Talk:David Irving/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Something about website destruction and stabbing

RE Irving Website Destruction - it must have only been a minor inconvenience, he appeared back up almost immediately. This must be a federal/international crime (even if it is pathetic) - maybe a hacker will leak the criminals names and emails ( just jokiing, too busy today). Never heard of any of Irving's supporters burning buildings, beating up people by stealth( not counting your good ole fashioned riot on the street), vandalizing websites,.... different type of folks maybe. Please include any info you find on the latest crimes against him when wikileaks or the media finds out the criminals ID. RE Stabbing At His Talk - the news article is very incomplete. Is there much to this story? Two stabbed people sort of have a gentlemans' agreement and the police just walk away - sounds unlikely if one of Irving's supporters was involved as the stabber.159.105.80.141 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC) RE WEBSITE ans STABBING - why are these in the article unless you want to show/encourage the attacks by nuts on Irving? With very little effort - Christopher Natchman(sp) - heavily armed - accosted the badly wounded victim in the conference room. Once outside Natchman stabbed the other man, could have shot him with his gun but used a knife instead. The police dropped the charges on Natchman because the victim wouldn't cooperate. The victim's lack of cooperation came immediately after the police treated to arrest the victim's son for breach of peace ( he was making a lot of noise after his father was stabbed - bad boy,about 18(sorry error - he had 2 sons there, 11 and 16. Not sure which one the police were going to charge with disturbing the peace, maybe both)). Once the boy/s was threatened and the father refused to testify the charges were dropped - even though the whole shebang was on video and audio and our favorite evidence(witnesses). This Mr Natchman seems to have a license to kill. Put that in your article and smoke it( Mr Nachtman is being called a former/current skinhead(even a Jew for Jesus in some places( this story is really odd- but it's in Wikipedia so it must be liget). It seems strange that the police had such concern for Nachtman, to the point of threatening the 16/11 year old boy/s, but that's the story.

The wikileaks expose must have been just for a very short period - what dull stuff if you go to wikileaks and read it. Irving must weed/archive his lists all the time, he couldn't make a week's groceries with this little activity. It looks transcriped and poorly at that. The feds should have little trouble catching the crook, if they don't catch the crook maybe they don't want to.159.105.80.141 (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Followup on the Wikileaks and Stabbing stories: Wikileaks story stays about the same - but they do have some agendas(reluctance or eagerness to expose). Enough on them - good stuff mixed in with garbage. Stabbing - this story is hard to untangle - police and media seem to be being "careful". It turns out the stabber,, Christopher Nachtman, was protecting himself from John Kopko and his 2 sons ( ages 11/16/18 - take your pick, seeing as how the police threatened to charge 1 of them I bet 1 was 18 but maybe not). John lives in Palm Beach, Christopher is an ex-skinhead, John was said by one person to be a Jew for Jesus, Christopher was armed to the hilt, John and sons jumped Christoher and Christopher used a knife to defend himself ( cut his attacker up pretty bad), whole thing was taped, John refused to press charges for attacking Christopher ( man this sounds like my local cops), cops threatened to charge son with crime ( maybe trying to legislate the mess from the bench/precinct), John backed down and refused to sign a complaint, son released/not charged... This sounds like a trailer park episode just in the world's most expensive trailer park, Palm Beach. All this had nothing to do with Irving, except he had the chutzpah do hold his meeting, semi-secret, in one of the swankiest digs in Palm Beach and then bolted for the airport. Some goofs are saying "Irving caused the stabbing because he has no business being in Florida( or DC,NY,MA,...)" - weak argument but in a pinch maybe the only one. Anyway all sides have separated and noone got killed or jailed, but darn close on all counts. Toot fini on the saga of David, John and Christopher and kids and cops and ... Really, if this is part of a wiki biography and meets all your ABC,POV,NPOVs, etc have I got some good stuff you could use.159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to tell from all this what additions or other improvements you are suggesting for the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I admit to being equally confused on the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Vermont libraries guy is off his meds again. Buy 3 conspiracy theories, get 1 free... Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 06:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again. There's never been a single mainspace edit from that IP; nothing but noise like this on talk pages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I confused you guys. The point is ( expressed above ) that neither of the last 2 sections of the article have anything to do with a biography. The wikileaks section seems to tell of criminal activity being done against Irving - thanks, but the emails are pretty boring - whose side are you on - thanks again. Other than curiosity, the attack and self-defense issues involved in the Palm Beach article seem to have no relevance to Irving. If you want to know why Mr Kopko was at a meeting looking to fight maybe someone can find out - maybe you could beef up that yourself. Suggestion - remove the sections unless you can show some relevance. There I hope you are less confused. Most of your comments above would get you banned for awhile, of course only if you weren't you. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

David Irving's £40.000

Today, £40.000 is not a fortune. David Irving may for that I know be a double digit millionaire. If we go back to 1970, Irving had to part with £40.000, and maybe another £40.000 in lost income (his book was withdrawn). How much is that money worth to what may have been his fortune back in 1970?(Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

I believe Irving was bankrupt or nearly so after Lipstadt. I don't think he ever was wealthy, only comfortable ( only just barely slightly within his means ). He has often been criticized ( by deniers ) for not getting a good lawyer - either to win or to put on a historic show like Zundel - but I doubt he had the money to get a really good lawyer ( good as in good and courageous - Zundel's lawyer was just a lucky find ). History writers are rarely rich, certainly not rich enough to piss off major publishers and their bankers.159.105.80.141 (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I really had never heard of this man until I read this article, so I think I am unbiased. The whole thing sounds like a hatchet job. 98.215.210.156 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Daver852

