Jump to content

Talk:David Irving/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Racism? More sources needed.

We need a better source for the supposed nursery rhyme than Christopher Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens himself is Jewish, so I mean this whole part doesn't make any sense and I can't take it seriously.(Christopher Hitchens wrote that Irving sang the rhyme to Hitchens following dinner in the family's Washington apartment.)

Also it would be nice to add that Irving invited Professor Tony Martin to the Revision conference. Martin is a black professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The nursery rhyme was also mentioned at Irving's trial in his failed lawsuit against professor Lipstadt. He had the whole thing written out in his personal journal. I can give you a link to a youTube video of the "Nova" program where the trial is re-enacted, although that may not be a reliable source for the article. So, it clearly happened by Irving's own account whether you think it makes sense, whether you take it seriously or not. In any event, Hitchens is a perfectly good source for it as it is.
For the thing about Professor Martin, you'll need sources, at minimum. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hitchens is not Jewish, but of quite partial Jewish descent. This is entirely irrelevant here, of course. Until Hitch-22 this part of his heritage was not widely known. Indeed, as far as I know, it was not known outside the family (and barely within) at the time of the interview, so there is little chance that Irving knew it. And even if he did, he might have ignored it, or even tried to be offensive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me I've seen some videos of Hitchens giving speeches where he mentions his partial Jewish ancestry, but really, it's a very small part of his biography. And, regardless, saying that he's not a reliable source because of it is just, well, fucking stupid. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind the [|Assume good faith] policy. And what the IP poster appears to have been attempting to articulate is that it made little sense for Irving to sing such a song to someone who was of Jewish descent, although an above poster has pointed out that he may have been unaware of that fact, or may have simply been attempting to annoy Hitchens. Not to mention that there appears to be other sources which corroborate Hitchen's story Hawjam (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Hawjam
If I recall correctly, Hitchens didn't find out about his Jewish ancestry until relatively late in life, so it's unlikely that Irving knew about it at the time of the incident. Hitchens himself may not have known about it at that point. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed the category "Holocaust deniers"

I have removed that category from this page because as he stated in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm he is no longer a denier, and he hasn't been one since 1991 when he received Adolf Eichmann's personal files. Since he is no longer an example of the category, he must be purged from the list. --122.108.159.145 (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted that change. Please see David Irving#Persona non grata. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I support the retention of the category. It is what he is chiefly known for. --John (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Also concur. In April 2000, nearly ten years after the date you quote, he was found to be an "active Holocaust denier" in the Irving vs Lipstadt libel action he brought (http://www.hdot.org/trial). The reason he rejects the label is that he operates from a different definition of 'Holocaust' to everyone else. Essentially he's playing word games so his claim doesn't mean what it appears on the surface to mean. EyeSerenetalk 10:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
He's not the only one to use this tactic: see Institute for Historical Review#Holocaust denial. Jayjg (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, one must note that he made that statement when facing a jail sentence, and had to show remorse for the judge in order to reduce that sentence. A few months later, when he was safe again on British soil, he stated he had "no need any longer to show remorse" for his views on the Holocaust. Jayjg (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

After viewing your sources to say that he is a holocaust denier, I have observed that all court charges that affirm that he is a holocaust denier, are based on statements he has made prior to 1991. So unless you can find a sourced statement that was said by David Irving in the years after 1991 (the year he found Eichmann's personal files) where Irving denies the Holocaust, then he is not a denier.

For the record: I am the I.P who started this thread, but it was only 2 hours after I made that topic that I made an account. --Soft and Stout (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
We have dozens of reliable sources that refer to him as a Holocaust denier. He has been judged a Holocaust denier in a libel case which he himself brought to prove he wasn't a Holocaust denier. He has been jailed as recently as 2006 for Holocaust denial. Unless you can provide reliable sources indicating he is not a Holocaust denier, there's little more to discuss. Your personal views on whether or not he is a Holocaust denier are not relevant. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That holocaust denial he performed which he was jailed from was based off a speech he made in 1989, and no later. My main source for him not being a denialist is this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm (BBC News: Holocaust denier Irving is Jailed), and I will refer to paragraph 17: "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court.. So unless you can find a statement by him where he actively denies it after 1991, the year he apparently stopped being a denier, then he is not a holocaust denier. If you want further quotations then I'll site lines 21 to 22 of the above article: "(21) On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.... (22) History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."
One last point Jayig: He wasn't trying to prove that he wasn't a holocaust denier, he was trying to prove that he isn't. A small detail like tenses can add large differences in meaning. --Soft and Stout (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The first line in that story from 2006 reads "British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison" and later states that "The judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist".". We generally don't consider individuals self-assessments as being reliable, and there are multiple published sources, including court findings, that have described Irving as a Holocaust denier. The article includes Irving's claims about his views during this court case at David Irving#Life after libel suit, and notes that he recanted upon them after being released from jail. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. The label 'Holocaust denier' hasn't been given to Mr Irving by Wikipedia but by a large number of reputable sources. As yet those sources haven't retracted what they've said and his word alone isn't sufficient to counter their weight. As Nick's pointed out however, we do provide our readers with his statement and the surrounding context thus allowing them to come to their own conclusions. EyeSerenetalk 12:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

ADL Website as a valid source for the article

I have noticed that there are several references directing to the ADL website. I believe these can be considered as biased sources. To put it in simple terms it would be like making a WP article on how "jews are bad persons" and citing "Mein Kampf" as a source. It's a pretty simple/idiotic example but it's merely to show what I mean. Seth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.39.119.128 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The person responsable for adding the ADL sources back states that they are "mostly" reliable sources, not 100%. I more convinced than before that these shall not be included as a reliable source for the profile of someone who's POV are opposite of the ADL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.39.119.128 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Too bad. The ADL is a good, factual source for information about Jew-haters such as Irving. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit like using al quaeda or any other muslim extrimists websites as sources for George W. Bush's or Obama's article?
No. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed these references from the article. The ADL is not a reliable source for this article. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The ADL is a 100-year-old human rights organization that (among other things) educates on Holocaust denial and reports on Holocaust deniers. Please explain what you think the issue is. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It's also an advocacy group, and the material here is already referenced to neutral sources, or can very easily be, so there's no need to use it. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, if we have other sources that no-one objects to, and it helps circumvent specious objections, I guess there's no harm. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The sources from ADL have been put back on by a bot, just letting you people know about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.39.119.128 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not a problem, because the ADL is a reliable source on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Didn't we just agree that they were not needed in this article? You said yourself there was no arm justa few replies ago. I do not understand your obstination on wanting to include the ADL as sources when the material in question is already referenced to neutral sources 2.39.119.128 (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
If they weren't needed in the article, then why did you remove large parts of the article supported by those citations? Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if someone with better wikipedia skills than I could look into this, Like Nick did. May I ask you why you deleted my previous reply? 2.39.119.128 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not tolerated, that's why. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
ADL is not realiable source for facts. It is notable political/advocacy group and it can be reliable for it´s notable claims. --Dezidor (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why should that make them not reliable, Dezidor? Can you show me an instance of them ever having gotten a fact wrong? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The major problem with ADL is their negative labeling of its ideological opponents like calling them Jew haters, Nazis etc. Otherwise, the factual errors also problem. For example: http://www.adl.org/extremism/bands/bands_country.asp Biely Odpor was Slovak (not Czech) band and Nokturnal Mortum is Ukrainian (not Russian) band. --Dezidor (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
That's certainly damning. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:-) Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Has this been debunked?

I just watched a 1h 33m lecture of Irving on YouTube, "David Irving Hitler and Churchill - Churchills War ", which was quite interesting (I haven't listened to or read anything of his before). In it Irving tells of Churchill having made paintings using the name of "the well-known French post-impressionist painter Charles Morin who had died in 1906". Either Irving is making this up or there's a huge conspiracy to cover up the existence of this French painter. "Charles Morin" obviously was Churchill's nom de plume as a painter, but neither Google, Bing nor Yahoo! gives any credence to the assertion that a real-life French painter, let alone a famous one, by that name has ever existed. Do we know if this has been addressed by any of the parties who have been critiquing Irving's scholarship? I believe the lecture to have been presented in connection with the publication of Churchill's War (1987), __meco (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Irving may be alluding to Charles Maurin, however, apart from the spelling difference, a non-starter in and of itself, he died in 1914, not 1906. __meco (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial

This line should be removed: "...best known for his denial of the Holocaust," - for the following reasons:

1. He is better known for many other things. This is just another example of Wiki's relentless abuse of Jewish apologetics to prejudice the reader against Mr Irving before he even learns any major facts about the man's career. Any reference to the Holocaust Denial accusations should come much later, following a more chronological presentation for his career, as would be the standard biographical format.

2. He has publically denied the accusation that he is a Holocaust Denier, noting the ridiculous and absurd nature of this accusation. He states that he is a sceptic, and offers a good faith argument for his sceptism. A video of this public denial is readily available. Again, this tactic is in very poor taste, and sheds some unfavorable light into Wiki's prejudices concerning this issue. Jason532012 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • What sources would you propose using to support your contention? --John (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Hm. Technically that's a fallacy. The question is: what source is there for what this guy's best known for. -- Director (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • How about most of the books and recent press coverage about him? The most recent BBC news story I could find about Irving [1] starts with the words "British Holocaust denier David Irving". All the other recent BBC stories about Irving note his holocaust denial. The most recent New York Times stories have a similar emphasis: [2] [3] [4]. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, the article is full of sources for Irving being known as a Holocaust denier. I was asking what sources the OP wished to use to refute this. --John (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
        • In all fairness and objectivity, that's WP:OR. We need a source that actually says so ("David Irving is best known for being a holocaust denier" or something to that effect). Esp. since we're talking about news sources (not quite the highest quality refs), esp. because its a contested claim on his part, and especially since its a controversial label in and of itself ("holocaust denier"). And even if we should find a source, imo his opposition to such a characterization should be noted alongside the statement (if it can be sourced). I'll have a look at the videos Jason's talking about.. a few links would be helpful? -- Director (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated previously there is a video wherein he publicly denies the accusation of Holocaust Denier. He explains the absurdity of the term itself and admits to being a sceptic on certain points. Further, there's nothing in this article to substantiate the accusation. As for the "best known for" contention, The Destruction of Dresden, an international best seller, bolstered his reputation as Military Historian. Until the more recent Jewish smere campaign, he was highly regarded in this area. I don't buy into the article's attempts to smere this book by claiming Irving embellished the number of those killed either. This is just the way of war and casualties. In fact, Spiegel Online International, who is just now reviewing six million images of the Dresden attack that the British Ministry of Defense passed along six months ago, said this about the number: "A more exact count is impossible; many victims had been reduced to ash by the fire's heat." I'm certain that in many circles outside of the Jewish community, and their petty smere campaign, he is still best known as a military historian. 10:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason532012 (talk • contribs)

