Talk:David Irving/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Not an expert on the Holocaust?

I just saw the 6pm BBC news and David Irving, surrounded by press was asked by the BBC reporter how many people he thought died during the WW2. He replied with these exact words "I don't know, I'm not an expert on the holocaust". Finally!!

Irving always has said he is not interested in the holocaust. That it why he made the self-deprecating remark. He has studied specific items such as gas chambers, and continues to say he has not seen evidence that convinces him that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz. The Polish government has confirmed that the current gas chambers on display were built after 1945.

Now we find out he now accepts that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz; he changed his mind when he was being sentenced.

He has said, again always, that there were gas chambers at other camps, including nearby at Birknau. I think everyone except Alberto Gonzales knows that admissions under duress are meaningless. Any one of us will say whatever is necessary to comply with the duress. Non-partisans understand why Irving said whatever was necessary in Austria.

Does he think we're stupid and are we categorically allowed to call him a liar in his article? Yellowmellow45 18:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally?? Irving has been saying this since he took the stand in the Zundel trial.

Your disdain of Irving is misplaced. If a scientist or a historian makes controversial claims, then having shown evidence to the contrary, backs down from such claims, he is a person of integrity. We don't know when his views on Auschwitz reverted to his pre-1988 stance. First, his improsonment is due to a 1991 speech. Second, he denied in the 2000 trial that he was a Holocaust denier. You cannot say that his change in mind comes merely from his arrest.

However, Even if Irving changed his mind once he was arrested, it makes no sense to call him a liar. If a murderer is caught, and upon capture realizes his guilt, admits his sin, and apologizes for it, is he a liar or moral coward for apologizing?? Otheus 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He admitted he wasn't an expert on the holocaust and said he had no interest in the subject. He pretended, as a historian to be an expert on the holocaust and it was a big base for his theories. He is therefore a liar. His views aren't a sin, they're just factual inaccuracies. Changing the numbers of the people who died is a large part of holocaust denial and that's certainly what he did after 2000. Yellowmellow45 16:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to cite "factual inaccuracies" in the works of Irving. I do not think you can. You may dispute his interpretation of some of the facts he has uncovered, but he can precisely document the facts themselves. Calling him a liar is not productive. Dispute his interpretations, sure, but unless you can show where he is asserting false facts, I think you should avoid characterizing him as a liar. He is among the most accurate historians in the facts he asserts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColumbiaMaryland (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

You seem to be confused about a number of issues here. First, he did not pretend to be an expert on the holocaust. Second, he consistently claimed his theories were a result of his looking into the life of Hitler, not the other way around. If you claim it's the other way around, you are a mind-reader. Third, his views are views; facts are also generally just viewpoints shrouded in public consent. Otheus 01:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read revisionist literature you will find out that nobody denies there being gas chambers at Auschwitz. Nobody denies that a lot of jews died. Nobody denies that the germans targeted jews for persecution. What they do deny more or less all af them is that the germans gassed live people. So when Irving says there were gaschambers and millions died he probably means just that, and not the connection we make between gaschambers and gassing of jews. 12.34 are norway

Ho ho! That makes little or no sense at all. What are you intimating? That the Nazis gassed DEAD people? I must get my hands on some Revisionist 'literature' (was that a deliberate pun on 'litter'?). Beerathon 12:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Irving has often said that he is not a Holocaust expert. He has never claimed to be a Holocaust expert. He has written on other aspects of the war. Despite what many people have said, he has never denied that the deaths collectively called "The Holocuast" happened. He did however question the facts behind the deaths. That is surely the role of the historical researcher. He is not alone in doing what he did. It is now clear that many of the assumptions about the facts of 60 years ago are just that, assumptions. We rely on historians to investigate these matters without fear or favour. Censorship of unpopular views is the way to tyranny (aka nazism or communism) (johnc)

Irving agrees there were gas chambers - for lice. No one - except a few ( sorry a lot ) of hysterics believe there were gas chambers - for humans. Not even the "historians" of any repute ( nonhysterics ) who are proHolocaust are still pushing that line. They are off into other avenues - try to catch up.

If there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, where is the evidence? That is all Irving asks.

I think Irving is wrong. But I do not see, why would the Nazis gathered the jews into Auswitz to kill them. It is a lot of energie, and it would be much easier to shoot them, if they really wanted to simply kill them. In my opinion they wanted to "use" them as slaves, and because of the illnesses a lot of them have died. Of course this was an enormous crime. I really feel sorry for those who have suffered under the second world war and Nazi Regime. I do not think the people of Germany wanted this to happen, and they have also suffered a lot. Truth is that we still do not know enough, for example how many jews died in those camps. The 6 million is not better or worse approximation then 10 or 2, because nobody have counted it, because it can't be counted. Finally it is a tragedy, that someone could be setneced to prison, because of not believing in something, or stated something about a historical event. It is disgusting that these kind of laws exists in the EU nowdays. You are aguing about wether he is a liar or not, it has no sense, if someone has an explanation on facts and later he changes, it that's a judical crime? I think that is the normal way of searching or truth, somtimes sombody will tell false things but thats the way it is. Joseph from Hugary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.110.51.93 (talk • contribs)

Joseph, the Nazis shot over a million Jews in Russia -- it turned out that this process wasn't as "easy" as you believe, especially having to shoot old people, women and children.

As for numbers, we are unable to determine precisely, but we have a very good idea of the scale. The estimates come from various methods and authors, and agree to the magnitude of the loss.

I also think countries shouldn't have laws against denial -- but Austria was amalgamated into Nazi Germany, and they feel quite strongly about people downplaying the past. As for Mr. Irving, he had already been convicted on a charge of denial from years back, and could have avoided being jailed by just avoiding Austria. Cantankrus 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Nazis apparently wanted to hide the fact that they were engaging in mass slaughter. It's well-known they took a town holding Jews waiting to be shipped off to death camps and made it look nice and pretty for the few days the Red Cross was there. I see no reason to believe that the estimate of the number killed in the Holocaust is that inexact; most of that area had censuses and comprehensive records of births and deaths for the periods surrounding WWII.--Prosfilaes 13:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We know what the Nazis did. We know why they did it. We know how they did it. We even know that they brought in the gas chambers because shooting people was apparently rather 'distressing' for the people doing the shooting, eventually. The gas chambers were far more efficient and removed the human equation. They also removed the need for mass graves - see the historical record for Babi Yar, a ravine filled with bodies that was churning itself as the gas from the buried bodies was slowly released. The concept is a horrible one. It is an almost incomprehensible one. It is just as horrible for people like Irving to come along and say that the Holocaust was a lie, that it never happened. It did. We have hard evidence, we have eye-witnesses, we have historical documentation, we have decrypts. We have everything we need to damn the Nazis with inhuman cruelty and industrialised mass murder. Darkmind1970 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa backup - we don't know any of the above, we believe it by faith. Even though aerial photos and on the ground inspection show that Babi Yar is a bad yarn, we still believe. Our eyewitnesses may be bogus and our evidence full of holes but we still believe.

Freedom of Speech

He can say what ever he likes, its called free of speech.

Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Toby Douglass 10:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yelling fire in a theater creates a panic that is at least as dangerous as a fire. Challenging alleged facts on the holocaust does no such thing. If someone were calling for murdering Jewish neighbors, you might have a better analogy to the oft quoted yelling fire in a theater.

Actually, I'd contend it does. It's the consequences of yelling it that you must pay for. If you yell fire and cause, or could potentially have caused a threat to public safety, then you are held to account for that. But if I'm acting on a stage and "Fire!" just happens to be my line, then I'd love to see you jail me for it. There's a fundamental difference between words in art, literature, and media in general, and issues which concern the immediate safety of bystanders. Of course, I will acknowledge that this analogy came about in the '50's anyway, and its intent was not to protect theater patrons.--72.19.75.106 00:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does, so long as no trespass or violation of contract is involved. Freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to barge into someone's home or theater to say anything, right or wrong; access to a home or to a theater may require agreeing not to exercise freedom of speech, or freedom of speech in a perculiar manner. Normally, in a theater, there is a contract between owner and patron that precludes yapping on cell phones and shouting “Fire!” But different agreements could be struck. Now, collectivists like to pretend that we have a “social” contract to surrender our liberties, as if in a theater; but (funny thing!) the terms to which they claim we've somehow agreed are radically different than the terms that others would want. And they seem to thing that they started out owning everything (like the theater-owner owns the theater) but can't show how it was theirs. —SlamDiego 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. It's called freedom of speech.--Imitationleather 19:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not in Austria, he can't. Freedom of speech has to be limited at some point. Rsynnott 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest we begin by limiting YOUR free speech.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speeach and of the press within that country. It has no effect on Austria. According to the NY Times:

• The court convicted Irving after his guilty plea under the 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."[1]

-Will Beback 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

NB! Irving was convicted for his 1989 speech under 1992 law. And it all happened 2006. Magabund 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The NB is wrong, and so is the New York Times (at least in this instance). The law dates back to 194X. 1992 is the year the law was last revised. --Stephan Schulz 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I took the NYT at face value. Magabund 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In Austria and Germany they have laws that limit freedom of speach when it comes to anti-semitism and other racism.

But when did challenging historical orthodoxy become anti-Semitism? Is everything that a Jew disagrees with suddenly anti-Semitism????

"Freedom of speech has to be limited at some point." Sounds like the beginning of a totalitarian society. Freedom of speech must never, ever be limited. It is the duty of well educated minds to combat misinformation with intelligent speech and virtuous action, but never to silence a voice. If the masses are informed properly they will ignore the rhetoric of someone spouting nonsense. 3:30, 21 February 2006 zulu

The problem with unlimited free speech, however, is that it precludes the possibility of ever properly informing the masses. In any free society, there are always going to be more people listening to nonsense than listening to reason. It's just human nature. Microtonal 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just such arguments were made by those who also had those death camps built. Freedom comes with a cost, and it's not your prerogative nor that of anyone else to try to avoid the cost of human nature with inhuman measures. —SlamDiego 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unlimited Freedom?

Ah, but whose duty is it to 'inform the masses?' An intellectual elite who prides themselves on having the good of the people at heart? What does that sound like?- Leninism, Facism, Monarchy? Here we discover an interesting paradox, ladies and gentlemen. Absolute freedom of speech inevitably leads to dimunition of freedom. There is so much information that the people require 'filters' who will tell them what they 'need' to know. Ask yourselves then, why the Media is so powerful. Don't get me wrong- I believe in freedom, and I think Irving is a self-delusioned sham. But absolute freedom? Is it really possible, or even desirable?

I suggest that everyone in favor of limited free speech change his name to an Arabic name, become Muslim, and move next door to Alberto Gonzales. Then you will find out, perhaps in Guantanamo, what true abridgement of free speech is all about.

liberophile, 16-6-06

The Austrian law was put in place via plebiscite, and is consistently upheld by the majority of of the Austrian population. Xombie 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because 10,000 people do a foolish thing does not mean it is not a foolish thing!

so what? a lynch mob is a majority. the majority used to believe that the Earth was flat. the majority of people still believe in supernatural constructs like "God" and "angels" and other such nonsense. It is totalitarian to jail people for their words.Arthur Griffith 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC) - - - -

Are Germany and Austria the only countries in Europe with such limitations of speech?

I know that there has been some issue with the other Holocaust-denier, Ernst Zundel, over in Canada, which has refused his citizenship request (because he's a national "security threat") and wants to deport him to Germany.

It's not the same, but close to it.

Any ideas?

MYLO 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, at least France has similar laws. Nearly all countries limit freedom of speech in some way, including the US. The famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" quote, for example, comes not from an actual case where someone did this, but from Schenck v. United States, where Schenck criticised the draft during World War I (this was ruled unprotected speech...). There have been a number of similar cases in the US. --Stephan Schulz 20:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I noted this in the archived chat page: The US courts have consistently ruled that the 1st amendment does not cover "obscene speech" which are defined by "community standards". Though our courts have also generally ruled that when it comes to obscenity, the benefit of the doubt should be given the publisher, it should be obvious that certain racial slurs would be considered "obscenities" to the targeted minority (even if it's not a minority). Though the basis for Austrian law is different in this case, I suspect that the reasonings here can be linked.

If that were true, how could Dick Gregory title a boot "Nigger", and O.J. Simpson walk free because a policeman used the term??

Equally disturbing is the Muslim and authoritative responses to the recently published depictions of Mohammed. For instance, Clemson University's President Barker harshly criticized two private Clemson publications for their publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. If questioning the Holocaust is a punishable crime, then so should be the publishing of cartoons disallowed by Islamic law. Otherwise, the leaders of democracy have not in fact promoted democracy, but have simply promoted fascism and switched their villains from Jews to Muslims. Otheus 01:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you are rather missing the point - Islamic law DOES NOT APPLY IN DENMARK, so it should not matter one jot whether or not Islamic law forbids such drawings. It actually appears that the drawings were republished in the middle east so as to demonstrate how nasty the Danes actually were... and you MIGHT say that there is more validity behind claims based in Islamic law in those locations........ but hey. lmno 11:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I do not see what imprisoning a man for his words really does. It won't protect anybody. He is going to sit in prison for three years and most likely write a book about his "struggle". It's the echoes of Hitler when he was imprisoned. All Austria has proved is that it won't mind giving into a bit of Third Reich and Communist style tactics by making Irving a political prisoner. Free speech that came with a hidden fee. True, Irving is a jerk and we who learned anything know he is wrong and was wrong but let him speak and be heard. Just so we can hear how wrong and informed he is, right? I'm not against imprisonment because he's British, though.--MassProducedGod 04:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Arrested on old warrant

Anyone know what Irving was doing in Austria, when he had an outstanding arrest warrant? It seems most people would avoid traveling to that country. Had he been in Austria in the past, after 1989, but they just never arrested him? Was he there in November 2005 for a speech? Was he turning himself in to authorities? Can't find anything in the news articles about WHAT he was doing back in Austria! --Fxer 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He was told by the authorities in 1989 that his speech did not violate Austrian law. He was, however, charged in absentia. British Jews alerted Austria about Irving on several subsequent visits. Having visited Austria several times after 1989, Irving thought the arrest warrant was inactive. He was wrong!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColumbiaMaryland (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

• His website says, he had been invited by courageous students to address an ancient University association in the Austrian capital.[2] Why he thought the Austrian authorities wouldn't notice is beyond me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The lead is hard to understand as currently written. It says he was barred from entering Austria, but then says he's on trial in Austria. I'll add a sentence saying he illegally entered Austria, since that's what I gather from this discussion actually happened.--Bcrowell 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He got what he deserved because freedsom of speech is freedom of speech, not being a racist, prejidous historian (if anybody even calls him that anymore)! -Robert Alfredson, Feb. 21, 2006, 2:37PM

Irving was in Austria at the invitation of a far right student group to give a speech. The content of which we can only speculate about. I think this warrents inclusion in the article.

Neutrality?

This article is not neutral, it contains many generalizations and in some parts over simplifies holocaust deniers into monstorous lunatics who don't know what they are talking about. Don't get me wrong I don't believe Irving I just believe in neutrality.--154.20.62.186 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Which particular sentences or paragraphs would you fix, and how? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, please tell us where it needs improvement. I spent the better part of a day rewriting the article for neutrality and citable accuracy. Otheus 02:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is pretty neutral now. One thing, there is mention of "racist banter" when refering to one of his books. Is this really a good term for an encyclopedia? --Esmason 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm am satisfied with the neutrality of this piece as of now, now being Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 23:33:18 GMT. Good work everyone. Sayhar

The article is not neutral. Stating that: "Irving's credentials as a historian have been discredited" should be changed -> 'DISCREDITED' to 'DISPUTED'.

It is only certain vocal minority who wants to see Irving discredited.

Many of Irvings books are excellent, his research is very good.

I am also disapointed that the view of certain minority is protected by Wikipedia locks without giving any oportunity to redress this unjust and biased desctiption.

• The article was locked due to vandalism. Register an account, wait a few days, and you can edit it like anyone other registered user. As far as your other complaints, no, his credentials have been discredited, and it's hardly a "certain vocal minority" that did this; he quite effectively discredited himself as a historian by falsifying information, as the article makes clear. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose it ever occurs to those who consider David Irving's books excellent, and his research very good, that in all objective fact it is they who are the "vocal minority". Ironic, in that Irving is one of the few people of whom we can state categorically on Wikipedia that he is in fact a racist, an antisemite and a rehabilitator of the history of Hitler and the Nazis whose scholarship is second to that political agenda, without fear of legal challenge; that having been determined by legal precedent, thanks to Irving's own request to prove the question in court. Of course, the ability to, without embarrassment, publicly accuse the Jews of locking the article to prevent other editors from defending poor Irving is not something that would encourage one to expect signs of logical coherence elsewhere in the post.Gzuckier 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Jewish partisan! The article uses numerous loaded phrases and adjectives. It is neutral just as Fox News is fair and balanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColumbiaMaryland (talk • contribs) 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

barred from entering Austria???

If he was barred from entering that country in the late 1980's, how, pray tell, did he manage to get back in? According to a poster on the "discussion" page, he was invited by students. If that's true, did Austrian customs officials allow him in knowing who he was or did he enter illegally or what?

• Good question. Where was he coming from? Could be he didn't have to face any border controls at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Austria is a signatory to the Schengen Agreement, which removed border controls within most of mainland Europe. Presumably he arrived in another Schengen country first and entered Austria through Italy. Ironfrost 05:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • But since he's a British national (and thus not covered by the Schengen Agreement), he'd have had to break the law just to do that, no? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • No. There are no internal border controls within the Schengen area, whether for citizens of those countries or for anyone else. Even people that need a visa to visit Schengen countries only need to apply to one country, which gives them freedom of movement through the whole area. Ironfrost 07:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • With the establishment of the EU there are no longer border guards at many of the dividing lines between different countries. Its more similar to a big sign that says "Welcome" with a building nearby that could be used as a check point if they needed to do a crackdown.
• Either he flew, in which case he may have been instantly detained (or not). I say or not because a red EU passport is hardly given a glance by most EU customs officers. But perhaps they got a tip off and were waiting for his plane to land. Or he drove in from France, Germany, Italy and was detained as soon as authorities got wind of where he was staying. Anyway, visiting a country where he was barred or under threat of arrest smacks of extraordinary stupidity, contempt for the law, egomania or a combination of all three. --MagicMoose 16:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe he flew to Switzerland from the UK, hired a car there and drove to Austria. There wouldn't be border controls as Switzerland entered Schengen in 2005 (and even before that I remember them being extremely cursory). The police were apparently waiting for him and followed his Swiss-registered rental car. I read that in a newspaper at the time but can't find a reference now!--Dub8lad1 02:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

his own brother

i just found this on google news: [3]. His own twin brother thinks he's lying.--Alhutch 01:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it incredible that David Irving would have 'an identical brother' that was never mentioned before in my readings. In fact, John Irving is not a twin by any means... He is 8 to 9 years older! [4]

wow, you're right! i'm surprised that the times would get a fact like that wrong. thanks for the clarification.--Alhutch 02:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It turns out he DOES have a twin brother, according to numerous sources via Google, but that his brother is not an IDENTICAL twin, and his name is Nicholas. John Irving is a much older brother. He also has/had one sister. Otheus 01:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an article from the Daily Telegraph newspaper where Nicholas gives an interview about his non-identical twin brother. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/26/nirving26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/26/ixhome.html In it he describes his brother as someone who found it funny to upset people, such as using swastika emblazoned cutlery when he invited his (Jewish) publisher round for dinner. --80.47.203.53 00:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"arrest and trial" portion

The article refers to the night of the 21st of February 2006, when local time in Europe right now is between 2:00 AM and 5:00 AM local on February 21, 2006.

--MZMcBride 02:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Free Press ??

The Prophet Mohammad cartoon controversy was protrayed as a fight for free speech and freedom of press by many people. Now where is the "free speech and freedom of press" when it comes to other controversal issue as "denial of holocaust". One religious belief of prohibition against images is ridiculed while the heresy of "denial of holocaust" results in prison sentence. These events really displays the different perceptions of sacred and profane in different cultures and people.

Siddiqui 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's sort of a special case. the holocaust is a big deal in Germany and Austria. they have laws about holocaust denial, and Irving ran afoul of those laws. I admit, I was kind of shocked to hear that someone could be jailed just for something they said, but in this case, and for those countries, I think it makes sense.--Alhutch 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense only for those who do not believe in freedom of speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColumbiaMaryland (talk • contribs) 19:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

For instance; David Irving, who tried to sue Lipstadt et al for speaking their opinion about his "scholarship". Your cherrypicking of violations of free speech to defend is kind of funny. Gzuckier 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• And be careful not to generalize about different cultues. Western cultures have not imprisoned Irving; the government of one country has. A handful of other countries criminalize Holocaust denial. Most don't. Most Western countries allow Holocaust denial in exactly the same way they allow political and religious satire with no restrictions whatsoever. The equivalence doesn't work. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, but still you have to take note of some of the countries that do criminalize dissent. Germany is barring people for other opinions, and Austria is even jailing them. One wonders if they have learned anything at all about what it was all about... Albester 09:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go out and try saying "Hitler was a nice guy, he is my idol" and spice it with a siege heil salutation, and then try chanting "free press" to the judge.... --Striver 12:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If I do it wearing a clown suit (or making it clear in some other way that it was political satire), I might be scorned, but I'd also be legally protected, at least in the US. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To portray Muhammad is also a big deal in many countries, and almost every western country agrees that there is a right to publish them, based on freedom of press. The same should apply to holocaust denial.

