context (in which you imply that anyone who thinks that Leuchter is a victim of Jewish groups agrees with Leuchter, and therefore, by your proxy judgement, deserves to loose job) is utterly disgusting. Your post is a sheer manipulation which can only be compared to those of Zundel and holocaust revisionists.

You use the following methods:

• appeal to authority (and the one which you think needs to be introduced as "famed critic")

• association (anyone who thinks that Leuchter lost his job as a consequence of Jewish pressure is like Leuchter and Zundel)

• intimidation (anyone who thinks Leuchter is a victim deserves his fate - note that Roger uses the same method but for a far less objectionable reason - being in agreement with Lechter and Zundel - then you try to do)

to dispute the fact that Leuchter is a victim of Jewish pressure groups.

There are people who do not agree with Zundel, Leuchter and the likes, and who object to methods used by Jewish groups to punish Leuchter, and for them your post is extremely insultive.

It seems like the only person worried about "Jewish groups" is the gentleman who posted this lengthy missive above. Text restored, and I stand by my statement that it is indeed NPOV: Ebert made that statement about the documentary on Leuchter. It is the truth. Allegations of persecution by "Jewish groups" are not NPOV. Anyone who cares to object, please feel free to do so. Modemac 01:25 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

I saw the documentary a while ago. It went something like this: Leuchter is a reknowned expert on murdering people, then he goes to DDR and makes a report, then he comes home looses his job and wife and becomes a hobo. Thats the effect, but whats the cause? BL 11:37, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Links

Why is it that all links are to anti-revisionist sites? Wound't be better to include some links to revisionist sites?

Because revisionist sites are the exact opposite of credible sources. REGULAR-NORMAL (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is even not even the question. The question is whether they are relevant to the subject. Anyway Are Nizkor and THHP "credible sources"? At best they are extremely biased and polemical, I'd say. --196.207.33.197 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Web sites which link to non-mainstream web sites are not considered reliable sources by wikipedia in general. Only the mainstream view can be presented on wikipedia it seems based on their own rules. There are rules for linking and referencing to non-mainstream links and sources, but you are gonna have a whole group of people on here remove those links because they don't want wikipedia to have links to "hate" sites. Notice the quotes as not all non-mainstream sites are hate sites. Markacohen (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Newsweek citation

Where are the sources for eg. the claim that "Newsweek claimed that "Leuchter was running a death row shakedown scheme: if a state didn't purchase Leuchter's services, he would testify at the last minute for the condemned man that the state's death chamber might malfunction.""? What Newsweek!? When? In what media? Who did?

The source for that is the article 'Truth Prevails' published in Newsweek, Oct. 22, 1990AndyL 22:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Debate about credentials, concentration camp study

This article remains a good example why wikipedia will never be a professional encyclopedia. This article is not about man named Fred A. Leuchter (apart from birthday there are only "claims"), but a attempt to discredit his findings. To overcome that problem we should use only sources which predate 1988. --Magabund 12:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"The lab tested them for exposure to cyanide and concluded that no traces of it could be found."

From his report: "It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the few that were positive were very close to the detection level (1 mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 79 mg/kg at Krema I."

This is very misleading; you fail to note that these ratings are compared to a control of 1050 mg/kg! Compared to 1050 for a random piece of stone, 79 is truly nothing. AaronSw

"Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. is an expert in execution technology (he designed electric chairs, lethal injection machines, and gas chambers)."

There is no evidence that he is an expert and much evidence to the contrary. He designed these things only in the same sense you or I or any fifth grader could. He didn't actually make any or have any design contracts.

Expert is a subjective term. He worked with creating and upgrading execution equipment for nine years. He designed an improved electric chair and lethal injection machine that many US states use and worked 1979-1988 with various states execution equipment.

"He published his findings"

Suggests a level of credibility, professionalism, or official status that these don't posess.

What he found, and the conclusions he drew. It doesn't suggest anything, WP articles doesn't need to babysit the readers.

"expert"

"The vast majority of Holocaust experts see the report as conclusive evidence for that Leuchter doesn't really know anything about toxic gas and the Holocaust." All of them, anyone who says otherwise isn't an expert.

Circular argumentation.

Personal Life

"His wife also divorced him."

Has she said this was related. Just because it is coincidental doesn't mean it's related.

In Mr. Death, Leuchter himself said it was related to his report.AaronSw

"ALSO DIVORCED HIM" - this article is a textbook example of ad homoninem. Did Dershowitz write it and do the discussion page too?

Accidently came across some trivia - Leuchter went to Europe with a secretary. It turns out the secretary was his wife. It appears the divorce was for other reasons ( ?? ) or for the unanticipated aftermath of crossing people who can hurt your income, etc. She doesn't seem to have left him until it hit the fan, but she had helped in turning the fan on so to speak. ( If he had found evidence for gas chambers Mr Leuchter's life would probably be much different - loving wife, generous employer/contracts, friends everywhere.... The truth shall set you free... free from all the previous stuff I guess.)

--Samuel J. Howard 08:44, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend Leuchter who obviously is a amateur who can't admit he was wrong. But an article about him should contain the facts, not the preachings. BL 12:48, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Gas chambers

There's too much offensive stuff in the article to list, but in particular were the mentions of alleged gas chambers. And I agree that he shouldn't be credited for designing gas chambers. Also, that term, holocaust believers seems slanted. Mackerm 08:59, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

If you have replacement terms for "alleged gas chambers" and "holocaust believers", I'd like to hear them. I don't think it's fair to call them "gas chambers" because that prejudges the issue. And "Holocaust believers" is, I think, a lot better than the previous "Jewish groups", which sounds vaguely anti-Semitic.AaronSw

The point is that the "neutrality and factual accuracy are disputed". Repeatedly removing that message doesn't change that. Mackerm 16:39, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The dispute doesn't seem to be serious, sadly. AaronSw 23:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Mackerm's edits

OK, I've removed the POV language bias to my own satisfaction. I'm still dubious over some of the facts. The linked Anti-Leuchter site says there is no evidence he consulted on gas chambers. Perhaps he did some drawings for himself, but nothing to give him credibility as a gas-chamber expert. (Same for gallows). Mackerm 17:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the sentiment, "He does not claim to have any desire to disprove the Holocaust, nor does he deny it happened" should remain, but it should be an exact quote from Leuchter, rather than a paraphrase. It should be followed by relavent contradicting statements he may have made. Mackerm 20:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

AaronSw: I noticed you reverted "recognized gas chambers" back to the contentious, "alleged gas chambers." This is a language bias. Mackerm 19:12, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Today I tried different wording to remove the language bias. Factual accuracy remains highly questionable. Mackerm 12:51, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Disputed header (2004)

