Talk:David Irving/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Irving acknowledges gassings

Irving is no longer a "holocaust denier" proper. He now has this weird theory that a smaller number of people were murdered by gassing in every camp except for Auschwitz 65.186.75.25 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about whether this claim about Irving is accurate or the details here, but he has long maintained that the scale of killings in the Holocaust was much smaller than was actually the case, and not that they didn't occur. Misrepresenting the scale of the Holocaust is a fairly common form of Holocaust denial (few deniers maintain that no Jews were murdered), and his aspect of his views was part of the reason that he was found to be a Holocaust denier in the libel action he launched (see [1]). Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Year of German atomic bomb book

In the books section, please change the publication date of The German Atomic Bomb from 1983 to 1967. 1983 might be a later edition or just a reprint. Source: Nuel Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer (1969 British edition), bibliography section, p. 365. I guess at that time, Irving was still considered credible. 2601:644:8584:2010:0:0:0:5FA4 (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Marking as answered —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this be British Court?

The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".

Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No. There is not a single court system in the UK, the Courts of England and Wales are one system, Scotland has a totally different legal system and Northern Ireland has a third. As the case was tried in England it is correct to call it the English court. - Arjayay (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2023

He is not a holocaust denier. He is the most prominent world war 2 historian. 2600:8802:5713:6400:3058:47C5:9A19:4776 (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done -- the change you appear to want would be entirely inappropriate, not least because it is not supported by reliable sources. Thanks for your opinion, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

He is a holocaust denier in the most definitive way possible, declared as such by a court of law. 2A00:23C6:1ABE:FC01:C828:3D69:C979:19 (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's Hold Off On Adding Death

There have been unconfirmed reports of death, but it's highly inappropriate to speculate that the death toll of David Irvings is the ludicrously high claim of 1 without a reliable source. I don't believe sources wholly reliant on what a far-right "Unity News Network" has said are considered reliable. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The Daily Mail, which is of course usually total rubbish and isn't a RS but has published some surprisingly good articles on related topics, reported a couple of weeks ago that he was seriously ill. If he has died it would be covered in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's another source: [2] reporting on what the "Unity News Network" is saying. jps (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

thats the only source you managed to find? when i heard he had apparently died, i looked him up and the only sources i could find were some random canadian papers. very odd Bird244 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Toronto Sun opinion piece declaring Irving is dead without reference to how the writer actually knows. I suspect the newspaper editor wouldn't allow the declarative statement if they thought it wasn't true, but not sure. jps (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

"Contrary to circulating rumours, we're relieved to share that David Irving remains with us, though, as many of you know, he is currently facing health challenges. We appreciate the concern and support during this time and will continue to provide updates as appropriate. Thank you for your understanding and respect for his privacy." (21st February 2024)

Source: https://twitter.com/irving_books/status/1760201256776470778

Archived source: https://archive.is/wip/3STT8 OctoberAccount (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

An account some are saying is linked to Irving (though it was created in February 2024 so that seems questionable ...) is now claiming the David Irving toll is in fact, grossly exaggerated https://twitter.com/irving_books

Could this be more professional?

Obviously this man isn't a very good person and that's a fact that this article needs to express. However, the entire opening section reads like someone's angry diatribe about an ex friend or lover. The problem with this method of presenting information is that the site looks heavily biased and deceptive to younger readers who will see the bias in the article and believe the very conspiracies the man professed because the man can easily be seen as a victim of a smear campaign. Even the page on Adolf Hitler is less aggressively negative but that could be due to the overwhelming support for eugenics and the eugenics movement by many editors on this site(look how whitewashed the article on Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory or the Indian Health Service).