Just a few links to these videos of Irving (and other sources) you base your position on will suffice. Lets refrain from going into Jewish conspiracy theories at this time shall we? -- Director (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to one video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tABCVg6qODg Jason532012 (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm. The video is kinda long, any specific time indexes? I don't mind watching through the whole thing if necessary, but any help would be appreciated. -- Director (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
David Irving speaking to the Institute for Historical Review (a well-known Holocaust denial organisation) somehow proves that he's not a Holocaust denier? Wow. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Straw men? The intention is not to prove he isn't a holocaust denier, but to show he rejects such a characterization (and he does, apparently.. right near the beginning). The other point in this discussion also has little to do with the question of whether he is or is not, in fact, a holocaust denier. The question is whether or not he's "best known" for being a holocaust denier. And we're not allowed to infer such a statement from sources that don't actually say that, either.
The lead really does seem overdone. Call his cockamamie theories what you will, this person is a historian. All published historians are "writers", really. It doesn't do Wikipedia credit to omit such a category from this person, whatever his scholarly position. Certainly a great many sources do not [5]. -- Director (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How is that a straw man argument? Irving's links with the IHR formed part of the evidence which lead to his defeat in the Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt libel case. In regards to arguments that he's a 'historian'; please see the article's first note. Irving is no longer generally considered to be a 'historian'. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The straw man is the implication that the video was supposed to show this person is not a holocaust denier. That really isn't the question at all, is it?
I believe, as does Mr Irving, that the Holocaust Denier accusation is completely absurd. Where is the standard of evidence for this accusation? He may well be a Holocaust revisionist, and/or minimalist, but clearly the title of Holocaust Denier is a misnomer. Jason532012 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I did see the first note, and as I said, many sources use the word "historian" to describe this person [6][7] (one can easily find a great many of them). His detractors (like his prosecutor :)) dispute the legitimacy of said appellation, but one can hardly claim NPOV while representing only that point of view. There isn't an authority of some sort that can proclaim someone to be, or cease being, a "historian" ("a student or writer of history"). There is, I think, a strong bias in the lead here, and I think it would do Wikipedia credit to display neutrality in such a well known controversial issue. I think its worth the time. -- Director (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So.. are there any sources that state this guy is best known for denying the holocaust? If not, are there any objections to a rephrasing of the statement? -- Director (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link with time stamps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMYAjyW1OFU The Holocaust denier denial begins at about 43:00. Jason532012 (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a quote of his opinion on the matter (I think parts of it might be worth including in the article)

"You have to buy the whole package without inspecting it. And anybody who does want to open that package and inspect it is then called something else... 'holocaust denier'. Isn't that absurd? How can anyone deny the holocaust? We've seen the pictures, we've heard the eyewitnesses. 'Holocaust denier', there's nothing more absurd, there's nothing more worthy of repugnance than a 'Holocaust Denier' (capital 'H', capital 'D'). Not somebody who questions the holocaust, or somebody who's a skeptic as I am. Bits of the story are undoubtedly true. Let me say this right from the start, there's no doubt at all, and I'm thinking of the young men in the audience here that should realize this, there's no doubt at all that the Nazis in their 12-year rule inflicted nameless horrors on large segments of the population, including the Jews and other people whom they disliked. There's no doubt about that at all. What I do question are: the methods, was it done on a methodical scale, was it done on the measure of the German state.."

He goes on and on describing his position in some detail ("was it 'second-degree murder' or 'premeditated murder'"), but the gist of his attitude towards the term is there. You'll find him stating this starting from about 42 mins into this video. -- Director (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not unusual for people convicted of criminal offenses to deny their guilt, but we do not give parity to the two. I would like to see a source however that says he is best known for his denial of the holocaust. TFD (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
If we exclude blogs, Wikipedia mirrors and websites with a conflict of interest such as FPP etc, doing a search specifically for "best known for" turns up "his book Hitler's War" as the most common by far, followed by "his failure to win a libel case he brought..." or variations of these two. Then way down the list it's "his minimisation of the Holocaust" being more popular than "denying the Holocaust". This is an example of an article critical of Irving that states he is best known for his book and this is the most reliable source I could find, one of the very few media sources that actually use the term "best known for". Even the Lipstadt case states he was best known for Hitler's War. He may be best known for denying the Holocaust in some quarters but this article should reflect a world view rather than that of a minority. The article already covers Holocaust denial in it's proper context and I feel Hitler's War should be attached to the best known for claim. Wayne (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree. "Controversial British historian best known for the infamous book XY" or some variation on the theme. With holocaust denial accusations/convictions following closely, along with, preferrably, his own position on the issue (this article is about him, after all). (The above quote is, I believe, from since well before any trial.) The fact that the application of the appellation "historian" to this person is contested should be added to the lead as well of course, but not in the first sentence I think. -- Director (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed to death already and there is a strong consensus that he is best-known as a holocaust denier. I see no reason to depart from this in the discussion above. --John (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The claim is unsourced and no amount of polemics will make it so. Please present a source or else abandon the claim. Consensus, even if there is one (and I don't see it), is no substitute for sources. Neither is WP:SYNTHESIS of news sources something we're allowed to do. Finally, consensuses are also not written in stone and can be updated. Nobody likes this guy, but a more neutral, source-based lead for this controversial public figure would be a credit to Wikipedia and is something to stride towards. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • It is far from unsourced. Here (from the article) is the BBC reporting on his 2006 imprisonment for Holocaust denial. That's a pretty good source, wouldn't you say? --John (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
        • BBC is a good source, certainly, but it does not say what you're saying. It says he's a holocaust denier, was that in question here? Please differentiate between "being a holocaust denier", and "being best known for being a holocaust denier". In fact the source calls him a "British historian", just below "holocaust denier". Its only relevance to this discussion that I can see, is that the source supports using the term "historian" to refer to this person. -- Director (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
          • There are some pretty good sources for this stuff already in the article. Are you sure you have looked properly there? --John (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes I have. Like I said, can you provide a source that states this person is best known for being a holocaust denier? I see none in the article. Even so, I would still be inclined to side with WLR's position as it is based more accurate research into the most common reason for this person's notability given in sources. -- Director (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
John's BBC source is a good example of the problem. It does not say he is best known for anything. It says he is a Holocaust denier which some editors have used WP:SYNTH to interpret as best known for. It also calls Irving a historian which those same editors reject. It is a classic example of not only having your cake and eating it too but also selling the cake as well. Using a previous consensus to accept sythesis as an argument for keeping the edit is not the way to go if the article is to have credibility as a neutral biography. Wayne (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my suggestion. I sincerely belief an edit removing "best known for" would go a long way in combating the claims of Wiki's alleged Jewish bias. I know the theme is a common one, with some parody sites actually refering to WP as Jewpedia, among other misnomers. I also would like to apologize for my initial tone. I promise my language will reflect a more civil tone in the future. Once again, thank you. Jason532012 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The more you say things like that the more it seems like revising the lead is the "anti-Semitic thing to do" - you're not helping. I could care less about this "alleged Jewish bias" (alleged by whom I wonder), rather if a thing isn't really sourced it ought to be rephrased, plain and simple.
I've now heard quite a bit of this person's position. It seems he arrives at a figure of about 4,000,000 Jews killed in WWII, and while he does accept hundreds of thousands were executed on the Eastern Front by the Einsatzgruppen and (allegedly) the local populace, and hundreds of thousands more died in concentration camps ("primarily of disease, slave labor, mistreatment and malnutrition"), he claims there is no direct evidence for a comprehensive state-wide plan to exterminate them. That's basically the gist of his holocaust denial, and since it is the subject of most of the article, it should perhaps also be made clear in the lead. -- Director (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What's your source for that? Richard Evans states in the expert report which he was commissioned to provide to the court in the Lipstadt libel trial on Irving's Holocaust denial that while Irving once referred to between one to four million people being killed in 1995, since that time he's claimed that less than a million people were killed. Evans also states that Irving attributes many of these deaths to disease rather than deliberate killings (see paragraphs 28, 29 and 32 here). Evans sums up by stating "it is clear that Irving has consistently and grossly underestimated the number of Jews deliberately killed by the Nazis". Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I got that from his "lecture" on the holocaust [8]. Though they do perhaps represent his past views, one can't be sure. I googled it and it seems he did "raise his figure to 4,000,000" at one time, or something of the sort [9]. But apart from the exact figure (and I have no idea what his latest estimate may be), the point I was trying to make is that his position seems not quite so much denying that Jews were killed, but rather that their killing was not an organized, systematic affair on the level of the whole Nazi state (in particular "A.H." as he refers to him). -- Director (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's what most Holocaust deniers argue. Few claim there were no murders, and they typically seek to greatly minimise the number killed while claiming that these murders weren't organised by the German state and/or authorized by Hitler. The article discusses Irving's views in this regards in the David Irving#Holocaust denial section. There are lots of reliable secondary sources about Irving's views, so there's no need to try to figure it out from videos on YouTube and the like. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Um.. isn't he himself the best source for his own views? Its a primary source, sure, but he can be quoted. What I see in the article, is that his political views and affiliations have been intermingled with his "scholarly" position. That makes it look like Wikipedia is trying to discredit the latter by way of the former, That is not to say he isn't discredited, but not by way of such editorializing. I think what we need to do is clearly separate his political affiliations, his historiographical claims, and the criticism thereof. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
No, actually, a dedicated liar (that is to say, someone dedicated to the perpetuation of falsehood, as is any holocaust denier) is not a good source at all for characterizing his own views. In fact, that would be about the worst sort of source. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no proof that he's lied about the Holocaust. Just because you may not agree with his viewpoint, or even the evidence he presents (and he has presented evidence), does not mean he's lying or prepetuating a falsehood. It amazes me that so many folks subscribe to idea that the Holocaust details are so well settled, when in fact they are not. If they were, there simply would be no concerns about the Holocaust sceptics, and the questions they ask. It is only because the evidence is so lacking, and that some of the facts suggest that somethings were different than what has been purported, that this issue is so controversial, and sceptics are treated as such threat. No other topic, or event, is so questionable and yet so well guarded as is this one. These facts would, under any other circumstances, raise more than a few flags alone. Just saying. Jason532012 (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Now that's just silly. If he lied about one thing (or a dozen things) that does not mean he'll lie the fifteenth or twentieth time or about something else. It doesn't mean we're allowed to disregard his statements as primary sources. I.e., there is no objective policy-relevant definition of a "liar" (or a "dedicated liar") on Wiki that we can point to and say he fits the category. A "liar" is "a person who tells lies", which means the vast majority of human kind can be placed into such a category broadly speaking, and we're not called upon to draw the line. -- Director (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Evans and his researchers undertook an in-depth analysis of Irving's written works and public speeches in order to prepare the report, so it's the best available source on Irving's overall views. Anyway, Wikipedia has a strong preference for secondary sources rather than primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's too bad that you feel this way, but I've come to expect no less from anyone here at WP. I've seen more than a few editors cut and run on this issue before. I understand Mr Irving won a lawsuit against his British detractors, so it's a start. Perhaps the day will come when we can allow historians to investigate the Holocaust just as they investigate other historical events. It certainly would be refreshing to say the least. BTW, I suspect that few, if any of WP's special editors care about Jewish bias. I could really care less what you folks care about, I'm not here for such silliness. Good night. Jason532012 (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that no-one is paying attention to you? We're not about to allow this website to become a haven for Holocaust denial. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my purpose here. Geesh! Jason532012 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
@Nick-D, you do realise that Deborah Lipstadt is a strong advocate for exactly what Jason532012 said? She opposed prosecuting Irving in Austria. Are you seriously accusing Lipstadt of Holocaust denial or are you merely trying to discourage an editor from contributing to this article? Wayne (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah well, you know.. if I'd won a law suit that bankrupted my opponent I might want to appear magnanimous in the eyes of the public by condemning some action or other that is taken against him/her ;). Completely free PR points. That is not to say I don't agree with her: either openly ban free speech (on this or that subject), or else don't, but its kinda hypocritical to profess limitations on free speech somehow benefit the latter (as is the supposed logic behind these sort of laws in some European countries).
@Nick-D. I would not profess support for this project becoming a "haven" for any political point of view, be it socially acceptable or not. All we're supposed to do (as of course you know) is follow the sources as objectively as possible. -- Director (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
"...since it [his holocaust denial] is the subject of most of the article, it should perhaps also be made clear in the lead." Then the article's title should be changed to: "David Irving's Holocaust Denial". This is simply more proof of the article's clear bias. It wonders completely from its purpose. Jason532012 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
No its not. All I am saying is that a large part of the text of this article covers holocaust denial and the controversy related to it. Its a subject very much related to this person and thus this article's scope. And you should be careful that someone doesn't actually take your advice. I would not support a "David Irving's Holocaust Denial" article on the basis that it would be a povfork, but others might disagree. The sources are certainly in abundance. -- Director (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't a suggestion, I was attempting to make a point. Don't hold your breath on your suggested edits, they won't happen. It's no mere coincidence that the article reads as it does. I've been down this road too many times before. Nice try though. Jason532012 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we've dealt with your ilk before; nothing new here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Ilk? Really? Nice job at remaining impersonal and academic. Jason532012 (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, are there any objections to several article changes, in line with the above suggestions.