The controversy over this article took place four months ago, and apparently has died down and been very quiet since then. I propose removing the "disputed" header on this article unless it is shown that its accuracy is still in doubt. --Modemac 07:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It had some pretty bad language bias (most of which I fixed some time ago), but I can't vouch for some of the facts. On the internet, there is dispute on whether he "consulted" on gallows and gas chambers, or just worked on them for his own self. I was not the one who put up the "dispute" header, and I personally have no problem with taking it down. Mackerm 08:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that he is not by any reasonable estimation an expert. To maintain so is both wrong and inherently POV.--Samuel J. Howard 13:59, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that was another one I was thinking about. As I recall, his court testimony was discarded because he was ruled not an expert. Mackerm 17:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Try again

Looks like it's been awhile since anyone's taken a crack at this article. Let's put the messy talk page above behind us, hey? While all the holocaust stuff seems more or less fine, the account of Leutcher's actual status as an execution expert seems POV to me -- as AaronSW says, it just doesn't make sense. What does everyone else think about this section? (I'm referring primarily to the paragraphs before any of the section headers.) — Adam Conover † 05:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

It's not POV, it's a series of quotes and other cited information from credible sources. AndyL 11:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Can someone provide some credible detail on a relatively minor inorganic/analytical chemistry detail that is of interest

Great Errol Morris film. I would greatly appreciate anyone with some specific expertise in inorganic chemistry to shed some light on a single issue. I am referring to the commentary provided by James Roth of Alpha Analytical Laboratories. I am certainly no expert on execution, inorganic chemistry or the formation and migration of inorganic cyanide salts, complexes or any other types of cyanide residues through 1940's Polish brickwork (unless the brickwork was imported). As far as I know, the gas chambers used to delouse clothing and personal effects developed prussian blue staining even on their exterior surfaces. This meant that the cyanide had managed to migrate through the walls of the chambers used to delouse clothing and personal effects. They demonstrated prussian blue [(Fe7(CN)18(H2O)x}] deposits on their exterior surfaces visible to this day. As far as I know the concentrations required in the homicidal chambers were far lower than those used in the chambers used for delousing clothing and possessions. Therefore, the amounts of HCN used and the associated deposits would be so much more significant in the delousing vs the homicidal chambers.

However, the analogy used by Dr Roth about the blinded analysis of pulverised samples smashed from the masonry of the destroyed Krema's and provided to him by Leuchter did not make sense to me. He stated that the pulverisation and analysis of whole brick samples was inappropriate as this diluted the concentrations of any cyanide residues present in an uncontrolled fashion. He then emphasised that the analysis of isolated surface samples would have been the correct approach and that the cyanide residues would not have penetrated through the brickwork.

Could someone with a better grasp of inorganic chemistry please comment on whether there would have been specific reaction conditions required for the formation of prussian blue or other insoluble cyanide residues [e.g. concentrations of cyanate (CN-) or ferric ions (Fe3+), temperature, pH or moisture] that would have been present in the delousing chambers but not in the homicidal chambers? I realise this is in effect a minor detail of the holocaust, since the main agents of murder were bullets, carbon monoxide, starvation and disease.

Perhaps it has been answered elsewhere (although I have not been able to turn much up). Can anyone shed more light or provide a link?

Another Errol Morris Film (also with Phillip Glass soundtrack) "Fog of War" - which based on interviews with Robert McNamara is worth seeing. I am pretty sure it won the "Best Documentary" Oscar a several years back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cob403 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A question that would be easily answered with a plane ticket to Poland and a tilesaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.122 (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Trial in the state of Massachusetts

Regarding this statement: In October 1990, the state of Massachusetts brought criminal charges against Leuchter for representing himself as an engineer without a license., does anyone know the exact outcome of the trial. Was Leuchter convicted and if so what was the sentence imposed? Piercetp 02:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC) He was made to sign a consent decree promising not to call himself an engineer.

In order to get the procedure over with, he promised not to do what he had not done anyway. The state promised to stay away from him. Everyone got off the hook without too much expense( Leuchter) and too much embarrassment( the state) - win-win.159.105.80.63 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Mr Death" on Google Video

The complete documentary "Mr Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A Leuchter" has been on google video for several months, so I have added a link to this at the bottom of the article. I don't know what the copyright situation regarding this is, but given its length I'd be suprised if google had left it up for this long if it weren't meant to be there. It's a ghoulish film, but required viewing for anyone who might be inclined to believe Leuchter's holocaust denial "report". Watching him scramble around the ruins of the Auschwitz death camp armed with a chisel and a measuring tape, it's difficult to know whether to fell pity or utter contempt.

You should have utter contempt for the fact that noone but Leuchter has even bothered to scientically check anything. Of couorse the gist of any other reports - including the Polish government attempt - has been to basically confirm this "pitiable" man's work. Maybe you can get someone with a better chisel and clear this up. Hate to see this contemptuous piece of research stand as the best there is - maybe the truth but at least try to disprove it by something more substantial than an ad hominem wikipedia article.

An odd bit of trivia about Morris' documentary. It was previewed with a bunch of Harvard students - it seems that about 50% of them came away with the wrong message - they thought Leuchter was correct. The other half were just mad( it appears they either thought he was right or imputant)( hard to fool Harvard students - not hard to get them mad). My understanding is that none of the students had much previous background on any of this. When I saw it I thought it was a low-blow hit piece. Leuchter appeared blindsided by a professional who was doing all he could to belittle the man. I appeared that Morris had no knowledge of the subject matter, or no interest in it other than making Leuchter look bad. I remember little chemical, etc analysis - but a really good ad homimen piece for all to study.159.105.80.63 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

RE the above - I recently discovered that after the Harvard showing that Morris edited his film to try to make Leuchter look bad/worse - his first hit job sort of backfired. 159.105.80.141 19:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

film link redirects here -- change it?