If you know anything about Russian propaganda and pseudo-rightwing people on the internet, then you know that nothing fuels their conspiracies like the perceived victimization of their own kind. Whoever wrote the introduction to this article has greatly helped the neo-nazi cause. Nothing solidifies support in bad causes like the perception of victimization of the people involved. That's what Hitler did to rise to power and whoever wrote much of this article is helping the neo-nazi cause. Be professional when dealing with controversial topics since the wrong words can send the wrong message. The causes of men like him are fueled by the over-active censorship and mudslinging. 2604:2D80:6305:600:1595:C94D:DC4:424E (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any concrete suggestions? Pure rants do not help. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I have just read this article and agree it is rather messy and could be improved. I am quite new to this stuff but suggest that the lead is too long, literally for a start. I might have a go, but will wait to see if anyone else agrees/disagrees. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead is not longer than it should be. What would you delete from it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hob Gadling. Thanks for the comment. I'd restructure it to two paragraphs. I would edit down the wordage describing reasons for the subjects present low standing. I'd slightly recontextualise, too. The subject has never been regarded as a serious scholar. He has no qualifications or training as a historian, apparently. His personal history is one of obsession and marginal relevance; more like an amateur historian who dug up a few interesting minor points through doggedness. The Lipstadt trial is what made him well-known for a while, and that concluded that he is a minor figure notable only because of the marginality, and offensiveness, of his views. The way the lead is structured, with too much blow-by-blow, makes him look far more significant than he is. IMHO only, of course. But I think I can stand it up enough to reduce the lead. As I also said, that the lead needs fixed is really only the start - actually, it should be the end and come after a re-working of the whole article. The article is very flabby, in my opinion. At points, I think its value is slightly affected by a lack of WP:NPOV in its general thrust. It seems written to encourage the reader to dislike the subject, rather written to allow the reader to draw their own (obvious, in my opinion) views. The subject is a minor, jobbing, non-scholarly author whose preparedness to voice extreme right-wing sentiment relatively late in the century made him a figure of minor note for a while. That doesn't justify listing and critiquing his un-notable works at length as if he were an important author. Again, all my opinion only. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

True, this article needs more citation and be subjective. ThomasFrancis12 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This article has over 200 citations. From a bulk quantity perspective it doesn't "need more". What specifically would you change/better cite? VQuakr (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Years active edit

A user changed David's 'years active' from '1962-present' to '1962-2024' because of his supposed death. I can't edit the article since it's protected so I thought I'd mention it here so someone else can change it.

2603:6011:9D3C:19:84FF:644:D1E9:54C2 (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

We should wait until there is a reliable source for it; I haven't seen one yet. —BillC ^talk 08:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just reverted this change, as there remain no reliable sources stating that Irving has died. If this is true, I imagine that they will be published soon. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

He may not be dead but I think it's accurate to say he's no longer active (as a writer etc) as of 2023 as the family's statement says "It is with sadness that we must accept that David is now unable to engage in his life’s work".Wellington Bay (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Date of order for extermination of Jews.

The statement that Hitler still advocated only the expulsion of the European Jews in December 1941 and only changed his mind to order the extermination of the Jews in 1942 is historically inaccurate and should be removed from an edited version of the text. I suggest that the following be inserted in the text as a replacement: "On July 31,1941, Hitler's deputy Fuhrer, Hermann Goering, signed an order authorizing Reinhard Heydrich, head of the the Reich's General Security Office (SD) to prepare a plan for the final solution" and "total solution" to the "Jewish Question." At a conference at a government-confiscated mansion in on Lake Wannsee January 1942, Heydrich. citing the Goering order of July 31 1941 as his authoritzation presided over a meeting of government officials from several departments of the Reich in which detailed plans were drawn up for the extermination of European Jewry, and tasks were assigned to several departments of the Reich to assist in achieving this objective. According to an entry in the Diary of Joseph Goebels, minister of enlightenment and propaganda,Hitler presided over a meeting of senior Nazi Party officials in which he announced that he had ordered the extermination of European Jews. This indicates that the Goering order of July 31, 1941 and the subsequent conference at Wannsee in January 1942 had Hitler's full approval." 2603:7000:CF00:1202:28FD:F1E1:5F4E:12BA (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hitler's possible motives for not signing the July 31 "final solution" order and instead apparently delegating this task to his deputy Goering.

This following addition-revision of the text should be added after my previous suggested edit of the text concerning the date of Hitler's decision to authorize a "total solution" of the Jewish question. "No historian of any repute professes to know why hitler delegated the signing of the "final solution" and "total solution" order to his deputy Goering rather than signing it himself. We sugtgest that perhaps Hitler realized the criminal nature of the order, and felt more comfortable ordering his deputy to sign the order rather than doing so himself. 2603:7000:CF00:1202:28FD:F1E1:5F4E:12BA (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)