Slime

Pointless trolling collapsed

"In 1969, Irving during a visit to Germany met Robert Kempner, one of the American prosecutors at Nuremberg.[26] Upon his return to the United States, Kempner submitted a memo about Irving to J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI.[26] Kempner wrote in his memo to Hoover that Irving was a "young man, who made a nervous and rather mentally dilapidated impression", and who expressed many "anti-American and anti-Jewish statements".[26] Irving had asked Kempner if the "official record of the Nuremberg was falsified", and told him that he was planning to go to Washington, D.C. to find evidence that the men convicted at Nuremberg had been framed.[27] Kempner went on to write that "completely unsolicited, he [Irving] stressed twice very emphatically that Sirhan Sirhan did the right thing in killing 'that big fat-faced Kennedy'. If he, Irving, were an Arab, he said, he would done the same thing, because of Robert Kennedy's alleged pro-Israel remarks".[28]" Half of this paragraph and article is slime. Neutral editors my ass. 193.57.67.241 (talk) Do you have specific criticism of the article? Please bear in mind WP:CIVIL.Autarch (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure how donkeys are relevant. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I have a few problems with including that paragraph without better sourcing. I searched the FBI archives for the memo with no success and I cant find any other source for what the memo mentioned above claims other than Lipstad. I did find a 1969 Kempner memo to Hoover critisising Irving's bias but it makes no mention of what is in the quotes in the above paragraph at all. Another problem is that in 1967 Irving had accused Kempner of stealing material from the Nuremburg archives and accepting bribes from one of the accused during the trial which would make the paragraph unreliable if Kempner himself was Lipstads source (I dont have her book so don't know her source).Wayne (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC) No, the paragraph is perfectly well sourced as it is. Lipstadt's book is a perfectly reliable secondary source. Your inability to locate online the primary sources she used in writing it is of no particular significance. Lipstadt has never been found to consistently and deliberately falsify sources as Irving has. Furthermore, an allegation like that from someone who's reputation for truthfulness is as slight as Irving's has no effect on the reliability of the paragraph. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC) If someone has a clear bias for or against something, they can hardly be considered a "perfectly reliable" source on that something, regardless of how good their track record otherwise is. And Lipstadt, you will have to agree, has a clear bias against Irving. And vice versa, of course. In this case, if Wayne can produce the memo he did in fact find, the remarks in quotation marks are extremely suspect at best. At any rate, Lipstadt IS a secondary source, and as Wiki articles make no clear distinction between primary and secondary sources, the casual reader may easily think that any reference is a primary source. Most people do not have the sense of source criticism to analyze the sources. And for such serious allegations, I would never refer to SECONDARY sources. The article doesn't even say "according to Lipstadt, Kempner wrote..."; it simply says that Kempner wrote it. I'm changing that right now. --Tsuka (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Your comments are in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's WP:V policy and WP:RS guideline, which assess sources based on criteria unrelated to the ones you have suggested. They also contradict Wikipedia's WP:PRIMARY policy, which specifically states that articles should rely primarily on secondary sources. There is no reason to believe the statements are anything less than accurate and uncontroversial; if you have reliable sources contradicting or casting doubt on them, then please bring them forward. And before editing or commenting again, please carefully review Wikipedia's fundamental content policies and guidelines. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC) There are two very good reasons to believe the statements are less than accurate and uncontroversial: first of all, the source is biased. That's a very big reason. Second, we have a secondary source in Wayne here, contradicting Lipstadt. Now you may argue that Wayne is not an established author with credentials here and there, but a secondary source he is nonetheless. Moreover, the reason one should be careful using primary sources on Wikipedia is to keep contributors' own interpretations to a minimum. In this case, however, this does not apply, as there is no interpretation involved: quoting from a document is a cut and paste matter, and the very least one could do here is list Lipstadt's source, and not simply the book in which she lists it. It is not Lipstadt's interpretation which is quoted in this section, after all, it is a direct quote from her source. Keep Lipstadt as source, if that would satisfy the secondary source preference, but the inclusion of the primary source in addition would only be a positive thing. And when it concerns living persons, all the more important. As for bias not being a valid source of contention, that's just a loophole in Wikipedia's policy you're exploiting. You are going by the letter of the law, so to speak, whereas the use of biased sources are considered unacademic at best. By Wikipedia too, surely, even though it does not explicitly say so. It is clearly between the lines. Finally, I have not removed a thing from the article. What I did was clarify for the casual reader - who is not going to check sources - that the information is second hand. If you disagree with my edit I would like to hear what was objectionable about it. --Tsuka (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Tsuka, Wikipedia recognizes that all sources have bias of some sort or other. There's no indication that Lipstadt has any particular bias against Irving; rather, she's a respected academic who has accurately described Irving and his activities (as was proven in a court of law). Lipstadt is the kind of source Wikipedia considers very highly reliable; an academic, writing in her area of academic expertise. If you have any reliable sources that indicate otherwise, please bring them forward. As for the reader, since Wikipedia actually mandates the use of secondary sources in this case, and there's no reason to think that this secondary source is in any way inaccurate, then there's no reason to "clarify" that what is expected in a Wikipedia article has actually happened. On the contrary, the whole point of the insertion was simply to inject your own personal skepticism into the Wikipedia narrative. You can obviously understand why that's inappropriate. Wikipedia cares about what reliable sources say, not the personal beliefs of Wikipedia editors. And finally, if you comment again, please don't mess up my signature, as you did last time. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, all sources have bias of some sort or other, but between Irving and Lipstadt it seems to be personal. Irving has, after all, accused her of libel, and even though those accusations were thrown out of court, she is nevertheless too involved in the matter of Irving to be expected to give an unbiased opinion - insofar as opinions can be unbiased. There are degrees of bias, and in a court of law I believe this would be classified as "conflict of interest". It isn't that we know that she's biased, it's that she is personally too close to the issue that we can assume she is not. Regardless of how unbiased she may be on any of her non-Irving material. It really doesn't matter how academic or professional she is: if a source on X has an axe to grind against X, then this is something that should, in some way or other, be apparent in the article if one is to use that source on X. Respected authorities are still human, after all, and no one should be considered above corruption. And one author can write splendidly in one field, but unimpressively in another. No source should ever be accepted on faith. I have already given two reasons why there is reason not to take Lipstadt's word as gospel. Apparently you disagree, but I cannot see any arguments used to dismiss criticism other than referring to her reputation. And yes, I freely admit that my edit was to inject skepticism into the paragraph, a skepticism which is sorely lacking from many Wikipedia articles: would the casual reader assume that primary or secondary sources have been used, based on the wording? When respected authors use secondary sources, they are more cautious than when using primary sources, and use phrases like "according to X", "X alleges" and so on, no matter how respected the source is. And when quoting directly, I would call it very shady to quote from a secondary source rather than the original. Because like I said, there is no interpretation involved in a direct quote, and at minimum we should be informed of what source Lipstadt uses. I absolutely agree that what matters is what reliable sources say, which is precisely why I feel that it should be apparent that the words belong to the sources, not the editors. Of course, an article will in most cases inevitably be the opinions of the editors in the words of the sources (the editors pick the sources, after all). In a very similar case, in the Rommel article here on Wikipedia, there was a mention of Rommel deliberately killing black POWs for the making of Victory in the West, and the secondary source was given as David Killingray. I was puzzled, as the only thing I had read of the incident was (coicidentally) David Irving's mention in Trail of the Fox, but where he maintains that Rommel had no fault in it. I was told to simply accept David Killingray as a reliable source on the matter, as he was a highly respected author. And then it transpires that the only source Killingray listed in his book on the incident was David Irving's Trail of the Fox! Goes to show that authority should not be taken for granted. I apologize if I messed up your signature with my last posting. I assure you it was not my intention! --Tsuka (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for explaining that, regarding the signature. Regarding the rest of your comment, Lipstadt is "too involved" in what "matter"? She wrote her book before Irving took her to court (and lost); her statements could not, therefore, have been influenced in any way by his legal action. Moreover, as explained, Wikipedia's standards for reliability of sources are WP:V and WP:RS, not editor accusations of "bias", and in cases such as this Wikipedia generally insists on secondary sources over primary, per WP:PRIMARY, despite your claim that quoting from a secondary source is "shady". We cannot edit according to your personal preferences, nor can we edit according to the standards of a court of law; rather, we must edit according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which are the opposite of what you propose. Jayjg (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Now hold on just a minute - it's not the use of secondary sources that I called shady, but the manner in which they are used: as if they are primary sources. And Wikipedia's urging (not insistence) to use secondary rather than primary sources is obviously moot in this case: the whole reason for that is to avoid editor interpretations. But this is a direct quote, with no interpretation involved at all. When quoting, is it not natural and right to cite the quote? In this case, we should source directly to Kempner's memo, which would be the primary source for the quote. But we would still then be using a secondary source for the content itself: that of Kempner, rather than that of Lipstadt. I really do not see how that could in any way be construed to be in violation of Wikipedia's policies, quite the opposite in fact. --Tsuka (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Just to clarify. The FBI archives still list the memo as released under FOI and as present on their website but it has actually been deleted from there. None of the references I found to the memo reprint it in it's entirety but do contain quotes from it critical of Irving, none of which match what Lipstadt quoted which is unusual considering her quotes are more serious accusations which is why I'd prefer another reliable source for the quotes. I will need to track down the references again. I have had a quick look at the artical and have noticed that Lipstadt is used far too often as a source. In several instances her "interpretation" of Irving statements is used rather than the original statements which could be a POV problem. Wayne (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Ha! After completely deleting the incredible and sorry documented history of their incredible bias in the Irving article, they (the editors) are back to their old tricks: "You are wrong and they are right. Any other questions?" Tholzel (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC) You realize that a bot automatically archives this Talk: page, right? Which is actually more to your benefit than anyone else's here. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Nope, I'm not the expert you are. But it is rather convenient to have had all the gross bias in this article that I carefully documented, wiped clean--and be able to blame it on a bot! However, the main Irving copy has also been radically revamped and Lordy-be--actually significantly improved--something I thought utterly impossible! (Clever, those bots.) Now if you could only cut back on the Nazi bigwigs and KZ photos, most of which have only the most tenuous conection to Irving, this article might actually begin to meet Wiki standards of fair play....Tholzel (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC) The only "gross bias" you documented here was your own, and your absurdly conspiracist narrative regarding the automated archiving of this page is consistent with your other views. In the future, please comment only on article content, and make sure your claims are backed up by reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC) ("Conspiracist narrative"--so that's what you call injecting a bit of humor!!) Well, let's see: Using the article itself as the source (reliable enough?) it contained the following incidences of gross bias (odd that you forget so quickly): <<After using 5300 words of ten historians criticizing Irving’s professionalism, I try to add a single paragraph by Justice Gray (who you quote liberally when it suits you) to give counter evidence that essentially negates much of these complaints against Irving--and you find that single 211 word paragraph by this expert too long???>> <<But this single footnote entry suffers from the same disproportionallity of the main article: 21 positive words by Justice Gray vs 398 negative words by four critics again demeaning Irving's historical abilities. That's a factor of 18 times. Is that considered a balanced description? I should add that one of those negative quotations is 158 words long--longer again than the Justice Gray quote of 128 words which was objected to based on its excessive length.>> <<Well, this "consensus" consists of 16,914 words of criticism [about Irving] out of an article of 21,134 words, or 80% of the text is critical of Irving. 894 words praise him in one way or another, or 4%. In other words, there are 19 times as many critical words as positive ones. Even the Wiki article on Josef Stalin is only 13,500 words long. And only 34% of the commentary is negative (compared to 21,000 words of which 80% are negative for Irving). And yet Stalin murdered tens of millions more people than Irving!>> The other thing is the extremely sour editorial response, the ultra fine-tuned nit-picking one receives when attempting to inject a modicum of balance to right the 18-times negative vs positive comments. To wit: I say: <<Thirteen well-known historians having words of praise for Irving does not seem like a consensus to me, even though they also expressed reservations. Nor does an 80% vs 4% balance of negative to positive comments seem very measured. Tholzel (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)>> Now any fair-minded person would think that a reasonable response to this documented claim would offer a reason why this gross imbalance does not violate Wiki standards. But no, the experts are at work, and we get: <<Whether 4% positive is too much or too little, I think the relevant policy here is Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT. Balancing the article by giving equal weight to fans and foes would be a radical departure from this, and if we tried to apply that generally would require a substantial rewrite of Wikipedia - even if we could find both positive and negative stuff for all our articles. ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)>> Note I did NOT suggest in any way to give "equal weight"--that is just the diversion being used to avoid coming to grips with the gross imbalance. Notice too, (This is the unbelievable part) that this editor thinks 4% positive commentary vs 80% negative is not relevant to my claim of UNDUEWEIGHT!!! So when would balance be relevant? (Never answered) 1% positive vs 99% negative commentary? Now, let me guess. (And this is practically a guarantee.) The editors will once again completely dodge the issue, and instead issue some inane counter attack which has nothing to do with my points. Like the "equal weight" comment, they will be made up out of whole cloth. If at all possible, they will evoke Wiki rules and regulations that I am personally attacking the editors (unlike them).Tholzel (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC) We've already been through the Justice Gray material; his assessment was also overwhelmingly negative, the material you wanted to add in no way "essentially negates much of these complaints against Irving" - exactly the opposite, and in any event he's not a historian, so his opinion can't negate that of historians. For someone who complains about WP:UNDUE weight, it's astonishing that you don't recognize that it's also WP:UNDUE weight, and a misrepresentation of Gray's views, to quote the one tiny part of Gray's damning ruling that you imagine reflects positively on Irving. As for giving equal weight to fans and foes, as far as I can tell Irving has no essentially no current "fans" who are also reliable sources - would you have us quote a Stormfront bulletin board posting praising him? Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC) I love it! I repeatedly complain that you stuff words into my mouth so you can denigrate them--and as a reply you go right ahead and stuff words into my mouth ("As for giving equal weight to fans and foes...")--something I never said. But you have repeatedly dodged my complaint that no opposing opinion to your negativity is ever allowed--and you have the temerity to complain that I do not recognize UNDUEWEIGHT!!! (Is this some debating tactic I haven't heard of?) I repeatedly have agreed that equal weight is NOT called for (Don't you even read what I write?), just SOME exculpatory weight. And I never mentioned "fans and foes." But I am delighted to hear you finally confess that no one who has anything positive to say about Irving can possibly be included in his biography. This has been my central complaint all along. As for your opinion that Justice Gray has no standing, it is odd how often you use him in the article when it suits you--five times I recall. In fact, the only time you don't use him is when he disagrees with you. Then, suddenly,"he's not an historian." But in fact you already have used him, and included the very quote I wanted to add to the main body of the article. Of course it is craftily buried in a footnote which--very strange--follows an extensive bibliography. Can you point to ANY other Wiki article in which footnotes follow the bibliography?Tholzel (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC) As has been explained already, Justice Gray is a reliable source on his legal conclusions, but he's not a historian. Do you have any current reliable sources that praise Irving? Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Can you point to ANY other Wiki article in which footnotes follow the bibliography?Tholzel (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC) You mean like the Deborah Lipstadt and Michael Shermer articles? Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Aha! Other articles written by you in which you hide the footnotes below the bibliography. No, I meant legitimate articles NOT written or edited by you. Making the same mistake over and over again is proof only that you choose not to follow accepted procedures. Tholzel (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Jayjg has one edit to one of those articles and two to the other. He's never touched the location of the footnotes on either one. Time to call WP:DNFTT on Tholzel and put him on ignore. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Your absurdly conspiracist narrative regarding the order of sections in articles is consistent with your other views. Please review MOS:APPENDIX. Jayjg (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC) You guys are FABULOUS at avoiding the issue by attacking the messenger. It's essentially all you've done in the Irving article. Will you PLEASE answer the question: Is it standard procedure to put a bibliography ahead of endnotes? By the way, if you keep up these insulting replies, I am going to complain that your are attacking gentiles. Tholzel (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, please do! "Attacking gentiles"! that should get one heck of a lot of traction. WP:AN/I is probably the right place to do it. --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Please review my previous response, where your question has already been answered. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Ha! You did it again (and again and again). Refusing to answer a question which shows up your extreme bias by attacking the questioner. Typical. As I pointed out (since you obviously missed it), citing your own erroneous form as evidence that endnotes are placed after the bibliography, hardly qualifies as being editorially correct. Please show us any non-Irving-connected article in which the endnotes follow the bibliography You know, you guys are supposed to be disinterested editors, not a claque of Irving-haters who visciously attack any balance that is offered. (My mind reels at how you are going to dodge this simple, repeated request.)[Tholzel] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.101.213.60 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC) What on earth does that mean, "citing your own erroneous form as evidence"? As has already been pointed out, I have no "form", much less an "erroneous" one. In addition, as has already been pointed out, I've already provided a link to the Manual of Style section that discusses this very issue. Now, if any comment you make in the future refers in any way to another editor, and I mean in any way, you'll be blocked. That's very simple to understand, isn't it? Refer only to article content, and not in any way to other editors. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Jayjg, It might be best to stop feeding this troll. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) “your absurdly conspiracist narrative” “Your absurdly conspiracist narrative” “stop feeding this troll” Some how the above quotes about me do not count as "refers 'in any way' to another editor"? So once again, you alone can and do insult with impunity.Tholzel (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've removed the 'proposed merge' tags on this and the Irving trial articles, because they're ugly and a distraction for readers. The short discussion here seemed to favour moving stuff out of this long article into separate litigation articles, there is no active debate on the merge now, and (FWIW) I agree that splitting stuff out is the way to go, rather than increase the length of this article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you've raised it, yes, well done. Merge into tags and too long ones, don't sit well together and WP:Summary style is the way to go.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like tto vote for at least 20% of this article being moved into the Libel Trial