The link for Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. redirects to this page, and also this discussion page has a header for the WikiFilms project. Although the film is mostly about Leuchtner, it is a different entity; can someone switch this over? I'd do it myself but it's beyond my wikipedia editing abilities and I don't have time right now to learn how. Andymussell 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust questions

Something I just thought of - why didn't anyone check for cyanide in the crematorium. That many bodies might? leave traces of cyanide in the room, furnace, chimney, ashes... 159.105.80.141 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A point of note or notoriety - wasn't Leuchter the first person to do any real forensic work concerning the holocaust?159.105.80.141 12:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You would think the world famous Hollywood Glamorized historical event known as the Holocaust, which has been pushed and pounded into the forefront as the worst historical event to ever happen to a people over every other genocide in History, would have more modern scientific proof to back it up. You would think governments and scientists would have and should have done zillions of chemical and forensic examinations of these alleged gas chambers. Sadly the only people doing examinations of these alleged gas chambers has been up to this point only Holocaust Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers, who claim there is no forensic evidence to support the notion all of these concentration camps were actually extermination camps. I find this very disconcerting no people who accept the mainstream version of the Holocaust including Jewish groups, Forensic scientists, chemists, chemical engineers and other scientists haven't gone in to prove without a shadow of a doubt the gassings occurred (TIME IS RUNNING OUT PEOPLE) - this vacuum has given the rag-tag motley crew of Holocaust deniers and Holocaust Revisionists enormous consideration. Every year as hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors die, it seems the Holocaust is being slowly relegated to becoming another archaic in-group unifying religious charter with cult status in the Jewish religion. Anyone else find this unacceptable? Anyone else think we should raise some shekels to get some mainstream scientists who support the mainstream version of the Holocaust to get in there and do some real forensic work?

Markacohen (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged gas chambers" - now this is a noteworthy statement.--RCS (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened

Does anybody know whatever happened to Fred Leuchter? Where he is now or how he can be contacted? Yellowstone County Girl 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Series of Edits I Just Made

I just made a series of edits to this article to attempt to bring it within Wikipedia standards regarding source citation, bias, etc. I sincerely hope that the edits stand -or- that any of my deletions are properly sourced and cited. As damnable as the man's actions were, his actions speak ill enough on their own without drawing nameless, un-cited and unidentified "critics" into the mix. I neither support nor sympathize with Leuchter's impugnable findings -- I just prefer to let the facts stand on their own without the addition of highly questionable, anonymous content. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias and Opinion

There is an AWFUL LOT of UNSOURCED information here, and appears to be solely bias and opinion 207.81.252.28 (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Zundel payment

I noticed the following was removed

However, critics argue that Leuchter had a profitable career as an "expert witness" for hire who would say whatever his contractor wanted him to say and, according to trial testimony, Zündel paid Leuchter $35,000 for his report.

Anyone have any source on how much Leuchter was paid? WWORBERTS (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

neutrality issues

I am in no way a supporter of this man, but to read this article, one cannot help but read it as character assasination, warranted or not. A true encyclopedic article would not read this way. You can't continue to say He "Claims" then immeditely dispute it with an opposing viewpoint and expect it to be read as fair and unbiased. Also some of it reads like narrative as if the author was there in the moment explaining what was going on...some of the citations are footnotes are not verifiable.

This article reports facts about events in the person's life from the headings --leaving contrasting viewpoints to a seperate section or at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.111.97 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Article on this man seems to be horribly one-sided citing works by biased parties.I myself have done much research on the Holocaust and found absolutely no definitive proof for either side and please keep in mind if either side had that proof they would be rushing to prove their side.Their is no denying the NAZI regime was indeed a racist and expansionist regime bent on conquest so yes their is no doubt the may have committed these acts.However the Jews at the time wanted the creation of a Jewish state so they also had motivation to inflate or fabricate the holocaust.Now for those who oppose the revisionist view find and provide REAL undeniable proof.DO NOT demonize those who do research the topic or you are simply making it appear your side is in fact hiding something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.226.39 (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote **{I have...] found absolutely no definitive proof for either side** Really? no definitive proof at all? how can you be neutral when it comes to either accepting or rejecting the eye witness testimonies of camp survivors? You either believe them at their word, or you hop in the deniers camp and say they're all liars working for the propagandists. Neutrality is impossible in the instance of the Holocaust, given the existence of eye witness testimony. Since this is obvious to anyone who has truly examined all the facts of the Holocaust with a mind that is really open, clearly what YOU ARE is a denier, one prefacing their input with some bogus neutrality preamble (which didn't have enough thought go into it, to realise the eye witness angle I've just raised precludes the possibility of neutrality) so as to have yourself not come off or thought of as a half baked nut that the open deniers are. A word to the wise: forget claiming a neutral position on the Holocaust. Either you believe those WHO WERE THERE or you repudiate their experiences based upon God knows what realities (anti-semitism usually). Trying to claim some middle ground that these witnesses aren't propagandists, but are somehow also mistaken in what they experienced, is going to make you look like an even bigger idiot than any current denier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.119.242 (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts tend to be discounted when physical evidence is available. There is a lot of physical evidence - documents, science,... - concerning the holocaust, unfortunately the physical evidence refutes most of the eyewitness evidence. There's the rub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.122 (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"unfortunately the physical evidence refutes most of the eyewitness evidence". Pray tell what physical evidence refutes the testimony of the Nazis who either ran or knew of these places and admitted their crimes after the war ended? Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS. Camp physician and SS-Untersturmführer Hans Münch considered the facts of Auschwitz "so firmly determined that one cannot have any doubt at all", and described those who negate what happened at the camp as "malevolent" people who have "personal interest to want to bury in silence things that cannot be buried in silence." Zyklon-B handler and SS-Oberscharführer Josef Klehr has said that anyone who maintains that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz must be "crazy or on the wrong". SS-Unterscharführer Oswald Kaduk has stated that he does not consider those who maintain such a thing as normal people.

I have to agree - there are zero references for the bit on the trial - it simply states why he was "so wrong" and fails to provide ANY backing information to verify those statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.175.125 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Leuchter's patents

uspto.gov shows 2 patents for Frederick A. Leuchter: 3,968,570 (July 13, 1976) and 4,339,198 (July 13, 1982). I changed the slightly hagiographic and uncited description of his patents

"Leuchter holds patents for numerous highly sophisticated technical devices..."

to a more accurate and cited description:

"Leuchter holds patents for a geodetic instrument and an electronic sextant."

Caveat: Leuchter may hold other patents but it's difficult to ascertain information about any patents acquired prior to 1976, since uspto.gov only allows searches for patents by name from 1976 and later. If someone finds further information on earlier patents, make the appropriate emendation.--Petzl (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're discussing patents he currently holds it doesn't seem to matter. Anything granted before 1976 would have expired years ago. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Links in External Links

What is the wikipedia policy on English section to linking to articles in languages completely not in english? See the external links for the french link

Markacohen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC).

WiliamH deleting links to other Wikiepdia Holocaust Denial Areas

WilliamH why do you keep deleting links from Fred Leuchter to the Holocaust denial area on wikipedia? What is your purpose in this? You are deleting relevant links in this article without a reason which has substance or merit. Explain yourself.