  • Firstly, while it is certain that this person's detractors dispute the accuracy of such an appellation, I think noone will have any trouble finding dozens of sources that refer to this person as a historian. He is a writer, to be sure, but a writer of history. I suggest we refer to this person as a "historian" in the lead, but also include the objections there as well (though not in the first sentence). I was thinking along the lines of "controversial British historian".
  • Secondly, since no sources have been brought up, I'd like to remove the "best known for his holocaust denial" claim. His holocaust denial should certainly be mentioned in the lede, but without the unsourced claim of it being what he's most known for. It would appear that his book on "A.H." is what he's best known for, so I'd have that in there was well.'

-- Director (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

    • If "holocaust denier" doesn't show up in the first sentence of the article, the article is doing the readers a disservice. What current sources say that he's best known for his Hitler book? What sources say "best known" for anything? Most accurately, the opening sentence should refer to him as a Holocaust denier and discredited historian; "best known" is unnecessary, but both "denier" and "discredited" are easily documentable -- there are plenty of sources for both in the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I am completely against changing "best known for holocaust denial" in the lede. Almost the entire article is about his holocaust denial, antisemitism relating to holocaust denial, or lawsuits dealing with his holocaust denial. It's a fair summary of the person and article. Leaving it does not violate NPOV, and remvoing it stinks of trying to whitewash a controversial subject. Xombie (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Well...do we have a source for "best known", or are we concluding "best known" on our own? I personally think he's best known for being a liar and promoter of lies, but my opinion, like the rest of ours, is of no encyclopedic value. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
@Jpgordon. Well "first sentence", "second sentence".. its a matter of syntax, I'm sure it can easily be settled. Have a look above at WLRoss's research regarding him being known for the Hitler biography. Really its the biography that is the centerpiece of his work and is where he first published all the holocaust denial in the first place (he wrote a lot of books, obviously, but that's his "flagship" publication so to speak). I certainly don't insist on that, however.
Re "discredited" historian, now that's very similar to referring to him as a liar. Sure he's been denounced by a lot of people, but there is no central institution of some sort that has the power to officially and objectively change someone's status from "historian" to "discredited historian". Some media sources may call him a "discredited historian" (in fact I'm sure many do), but others may not. By simply calling him a "historian" they may well be counted as opposing sources to such an evaluation. Don't get me wrong: this person may well be "discredited", and I would probably agree with you on that, but I don't think its encyclopedic to go through a number of media articles and "evaluate" this person's professional standing based upon them. If he's been denounced/discredited by professionals and/or media organizations, that should certainly be mentioned ("Irving has been denounced by many of his peers and the media.."), but I would not go as far as to presume to use "discredited" as a prefix to his professional orientation.
@Xombie. Basically what you're saying is we should use this article as a source for this article. We need a source that states he's best known for holocaust denial or nothing of the sort should be included. -- Director (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "discredited" is very similar to referring to him as a liar, which he is. No, there's no central authority; we can call him a historian, but only if we characterize that with what is now the predominant scholarly opinion: that he's a liar and an embarrassment to the profession. We determine predominance by prevalence of contemporary publications. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Well we can't very well call him a "liar" or an "embarrassment to the profession" without quoting somebody directly.. whatever one may or may not believe personally. -- Director (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That's why we use "discredited". The last paragraph of the intro says it right. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that the lede's purpose is as a summary of the article. If the entire article is about a man writing about holocaust denial, then the description of him should be about him writing about holocaust denial. The sources for the lede are the ones used throughout the article.
As far as the phrasing goes, it is tantamount to saying that Barack Obama is "most well known for being president" or Keith Richards is "most well known for being a musician". It is innocuous. I see no good reason to remove it, or why it should even be contentious. most of the books and stories written about the man have to do with his holocaust denial. I don't see why you need a source saying "2=2" when saying "1+1=2". He's not just a holocaust denier, it's the reason that most people know his name in the first place, for both people who support him or detract him, or even for people who have no interest in him. Between his trials, his ban from several countries, his decades of lectures, and his books on the subject, the vast amount of his notability surrounds the specific subject of holocaust denial, far outweighing anything else.
The word "discredited" in the lede is appropriate given its context: it is specifically discussing his public image after the event it is referencing. It was a well-covered trial, which directly led to his popular image as a holocaust denier, and is one of the reasons he is even notable to begin with. Xombie (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, fellas, have a look at the Adolf Hitler article. Does it say "Adolf Hitler was a dictator and mass murderer responsible for the Second World War"? No. It says he was "an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party". Not because he isn't "a dictator and mass murderer responsible for the Second World War", but because such a lead would not be encyclopedic and neutral in its introduction. Pol Pot "was a Cambodian Maoist revolutionary who led the Khmer Rouge", etc. not "dictator responsible for the greatest relative population loss due to massacres in human history".

The first sentence should just lay out who this person is. He's a (controversial) British historian. Whether or not he's a discredited, lying, holocaust denier bastard who's a disgrace to his profession, and has bacon made of small kittens for breakfast each morning - that comes later, and it needs to be covered without bias towards any point of view regarding this person. -- Director (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Labeling Irving a 'controversial historian' would, in effect, push the POV that he's recognised as a historian. Many historians and news sources do not in fact regard Irving as being a 'historian', and call him a 'writer', 'author' or similar instead, so this is not a neutral term to apply to him. 'Controversial' is also a weasel word. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm suggesting we present both opinions on the issue of him being a historian - but anyone can see that the prevailing view in sources is that he is a historian. Dozens of sources can be found that use the term. In fact, the argument that he isn't one is kind of self-defeating imo. He certainly isn't just some writer denying the holocaust, there are places where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a holocaust denier. The thing is that this person is a historian denying the holocaust, and that's what all the fuss is about in the first place. Now I'm not saying we should ignore the sources that oppose the application of said term to this person, I'm saying that they should not be given WP:UNDUE weight because this guy's some kind of fascist and everybody hates him. -- Director (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
You're characterizing "holocaust denial" as a pejorative, when it isn't. He writes books denying the holocaust, he speaks to groups about his holocaust denial. He has been jailed and kicked out of countries for holocaust denial. He was put on trial, and an entire book was written about the summary of his work being holocaust denial. They are not being given undue weight, it is the reason that he's even notable in the first place. If he was just some random guy writing about how great Hitler is, no one would notice. But he's in the news whenever he gets booted from a country, put on trial, or says anything about the holocaust. The weight is not undue. 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xombie (talk • contribs)