It does.Almost every western country agrees that there's a right to publish holocaust denial. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Jpgordon, but if I am not mistaken he was charged for holocaust denial while he was outside Germany or Austria, and many more people have been charged with the same argument while writing in their homeland, outside Germany or other country that sanctions holocaust denial. So we are talking about countries that supress Freedom of press to people around the world, and at the same time encourage the publishing of content offensive to other people (much more people in fact) by shielding on "Freedom of press". It is called hypocrisy. --Todesengel 16:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To be precise, Irving was charged for acts of Holocaust denial in Austria. The warrant was issued while he was outside. He was even declared a persona non grata. He illegally entered Austria and was arrested based on the existing warrant. He was not charged with anything he did while not under Austrian jurisdiction. I'm not a particular friend of the laws against Holocaust denial. But they are resonable and understandable. In the context of German (and Austrian) history, Holocaust denial is always what is termed "hate speech", and such speech is not even protected in the US.--Stephan Schulz 01:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, thanks for clearing that up. --Todesengel

I once walked down a street at night in london where drunk people were shouting and doing the Nazi salute, and lo and behold, nothing happened. XYaAsehShalomX 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship… The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth." -Deborah Lipstadt

Have you considered the fact that the Holocaust was a real event involving genocide? Mohammad is long gone and there is no imperical evidence that islam or any other stories are real. If 1.4 billion people belaived in the Flying Sphagetti Monster, that won't make it real. You are comparing the denial of the deaths of millions of people with making fun of a possible historical figure that could have been involved in pedophilia and embraced slavery. MvD 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So it's morally reprehensible to deny the factual basis of the Holocaust, but it's perfectly OK to deny the factual basis of the founding of Islam? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? Microtonal 19:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens quote?

As Christopher Hitchens, the British journalist, quipped, "David Irving is not just a Fascist historian. He is also a great historian of Fascism."

Having just read this, it doesn't seem to make sense. Is this the correct quote? If Hitchens was trying to make the point that Irving was himself a fascist, surely the remark would be phrased the other way around, something like "Irving is not just a historian of fascism, but a fascist historian". As quoted, it appears to mean that Irving is primarily a fascist, secondarily a historian, which is surely backwards in the context in which it was made. As the reference is not cited (and I have been unable to find it) can this be checked/verified? Graham 06:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I found a source: [5]. It seems Hitchens is quoted correctly, but the context in which the quote is used in this article is incorrect. Hitchens is actually defending Irving in the sense that the refusal of the publishers to touch his work is due to his reputation as a fascist, rather than his ability or otherwise as a historian, which Hitchens argues is actually reasonable; he is a historian of fascism, which the publishers are overlooking due to his fascism! The quote is thus misplaced in the context of the article, which is why it looks ass-backwards when read. It's also out of context in the timeline of events, since Hitchens was writing in 1996, whereas the article uses the quotation in the context of his declining reputation during the early 1980s. The quotation remains relevant and the article should probably include it, but it ought to be moved from its present position. Graham 06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, I have commented out the quotation in the text. The problem is that there's nowhere that it could readily be moved to at present - there doesn't seem to be any defence of Irving as a historian post the 1980s, and leaving the quote where it was is out of context and confusing. If this is problematic, please discuss. Graham 06:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, simply stating that the comment was made in 1996 (as a new edit does) doesn't address the issue. The problem is that the quote makes no sense in the context in which it is presented, regardless of when it was made. The fact it was made much later than the time described exacerbates this, but putting the date isn't a fix. I will revert the edit... if people want to debate this then please do, I feel the quote is valuable, just misplaced. Graham 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least Hitchtens thinks Irving is a historian.

So it turns out that Hitchen's quote was one of praise that wikipedia twisted into one of criticism. Maybe a little historical revison is needed here.

revert

i just reverted 83.217.190.69's removal of the hidden comments. I'm pretty sure those were meant to be there, and they were using the hidden format thingie so they are only visible when viewing the source of the page, so I don't see any reason why they should have been removed.--Alhutch 08:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

his father

Any explanation as to why his father cut off contact with his wife and children? Toby Douglass 11:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Transcript

Can anyone find a copy of the court case transcript for the Feb 2006 trial ? Holocaust denier: 3-year jail term I can't locate it using www.google.com It would be good to add it to Wikisource and reference it to the article. SirIsaacBrock 11:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

From some other reading, I am lead to believe that German ( Austrian > too ) don't have transcripts of court proceedings.159.105.80.63 17:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You have heard wrong. However, there are fairly strict privacy laws in both countries, and, moreover, court transcripts are not in the public domain here. Thus, it is unlikely that they can be found online. I don't know if they are available to the general public at all, or just to involved parties. If they are, you probably need to find out where they are archived and request a copy in person. --Stephan Schulz 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead section: just facts, please

Try this on for size for a small version of the lead section:

David John Cawdell Irving (born March 24 1938) is a prolific and controversial English World War II historian and author. His stance on the Holocaust has caused many to examine his credibility as a historian. [6] [7]. On the 20th of February 2006, Irving was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in Austria as a Holocaust denier.

This balacne of this paragraph suggests that he has no credibility but WITHOUT coming out and just putting it that way. This short version avoids "the appearance" of pre-judging him. If you take the teen-aged comic-book approach of just saying that he is a "bad guy", then the intelligent reader will stop reading the article after this first section.

Things to avoid in a concise, "just the facts" lead section:

• Specific books
• Specific other court cases
• Fuzzy concepts of the "rest of the world" such as "mainstream", etc. The world is full of many different people.
• The lead section should make safe, conservative statements that are defensible.
• Just describe the man, do not get into other people's opinions of him.

Again, a short lead section does not whitewash the guy; a short lead section gives our best prediction of what this joker will ever be remember for. Three sentences probably covers it.

Just for comparision: Look at how little coverage this guy's views get at NNDB: http://www.nndb.com/people/650/000061467/

-- 71.141.243.30 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's pretty damned good. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I like it too.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That is better than the current wording. Holocaust should be Nazi (or Jewish) Holocaust if it is going to be capitalized. The holocausts in Cambodia and the Americas (and other places) were more catastrophic, and they should not be demeaned by assigning the word exclusively to Nazi atrocities.

Ps and Qs

In the section "Early Life" it says his father's ship was sunk "while escorting Convoy QP-11" In the section "Historian" it cites a book called "The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17" I suspect the first reference is in error and it should say "PQ-11" but I'm not expert on WWII British convoy designations. --Davecampbell 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

PQ = From Britain around Norway to the Soviet Union, QP = the return trip. So QP-11 would be the eleventh convoy 'coming home' from the Soviet Union Lovingboth 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Criminal view

This article needs to explain more about why having an irritating opinion is considered illegal in Austria. Theres too much of a disconnection between the punishment (jail) and the apparent crime ("denial"). The Holocaust denial article mentions the concept briefly, but nowhere does it explain in a clear and researched way when and why Austria, France, et al enacted this into law. Without it, theres no substance to the section for which this article has been placed on the MP. -Ste|vertigo 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: We apparently need an article on the crime "Defaming the Memory of the Dead" - Ste|vertigo 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, this isn't the article to explain German and Austrian laws regarding the promotion of Naziism. Holocaust denial might be an appropriate place, as would Neo-Naziism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Any ambiguous legal statute should be summarised in the article, and stubbed or linked to directly a more elaborated treatment. I would but Im short on time tonight. -Ste|vertigo 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

um...

this may sound really stupid, but if he's British, then how did he get arrested in Austria? The warrant might have been there, but did Austria have some sort of jurisdiction over him? The pointer outer 03:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He was in Austria (illegaly) at the time.--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my english first, i am an austrian. But I try to explain the austrian legal matter. He his punished on the base of a law from 1945 - the so called "Verbotsgesetz" (ban law) or "Wiederbetätigungsgesetzt" (that's not easy something like "reacting law"). During early 1945 parts of austrian was still under Nazi controll and the new provisional gouverment fight with the law the still operating NSDAP:

Es ist jedermann untersagt, sich, sei es auch außerhalb der für die NSDAP oder ihre Ziele irgendwie zu betätigen.Wer weiterhin dieser Partei angehört oder sich für sie oder ihre Ziele betätigt, macht sich eines Verbrechens schuldig und wird hierfür mit dem Tode und dem Verfall des gesamten Vermögens bestraft. In besonders berücksichtigungswürdigen Fällen kann statt auf Todesstrafe auf schweren Kerker in der Dauer von zehn bis zwanzig Jahren erkannt werden.

It is vorbidden for everybody, to act - even outside - for the goals of the NSDAP on any way. Everybody, who is member of this party or acting for their goal, is guilty of a crime and will be punished by death and loosing all property. Under special considerations it is possible to impose 10 to 20 year prision.

There were several revisions to this law (luckely for Irvin chancelling of death penalty), the last one in 1992. Irving was convicted by §3h of the actual version of the ban law:

§ 3 h. Nach § 3g wird auch bestraft, wer in einem Druckwerk, im Rundfunk oder in einem anderen Medium oder wer sonst öffentlich auf eine Weise, daß es vielen Menschen zugänglich wird, den nationalsozialistischen Völkermord oder andere nationalsozialistische Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit leugnet, gröblich verharmlost, gutheißt oder zu rechtfertigen sucht.

$3h Basing on § 3g will be punsihed, who in print, radio or other media or on other public base, which is available for many persons, denies, grossly plays down, endorses or justifies the nationalsocialistic genocide or other nationalistic crimes against humanity.

There are similar laws in germany and in both countries these laws are on the same level as appeals for a crime. So there is no country, where the appeal for a mudering is covered by free speech. Additional the deny of the genocide and nationalsocialistic crimes are sawn as a defamation of dead persons and crime victims.It is also a concept of a wehrhafte (well-fortified) demoracy as due to the history german and austria see neonazism as major hazard for their democracy. Irving was imprisoined on his way for a speach by the right-wing students' fraternity Olympia on the base of a arrest warrant of 1989. He was already imprisioned in austria in 1984 and deported from austria and banned for austria. He illegal traveled to austira from italy and was catched on the highway. It is not known if the police get the information about his travel by an informant or observation of the fraternity. --62.178.221.119 21:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it had jurisdiction. If you commit a crime in a country, you are guilty of that crime whether or not you are a citizen of that country. A condition of entry to anywhere is that you agree to abide by the local laws. Graham 11:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe he regularly traveled - worldwide, particularly in Europe. After his trial with Lipstadt he unwisely thought that he could return to his old habits. He appears to have popped to the top of a watch list - probably some Palestinian plot.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

Bizarre...--Stephan Schulz 16:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Where he was when his "crime" was committed. I believe some European countries and Israel charge people for this "crime" even if it is committed in another country ( ie Zundel's wife has been charged I believe under German law even though she is an American - for having an anti-holocaust website. She has refused to travel to Germany even when the German government offered her immunity ( they charged her soon after she declined their generous offer - she and her husband appeared to smell a doublecross.)

Travelers of conscience should boycott travel to Austria and other countries that limit free speech. If they don't like our words, don't give them our money.

A counter-productive law?

Isn't the Austrian law counter-productive? Sentencing him to jail will only stir up more racism and extremists. A proper academic debate is the only effective way to hush him up I reckon. CW 05:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Could be. Or not. Doesn't matter; it's not for Wikipedia to speculate. We do need an article on holocaust denial laws, certainly, where we could present such issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Irving would consent to participate in a proper academic debate, anyway. Microtonal 06:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it pretty ironic: Naziism against Naziism, sort of.

you have to see, that these laws in austria and germany are not created to finish an academic debate between historians, but to fight nazis and neonazis, who are accounted as major danger for democracy in these countries due to their history.

-->I doubt Irving would consent to participate in a proper academic debate, anyway.<

Probably not , cause he is not an academic

Be careful in your brave pronoucnments that Irving wouldn't debate. I believe his trip to Austria was sort of a debate - a talk actually. If engaged in his specialty I doubt any of your heroes would have a chance. In most other areas - related but not his specialty - he probably knows a lot more than he lets on. ( ie He surely knows from all his research into original archives that the holocaust is minimally documented, etc ). Don't challenge him to prove a point you don't want made.

Prison time for denying the Holocaust?

Before I get started ... I came close to converting to Judaism (took conversion classes), and have volunteered for Holocaust memorials. Now, that aside, how is it that someone can be sentenced to prison for denying the Holocaust? If lying about history is a crime, then a lot of textbook writers in the US need to go to prison, as well as many politicians. -- Andrew Parodi 09:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nick rowan responds:

Your name is in itself something of a parody. I hope you were not circumcised, because it will be difficult to undo. However if you move to Israel, you at least gets circum'ed in another way - but this time circumvened.

Um. What? (And since you're interested in my name, it's very common in the Genoa region of Italy. There is a town in the region of Liguria with my name in the title: Parodi Ligure.) And as to the status of my penis, I was born here in the US, so take a wild guess as to its status. -- Andrew Parodi 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Different countries have different laws. Heck, in many countries you can even be imprisoned just for criticizing the government. -Will Beback 10:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I keep telling myself that I read it wrong, that this man wasn't sentenced for denying the Holocaust. I find imprisonment for denying the Holocaust to be almost as frightening as the Holocaust itself. I can't believe this would happen in an industralized "First World" country like Austria. I'm stunned. -- Andrew Parodi 12:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah c'mon. You can't say it's almost as frightening as the holocaust itself, that's ridiculous. This man knew there was a warrant out for his arrest, he knew he was banned, and he knew he was breaking the law. Once arrested he was tried in an open court and found guilty. He'll serve some of his time in a comfortable jail with three meals a day and then be released and deported, etc. On the other hand, in the holocaust, millions of people were rounded up and imprisoned without any charge whatsoever, shipped off to camps to die from starvation or gas poisoning, after being made to work as slaves with no food for as long as they held out. After death they were interred in mass graves. There is a huge difference here, and drawing any comparison at all is a gross insult to those who were affected by the holocaust. Get a sense of perspective. Irving is a nasty piece of work, good riddance to him I say. Though personally I feel that this will give him more publicity than he deserves, so it may backfire on the Austrians. Graham 13:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So I am german living in austria (so sorry for my english). Due to our history we have the same laws in germany and austria. Nazism and neonazism are seen as majopr hazzards for our democracy. Appeals for a crime, like calling for a murdering is not covered by free speach in democratic countries. Also defamation of dead or living persons (espescially crime victims) is not covered by free speach in many countries. The majority in german and austria put the deny, justification, relativation and so on of nationalsocialistic crimes against humanity on the same level. And especially to the case of Irving: He was already arrested, deproted and banned in austria in 1984. He visited several times illegal austria and get an arrest warranty in 1989. The austrian gouverment let him run several times, but when he illegal travelled to austria again last time to hold a speach at a right-wing students' fraternity, they had enough. He knew, that there is a arrest warranty, he knew that he is not allowed to enter austria - but he did.--62.178.221.119 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was a totalitarian, and in my mind it is totalitarian to put someone in prison for stating an opinion that the government doesn't like. -- Andrew Parodi 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So the major oppinion in germany and austria is: Faschischmuss ist keine Meinung, sondern ein Verbrechen --- fascism is not an oppinion but a crime.--62.178.221.119 22:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky on this case:

Subj: Re: David Irving and Holocaust denial Date: 2/22/06 11:25:47 AM Central Standard Time From: chomsky@mit.edu (Noam Chomsky) To: AndrewParodi@aol.com (by way of Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>)

Germany and Austria have very limited protection for freedom of expression. France is much the same, except that penalties tend to be less extreme. England also has quite limited protection. In fact, the concept "freedom of speech" is barely understood, let alone respected, in Western Europe, despite much pretentious posturing. And before Americans get on a high horse about it, they should bear in mind that a high level of legal protection was only reached in 1964, in a Supreme Court decision in a case involving Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.

There are many illusions about these topics.

Noam Chomsky

At 10:12 AM 2/22/2006, you wrote:

Dear Mr. Chomsky,

I was wondering if you have any information about David Irving and the penalties for Holocaust denial in Austria. It's hard to imagine that someone has been sentenced to prison for denying the Holocaust.

Sincerely,

Andrew Parodi

Not a discussion board

I'm a bit disturbed that some sections of this talk page have been removed with the explanation that "wikipedia is not a discussion board". While I accept that it is not, very often it is worthwhile discussing topics tangential to or raised by the article,which can often lead to a better understanding of the subject and that does often get worked back into the article. Articles on less emotive topics frequently benefit from this and I almost always such discussions are tolerated. It is bad form to delete (rather than archive) text from a talk page, and I find it rather ironic that the topics deleted are those pertaining to free speech. If you don't like the direction a discussion is taking, it is usually enough to say so, and it may stop people going too far off on a tangent. On the other hand, if something is interesting, why not pursue it? It's not your bandwidth. The recently deleted texts should be reinstated. Graham 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and will do so --Striver 12:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - though I think you reinstated the wrong bit. I've pasted one section back in below titled "Seriously?". I think there's another though, I'm still trying to identify what it was. See, reconstructing these things is a pain - please do not delete stuff without very good reason. I'm talking to you Sean Black. Graham 12:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Often the only way I can get the full story on controversial subjects is to read the discussion page. The cleanroom main page tends to make heavy use of sources from the main stream media and other sources that traditionally were once considered to be trustworthy but are no longer. As many ought to be well aware, the MSM is an information source that has been discredited in the eyes of many and is increasingly being seen as untrustworthy and irrelevant. There is also a growing distrust in government, therefore citations using offical sources may be seen as untrustworthy. I find that the talk pages tend to help expose what is most likey to be valid and what is most likely not to be valid, therefore censoring the talk page would only serve to lessen the value of wikipedia considerably. That's my two cents worth anyway.

Odd sentence

What's the relevence of this sentence in the Student Years section:

"The 1 May 1959 edition of the Daily Mail, quoted Irving as saying, "You can call me a mild fascist if you like". Though Irving admits having had at the time membership in a Conservative student group, he has denounced that article as libelous and "handiwork of an imaginative Daily Mail journalist." "

Where do the Conservatives come into it? Is this vandalism or am I missing something?

The clause needs to be fully explained, until then I'm removing it. It is potentially quite misleading.

NPOV

"In November 1994, Irving spoke at an event sponsored by the American neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby, with the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in attendance."

Why is David Duke's attendance relevant? IS it "Guilt by association" - it certainly looks like it. This sentence should be re-worded or removed, depending on what sources are available.

"In November 1994, Irving spoke at an event sponsored by the American neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby, and said 'Hitler was a lovely bloke what never did no arm to no-one." Irving was introduced and carried on to the podium by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke."

In other words we really need a role for David Duke, other just being there, and we need to tie the event (which we should name if possible) to the section "Accusations of Holocaust denial" (which I think if we are careful with our sources could be replaced with "Holocaust denial"). Rich Farmbrough. 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, we should also stand up the Neo-nazi bit, it looks right from Liberty Lobby but it should be sourced in that article. Rich Farmbrough. 11:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That depends if you think attending numerous talks hosted by extreme right wing groups and sharing the stage with white supremacists, neo-nazis etc. is a pattern of behaviour which sheds light on his views. --MagicMoose 16:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• His views speak for themselves. It's a sign of laziness to judge him by the company he keeps. lmno 21:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"he was carryed onto the podium" - this must be a misprint, I believe Irving is a very large man, I doubt Duke could get him off the floor. Guilt by association - aka ad hominem attack - is the standard fare for Irving to face. Judging by where he goes and what he says, I doubt he gives you much intellectual credit.

Seriously?

Did they seriously imprison him just for having beliefs? Thats as bad as the Nazis imprisoning people for THEIR beliefs. UNSIGNED - please sign your posts. -SV

they imprisoned him for denying a historical truth which is taken very seriously in their country. resist easy answers.--Alhutch 06:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't just one of free speech. It's stirring up hatred and action due to that speech. Austria, Germany, et. al. cannot countenance a return to the Nazi era of the 1920s and 30s, they will do everything in their power to prevent a repeat of that, and quite rightly. In other words this is about learning from history and preventing it from repeating itself. That is the law of those countries, based on the will of most of its people. While one could argue that Irving is a buffoon and his ramblings should just be ignored, unfortunately there are a significant minority of potentially dangerous people who believe his viewpoint. It is a cancer within society that can't be allowed to fester. Locking him up is one way to treat the tumour, or at least stop it being fed so well. By the way, it's not as bad as the Nazis. He got three years in a comfortable jail, and will probably be released and deported before then. The Nazis exterminated people en masse without trial. Very big difference. Graham 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If the issue is not one of free speech but of stirring up hatred, then why aren't Bush and Blair in prison right now? They stirred up hatred that has resulted in the deaths of about 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians; and they did so with complete and utter lies (WMD, etc.). Though this man (David Irving) is at the polar opposite side of the spectrum as me, I find it frightening that he is sentenced to prison time solely for stating his opinion, ridiculous as it may be. -- Andrew Parodi 09:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point, its still a majority trying to destroy a minority by holding their hands over their ears closing their eyes and screaming LALALALALA ITS NOT HAPPENING LALALALALA. If they really locked him up because he said that the Holocaust didnt happen then show him and people he tells this evidence that it did happen. Locking up people like that is a form of FASCISM! I guess if the majority want this fascism in place, then it should be so. And IF this so called dangerous minority grows into the majority, then they will impliment it in their own nation.