Markacohen (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the article's history. --RCS (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The reason they are being deleted is because they are entirely superfluous - there is no need to provide an external link to the category of Holocaust deniers when an internal one is already provided by virtue of the category that the subject is in. WilliamH (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Extortion allegation

"In response, anti-Holocaust-denial groups organized a series of attacks against Leuchter that destroyed his career, and his life."

Except that he didn't have a career, he was an extortionist:

"On July 20,1990, Alabama Assistant Attorney General Ed Carnes sent a memo to all capital-punishment states questioning Leuchter's credentials and credibility. Carnes stated that not only were Leuchter's views on the gas-chamber process 'unorthodox' but that he was running a shakedown scheme. If a state refused to use his services, Leuchter would testify at the last minute on behalf of the inmate, claiming that the state's gas chamber might malfunction. <Memorandum from Ed Carnes, Alabama Assistant Attorney General, to all Capital Punishment States July 20,1990; Shapiro 'Truth Prevails' pp. 17 and 21; Newsweek, Oct. 22, 1990, p. 64; Swampscott Journal, Nov. 1, 1990.> According to Carnes, Leuchter made 'money on both sides of the fence.' <Associated Press, October 24, 1990>. Describing Leuchter's behavior in Virginia, Florida, and Alabama, Carnes observed that in less than thirty days Leuchter had testified in three states that their electric-chair technology was too old and unreliable to be used. In Florida and Virginia the federal courts had rejected Leuchter's testimony as unreliable. In Florida the court had found that Leuchter had 'misquoted the statements' contained in an important affidavit and had 'inaccurately surmised' a crucial premise of his conclusion <Carnes, Op.Cit., 2>. In Virginia, Leuchter provided a death-row inmate's attorney with an affidavit claiming the electric chair would fail. The Virginia court decided the credibility of Leuchter's affidavit was limited because Leuchter was "the refused contractor who bid to replace the electrodes in the Virginia chair <Shapiro, "Truth Prevails, 22>." (Lipstadt, 170)"

Note how the dates are all after the report's release in 1988. Leuchter, I'm sure, did testify about the inhumanity of the old technology while selling his new one -- but that makes sense, as he claims to have had humanitarian goals. If courts require a state to improve its equipment, what's wrong with Leuchter selling them the better version? I don't see how this disproves that he had a career.AaronSw

Since there were so few other experts in the field, it might just be a conflict the court of interest would have to live with. It's not like you could go out and get some completely unaffiliated university professor in the field of execution studies; I suspect nearly all experts in the field sell execution equipment of one sort or another.

"He does not claim to have any desire to disprove the Holocaust, nor does he deny it happened. "

But he says "Moreover, attempts to discredit the Leuchter Report have failed, most notably with Pressac's inept analysis. Since the release of the Leuchter Report [in 1988], independent evidence has shown that the six million death figure has been grossly exaggerated, and an investigation by the Polish state forensic institute [among others] has corroborated that no gas was utilized in the alleged execution chambers at Auschwitz."

In Mr.Death he hypothesized that someone someday might find 1000 electric chairs hidden buried under German cities. Go figure.

How is this Holocaust denial? He simply notes that his report has not been discredited, and that indepedent evidence has corroborated it. That doesn't sound like more than any competent engineer would do. AaronSw

"Pressure from Holocaust believers led Leuchter to lose all his contracts."

He lost his contracts becuase he had no qualifications or training and he was an extortionist.

The timing doesn't make sense here. He designs electric chairs and lethal injection machines for numerous states. His work is so respected that simply mentioning he did it opens doors ("you're the guy who designed the helmet? you're hired!"). Then, after nine years, people suddenly drop him because he has no training? That makes little sense. AaronSw

This isn't the kind of thing you go to school for. What counts is actual experience in the field, and Leuchter had nine years of it. AaronSw

Crematoria

"On the question of the functioning of the crematoria, despite the defense attorney's opposition, the judge's decision was unequivocal. He could not testify on this topic for a simple reason: "THE COURT: He hasn't any expertise.<49> "

He hasn't any special expertise on: The Holocaust, Nazi Germany, Zyklon B or bug extermination. Neither he, nor do this article claim that he has either.AaronSw

Defending Leuchter

I truly feel that this post is so sickeningly opinionated and obviously biased beyond belief. I enjoy clinical articulate writing techniques generally used across Wikipedia, but it appears that the author/s in this post have their own political agenda's behind it.

The man is referenced in numerous 'death penalty' related media as a consultant, a simple search of the web stipulates this. Naturally as soon as he was involved in historical revisionism of any kind he's put millions of peoples noses out of joint, especially when dealing with war-history of any kind. Let's face it though, we're all adults here, we all know that we demonise our enemies during war and there's a good chance we'll still go on believing it afterwards.

Heck, I still remember my history teachers telling me Hitler had one ball and was quater jewish, all of which is a myth taken to extremes.

I suggest that we allow this post to be clinical and factual. The man IS a consultant for many governmental organisations. It's very easy to debunk one man who's willing to have a shot at a scientific investigation into something contraversion with millions of people sitting there chipping away at the facts he presents, but until I see proper research otherwise, his is the closest thing to a legitimate scientific revisionistic review of a historical event in the last hundred years.

Whilst it'll also be easy to disregard this post and think to oneself, "Oh, he's anti-semetic / white supremacist / nazi." I'd like to take the opportunity to correct you otherwise, I am actually Jewish and of African decent, go work that one out. But still, logic dictates to me that this post on Leuchter should NOT be emotive and anti-revisionism.

This is ridiculous

Look, the gas chamber article already states that Nazi gas chambers in mobile vans and at least eight concentration camps (see also: extermination camp) were used to kill several million people between 1941 and 1945.. It's not under contention anywhere else on this site. I notice no controversy on that page. So why, AaronSW, are you insisting on mealymouthed adjectives ("alleged") on "gas chambers"? Grendelkhan 13:03, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

David Cole

"I would like to state for the record that there is no question in my mind that during the Holocaust of Europe's Jews during World War II, the Nazis employed gas chambers in an attempt to commit genocide against the Jews. At camps in both Eastern and Western Europe, Jews were murdered in gas chambers which employed such poison gases as Zyklon B and carbon monoxide (in the Auschwitz camp, for example, the gas chambers used Zyklon B). The evidence for this is overwhelming and unmistakable" -- David Cole

This must be a quote from Cole's recantation. What about his 46 questions? Was this quote from before or after his life was threatened?