I will start off by saying I believe that percentages of this article could be moved and their references used in the libel trial article under david irving. I think that and this page may need disambiguating. I think some link to the third reich and hitler might be more presient in the libel case too. Thank you.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, when we have an article that's been split from another article it's typical to leave a one-paragraph summary. Sometimes the summaries are longer, but I think we could shorten this one. See WP:SUMMARY   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can do the summary myself, it's the tech parts which need elaboration for me, I'm new.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Link 124,

does not work, or show it's evidence. I cannot see the article online anymore, either. Perhaps we could vanish the link until a functional one appears? We would also momentarily have to get rid of the song. I can't find any sources, be they secondary or primary, on the internet anymore. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The song is referred to as evidence given to court in this BBC news report: [1], but some of the attendant details aren't in that news piece. The section could be shortened slightly, preserving the song, and merely mentioning that it was used in court. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok it's added, thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The citation is

• Hitchens, Christopher. "Churchill Take a Fall", The Atlantic Monthly, April 2002.

It's a perfectly valid print citation, and it doesn't have to be online. Please don't remove it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a reliable reference for the 90% of people who don't have access to The Atlantic magazine. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:TALK as it might aid you in future communication.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Jayjg is right. Paper-only sources are fine - reliable sources policy notes only that "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

I wasn't at 100% alertness yesterday, I didn't even notice it was a print source - sorry. :) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A Collaborative Day of Action.

I would love to see this article featured, as it assesses an intruiging yet controversial subject, really fairly, and in-depth. Maybe a date should be set on the wikipedian biography portal, so we can really start cracking down on the few problems haunting an otherwise fabulous article. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be awfully nice to get the article to that high a quality, but it's had serious problems for as long as I've been watching it. Some suggestions:

First, reduce the section on the Lipstadt trial to a single paragraph and move the content to the separate article, if it's not already covered there. Take further steps to reduce the length. Take a look at the section entitle "The 1990's". We're covering this guys life in detail like he's Churchill or something.

Second, put it up for review and get some outside comments on it. Use these to improve the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good comments well made, it is too long, but he's a controversial figure, so the math of this being an annonymously eedited (to a degree) wiki, plus irving creating a furore with virtually every remark or court case he lands, does not an easy article make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit-lock

I would like to initiate a straw poll on possibly edit-locking this article, as it's content is so open to interpretation. Please state support/oppose and reasoning behind your argument. TYVM.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's not going to happen. They won't protect this or any other article unless it's either being heavily vandalized or there's extreme edit-warring going on. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - Cymbelmineer, have you read Wikipedia:Protection policy? I don't see any reason to protect the article based on its edit history. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood, I'd forgotten all that material I guess.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

does Wikipedia make money from Jewish/Zionist sources?

POV pushing collapsed Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Irving has stated many times that there is a severe lack of evidence that any gassings took place. He has described the inhumane conditions, the shootings, the hangings, the starvation and the health epidemics. He has refused to use the word "holocaust" because it is some kind of brand name like Coke or Home Depot. So, why does Wikipedia still use the term "denier"? Does it get money for keeping the myth alive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.105 (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC) In the unlikely event that this is a legitimate question, I'll give a legitimate answer. There is no question among reliable sources that 100,000s of gassings took place. There is no question that his (claimed) refusal to use the word "holocaust" is based on misunderstanding, whether or not intentional (IDIDNTHEARTHAT). And he is a holocaust denier, as can easily be determined from reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Mr Rubin, hundreds of thousands of gassings is a big reduction from millions as is claimed. And maybe I can ask YOU then, what physical evidence exists that anyone was ever gassed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.105 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Why does there need to be physical evidence? One thing the Nazis were good at was keeping records. And most of the millions were killed before the assembly-line operation of the gas chambers were completed. Only 2.7 million or so were killed in the "death camps", out of the 6 million Jews, 2 million (or so) Gypsies, and homosexuals, and other "undesirables" killed. Why does there need to be physical evidence? Are you serious, Sir? It's claimed by the Allies that the Germans wanted to exterminate Europe's Jews and used gas chambers to do it. It isn't the Germans who made that claim. It was the Allies. You say that the German's were masters of keeping records, so where is the record of the gas chamber program? Not one single sheet of paper has ever been produced that talks about a gas chamber program. Don't you find that strange? Because I sure do. There is literally no proof from any reliable source that I have been able to find in five years of independent research that ONE person ever died in a gas chamber. Not one. Before you call me a Nazi or Anti-Semite, please know that I recognize Jewish suffering during WW2. I acknowledge that they were, as a group, targeted by the government of Germany. But I yet to see where it was ever the intention of Germany to kill all Jews they got their hands on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.105 (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia describes Irving as a "denier" because dozens of reliable sources do. Do you have any changes you wish to make to the article, based on reliable sources? Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC) My apologies for engaging the anon in conversation not related to improving the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC) That's ok, you were sorely provoked. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Why is it when someone asks a question about the Holocaust they are immediately attacked? Can't the Holocaust stand on the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.105 (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I've blocked this IP address for POV pushing and associated trolling Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Good to know, you prevented another Shoah. Duck-B (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed 4 articles about the same person to be "merged" into the 1 article. Named: David Irving. If anyone researching anything about him or related materials which are included in the 4 articles can be found in the same article. Yes, I know this article will become bigger and will make it clearer for people researching David Irving or works he's done on World War II. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(above moved to this page for visibility, by Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

The main article here has been gradually reduced in size by stripping out separate sections, into those articles you've just tagged: Public image of David Irving, Irving trial, and Critical responses to David Irving. It's still not too small by any reckoning, either. I'm not in favour of merging that exported stuff back in - it is all clearly linked at the top of various section headers, so it shouldn't be too hard to find for people wanting it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the three other articles being merged into the present one with any ease, at least not with the current community consensus on what constitutes "too big and unwieldy". As for all spin-off articles that have been created basically by taking sections wholesale out of the main article, I think it is important that a sufficiently thorough discussion is left with the parent article, in the sections where {{main}} serves as a section hatnote referral to the spawned sub-article. That seems not fully to be the case at present (particularly with respect to Irving trial). __meco (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There anyway, to link all the articles together? Without "redirecting", or maybe change the names of the article slightly to reflect David Irving as the same person? I'm just helping out and have suggestions, I take no offence to any of the comments so far and I feel no offence has been intended. We are on wikipedia to not only expand our own knowledge, (for me I have learnt things I never knew) but improve on existing articles that have been created. Adamdaley (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