I'm not missing the point. It's the lesser of two evils. If they become the majority then the law will be changed, and then it will be the democratic will of the people. They'd probably come to regret it (again) but that's beside the point. The point is that right now that's the law. It's based on the lesser of two evils, that the freedom of speech is less sacrosanct than avoiding a return to totalitarianism. Yes I suppose in itself it's a form of fascism, but what can you do? Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. My personal view is that they should probably have just deported him but given the open borders of the EU, he'd just keep turning up like a bad penny. So I understand the judgement even if I don't entirely agree with it. Graham 06:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, not all minorities are worth the trouble. It's political correctness gone mad if we allow all minorities, however odious, to flourish in the name of equality and fairness. Child molesters have a viewpoint and are human beings too - should we allow them to do as they please? No, because their beliefs harm others. Same with right-wing neo-nazis. Graham 06:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

agree.--Alhutch 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be a bit careful throwing around the term "fascism", though. The unsigned editor should study Fascism to learn why using it here is historically sloppy. One can have authoritarianism without fascism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a belief can hurt anyone. Actions can hurt, but words and beliefs at best insult. Sure, beliefs can lead to actions that hurt, but the belief itself still didn't hurt anyone. And they can't even show that Irvings beliefs or writings directly caused someone to hurt someone else (and even if they could, I still wouldn't understand why it would be Irvings fault if he directly didn't tell to hurt someone). I am suprised by the fact that while we protect the Muhammad cartoons as free speech, we are prepared to imprison people for mentioning anything about the Holocaust but the official line. If we want to protect the world against fascism and similar devastating ideologies, then we need to be open. Fostering this culture of persecution against 'wrong' ideas only gives a platform for future expansion of the persecution. --PredatorOC

"devastating ideologies". If a belief can't hurt anyone, how can an ideology be devastating? Graham 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That is rather nitpicky. I was referring to the earlier use of the word 'fascism'. Technically an ideology is nothing but ideas, but when implemented in a country, it can be devastating. But the ideas themselves are not to blame, rather the choice to manifest them is. Action and belief are two completely separate things. The desire to kill someone is absolutely different from trying to or actually killing someone. There has to be a separation in what we punish for. Actions or beliefs? If we don't, we start putting people into prison for things that at most insulted others. That is a terribly slippery slope. --PredatorOC

Libel is a crime because it hurts people. Slander is a crime because it hurts people. Telling lies about history to neo-Nazi thugs leads them to "expressing their opinions" the way they usually do. People, usually Jews, Arabs, Roma (Gypsies), gays and lesbians, get hurt when neo-Nazis "express their opinions". People die when neo-Nazis "express their opinions". Freedom of speech is not unlimited in a democracy -- it comes with responsibilities, including the repsponsiblity not to incite hatred, and not tell lies that put people into jeopardy. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre has never been accepted as a legitimate expression of free speech. Telling a bunch of neo-Nazi thugs that the Holocaust didn't happen and that Jews are trying to control the world is as dangerous. Ground Zero | t 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should you or I be be held responsible for the emotional reactions of other people? The emotional world of a human is a minefield and we simply can't function if we have to take into account each persons feelings or face legal penalties. Saying 'Bush has on purpose killed thousands of people by his politics' will probably incite hatred in a lot of people and its validity is debatable, so should it be illegal to say so? And yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is not really a valid comparison to saying 'the holocaust didn't happen', if you can't prove the direct casualties of the holocaust statement (historical casualties don't count). And besides, you CAN yell 'fire' in a crowded theater if there actually is a fire. Though it might not be the best way to handle the situation. --PredatorOC

Why should you or I be be held responsible for the emotional reactions of other people? Ever hear of inciting to riot? Generally poorly viewed. But all the inciter is doing is speaking; is it the speaker's fault that people do what he suggested? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd still hold the actual perpetrator as the main focus, though the people in charge are to blame as well. I mean, the 'I was only following orders' excuse wasn't very good when the nazi extermination camp guards used it and it still isn't a good excuse; they were as guilty as Hitler. Besides you have to keep in mind that its all about points of view. The Boston Tea Party was a riot to the English and something else to the colonists, but no one in the newly founded US demand Samuel Adams to be tried for inciting a riot. Just because we are made to believe that anything but goverment approved demonstrations are massive murder and rape sprees, doesn't mean it is so. But that is beside the argument. Irving did not incite a riot. He did not tell anyone to do anything. He simply stated his view of history that was based on the evidence (or lack there of) he believed to prove his views valid. The fact that he later recinded his view didn't seem to matter. How is this justice? --PredatorOC

You say it's not beliefs but actions that do harm. I might believe that the moon is made of cheese, and that belief might be eccentric and fly in the face of the evidence, but it does not harm. However, if I believe that the world would be a better place without jewish people, homosexuals, the disabled and black-skinned people, then that's less clear cut. Such a belief might not do much more than sit around in my brain poisoning my mind, but it's very unlikely to be completely disconnected from my actions. It might make me decide to not help a black person in trouble for example, so it's doing harm by negligence. I might believe that the world is filled with infidels who are hell-bent on destroying Islam, and that belief might lead me to hijack an aircraft and fly it into the World Trade center, or strap a bomb to my chest and detonate it in a crowd of people. The people who do these acts are acting on behalf of their beliefs - they haven't weighed up the pros and cons dispassionately and come to that conclusion by any recognisably logical route. We know there is a strong connection between beliefs and actions in the flawed human mind, and that is why laws are sometimes needed that control the dissemination of beliefs. That's why conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a crime, even if the crime that was conspired was never carried out. Basically, we humans have trouble controlling ourselves, and sometimes the laws we enact to attempt this are paradoxical, or contradict other laws or principles we hold dear, like free speech. Unfortunately, a perfect system of law that allows all freedoms while preventing all crimes is impossible. We muddle along as best we can I guess. Graham 13:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Some beliefs are inherently dangerous, and should be banned/supressed/punished whenever possible. Those that call for the destruction of entire groups of people are right at the top of the list. Microtonal 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia etiquette regarding talk pages, but I figured I'd take a chance and respond. Delete and/or ban me, if you must.

Yes, actions are connected to thoughts and beliefs, but it does not mean that we without execption act on our thoughts. The responsibility of an indivitual should not be to think right, but to act right. Anger and hate are no excuses for violence, but you should not punish for the hate, but for the actions one takes.

I do not understand why it should be a legal requirement to help someone. And how do we categorize this help? Are rich people to blame if they do noy evenly divide their wealth for the benefit of poorer people? Are you to blame if you don't stop a murder, even if you are unarmed and the murderer has a weapon? To what extent must one jeapordize oneself to help another?

And the problem with 'inherently dangerous beliefs' is how do we identify them? I know several racists who are non-violent. I know several muslims who are non-violent. The ones that act on their beliefs with violence are usually fringe groups. Some feminists advocate the killing of men, should feminism be considered an inherently dangerous thought? Communism/socialism/capitalism/fascism/maoism/feudalism/etc are all responcible for some degree of death and suffering, should we consider them inherently dangerous beliefs as well? And most importantly, should be punish people with these beliefs simply because of their beliefs?

I don't think there is any way around the fact that Irvings beliefs did no result in the death or suffering of anyone. Even if some neo-nazi went on a killing spree over what Irving said, it still wouldn't matter since Irving didn't directly, or even indirectly, tell anyone to hurt another. If we begin to do this, then why is The Catcher in the Rye still being sold and why is J. D. Salinger not imprisoned? After all, Mark David Chapman probably took inspiration from the book. --PredatorOC

Irving was imprisoned for his actions, not his beliefs. He didn't keep his beliefs to himself, he acted upon them to stir up neo-nazi groups at illegal meetings. If others then acted on those speeches, then Irving would be partially responsible for the subsequent actions. That's why incitement to commit crime is a crime, and we know from experience that very often atrocities are committed after being inspired by some leader figure. It' s possible for example that Hitler himself never killed a single person directly himself, but by your reasoning he would be totally innocent, only those actually pulling triggers or opening gas valves would be guilty. Its obvious to anyone with political nouse that it's usually the leaders of movements who are the troublemakers, and not just the willing executioners acting "under orders". Most of history will throw up countless examples of this. It's human nature, and that's what we are dealing with. People are emotional beings, not always rational or logical, and laws enacted reflect this reality. It's messy, but until we evolve into Vulcans or something, we have no choice. Graham 12:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your free to think, just don't voice your opinions? I find it odd that, for example, when talking about Catcher in the Rye and Chapman, people usually categorize Chapman as an irrational and unbalanced indivitual who took the meaning of something and twisted it to suit his own needs (and this is probably pretty accurate) and thus we do not blame the author (atleast most don't). Yet, when we talk about other indivituals, such as neo-nazis, of whom some commit violence against others, our category of them blurs. We see them as irrational and unbalanced, but somehow we do not see them as twisting the meaning of something to suit their own needs. How is saying 'the holocaust didn't happen' a call to violence? I don't see the connection and those who do see it and act on it, are likely to commit those violent acts regardless of what Irving said. And Irving wasn't imprisoned for going to neo-nazi meetings, so it shouldn't have any bearing on the issue. But even if he did, even if there he said that the holocaust didn't happen, it still doesn't link him in any way to a violent act by anyone. Hitler probably didn't kill by himself, but the organization he ran clearly ordered and forced (as in 'do it or you'll get shot yourself') atrocities and it is pretty clear that Hitler was aware of all these actions. I didn't say only actions should be punished, I said there needs to be a clear connection for the words/beliefs having victims by proxy. If there is evidence that Irving clearly caused violence through his voiced opinions, then it should be posted in the article. But as it stands, the only accusation against Irving was holocaust denial and the only defence for this is either 'nazi sympathizers must be punished' or 'yeah, but thats the law' and neither of them sound good in a society that claims to be just. --PredatorOC

Well it's a good point, and I accept what you are saying. I don't know what Irving said at those meetings (which he did attend - or at least, wherever he went, there seemed to be a gathering of neo-nazis, they do see him as "one of them" after all). Perhaps holocaust denial is only part of it. As I have said, my view is that the sentence he got was overly harsh - when compared to other sentences like one just on the news today in Australia where someone got three years for murder, it looks ludicrous - and I also feel it will do his cause more good than harm by giving it the oxygen of publicity. I don't think Irving himself is particularly dangerous, he's just a foolish old man with, if I'm going to be as charitable as possible, "quaint" views which thankfully most of society doesn't agree with. However the neo-nazi movement as a whole is something to be concerned about, and I guess it's this concern that is behind his sentence. Actually since Austria itself had a very close brush with a neo-nazi government not long back, maybe this is an encouraging sign. On balance, even with the messiness of the whole free-speech thing, I think it's right that Austria and Germany have these laws. They are the ones who have been through it all once and know exactly what a return to that could mean. The rest of us are just observers. Graham 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

These laws date back to just after WW2 when basicaly the areas were worrried about the very real threat of the nazis comeing back. Since then it has become politicaly imposible to remove them.Geni 14:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DISCUSSION FORUM! Please keep comments about the justifiability of this incident to yourself.

What is the problem, exactly? Are you paying for this bandwidth? The discussion of the issues raised by the article is informative and interesting, and while tangential to the article itself, will help others understand the issues, which will feed back into the article. If enough wikipedians want to discuss these issues, let them. It's clear to me that it's worth hashing out various opinions on this, since otherwise we're probably going to end up firefighting a lot of POV entries because there is no other outlet. Talk pages can serve very nicely here. Graham 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the discussion of these issues are nothing but stratified mudslinging from both sides that result in no actual improvement to the article. If one is to improve this article, discuss about the article itself. Wikipedia is not here to pass judgments on this incidents, and neither should the talkpage. The talkpage is nothing but a tool to be utilised to better improve the article. If anything on the talkpage does not improve the article, it should not be on the talkpage. And yes, I do pay for the bandwidth. A meagre contribution, of course, but enough to provide an answer to your rhetorical question. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 10:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The article could well be improved by a better understanding of some of the issues it raises, we just have to give it a chance. Look at talk pages for Lift (force) for example - though very disorganised compared to this one, the discussions there (which are not related to the article but to its topic) certainly did, in time, lead to vast improvements to the article. I find the attempt to silence people here somewhat ironic, given the subject matter. What's also interesting is that is is this article that appears to have been singled out for "do not discuss" banners, etc. Why? Other topics seems to get away with it. If you were to apply this to every transgressing talk page, there would probably be a reduction by 90% of the text they hold. Graham 12:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not Q&A pages. There is the reference desk for that. Besides, like I said whatever discussion is here resulted in no improvement whatsoever to the article. Just partisan mudslinging and namecalling from both sides. Just for your information, I am completely against the Austrian government's sentence of this man. I'm not singling this article out, I've pasted the same banner in lots of places. Other articles get away with it, true. That doesn't justify anything. Theft isn't justified simply because lots of people do steal and get away with it scot-free. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 10:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Libel and Slander" - terms that in a legal sense require proof - in the US that they were and in UK that they weren't true. This is the only law - in Europe,Australia, Canada ? - that I know of that predetermines the conviction. ( Actually fighting the charge usually gets you in greater trouble - Catch 22). Does questioning the holocaust actually promote Nazism? Gosh what if a researcher proved that the holocaust was a hoax - then Nazism would be.... this makes your head swim.

Bizarre. Your knowledge of law seems to be about even with your knowledge of history...--Stephan Schulz 18:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre - to argue that you have a right to deny the holocaust in Germnay,Austria, etc only increases your fine and sentence. Even if you had definitive proof of what you claimed it is not allowed as a defense - it is considered defiance and contempt of court I believe. Is Austria in imminent danger of a Nazi revolution? - this seems to be their only weak excuse for these laws - I certainly doubt that the Australians/Canadians/etc are in danger. I believe the burden of proof is almost totally inverted between the US and UK - but maybe are legal scholar knows otherwise.

Inclusion of quotes

The Lipstadt quote is relevant and should be kept in the article. It was removed by an IP and I have restored it, with comments. The rule is inclusion, not exclusion. Looking in the history, these are other chunks that have been pruned (or censored) by exclusionists. -Ste|vertigo 17:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Irving knew that he was banned from Austria, in the words of his partner, Bente Hogh: "He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone. He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."[8] On 20 February 2006 [9] he pleaded guilty to the charge of denying the Holocaust from two speeches in 1989. He said this was what he believed, until he later saw the personal files of Adolf Eichmann, the chief organiser of the Holocaust. "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court. "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews." Irving declared himself shocked by the verdict. He reportedly had bought a plane ticket home to London, believing the court would "not be stupid enough" to lock him up. [10] + Within two weeks of his arrest, Irving asserted through his lawyer that he acknowledged the existence of Nazi-era gas chambers.

Lipstat quote removed by 194.232.85.82 : "cut lipstadt soundbite, there are numerous quotes of those happy to see Irving locked up": Upon hearing of Irving's sentence to three year's imprisonment, Lipstadt said, "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship… The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth." [11].

Hidden section Removed by 71.193.216.103 : In 1996, British journalist Christopher Hitchens quipped, "David Irving is not just a Fascist historian. He is also a great historian of Fascism." (this quotation is out of place here. It was made in 1996, long after the time described here. It is actually defending Irving as a historian, the opposite of the thrust of the rest of the paragraph here. The quote might be moved but I can't see where to at present user:GRAHAMUK, February 21, 2006). [end quote block] -SV

I want to include the Hitchens' quote, but it doesn't belong in this position. I made my reasons clear above (you may have missed it, there has been a flurry of discussion since). Things shouldn't be included just because they relate to the topic - they also have to make sense and enhance the article. This quote is useful, but it currently doesn't find a natural home in thge article, since there is no topic about others defending Irving, which is what Hitchens is doing - or rather, he is attacking his publishers for not having the guts to publish Irving's book. Graham 05:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

De nye oplysninger her, gennemhuller statsministerens udlægning om at Ægypten m.fl. ville have ham til at trække JP for retten. Statsministerens SPIN er nu udstillet i al sin hulhed, for alle at se. Som i H.C Andersens Æventyr, ser vi nu en Kejser uden tøj på. Some IP edits appear to be removing material rather than editing or rewriting it. A soft protect for this page might be appropriate. -Ste|vertigo 17:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

An Athiest Point Of View:

Sentencing David Irving for this the same as sentencing people for talking about God and his will.--143.92.1.33 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps. It doesn't matter. This isn't a chat board; feel free to discuss your opinions elsewhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a chat board, nor is it merely an encycopedia - Wikipedia professes to be a community; a community is what it's members make of it. Drawing in people and engaging them in a discussion (or merely allowing them to state their opinion) facilitates this so-called "community". Or is the Wikipedia commuinity limited to people who agree with you? lmno 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What's that have to do with anything? Personally, I think that laws such as those in Austria are stupid and counterproductive, but that's completely irrelevant to the article at hand, as are anyone's opinions. Talk pages are to discuss the article, not your opinions about the topic of the article. How does the comment I responded to in any way improve or suggest improvements for the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• I didn't say it improves the article, but allowing people to be involved in discussing the issues touched upon by the article MIGHT get them involved in discussing the article, which might lead them to edit it. lmno 11:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sentencing David Irving for this the same as sentencing people for suggsting 1 + 1 = 3.--143.92.1.33 06:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Only ONE chapter in ONE book deals with *it*-why are YOU obsessed with it

You should nurse your obsession elsewhere and not in an encyclopedia. As it is, far to much time and effort goes into describing Irvings dealings with this subject, allthough he is a WW2 historian, and himself finds the subject boring.

You see, WW2 was a titanic clash of 2 beliefs, 2 ways of governance,democracy versus tyranny. Britain fought alone for nearly 2 years, and in this way rescued our civilisation.

Winston S. Churchill, General De Gaulle and Dwight D. Eisenhower between them wrote thousands of pages about WW2 without ever mentioning holocaust with a single word, so surely Irving should not be compelled constantly to deal with it? There were other concerns for the allies, as I sketched out above. And civilians are allways caught out in times of war and unrest - look at Iraq.

Don't you find it deplorable that the jewish nomenclatura apparently hold so much sway, that they feel inclined constantly to over-expose this after all marginal event in WW2, and therefore marginal event in any serious historians mind? Nick-Rowan 10:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that many people concentrate on the holocaust because it resulted in so many deaths. While the ~360,000 deaths suffered by the British is significant it does seem less so compared to the 8 million or so dead Jews/Slavs/Gypsies/etc killed throughout Europe. This does not seem negligable given that this represents about 12% of the total casualties of WW2. Further, when a military kills it's own people this tends to capture the attention more than conventional battles between two enemies. Also, I would also say that WWII involved a lot more than just 2 sets of beliefs and governments. Even the just the main participants represented several cultural identies (did the Soviet Union lose 50 million people to defend Democracy?). The leaders of the three western allies are, almost by definition, examples of extreme point-of-view and much of their efforts went into promoting and justifying their own actions while minimising those of people they did not get on with. Slinky Puppet 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Britain fought alone for 2 years? In your dreams. Go read some history. The only country who fought alone for 2 years was China. "Rescued our civilisation"? What was so good about this "civilisation"? Inhumane treatment of native peoples? Exploitation of colonised lands and resources? The White Man's Burden? Social Darwinism? Imperialism? Why does this reek of typical Anglocentricity? For your information, WW2 was in no way a fight of democracy vs totalitarianism. Poland was totalitarian. Finland had a democracy. The Allies were constantly trying to woo Franco's Fascist dictatorship. I suggest your pick up a history book and read it, before making a bloody fool of yourself. Oh wait, too late. And please, "Jewish nomenclature" immediately gives you away for what you really are. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just look at his user page. All you need to know. Grandmasterka 10:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh the "Jewish nomenclature" bit already gave him away. Direct-from-factory holocaust-industry spiel. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, look at his user contributions and judge what use he is to the whole community. Yellowmellow45 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm... You know, his writing style (Nick Rowan responds...) reminds me of this bunch of Neo-Nazis on Prussian Blue... They must have all taken the NSDAP Wikipedia Disinformation Crash Course or something... :p -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you people give User:Nick-Rowan a yellow barnstar? People might then get some idea of your use to the whole community.... lmno 10:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia is a piece of crap (according to your user page), you have the right to vanish. Don't linger any longer than you have to. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'l stay for as long as I feel welcome :-) lmno 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nick Rowan responds those savages( re: his claim that Britain fought alone for nearly 2 years): Britain entered the war in September 1939, living up to its pledge that and attack on Poland would equal an attack on Britain. Britain was the only free country in Europe from the spring of 1940 - Hitler had taken all of Europe. He had a pact with Stalin, until he in june 1941 turned against this country, too. The americans did not enter the war until the 6.th of december 1941, when they themselves were attacked. It is doubtful they would have joined the war, had they not themselves been attacked.