Right. The idea that David Cole actually meant this is absurd. To go from questioning the evidence to the extend that he did, to believing wholeheartedly in 100% of the Jewish version of the truth is asinine to say the least. Trueethnic (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "Jewish version of the truth". Please review WP:TALK; are there any changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No sense

When discussing Leuchter's failings as an investigator, the Wiki article claims:

Leuchter did not examine the walls of the gas chambers until fifty years after they had been used; his critics note that it would have been virtually impossible to discover any cyanide at all using his method. In fact, tests conducted on ventilation grates immediately after the end of the war showed substantial amounts of cyanide. Leuchter was unaware that part of the camp and chambers were reconstructed, so he had no way of knowing if the bricks he was scraping were actually part of the original gas chamber.

Wiki goes on to tell us:

The chambers were demolished by the Nazis when they abandoned Auschwitz and the facilities Leuchter examined were, in fact, reconstructions. Leuchter has no training or expertise in the designing of gas chambers.

So the Wiki reader is left here with the idea that Leuchter took samples from a reconstruction that, naturally enough, would contain no HCN residue (since there had presumably never been any HCN present in the reconstruction. A wiki reader with a half a brain brain will be left with the idea that Leuchter's samples may have come from poritons of the original wall or from the reconstruction, and neither he nor anyone else can now tell which as he did nothing to record where he took the samples.

As we proceed through the article, however, the ever-helpful Wiki now tells us of a subsequent investigation, a "repetition of the study with better methodology": Yes, a repetition by someone who did know where to take samples.

In February of 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, Director of the Forensic Institute of Cracow, redid the analysis.[2] Markiewicz decided that the Prussian blue test was unreliable because it depended on the acidity of the environment, which was low in the purported gas chambers. Markiewicz and his team therefore used microdiffusion techniques to test for cyanide in samples from the purported gas chambers, from delousing chambers, and from control areas elsewhere within Auschwitz. The control samples tested negative, while cyanide residue was found in both the delousing chambers and the purported gas chambers. The amount of cyanide found had a great variability, (presumably due to 50 years of exposure to the elements to varying degrees[3]), but even so, the categorical results were that cyanide was found where expected, i.e. the delousing chambers, and not found where not expected, i.e. the control samples, validating the reliability of the test with both positive and negative controls. Therefore, since cyanide residue was found in the chambers in question, the test would confirm that they were in fact gas chambers, not mere residential rooms as was the alternative hypothesis or morgues, as has been suggested by revisionist readers of Auschwitz architectural and engineering documents.

How is it that Professor Markiewicz is able to prove HCN residue in the walls of the reconstructions (which had never been exposed to HCN) while there was no HCN residue in the walls when Leuchter examined them? He isn't. See above. Where could this new HCN residue have come from, since it wasn't there when Leuchter examined them previously? Most importantly: is Wiki telling us that the "gas chambers" exhibited today are the ruins of the originals or that they are reconstructions?

Different methodologies. The point of the whole retest.

"Markiewicz decided that the Prussian blue test was unreliable because it depended on the acidity of the environment, which was low in the purported gas chambers. Markiewicz and his team therefore used microdiffusion techniques"

Gzuckier 19:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

But look a little more carefully. Wiki writes, "but even so, the categorical results were that cyanide was found where expected, i.e. the delousing chambers, and not found where not expected, i.e. the control samples, validating the reliability of the test with both positive and negative controls." Notice the glossing over of the question of whether or not the [reconstructed?] "gas chambers" were even included! There is no glossing. There is an expectation of intelligence on part of the reader.

"Therefore, since cyanide residue was found in the chambers in question, the test would confirm that they were in fact gas chambers"

Gzuckier 19:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no it wouldn't. It would prove the structure had been disinfected. Prussian Blue doesn't magically disappear - read wikipedia article. It is tough stuff. It is partly water-soluble. 50 years of repeated flooding and exposure to the elements can take their toll. If there is only a little then there was only a little to start with. Have the Poles go back and try again Yes, Bwana.- have them supervised though. By someone with a pith helmet and elephant gun, presumably? The last time they did it they almost lost courage about their own study. It probably was too orthodox in it's findings. PS Leuchter's research was verified by Schuster, Linsky, Luftl ( all experts by any definition ) and the Polish study ( though it hurt them to admit it - they hid their report for as long as they could ).

Insert - later on - 50 years of weather has no effect on Prussian blue ( it may have some effect on the brick, but as long as the brick stays the Prussian blue stays ( several hundred years if all goes well)). Eventually you end up with a blue pile - it outlasts the brick. The wiki article on Prussian blue is/was really good - I recommmend it. The Zyklon article is okay and the cyanide article is good. Read the Cracow report - you end up feeling sorry for them. I hope they don't try again - I was being sarcastic - they have been humilated enough. Schuster, Linsky, Luft, plus probably several others ( all PHDs ) have confirmed Leuchter's work, except for small critcisms of little import. For an amateur he did a very good job - unfortunately he didn't realize the power of the people he was dealing with, probably from lack of knowledge. He and his wife thought they were going on a paid vacation to Europe and didn't know they were going to step on a landmine.159.105.80.63 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is too funny. It appears everyone was testing a reconstruction of a gas chamber. Did the Poles find anything - it appears they did, magic strikes again. Their new methodolgy must be grand.

For any good discussion of the chemistry you will have to reaf Rudolf, nitzor, codoh, Richard Green, etc. This will give you the outline of the story. Several big time researchers - PHDs, years of experience - will pop up when you do this reading - check them all out for fun. Great education and of some interest. Some of the sublities of the tests and how various resarchers tried to evade/fudge/ly about/etc the truth will eventually become obvious. Don't let wiki/codoh tell you what to believe. You will be surprised at what you learn - warning, keep it to yourself.159.105.80.63 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the entire article written about Leuchter was taken from the OPINIONS and BELIEFS of the creator of www.nizkor.com, which PROVES that this entire article about Leuchter is biased and completely one sided.

There is NO claim that the "gas chambers" were demolished by the Germans. Where did this lie come from? Trueethnic (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:TALK; are there any changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable secondary sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. I never heard of an engineer being put in jail for practicing engineering without a license and many of my relatives are engineers, including my brother, an MIT graduate. Are you sure they didn't put this guy in jail for the same reason they put the historian David Irving and so many others in jail - to shut them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgg804 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone from an educated family like yours ought to be at least marginally proficient in reading English. Presuming you possess that skill, if you'll put it to use reading this article, you'll see that Leuchter was sentenced to two years of probation and no jail time. I know how hard it can be for acolytes of frauds like David Irving (who is most emphatically not an historian) to absorb simple facts, but this ought to be a clear enough distinction, even for you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually this law is usually applied to anyone who represents themselves as a Professional Engineer when they are not licensed. It seldom (if ever) is used to convict someone for performing the tasks or duties that an engineer would perform. I would guess that Leuchter became a target because of his research (or if you prefer pseudo research) on the mass murders in Nazi concentration camps. I doubt anything would have happened to him otherwise. I also believe that this may account for the fact that his sentence was so light and he never went to jail. It is unprecedented to convict and jail individuals for this crime. 99.140.178.172 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Profession and qualifikation

Partly contradictionary to the German version. --House1630 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

NAZI article?!