These sub-articles were created specifically to reduce the length of this main article. Articles are supposed to be 6,000-10,000 words, and this one considerably exceeded that. It's now a more reasonable length. See Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Jayjg, I understand and agree with you after reading the Wikipedia:Article size page. In all honesty, I didn't realise that there was a wording limit. I appreciate it, you bringing it to my attention and I'm still learning the more complicated programming banners of Wikipedia. Hope I can be of some assistance in the future. Adamdaley (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Post-peer review cleanup

Wikipedia:Peer review/David Irving/archive1

I will be doing my best to improve this article to FA quality following these comments. Shii (tock) 06:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, here is the version of the article before my considerable shortening. There's nothing particularly bad about it, except that Wikipedia is meant to give a concise summary of the most important facts, no to include every last thing that happened in Irving's life; that's the job of book-length biographies, not encyclopedias. Hopefully my ~100kb version will allow readers to understand the topic without having to become an expert on Irving trivia. Shii (tock) 03:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote shortened

The following quote has been significantly shortened:

Mr. Irving's constant references to archives, diaries and letters, and the overwhelming amount of detail in his work, suggest objectivity. In fact they put a screen behind which a very different agenda is transacted… Mr. Irving is a great obfuscator…Distortions affect every important aspect of this book to the point of obfuscation… It is unfortunate that Mr Irving wastes his extraordinary talents as a researcher and writer on trivializing the greatest crimes in German history, on manipulating historical sources and on highlighting the theatrics of the Nazi era.

I think it has been shortened too much; it clearly illustrates the fundamental objections historians have to Irving's methodology, including his use of overwhelming detail, and reference to multiple sources, to obscure, distort, and obfuscate, rather than illuminate. I recommend that it be restored, or at least the removed material better summarized. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good quote, feel free to restore it. I hesitate over every removal. Shii (tock) 04:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you do. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Material removed

The following material has been removed, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me:

In 1990, the American historian Peter Baldwin called Irving a historian who "…has made a career of seeking to shift culpability for the worst atrocities from Hitler and to draw also the Allies into proximity with the outrages of the war" In 1992, Robert G. L. Waite called Irving's work "a calumny both on the victims of Hitler's terror and on historical scholarship". About Irving's claims of Hitler's ignorance of the Holocaust, Waite commented that "no one but Hitler had the authority to give the orders to murder more than six million people in the mist of war"". In his 1994 book, A World At Arms, the American historian Gerhard Weinberg described Irving as "notoriously unreliable", and criticized those historians who used Irving to support their arguments

The material seems brief enough, and to the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed this because it duplicates stuff better said by the reviewers I did leave. See my comment below. Shii (tock) 04:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of the material you've removed so far, but these are notable authors with notable statements, and all are brief. I'd like to retain these. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that would probably be fine for now (see below) Shii (tock) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations removed

Multiple citations, supporting various material in the article have been removed, particularly regarding the fact that Irving has been discredited. While it may seem a good idea to shorten the article, the issue here is that (mostly SPA) editors continually (i.e. on at least a weekly basis) trying to refute these facts, and the large numbers of citations have been required to show these views are extremely widely held. What is the plan in the future, when some editor shows up and again removes the fact that Irving has been discredited? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the history and see the POV warrior issues. However, the article needs to be written as a coherent summary and not a line of defense against neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazis will not like this article no matter what; they are not our audience. We need to write it for people who are unfamiliar with Irving and want to know the most important facts about him. I believe that the article has already accomplished this before the Reception section simply by integrating outside opinion into the biographical narrative. As long as people can read through the article and understand the overwhelming academic consensus about Irving, I don't see the problem with removing references that reduplicate other quotes. I made a link to the 130kb version above so that they can be restored if they have to.

Also, I will have to remove more material to get this down to a readable length, so please help me identify what is unnecessary. Shii (tock) 04:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding all of my edits

Obviously, this is already a fine article that doesn't need any artificial Wikipedia rankings to be useful to the world at large. The principal purpose of a GA/FA review would be to ensure that it meets the standard definition of what Wikipedia editors like to see in an article, which admittedly is a bunch of arbitrary rules. I think it deserves these merits, but before starting a GA review, I'll need to cut a further 11kb, but I don't see anything else to remove. I appreciate that you (Jayjg) researched and wrote most of this, and I've done nothing but cut out your work. So, if you see an opening to move some of the information here into a sub-topic article, or to remove any excess information, I'm just going to leave that to you from now on. In the meantime I will look for citations for the {{fact}} tags I added.

edit: One thing it might be useful to do is to create an encyclopedic summary of the entire "Reception/Criticism by historians" section and turn that into its own article. That section is 15kb by itself. Shii (tock) 02:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can't claim credit for researching and writing most of this; the editor most responsible for the majority of the content is A.S. Brown (talk · contribs). I'm happy to look for material that can go in sub-articles, but are you trying to get it to exactly 100k for a specific reason? I think the actual recommendation is "6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose" Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good point. The present count, then, seems to be about 15,000 words. The sections that seem the easiest to move are "Hitler's War" (an article already exists on the topic) and the Reception section. Any complaint with condensing those? Shii (tock) 06:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I think those would be good places to start. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Phew! Looks like we can end it there, because that brought the article under 10,000 words. I will add it to the GA queue now. Shii (tock) 07:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!!! I just came back to the article after giving up battering my head to add just a smidgeon of objectivity, and was astonished to discover the improvements to it. The two most obvious: naming Irving in the header as an historian (instead of a holocaust denier), and actually permitting a number of other historians to comment that Irving has indeed some historical merit in uncovering insider information, diaries, etc. All too obvious, but blatantly missing before. Finally, the iron grip of the ideologues previously guarding this site has been unlocked. Bravo. What is remaining would be to catalogue the many, many complaints of his critics and then include one or two of each type and discard the still huge list of repetitive entries. After all, Irving is just a possibly misguided historian; he is not the antiChrist, and so only deserves so many words (say, fewer than Josef Stalin). 74.104.98.213 (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (Tholzel)

I note that no, the header does not refer to Irving as a historian in any sense other than a 'widely discredited' one. I also note that the general consensus is quite clear that whatever value to the field of history Irving has for 'unearthing' historical materials is far and away undone by his decision to deliberately misuse them to spin his little yarn. Spaceclerk (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You guys never give up. 74.104.98.213 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

So how much discussion have you had with Irving about your current wave of activity on Wikipedia. I know you have discussed contributions with him in the past. And, of course, a meat puppet of a BLP subject would clearly violate WP:COI.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

...and the point of your question is? (Speaking of never giving up!!!)74.104.98.213 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any suggested changes based on reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why all the surliness? I was merely CONGRATULATING you on finally cutting the article down to a more appropriate size, and opening it up to a smidgeon of exculpatory evidence in the formerly one-sided drumbeat of an anti-Irvine diatribe--in other words, finally doing your job as editors and not as guardians of the flame--and even that doesn’t suit you. You guys are sure hard to please.74.104.98.213 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is to do with your persistent reference on this page to "religious ideologues", for example in your post yesterday in one of the threads above, and to the fact that you decided to correspond with Irving about your contributions here. That sort of thing does suggest that your motivation in coming to this article may not be the purest in the world. I may be concerned about American imperialism, but I have not chosen to correspond with representatives of the Korean, Cuban or Iranian regimes about their portrayal here. You have chosen to correspond with a legally established racist anti-Semite and Holocaust denier.

You do have an independent web presence where you do admit to the existence of death camps, so I know you are not Irving himself. BTW when discussing British historical figures who were Jewish, it does help if you know the difference between Disraeli and Gladstone. The names do provide a hint as to which was the Jew. Of course Disraeli was not a "religious ideologue" as he converted to Christianity. A fair number of the people you are accusing here of being "religious ideologues" do not necessarilly believe in the Jewish religion either. (I most certainly don't.) That has been pointed out to you repeatedly but you continue to try to mask an attack based on people's Jewish ethnicity as being based on religion. Your website does suggest that you have a doctorate and you therefore should be able to distinguish between religion and ethnicity.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know who you are confusing me with. I don’t have a doctorate, I don’t talk about death camps or anything to do with the holocaust in my blog, nor have I ever written about Gladstone or Disraeli. Please try to get your facts straight before you accuse me of “attacks on Jewish ethnicity.” (Are you now going to run off again to have me banned for “attacks on Jews.”)

I am a First Amendment junkie (and WW-II buff). Just as you did, I looked at Irving’s website and the Wiki entry. I was shocked by the blatant bias. Eventually I wrote him pointing out that I found the Wikipedia entry on him to be the most incredible hatchet job I have ever seen on these pages. He agreed and thanked me publicly for the comment. The content of his material was never mentioned or discussed by either of us.

The reason I continue to call the former editors religious ideologues is because that is an exactly fitting title, whether you like it or not. (I notice that as much as you squeal in anguish over this charge, you never deny it.) EVERY moderating comment of mine was removed—usually within an hour of issue. The number of photos of Nazi criminals gracing this biography of an Englishman took every readers’ breath away. The excuses given by this cabal also stretched credulity well beyond the breaking point. After you had ten historians in row pillage Irving’s reputation as an historian, I was not able to insert a single exculpatory comment by Justice Gray—whom you used when it suited you—because my comment was “too long.” Yet many of yours of a negative ilk were far longer. The extraordinary length and repetition of negative commentary, the absence of any positive mention at all (all right—8% of the comments were positive vs 30% for Joseph Stalin) could lead any neutral observer to agree that this bloated (much bigger than Stalin’s Wikipedia bio) was not only completely out of control, but all control had been seized by religious ideologues.

Wiki apparently agree—thank God--as they have put in place an über-editor to finally reign-in your ideological excesses. Jayjg’s sullen comment about this adult supervision says it all: “Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.” The “worst” meaning no doubt, cutting out some of the Nazi bigwig photos which have abslutely nothing to do with Irving, and continue to prune its excessive, repetitive length.