You're wrong, it's actually the other way around. Had he not been a noted historian, he would have gone on virtually un-noticed, like so many other so-called Holocaust deniers. It was his "international bestseller" that made him famous in the first place. Besides, he is not a Holocaust denier. The correct term is Holocaust/History revisionist. The term is pure anti-revisionist diatribe. Jason532012 (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I see a problem with calling someone who has no credentials, writes outside the academic mainstream, and has never been employed by an academic institution, an historian. He is however a professional writer who edited a student paper then earned a living by selling articles and books. Although Irving's writings are extremely controversial, this is an issue that applies to countless writers and perhaps it would be better to address the issue in policy. Also, "best know for" is a problem too. We have no source for it. Also, many public figures gain greater attention because of scandals, which would have attracted little attention had they been obscure individuals. While Irving is an unsympathetic character, it would seem biased to use this phrasing. TFD (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Re "historian". Anyone who writes history can technically be called a historian. And this person certainly has done tremendous amounts of research and writing on that subject. To add to that, this person is widely referred to as a historian in sources. It appears that some even among his detractors recognize he was a "historian" previously. -- Director (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, most current reliable sources avoid the term. Yes, you will find many sources from before the Lipstadt case, but much fewer who used the term since Gray demolished his "history" in his judgement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Technically all of us are historians. But where do we draw the line? TFD (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I would not be supporting such a change were it not for the large number of sources that use the term [10]. I'm sure the number has decreased since the Lipstadt case, but there are still many current articles that do use it. And anyway, there is no time limit for the admission of sources. Where do we draw the line when introducing such a temporal criteria? -- Director (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ummm...did you take a look at those search results? Google varies by person and over time, but I get (1) "Tabloid TV", (2) revisionists.com, (3) a site of unknown provenance that argues that Irving failed as a historian, (4) is the Torygraph (and calls him "controversial"), (5) is bona-fide BBC, but calls him an "infamous British war historian", (6) is a Usenet archive, and asks the question "Historian or fraud?", (7) is an article by Irving on a conspiracy nut page, (8), (9) and (10) are Irving's own web site. So your "large number of sources" evaporates to very few marginally reliable ones, and they use "historian" only with (negative) qualifiers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As he states in his videos, when he talks people listen because of his credentials. The point has been made that if it were not for that we would probably be having a different debate here. In short, it is his credentials as a historian that has created all of the fuss over his denial of the Holocaust. Jason532012 (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He has no credentials, that is the point. TFD (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are a list of several news agencies that claim Irving as a historian, including the "worldjewishcongress.org, nytimes.com, and msnbc.com:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/7992148/Controversial-historian-David-Irving-outrages-Poles-with-death-camp-tour.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6196073.stm http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2000-04-12/news/0004110674_1_holocaust-denial-david-irving-deborah-lipstadt http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/17/secondworldwar.internationaleducationnews http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/9575/revisionist_british_historian_david_irving_to_lead_guided_tours_of_former_nazi_death_camps http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11455196/ns/world_news-europe/t/scholar-who-denied-holocaust-jailed-years/ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/world/europe/21holocaust.html?oref=slogin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason532012 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at the descriptives currently used by sources:
"David Irving" (no descriptive) 298,100 (5,045 books)
"Historian David Irving" 225,000 (1,645 books)
"British Historian David Irving" 218,000 (935 books)
"Holocaust Denier David Irving" 108,000 (976 books)
"Controversial Historian David Irving" 76,000 (78 books)
"Controversial British Historian David Irving" 41,000 (27 books)
"Revisionist David Irving" 24,200 (94 books)
"Holocaust revisionist David Irving" 23,700 (49)
"Discredited Historian David Irving" 5,600 (6 books)
Pro-Irving websites generally use "Mr Irving" and that includes his own website. As he hasn't been in the news much lately the number of news articles about Irving are too low to be statistically significant but historian is the most common descriptive used. Of interest may be that at the time of the Lipstadt trial "historian David Irving" was used by 48% of all sources. Wayne (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

More mainstream news agencies claiming Irving as a historian including: foxnews.com, latimes.com, pbs.org: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/jailed_historian_tells_of_arre.html http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-03-16/news/0003160178_1_holocaust-denier-british-historian-david-irving- mr-irving http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/british-historian-david-irving-charged-in-austria-with-denying-the- holocaust-1.174837 http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/21/world/fg-irving21 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364764,00.html http://www.amazon.com/Lying-About-Hitler-History-Holocaust/dp/0465021522 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/making.html http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilfA18pul8BRCb2FV-PfC6T5y0-g http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/02/notsofreespeech.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/david-irving-holocaust-de_n_734431.html http://www.israelshamir.net/English/ForWhom.htm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2711holocaust.html Jason532012 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first link is to an article in the far right anti-semitic American Free Press written by Irving himself. Not a reliable source. Could you please read the sources before posting them. Just find a rs that says Irving is normally described as an historian. TFD (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You nitpicked one out of seventeen. (which incidently was not my first link) Wow! Nice job discrediting all my sources. What a joke. Yet again Wiki bias shows its ugly face. Soon enough we'll hear that this issue has been argued to death, and threats of banning will follow. Too predictable! Jason532012 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is inconsiderate to present sources that you have not read and expect other editors to read them for you. And yes it is your first link in the posting. It is the wrong way to do research - look for sources that support what you want to say then add it. TFD (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not my first source, there are several in my the prior post above those. Please read the posts before responding in haste, especially after you've been told that you're wrong; and please address the other sixteen links rather than badgering me over one lousy source, as if I'm some kind of moron. It's obvious that you're simply avoiding the real issue here by making such an issue out of one link. Jason532012 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you read them. Your first link is to an offensive site and I have no intention of doing your research for you. TFD (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I read them. The vast majority are respectable media sources that do support the use of the term "historian" rather unambiguously. In all objectivity, it does not do to dismiss a whole bunch of sources on the basis of the first one found. If you notice my first link above gives you about 190,000 hits. But here's Google Books: "historian David Irving" -Wiki -LCC -discredited -disgraced renders about 2,300 hits. "writer David Irving" -LCC -Wiki gives you about 327. I had done my homework, its just that its rather difficult to post links from a smartphone, apologies :). -- Director (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Deborah Lipstadt, who is a prominent historian, said, "He is a British writer, a writer of historical works. I don’t call him an historian, not because he doesn’t have degrees in history, but because he proved himself not to be a historian...."[11] If there is dispute on what someone should be termed, then we cannot come down on one side. And google searching to determine how frequently a term is used is just original research. TFD (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Some sources call Irving a 'historian', but many do not (for instance, [12], [13], [14] [15]). As such, to simply label him a 'historian' is to push a POV. The current wording in the article (which, from memory, was developed from a discussion here) calls him a 'writer' with a footnote explaining the use of this term, and then states that he "specialises in the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany" which acknowledges the field in which he works. This seems a reasonable sentence to me as it covers off both opinions (which are then discussed in the third paragraph of the lead), though I'm sure that it could be improved (the footnote should acknowledge that some sources still call Irving a 'historian', though this appears to be the minority position in the last few years). Taking a black or white type approach is not neutral, and does not reflect the differing views. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @TFD By using "writer" we already are coming down on one side, are we not? That's the whole point. And not on the side that's supported by most sources, it would seem, not by a long shot. The unbiased thing to do, imo, would be to follow the vast majority of publications and refer to this person as a historian - along with inserting a sentence in the lead explaining that the legitimacy of said appellation is disputed by opponents (or something along those lines). Deborah Lipstadt is without doubt one of this person's most prominent detractors and, having been actually sued and physically harangued by him(!), she can under no circumstances be considered an unbiased and reliable source on this question. In fact, your quoting her in this capacity, if anything, gives the impression that non-neutral parties hold such a view. -- Director (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
@Nick-D "Some sources call Irving a 'historian', but many do not". Say rather that many sources do call Irving a historian, but some do not. This is a dispute, yes, but the scales are tipped towards "historian" at present. And as I said, we should present both views, but we should come down slightly more on "historian". One might even argue that the sources actively disputing said appellation represent a WP:FRINGE view, and are mostly not-entirely-unbiased on the question. -- Director (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The New York Times, Guardian and Reuters (the three example sources I've provided above) are biased publications which push a fringe view? Wow. There is a substantial body of opinion that Irving is not a historian among historians and journalists. Readers would only get the impression you claim the article is pushing if they stopped reading 12 words in, and didn't finish the first sentence. As I said though, I'm sure that the wording can be improved, but coming down on one side like you want isn't the way to do it - the current wording at least tries to acknowledge both views. Deborah Lipstadt's assessment of Irving was found to be factual in court and she's an academic specialist in the field of Holocaust denial, so she's a reliable source on the topic. Richard Evans, who is a leading historian, also argued that Irving is not a historian in his expert report for the trial and subsequent book on the topic. To claim that this is a fringe view is pretty extraordinary. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You've again posted an aggressively-worded straw man argument. The New York Times, Guardian and Reuters are not "biased publications", and I said no such thing, but a source need not be biased to represent a fringe view. They are also, you should keep in mind, media sources: acceptable, but hardly top-quality references. And finally, I said it is possible to view the position as a fringe view, not that I necessarily hold such a view.
  • The lead does not state this person is a historian. It says he's a writer. It supports the position that this person is not a historian, but merely a writer. These are facts that I don't think can be debated.
  • There are in the area of 2,300 published sources (on Google Books alone) that refer to Irving as "historian David Irving", hence quoting one, two, or a half-dozen sources here is pretty much meaningless.
  • No opponent of another person, that was actually sued by the person(!), can possibly be considered an unbiased and reliable source on the person's standing. Richard Evans was a witness brought up by the defense, was he not? A person gets sued by another person, and you're proposing to use the defendant and witness for the defense as neutral, encyclopedia sources on the plaintiff and his/her social standing? Seriously.. :) I'm not saying their position (and the position of others who share it) should be ignored, but as I said, the scales are rather obviously in favor of "historian" at this time (see above point).
-- Director (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please stop throwing abuse around. You claimed that "One might even argue that the sources actively disputing said appellation [historian] represent a WP:FRINGE view" and may be biased. I pointed out that some mainstream, and highly reputable sources take this view. That's hardly a straw man argument. I don't follow your logic with Lipstadt: she's an expert in the field, and she proved her case in court (her defence was that her libel of Irving was in fact accurate). To argue that her views should be dismissed because Irving subsequently sued her is nonsensical given that the judge ruled in her favour. Evans was commissioned to provide an expert report to the court, and not Lipstadt's legal team: while they paid his salary and that of his researchers, his report was provided to the court rather than the legal team. He also wrote a book on this topic which was professionally published. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
While I don't think that counting hits in Google books is a good methodology (especially given that many of the works which are returned will be by Irving himself; he's greatly prolific and has released multiple editions of several of his books), searching for books which use the term "historian David Irving" which were published after 2001 (eg, after the conclusion of the libel trial, which lead to a widespread re-evaluation of his reputation) gets you 443 hits, while there are 135 hits for "author David Irving" and 87 for "writer David Irving". Seaching for 'Discredited historian "David Irving"' in works published since 2001 gets you 459 results, of which a majority seem to support this view judging from the rather imperfect method of looking at the snippets provided by Google (though note that 'discredited' was part of Lipstadt's assessment of Irving which lead to the court case). Removing all the date limitations, (which is problematic given that older works on Irving do not represent modern views of his reputation) "writer David Irving" returns about 316 hits, "author David Irving" returns another 312. Discredited historian "David Irving" returns about 647 results with no date limitations. All up, the case for describing him as simply a 'historian' on the basis of Google books searches is not strong, especially when you focus on the more recent works. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not throwing any "abuse" around whatsoever... you appear to be trying to pick a fight or something :). Its much easier to pretend I'm claiming The New York Times, Guardian and Reuters are "biased publications pushing a fringe view". Or that I'm claiming your listing mainstream and highly reputable sources is somehow a "straw man argument" (goodness knows how anyone could claim anything like that). Those are straw men easy to knock down - unfortunately they're not mine (not to mention the painfully obvious straw man all the way above). You're subtly distorting the meaning of another's post by way of misdirected retorts. And practically every time, at that. I don't know who you're debating right now, but I would appreciate it if you focus on me when replying to my posts.
  • At question is not Prof. Lipstadt's scholarly expertise in historiography, and your implications to the contrary appear to be another distortion of the type I've described above. At issue is the rather "modern-day" matter of her neutrality in assessing the social standing of someone who, in police terms, can easily be described as her personal "enemy". I shall discontinue discussing Prof. Lipstadt's suitability as a source in this issue, as it is completely besides the point. We're talking about thousands of sources here - not one or two, neutral or not. As I've said from the start, I agree she can be included as a source, and I agree that her point of view in the dispute is noteworthy for the lead.
Now if you would please focus on the actual argument argument for referring to this person as a historian. -- Director (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(Replying to the second post.) As I said, the scales are tipped slightly in favor of "historian". Whereas our current lead comes down squarely on the side of "writer". We can now each pick and choose our favorite search parameters, but whichever we pick "historian David Irving" has a majority. -- Director (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Writer" is the most general term for what he is, and does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. Whether or not he is a historian is controversial. Whether or not he is a writer is not, in any way, controversial. You are continuing to attempt to assign neutral facts a bias where there is none. Xombie (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Google Books test