The role of Britain in rescuing our civilisation by fighting alone(for nearly 2 years), thus cannot be overstated. Nick-Rowan 08:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, personal attack warning #1. I'll be watching you. Do you know where China is? In case you don't, find out about the Second Sino-Japanese War, 1937 - 1945. If you can't be bothered to find historical facts simple as these before spewing, then DON'T. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well he even got the European history wrong, Britain wasn't the only free European country in Spring 1940, Switzerland and Sweden were free of Fascism, while Romania, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Spain and Potugal were ot invaded by Hitler at that time at all. As for the claim that the Genocide in Eastern Europe was marginal, has Mr Rowan ever heard of Lebensraum, the reason for Hitler's invasion of Poland? He intended to rid the area of nondesirables to create Living Room for the German people. This includes millions non-Jews, but also millions of those killed in the name of Lebensraum were Jewish. Personally, I cant distinguish Nick's remarks from those Nazis who he pretends to be proud of the allies defeating during WII. Yellowmellow45 18:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Spain? lmno 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Republican government was usurped by a right-wing coup which succeeded in part because of Italian/German military aid. For people who saw Franco as losing, and the former government as legitimate, it qualifies as an invasion. --Davril2020 21:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"I will be watching you". Jesus Christ, here is an exemple of leftist: violent savage fascist son of a bitch under educated. In 2 years in wikipedia, I swear to god it lost all the credibility to me thanks to this kind of people. As a matter of fact, I'm staring and anti-wikipedia campaing, because in no way the public can trust the history told by this kind of people. A bunch of people who think the same way get together and tell things the way they want, and, if for their luck, there is not an opposed group to fight'em off, things will be resumed to their way of thinking. This is fascism and this is how wikipedia works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.66.215.153 (talk • contribs) 20:18, July 26, 2006

• Can't read too well, either, can you? The "I'll be watching you" was about personal attacks, not about anything political. Have fun with your campaign; you might find it easier to join in with the people at Stormfront who want to do the same thing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah history - and then some sob finds some facts. I believe Russia had already attacked and taken over half of Poland long before Germany went a short way into Poland to rescue ethnic Germans who were being killed. Britain neglected to notice the Russian army - bad intell I guess. But miraculously did seem to spot the German's later incursion. It probably was all a mistake , but some people ( minor historians all) think that there may have been other - predetermined? - reasons for the war. And of course we must not forget the French rapid response to their Polish brothers' plight. I know,it's hard to stop laughing at the junk we get for history. And then those murderous Germans ( like they did in WW1) try to negotiate a peace several years before the war ends - what sobs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

Well, Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. "Russia" had ceased to exist as a state by then, but the Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17th, 1939. By what miracle do you arrive at "Russia had already attacked and taken over half of Poland long before Germany went a short way into Poland"? --Stephan Schulz 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On August 23, 1939 the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact had been signed dividing up Poland and lots of other countries. You are right the Russians took possesion of their half about twwo weeks after Germany statred. Then they coexisted for about two years with Britain declaring war on Germany but ignoring Russia. On Aug 6, 1939 Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigh in the Daily Mail is quoted virtually declaring war on Germany I believe. This is all on wikipedia - Russia went in a few days later but grapped their share quickly - Germany was busy kicking the rest of Europe. Wiki didn't mention how Russia's incursion was ignored by England etc. - Sorry I am wrong again( unless wiki is wrong) - wikipedia states that the peace treaty between Poland and England was only to come to Poland's rescue concerning Germany. Of course the English intended to doublecross the Poles in any event - per wiki. Why England had an obvious vendetta against Germany is not spelled out. But it went back before Hitler - I get the impression that Germany was being manipulated into a war, not just England but France, etc also seemed very distressed by Germany for some unstated reason/s pre-Hitler..

There are still problems with the opening paragraphs -no need to speak of Lipstadt so soon

This 68 year old's life surely have more facets to it, than a libel suit, he himself launched, and then lost? Only if you have a very narrow point of reference, would you contemplate over-exposing this minor event in this way.

David have launched several libel cases before - in 1996 he won 45000 £ libel-damage against an English Sunday Newspaper. The fact that he this time lost is not something that should figure at the head of his CV. Many people also find it extraordinary that a judge can decide what a person IS or is not, and what beliefs he holds. Nick-Rowan 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it extraordinary that a judge would make that judgment? Isn't that exactly what Irving asked the judge to do when he initiated his legal action against Lipstadt? Judges are paid to try the cases that come before them, making findings of law and fact. A soon as Irving launched his case, he asked the court to make a decision on various issues, including whether Lipstadt had told the truth about him. There's nothing "extraordinary" about it. That's how defamation law works. If he didn't like it, he didn't have to initiate a lawsuit for defamation. I find your remark very puzzling. Metamagician3000 10:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. you say it is quite ordinary,then. Lets work on that assumption, shall we? If you are correct then the reaction to the fact that he lost, should be the same as when the english sunday newspaper lost a libelcase launched by Irving in 1996, or the reaction to the hypothetical situation that Lipstadt had lost. But it seems to me that the reaction to Irving loosing ,this time has been far out of proportion, compared to any other person or newspaper loosing something. Nick-Rowan 10:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's quite ordinary for judges to make findings of law and fact in cases that come before them, such as defamation cases, in which one of the issues is usually whether what someone said - in this instance what Lipstadt said about Irving - is true. That is what judges do. It doesn't mean that all cases are of equal interest to the public, which is a totally different issue. If Irving, and things to do with him, weren't notable and of public interest, there would be no Wikipedia article. Likewise if someone said something bad about Mick Jagger or Tom Cruise and he sued - the case would attract interest because it was Mick Jagger/Tom Cruise, not because it would involve any new legal principle. Anyway, I'll take this no further. You can have the last word, because I doubt that this discussion is much helping the encyclopedia. :) Metamagician3000 12:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally people here seems in need of a marketing make-over, or a PR course. It is generally a good idea to be polite and forthcoming in the opening paragraphs of any other living person's CV,- that is true in business as well as in any other walk of life, except perhaps in the dubious industry, where people are sitting nailed behind their screens all day, re-editing world-history and current events. It would be smart from their PR-point of view, but then again: When have they ever been smart? Nick-Rowan 11:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nick, whatever you think of David Irving, he is clearly known currently for being a Holocaust denier. this is why there is a "current event" tag at the top of the article. It is not there because he has sold lots of books. It is there because he was found guilty in Austria. Don't try to sanitize the article by removing what he is best-known for currently. As far as caling him a historian, he has denied that one of the most important events of the 20th century occurred. He cannot be a historian is he denied an important factual event. He has recanted this when it is convenient for him, so he even seems to acknowledge that he is wrong. Ground Zero | t 15:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC) ~

No matter how you regard it (and I understand many personnal feelings might be involved) in the great perspective of WW2 - you know where armies clash and all that - what happens to un-unioformed civilians in enemy-controlled territory - well, excuse me - but this have never been of over-riding importance to historians.

There is indeed evidence that he tried to moderate his views during the recent trial. However this may solely be attributed to normal opportunistic aspirations for lowering a possible jail sentence.Nick-Rowan 15:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• An organized attempt to commit genocide against Jews and Gypsies in Europe is more than just "what happens un-uniformed civilians". It was an important event in the 20th c. Irving said that it did not happen, which is counter-factual, not a question of opinion. He sued Lipstadt for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier, that's how far he went to try to recant. He lost. And he is now far more famous as a Holocaust denier than he was for his books. Ground Zero | t 16:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• And he is now far more famous as a Holocaust denier than he was for his books - shouldn't this make one pause to think? lmno 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If he really won process against English Sunday Newspaper, I believe it is good idea to describe it in the article. That is important and must not be ignored--Igor "the Otter" 05:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list of suits David Irving took part: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/index.html I think it can be useful link in the article. --Igor "the Otter" 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sinister Nomenclature has hijacked this page, just like any page here, dealing with J-guys and Israel

Trouble is Davids Irving formidable historical works deals only with jews peripherically. Rightly so, cause their fate was as much about civilians getting caught out in the realms of war, whereas WW2 historians for obvious reasons focusses on armies and strategies and political movers and shakers.

It is simply un-acceptable that this hidden, anonymous nomenclatura continue to besmear an honorable englishman and God-blessed historical researcher - quite simply the greatest authority on WW2 and the Nazi Regime.

If they continue and do not moderate themselves, there is no doubt that their sinister work will be seen in the same way, that the work of their fellow men in setting up communist USSR, are now perceived. Nick-Rowan 11:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- if he's the "greatest authority on WW2", then why did he get himself spanked out of court in the UK (the judge basically calling him a liar), when he carefully selected Britain as the jurisdiction to bring his lawsuit because libel is extremely easy to prove there? AnonMoos 11:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I suspect he 'carefully' chose England because: a) he is English; and b) Penguin, a London publisher, were publishing the work in England. lmno 11:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What is more Lipstadt was using up to 20 lawyers and experts, being financed by the slush-fund being set up by such notables like Steven Spielberg. On the other hand, Irving was defending himself. It has been proved that his most formidable adversary, van Pelt, received funds by this fund.Nick-Rowan 11:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Lipstadt was financed by Penguin (The Times Law Report, 18 April 2000 from Irving's site); Irving was, in part, financed by "a colourful group bound in a dubious cause: a London pensioner, a Saudi prince with an estate in Ascot, a former Nazi U-boat commander and a glamorous blonde model." David Irving's secret backers, The Observer, 3 March 2002. lmno 12:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________

 DAVID IRVING -v- PENGUIN BOOKS AND DEBORAH LIPSTADT

 Total Expert/Researcher Fees     £543,240.49
 Total Counsel Fees:              £509,989.36 
                                £1,053,229.85
 Less amount unbilled:            £268,611.13
 Total paid to date by Penguin:   £784,618.72

 Details: 
 Robert Jan Van Pelt (total):     £109,244.24

From Total Expert/Researcher Fees Nick-Rowan 12:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please let the above stay. It rests very beautifully now as a document within the text. Given that opinion here is overhwelmingly against Mr. Irving, and I now have provided proof of the horendous amounts of pounds spend by Ms. Lipstadt and her accomplishies, I can understand why you want to delete this proof, but shall nevertheless inform you ,that any further attempts to do so, only will exhibit to a larger degree, the prejudies that many, including myself has towards you and your fellow beings. Nick-Rowan 14:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• The table of expenses has no relevance - but I leave the figures relating to totals and the named individual. The comlete list takes up too much space and demonstrates nothing. lmno 14:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

... Proof of what? You're alleging that they bought justice. Have you actually read the judge's decision? British law isn't a slot machine where inserting enough coins will guarantee a payout in the end. Irving lost on the basis of the evidence presented - as you will see if you actually read the statement pertaining to the trial. --Davril2020 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice the way he doesn't use the word human in between "fellow" and "beings". It is ample evidence (if any was needed) that Irving's followers have an agenda to spread racist filth. She is allowed to spend as much money as she wants on research, its within the law and so not a big deal (and incidentally, Lipstadt didn't agree with the jail sentance because he would turn into a martyre type figure for the Nick-Rowans of this world). I'm sure if Irving had enough support within society, he would be able to spend a similar amount, but the fact is, he's a minority in his thought and shouldn't be given the oxygen of publicity. I take solace in the fact that Nick Rowan is probaly just one of twenty or so supporters of Irving. P.S, what has Israel go to do with it? Yellowmellow45 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• NB: The above figures represent the amounts expended by the defendants, and to a large extent represent payment for experts to go through Irving's work in fine detail looking for bias/inaccuracies/misrepresentations/etc. It is not an amount spent by Lipstadt in doing her own research. lmno 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, credit where credit is due; I am satisfied, lmno, with the way the expenditures now is presented, and accept your argument that it takes up too much space,when presented in its full lenght, allthough it can hardly be a computer-storage problem, but rather and estetic and convenience based problem Nick-Rowan 14:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. My objection relates solely to convenience.lmno 14:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Davril:> British law isn't a slot machine where inserting enough coins will guarantee a payout in the end.<

No, but using 'coins' certainly helps, and hardly do any harm - and the funds was off course dollar-denominated, and was payed discreetly, out of sight and control of the british juridicial system . Nick-Rowan 14:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• The figures you quote are those submitted to the court by the defendants as their expenses in defending the action, so that the sums could be reclaimed from Irving. Thus the figures are in UKP (sterling) and were paid openly in full view of the English judicial system, by whom they were approved. lmno 15:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"A careful reading of the judge's verdict" - a really careful reading of the verdict shows a judge who appears scared. The judgement was tortured and convoluted - maybe just English - but a disjointed medley of mostly minor errors ( if they were ) certainly didn't seem to support the "holocaust denier" verdict ( which is stupid for Lipstadt to shriek in the first place - didn't she have any facts she wanted to debate ).

Lead sentence in this section - Irving s writings touch on Jewish issues very rarely. Largely because Irving writes from original sources - and the holocaust,etc are rarely mentioned in any WW2 documents or personalitites.

Historian or historical researcher?

To avoid an edit war, let's discuss this here. I think that it is POV to call him a historian and that "historical researcher" is more neutral. He has denied that one of the most important events of the 20th century occurred. He cannot be a historian is he denied an important factual event. He has recanted this when it is convenient for him, so he even seems to acknowledge that with regard to the historical argument for which is most famous, he was wrong. Ground Zero | t 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You should avoid terms such as :denied. He do not deny that many jews got killed, but happens to believe that the holocaust should be spelled with a small h, as there were many holocausts, and indeed more than 10 million ukrainean peasants died during the famine in the 30'ties, brought about by the jewish controlled Central Commitee of the USSR, deciding to confiscate their grains. This happened before the jewish genocide, and many ukrainians wanted to avenge this on ordinary jews, so the number of jews that were killed during WW2, among them UNDOUBTEDLY have some, that fell victim to revenge by ukrainians. Nick-Rowan 15:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have to avoid "denied". Irving was unsuccessful in suing Lipstadt for calling him a "Holocaust denier", and Austria has imprisoned him for Holocaust denial. I'm on solid ground here. Ground Zero | t 16:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would argue that to describe Irving as a researcher is POV while calling him a historian is conventional. Irving describes himself as a historian and so do many other people; he has been identified as a historian by many of the mainstream news sources. John Keegan wrote "If [...Lipstadt's] accusation that Irving's version of the Holocaust was so untruthful as to outweigh his merits as an otherwise objective historian, then he would get no damages and have to pay enormous costs". David Cesarini wrote (refering directly to that), "John Keegan, in the Daily Telegraph the next day, applauded Irving's merits as a military historian and lamented how 'a small but disabling element in his work' overshadowed his achievements". In the libel case, the defence submission stated that "It is admitted that the Plaintiff is a well-known writer, and the author of a biography Goebbels, Mastermind of the Third Reich (hereinafter referred to as "the Goebbels book"). It is denied that the Plaintiff is an historian." There IS an argument as to whether Irving is a historian, but since some (including professional historians) are happy to call him a historian, and others (not always historians) wish to deny him this status, it is not something on which Wikipedia should take sides. If the judge in the libel trial had found fit to make a decision on the 'substantial truth' of the claim that Irving was not a historian, then maybe it would now be acceptable to say something like "Irving was once known as a historian until"... but until something like that is included in the article, I think calling him a "researcher" is taking too much of a non-standard position.
  • The Grauniad: Historian David Irving, who has been vilified for questioning whether 6m Jews were killed by the Nazis, sued an American academic for claiming that he is a 'Hitler partisan' who twists history to cast the German dictator in a better light.
  • CNN: Right-wing British historian David Irving pleaded guilty Monday to charges of denying the Holocaust. lmno 16:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Off course he should be referred to as a historian. It is academic snobbery to think that one has to have university degrees in order to be a historian. It certainly does you no good if you after having stripped him of his credentials, wants to strip him of his title as well.A painter can be a painter without having frequented academia, a sculptor likewise, and author likewise,even a chemists and a mathematician may well be self-thought.

It is the originality of the thought which counts, and we are many who genuinely believes that academic training more often than not, actually inhibits originality of thought Nick-Rowan 16:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not about academic credentials, it is about his denial of histirical facts. I think that disqualifies him from being a historian. I will wait to hear what other Wikipedians think. Ground Zero | t 16:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with his academic credentials, or his denial of historical "facts". It is about what is conventional - Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor does it entertain original research. Irving is commonly referred to as a historian. To call him otherwise is to adopt a non-standard position that would amount to POV. lmno 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like him (see my comments elsewhere on this page), but I don't mind him being called an historian as long as it's clear that his views are not supported by any historian with academic credibility. They are analogous to creation science, which may be supported by someone somewhere who could be described as a biologist, but has no support from any biologist with any academic credibiliy. We are entitled to say that a certain theory, such as Irving's, has no credible support within the relevant discipline, or whatever, or even that he is now discredited as a serious historian because of them (as would happen to a serious biologist who came out in support of creation science). But refusing to call him an historian at all seems a bit petty to me. The fact is that he is not a nice cuddly historical researcher, or whatever; what he really is, if we were to be frank, is a disgraced historian (though putting it that way sounds too POV, even though I think it's accurate). I'd find a way of using the word, i.e. "historian", while somehow making clear that he has lost all credibility with everyone in the discipline. I don't feel strongly about this, but that's how it strikes me, just for what it's worth. Metamagician3000 08:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A "holocaust denier" is a person who denies the holocaust. This is something he himself has admitted to (e.g. through a guilty plea in Austria) and is an agreed NPOV way to describe him. A "historian" is a person who describes history. Whilst some marginal right wingers would claim that that is what he does, majority opinion, including that of a number of courts of law, is that he does not actually describe history. Calling him a historian is very non NPOV. Mozzerati 22:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• So we go with the majority opinion? Glad you agree then, since every news story I have seen in the mainstream press calls him a "historian". 81.178.137.111 23:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• • He's an historian. A really bad one, in the same way Lysenko was a really bad scientist. Perhaps exactly in the same way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Jpgordon has summed this up well. Metamagician3000 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Irving a historian or not? If you go through news reports of his conviction, over and over again you will find him described as a historian. Then you have professional historians: Keegan calls him a military historian; Evan's says "if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian". Which is right? It is not up to Wikipedia editors to make the decision: All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. For Wikipedia simply to choose one side of the argument, and refuse to describe him as a historian, is point of view; most the citable "[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable published sources]" call him an "historian". The choice to differ from the majority of citable sources expresses a POV. The answer would be to create a section in which it is explained that there is disagreement as to whether Irving should be described as a historian. lmno 15:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Couple of points: a. Most mainstream news sources use "historian" describing Irving [[12]][[13]][[14]], even the Telegraph does that [[15]] (maybe we have to clarify this "Telgraph memo" point?). b. WP:NOR states that WP is a tertiary source, so we write what other sources report. So whether I (or Jayjg) think that Irving is not a historian does not count. Thats exactly why I have put him back into list of historians also. --Magabund 11:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

He should be described as a controversial historian, as he certainly generates much controversy. Almost all media describe him as a "historian", some as a "controversial historian", and none that I've seen as "disgraced historian". WP:NOR - exactly; it's doesn't matter what we think; it matters what the media thinks. The media manufactures consent. Also, if someone writes novels, he's a novelist; if someone writes poetry, he's a poet. So, if Irving is not a historian, and his books are not history books, what are they? Science fiction? Novels? Poetry? Theorethical physics books?!? No, I believe they are history books (perhaps not very accurate, or even slightly fabricated), which for all practial purposes makes him a historian. 195.29.139.239 15:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an illogical statement. People who write books about physics are science writers and people who write books about history are historical writers. Being a historian isn't about writing; it's about scholarship and research.--Prosfilaes 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And how do you think he gets material for his books other than by research? I believe he has done quite a lot of it. His books are not a mere presentation of other people's research. 195.29.52.1 15:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

True; some of it is purely invented. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Relevance

"According to Irving's twin brother, Nicholas, David Irving gave a "Heil Hitler" salute as a six year-old when a German bomber destroyed a neighbouring house." I hate to disagree with HOTR, who is usually pretty sound, but I don't think this is really relevant. A six-year would not really understand the significance of the gesture. It would be relevant if he were, say, 19 years old, but not six. Ground Zero | t 19:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. You and I find each other sometimes on the opposite side of some aspects of this. Sometimes on the same side. Refreshing that this time we're on the same side. I removed it and left comment. Otheus 01:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was an interesting anecdote and certainly ironic, if that's the word, given the trajectory of Irving's life - I suspect it may become a staple in Irving lore. In any case, there is other information in that article worth mining. Homey 03:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

British does not mean United Kingdom

If I looked up the word "British" in my dictionary and it gave me a definition of "United Kingdom", I would bin the dictionary. The British article correctly defines what the adjective "British" means, one meaning of which refers to "citizenship of the United Kingdom". "Citizenship of the United Kingdom" is NOT the same thing as "the United Kingdom". Please STOP "disambiguating" British to "United Kingdom", it is stupid. 12:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your arguments, which do not make any sense, here. You can tell me as many times as you want that it is stupid, or use any other insulting or offensive words you choose. It will not make you right. Please make a little effort to understand the way Wikipedia works instead of insisting that everyone else do it your way. --Russ Blau (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, you responded by saying the British article is a disambiguation page, which is just bizare. If someone chooses to click on British when reading the Irving article, it is because they want to know what "British" means. Sending them to United Kingdom is not giving them the information they are explicitly looking for - it is just plain wrong. If you do not understand the difference, I suggest you only edit the sandbox. lmno 10:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and Wikipedia "works" as a result of collective editing - where someone finds something they disagree with, they can change it; other people are at the same liberty; and ultimately the whole process should result in "consensus". You are the one suggesting I leave "British" pointing to "United Kingdom" because that is the way YOU want it. 10:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize what I said. I made three points:

First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't link to words to define their meanings. Second, article titles are supposed to be nouns, not adjectives; when an adjective in an article is linked, the link should point to the corresponding noun. Third, the British article says, "It is used most commonly to describe the citizenship of a person from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." How, then, can it be "inappropriate" to link to the United Kingdom article from an article about someone who has that citizenship? Please try to find some more constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia than by insisting on linking to disambiguation pages. --Russ Blau (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comment that I'm trying to make everyone do things the way I want is also inaccurate. I did not decide that article titles should be nouns; that was a consensus reached before I got here. I also did not decide that articles should not link to disambiguation pages. Nor did I decide that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pray tell, what consensus exists in support of your position?