Anyway, since you asked…74.104.98.213 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "uber-editor" here to "reign-in... ideological excesses". Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:TALK. Any further violations of these policies and guidelines will be deleted. Now, do you have any any suggested changes based on reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee, Jayjg, how quick you are to jump on me; how silent on the vicious attack on me by David Cohen that turns out to be completely false. And just like him, reflexively threatening me with behavior viloations. Why are you not reminding him of Wiki behavior rules? Why are you not asking him to apologize to me?Tholzel (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What happened? After a long (2226 words) discussion of Irving's legal problems and a thorough airing of every negative aspect thereof, I add a single sentence (13 words) "based on reliable sources" as requested, referencing his website where readers culd get Irving's side of the story--and it is removed?68.28.105.232 (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (Tholzel)Tholzel (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think my edit summary was pretty clear; we already link to his website twice, in the infobox at the top, and as the first External link. We don't need a third random link to his website. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. You're right and I was wrong. Now how about David Coehn's slander. Are you just going to let that pass without comment?Tholzel (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No "David Cohen" or "David Coehn" has commented here. If you have complaints about the behavior of other editors, there are various boards you can take them to; you could try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts to start. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter Cohen then. Gee, Jayjg, you ALWAYS use this space to publicly criticize and threaten me. Now suddenly Peter Cohen's diatribe on this page should be hushed over and sent somewhere else? You're really amazing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"There are no uber editors here," opines jayig. The Economist magazine disagrees with him: “…some evidence suggests that neophytes are being put off by Wikipedia’s clique of elite editors. One study by researchers at Xerox’s Palo alto Research Center “looked at the number of times editorial changes were subsequently reversed. It found that roughly a quarter of the edits posted by occasional contributors were undone in late 2008, compared with less than 2% of those posted by the most active editors. And it noted that this gap has widened considerably over time.” The Economist, January 15th, 2011, p. 69.Tholzel (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Are there any changes you wish to make to this article, based on reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:David Irving/Archive 6/GA1

NPOV hurting more than helping.

I'm not a fan or Irving and not any sort of historical revisionist or revisionist sympathizer, but this article is biased to the point of being ridiculous. You're hurting your cause more than helping it by doing this; you're just giving Irvin legitimacy to his claims that he's being silenced. It's unsalvageable at this point. Needs a complete rewrite... 74.90.48.175 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Give some examples. Shii (tock) 13:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This wikipedia content consists of several quotations which are simply the opinions of very biased individuals who have a political agenda. I'm wondering why this is allowed. I think the problem lies in the fact that as long as the source of the defamatory, opinionated statements are clearly cited, then Wikipedia deems that information as legitimate. For instance, by including derogatory statements about Irving, which are included as quotations of another author, as long as the source of that quotation is provided, Wikipedia deems the inclusion of such a statement as legitimate.

By allowing these types of clearly politically motivated entries to persist on Wikipedia diminishes the objectivity, or what's supposed to be a totally objective "Encyclopedia". Anyone reading the David Irving page can immediately detect the biased tone. This is a hit piece.

Perhaps the authors feel that David Irving's reputation needs to be destroyed, to counter-act the negativity of his political ideology, and from their point of view, this may very well be a worthwhile endeavor, but using Wikipedia as the vehicle to accomplish this is bad for Wikipedia.

A prime example of this: From reading this entry, would one be informed of the true fact that David Irving is still publishing well received books, such as "Uprising", written about the Hungarian Uprising.

The Guardian had this to say about this book: “Irving skilfully combines sources . . . The result is disconcerting, rather like reading a film script, but it works particularly well.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.210.3 (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is with remarkable regularity that Mr. Irving's crybaby acolytes make their appearances on this talk page to protest how badly treated poor little David is in his Wikipedia bio. They can't point to a single inaccuracy, mind you, but, oh, how woefully they will decry the unfairness of it all.

For the benefit of our complainer du jour I will point out that there is no need for anyone to use this article to destroy Mr. Irving's reputation. He accomplished that himself long ago with his Holocaust denial and his many appearances before neo-Nazi and antisemitic groups of all stripes. He reached the well-deserved nadir of his self-destructive course with his pathetic and ill-considered lawsuit against Professor Lipstadt, who committed what was, for Irving, the unforgivable crime of telling the world the truth about him. If there has been a better example of a miscreant hoist on his own petard, I cannot think of it.

Although you do not, in this post, give us much of a clear idea how you think the article ought to read, I can only assume that this and this are examples of what you think would be improvements, since they come from the same IP. Perhaps it will be helpful to you to know that Wikipedia articles are required to use reliable sources and are forbidden to include original research. Thus your long, personal essay about how bravely and forthrightly Irving fights for the truth, how unfairly he has been persecuted (which persecution seems to mainly take the form of people not trusting him after he has been repeatedly proven to be a serial fabulist) and your personal judgment that his writings contain only unassailable facts do not qualify for inclusion.

As regards the purported quotation from the Guardian on Mr. Irving's latest tome, I can assure you that it comes as no surprise to me that I can find no such review on the Guardian's website. Indeed a search for the quotation you posted reveals that it exists in only two places on the internet, Mr Irving's own website and that of his publisher. Given Irving's well-documented penchant for misuse of sources, this is hardly puzzling. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the lie in this case seems to be the "is still publishing well received books", possibly motivated by the "New" next to "Uprising" on Irving's web page. "Uprising" is from 1981, however, 15 years before the Lipstadt trial finally put his reputation to grave. It's certainly not impossible that one newspaper wrote a review that can be cherry-picked 30 years ago... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will note, as well, that, even taken at face value, the above purported quote from the Guardian contains no endorsement of the veracity of Mr. Irving's scholarship, only praise for his ability to write compelling prose, something that has never been at issue where his much-diminished reputation is concerned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops--what happened to my entry, shown here, which is a handful of positive critical acclaim about some of Irving's books? As far as I can see, it is the only positive mention of anything he has written, and by well-known academics. Or is ANY positive mention not allowed?

Reviews of Irving's Books

While there are many historians who criticize Irving's credentials, book critics have taken a different view of his work:

DAVID IRVING IS ONE of Britain's most disliked and condemned writers. There are many who believe that Irving builds some new shock to public belief into each book he writes. The other side of Irving makes him a most formidable opponent. He is . . . the most assiduous and persistent of researchers into the mountains of documents. . . He has uncovered enormous quantities of private diaries and papers hidden from Allied investigators. And he has shown a combination of generosity and commercial acumen in their disposal . . . Irving has produced a study of Goring which makes no attempt to disguise his many failings . . . The book is a goldmine for aficionados of Nazi Germany . . . the verifiable details are fascinating. — Professor Donald Cameron Watt, in The Sunday Times ('book of the week') August 13, 1989.

SUCH A LIFE DOES not lack incident, and David Irving, a remarkable researcher, a brilliant discoverer of documents and a skilful writer, tells the story well . . . He has mastered his material and written a very readable biography. ... Five years hence he [Goring] predicted, Hitler would be the idol of Germany. Even Mr. Irving has not yet achieved that historical revision. But he has written a very readable book. — Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, in The Sunday Telegraph ('The Sunday book') August 20, 1989.

THERE WAS SOMETHING TO Goring, and it came out at the Nuremberg trials when, slimming down and cleaned out, he defended himself with vigour and rebutted some of the charges that had wrongfully been made against him. It also came out in matters of art, on which David Irving is rather good. Goring's taste was very sound ... There is far, far more about the man himself and Irving has an extraordinary talent for dig¬ging up otherwise obscure Nazi sources . . . he does have a real knack of penetrating the `mind' of Nazism. . . Professor Norman Stone, in New Statesman, August 18, 1989.

THIS IS THE BEST-RESEARCHED biography and best biography in English of `the second man in the Third Reich'. . . Goring somehow obtained poison – Irving has done good detective work here – and seemed to have escaped the hangman. — George Stern, in Literary Review, London, August 1989.

THE FASTIDIOUS MAY FIND Mr Irving's style vulgar ... They will read on all the same, I guess, mesmerised by Mr Irving's narrative skill, by his prodigious researches, which have placed something fascinating, important, revealing or horrifying in almost every paragraph, and by his peculiar perspectives. . . Neronian luxury and licence, of which Mr Irving gives a fascinating and unsparing picture. — Colin Welch in The Spectator, London, August 19, 1989. Tholzel (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'Reception by historians' section of this article and the dedicated Critical responses to David Irving seeks to provide an overall assessment of how Irving's work has been recieved over time. I see no reason to include cherry picked positive quotes from old reviews of Irving's books in this or any other article. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Cherry-picked"? You're joking, right? There is not a single positive quote on Irving, and dozens of negative commentary. I try to add a few positive opinions among many from noted scholars and critics, and all you can come up with is "cherry-picked"? It sounds to me like this is just another version of the one editor who blurted out "We can't put in anything good about Irving."

If you don't include these quotes, I will go back for a third opinion because your oburancy is so blatantly anti-Irving that it violates the very neutrality that legitimate editors are supposed to provide. By the way, THREE MINUTES to excise my addition sets a new record for real-time surveillance and suppression of any positive Irving quotes. Tholzel (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Tholzel, I have to agree with Nick-D, it's not really appropriate to insert into this summary section cherry-picked quotes from 20 years ago, and all apparently about one book. By the way, you've copied all these from the Göring page on Irving's website, haven't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I will point out, just as a matter of interest, that these exact quotes, in this exact order, echoing precisely the capitalization of the first several words may be found here (beginning on page 15 of the pdf file). This is apparently a new pdf version of Irving's 1989 book Goering. The quotes were clearly copy/pasted from that pdf. Fpp.co.uk is Irving's website. I hardly think it's fair to ask Wikipedia to behave as Mr. Irving's press agent. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your airy claim of "cherry-picking" as a reason to prevent a single positive word to be permitted about Irving's works. Here is an very successful author with 30 books under his belt--and not a single one of them was popular? The only cherry-picking going on here is your rotten-cherry picking of having 4362 words of condemnation of everything he has ever written. When I try to add a sliver of balance, quoting mainstream book review critics such as H.R. Trevor-Roper in the Sunday Telegraph, others in the Sunday Times, the Literary Review, The Spectator—it is me who is accused of "cherry-picking"! And then as a defense of your inexcusable bias, you counter not that these quotes are incorrect, but that I copied these quotes from one of his books!