If we restrict the hits to post-2001 sources

-- Director (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to take a good look at both the hits you claim, and at WP:GOOGLE. Google ignores most punctuation. At least two of the first 10 hits are wrong positives, indeed, at least one seems to argue the opposite (Anti-Semitism: A History and Psychoanalysis of Contemporary Hatred - Page 194: The British "historian" David Irving lost his libel suit... - quotes are in the original). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, undoubtedly there are false hits - in all searches (and believe me, I've read WP:GOOGLE :)). But unless they are well over 70% (and none in the other searches) - "historian" still has the majority. This isn't a slight lead we're talking about. And to add to this: hits for "writer" and "author" need not be taken at all as opposing "historian" - as the argument is that this person is all three things (a historian is a "writer of history"). Arguably the 2,300 (or 700) hits should only be set against the very few sources that actively dispute the legitimacy of the appellation, and thus even this is quite generous. I'll say it again: I recognize that there is a dispute - but it is hard to both follow sources and objectively argue against referring to this person as a historian. The scales in the dispute are tipped towards "historian". -- Director (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
We should note that those sources claiming Irving to be a "discredited historian" (which actually includes Lipstadt herself), are also admitting that he is a historian, albeit discredited. And of course none of these [sources] have the authority to assign this title of discredited. The court's judgement in the Lipstadt was that Irving had lied, and\or exaggerated his claims. Rather or not this discredits him as a historian, is not a judgement the court can make, given that no unbiased expert testified on the basis of that argument. Besides, you can not discredit Irving's prior work ad hovoc. "David Irving is a historian, although some recent sources have suggested he has been discredited..." would be the correct phrasing to explain his special circumstances. The longer this argument goes on in the current tone, the more clear the bias of some editors becomes. There is no logical argument against the title of historian, and it should not be Wiki's position to discredit him without majority consensus of reliable, and unbiased sources. I believe it is especially noteworthy that even a few Jewish sites take the position that he is a historian. Given the nature of the behavior, that has allegedly discredited him, I would suggest that this carries quite a bit of weight. In closing, I would ask those editors wishing to respond to my posts, to avoid selective readings of those posts, and to please stay on point. The scarecrow and indirect arguments are simply a waste of everyone's time. Jason532012 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Richard Evans did, in fact, testify as a witness discrediting much of Iriving's work as poorly sourced, and using many white supremacist sources. He then published these findings in his book Lying About Hitler. Xombie (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
And here's are some links to Part I and II of a two part review of Mr Evan's arguments from that book by Paul Grubach. Mr Grubach does a fine job of pointing out that the evidence against Irving was mostly speculative. Paul Grubach holds an Associate Arts degree in liberal arts, and a Bachelor of Science degree in physics, with a concentration in chemistry and minor in history, from John Carroll University (Ohio). He received a scholarship for his work in chemistry, and is a member of the Phi Alpha Theta history honor society.

http://www.codoh.com/library/document/402 http://www.vho.org/tr/2002/4/tr13evans2.html Jason532012 (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a valid source, it is not relevant to the validity of whether or not Evans meets the standards of Wikipedia's rules on valid sources, nor is this an article about Richard Evans. Xombie (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Historian or writer

I am restarting the discussion in the above thread here because (1) the thread was set up to discuss whether or not Irving was best known as a holocaust denier but changed into a discussion about whether or not he can be called an historian and (2) the thread is unmanageably long.

To recap my position. Since there is no consensus in sources to call Irving an historian, we cannot either, per WP:WEIGHT. Deborah Lipstadt and Richard J. Evans, who are both historians, claim that he is not, basing their claim on his deliberate falsification of evidence in his writing. Nor do they limit this assessment to his more recent writing. That fact that they were on the other side of a legal dispute with him is irrelevant. They were on the side of of a dispute because they challenged Irving's views, he brought the case, and he lost. The logic is that anyone who disagrees with Irving is therefore unreliable. My view is that since Irving has no academic credentials, has never been employed by an academic institution and has never published his work in the academic press, it would be misleading to call him an historian.

TFD (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't agree with restarting the thread. I don't think there's much more to say. On the one hand there's a half-dozen sources that dispute calling this guy a historian, and on the other there's a couple thousand published sources (plus a great many news sources) that do refer to this guy as a historian rather than anything else. I'll copy over the test from above
If we restrict the hits to post-2001 sources
One really gets the impression that, since everybody dislikes this guy, nobody wants to cover the matter fairly. And in all fairness, the current lead certainly does reflect said dislike (which is to be expected from intelligent Wikipedia-material people). But really, the current state of affairs is so biased it manages to go beyond my dislike for this person. Maybe I'm not so familiar with various odious aspects of this person's behavior, but perhaps that's a good thing in discussing this particular issue. -- Director (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That is just original research. Your first post-2001 hit for "historian David Irving" actually takes us to a quote from the far rightInstitute for Historical Review in a book by Richard J. Evans, who as mentioned denies that Irving is an historian. In any case, in order to establish a fact you need to show that there is consensus for it, not that most sources make the claim. It appears that the only scholars who have addressed the issue have determined that he is not an historian. They also happen to be two of the major experts on Irving. So you need to find a source that addresses their conclusions. TFD (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If we do play the numbers game: "David Irving" -Wiki -LCC -historian: 5,490 results - so apparently nearly 10 times as many sources avoid calling him a historian ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is very wrong to base any final claims on the outcome of one lawsuit for libel that Mr Irving lost, especially without reviewing the evidence from that lawsuit. The evidence was very weak and mostly speculative. Most of the evidence was scewed in favor of the assumption that the Germans spoke in "code" when refering to the Final Solution. There is absolutely no evidence that this is true. In fact, there is much evidence that dismisses this assumption. This, along with other details of the trial, reveals that the court itself was largely biased. This comes as no surprize considering the fact that the vast majority of folks are extremely biased regarding these so-called "Holocaust Deniers". This bias is reflected in the term itself, which is completely misleading. The correct term should obviously be "Holocaust Revisionists". Jason532012 (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Reviewing the evidence from the lawsuit" as you say would violate WP:NOR. As would the rest of your argument. How you personally feel about Irving, the trial, or any other subject related to this article is of absolutely no relevance to this article. Deborah Liptsadt and Richard J. Evans are completely valid sources. They are also sources for using Holocaust denial specifically when referring to Irving. Xombie (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the result of the lawsuit is persuasive in arguing against Irving's title as a historian. If what I suggest is original research, so is the original suggestion. Which makes my argument un-necessary. As for the validity of your sources, (Liptsadt and Evans) apparently, we can not come to any consensus on exactly what or who qualifies as a valid source. Irving's detractors want to smere any and all sources claiming him as a historian, while suggesting those that state otherwise are valid. Until we find some common ground on the merit of sources, your sources will remain unqualified. Jason532012 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Interpretation of the result of the lawsuit is not being used as a source for the lede, no matter how it's being used for argument. Lipstadt's and Evans's books are both valid sources for the article. No consensus is needed, as you have not brought any WP regulations that would disqualify them. You've simply stated that you don't like them, which is entirely irrelevant. You should probably read up on WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, and WP:NOR before commenting further on the subject. Xombie (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@TFD. To be brief: listing secondary sources (that directly support your statement) is not original research. I do not have to show there is consensus for a claim, I have to source it. That I have done, thoroughly. I have admitted there isn't a complete consensus on the subject (and that's generous), but I have demonstrated which side of said dispute has more support in sources. No more of this sort of discussion, please. Misrepresenting policy (WP:OR) and making demands out of touch with policy (WP:V) is not constructive.