Finally, although it is true that British can mean "citizen of the UK," that is not its only meaning. In the phrases "British army" and "British embassy," for instance, British refers to the government rather than to the individual citizens. That is why someone (not me) decided that "British" should be a disambiguation page -- because the word has more than one meaning, and articles should link directly to the relevant meaning.

Having said all that, I don't really care that much about this article and I'm not going to bother to edit it any more, although I imagine that disambiguation editors will keep coming back here in future, and you can keep on reverting them until you're blue in the face for all I care. --Russ Blau (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The only case where "British" would lead to a definition is a dictionary (it is afterall an adjective rather than a noun). Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it links to United Kingdom, citizenship of which doesn't need an article about it as it is self explanitory, the country itself does as it does need explaining in further detail. Dave 11:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• When it is changed to link to United Kingdom it links to a definition of the country, not to a definition of UK citizenship. When it links to British, it explains that the adjecvtive can mean UK citizenship. lmno 13:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Irving The Worlds' Greatest Historian

Since Irving would have to be the Worlds greatest historian, shouldn't this fact be noted in the main wikipedia article?

Can people suggest they ways this point be added to the main text. Druidictus 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have argued that he's not a historian, but I couldn't get others to agree with me, so I let it drop. Whether or not he is one of the world's greatest is unquestionably subjective and disputable, so let's not add it. Ground Zero | t 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

POV (moved from article)

However the error in this way of thinking is that it is not about censorship or the confinement of free speech but rather about trying to spread hate or starting turmoils. As long as one can also provide evidence or at least provide some reasonable grounds for the statements that one utters, one is said to give a speech, and thus also falls under the right of free speech. It is naive to believe that everything, for instance a mere assertion like "Kill all X" (or a bit more elaborate) falls under the right of free speech, and one should be advised to look up the legal term speech. In this meaning the following statement of Deborah Lipstadt isn't any better than Irvine's allgeged 'speeches'.

Sam Spade 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I have just reverted the addition of a considerbale amount of material that is not presented in a factual, NPOV way, but that is making an argument, largely in support of Irving's previous views about the Holocaust not occuring, views that he has now recanted. Ground Zero | t 18:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he has now recanted the recantation after he was convicted anyways. So much for integrity... --Stephan Schulz 18:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good. I had read it and was contemplating doing so too. But somewhere (not in the encycopedic entry) these arguments do need to be set out and someone who DOES claim to be an expert on the holocaust needs to examine/refute them and then refs to both sides of the argument need to appear in the text. Otherwise the apparent evidence quoted goes unchallenged and is merely deleted (but can be located) and the idea gets out that things are being suppressed. --farsee50 10:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Supporters of Irving would not accept that he ever changed his views substantially (though it is true that he was changing his view on some details in the light of new documents). Note that Irving never published on the Holocaust or claimed to have studied it - he wrote of Hitler and his men on the basis of the evidence he found. Faced with a charge that he cannot defend himself against, under a law that makes a mockery of the very concept of freedom that is so loudly acclaimed in the Western world, he no doubt took the advice of his lawyers in order that he might have a chance of getting out before he dies. Stephan Shulz should be careful to note that Irving never denied the 'Holocaust'. He objected to it as a 'trademark' as he called it, with a capital H, owned only by Jews. This view is supported by many others, including the respected Jew Noam Chomsky, who has famously contrasted the case of East Timor, a region where a huge 'genocide' took place largely unreported, with Western involvement. What Irving did claim loudly was that no gas chambers existed in Auschwitz specifically, and he claimed this on the basis of evidence. Since he and others began to make such claims, the owners of the Auschwitz site have been forced to admit officially that the gas chambers currently on show there are indeed 'fake'. This is no small matter.

Naturally, every statement in the above paragraph is blatantly false. Microtonal 15:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What Irving did claim loudly was that no gas chambers existed in Auschwitz specifically, and he claimed this on the basis of evidence. Since he and others began to make such claims, the owners of the Auschwitz site have been forced to admit officially that the gas chambers currently on show there are indeed 'fake'. This is no small matter.

I'm afraid this statement is somewhat accurate, so brace yourself. The "evidence" was the Leuchtner Report, which he took for granted as legitimate when it first appeared, naturally because it concluded what he had hoped to be true all along. For obvious reasons, a skeptic is more likely to question a claim than one who finds his ideology supported, but historians (are supposed) to distance themselves from their material enough to partake in the scientific examination of their data. As for Auschwitz being "fake", I believe the contributor was trying to say that it is a model built in like proportions to what the original supposedly looked like, which was admitted while under pressure by neo-Nazi sources.--Hohns3 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

See old version [16]

These “sympathetic” quotes, addressed to Irving, were promptly deleted, because, “quotes should be short and only used in context with surrounding commentry to qualify for fair use”.

I would agree on that point. However, quotes taken from Irvings lesser bright moments are still there, (under the “Racism”- part). And they stay there for already a month, with context, nor commentary.

If Wikipedia calls itself neutral, it should include both series of quotes, or remove them both., but in this way Wikipedia makes itself very vulnerable for Nazis who claim that this encyclopedia is biased. Jeff5102 13:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• And we should care about the claims of Nazis because ... ? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the Nazis had ample opportunity to express their biases by murdering millions of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, gays and lesbians and other groups. I think we can safely ignore their views now. Ground Zero | t 17:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • I would agree on that, if the rules here did not say: "Those who harbor attitudes of racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those who we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own an insight that could change their views." So the best thing to do, is to follow the guidelines.Jeff5102 06:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • By the way, I see the quotes ín the 'Racism'-part are now edited in an acceptable way. Thanks. Jeff5102 06:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Something to think about

Although Irving's works were generally ignored by academics, and sometimes criticised as inaccurate when reviewed by specialists, his command of language and a wealth of anecdotes led generalists to write favourable reviews in the popular press, and many of his works sold well. He was particularly noted for his mastery of the voluminous and scattered German war records.

This may be a bit of point of view pushing here. Also, I think perhaps the greatest irony is that Irving gives his readers more in-text citations than many historians noted for their "scholarship". Its a shame that New Left academics and those who reach the popular conclusions while pushing their agenda are getting away with a number of shenanigans - nobody is checking their less documented tracks. And yet, break from the status-quo and the magnifying glass comes forth regardless. Its a shame Irving couldn't distance himself from the material enough to give us a 100% accurate translation and the trial is his own doing, but I suppose the point here is to pass on the realization that academic distortion is probably a greater problem than we are willing to let ourselves know. --Hohns3 01:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Irvings works were not ignored by academics until he pissed off powerful Jewish interests. Of course some of his books - written in German - would have caused a huge stink many years ago if they had been published in the English speaking world ie The Morganthau Plan, etc

Bad Arolsen

In the most recent archive, one can find references to some archives at Bad Arolsen. They're in the news today: Germany will open records on Holocaust victims. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Germany will open records" - I doubt it but time will tell. Maybe this opening is coming judging from the most recent reductions in concentration camp deaths being published 78,000 down from 250,000 up for Majdenk. I don't know which is coming first though, the records giving the new numbers or research giving the new munbers followed by opening sealed records. Interesting story developing over the next few years - Irving may get an apology ( just joking).

A year later - did those files ever get opened?159.105.80.63 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence in the opening paragraph refering to M. Irving as a 'Holocaust denier'

These kind of utterings are highly personal points of views, revealing that the authors of such eloquence have their own axe to grind. It has got nothing to do in an encyclopedia. let alone in the opening paragraphs, which is exactly why they want to put it there: To smear this honourable englishman

"honourable englishmen" don't lie routinely and for a living. --Stephan Schulz 11:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

who not only at the age of 68 now find himself in prison as a result of much to rigid anti-nazi laws in Austria ( and which these same persons could have invested their energi and rigour to change), but also will have to endure personal attacks in his solitary confinement, where he apparently are unable to answer back. probably because of a lack of internet-access. Nick-Rowan

• This has been argued to death above. The reason that people call him a Holocaust denier is that he has in the past, denied the Holocaust. When he tried to sue an American writer in a British court for claling him a Holocaust denier, he lost. He has now been convicted in Austria of denying the Holocaust. Whether you agree with that law or not, the shoe fits. It is what he is most known for, so an encyclopaedia article should say so. And two court rulings say that it is not POV. Ground Zero | t 10:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Nick, engaging is a revert war is pointless. The article should remain as it was before you wandered by until you can convince other regular editors that your change is an improvement on the article. Please do not revert again. Ground Zero | t 10:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Holocaust denier' is not recognised in any civilised country, and it is not illegal to deny the Holocaust in but a few central european countries. The fact that he lost a case launched by himself against some-one that called him this, and that the judge even said as much, says more about the the two than it says about the one that lost. I maintain that to accuse (or even note that others refer to him as such) some-one as a 'Holocaust-denier' is highly personal points of view, which shouild not be included in the CV of a respected historian and author, the worlds greatest auyhority on WW2 and the nature of Nazi-Germany.

What is more, he has never denied the socalled 'Holocaust'( which he by the way think should be spelled with a small h, as their were several, and the Ukranian Famine in the 30'ties, brought about by the overwhelmingly controlled jewish Polit Bureau in Moscow (by confiscating farmers grains), and carried out to a large extent by overwhelmingly jewish controlled security organisations like the NKVD (predessor of the equally jewish controlled KGB) could be said to be the bioggest holocaust of them all, and there can be little doubt that many jews perished in WW" as a result of revenge of this.

If you maintain that he is a 'Holocaust denier' you must come up with proof ythat he has denied it. Yoiu will find that he have dealt with this subject only peripherically, as the whole subject bores him, and he primarily have dealt with the great schemes of things, ie. the military history, ie. clashes of forces. In a war innocent civilians are allways caught out - look at Iraq - allthough there is no denying that jews in Nazi-Germany was especially harsh treated. However, being in a war that threatened our very civilisation, and where even to get a foothold on the european mainland proved exceedingly difficult - there was not much the allies could do really, about how individual civilans where threated by a brutal regime. And hence theire fate, regretable as it is, did not feature dominantly in the minds of military minds and planners. Hence, a history of the military aspects of WW2 cannot dwell very deep into this matter, nor can Mr. Irving as trhe worlds greatest authority on the matter, which I am sure you can understand. Nick-Rowan

The proof is in the article. It was a British court that determined that he is a Holocaust denier (see David Irving#Libel suit):

Mr Justice Gray praised Irving's "thorough and painstaking research into the archives" and commended his discovery and disclosure of many historical documents. He also noted Irving's intelligence and thorough knowledge of World War II history. However, as stated at paragraph 13.167 of his judgment, he found the following claims against Irving to be 'substantially true':

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

Irving lost subsequent attempts at appeal.

You may well think that the United Kingdom is not a "civilised country" ("The term 'Holocaust denier' is not recognised in any civilised country"), or that the British court system is not an aceptable authority for Wikipedia, but I think that almost everyone else would disagree. (It was not just one judge. He lost on appeal. Oh, and then there was that business in Austria. It keeps happening to him again and again.)

The reference in the article says that he is "widely known as Holocaust denier", and then clarifies that he has recanted. That he is widely known as such can be confirmed through a Google search. This is not "Mr. Irving's CV". It is an encyclopaedia article aout him, so it must show the good and the bad. An article about Margaret Thatcher would not identify her as a grocer's daughter, and bury several paragraphs down that she was the Prime Minister if the UK. It starts with the most salient facts about her. Ground Zero | t 11:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

With the deleted entry which I have performed again today, the text is more neutral in terms of point of views, because the term 'Holocaust denial' is not recognised by all of us as something substantial, indeed many would not know what it is about.

Add to that that he doesn't deny that many jews got killed, but he questions the number and the way they died, and I personally would add personal revenge on jews in the east for crimes committed under the bolsjevik regimes, and general revenge based on antagonistic feelings towards them, let loose and encouraged (certainly not discouraged) by the Nazis declared policies in the eastern gouvernement.

It is hioghly unfair that David Irving should take the brunt of understqndsable jewish resentment of what happened to their kinsmen during WW2, just because he question certain things of the whole-sale packet called Holocaust with a capital h. Nick-Rowan 10:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It may not be "recognised by all of us as something substantial", but it is recognized as something substantial by the law courts in two countries, both of which have found him guilty of holocaust denial. We can certainly include a mention that some people think there was never a Holocaust to deny, or whatever POV you are promoting, so long as we have a reliable source for it. -Will Beback 19:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Two courts you say. Lets take yhe last first: The court in austria. Austria as an ally to Nazi-Germany, yes one an the same, stille have very tough anti-nazi laws, just like Germany. These laws are reckoned by most to be out of step with todays world, so you really cannot take what a court in any of these 2 countries says about an apparent violation of these laws, as anything but a manifestation of declared policies in these countries to rule out any repetition of their cruel past.

There are two distinct phases in a trial. One is to investigate the facts of the case. The second is the legal evaluation of these facts. Regardless of wether one supports the Geman and Austrian anti-Holocaust laws: The facts stay the same. The system is even rigged in favour of Irving. In a criminal trial, the verdict is not by preponderance of evidence, but the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It did. --Stephan Schulz 13:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you have the court in London that stated that Mr. Irving was a holocaust-denier and an anti-semite. Both are perfectly legal to be, we must allways remember this. Most people reckon that for a Judge in Londons High Court to rule what a person is or is not or what his beliefs are, are exttraordinary to say the least. He says himself he is not, that must be quite enough. Nick-Rowan 13:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, because "I'm not a murderer" was such an effective defense for Tim McVeigh....--Stephan Schulz 13:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What Irving now says in an attepmpt to stay out of gaol has to be weighed against what he has said and done and written in the past, things that more august bodies than this group of Wikipedia editors have concluded amount to "Holocaust denial". More to the point, you (Nick Rowan) write above, "Add to that that he doesn't deny that many jews (sic) got killed, but he questions the number and the way they died" -- so he denies the standard historical interpretation of what happened to the Jews (the word is capitalised, like "Christian" or "Muslim") in World War II, i.e., that Hitler's Nazi regime and their allies in other countries perpetrated a holocaust aginst the Jews. Isn't that the same as saying that he denies the Holocaust? Ground Zero | t 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Flawed logic in text intro

It says: " He is widely known as a Holocaust denier, although he has at times appeared to change his position,"

The first part of the sentence refers to what he is known for (according to the views of the author on this text, it is as you know highly subjective, as different people knows different bits about other people), whereas the last part states that he have at times changed his position. Now anyone are at any time allowed to change his or hers position, regardless of what they are 'known' for. Changing of positions often takes place due to new insights gained out of scientific research.

Other people are in need of changing their positions, and be more open to people who cast doubt on collectively aquired knowledge. All this doubt is what brings all scientific research forward, also historical research.

He has the right to question the numbers of jews killed, the way they were killed and to propose whether some of these killings where revenge killings (on something that jews's kinsmen had done in say Bolsjewik Russia) and to ask how many jews died due to the lawlessness in authoritarean ruled Eastern Guvernement with its emphasis of jews clearings. In such an lawless environment, many locals can have committed crimes on their own. As such, allthough the Nazis whgere supremely responsible, - who actually carried out the crimes becomes more muddy.

What regards the numbers, Irving has a point by referring to the Yad Vashem website, which only lists 2 million jewish victims and here-off clearly many double entries. The issue of the exact numbers is very important, in other words independent research (like Irvings) should be encouraged by all means. Certain people are not interested in getting to the truth on the matter, satisfied with clinging on to the 6 million figure, which is one of the components that the iranian president refers to, when he talks about 'myths' in conjunction with the killiongs of jews under the Nazis.

The iranian president makes a good point when he talks about the need to make independent research into what really happened, and how many perished, and in what way. Because there can be little doubt that the figure of 6 million in its enormity and sshattering scale, palyed a crucial role in the establisment of Israel in Mr Ahmanijads back yard, displacing hundred of thousands of palestinians, a crime which wouldn't have gone unhindered, where it not for the crimes committed against the jews under the Nazis, and which had filled the world with chock.

So it is definately in all right minded and fair peoples interest to get to the bottom at just what went on, just as we would do - and have done - with any other event.

P:S: As a result of the flawed logic, and the inter-spun subjective views (about what he is 'known' of), I have obviusly deleted the sentence, and shall demand that it stays out for ever. Nick-Rowan 06:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite your demand it has been reverted back. Again. This not the first time that you have made this change, Nick-Rowan. Please realise that the logic is not flawed at all. And to cite the criticisms of the President of Iran weakens your case, instead of strengthening it, as the man is not widely renowned for his public utterances. As for the rest of your post, the fact that the Nazis actively encouraged such killings - and then went on to go far, far beyond them with the activities of the Einsatzgruppen and the creation of the extermination camps - means that your own logic is somewhat skewed. The Nazi's total disregard for human rights and the rule of Law makes it hard to deny the fact that the blame must be placed at their door and that the total number of Jewish deaths only contains a small number of possible double countings. the 5 1/2m to 6m figure has been examined for decades and still stands up to scrutiny. Oh and Palestine/Israel has nothing to do with it. Darkmind1970

What is Irving?

Irving is most famous (indeed, infamous) for being a Holocaust denier. Two courts have found him to be a Holocaust denier, and he has been excluded from several other countries because he is a Holocaust denier. It is hard to imagine anyone else in the world who is more authoritatively associated with Holocaust denial. Thus, this characteristic of Iriving needs to lead, and it cannot be waffled about using "widely thought to be" weasel words, or original research about how the exact nature of his Holocaust denial may have gone a miraculous revision upon threat of jail time. In addition, he cannot be described as a "historian" any longer, since a court has found that he deliberately distorted the historical record for polemic purposes. Someone who does that deliberately is a propagandist, not a historian; and indeed, the references given explicitly state he is not a historian. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He is indeed most famous for being a Holocaust denier, but his recanting is certainly not original research. I don't really care too much about whether he is or isn't described as a historian, except to note that previous consensus was that he would be described as such, and that your argument that a court finding he distorted the historical record makes him no longer a historian is a bit flimsy and OR-like for my liking, Cyril Burt is still called a psychologist after all. --Coroebus 15:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, we have many other sources that do refer to him as a historian. This issue isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to make out. But it seems to be a big issue to some people, the guy writes books about history which I suppose is a good enough description. I'd shift those two refs on why you don't want to call him a historian into the 'Historian' section with perhaps a quick note that people often don't like referring to him as a historian (the spectacularly ill-judged quote from Christopher Hitchens could probably balance the other 3 quotes you've got)--Coroebus 15:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He used to be thought of as a historian, but it's clear now he never was. And while his "recanting" is not original research, the meaning imputed to them certainly was. Until Irving explains exactly what he means by his most recent claim that gas chambers did exist, it's not up to us to speculate on their meaning; I recently discovered one editor inserting the claim that he only meant there were de-lousing gas chambers in Auschwitz, but not the human-killing kind.[17] As far as shifting the note goes, it's best to have this kind of thing right up front, in preparation for the next person who will come along and insist he is a historian. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the delousing one too. Could we not shift the quotes to 'Historian', start the historian section with the controversy over whether he should be called a historian, and put a link down to that section from the description of him as an author of..., thus referring the reader to the historian controversy without over burdening the introduction with wordy footnotes? --Coroebus 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to shift the notes down, go ahead. However, I predict that without these notes up front, the description of him as "historian" will soon be back in the lead. Irving has many supporters, like User:Nick-Rowan above, or User:Druidictus, who describes him as "The Worlds' Greatest Historian", and they regularly attempt to buff Irving's image. By the way, the Hitchens quote you refer to was from 1996, long before Irving's claim to be a historian was thoroughly debunked in the Lipstadt trial. I doubt Hitchens would say the same thing today. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ingram quote is about 1969 though (but annoyingly isn't online anymore). --Coroebus 16:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have followed this debate with interest. I recently read The Mare's Nest and found it decent enough, well-written and well researched, and without any holocaust denial. It seems clear to me that Irving was a historian and then became what he is today. I wonder if the lead ought to be edited in this direction? --Guinnog 16:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer to leave 'historian' out of the lead, but link to a discussion of whether he is or was a historian in the body of the article under 'Historian' --Coroebus 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. On reflection I agree with you. --Guinnog 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I mentioned before that I think he's a historian, just a bad historian -- kinda like Lysenko was a scientist, just a bad scientist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is 'bad historian' like the nearest the humanities can get to evil scientist? --Coroebus 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The BBC and Guardian readily refer to Irving as a historian. Sure, the stories about his conviction will mention "denier" earlier because that was the basis for the jail sentence, but even those articles they still call him a "historian". Those news agencies have a greater obligation to be fair because they have reputations to protect. We should not be making such decisions based on some simple head-count of web links. We should establish Wikipedia's own reputation by also being fair. We should refer to Irving as a historian (and denier and whatever else is essential) in the first sentence. -- 75.24.211.225 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's nice how SlimVirgin banned me because I forget to log in and I have a disagreement. This is clear admin abuse. To not say that Irving is a historian is ridiculous. Irving has writen many books on the military history WW2 which have always been thouroghly researced and praised to high acclaim. He is known as a noteable scholar and historian on the subject yet this article immediately establishes his reputation as a holocaust denier and that is all what the article focuses on. It just smears the mans reputation and only focuses on holocaust denial. You can't just hide information. This is an encyclopedia and we have to be fair. He is not just an author and to remove that he is a historian is completely ridiculous and breaks wiki policy every way. This will remain in the heading intro:

In 1998, he launched an unsuccessful libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher in which the judge ruled that characterizations "that [Irving] is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism" and "that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence" were "substantially true".