Please explain why, in a biography or a hugely successful (and hugely controversial) author, not a single quotation is allowed from among the many that exist, praising any of his works? Tholzel (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to claim the publisher's blurb as a reliable source? Have you seen even one of the referenced articles in full? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to dodge the central issue, please say yes or no if you would allow even two positive critics' reviews of his book, no matter where they come from (as long as they are correct). What your objections sound like is that these quotes have become unclean by being in one of his books and cannot therefore be ever used in this article. Tholzel (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to anyone to "allow anything". But no, using self-serving out-of-context quotes is not acceptable. The source you apparently use is not reliable, either for the overall tenor of the review, nor even for the quotes themselves. I've not, so far, managed to find even one of the alleged reviews online. If you find a reliably sourced positive review by a mainstream source, sure, we can include it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. I've tracked down The Sunday Times article (microfilm) and the NY Review of Books review by Gordon Craig. Here they are:

“David Irving is one of Britain/s most disliked and condemned writers. … The other side of Irving makes him a most formidable opponent. He is … the most assiduous and persistent researchers into the mountains of documents captured in Germany at the end of the war or generated by his captors in their interrogations, of their captives and discussions and investigations into their activities. … He has uncovered enormous quantities of private papers and diaries hidden by such men from Allied investigators. And he has shown a combination of generosity and commercial acumen in their disposal.” The Sunday Times by Cameron Watt, (Book of the Week), August 13, 1989, page G1. And:

“Göring “ is a sprawling, excessively long, but very readable book, for Irving has always written with verve and energy, and if it is occasionally marred by the author’s contempt for received opinion and his penchant for taking sideswipes at people he doesn’t like, it tells us a great deal that we did not know about Göring’s direction of the Luftwaffe in the Second World War (indeed, everything Irving has to say about the Luftwaffe is highly interesting). The book also includes marvelous stuff on his art collecting and plundering, and provides an absorbing account of Göring’s varying relationship with Adolf Hitler.” The New York Review of Books, by Gordon Craig, Feb 2, 1989, Online archive.

Now, of course these comments want to be put in the body of the text--not tucked away in a footnote. Also, with our research mavens hovering, the purpose of the quotes is to show balance with two positive excerpts, not just to extract from them more of the many, many negative opinions. So please to not rush out and find sections of these same reviews that are negative. Nor is it fair to surround these quotes with disclaimers, (to mention just a few of the tactics that have been used before). Tholzel (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, you are very much mistaken. The aim is not to "to show balance with two positive excerpts", the aim is to fairly reflect what reliable sources have said about Irving and his books. What you are doing is exactly cherry-picking. If we mention a review, we need to include the overall tenor of the review, not pick some arbitrary parts from it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And in any event, a book review won't go in this article. This article has one paragraph summarizing Irving's critical reception, and it doesn't quote anyone. The article has a length issue which we're not going to exacerbate with cherry-picked quotes from ancient book reviews. If the material goes anywhere, it will go in Critical responses to David Irving. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg. As there are references which provide an overview of how Irving's writing has been received, there's no need at all to include individual reviews of his books here, or or in the Critical responses to David Irving article for that matter. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

“If you find a reliably sourced positive review by a mainstream source, sure, we can include it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)”

So I supplied excerpts which accurately describe the tenor of two mainstream reviews. Then: What accusations are those? did I misquote you when you said we could use a mainstream quote and then as soon as I got them you reneged? I corrected the microfiche dropouts from the Sunday Times quote above, and I also filed an arbitration request because you guys are just as impossible as ever. Tholzel (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

“If we mention a review, we need to include the overall tenor of the review, not pick some arbitrary parts from it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)”

So now, having supplied exactly that, the promise is withdrawn. And we are left where we started—4362 words negatively describing Irving’s writings, not one peep about any positive views,

And while the negative commentary goes back to 1963, Jayjg pipes in that the more recent mainstream reviews I quote from 1989 are “ancient,” i.e., another excuse not to include them.

And, once again, the central issue is dodged: “Please explain why, in a biography or a hugely successful (and hugely controversial) author, not a single quotation is allowed from among the many that exist, praising any of his works? Tholzel (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)” Tholzel (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded accusations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What accusations are those? did I misquote you when you said we could use a mainstream quote and then as soon as I got them you reneged? I corrected the microfiche dropouts from the Sunday Times quote above, and I also filed an arbitration request because you guys are just as impossible as ever. Tholzel (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and you are doing it again. Where do you think I wrote that "we could use a mainstream quote"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"If you find a reliably sourced positive review by a mainstream source, sure, we can include it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)" I think this was on the Editing Talk page of the David Irving article--up a few paragraphs or so from these words. Tholzel (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So how do you get from "positive review" to "positive quote, which may be cherry-picked even from mixed or overall negative review"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Gee, Steve, how long are you going to try to squirm out of your broken promise? Did your buddies gang up on you when you made that offer of balance? Tholzel (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Gerry Gable, who burgled Irving’s apartment is not identified as a British Jewish political activist, former communist and editor of the Jewish "anti-fascist" magazine Searchlight. That omission aside, he can then hardly be given such prominence of place later in the article when communists with Jewish backgrounds are mentioned, as if he were some kind of disinterested expert:

“Speaking of Irving's work in the 1970s-80s in a 1992 interview, Gerry Gable was quoted as saying:

"In that stage he [Irving] was smart, because what he was trying to do was to say to the new generation was 'Hitler was no worse than Napoleon'. Everybody gave Napoleon a bad write-up, but when you put it into perspective, the man forged a modern Europe, and forged certain democratic legal systems, Code Napoleon and all these things. Well', Irving says 'give it another 30 years and people will view Hitler in the same way'. And this what he does with the book. So he says Roosevelt was a political cuckold. That Eisenhower was a womanizer. That Churchill was a drunk. That they were all corrupt. That Stalin was a mass murder-which is true. So what made Hitler the exception? And this is what they try to sell to people".[45]

Is this what passes for a neutral portrayal of Irving--but we cannot use Gordon Craig? Tholzel (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the Gable quote; it's considerably undue weight. I've removed it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey-what happened? I can add edits. I thought I had been perminently banned from every Wiki article in existence.74.104.33.64 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you User:Tholzel? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I still can't figure out why, as I have angered the editors of this article, they felt justified in having me banned from ALL Wikipedia articles on which I work--the early history of Mt. Everest, closed-circuit oxygen, etc., etc. Especially cute was their smug rhetorical question of whether they were being "too harsh." No, they didn’t think so.74.104.33.64 (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Holocaust Denier" Declaration Is Biased

I was sympathetic to Irving at one point, thinking that people were overreacting (and respecting some of his earlier work such as the book on Dresden) until -- eager to find out the "truth" (as subjective as that can be), I went to his Web site once ( I had been there before searching for answers) and saw he had posted the most enchanting pictures of Der Fuhrer in a Tyrolian hat. Then I knew..... I was just flabbergasted. It was like a love letter to Hitler. I've never doubted since that he has gone over into Holocaust denial -- ideologically and racially and kind of mentally deranged motivated Holocaust denial -- since seeing those pictures posted on the HOME page of his Web site.

While I think there can and should be legitimate debate about gas chambers and the Holocaust -- it seems that no matter how much you try to be objective and give the Irvings of the world respect and breach the possibility the gas chambers weren't used as we commonly think to exterminate but to delouse people (go to the movie TWO ARABIAN KNIGHTS of 1927 and you'll see the POWs going through the showers at a German delousing station), their arguments and their ultimate shortcomings bring any rational person to the conclusion that a state sanctioned genocide, i.e., the Holocaust undeniably did occur -- with or without gas chambers -- which is a reason for a free debate. Their denial leads to a deeper examination and shows a skeptic (who has his/her wits about them and is not ideologically driven) that the Holocaust DID occur. (The idea that the gas chambers were built lest the Americans & British gas the German camps from the air with gas bombs is a particularly precious gem of the deniers (no power outside of the Japanese in Manchuria used poison gas in WWII); they cite the doors of the gas chambers....oh, it all falls apart, like the best laid plans of "mouse & man" as that bigot -- but no Holocaust denier -- Archie Bunker would say.) The idea that this is all beyond debate smacks of not only religious dogma but that there is something that is being hidden.