@Stephan Schulz. Ah, but that is not the "numbers game" we play. In essence, you present an argumentum ad ignorantiam ("no information can be derived from no information", "positive evidence for a positive claim, not absence of evidence" etc..). See, when someone makes a positive claim ("Irving is a historian") he presents a source in support (or 2,000). If one wishes to dispute such a claim, one brings forth contradicting sources.. or discredits the source used in support, or something along those lines. One does not list every source that touches on the subject, and claims support from simply because it does not explicitly support the opposed statement. It is evident that far more sources use the term "historian" than dispute its application. On the order of several hundred times more, in fact.. -- Director (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

When one enumerates sources in order to determine which description is most valid, it is original research because one is making a personal decision on what weight to apply, in this case comparing the number of hits, regardless of the validity of the sources. Even worse, it counts sources, such as Evans' book, that do not even make the claim one is using it to support. The only way to determine the relative acceptance of terms is to find a source that explains it. Incidentally, searching for sources to support a pre-determined viewpoint is unacceptable for writing an unbiased article. TFD (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
@"it is original research". Quite simply: no. No, it isn't. A source that refers to Irving as "historian David Irving" unambiguously and directly supports the usage of the term in reference to this person. There are always false hits, but it is misleading to list any here: as this is hardly a matter of validity of sources. There are so many sources that use "historian" it is absurd to suggest 99.9% of them are somehow invalid. If we disregard half of them right now, just for the hell of it - nothing changes.
You're continuously shifting your argument.. first it was "only post-2001 sources", now you're calling Google testing "original research" etc. One gets the impression you will continue to "raise the bar" and are not about to bow to any argument whatsoever. -- Director (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any decision from somewhere else on Wikipedia that states such "Google testing" is a valid way to determine consensus of sources? It doesn't sound to me like a very reliable metric, considering that not all sources hit are necessarily valid. I believe this is the point that people were trying to get at. Xombie (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Writer. He doesn't have a degree in history, and he is not viewed as a credible historian by the academic community. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Xombie. For the second time: I do not claim there is a consensus, nor do I suggest presenting the matter in such a way. And if there is no consensus, why do we have a lead that is entirely on one side of the non-consensus dispute.
@Harizotoh9. He doesn't need a degree in history (obviously), and there is no source whatever that shows "he is not viewed as a credible historian by the academic community" (that's an OR claim). So far that we have seen, there are about a half dozen people who claim that, several of which have been involved in actual litigation with this person.
On the other hand, there are about a couple-thousand reliable sources that refer to this person as a "historian". Everyone hates this guy, sure, but disregarding sources because he's some kind of Nazi-lover is, imo, a disgrace for the encyclopedia. We give Hitler a neutral lead, but this guy's lead is based on a hostile, minority view. For the sake of curiosity, let me ask this: the sources are there, a huge a number of publications. They clearly refer to this person as a "historian" - how shall we represent these sources in the article lead? -- Director (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question: is there anywhere that such a "google test" finding "a couple thousand" references to a word all that is required to consider them reliable? As I said, I highly doubt it meets Wikipedia standards, and I'd like any reference to a previous ruling on the matter if we're going to consider it in a dispute. Such references simply existing do not necessarily mean that most or any of them are valid references.
Again, calling him a "writer" isn't a side. You're assigning bias to an innocuous, factual term. If the man was called a "historian", he would still be called a writer. As far as I can tell, you've found no sources to support the idea that calling him a "writer" violates NPOV other than that it is a simply different word than the controversial assignment "historian". The term "historian" is not controversial simply because of what he writes about, but as others have described, in the fact that he is not involved in the academic study of history. However, "writer" is in fact the most neutral term to use per WP:NPOV. The rest of the lead explaining that he writes about history is perfectly adequate description without violating NPOV.
Furthermore, as I stated to Jason532012, Lipstadt and Evans (and other sources being used to explicitly discount the term "historian") are published, credible, and valid sources. Them being involved in his failed lawsuit against Lipstadt does not in any way harm their credibility as sources per Wikipedia rules. Xombie (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That wasn't your original question, and I find your new question kind of vague and grammatically unclear. @"is there anywhere that such a "google test" finding "a couple thousand" references to a word all that is required to consider them reliable?". You can find a full definition of a reliable source at WP:SOURCE. It does not matter whether they are found via a search engine or by some other means. These sources have, of course, not all been checked individually (as such a task would be physically impossible to all practical purposes), but again: even if a huge percentage of them are "unreliable" - nothing changes (and the former is certainly not the case). I believe it is plainly obvious, beyond any reasonable debate, that these sources show the term is widely used in publications.
On the other hand, there are a half-dozen sources that dispute the usage of the term. Of which Lipstadt and Evans are not third party sources (see WP:THIRDPARTY), but are directly involved with this person and this specific issue. They are not neutral sources on this question. But again, I don't dispute their use here, and two sources are insignificant in determining common usage of a term in publications. So let that please be the last time we have to discuss them.
Calling him a "writer" is nothing, he is a "writer", no question. Not calling him a "historian" - is a "side". Ignoring a point of view in a debate or dispute = taking a side in said dispute. What has been ignored here, is the very well supported statement that he is, in fact, considered a historian by a significant number of publications.
-- Director (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again here are fifteen very credible sources referring to Mr Irving as a historian, including: MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, PBS, and Fox News. Please do not selectively dismiss these sites. (as was done previously) These sites must be considered collectively:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6196073.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/17/secondworldwar.internationaleducationnews http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/9575/revisionist_british_historian_david_irving_to_lead_guided_tours_of_former_nazi_death_camps http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11455196/ns/world_news-europe/t/scholar-who-denied-holocaust-jailed-years/ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/world/europe/21holocaust.html?oref=slogin http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-03-16/news/0003160178_1_holocaust-denier-british-historian-david-irving-mr-irving http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/british-historian-david-irving-charged-in-austria-with-denying-the-holocaust-1.174837 http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/21/world/fg-irving21 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364764,00.html http://www.amazon.com/Lying-About-Hitler-History-Holocaust/dp/0465021522 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/making.html http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilfA18pul8BRCb2FV-PfC6T5y0-g http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/02/notsofreespeech.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/22/david-irving-holocaust-de_n_734431.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2711holocaust.html Jason532012 (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that several sources offhandedly use the term "historian" to describe him isn't being ignored. The use of the term itself for him is addressed in the lead, with sources stating why it shouldn't be used. None of the sources you two are giving go into any explanation for the use that contradicts the sources already in the article. They most certainly don't outweigh the actual explanations being sourced. Xombie (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, the fact that Mr Irving is considered by some (emphasis added) to be a discredited historian, proves that he is a historian. Also, there is no authority sited that proves this accusation. A judge, ruling over a civil action, can not make that claim, nor can his fellow historians. Thus, for at least the time being, he remains a historian. As much as you try to put forth a biased and contentious picture of Mr Irving, the evidence does not support that veiwpoint. He is, in fact, a historian first. No historian, no discredited hisatorian. It's just that simple. Jason532012 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you decide to submit an article refuting the conclusions of Lipstadt et al then you can provide your original research there. When you persuade the academic community of your views and obtain a consensus, then I will gladly agree to use the description. A word of warning - I have grave reservations about your methodology. But Wikipedia is not the place for original research. TFD (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again: You've stated that you don't like the sources, which is entirely irrelevant. They are valid per Wikipedia's rules. You need to read up on WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, and WP:NOR before commenting further on the subject. This is an article discussion page, not a message board. Xombie (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


I have already provided a refute (above) of Lipstadt's evidence, put forth in a reveiw of Mr Evan's book by Paul Grubach. The conclusion by editors here, that Irving is discredited qualifies as original research\ based entirely upon a couple of sources that have no authority to assign such a title. What academic community am I to refute or convince? I see no University nor major consensus of ivy league historians on this issue. Please provide a source for this exact community you speak of, including sources for their consensus that he is not a historian or at least discredited. As for my sources refuting Mr Evans, naturally I was told this source was not a valid source according to Wiki standards, even though it is written by someone with relative credentials. It is especially noteworthy that the editor (Xombie) claiming this also said: "...nor is this an article about Richard Evans". Which proves he never even read the article. Included in the preface to the article: "This essay will rebut Evans’s analysis of two vital documents in regard to Holocaust revisionism, and discuss important points of the book ignored by other reviewers." Here are the links yet again to that source: http://www.codoh.com/library/document/402 http://www.vho.org/tr/2002/4/tr13evans2 Jason532012 (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Paul Grubach has no credentials (AA and BSc in chemistry aside) and is writing on a holocaust denial website, the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust]". See the Anti-Defamation League website for a description of this group. TFD (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) CoDoH and the Vrij Historisch Onderzoek are both well-known Holocaust denial organisations with no credibility in anything. Please do at least a cursory review of sources you provide to avoid wasting our time. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This article, the one you are commenting on, is not about Richard Evans. A critique of Richard Evans is irrelevant for an article on David Irving, even if it met Wikipedia guidelines for a valid source, which it most certainly does not. Xombie (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
He also has a minor in history that you conveniently omitted. I included his complete credentials in my original post, so save me the insults that I am not doing a cursory review. Rather the site is a well known holocaust denier organisation or anti anything is irrelevant. The writer's credentials qualify him. Wiki should note that Mr Irving won an apology and part of a £10,000 settlement from the Observer for defaming his name with titles like: "Hitler Apologist" and "Holocaust Denier". Perhaps Wiki and the editors here will be next. Jason532012 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to review WP:NLT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
A self-published blog post on a website with no editorial policy by someone who is not an established expert in their field (sorry, taking a few history classes as an undergrad isn't credentials) hits just about every criteria for being an invalid source per WP:NOTRELIABLE. Xombie (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The only record I could find about Irving suing the Observer was one he abandoned. And a minor concentration in history hardly makes one an expert. TFD (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how about this article by Vikram Dodd (a writer for The Guardian) calling him a "serious historian". "David Irving is a "rabid anti-semite" who prostituted his reputation as a serious historian by falsifying history to exonerate Adolf Hitler for the Holocaust, the high court heard yesterday." Does it have any merit? http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/Guardian160300.html Jason532012 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's David Irving's website. Xombie (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The site may be his, but the article was written for the Guardian by Vikram Dodd. I can try to locate the article on a more neutral site if that helps. Jason532012 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We know that Irving is sometimes referred to as an historian. The point is whether that is a consensus view, in which case it would be a fact and non-controversial, or whether it is a disputed description, in which case it is not a fact. We can only call someone something if it is a fact. TFD (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


I guess I don't understand since there are no sources to back up the claim that he is best known as a holocaust denier. This point was brought up several times in the section above title: Holocaust Denial. Do you see the double standard? Jason532012 (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to bring this up again, it has already been covered above. Xombie (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well shall we continue on with the actual discussion? Let me briefly address a few points I've read above:

  • @"Once again, the fact that several sources offhandedly use the term "historian" to describe him isn't being ignored." - "Offhandedly"? :) That will not fly. One need not elaborate why a person who's published dozens of syntheses on historical subjects is a historian. One does need to elaborate, and thoroughly, as to why such a person is not a historian. And secondly, in the article he is not referred to as a "historian" in any context, so that point of view most certainly is not represented in the article at all. Pretending otherwise is not constructive discussion.
  • @"We know that Irving is sometimes referred to as an historian. The point is whether that is a consensus view, in which case it would be a fact and non-controversial, or whether it is a disputed description, in which case it is not a fact." - The view need not be a consensus view at all to be included here, and I have granted (and that's generous imo) that there is no consensus on the matter. But if any point of view is to be excluded - it ought to be the one with incomparably less support. Namely the view that he is not a historian.
  • Three of the five sources quoted there are very far indeed from WP:THIRDPARTY. These are people personally in confrontation with Irving, not univolved third parties. You have Irving's prosecutor(!), someone who's been sued by him for millions of dollars, and a witness brought up against him in court. And just as a reminder: courts do not rule on who is a historian and who is not. And we've seen that hundreds of published sources continue to refer to this person as a historian well after the libel trial.