Were parts of the article written by some modern "Hitlerjunge"???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.49.128 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Place of Residence

It is rare that the subject of such a Wikipedia article has their place of residence so prominently, nay conspicuously, displayed. Is there a reason for this? denierpphud× — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.180.134 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Veracity & Reference

The opening paragraph of this article needs a better reference - the article referenced is of statements made by Leuchter - he is claiming to be "an American Federal Court qualified expert in execution technology" and having been "employed by State authorities within the United States to improve the design of instruments for capital punishment as a result of which he has fulfilled execution equipment contracts with several states" are based on an article containing statements made by Leuchter. There are many references available that contradict Leuchter's claims - it seems that is what he is famous for - being a thoroughly discredited "expert". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.60.81 (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2013‎

I removed it. 71.108.139.254 (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

His actual birth date?

The German article lists it as 7 February 1943 and the Polish article lists it as just 1943. The current revision lists it as just 1944. Which is it? 68.46.9.6 (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Preface to "First Leucter Report" in The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition, published by The Barnes Review, gives his YOB as 1942. [1] BMK (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Stephen E. Atkins' Holocauist Denial as an International Movement gives it as 1943. BMK (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Ancestry.com "Fred Arthur Leuchter Jr." was born in Malden. Massachusetts in 1943. BMK (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

POV edits and not following BRD

An IP editor, 70.79.157.186‎, is attempting to make changes in the article which, to my eye, appear to be an attempt to cast Leuchter in the most positive possible light. These are being presented, of course, as making the article "more accurate and balanced". That does not seem to be the case to me and I reverted them. Since the IP reverted back, I reminded them on their talk page about WP:BRD and WP:NPOV.

I assume that this IP is the same person as 71.20.8.226, who made some similar edits last month.

The opinions of other editors are requested as to whether the current edits improve the article and make it "more accurate and balanced" or not. BMK (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Post graduate studies

" ... and later conducted post-graduate studies at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics." It is not mentioned in the reference given, the wording of it had other sites picking out that he attended Harvard University based on Wikipedia. It is clear from court documents that he only has a degree in history. Re-add this if you can find the exact wording for what he did at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, did he take a summer class, or attend a lecture, did he work there for a summer? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Spokeo as reliable reference

I am not seeing any evidence that Spokeo is unreliable. If you believe it is, you should work to have it blacklisted as unreliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the very bottom of the Fred Leuchter page on Spokeo, and you'll see:

Original Authors of this text are noted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_A._Leuchter.

In other words, the page is using Wikipedia as a source, and, as we all know, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Fundamentally, the information is being bootstrapped.

Please refresh your memory of what a reliable source is by reading WP:RS. I mention this because you've got it backwards. A source needs to have evidence that it is reliable, we do not take lack of evidence that it is unreliable into account. But in this case: does Spokeo have a reputation for checking facts? Not if they're copying them from us they don't. So the prima facie case is tht Spokeo is not reliable. If you think that's incorrect, please bring it to WP:RSN and start a discussion there. BMK (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you reverted without comment, please see this discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. BMK (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The other website you cited appears to be a blog, which are not reliable per WP:SPS. BMK (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Good catch for Spokeo, but the date is correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad you were able to find an actual reliable source. Well done. BMK (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is the talk page for this article empty?

Any ideas anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The older discussions have been archived. Look to the right for the link to Archive 1. BMK (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Errol Morris navbox

I disagree with this revert. Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." The navbox {{Errol Morris}} does not include Fred A. Leuchter, so the reverse transclusion is inappropriate. For the same reason, {{Errol Morris}} is not on the articles Vernon, Florida, Stephen Hawking, Robert McNamara, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Mormon sex in chains case, Donald Rumsfeld, or pet cemetery, despite all these topics being covered in films listed in the navbox. Why should the Leuchter article be any different? jnestorius^(talk) 22:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL -- which, of course, is an editing guideline, and not a mandatory policy -- without a doubt ranks as among the stupidest guidelines on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, since you are concerned about it, I have added to the Errol Morris navbox the subjects of his films, so that everything's now properly bidirectional. BMK (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh. Let's see how editors on those other articles feel about them being cluttered with a template of marginal relevance. jnestorius^(talk) 10:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Leuchter in court

"When questioned in court, Leuchter admitted he had not seen a document by the Waffen SS Commandant for construction issued when the gas chambers were constructed, which estimated they had a 24-hour capacity of 4756 people, more than 30 times Leuchter's estimate of 156."

Could you site the document mentioned here. I have never heard of the 4756 number mentioned anywhere in a German document. Leuchter also giving a murder rate of 156 seems new also.

Thank you - I will check back for the citation 2601:181:8000:D6D0:85DD:C4E0:45A8:354E (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

One-Sided Article

I came here to learn about the man in an objective way: what I got is an ADL-level charge on about everything he ever said and done. After reading the article I was left with the impression that he was the antichrist.

Having an exagerrate list of sources does not mean a fair article, if they all come from the same side. My suggestion? Scrap it all and make a new one that wouldn't be written by Hasbara people. The fundation of the article is rotten - there's nothing valid that can be built or rebuilt on it.