That said, I'm kind of uncomfortable with Irving being DECLARED a Holocaust denier in an article that should be objective. "Controversial historian" should be his moniker and then the fact that he has been accused of Holocaust denial raised and then the facts put forward. The more you look into Irving, you do come to the conclusion that he IS a Holocaust denier, but that should be the judgment of the reader after reading the facts. Wiki shouldn't be acting as a prosecutor and declaring the guy IS a Holocaust denier from the gitgo. Holocaust denier isn't listed in the Standard Industrial Classification Codes manual put out by the DOL but historian is (this last bit is written tongue in cheek). We're not here to make moral judgments. I found that Irving hoists himself on his own petard without much help from the anti-Irving crowd, whose tactics can elicit sympathy for the poor sod.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dozens of reliable sources (many cited in this article) have described him as a "Holocaust denier". He's been found to be a "Holocaust denier" in two separate trials in Western courts, one a case he brought himself claiming he wasn't one. He's been jailed for Holocaust denial. These are not "moral judgments", these are simply a reflection of what the preponderance of reliable sources say about him. Please review the archives of this talk page, where this issue has been discussed many times. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many of the people who declare Irving a Holocuast denier are Jewish? If it is most of them, then it is merely an issue of religious ideologues using this article to promulgate their faith. Hardly the role of Wickipedia.74.104.98.213 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a very dangerous observation to make these days. Have you been watching the news? I've been brought up in a Western, slightly-Christian society, and the "Hitler" that we know has always been pure evil. The only exception was that it was pretty well accepted that he was probably very intelligent. I'm just making it clear that I am no "sympathiser". However, I have been more and more curious due to recent events in the world being described as "history repeating itself" and likened to the 1930s. Even with my strongly anti-Hitler POV, common sense forces me to agree with accusations that the article looks like a "hit piece". There seems to be a lot of Original research and POV-pushing which is backed up with links that only support individual facts but not the overall gist imparted by the main writers. For example, the heading "Drift towards Holocaust denial" is a serious claim in its own right, yet the "reliable sources" only support individual examples of Irving's views at a given moment in time, not the overall drift. If one cares to look up Propaganda techniques, they'll easily find at least a dozen different techniques used in this article to subtly direct readers towards the POV that David Irving is basically an amoral con artist. But what can you do?--Guid123 (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not think the term 'holocaust denier' very helpful, but it's always open to Irving to complain. Maybe he doesn't care that much, the daily page view stats frequntly return a single figure and this article doesn't come you first when you google 'David Irving'! Hardicanute (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Yes, there's no need to use weasel words like 'controversial' when there are clear cut court findings and other reliable sources which call Irving a Holocaust denier. Avoiding the term would be doing readers of the article a considerable disservice for no reason at all. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "holocaust denier". that word implies that the "denier" knows that the holocaust is 100% correct and just says otherwise. There are many reasons to doubt the gas chamber legends. It does not make one a denier to say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.239.178 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See item 3 on the FAQ at the top of Talk:Holocaust_denial. The terminology question is long settled here and elsewhere. And no, the gas chambers are not "legends" but historically and legally verified facts. Spaceclerk (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

how were they "legally verified"? is there an illegal way to verify them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.239.178 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Verified in courts of law. Also, please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the same editor whom I blocked for POV pushing above. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I find the whole controversy surrounding Irving to be very interesting. I read Professor Evans' book 'Lying About Hitler,' which is basically a summarized version of what Evans did as an expert defense witness for the defamation trial. Evans very clear defines the characteristics of Holocaust denial, and then shows that Irving exhibits each characteristic. In this way, Irving can definitively be labeled as a Holocaust denier. 151.203.230.185 (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how there can be any controversy over this title. Irving denies the Holocaust, and he does so by willfully manupulating and lying about the facts (See the Judge Grey decision at his defamation trial). To NOT call him a holocaust denier would be simply dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the term was "Holocaust-denying-liar" I could see some cause for complaint, but there's no intrinsic criticism involved. If one denies that there was a Holocaust, one is by definition a Holocaust-denier. The term "deny" has nothing to do with honesty, it has to do with statements. Irving has stated at various times that he denies that any systematic mass murder took place. How can anyone argue with that?
People seem to want to avoid using the term because it's supposedly perjoritve. It's not, it's a statement of one's position. That position happens to be ignorant, hateful and often racist. That's why people tend to ostracize those called Holocaust-deniers, not because of the label itself. The Cap'n (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The description of Irving as a "Holocaust denier" is contentious and POV. He has himself denied the accusation. There is little in his writings which meet the definition of a "Holocaust denier" - he has disputed widely accepted facts, on the grounds that they are actually baseless. That is a proper thing for historians and writers to do - question. Whilst the article accepts unquesioningly that he is a "holocaust denier", it does not accept that he is a historian, despite having written 40 odd books. Simply because a group do not agree with his conclusions in one historical area does not mean that he is not a historian! I don't agree with a lot that many other historians write, that does not mean that I conclude that they are not historians. And many are far more obviously biased than Irving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 February 2011

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Are there any changes you wish to make to this article, based on reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you actually just say: "There is little in his writings which meet the definition of a "Holocaust denier""? How about when he denied there was a holocaust in his writings? Does that meet the criteria? How about when he declared that the Jews had no greater friend in Germany than Hitler? How about when he declared there was no systemic program to kill the jews in Hitler's Germany? If those quotes denying the holocaust dont meet your standard of 'holocaust denial' then you need a serious rethink. He has been proven in a court of law to falsify history and invent facts totally unsupported (or even contradicted) by the evidence in order to promote his holocaust denial claims. Thats not academic disagreement, its deceit, dishonesty and fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just use your browser's search function (usually Ctrl F) if you lose sight of a quote. No need to get all hysterical about it -- his next few sentences seemed to support the bit that you quoted. It's right there, about 5cm above your comment. Cheers.--Guid123 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

External links to Irving's website

Many of the books listed in "Bibliography" link out to pages on Mr Irving's website, which appears to conflict with our guidance re external links at WP:ELNO. Is this usual in articles about authors? I have two main concerns: firstly, if the pages include promotional material for the books is this acceptable per WP:RS, WP:ADV, WP:ELBLP etc?; and secondly, are they for sale from those pages? Unfortunately my web filter won't let me see the site so I can't answer those questions for myself. EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Irving has uploaded full text versions of his books on his website (since the libel trial, from memory), so the links to the books are probably valid and OK. Whether all of them need to be linked is a good question though. Of more concern to me is that various statements about Irving in the body of the article are attributed to material on his website. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks Nick. I recall reading somewhere that he now sells his books through his own imprint, hence part of my concern. However I'm not entirely convinced that linking to the full text of the books brings any value to this article (if it was an article(s) about the books themselves that would be different).

You make a good point re the other links - I hadn't noticed them. As I understand it, we could use his site to source what he claims about himself (with in-text attribution), but nothing else per WP:SPS. EyeSerene^talk 10:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense - now that you mention it, I remember reading the same thing. I've just removed the links to the books. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice job - no argument here :) Apart from anything else it made the page look spammy, and his website is still linked in the infobox so nothing's lost. EyeSerene^talk 11:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be structured chronologically.

"I'm not a fan or Irving and not any sort of historical revisionist or revisionist sympathizer, but this article is biased to the point of being ridiculous. You're hurting your cause more than helping it by doing this; you're just giving Irvin legitimacy to his claims that he's being silenced. It's unsalvageable at this point. Needs a complete rewrite... 74.90.48.175 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)."

"Give some examples. Shii (tock) 13:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)"

You asked for it. The statement:

"His work on Nazi Germany became controversial because of his sympathy for the Third Reich and antisemitism. He has associated with far right and neo-Nazi causes, famously during his student days seconding British Union of Fascists founder Oswald Mosley in a University College London debate on immigration. He has been described as "the most skillful preacher of Holocaust denial in the world today"."

is part of the introduction and therefore the accusations have high prominence, yet the source material (#2) is written by a self-proclaimed skeptic which is not mentioned. That and the overall tone of the remainder of the article doesn't make any sense. Why would historians and researchers all over the world be so interested yet outraged by this "David Irving" if he's just a nobody who happened to be denying the Holocaust? The answer seems to be that Irving became well-known simply because his historical books were initially very popular and well-received by reviewers. Apparently, he only started becoming controversial since about 1980, after he published "Hitler's War", which challenged a number of popular beliefs about the Fuhrer. For the article to have a neutral point of view, it would make far more sense for it to be organised chronologically, and to clarify the reasons why he became well-known in the first place. As it stands, the overall tone suggests that Irving has always been controversial. Revising the history of a "revisionist" historian with a sloppy WP article - doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? Now I'm more curious than ever to read what all the fuss is about.--Guid123 (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article does describe Irving's views and controversies surrounding his pre-Hitler's War work before discussing this book's reception, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: the overall tone. It's peppered with un-sourced claims and weasel words, and imparts an overall negative image about the guy. It's everywhere. He was "widely discredited" (by whom?), "gained notoriety", made some "some works of revisionist history" - an unsourced label... Putting words into his mouth with dubious claims such as: "From 1988, he started to espouse Holocaust denial openly; he had previously not denied the Holocaust outright", implying that prior to 1988 he had denied the Holocaust in secret. How can a source be counted as "reliable" if it claims to know what Irving's secret thoughts might have been? Must I continue? I'm not even halfway down the page yet!--Guid123 (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you familiar with how footnotes work? Regarding, for example, "widely discredited", if you click on the ^[3] at the end of that sentence, it will take you to a highlighted footnote that provides five reliable sources that describe Irving as discredited. Until recently there were a dozen more, and they can be re-added, if necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There could be a hundred so-called reliable sources, yet it would still be original research by the overzealous editor who decided 1) to select them all, and 2) to summarise the information that he found while conducting that research. It should either a quote attributed to a specific person, or the information should be more accurate. How widely discredited was Irving? Discredited among whom? Providing lots of links is not an excuse for allowing editorial opinions in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guid123 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

When a claim is widely supported by reliable sources, and there are no reliable sources that state anything different, then the claim does not need to be qualified. Also, it's not original research to cite reliable sources, and there's a long-standing consensus regarding this. If you have any reliable sources indicating that Irving is not widely discredited then please bring it forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, who has been reverting faulty versions?