-- Director (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article states that Irving "...specialises in the military and political history of World War II". The first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead states "Irving's reputation as an historian was widely discredited...". The debate over whether Irving is a historian is then covered in the final paragraph of David Irving#Author. Much of the rest of the article describes the books he's written and his views on the history of Nazi Germany. As such, your first point is clearly not accurate. In regards to your second point, I've demonstrated above using your preferred methodology (which I don't think is terribly useful) that there's a substantial weight of opinion that Irving is not considered a historian, yet now you're seeking to not include this? In regards to your third point, you keep falling into the trap of claiming that people who have proved their case against Irving in court are somehow not reliable sources on him (and your statement that Evans was 'brought up against' Irving is not at all accurate - he was hired to prepare an independent assessment of Irving's historical works, and then defended his findings under cross-examination from Irving. He also criticized some of Lipstadt's work.). Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok first of all, the article states he's a "writer who specialises in the military and political history of World War II". Not a historian.
  • Secondly, the issue is not whether he "specialises in the military and political history of World War II" - but whether or not he is a historian.
  • And thirdly, no "debate" on the subject is covered in the lead. The third paragraph is merely an elaboration on on the position held by one side of the issue. In essence, it just states he's not a historian.
As such, my first point is very accurate indeed.
  • Your reply to my second point is, quite remarkably, yet another accusatory straw man. There is "a substantial weight of opinion" that Irving is not a historian, and I have continuously stated that I do not dispute that ("yet now you're seeking to not include this?"). What irks me, is that there is also a substantial weight of published sources that refer to this person as a historian - a point of view which is being ignored quite blatantly.
  • As regards my final point - I can only direct you towards a careful read-thru of WP:THIRDPARTY, and indeed, WP:SOURCE. Its not a "trap" - its policy. Uninvolved sources only, please. As regards to Evans, if I'm not very much mistaken, he was hired - by the defense. Irving states he was paid 250,000 dollars. Be that as it may, I'm not accusing anyone of anything (the man is a respected historian of the real sort), but you can see why WP:SOURCE discourages the use of sources who are not "entirely independent of the subject being covered".
-- Director (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
To be pedantic about this: NPOV requires all significant viewpoints to be included. That is done (in the plumpest possible way) by writing "Irving is called a historian by some, however, this is disputed by others". But if we, in Wikipedia's editorial voice, write "Irving is a historian", we endorse one viewpoint. We can only do that for uncontroversial points, which this obviously is not. Note that "not calling Irving a historian" is not equivalent to "calling Irving not a historian". The first simply makes no claim. The second makes a positive claim (which again we could only do if this is uncontroversial). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
"Irving is called a historian by some, however, this is disputed by others", with note 1 being expanded to explain the differences, sounds good to me. DIREKTOR; WP:THIRDPARTY is an essay (and not a particularly well thought out or relevant one in my view) and the quote you appear to be attributing to the policy WP:SOURCE/WP:V is actually from WP:THIRDPARTY. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
@Nick-D, again: please read WP:SOURCE. This is a direct quote from that policy: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources". Note the Wikilink to WP:THIRDPARTY, where a "third-party" source is unambiguously defined as "one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered". Now you can argue that "third-party" somehow means something else, but I'd like to see a relevant source. Or we could dispense with the WP:WIKILAWYERING..
@Stephan Schulz. You're quite right, sir. However, you are forgetting one key point: namely that there are (arguably on the order of several hundred times) more sources that refer to this person as a historian than dispute the propriety of the appellation (even after the libel trial in 2001). Hence, it would also be POV to misrepresent the situation in sources by placing undue weight on the decided minority. And again: I grant that the latter is not a fringe view and should by no means be disregarded (it should remain elaborated-upon in the lead), but neither should it be treated equally with the view that has more sources to its name. As I said before: the scales are slightly tipped towards one side. -- Director (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Besides it being weasel wording, there are other problems with "Irving is called a historian by some, however, this is disputed by others." It can not be disputed that he studies and writes about history so he meets the definition of historian. Using called by "some" is giving undue weight to a minority view, in fact giving the minority view equal weight. He should be called a historian with an explanation that he is widely discredited and why. A NPOV sentence could be "is a historian widely discredited for his views/interpetation of..." Nobody has been able to come up with a valid reason yet not to call him a historian so anything else is POV. Wayne (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I only chose this phrasing to illustrate the NPOV approach of listing (and attributing - I should have been clearer there) all significant viewpoints, not as a serious suggestion for the actual wording. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I prefer Steven's wording as it explicitly acknowledges that while there is currently a significant viewpoint that Irving is not a historian (note that Evans found problems with Irving's early works, which casts doubt upon whether he ever deserved this moniker), he's still often regarded as such. However, your suggestion also works for me, as it reflects the sources and debate (and it boils down to more or less the same thing as a 'discredited historian' is someone no longer considered to be a reliable historian). Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes you describe what it says quite accurately: "it explicitly acknowledges that while there is currently a significant viewpoint that Irving is not a historian, he's still often regarded as such". Yes, but what the lead should do is "explicitly acknowledge that while Irving is often regarded as a historian, there is currently a viewpoint that he isn't one". Notice the difference? Weasel words aside, the emphasis must be on the view with more support. I basically agree with WLRoss's position. -- Director (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


"(note that Evans found problems with Irving's early works, which casts doubt upon whether he ever deserved this moniker)" This appears to be original research. I seriously can not make any sense of how any one of you folks justify your posts, while claiming mine somehow violate the rules. Clearly, you folks just make it up as you go. I've debated in some pretty tough circles, with some pretty well known, and controversial opponents, including Bart D. Ehrman, and Frank Turek, and I can honestly say that this is by far the most petty and juvenile debate I've ever witnessed. Jason532012 (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to find another hobby, then. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you folks are such a joke. I actually enjoy this hobby, because it grinds you so. Jason532012 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC) ,,,,,,,,,,,