So by adding historian and leaving this in most readers will come to the conclusion:

He is a historian but he is anti-Semitic, racist, and openly associates with Nazis so chances are he is one too.

I dont see what the big deal is. I dont know how wikipedia can maintain credibility and its reputation by allowing such blatant unencyclopedic behavior to go on.

AmericanSunLight 01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (This user is a sock of banned user:Jerry Jones -Will Beback 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

But he is currently in jail for his holocaust denial! What do you expect the article to say? He was regarded as a historian, as a good resercher too, before he went off on his Nazi apologist trip after the Hitler book. But he isn't regarded as one now. See also my reply below.

BTW I do hope you're not a banned user avoiding a ban? Otherwise I can't see the meaning of your "It's nice how SlimVirgin banned me because I forget to log in and I have a disagreement" above. --Guinnog 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, as I have tried to point out to you in your user discussion page, the initial reference to Irving as a holocaust denier is indeed unencyclopaedic and not consistent with other Wiki articles. Mike Tyson is not referred to as a rapist, despite his conviction, nor is Nelson Mandela referred to as a terrorist, quite correctly. Even John Wilkes Booth is referred to as an actor, despite solely being known for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Please join me in approaching this subject impartially. Irving is a first and foremost a right-wing British historian, the conviction for holocaust denial is secondary. It discredits Wikipedia to introduce Irving using a term which only expresses an opinion on an historical event. Please note that I am approaching this case as a keen user of Wiki. I am not a right-winger, I am simply a strong advocate of political neutrality in Wikipedia. Johnx10 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your own political views are immaterial in this, it is about policy and fairness. I don't find the comparisons with Tyson, Mandela or Booth very compelling. In none of those cases were the subjects' convictions directly relevant to their profession. In Irving's case he was only marginally a historian, then chose to take out a libel suit which he lost, and in which his professional competence was largely undermined by facts under oath. He then chose to enter Austria where he knew he would be arrested. He is not a historian. He is a writer known for holocaust denial. Sorry. --Guinnog 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, his status as a historian is disputable. He has made a bit of a career out of denying historical fact. Was he invited to Austria because of his historical writings? No, he was invited because he denies the Holocaust. Without Holocaust denial, he would be a pretty marginal figure, and quite possibly would not have an article here, certainly not an article as long and contentious as this one. He is famous for his Holocaust denial, so the article should identify that upfront. Mike Tyson is famous for being a boxer. Nelson Mandela is famous as a symbol of resistance and President of South Africa -- his terrorist activities were in fact relatively minor compared to what he accomplished after he was imprisoned. Ground Zero | t 23:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The lawsuit in the lead section

Do we really need more than just the judgement (i.e. no libel) on the libel suit? He launched a suit and it failed. OK, plaintiff pays court costs. The suit was not about him: it was about the libel. I think it is poor style to let a failed lawsuit take up so much room in the lead section. Surely, his jail conviction is more important than that; the libel suit was merely about money. -- 75.26.7.27 03:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The libel suit was where he first really lost his credibility though as it was established that he was in fact a holocaust denier rather than a bona fide historian. --Guinnog 15:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The idea that the libel lawsuit was "about money" is pretty peculiar. From Irving's point of view, I'd think it would be more about his honor as an historian. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Irvings books were neither more or less true after the lawsuit ruling than before. The scope of the lawsuit was simply that: he suit was unsuccessful. What am I to think? That he "was a historian" before the lawsuit and that the lawsuit retroactively made him "not a historian" ever? We are here to report facts. You know: those things that are true today and probably still true tomorrow (unlike social phenomena, such as an individual's popularity). The lawsuit verdict is one fact. Lawsuits are complex: if it is really that important, then the lawsuit perahps should have its own article (take inspiration from the O.J. Simpson case for that). But the lead section is supposed to be brief and balanced. -- 75.24.110.77 18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You mustn't have followed the trial at all if you don't see that his credibility as a historian was utterly undermined by some of the things that came out. Take the Dresden death figures, for example. I had quoted (with Kurt Vonnegut) Irving's high figure, but I recall at the trial it was revealed as more or less a guesstimate. I've read and enjoyed one of his books, and on a philosophical level have some sympathy for him in his (self-made) predicament. He did a lot of good research in his day, but by falsifying (some) data and by flirting with Neo-Nazis and Holocaust denial, he lost his professional credibility. He no longer qualifies as a historian. Ex-historian maybe but that sounds even worse. "Holocaust denier and author of several books about the military history of World War II" is just right, and that is what we have now. --Guinnog 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You say that like "historian" is some sort of badge of honor, though. It's not. Historians do and must interpret facts and ideas, and pretty much any historian has biases that, to a greater or lesser degree, are going to come out in their work. "Qualifies as a historian" -- well, yeah, he's a historian and a fucking liar. He'd hardly be the first. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair point I suppose. Of course Irving's mistake was to be stupid enough to be caught being so comprehensively a fucking liar, in a libel court of his own choice. --Guinnog 03:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dresden bombing - all the figures are guesstimates. I believe a couple of encyclopedias have guesstimates that are quite high. The current "official" guesstimate barely includes the recovered bodies. I think that eventually the Dresden numbers will tend upward until they become more realistic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)

Guesstimates? Funny, the Nazi German authorities didn't have such a big margin of error in their death toll figures. One wonders what the death toll should be based on. It's a good thing that such speculation isn't what history is based on, much to the chagrin of Mr. Irving. Cantankrus 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Germans had an exact count for the bodies recovered - I don't believe they even guessed ( at least officially ) about the total count - recovered and unrecovered( if any).

Recently Jorg Friedrich was on C-Span talking about his book "The Fire" - about fire bombing on Germany in WW2. Here is a German historian who appears to back up Irving. I believe his book was out in 2002.159.105.80.80 13:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The footnote [9] - Evans re: Dresden Is there a footnote to Evans' 25,000 number in his book. Just wondering where he did his research. ( I don't have his book, maybe someone can trace this )159.105.80.80 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of Historian, footnotes...again

if only we could put that last statement into the article somehow...however, it is for efforts like this that perhaps we could call him an "on and off historian"? or maybe a "historian when it suits?" He didn't live up to this title consistantly. Perhaps the footnotes should suggest this, rather than discredit anything and all that he has done. Despite his great knowledge of the war and related subjects, his inconsistency has, in effect, made him a questionable source all the time. For those who are interested, this story really shed light on his personality: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-395810,00.html It is very insightful. --72.92.0.83 13:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A question: if Irving recants his earlier views, can we still describe him as a "Holocaust denier"? According to the Malcolm X page, this is the rationale for why such an explicit racist is not listed as such (as found on the discussion page):

"He discarded these views in the last couple of years before his death. You may want to add a reference to these earlier beliefs, but it would not be fair to characterize him as a racist in the end; he repudiated those views."

GPO?

Irving called the police because he suspected that three men who had gained access to his Mayfair apartment by claiming to be GPO engineers were not genuine

The GPO link here goes to a disambiguation page that offers nothing useful. Could someone more familiar with the subject expand this contraction?--Prosfilaes 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He means General Post Office (United Kingdom) and by "pass" they mean "identity card". It is unclear to me how such ID cards would allow an "engineer" to gain physical entry, presumably unsupervised, to a London flat (apartment). What for? To repair antique pneumatic tubes or something? Is there something to those scenes from Brazil (film) that I, as an American, simply do not know about? -- PinkCake 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The GPO used to maintain Britain's telephone network, before the advent of British Telecom, so I suppose they could have said they needed to gain entry to conduct tests or repairs to the phone line. That is a great film BTW! --Guinnog 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazi sympathizer

These and similar epithets given to Mr D. Irving prove to me, that some use this article as a propaganda card. Which I find sad. Why can't we just say what the content of his works are (many of which are not even mentioned, let alone their content), say some countries persecute him for his statements, which are unlawful there.Smith2006 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose we improve the article? By all means I agree we should include summaries of his more important works. What we have at present in the lead seems fair and well-referenced to me. However I agreed with you about the picture caption; not that I disagree with the content before I changed it, but that it was unnecessary editorialising as a picture caption. --Guinnog 09:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It was attributed to others, and how others view a person is important. A work that talks about the contents of a collection of works is a bibliography, not a biography; a biography covers his life, his views (like, in this case, how he feels about the Nazis), and his role in the world, including how others saw and see him.

And frankly, while in the article WP:NPOV calls for us to cite where people have called him a Nazi sympathizer, he has denied the Holocaust happened, he has written many positive words on Hitler, and he accused Churchill of "turning Britain against its natural ally, Germany." That and everything else makes him a Nazi sympathizer. I'm very suspicious of anything that dismisses that as propoganda; it's simple reality.--Prosfilaes 13:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not reality. It's the reality interpreted thus by you. Who tells if Irving agrees with National Socialism. At most one could call him pro-German. Not a Nazi. That's too far.His poem to me looks like dry English humour made about the charicatures his enemies have made of him!Smith2006 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The remaining material is perfectly well referenced in my opinion. If there is anything specific you propose changing, please make your specific suggestion, with reasons. --Guinnog 07:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I will have no reference to 'Holocaust denier' or any similar subjective expression in the intro

The term is invented by the jewish community and does not take into account the many other holocausts. It is selfish to the extreme to spell it with a capital H.

This is one thing but Irving has never denied that many jews got killed, but he have questioned the number and the way they died. So what he is denying is the jewish version of it. Since it is a narrow jewish term that one has to accept 100 pct. otherwise they deem you a 'Holocaust denier', it obviosly should not be included in the biografhy in an encyclopedia, that should be objective an fair towards living persons CV. Look here what the rules are (it is on the very top of this page):

"Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous"

Sir-John-Peters 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. If you read down to the rest of the article you will see that Irving lost a libel case on a similar basis to the view you are taking there. We may safely consider Irving to be a holocaust denier as:

1. He was rash enough to deny the holocaust (although I understand he has now refined his position)
2. He lost a libel case where he tried to sue someone else for saying he was a holocaust denier
3. He is currently serving time in jail for being a holocaust denier.

Please don't delete facts you don't like from the article. --Guinnog 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not 'facts', but a subjective caracterisation that should not feature in a biografphy of a living person in a respectabel encyclopedia!!! Sir-John-Peters 18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

So say the warning on top on this very page. Therefore I will have no reference to Irving as a 'Holocasusi denier' which is a highly subjective and libelous term, and it is wrong, since Irving does not deny that many jews got killed, but he do not accept 100 pct. the jewiosh version of THE Holocaust with a capital H. This is allowed for any free man on this planet to symphatise and believe in what he likes. This man is the worlds leading expert of the nature of the Nazi regime, and he has found reasons to questions several points in this Holocaust story with a capital H, as this is his right as an independent historian, and this is what drives research forward. Soi you are right he 'denies' the jewish version of THE Holocaust with capital H, but this denial is only interesting for few people, and should not feature at the very beginng of this mans CV. Sir-John-Peters 18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, this reference has been tested twice in court now as well as being discussed here. --Guinnog 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Two court cases lost is no proof that he really is what the court said. Where did you get the idea, that any court are able to say what a man is or is not? What he believes and believes not?

What regards your reference to any utterings on here and that this in any way should mean anything, I will let it pass. But libel is not allowed here, I know that. Sir-John-Peters 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Irving sued someone for, essentially, calling him a "Holocaust denier". It was established that that is an accurate description and not a libel. -Will Beback 19:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the English High Court has ruled that calling David Irving a Holocaust denier is not libel. Who says it is libel? Some bloke who calls himself "Sir-John-Peters". Not a very authoritative source. I vote we stick with the High Court. Ground Zero | t 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

One cannot accuse you of being too clever. With a horrendous stupifying nick-name made popular after its use in connection with the attacks on the WTC on 9/11, you reveal yourself to be american or in tally with mainstream american populism and slang. This willingness to embrace such simplicity also shows off when you apparently consider a single verdict by an english court out of thousands such it has made, as akin to the epitomisation of truth itself. Sir-John-Peters 08:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As Irving has played out his appeals in this matter, it seems that the higher courts agree with the original decision. And since the reason he originally sued was for the libel of calling him a "Holocaust Denier", and he lost that suit, it would be an apt to describe him as such, especially since the defence used the arguement that "the libel was the truth". Cantankrus 19:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not American. The term "ground zero" predates 9/11 by several decades, and has been applied to other events since. Sir John, have you actually be knighted by Her Majesty the Queen, or have you just adopted that nick-name for the fun of it? Not that there's anything wrong with that....

With regard to your point about "a single verdict by an english court out of thousands such it has made", I note that English courts have reached no verdicts that provide support for the contention that calling Irving a "Holocaust denier" is libellous. They have reached verdicts that support the contention that he is a Holocaust denier. So yes, it is relevant to quote the English courts as a reliable source on this question. Ground Zero | t 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I have authored a wonderfully positive intro

-polite and good mannered , as befitting any intro to a living persons biography, in an encyclopedia that want to consider itself objective an un-biased.

Here is my suggestion:

"David John Cawdell Irving (born March 24, 1938) is a British historian and author of several bestselling books about the military history of World War II.[1][2][3] He is considered a world leading authority on the Nazi Regime and its main figures." Sir-John-Peters 08:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that postdate his most recent incarceration that still regard him as a leading authority? My impression is that his reputation has suffered considerably in recent years. -Will Beback 09:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you just read the rest of this page you should see why repeatedly adding that he is a historian is against consensus. The feeling is that he was thoroughly discredited in the libel case, when his methods were revealed to be dodgy. I agree with the second sentence for what it is worth; I have read one of his books and several others where he was used as a source; but historian? No, he was caught lying, not to mince words. His POV is beyond unfashionable too, which is why he is currently in jail for holocaust denial. --Guinnog 09:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that the The Times calls him a "disgraced historian"[18]. He was found by a court of law to have falsified history. It would be factuall incorrect to describe him as a leading authority. Given his proven falsifcations, it would be a disservice to other historians to give him that title either. -Will Beback 09:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sad but true. --Guinnog 09:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am currently re-reading Professor Richard Evans' book on the Irving trial, "Telling Lies About Hitler." I strongly recommend it, especially for the in-depth look into the way that Irving has selectively quoted people and made comments fit his distorted theories. I'd say that he is not a historian at all, but a liar. Darkmind1970 10:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(copied from the last time we discussed this, in August, apologies for profanity)

You mustn't have followed the trial at all if you don't see that his credibility as a historian was utterly undermined by some of the things that came out. Take the Dresden death figures, for example. I had quoted (with Kurt Vonnegut) Irving's high figure, but I recall at the trial it was revealed as more or less a guesstimate. I've read and enjoyed one of his books, and on a philosophical level have some sympathy for him in his (self-made) predicament. He did a lot of good research in his day, but by falsifying (some) data and by flirting with Neo-Nazis and Holocaust denial, he lost his professional credibility. He no longer qualifies as a historian. Ex-historian maybe but that sounds even worse. "Holocaust denier and author of several books about the military history of World War II" is just right, and that is what we have now. --Guinnog 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You say that like "historian" is some sort of badge of honor, though. It's not. Historians do and must interpret facts and ideas, and pretty much any historian has biases that, to a greater or lesser degree, are going to come out in their work. "Qualifies as a historian" -- well, yeah, he's a historian and a fucking liar. He'd hardly be the first. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair point I suppose. Of course Irving's mistake was to be stupid enough to be caught being so comprehensively a fucking liar, in a libel court of his own choice. --Guinnog 03:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(end copied text)

It is not the place of an encyclopedia to be "wonderfully positive... polite and good mannered". An encyclopedia should provide the reader a factual account of the person's life, and not cover up blemishes or sins in order to celebrate a person. He was caught denying that the Holocaust happened, he has since recanted, sort of, but not really. His so-called histories have been discredited by other historians as noted above. It would be misleading to tell readers that he is a historian or a "world leading authority". Ground Zero | t 11:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Our article on Frankie Fraser, for example, calls him "a notorious former British criminal and gang member who spent more than half of his life in prison for numerous violent offences." Is this impolite and bad-mannered? Is it fair to point out these blemishes on his record just because he was convicted in English courts? Or was he just a misunderstood soul? Ground Zero | t 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Did Irving deny the holocaust or just say that no documents supporting it had surfaced? That would be an historian's viewpoint. Do you have a link with his denial statement? Link? His denial of his denial is a little on the lawyerly side. I am not sure he ever minded the "denier" label, except when it was coupled with an attempt to destroy his liveihood. I doubt he has any respect for Lipstadt or her opinion on anything, but he does like groceries.

From the article: "On February 20, 2006 Irving's trial began as he pleaded guilty to the charge of trivialising, grossly playing down and denying the Holocaust." -Will Beback 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any other denial by him. In court he probably is trying to get home before he dies of old age in an Austrian jail. I have never read of him saying that any facts he has uncovered are untrue. His research was always praised until he crossed Lipstadt and her supporters. ( What exactly did Lipstadt say he denied - never made clear)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .

Footnote number 10: "In 1969, after David Irving's support for Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright who accused Winston Churchill of murdering the Polish wartime leader General Sikorski, The Daily Telegraph issued a memo to all its correspondents. 'It is incorrect,' it said, 'to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author.'" That was long before Lipstadt.--Prosfilaes 15:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but isn't the Telegraph a hotbed of socialist rabble-rousing? How can that band of Marxist propagandists be trusted with any facts? (I am, of course, joking.) Ground Zero | t 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

159.105.80.92, have you actually read the article?

• Towards the end of the trial, Irving publicly recanted saying that "I've changed my views. I spoke then about Auschwitz and gas chambers based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that any more and I wouldn't say that now. The Nazis did murder millions of Jews...I made a mistake by saying there were no gas chambers, I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place. I apologise to those few I might have offended though I remain very proud of the 30 books I have written."

So yes, he admited that what he had said previously was untrue. -Will Beback 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Telegraph appears to have done exactly what Lipstadt did - try to ruin his career - did Irving sue the Telegraph, he was prone to suits I believe.

Any reference to his denials don't seem to go back to 1991 - preEichmann papers. Irving appears to be yanking the legs of people who don't read carefully. He isn't saying what he said and he wouldn't say it now - yeah but what does he say now? He probably found files in Moscow listing how many Jews got killed fighting for Russia ( murdered?) - wait for his next book - he is probably on the verge of telling exeactly what he thinks, with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Well, if his reliance on sources holds true to his previous works, then there are destined for the dustbin of history, as he routinely manipulated and distorted what the evidence showed. Cantankrus 23:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than Zionists and one lone English judge( who probably say his career flashing before his eyes) Irving's research has always been highly praised by historians. After getting in the sights of the Zionists these same historians are probably seeing their careers flash before their eyes. How would you suggest that a historian research the holocaust? Or would you suggest that it might be a good idea not to.

