A fact from Robert Jan van Pelt appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,489 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
"Robert Jan Van Pelt, an architectural historian and a leading expert on Auschwitz, says: 'Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge. ... I don't think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past. We will know about it from literature and eyewitness testimony. ... We are very successful in remembering the past in that manner. That's how we know that Cesar was killed on the Ides of March. To put the holocaust in some separate category and to demand that it be there – to demand that we have more material evidence – is actually us somehow giving in to the Holocaust deniers by providing some sort of special evidence'."
From an interview in The Star, Canada, Dec 27, 2009. One of his lesser known statements. In the same article I believe he advocated for the destruction of most of the Auschwitz site ( particularly any "gas chambers", delousing, crematoria,... ) in order to prevent scientific/historical/forensic/... studies from being done. 159.105.81.48 (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you've "quoted" is taken directly from a number of Holocaust denial sites that selectively quote van Pelt and take what he said out of context. The whole article from the Toronto Star is here. When he states "Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove" he is not speaking of the Holocaust, he is speaking of history in general. There is of course plenty of physical evidence to prove the Holocaust. What van Pelt is saying, and this is too subtle for the Holocaust deniers to grasp, is that those who deny the Holocaust demand special evidence not required by other historical events. Giving into that demand in a sense plays into the deniers' agenda. As for that last statement of yours, "In the same article I believe he advocated for the destruction of most of the Auschwitz site ( particularly any "gas chambers", delousing, crematoria,... ) in order to prevent scientific/historical/forensic/... studies from being done" that's nowhere in the article, you're making that up out of whole cloth. There is of course plenty of forensic evidence related to the Holocaust and it's preserved. Van Pelt is speaking of the site itself that perhaps we should allow nature take over and stop preserving it. He makes no suggestion to destroy evidence. Bringing it back to the actual article in Wikipedia, if you're suggesting we refer to the Star interview with van Pelt in the Wikipedia article, why not? I'm just guessing you won't like what it says. freshacconci talk to me20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