I've been fixing up some minor weasel words dotted throughout the article, and some idiot is reverting it back to the old version. Please stop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guid123 (talk • contribs)

I am one of the editors who has removed the tags you added. Would you mind explaining your objections here rather than tagging the article? --John (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "widely discredited" is a weasel term because it implies a broad consensus yet it withholds information from the reader about how much consensus there really is. In other words it's a blatant generalisation, and also a possible case of original research, both of which I have been led to believe are frowned upon in Wikipedia. If there is a secondary source saying that Irving has been discredited by say, 99% of all experts in the field, then by all means, I challenge you to put it in. Otherwise it might look like you are wilfully participating in a smear campaign because of personal views. There are many other examples throughout the article that are similar. For example:

• "gained notoriety" might make sense if writing for a student newspaper was somehow a "notorious" activity. Since it's obviously not, describing it as such is obvious editorial bias.
• "After the success of the Dresden book, Irving continued writing, including some works of Historical revisionism". Unless a reliable source can be cited that defines Irving's work as revisionism, this is another case of editorial opinion.
• "Irving's book inspired the highly controversial 1967 play Soldiers by his friend". If it's so controversial, surely there needs to be a citation? It's not even linked yet it's "highly controversial"? Pathetic.
• "Amid much publicity, Broome sued Irving..." How much publicity? Was it a 200 million person audience? 300 million? Without numbers, again it sounds like an overzealous editor trying to convince readers that Irving was a publicity whore without providing evidence.
• "Irving in an interview with Ron Rosenbaum called his work an act of "stone-cleaning" in which Irving removed the "slime" which Irving..." This was a simple case of the name "Irving" being used in the same sentence 3 times, when "he" would suffice the second or third time. Did you even bother to read the changes before reverting them? And you wonder why I'm getting annoyed?
• "Reaction to Hitler's War was generally critical. Reviewers took issue with Irving's factual claims as well as his conclusions." More weasel words and sweeping generalisations. Generally critical is editorial opinion. One reviewer was cited, yet it's written in plural form, without basis.
• "uncritically presented Hitler". What BS. He wrote a whole goddamn biography about the guy. Biographies are a critique by definition. He presented lots of opinions. "Uncritical" implies the lack of an opinion, but in this context the editor implies that Irving had favourable opinions about Hitler. If it's all so damning, then why not just let the evidence speak for itself?
• "professional historians such as D.C. Watt". Yes it is a peacock term. Look it up. If I made an edit to refer to Irving as a "professional", I wonder how many second it would last before someone would revert it?
• "Over the years, Irving's stance on the Holocaust changed significantly. From 1988, he started to espouse Holocaust denial openly; he had previously not denied the Holocaust outright and for this reason, many Holocaust deniers were ambivalent about him." I tagged this as "vague" for reasons that should be obvious, but I wrote an in-line explanation anyway. Like I mentioned on a previous occasion, the wording implies secret/covert Holocaust denial prior to 1988, yet there is no citation to support that claim. That claim sounds like the opinion of an editor. And in the following sentences: "They admired Irving for the pro-Nazi slant in his work..." Who's they? It doesn't matter if it's a verbatim copy of Lucy Dawidowicz's opinion. The paragraph needs to either use quotes, or stick to the facts.--Guid123 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Criticism

The term "widely discredited" is a weasel term because it's an expression of an opinion and implies a broad consensus while evading the usual Wikipedia rules about providing sources and details of how much consensus there really is. In other words, without pointing any fingers, use of phrases such as "widely discredited" might be misconstrued as deceitful language. There are many other examples:

• "gained notoriety" might make sense if writing for a student newspaper was somehow a "notorious" activity. Since writing for a student newspaper is clearly not notorious in its own right, more information should be provided to explain why it was notorious. It's irrelevant how "reliable" the source is perceived to be because the lack of his or her supporting evidence actually detracts from their supposed reliability. In other words, if the source is repeatedly used to provide information that is so easy to dispute, it's clearly unreliable.
• "After the success of the Dresden book, Irving continued writing, including some works of Historical revisionism". Since that is a disputed statement, the Wikipedia guidelines clearly suggest that it needs to be supported by a citation, not just footnotes.
• "Irving's book inspired the highly controversial 1967 play Soldiers by his friend". Similarly, if the play is so controversial, surely there needs to be a citation?
• "Amid much publicity, Broome sued Irving..." That is a clear use of weasel words. This is why: the readers are not told how much publicity there was, only that there was a lot, which could mean anywhere between 1 person and the whole planet. Without supporting evidence in the form of a citation from a reliable source, there is actually no information about how much publicity there was. Therefore, the sentence should stick to the facts without embellishment. I.e.: "Broome sued Irving because..."
• "Irving in an interview with Ron Rosenbaum called his work an act of "stone-cleaning" in which Irving removed the "slime" which Irving..." I edited that sentence to improve grammar by replacing excessive name-calling with "he". I was then deeply disappointed that my hard work was immediately reverted.
• "Reaction to Hitler's War was generally critical. Reviewers took issue with Irving's factual claims as well as his conclusions." That is another case of weasel words and sweeping generalisations. Generally critical implies that everyone was critical, which is clearly false. Therefore, since the information is unreliable, it should be either removed or clearly cite a specific source. I also noticed that one reviewer was later mentioned, yet the statement is written in plural form, implying that there were more reviewers even though that is clearly not true.
• "uncritically presented Hitler". I was very disappointed that a biography (which by its very definition is a critique or criticism where lots of opinions tend to be expressed) was described in a way that appears very POV. Unattributed claims like that should be deleted.
• "professional historians such as D.C. Watt". I was disappointed that a peacock term appeared to be used when describing another historian. That example adds weight to my profound belief that the article is unfairly biased against Irving. While some bias may be fair, as long as the sources support the facts, that example seems to be unfair.
• "Over the years, Irving's stance on the Holocaust changed significantly. From 1988, he started to espouse Holocaust denial openly; he had previously not denied the Holocaust outright and for this reason, many Holocaust deniers were ambivalent about him." I tagged this as "vague" for reasons that should be obvious, but I wrote an in-line explanation anyway. Like I mentioned on a previous occasion, the wording implies secret/covert Holocaust denial prior to 1988, yet there is no evidence to support that claim. Even if the article is changed so that the aforementioned claim is attributed to a specific source, the questionable nature of the quote could serve as grounds for deeming the source unreliable. Similarly, in the following sentences claims like: "They admired Irving for the pro-Nazi slant in his work..." are also questionable.

There. Fair and reasonable criticism of the content without blaming any editors for their mistakes... -OOPS! One little slip-up. Hope I didn't offend anyone!--Guid123 (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What you call "minor weasel words" are all cited. Please review the responses in the previous section in which you commented about this: #Needs to be structured chronologically. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, in case you didn't notice, Guid, no one supported the changes you made when you proposed them and no one supports them now. If you can't get consensus for them, you can't expect them to be retained. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm never going to get "consensus" for common sense and fairness among a tight-knit group of Zionists who constantly patrol Wikipedia to ensure that only their voice is heard. "He who controls the past, controls the present. He who controls the present, controls the future." George Orwell --Guid123 (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"a tight-knit group of Zionists"? Don't inject your irrelevant political views into Talk: page discussions, and comment on content, not on the contributor. I won't tell you this again. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly sir. Have you any objections to the content problems that I've pointed out above?--Guid123 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How do the phrases compare to what the reliable sources backing them say? That's all that really matters. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, they're not "backed" by the sources that you claim to be reliable. If the authors of the various books cited made all of the contentious claims, then they should be in quotes. I'm sure you've read the rules in Biographies of living persons, so you'll be aware of this statement (my emphasis) :

• All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Yet I'm the one getting told off for going ahead and fixing contentious material... Just calling the sources "reliable", as you have done, is not good enough. I have challenged the material on multiple grounds, and some of my objections are really basic stuff like blindingly obvious bias (e.g.: any sane editor should be able to see the bias in widely discredited when it's used without quote marks), that I'm amazed that the article somehow managed to prostitute itself onto a "good article" list.--Guid123 (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See, that's why your statements don't carry much weight - the "widely discredited" phrase had a half dozen reliable sources backing it up, yet you insisted on deleting it anyway. I suppose we could change that to "discredited", leaving out "widely" - is that what you're suggesting? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I was suggesting. I think you're being malicious - you know exactly what I meant, but because of what seem to be "irrelevant political views" you keep avoiding the points I've made. I'll try one last time:

With the huge number of sources supposedly "backing" the article, this means an editor can basically write whatever negative opinions they want and still be confident that there will definitely be something in the library to back them up. No moral qualms about that situation? The numerous bits of salt in the article should be rephrased along the lines of: According to Such-and-such-a-person, Irving was widely discredited... or Such-and-Such said "Irving has been widely discredited..." and use quotes for things that were actually stated by the sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guid123 (talk • contribs)

Your comment referred to other editors. Please try again, this time commenting only on article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides, the whole thing's a mile long anyway with text-walls making it hard to read. Someone really needs to remove it from the good article list.--Guid123 (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's much shorter than it used to be. It's perhaps a bit long, but certainly shorter than many Featured Articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The reception of Irving among modern day scholars is essentially universally negative, with basically no-one defending his claims (which is different from defending his right to make a complete ass out of himself, of course). Thus we do not need to qualify each and every statement - see WP:YESPOV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Irving's books

Is it forbidden to quote from Irving books' in Wikipedia? Check "Claims of forgery" in Galeazzo Ciano. I've read those diaries after the wikipedia article, and then Hitler's War by David Irving. The claims (anachronisms) are verifiable, so I don't know why someone undid some useful data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.17.25 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Irving does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements, so we could not cite his books except in articles about Irving himself, or his books. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an odd claim. Here is the main article quoting Irving's book and, because it is negative, is allowed: "Irving footnotes, 'I cannot accept the view… [that] there exists no document signed by Hitler, Himmler or Heydrich speaking of the extermination of the Jews.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.253.173 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2011‎

That's cited to Richard J. Evans, In Hitler's Shadow, p. 166. Evans is indeed a reliable secondary source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In footnote 1, Bullet 2, are we really going to permit a long diatribe by Deborah Lipstadt against Irving's status as an historian? This is all too similar to the long negative paragraph afforded Gerry Gable, which was wisely removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.101.181 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2011‎ blocked ipsock of banned user Tholzel

Since she wrote a book about Holocaust denial that named Irving specifically, and since the British court ruled that she's right and Irving is wrong, I should think her views on the matter are relevant. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. since she has an admitted persona vendetta against Irving, that gives her standing to criticize him further. Since that is exactly what Gable did, and it was removed, why is Lipstadt different? blocked ipsock of banned user Tholzel

Which 'admitted personal vendetta' against Irving are you referring to? If she 'admitted' it as you claim, then it should be easy to evidence it. Right? The only such thing I have ever seen is her comments against Irving AFTER he sued her for liebel and lost, which also happened long after her book on the topic was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.140.2 (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2011‎