Holocaust denier again

In this edit, User:Slim Virgin removed the reference that the introductory paragraph made to Irving as a Holocaust denier without discussing it on the talk page. The issue has been addressed numerous times here. While this has been a controversial statement -- several openly anti-Semitic and usually anonymous editors have challenged this statement -- most editors agreed that this is what Irving is best known for, and therefore should be in the introductory paragraph in addition to the reference about his histories. Without his Holocaust denial, a much smaller segment of Wikipedia readership would have heard of him and be coming here for more information. It really should be in the opening paragraph. I invite comments from others before I will reinstate this. Ground Zero | t 11:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Its been deemed in a Court of Law that Irving did indeed deny the Holocaust, Also it's been one of the central themes of Irvings writings and the only things he's really noted for, so I can't see any justification for not re-instating it in the introduction. Galloglass 12:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a central theme of Irving's writings; I got the impression it's something he danced around a lot and changed depending on the audience (it didn't happen; Jews died at work camps, not deliberately killed; it happened, but Hitler didn't know about; etc.) Certainly, however, to say that he "is a British author of several books on World War II military history" is like saying that George Washington "was an early president of the United States"; it's true, but misses why they're important and interesting.--Prosfilaes 13:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of her edit seems ok, it is reported that he was sentenced for Holocaust denial further down the intro (although I can see the argument that it ought to be mentioned nearer the beginning so people can see when they look up Irving, "oh yes, he's that guy that denied the holocaust" rather than "oh, he wrote some books, hmm, why do I know the name then?". Removing the link down to the historian section without discussion was unfortunate as it was something of a compromise with those that wanted to call him a historian in the introduction. We'll see how it goes. --Coroebus 17:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be mentioned - it is the most substantial part of what he is most famous for. That and being a shoddy historian who selectively edited quotes and whose work on Dresden included unsourced documents. Darkmind1970 12:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Irving's writings does not concentrate on the persecution of Jews during WWII, and this is not what he is known for, it's a rather obscure topic in his writings, but rather for his well-known work on British terror bombing etc. What he also is known for is that he is denied freedom of speech and persecuted for dealing with history. This is already mentioned in the introduction. He has actively stated he does not deny the holocaust. Sinjytrok 06:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So what was he jailed for then? I have read and enjoyed one of his books and I recognise the value of some of his research, but you've got to admit he is far better known to most people as a holocaust denial. His own shifting statements have little value in deciding how we treat the subject, it is determined by reliable sources, not, as the edit summary put it by his jailhouse conversion which I think is covered adequately in the article. --Guinnog 06:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Denier - it seems to be impossible to do research on WW2 without being a "denier". Research always seems to discover new information that tends to deny old stories - ie see the numbers of deaths go down where you want them to go up and vice versa. Irving never wrote much, if anything, on Jewish deaths ( of course neither did FDR, Stalin, Churchill, etc ) but outside of the pro-Holocaust lobby noone of stature seems to come up with any research other than repeating "eye witnesses - who even many pro-H groups discount. Finally it appears that Irving is being let out of jail - Austria got embarrassed about jailing an old man for free speech ( which of course is illegal in Austria - probably for many things other than H denial - tyranny of the liberal causes ). Interesting if the pro-H crowd has just released one of the best archive researchers in the world onto their own heads - if he comes out in a bad mood watch out for H- etc memos to surface that we don't really want to see from archives that "historians" have ignored or were too lazy or cowardly to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

So, your saying that all of the "eyewitnesses" to World War 2 are lying? Because, if you are a "denier" for doing research, and that research tends to "deny old stories", many of which are simply "repeating [the] eye witnesses" on those old stories -- then wow, this is a breakthrough. What else do you figure can be sent to the dustbin of history? Stalingrad? Maybe the whole North African campaign was a sham? Heady stuff. And to think people really believe World War 2 occured. Unbelievable.

While jailing Irving was silly, he wasn't jailed for anything but his own stupidity. For someone who is "the best active researcher in the world," you think he would have known something straightforward like an outstanding warrant. But, of course he knew that; that's why he had to sneak into Austria by car (there are no border controls in the EU), rather then flying in direct. He just assumed he'd get a 30 day sentence.

But, of course, Irving is all about assuming, like when he assumed no one would check his research to find that he'd manipulated sources and evidence. You are right about one thing -- it's a good thing that there aren't other historians that use his research method to reach "conclusions". Cantankrus 13:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The above conversation started out well, but went astray. The key question is "how does the opening paragraph describe Irving". I think to be fair, we have to balance what he is and what he is best known for. Both are subject to debate. More detailed thoughts in my section, --below. Otheus 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Inquisition

(from User talk:Injinera#David Irving)

May I ask why you are adding a link to Inquisition in the See also section of the David Irving article? The Inquisition article relates to the inquisitions of the Catholic Church and as far as I know Irving has nothing to do with that. Can you explain the relevance of your addition? Thanks, Gwernol 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a continuation of the subject of free speech. It's a historical example of legal proceedings against people for expressing a particular point of view. It's a cautionary tale.--Injinera 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a historical example that should possibly go on the Freedom of speech page, not here.--Prosfilaes 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I'd argue that describing the legal process that happened to Irving as an Inquisition is a clear example of pushing a point of view which isn't allowed here. Gwernol 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(from User talk:Injinera#David Irving, again )

It seems like its pushing a specific agenda which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, please don't revert that into the article again, as you would be in breach of the three revert rule and would likely be blocked from editing. Thanks, Gwernol 17:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Specific agenda"??? Are you kidding? Gogle search: Results 1 - 10 of about 19,200 for "David Irving" Inquisition Please, stop censoring the page. --Injinera 17:59, 30 Nov

Please try to gain consensus for the inclusion of this link. It doesn't help your case that the bulk of the Google hits on that first page and on succeeding pages are places like Stormfront (to name one of the more reliable ones). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not censorship -- it is about relevance. The link between Irving and the Inquisition exists only in your opinion that Irving was persecuted for holding an opinion. In other people's opinions, including those of the courts of Austria, he was guilty of denying the Holocaust, which the court accepts as historical fact, and therefore not a matter of opinion. In Wikipedia, a link should not be included just because a few editors believe that there is a tangential connection. Ground Zero | t 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(from User talk:Injinera#David Irving, again )

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't want to have this discussion here, because this is not my personal question, but one of 19,000 people. That's why I duplicate all mesages from here to the Talk:David Irving. --Injinera 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, the trouble is the 19,000 Google results seem to be from sources with a very specific set of agendas. The number of Google results is not a good measure of the bias or lack of a particular phrase. Groups like Stormfront do not have a neutral point of view on this subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and maintaining a neutral point of view is one of the core policies we need to maintain. Gwernol 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#The_neutral_point_of_view Quote: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. " --Injinera 19:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a matter of NPOV; I see it as a matter of relevance. No matter how many people have compared what's happening to David Irving to the Inquisition, it's still an analogy which isn't really useful to the see also section.--Prosfilaes 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. !!! I just want this official policy to be applied here without further controversy - that means this point of view to be present too. Thanks! --Injinera 20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You missed, None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth. Adding this to the "inquisition" category would be asserting their opinion of being the truth. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding a simple link to inquisition has nothing to do with NPOV or balance, it is a transparent attempt at propaganda. If you insist on mentioning this alleged relation, find a reliable source and state it in neutral language with proper attribution ("According to neo-nazi group Stormfront, Irving's trial is comparable to the Spanish Inquisition"). --Stephan Schulz 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to "represent" the "Holocaust denial is freedom of speech" point of view by linking to examples of persecution of freedom of speech, should we represent point of view that "the existence of the Holocaust has been proven" by adding links to other examples of historians who got it wrong, liars, and spreaders of false news? It could become a very long list very quickly without providing useful information for readers. Ground Zero | t 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is one valid link between the Inquisition and David Irving; neither has anything to do with freedom of speech. That could become a very large category, however. Gzuckier 17:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Irrelevant" vs "Unnecessary"

I altered one small portion of the text - a rare stylistic,, rather than POV, edit. The original article read "thereby making [Irving's attack] unnecessary in the opinions of many". This is a poorly worded statement for three reasons I can think of - 1) "making" is generally taught as a word to avoid, for it's rather simplistic, 2) "in the opinions of many" sounds like something from a 9th grade English class, and 3) "Unnecessary" sounds uptight and priggish ("that joke was wholly unnecessary!" - perhaps my time as a class clown has biased me here?). I have changed this to the much more collegiate, "arguably [taking the place of "in the opinions of many", serving the same function of calling to mind the non-unanimous nature of the subsequent analysis] rendering [so much better than "making", am I not right?] [Irving's attack] irrelevant [since this is really the issue - it's not so much a "moral" sin (which "unnecessary" connotes) but more of a "logistical" sin. i.e., telling an old (/homophobic) lady on her deathbed that her beloved son is a homosexual is unnecessary, whereas demanding a President's resignition the day after his term expires is irrelevant]. Hopefully this makes sense. --Action Jackson IV 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good edit. --Guinnog 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote to Trim Article

The article has alwasy been long, and in the 9 months since I last edited it, the article's substance has moved from irving's writings to more current events. I vote we try to trim and condense the article, without losing the gist of the themes. My thoughts are as follows:

1. Irving is an author, historian, archivist, whatever. That is what he does for a living, this is what he clearly has been passionate about for over 30 years, and thus, it is his most salient feature. It is what he is. But to be politically correct, neutral, whatever, he should be noted as an Author of World War II, period. No more, no less. Were they historical? Yes and no. Were they factual? Yes and no. Were they denials of the holcaust? Mostly no.
2. His notariety and attention comes most prominently from his legal batters over Holocaust Denial. I want to make it clear that it is over his legal battles, NOT his denial that has garnered the attention. This may seem to be splitting hairs, but I believe it's important. Irving gets very little attention for saying anything (these days). He does, however, get lots of press for being in the courtroom. Having said that, I propose his tagline read something like:

   Irving is a British author of World War II history, though he is most widely known for his legal battles over his denial of the Holocaust.

3. Tagging Irving as a 'Holocaust Denier' has led to this article evolving from a concentration around his books to a concentration on his legal battles on holocaust denial.
4. Given the observation above, the article should be rebalanced to discuss more of his being an author than his being a holocaust-denial-litigant. And, his tagline should be vigorously guarded as proposed above.

Otheus 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You make some good points. I still think we need to discuss here and agree before changing the emphasis of the article. I feel Irving is still known to most people as a holocaust denier rather than as a writer. --Guinnog 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it was thay way until relatively recently. For instance, take a look at a September 2005 edit, before his arraignment in Austria. --Otheus 17:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I also note that your edit removes a reference. --Guinnog 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Crap. Unintended. I was attempting to condense. (why does a footnote have statements made later in the article?) --Otheus 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Any chance you could fix it? We also need to address again whether Irving can best be described as a "historian". An anon has edited the article to describe him as such, whereas I think the rest of the article as well as common sense makes clear that he is utterly discredited and cannot really be described in that way. As this is not simple vandalism but (I would say) POV pushing, someone else should amend it, not me. Let me apologise for having inadvertently broken WP:3RR too; I shan't edit the article again for 24 hours or so, but I think someone should correct this. Thanks. --Guinnog 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin beat me to it (which is why I couldn't find it earlier), but it looks like he rv'd the whole section back to before my edit *grumble*. --Otheus 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Further thoughts on Irving's 'holocaust denier' label. This is a POV label attached to him by tabloids and for commercial headline news stories. It's POV that is reflected in "mainstream" current journalism, but still POV. What he goes down in history is partially up to us, and I say we look at the balance. I agree with the conclusions above by User:Guinnog and others -- Historian by contemprorary standards he is not. Author, he is. I see User:Slimvirgin is still patrolling the tagline and believes he should be primarily labeled "Holocaust Denier". I think the term itself is perjorative and misleading and akin to calling Clinton or Bush a "draft dodger". I again appeal to the community (and to User:Slimvirgin), make include in his lead paragraph that Irving is (something like)

an author or WWII books and notorious for his Holocaust Denials.

--Otheus 10:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this analogy. "Holocaust denier" is a descriptive term, describing someone who has denied the Holocaust or significant aspects of it. At least two different legal systems have determined that Irving fits this description. "Draft dodger" is much more a matter of opinion, and requires insight into motives (emigration to Canada may be for better air, going into the national guard may be for patriotic reasons...). However, I'd be fine with your suggestions or the current text. --Stephan Schulz 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your affirmation. Your point about draft dodger requiring insight into motives is very well taken -- it is a big part of why I say the term Holocaust Denier is shamefully prejorative. The term calls to motive and leads from "This person says X, therefore he must believe Y". I have so much to say on this, perhaps I will take up a full time profession editing the Talk:Holocaust_denial page. ;) --Otheus 11:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we do not quite agree. "Draft dodger" requires an a-priori analysis of the motives to determine if the label fits. "Holocaust denier" can be determined by actions alone (and then is suggestive about motives).--Stephan Schulz 12:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

British/English

(moved from SV's talk page) I disagree with your edit regarding British authors.

Picking three at random, Irvine Welsh (Scottish) Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Scottish)and J.K. Rowling (English), I found that none are listed under British.

Furthermore, I dislike the accusations of POV levied at me. My edit was nothing of the sort and you have no evidence to the contrary. Snowbound 06:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's much more common on Wikipedia to note a person's nationality in the first sentence, and his nationality is British. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Wiki-smear?

Is it 'NPOV' to have Irving immediately branded as a "Holocaust denier" as the VERY FIRST STATEMENT in this article, especially when the "Accusations of Holocaust denial" section is well in to the article (7 sections down)? In the article he is listed as a historian and author well before he is listed as a "Holocaust denier," so it's only fair that this is mentioned first in his intro paragraph BEFORE his status as a "Holocaust denier." Sure, almost everyone accepts that he has many questions pertaining to the overall EXTENT of the Holocaust (6 million Jews killed vs. 2 million, etc.), but not that it actually occured -- calling someone a "Holocaust denier" implies that they unconditionally believe that it never took place, that they deny it completely. So, given that these 'assertions and/or accusations' are a recent development in his long career as a historian, I again ask: is it fair to mention that he is a so-called "Holocaust denier" in the very first sentence of the article when so much came before that? --172.128.120.24 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You are not the first to raise these issues. These issues and many others have been discussed at great length. Please review the discussions above and in the acrhived discussion page linked from the top of this page. The current version reflects a lot of back-and-forth on this issue over many months. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You still do not answer the question: if Irving's career as an author/historian was active decades before he was ever labeled as a "Holocaust denier," why is this the first statement in the entire article? The sections "Historian" and "Revisionism," along with info about his early books are both very extensive and are listed before the HD section, so why isn't this mentioned first? Again, the info about his current status as a "Holocaust denier" is relatively recent. I am not trying to remove this information (or even take it out of the intro), I just want to provide more NPOV wording and paragraphing to reflect his overall career. --172.128.120.24 17:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The introduction describes Irving by his most prominent characteristics. The structure of the article is not ordered according to the same principles. As for the questions on which you insist, given the length of previous discussion, it is far more reasonable for you to seek your answer there than to ask someone else to reiterate for you here. If you have specific edits to suggest after that review, please don't hesitate to do so here. Buffyg 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Irving was a bestselling author/historian LONG before he was accused of denying the Holocaust, yes? Thus his status as an author/historian is obviously his most "prominent characteristic," not his recent status as a "Holocuast denier" -- the recent media coverage of his status as a "Holocaust denier" is THE ONLY REASON why this is listed first and foremost (directly after his name, in fact), even though his career stretches long before that and he had written many books during this time that never "denied" the Holocaust. Is it NPOV to list this as Irving's most "prominent characteristic" when he has done so much before? Again, I am only trying to reflect Irving's career more accurately (as stated: the accusations of Holocaust denial are recent in his career), not entirely remove this from the intro paragraph. --172.128.120.24 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What you say is plainly illogical. To wit:

the fact that someone enjoyed prestige for decades before disgracing themselves does not mean that it is therefore balanced to refer to them by their reputation before that fall from grace (you will find that Richard Nixon's entry, for example, has a similar introduction);

that prestige was in doubt for Irving as early as 1969, as established by the footnote to the opening sentence;

Irving had the poor judgement to stake his reputation on insisting that the Holocaust as a systematic and deliberate crime against humanity did not in fact happen as such -- and on the weight of materials like the Leuchter Report, no less -- and then to make his scholarly standing the subject of a legal proceeding in a jurisdiction where there was no crime in Holocaust denial and lost on the merits as he argued them on his own behalf, which has bearing on his standing as a scholar quite apart from the media attention to which he was by no mean averse;

his participation in Holocaust denial isn't a new development; it can dated at least as far back as 1988 by his own account and was in short order a matter of public record (the Austrian court convicted him for remarks made in 1989);

he is persona non grata in numerous jurisdictions and a parolee in part because he persisted in his deeply unpopular beliefs without ever justifying them to the satisfaction of any credible scholarly standard.

In short, David Irving's reputation is what it is as a result of his own insistent actions maintained over the course of decades, and as one would be hard put to find him characterised still as a reputable historian (which necessarily implies that other reputable historians would recognise him as such), even for his work before he saddled himself with the millstone of arguing against the Holocaust as a genocidal program, it is not the place of Wikipedia to say otherwise. Should his reputation ever be redeemed in some measure, I have no doubt that it will be duly reflected in this article. That's as far as we need go in recapitulating the issues or continuing this exchange. Buffyg 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

He is now best known as a Holocaust denier. He has long been best known as a Holocaust denier. History will record him as a Holocaust denier -- especially since what scholarship he has created has been completely discredited by his fraud and falsehoods. "Discredited historian" might fit there too. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the label the UK Guardian (I believe) uses to describe him. It is probably more complete than 'historian' and certainly more accurate and relevant than 'Holocaust Denier'. Still, it smacks of bias. Can we please agree on 'author' ?

On your first point -- he wasn't known as a Holocaust denier until he sued Lipstadt for it, so 1994 at the earliest. Prior to that, the term itself was nearly oblivious to all but historical academes. Second, his career has not been one of Denial, but more accurately, one of author and lecturer. Third, the reason he is known as a Holocaust Denier is precisely because he denies to be one. So perhaps it's more accurate to say he is a Holocaust Denier denier. ?? -- Otheus 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) There are several errors and misunderstandings here. First, the reason he sued Lipstadt was that she called him a Holocaust denier. I'd say he was known as one since the late 1980s. His career has become one of Holocaust denial, he lost the libel case and served a jail sentence for it. Thus he is established as a denier. His (apparent) recent change of mind about it is not his first and you are right that he now denies being a denier! He is infinitely better known now as a Holocaust denier than for any credibility he used to have as a historian. I would agree with Jpgordon that "dicredited historian" would be worth considering in the lead. NPOV does not have to mean that we refrain from mentioning well-established and verifiable negative information. --Guinnog 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Irving is best known as a Holocaust denier. He was never a historian, but someone who wrote books about military history. The court ruled that he appeared to have deliberately falsified documents or their translation, and while historians undoubtedly have POVs and make mistakes, they don't deliberately falsify. It's best to restrict the historian label to academics, or to writers who are widely and uncontroversially acknowledged as historians. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference. On many occasions in my youth in the UK including by the BBC he was referred to and known as a historian. he is now discredited due to the forgery etc you allude to, Slim, and holocaust denier is first as he is currently best known for that. I dont agree that historians dont engage in activities such as he has engaged in as he is the living proof of this, and his activities have discredited him within his profession and we need to mention this, SqueakBox 21:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we should refer to him as a historian in the lead, discredited or otherwise. It's too contentious a point, particularly when we have newspapers telling their reporters not to refer to him as one. We can discuss the controversy over that in the article, but we shouldn't single out the Guardian's opinion for the lead as though it's fact. Squeakbox, he was never part of any profession. He has no professional or academic qualifications. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that discredit is a bit unclear, as his standing as an historian was contentious virtually from the start. Academic position or credentials aren't the crux, however, but I think recognition from professional historians is. The question with Irving even before Holocaust denial was who took his work as a whole seriously outside of the far right and various flavours of revisionists. I think one has to be clear about the contention and can lay that out well enough in the lead. I've even attempted an edit to this effect. Buffyg 02:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I feel the word discredited covers his ills. There is a section called Historian which itself implies he is one, and if he is it should be in the openng. The opening of Historian is "A historian is someone who writes history" and he clearly attempted to portray himself as doing that and was discredited as a historian for his lack of factual accuracy so other than holocaust denier I cant think of a better description than discredited hjistorian. I think the fact that he was widely known as a historian in the Britain of the late middle 20th century has to be taken into consideration too. Slim, this is why the Guardian calls him a historian, that's what he was known as in the UK, can you take my word for it> or do you want more sources? SqueakBox 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, we don't have to go by what he was called in the UK. Secondly, the British press has been criticized for having given him such a soft ride for so many years. Third, it's a British newspaper we use as a source that issued instructions to its reporters not to call him a historian. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think we need to say historian. I know if I were an historian myself, I'd squirm at having him in my company; but there are some really really bad historians, and Irving's among the worst. I don't think there's any Historian Pope who can excommunicate Irving from their fold. He's certainly not a recognized-by-academia historian, of course. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What kind of historian is he, then, and what's the benefit (to Wikipedia, to accuracy) of calling him a historian, rather than the author of books on military history? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone name one other modern historian who is believed by reliable sources to have done what the court said Irving did? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, "modern historian who is believed by reliable sources"? Of course not. I wasn't aware that by using the word "historian" we were putting that particular meaning into. As I said a while back, "historian" isn't a badge of honor. He's a discredited amateur historian. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He was paid to write the books, so we can't say or imply he was a professional writer but an amateur historian. Squeakbox said above "I dont agree that historians dont engage in activities such as he has engaged in ..." and you said "there are some really really bad historians, and Irving's among the worst." So, there must be others believed by reliable sources to be as bad as him. Who are they? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think when this has been previously discussed here, the consensus has been that we cannot call him a historian. I think maybe calling him a discredited historian is clearer. The "Historian Pope" in this case can be said to have been the trial judge in the libel case. In case anybody thinks I am working from a fixed POV here, if you scroll up you can see when in July I argued the opposite. I have changed my mind on reconsidering the arguments and the evidence. --Guinnog 06:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at some other biographies of people discredited in their fields. We call Trofim Lysenko a biologist, for example. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But he was qualified in the field. He was a biologist, and he became a discredited one. Irving was never a historian to begin with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, personally, I'd rather just say something like "lying sack of shit pathetic excuse for an historian." I guess it's one of those places where simple accuracy doesn't suffice -- the first sentence of historian does seem to describe him. (By the way, do we use Roman historians as reliable sources for dates, etc.?) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Roman History - but that's compeltely irrelevent. The Romans did the best with the tools they had, given the establishment in power at the time. Is D.W. Griffith a historian? Margret Mitchell? Jack Jevne and Charley Rogers? What about Rockstar Games? Is Piers Anthony a scientist, or possibly a rocket engineer? Of course they aren't. Even if something is labelled "history" by its author and (in the case of Irving) a group of hate-mongering nitwit fanboys, it is still incorrect to label its author a "historian". --Action Jackson IV 03:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says:

A historian is someone who writes history, and history is a written accounting of the past ... Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is now often reserved for people whose work is recognized in academia, particularly those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline.