I understand that he is a polemic man, but that shouldn't mean that POV is mandatory in his case - to the contrary. MVictorP (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, obviously what you were looking for is a hagiography. You won;t find that here. The article as it is is objective and accurate. BMK (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Basically, WP:NPOV does not mean "giving all sides equal prominence and validity"; it means that our article should reflect and summarize the credible mainstream sources on a topic, giving weight to each aspect appropriate to the weight in those sources (and sometimes discuss prominent WP:FRINGE viewpoints, when appropriate.) Leuchter is mostly famous for holocaust denial, and his 'scholarship' there is, to put it mildly, not considered high-quality or credible among most sources. Our article accurately reflects that mainstream scholarly consensus on the man and his work; to do otherwise would be to violate WP:NPOV. Or, in simpler terms... if the best available sources are entirely one-sided, then it is neutral to write a one-sided article, because neutrality is basically about reflecting the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Death The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter

Added to external links a scathing documentary of Holocaust Denier Fred A. Leuchter by Errol Morris. Mr. Death The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter A documentary about the life and failings of Holocaust Denier Fred A. Leuchter (1999). HarveyGoldman (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Another embarrassing article

This is another article that is:

• entire paragraphs are unreferenced
• references that do exist are garbage sources
• an end to end ad-hominem

This is just getting embarrassing. This is so bad I am going to submit it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.2.70 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Smear job from the gutter - not worthy of WP

This article is a travesty from start to finish. You editors who conspired to concoct this sewage should all be ashamed. I'd like to try to improve it, but it's hard to know where to begin. Most of it, manifestly, does not comport with BLP -- so I think gutting large chunks of content is the first order of business. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's a decent reference on the issue of cyanide testing procedures: Differential Exposure of Brickwork to Hydrogen Cyanide during World War Two. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A rejected article by convicted Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf is irrelevant to this article and fails our criteria for sources. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet you accept "An ADL Backgrounder"? Please tell me you're not serious. I had started to suspect systematic bias in WP, but I haven't really wanted to believe it. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If you mean that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, that's what we are. If you are unhappy with that there's other venues, eg Conservapedia or Metapedia. They also have their biases of course. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed non-NPOV material from the "Documentary" section.

My change is here. The phrase "Leuchter's scholarly failures" is a give-away that this was written with a non neutral POV. For one thing, it seems wrong to characterize Leuchter's efforts as "scholarly", since he was hired to do investigative work for an ongoing criminal trial. Furthermore, that characterization of van Pelt's contribution to the documentary is written in WP voice, but it's the opinion of the editor, and not sourced. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is itself a demonstration of scholarly failure. Period. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with HW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll say it again, that's an absurd rationale for allowing this smear to remain in a BLP. It's a clear-cut case of affirming the consequent: "Holocaust denial" is an odious label you guys have branded him with, which abolishes all possibility of reasonable discourse. Don't you get even a twinge of discomfit from the irony? Indiscriminately wielding your "holocaust denial" bludgeon is just about the most unscholarly thing I can think of. 96.231.48.165 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Basically, the only people who don't believe that "Holocaust denier" is an appropriate label for Leuchter are other Holocaust deniers, or, possibly, fools. The only "scholars" working overtime to provide evidence for Leuchter not being a Holocaust deniers are other Holocaust deniers, or, possibly, fools. The Earth is not flat, the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, the Alchemist's Stone does not exist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Bashing the Expert

There's no evidence available to show that Fred Leuchter was either a "holocaust denier" or "antisemitic." Mr. Leuchter was a recognized expert in the field of execution chambers. This article/stub appears to be just another hatchet job, launched to protect what N. Finkelstein refers to as the religion of "Holocaust-ianity." Sbattles 19:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbattles (talk • contribs)

There is abundant evidence, and your revisionism will not be reflected in this article. I suggest you peddle your ideas somewhere else, perhaps a neo-Nazi website. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Auto archive

Discussion not relevant to improving the article, just griping from an IP-hopper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is there a bot auto archiving the discussion on this article? 2.121.174.48 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC) It makes it very difficult for people to find. 2.121.174.48 (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC) The link to the archive is right on this page, in a box that say "Archives". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC) That doesn't address the issue of the overzealous archiving. It's far more than a talk page with this amount of activity needs as the whole archive of discussion for the last three years barely fits on three screens for me. Few articles I've read with this amount of discussion on it are this readily archived. 2.121.174.48 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) I think the config should be extended to well over 30 days as it is now, and to something in the order of years and not days. The configured size limit is 125k, which the whole archive barely reaches half of. The talk page guidelines recommend archiving at 75k even, which the archive still doesn't reach. 2.121.174.48 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC) And why do you think that. One look at the archive page will show that nothing of import or consequence has been discussed here for ages, just the complaints of poor, benighted Leuchter apologists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC) I see, so this is your personal fiefdom and this article is not up for discussion. Got it. 2.121.174.48 (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Nope, couldn't be more wrong, but since you don't seem to have anything to say about improvements to the article -- the purpose of the talk page -- there's no reason to continue this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Improving the talk page is very relevant to improving the article I think but your actions betray an attitude that you already know what's best despite that. By hiding this discussion and imposing your will on here you've just put another person off editing this Wikipedia page. I don't think any criticism I've made was unwarranted or unprecedented so why does it deserve to be collapsed? 94.5.161.92 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC) No, improving the talk page is about improving the talk page, it is not about improving the article. Got anything to say on that topic? Onbiously noy, so I'm re-collapse this non-relevant discussion (which could actually be deleted in its entirety, per WP:TPO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Editorialising?

Re; this edit, by User:Beyond My Ken. I didn't look upon it as removal of a claim, since there are several later references to the Mass board prosecution. In my mind it was simply less blatant/synthy editorialising, (Leuchner claims this, which we will now prove was a lie). I'm not going to argue much however on - what is basically - efficiently, clearly, neutrally, rendering exactly how unqualified Mr Leuchner was. Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I too prefer the simpler version. " a claim that was false, as seen by the fact that" is editorialising: it is putting the statement of falsehood into WP's voice. We don't need to do this, we shouldn't do this. The Mass. charges should be enough to stand by themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Having looked at it, I think the whole para could do with rephrasing. This should be an overview of the ed. and career and Leuchter's claim that he didn't need a licence isn't very important (especially as it's uncited) - if he made this defence at his trial/before it/ after it, that is the place to put his claim, then we have no need to 'disprove' him. Pincrete (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't that a bit of an Al Capone lawsuit though? They couldn't charge him for anything they'd have preferred to, so they went for a provavble technicality. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

From the WP pov, the only thing that matters is the summary of his career and 'downfall'. From a more 'human' perspective, Leuchter got away with presenting himself as an expert on capital punishment, despite not having any expertise in any (related) science, and made money doing so. He then attempted to rewrite the history of WWII using pretty lousy science to help him. Is finally returning him to earth, 'justice' or 'a technicality'? Pincrete (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Even though?

User:Beyond My Ken, sorry, I dont understand this. Even though = despite the fact that = the preceding statement is slightly surprising due to the following statement ("I went swimming even though the weather was cold"}. .... I can't tell WHEN Leuchter said he didn't need to be registered, largely because it isn't said or cited. If Leuchter said this AFTER being 'tried', your use makes sense and what is being said is that Leuchter is still asserting his innocence, despite making a 'plea bargain'. If Leuchter said this before, or during the judicial process (ie if it was his alibi), it makes no sense at all (he pleaded innocent to the crime even though the jury later found him guilty?). Perhaps you know something I don't, but at least the 'when' should be clarified IMO .... or move/remove the uncited claim? Pincrete (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

John said that the basketball was pink, even though the league required orange basketballs. He claimed one thing, but the evidence shows that another thing is the fact: He claimed X, even though Y showed that Z was the case.