I have mentioned this discussion at ANI.[16] TFD (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I would. Oh for crying out loud Jason532012, you stated you were withdrawing. What's the point of these posts? Insulting people? -- Director (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Now blocked, and good riddance. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, back to the matter at hand. Do we have some sort of an agreement? The sources say what they say and I don't see how we can keep by them and have this lead up. I could put something together, but I think we simply have to call him a historian in the first sentence (instead of "writer"). -- Director (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And I keep disagreeing. As you agreed, there is a significant dispute, and so we cannot endorse one side. In fact, I've not seen a source that explicitly claims that, yes, he positively is a historian. Those that use the term use it more or less as boilerplate, they don't make a case for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be no consensus to call Irving an historian. TFD (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
A profession is not subject to WP consensus. Reliable sources and NPOV decide per MOS:IDENTITY. Wayne (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @TFD. Unfortunately this isn't a democracy, or else we'd be done. The only policy-relevant things that I can see occurring throughout this discussion is 1) finding more and more published sources that refer to Irving as a "historian", and 2) discovering that three of the five sources quoted in the article cannot be considered reliable on this issue (by Wikipedia definition), being directly involved against Irving. The only other thing, with all due respect, is an endless succession of rather obviously flawed arguments.
@Stephan Schulz.
  • "there is a significant dispute, and so we cannot endorse one side" - we already are, quite blatantly and indisputably. And we're endorsing the side with less sources.
  • "I've not seen a source that explicitly claims that" - Yes, you have. A source that refers to Irving as "historian David Irving" quite explicitly and unambiguously endorses the use of that term with regard to that person. I could list some here if you'd like, but it would be a pointless gesture.
  • "Those that use the term use it more or less as boilerplate, they don't make a case for it" - right.. what a neat way to ignore hundreds and thousands of sources. You don't accept sources that state he's a "historian", you want sources that say he "isn't not a historian". Of course, that's not how Wikipedia works. We cannot possibly dismiss a whole collection of sources because they do not actually defend the person from criticism. As I said before: one need not elaborate as to why a person who has published dozens of syntheses on historical subjects is a historian - one does need to explain, and thoroughly, as to why such a person is supposedly not a historian. In short, please find me a policy that requires us to accept only sources that "make a case" for what they state (whatever that means, specifically). Because I can find you the policy which quite unambiguously dismisses half the sources that dispute the propriety of the appellation.
-- Director (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The best sources for Irving, Lipstadt and Evans, say that he is not an historian. If you want to play the OR game, a Google search for ""irving"+"not a historian"" returns 70,300 hits Not saying he is a historian btw is not saying he is not an historian. TFD (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
In English grammar not calling Irving a historian is telling the reader that he is not a historian so your argument on that score is OR. Sources like Lipstad are not RS on this subject due to COI and "not a historian" is arguably an opinion, not a statement of fact. The World Jewish Congress can be considered a very RS and they are one of a great many RS that call him a historian. Wayne (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That's very much nonsense. By that argument, we also tell the reader that he is not human, that he is not male, and that he is not a banana tree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
@TFD. Again, they're not "the best sources on Irving", they're hardly acceptable as sources on Irving. They don't satisfy WP:RS, as they're (rather obviously) not third-party sources ("entirely independent of the subject being covered"). And I do not see the point of your google test.. here's a few of my own [17] [18] (I do not quite comprehend the last part of your post). -- Director (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, the issue is not whether some sources call Irving an historian, many do although usually with some qualification, such as "disgraced", "revisionist", etc. It is whether there is a consensus that he is an historian. Clearly not, because the two foremost experts on Irving say he is not. So what if Irving sued them - he lost. TPO btw is an "essay" that represents the views of editors who wrote it. Can you point to the policy that explains why sources that subjects don't like are not rs? Are you saying that if a scholar writes a book about one that one does not like, all one must do is sue them and lose, and the source is thereby invalided? Sorry, but the purpose of libel trials is to determine the truth and Irving attorned to the court when he launched his case. TFD (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I acknowledge there is no consensus, and I fully support the inclusion of both points of view, which would not be the case if there were a consensus. However, one point of view has incomparably more sources to its name (must I list them here for dramatic value?). As such, the scales are tipped in that direction, and the article must reflect that. Its very far from an equilibrium of views of some sort.
The two sources you claim are the "foremost experts on Irving" (says who?), should by rights be stricken from the article - as they blatantly do not even meet Wikipedia requirements for a reliable source. One was actually involved in litigation with Irving, the other was hired by the said defendant to testify at the court case, and the third one is Irving's prosecutor(!) from another court case. And prof. Lipstadt was harangued by Irving, I believe on more than one occasion. It appears that even had Irving beaten the living daylights out of someone he'd still be a "reliable source". It does not matter at all who won, its the involvement in a conflict with the person that counts.
WP:SOURCES states: "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources" - note the wikilink to WP:THIRDPARTY, which in turn defines a "third-party" source as (quote) "one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered". Furthermore, this blatant breach of policy is brought out all the more by the fact that this article falls under WP:BLP, which imposes the strictest standards of sourcing for articles on living persons. Yet you say "he lost the libel trial"? What is the relevance of that? Did the English court rule on whether Irving is a historian or not? Even had it done so (and it did not), we still would not by any means ignore sources that gainsaid such a ruling. And hundreds of published sources (from Google Books alone) continue to refer to Irving as a "historian" well after the trial. -- Director (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, Direktor, by your lights, would Vincent Bugliosi be a reliable source for information on Charles Manson? Bugliosi not only prosecuted Manson but wrote the definitive book on the Tate-LaBianca murders, Helter Skelter. This book is used extensively as a source in Wikipedia's bio of Manson. If your rather comical assertion that being on the opposite side of a court case as the subject of a bio disqualifies one as a source is correct, extensive revisions are needed at that article. Perhaps you'd like to undertake the task. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Lipstadt called Irving a 'discredited figure' in the book which led Irving to unsuccessfully sue her, so there's no problems whatsoever with citing such an opinion even if we were to accept DIREKTOR's arguments about her current relationship to Irving (which I don't). In regards to the court ruling (and I find it somewhat surprising that DIREKTOR is taking such strident positions without being familiar with it; it's freely available online and lots of news stories cover it), the judge stated that My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has much to commend him [italics in original], but went on to rule that Lipstadt's assessment of Irving as someone who had deliberately falsified history for ideological purposes was essentially correct: [19] [20]. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Lipstadt is a primary source and according to WP BLP policy should only be used to augment a reliable secondary source, not be "the" RS. Even if Lipstadt was a RS per WP:THIRDPARTY WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY, which she is not, her use of "not a historian" does not trump thousands of sources that say he is. You need to come up with authoritative secondary sources that state he is not a historian. Wayne (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(out) What makes you think it is a primary source? TFD (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm a bit surprised by the rest of WLRoss' post. I was referring to her book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, which lead Irving to sue her. Even if you want to accept the notion that an academic expert who is sued and successfully defends themselves ceases to be objective on that topic (which I certainly don't) and a Wikipedia essay is a good thing to base judgments on (it isn't, in my view), this book pre-dated the trial. I've provided examples of individual reliable sources above which call Irving an 'author' or 'writer' rather than historian, as well as the results of Google book searches on this topic. Anyway, as I've noted repeatedly above, I think that the introductory sentence should reflect both points of view. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
But as I said before, all this hardly matters. Lipstadt and Evans are not "foremost experts on Irving". We've seen no support for that claim. Their opinion is at worst unacceptable as a violation of WP:RS and WP:BLP, and at best equal in value to that of any other published scholar. We could bring this BLP matter up on WP:RSN, but, as I've said, I think its a digression that's besides the point. Moving on.
Quite simply: seeing as how there are hundreds, even thousands of published sources that refer to this person as a historian - we should do so as well. When he is referred to by an appellation, "historian" is by far the most common in sources. Apparently several scholars challenge this - very well, we can include their position in the lead. This is imo the most logical and fairest approach to this matter. All else, I dare say, is subjective dislike for this person (which I certainly share, but which notably does not shape my position here). -- Director (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR: what wording do you suggest? I don't mind the current wording, and I think that either of the suggestions made by Steven and WLRoss above would also do the job. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said before, if we follow the vast majority of sources - we should simply refer to him as a "historian" in the first sentence (perhaps with an adjective if we can find the sources for it; "controversial historian" seems to be rather common [21]). No less than a third of the lead is already devoted to his being discredited. -- Director (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
So, you're suggesting that the first sentence should read "David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English historian best known for his denial of the Holocaust, who specialises in the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany."? As noted above, I don't think that 'controversial' is a good term as it's a weasel word, and much harsher terms such as 'discredited', 'holocaust denying' or similar are frequently used. The term 'controversial' also under-states the odium with which Irving is held - widely respected historians such as Niall Ferguson ([22]), Tony Judt ([[23]] and Eric Hobsbawm ([24]) are often described as being 'controversial historians', for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the adjective (or lack of the aforementioned) is a secondary issue. As you can see in the google tests above "discredited" is significantly less common than "controversial", and it sounds like trying to distort the meaning of the sources: a "discredited historian" is hardly a "historian" anymore. Its like saying "alright, lets agree he's a non-historian". As for whether the term "controversial" is appropriate - that is not for us to decide. One would imagine there are many gradations of "controversial", raging from "highly controversial" to "somewhat controversial" etc.. -- Director (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, where the fuck are these "thousands of sources" that call Irving a historian? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
To save you time.
"Historian David Irving" 225,000 (1,645 books)
"British Historian David Irving" 218,000 (935 books)
"Holocaust Denier David Irving" 108,000 (976 books)
"Controversial Historian David Irving" 76,000 (78 books)
"Controversial British Historian David Irving" 41,000 (27 books)
"Revisionist David Irving" 24,200 (94 books)
"Holocaust revisionist David Irving" 23,700 (49 books)
"Discredited Historian David Irving" 5,600 (6 books) Wayne (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
"irving" "not a historian" 70,600 (417 books)
"irving" "not an historian" 27,700 (112 books)
TFD (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
If you would please read through the discussion, I'm sure you'll find they're there (and that there's no need for obscenities). Hopefully that will also do away with the necessity of having to repeat the whole discussion for your benefit.
Wow, would you look at the length of it.. I honestly did not think this would be such a big deal :). I mean the sources are there, what's to discuss? The guy is a fascist, sure, but don't you have those dime-a-dozen, like we do? Around here you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a guy like him. When they're treated with hostility, it just gives them credibility. Hostility is what Nazis feed on. A careful, objective lead that follows sources in detail would not only be a credit to the encyclopedia, but would also play against the conspiracy theory self-victimization fantasy this guy is peddling. -- Director (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue is that there is currently a substantial body of opinion that Irving has either never been a historian, or was once a historian, but is now regarded as disgraced and unreliable (especially since the libel trial - which makes results of literature reviews, searches, etc, which don't take date of publishing into account rather moot), yet you're proposing a fairly absolutist position that he should be described only as a historian. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard J. Evans is the Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University and a fellow of the Royal Historical Society who was knighted for his contributions to the study of history, particularly of the Second World War. The Queen appointed him to the chair on the advice of the Prime Minister after he was recommended by a board of electors. The electors included the Vice-Chancellor (the equivalent of president in US universities), and representatives of the history department and the entire university, as well as external assessors from Oxford, Yale, Harvard and the University of London. He also served as chair of the history faculty and is president of one of the colleges.

Evans was called as an expert witness in a civil trial brought unsuccessfully by Irving where he claimed that he had been libelled by Lipstadt who had claimed inter alia that Irving was "not a historian".

Evans' expert opinion must be weighed in any determination of whether or not Irving is an historian and therefore we cannot state as a fact that he is. The fact that he testified against Irving in no way affects his independence, he was selected as a defence witness because he was an independant expert witness.

TFD (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Evans is only one source and the appelation can not be decided on his opinion alone. You need to show that it is a majority opinion. Wayne (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
@TFD. His expert opinion should be included in the lead, but it cannot somehow "nullify" the huge number of sources that refer to this person as a historian. Is the argument here seriously now down to "one source vs. a thousand"? Furthermore, he was directly involved in a lawsuit, against Irving. Unless I'm very much mistaken, prof. Evans was called as an expert witness by the defense. He was hired for his assessment, and paid a substantial amount of money. WP:RS explicitly demands that sources be "entirely independent of the subject being covered" - this person was involved in court proceedings against Irving.
But even were he completely independent (and he is not), what of it? What of the other multitude of publications? -- Director (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So again, do we have some kind of consensus on referring to Irving as a "historian" in the first sentence? Or should we go down the DR road? Simply "refusing to acknowledge" that the vast majority of sources have and still do refer to him by said appellation will not make them go away. This place isn't a democracy, and bare "refusal to agree" in the face of a decided and clear majority of sources does not work in the long run. -- Director (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we clearly don't, and you seem to be the only person supporting the use of 'historian' only. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Captain Straw-Man strikes again.. That is not what I support. In fact I specifically said, more than once, that "controversial historian" seems fine to me, since its an adjective that's commonly used in sources. And then I also added that we should take this step by step, and that the precise adjective we use next to "historian" is a secondary issue. Its starting to get disruptive and a little offensive, so please stop misrepresenting my position in every other post.
You know I've half a mind to just insert "historian" in there accompanied by about two dozen sources. This discussion clearly does not function in an objective and constructive manner, with deference to sources. Now its just repetition and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Director (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that you'd suggested 'controversial historian'; my apologies. However, that's not what you proposed immediately above ("do we have some kind of consensus on referring to Irving as a "historian" in the first sentence?") and no-one else appears to have supported your suggestion of 'controversial historian'. I don't see how throwing personal insults around ("Captain Straw-Man strikes again") or making threats of disruptive behavior ("You know I've half a mind to just insert "historian" in there accompanied by about two dozen sources") is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
If I've insulted you, I also apologize, but you will grant it can get annoying to read you post the 5th or 6th straw-man misrepresenting my position as somehow "alone" and/or "extreme"? Esp. after I've requested you please do not do so again. And there you go again with this belligerent attitude. Making a thoroughly sourced addition is not "WP:DISRUPTION", and I've made no "threat" whatsoever (nor am I even in a position to hypothetically issue one). To me it looks like you're consistently attempting to pick a fight. Once more: please maintain a civil attitude, and cut it out with the straw-men and the wild claims of "threats" and "disruption". -- Director (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Other editors may wish to note the request for input Director has posted at WP:RSN#Third-party sources. I'm all for getting extra eyes on this issue (and should have started this process myself a few days ago). Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've also posted notifications asking for input at WT:MILHIST, WT:HISTORY and WT:BIOG (which seem to be the most relevant Wikiprojects). Nick-D (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Irving/Archive_7&oldid=1136309376"