Irving's work is not recognized in academia. He does not have a graduate degree in the discipline, or even a first degree. He did not write accounts of the past. According to the court, he engaged in deliberate falsification. If you can refer me to one other figure who we know has done that, and yet is still called a "historian," I'll concede the point. But I can't think of anyone.

Given how contentious a point this is, I can only repeat that it shouldn't be in the lead. It can be discussed in the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree. You'd have to look back at reviews of his work to validate this. I think the crux of the problem is whether Irving was given the benefit of the doubt for writing histories that appeared scholarly or whether he was given a degree of acceptance into the community of historians by being invited to speak at conferences, contribute to journal issues, or even given awards for his books by either professional associations of historians or committees of recognised historians. There has long been a tradition of popular histories written by non-academic historians and journalists. As I tried to articulate in my edit to the introduction, Irving was recognised for expert proficiency in one aspect of historical research, although his interpretive practises called into question his professionalism no later than 1969. The larger point is that one of the chief reasons for his prominence in Holocaust denial was that he was still given some benefit of the doubt as an historian and that he sued Lipstadt because she claimed, at a minimum, that this commitment to denial necessarily implied that he no longer served historical inquiry. Buffyg 13:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a link to Historical revisionism and called him a revisionist historian in the opening, SqueakBox 15:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, that also legitimates his Holocaust denial by giving it a polite name. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• The BBC are still calling him a historian here. If what you say is true, Gordon, the fault is surely in the historic revisionism article and not in us linking to it though were you to revert back to discredited historian I wouldn't complain, SqueakBox 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I do supopoirt Calton's latest edit, restoring both that he is a historain and discredited and really believe this fits the facts and opur NPOV policy, SqueakBox 18:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Astonishingly biased Wikipedia article

I've never seen anything quite like this. This is the most tendentious and hate-filled article I've ever seen in Wikipedia. David Irving is no cupcake and is bound to get many people's noses out of joint. Nevertheless he is one of the few professional historians in the world (see if you can follow this: he's a professional; he's an historian; he actually supports himself with writing and research, not with schoolteaching or sinecures) and as such is a curiosity. For that reason alone his career should be considered impartially. I suggest taking down the present article and replacing it with a brief stub, at least until you find someone to write a new article with the proper NPOV. Sallieparker 18:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Many fools make lots of money publishing garbage consumed by the masses.

It's not that Irving was controversial and upset people with his views; it's that he cam to systematically distort the historical record in advancing thoseviews. It is exceptional that someone should support themselves in what is frequently an academic practise without any support from the academy. I've been quite intent on saying that that should not and is not what would remove him from the company of historians. On the other hand, let's not carried away with remarks about sinecures and schoolteaching. If, however, we can make the article more transparent in terms of Irving's financial relationship with his audience, that would be a welcome improvement.

Irving is, however, also extraordinary in that he made his credibility as an historian the subject of a law suit he initiated. (One could also say it extraordinary that he represented himself in the case.) In litigation of the case, a third party reviewed his career, resulting in a book conspicuously titled Telling Lies About Hitler. Equally to the point, Irving lost another libel suit in 1970 to one of his subjects. The falsehoods and fabrications raised in these cases are unscholarly rather than scholarly errors that cast a long shadow across his career and even call into question whether he ever served scholarly inquiry so faithfully that he should be counted an historian. There is ample evidence that this standing was long in doubt. Refusing to acknowledge that would be grotesque bias.

How would you propose to provide a more balanced account? Buffyg 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no justification for removing the article, and such a move would be promptly reverted. If you believe it is POV you can do 2 things; stick an {{NPOV}} tag on it and edit it in order to better fit into WP:NPOV. Having removed something yesterday linking his anti-semite views to his anti-EU views, it may be that the article isnt fully POV, ie neutral, SqueakBox 19:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions Sallie? --Guinnog 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sallieparker. This article is by no means NPOV. There are several users, and at least one of them is a Wiki admin, who appear to have strong personal feelings about Irving and who continual revert any attempt to make the article sound more neutral. Several examples of POV phrases can be found in the opening section, such as:

- "Holocaust denier and discredited revisionist historian" - both these comments represent a single POV, which is against the spirit of Wiki according to WP:NPOV. A compromise replacement, representing 2 of the thoroughly argued positions on this page, might be "controversial British historian and convicted Holocaust denier".

- "costing him what scholarly reputation he had outside of revisionist circles" - this is POV and should be deleted.

- "The judge found that Irving is "an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism" and has "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."" - this quotation belongs further down the article. Such a quotation shouldn't be in the intro unless it reflects a balanced and objective view.

I would request that a senior, neutral Wiki admin be asked to revise this article and make it NPOV. Johnx10 02:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's not what admins do. Article content is decided by consensus -- there's no authority you can appeal to here. A balanced and objective view finds that Irving is a holocaust denier and a discredited historian. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Article content is decided by consensus" - Are you trying to claim that the current article reflects a consensus view? Johnx10 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am claiming it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So you are choosing to ignore the continuing discussions and edit wars conducted about this article? It is clear that the article does not reflect many people's views about how an encyclopaedia article should look. Doesn't NPOV state that, in a controversial article, each of the major viewpoints should be expressed? At the moment, some editors with strong anti-Irving views are denying a significant camp, the pro-neutrality camp, a voice in the article. Johnx10 04:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not surprising that you denote your own "camp" as significant. I believe that WP:NPOV includes calling murderers murderers, dictators dictators, and David Irving a holocaust denier and a discredited non-academic historian. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What WP:NPOV actually says is "One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate". Look through the article and tell me how much of it you think is cold and analytical. I shouldn't need to be in the pro-neutrality "camp". Every serious editor should be in that "camp". But this debate clearly has 3 sides: anti-Irving, pro-Irving, and pro-neutrality. I think the pro-Irving camp is small and extreme enough that it's views don't need to be represented, but that is also open to discussion. What is very clear however, is the size and relevance of the anti-Irving and pro-neutrality camps. The discussions on this page and the edit wars speak for themselves. Please acknowledge the Wikipedian duty to represent views other than your own. Johnx10 05:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I would consider myself very much in the neutral camp then. What actual change in the article are you arguing for?--Guinnog 05:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've listed 3 examples from the article introduction about 20 lines up. I've also put a POV tag on the article. Please don't revert it. It is clear that it is not just me who is questioning the neutrality of the article. Johnx10 05:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(deindent)Sorry, I had already reverted before I read this comment. I don't really accept the validity of your points (though I suppose we could haggle about moving them further down) and I don't agree there is a consensus for a tag on this article. --Guinnog 05:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems hard to get any consensus on this page. But it should be clear to any rational person reading this that the neutrality of the article continues to be questioned by many users. The presence of the tag is much better than constant edit-warring in the text. But I hope it is temporary, and we can reach a compromise on NPOV soon. Johnx10 06:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The article (to which I have been a long-time contributor) has been mostly stable for almost a year now. At the moment you are the only editor arguing for the tag. I don't agree that constitutes a consensus. More importantly, I don't see your suggestions for improvement, only complaints. Why don't you post your suggestion for the lead here and maybe we can compromise? But even if you were to do that, I still don't think the tag would be justified. Please take it down. --Guinnog 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, user Sallieparker questioned its neutrality yesterday, and user 172.128.120.24, whoever that is, did the same 2 days ago. So I'm clearly not the only one. My suggestions for improvement to the lead are posted above. I'll post them again.

- "Holocaust denier and discredited revisionist historian" - both these comments represent a single POV, which is against the spirit of Wiki according to WP:NPOV. A compromise replacement, representing 2 of the thoroughly argued positions on this page, might be "controversial British historian and convicted Holocaust denier".

- "costing him what scholarly reputation he had outside of revisionist circles" - this is POV and should be deleted.

- "The judge found that Irving is "an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism" and has "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."" - this quotation belongs further down the article. Such a quotation shouldn't be in the intro unless it reflects a balanced and objective view.

I don't know how a reasonable person like you can look at this page and think that the tag isn't justified. But as jpgordon pointed out on my home page, I can't revert any more changes for 24 hours, so if you or someone else removes it, I won't be putting it back. But before you revert, I would just ask you to re-read a few recent entries on this discussion page again, and ask yourself, if you were to read the page for the first time, whether you would in fact support the tag. Johnx10 06:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to address your concerns of emphasis by moving the protracted arguments about his status to the end of the article and retaining only a very short lead. It also allows the deletion of some duplicated mmaterial. See what you think. Best wishes, --Guinnog 07:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Great edit, imo. Thanks very much Guinnog. Johnx10 07:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Action Jackson IV 08:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it POV to mention that a square is not round? That four is less than five? That Ted Bundy or Richard Speck were convicted mass-murderers? Of course not. Just because it's a point that makes some people uncomfortable does not make it a NPOV violation. --Action Jackson IV 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Its nott rue that articles are determined by consensus. They are primarily determined by good referencing and WP:NPOV as well as stuff like WP:BLP. In terms of disputes consensus is one factor to be considered but half a dozen people clamoring for something unsourced dont have the power to impose that over one editor who wants to see a reliable source, though generally and here it is the consensus to follow basic guidelines and cretae a decent encyclopedic article, SqueakBox 02:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've restored a small amount of the properly sourced material that gives proper context as to why the Lipstadt trial was significant in descrediting him. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. --Guinnog 09:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should review the undue weight section of that NPOV policy. It's my favorite sub-policy, and one of the most frequently overlooked. Grandmasterka 04:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to add his two-year study of economics at University College, which basically came after he started writing about Dresden, and are not mentioned at all. They are, however, available in his bio, if anyone has bothered to look. Also, "Student years" and the Dresden bit are chronologically the same period, if you examine the bio, and these two will somehow need to be merged. 195.29.48.208 22:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay... Can you write exactly what you want it to say and where? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to paraphrase that. Although, maybe someone else here can help you out. Grandmasterka 04:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the current lead in the article is a masterful example of neutrality (since this may change again shortly, it announces that the subject "(born March 24, 1938) is a British writer specializing in the military history of World War II. He is the author of 25 books," etc. etc.). No loaded words there, very NPOV. The controversies surrounding Irving, the balanced or unbalanced pros and cons, are farther down in the article, not in the opening. Even though Wikipedia is routinely mocked for its preposterous boners, its folk etymologies and other misinformation, it nevertheless is one of the first sources many people go to after Googling a subject. If you're vaguely curious about this David Irving person, you probably want to begin with a dispassionate potted bio of him, not political cant. Sallieparker 05:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sallie. I'm glad the current compromise version meets with your approval. Enjoy the holidays! Guinnog 06:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the requested edit has been made. If it hasn't, re-add {{editprotected}}. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Astonishingly biased - I disagree, compared to other wiki articles this one is very good - a red pencil through 90% of it and it would be almost truthful. Good work wiki, getting better every day.159.105.80.63 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Churchill

The article currently states that in Churchill's War Irving has portrayed Churchill as "...corrupt warmonger servile to the interests of "international Jewry"." This is misleading however, trying to show that Irving used such derogatory term, but the only place in the book where term "international jewry" is used, it is attributed (with footnote) to Count Jerzy Potocky, Polish diplomat:

...Count Jerzy Potocki, informed Warsaw, are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is inevitable. He identified the men behind this campaign as Baruch, Morgenthau, Judge Felix Frankfurter, and the governor of New York State they posed, he said, as defenders of democracy but in the final analysis were 'connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry'.

So we have to either attribute this "corrupt warmonger" sentence to some reputable source or rephrase/remove it. --Magabund 10:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

So wiki is caught trying to distort source material - I thought that was what Irving did. Any good,factual, discussion of distortions from Irving. I haven't heard much beyond ad hominem one liners. If you have the goods then why not waste a paragraph on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Well, there was this Gzuckier 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the opening line of the quote from the judges decision - "appeared to make". The judge can't even decide if Irving made concessions or appeared to make concessions. The judge "appeared" to make great leaps in logic by guessing at what Irving thought. Notice the judge's lack of citation ( page and line of transripts,quotes,etc) - this guy was flaying for a lifeline.

Bias

I was surprised to find a pseudo-biography on Wikipedia with a polemical summarization in its first paragraph such as this one: "He served a prison sentence in Austria from February to December 2006 for Holocaust denial[1], and is barred from entering Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand[citation needed]. During an unsuccessful libel case Irving brought against American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 1998, a British court found that he is 'an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.' The judge also ruled that Irving had 'for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.'

I don't recall ever having read such a clearly biased Wikipedia article before. The hearsay about the nursery rhyme further on struck me as particularly incredible. While acknowledging that Irving has published over twenty books bolstered by meticulous research in archives, the article itself audaciously represents Irving with conjecture, hearsay, and calumny.

I've never posted to a "Talk" portion of a Wiki page before, but this kind of partisan bias in an article took me off guard.

172.148.95.127 02:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)AM172.148.95.127 02:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Hearsay"? How is reporting something he wrote in his diary "hearsay"? At any rate, we generally report criminals' crimes in the intro to articles about them, especially if their crimes are what they are best known for. Now, if there's conjecture in the article, please tell us exactly what it is so we can remove it; conjectures (unless well sourced and notable opinions) are not appropriate for any encyclopedic entry. As far as calumny is concerned, again, please tell us exactly what falsifications or misrepresentations intended to disparage another the article contains; again, we need to fix those. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a racist propaganda attempt, well financed by you know who. It's purpose is to discredit people who are in any way critical of state mandated truth. The reason this article cannot be edited by the public is that countless of individuals find it grossly unfair and in need of a complete re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.11.12 (talk • contribs)

You know who? You've lost me there I'm afraid. However, it is a wiki so make your suggestions here and we can see if they are worth adding in to the main article. --Guinnog 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, we shouldn't give You-Know-Who power by refusing to say his name; The anonymous poster is accusing us of being pawns of Lord Voldemort.--Prosfilaes 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

151.202.11.12 wrote: "Wikipedia is a racist propaganda attempt, well financed by you know who." Sorry, but I cannot assume good faith on the part of this contributor. This person is clearly an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist. If the following was true we would all be in serious trouble: "Countless of [sic] individuals find it grossly unfair and in need of a complete re-write". Another form of denial pehaps? Philip Cross 09:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. I find it more fun to ask them to suggest their improvements. The silence has been impressive so far. --Guinnog 10:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Anti-semitic people

David Irving is in Category: Holocaust deniers, which is a subcategory of Anti-semitic people. Thus he is already in Category: Anti-semitic people and shouldn't be redundantly added to it.--Prosfilaes 12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal constitutes suppression of fact.--Lance ^talk 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a way to discuss the issue. Passive-aggressively accuse the editor of trying to censor information. As to your edit comment, that "there are numerous verifiable sources justifying Irving in this category", there had better be, because he is in that category so long as Category: Holocaust deniers is on the page, whether or not Category: Anti-Semitic people is on the page.--Prosfilaes 10:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Willis Carto, David Duke, and others are in both categories. The reason Irving is in this category is because the judge flat-out called him anti-semitic. Samboy 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's wrong on other pages, doesn't mean it should be wrong on this page. Categories are nested like that so they don't have a huge list of articles in the main article, but can instead put an article in the subcategory. Either move Category: Holocaust deniers out of Category: Anti-Semitic people, or remove one of the two categories from this page.

And sorry about marking that last edit remove the category minor; I hit the wrong button when saving.--Prosfilaes 10:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Irving have any academic credentials: Does he even have an undergraduate degree?

The article does not make clear if he has any academic accomplishments. He failed out of a physics programme according to the article; so how do you go from failing out of a science program to writing what may charitably be referred to as historical fiction. This is important biographical information that should be in the article: As it stands there appears to be a gaping hole in the biography.--Lance ^talk 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Their is no missing information regarding Irving's academic career. He is, as it were, "self taught". Philip Cross 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A fascinating if flawed character. I just reread the article as it stands and we should all be very proud of it. It is excellent; well-balanced, well referenced and readable. --Guinnog 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That Irving lacked the discipline to even obtain an undergraduate degree says much about him. Being "self-taught" is really a disadvantage if you must apply what you know in cooperation with others. This is true of most occupations. Writers of fiction don't need to work with others; that Irving pretensiously and pedantically purports to call himself a historian, that requires working within well established historical conventions, demonstrates that he's not merely flawed, but a hack. Undoubtedly he's a frustrated fiction writer who can't accept that he's ill-equiped to write history.--Lance ^talk 20:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that we don't have a "Category:Independent scholars" here on Wiki. Though I find many of Irving's views pertaining to Jews and the Holocaust absolutely despicable, Irving along with MANY other so-called 'pseudo-historians,' 'pseudo-scholars,' 'rogue scholars,' or educated but nonetheless non-academic historians/writers/etc. would fit quite snugly in that category. In more olden times there were very many notable thinkers, writers, historians, scholars that weren't technically 'academically accredited,' (just look at feudal China, the golden age of the Middle East, Europe, and many scholarly Jews that were too denied places at proper universities for a long time) especially as I say before about 1800 or so. Even if many of these independent scholars sometimes have views that are considered 'controversial' within the mainstream, many of these people (though certainly on the fringe) still produce a definite amount of valid and valuable scholarship, history, and so forth (for instance: some of Irving's work is still considered some of the best historical work done depicting the German side of WWII rather than simply the Anglo-American-French-Soviet side). So, I propose that we create a "Category:Independent scholars" or something similar to reflect many of these so-called 'fringe' (but often still acceptable and worthy) rogue scholars throughout history, Irving being one of them. --172.162.239.214 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: what about these scholars/thinkers that populate all of these (private, public, or semi-governmental yet still independent) thinktanks, institutes, centres, organisations, foundations, committees, councils, institutions, etc. There are likely tens of thousands (if not more) of these people in The West alone, and many of them often produce scholarly work yet not all of them have PhDs and aren't considered 'proper' academics because they don't work in a university setting. Nevertheless, the work of many of these people are still taken seriously by the mainstream academic establishment in The West as it is generally well-researched, well sourced, and so forth. Thus the proposed category would work for many of these independent or semi-independent scholars too. --172.162.239.214 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that Irving is (and was) not associated with a university, but that he has no relevant formal education in history. An academic is not someone currently working at an academic institution, but someone with an academic education. And even an academic can do work that is not academic. As for your other proposal about "independent scholars": I don't think this is useful. Independent of what? You cannot become much more independent than a tenured professor. Scientists at think tanks, on the other hand, are generally beholden to whoever pays them. Even if they have the integrity of not creating faulty science (and that happens - think tank publications are not, as a rule, "well-researched, well sourced, and so forth"), they usually have no control over which of their results are published. --Stephan Schulz 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tenured professors most obviously are not independent scholars because they work for a university, under the umbrella of a place of higher learning. You seem to miss the whole point: I am talking about people that aren't employed, sponsored, or given funding by ANY organisation, thinktank, university, institute, etc. yet still perform worthy and useful independent research. I am talking about people without a "formal education" (as you write) that still produce valid scholarship and do valuable research in their field(s) of interest, though others may very well have had a formal education and still conduct research/scholarship but have since become entirely independent from any organization. I don't know what you're talking about when you write: "An academic is not someone currently working at an academic institution, but someone with an academic education." The definition states that an academic is someone associated with or working for an academic institution (people that work in academia are academics: duh), though you are correct to say that many academics don't always produce work deemed 'academic.' There is a definite divergence between the social sciences (which are more conducive to independent research via simple libraries, archives) as opposed to the hard sciences (which usually require very expensive equipment that can only be purchased/owned by a large organization like a university). The independent scholars to which I refer are usually found in the former field. --172.129.16.220 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This may be partly a cultural/language issue. In German common parlance, everybody with an academic degree is called an Akademiker ("academic"). Don't you refer to think tanks and similar institutions as a source of employment for "independent" scholars above? Or am I confused? As for the independence of tenured professors: The reason why they receive tenure is to ensure their independence. Yes, they are employed by a university or college. But they typically have no duties beyond limited teaching, no or limited oversight, and are free in their research. They can only be fired under extreme circumstances. Very few researchers are not employed by someone. Can you give some examples of what you mean by "independent scholars"? --Stephan Schulz 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)