I have to ask: Is English not your native language? You don't seem to have a clear understanding of English idioms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Coming from someone who RESTORES the text: "before selling execution equipment Leuchter was a former dealer in military surveillance equipment.".... your final question is a bit rich! ..... Pots and kettles, beams and motes, grandparents and their eggs all spring to mind.

You are clear are you that Leuchter said this AFTER agreeing to the plea bargain, otherwise it doesn't work, certainly in UK Eng and even then it reads as very anachronistic or unclear. In UK Eng this is like saying he pleaded innocent to the crime despite the fact that the jury (later) found him guilty ..... when what is maybe meant is ..... he pleaded innocent to the crime, despite this the jury found him guilty =he pleaded innocent to the crime but/however/though the jury still found him guilty, .... or does it mean he later claimed to be innocent of the crime despite the fact that the jury (had) found him guilty?

Your examples don't work in UK Eng as you say they do. Example one, there is no later evidence to prove anything, someone decided to ignore, or couldn't find balls that complied with the pre-existing rules, (or John just wanted an excuse for having lost the match?). The rules existed first, this pink basketball was found, or claimed to exist later. 'But', 'however', 'though', 'even though' or 'despite the fact that' all work in that example with very little change of meaning. The sentence is grammatically and logically correct, but doesn't tell me very much about what or why or when this happened.

If we knew when the various events occurred, it would be easy to rephrase such that the relationship between Leuchter's claim and the plea-bargain were clear, but should we really be bothering with an uncited claim? (I didn't need to be registered as an engineer). Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe I am not the first person to ask about your capacity with the English language. The tenses and structure of the sentence are correct as written, there's really no need for further exposition on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you ARE in fact the first native English person to question my English on WP, if you are referring to the 'joke' on my user page, (clue Ann Other Editor, Eng level 0, irony?). The editor concerned was Balkan with appalling manners and worse grammar who made atrocious malapropisms. He nonetheless repeatedly tried to bludgeon his own 'rightness' in English, I chose to make a joke rather than take offence.

You however were clearly wrong to restore this: "before selling execution equipment Leuchter was a former dealer in military surveillance equipment.", and you are wrong again now. I've at least had the good grace to admit that there may be some US/UK difference of usage of which I'm unaware. You appear to prefer to bludgeon and bluster.

It is NOT mainly a question of tenses (though knowing in which order these events occurred would help .... for that a ref would help .... errr isn't a ref supposed to be necessary around here? ... apparently not for some). The ONLY meaning in UK Eng for 'even though' is 'despite the fact that', ask yourself if that synonym works here:

Leuchter has said he is "unregistered as a professional engineer" because his home state of Massachusetts did not have a state registration program for professional engineers[citation needed], despite the fact that in 1991 he faced charges of practicing engineering without a license ...

That sentence only makes sense if he agreed to the plea bargain first, then later 'pleaded innocent' (in order to imply his 'victimhood'?). It does NOT mean what you say it means (he said this first then the court disproved him .... your meaning would be phrased 'despite this' or 'though', or simply 'however/but'). I replaced with 'though' to allow for the ambiguity, you reverted it.

But why we having an arcane discussion about the precise meaning of idiomatic conjunctions? My original suggestion above is that his uncited claim should be removed, or moved to 'the trial'. Why are you defending an interpretation of completely uncited text? The only things that are certain are that he worked as an engineer, he didn't have a licence and was 'tried' for it, and accepted a plea bargain. Who cares what his excuse was? It's only interesting if he was 'doing a Nixon' (agreeing to a plea bargain, then later claiming his innocence), but that would need an explicit reference.Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sequence of events

According to the WaPo, Leuchter signed a 'consent agreement' admitting that he had falsely represented himself as an engineer. On the same day he, through his his lawyer, issued a statement which included "There is no finding nor has there been any admission of guilt". Whether this statement is the 'I didn't need a licence' claim, I don't know, but Leuchter was clearly wanting things both ways (making a plea bargain and claiming innocence on the same day). I presume a consent agreement is part of a plea bargain, though I cannot find a suitable link on WP. There were various conditions to the bargain, such as not publishing or promoting the report. , I'm going to remove the unreffed claim which has wasted so much time immediately above, though I have no objection to anyone expanding precisely what happened before and after the bargain - and may do so myself.

The ADL links on para 1 of the lead are dead and the other two refs aren't readable unless one has access to Lipstadt's book. They cover the 'shakedown' accusation, everything else has many sources.Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Not having access to Lipstadt's book doesn't invalidate the references -- in fact, references in published books are generally considered to be pretty authoritative. If you want to check the refs, and don;t trust the editor who added them, try interlibrary loan, or buy a cheap copy from Amazon or Half.com - you can probably find it for under $5.00, including shipping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the content or validity of the refs, just hoping that someone might be able to add 'readable' refs (I was surprised, that I couldn't find the ADL archived anywhere). Amazon don't ship to where I now live (ex-pat), so books in English are like Red Cross Parcels! Pincrete (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If you'd like, e-mail me your shipping address and I'll make you a gift of the Lipstadt book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither way round?

Re end of lead: Leuchter's work is often presented by Holocaust deniers as scientifically-based evidence for Holocaust denial. However, his research methods and findings were discredited in a 1999 Errol Morris documentary on the controversy, entitled Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., as well as elsewhere.

Is it not the case that 1) there are many 'dis-credits' both scientific and historical and the documentary is not notable for being the main 'discrediter' … 2) equally, the main subject of the documentary is the man, rather than the claims or report (the documentary rather assumes the claims to be absurd, it does not especially refute them).

I propose a change to:

Leuchter's work is often presented by Holocaust deniers as scientifically-based evidence for Holocaust denial, despite his research methods and findings having been widely discredited on both scientific and historical grounds. Leuchter appears in a 1999 Errol Morris documentary entitled Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.

Somebody might want to improve/expand the who/why/how discredited + refs. Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I restored this talk section today. Pincrete (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Chronological ordering

I've done a series of edits, the main purpose of which is to establish a more chronological sequence and secondarily to rename sections such that they more accurately reflect the moved content. There seems little point in covering his 'downfall', under "career", before covering the Zundel trial (which is after all both the main reason for his being notable and the primary cause of his 'downfall').

I think there is probably room for even further re-ordering, in order to establish a coherent chronology but perhaps someone else would like to do that! Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)