Jump to content

Talk:David Irving/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Historian or writer (extra eyes requested)

  • writer being a historian in this day and age requires having an educational background in history and some kind of acceptance as such by the community of professional historians (for example evidenced with appointment in a history department, publications in professional journals etc.). No amount of sources calling Irving a historian makes it the case that he has any of these. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. I can also find a large amount of sources that say the moonlanding never happened. Irving is at most an amateur historian. he has no professional credentials whatseoever.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Humbug. When you find more published sources for the moon landing being a fake, than for it having taken place - get back to me, 'cause we'll have a lot of rewriting to do. The issue here is what do the sources call this person. -- Director (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: Maunus. Per the Historian article: "An historian is a person who studies and writes about the past and is regarded as an authority on it." Regardless of his personal views and our own. His earlier work would appear to come under this title (afterall he established himself as an authority resulting on him be called to verify the Hitler Dairies), while his latter work and disgrace would appear to fall under the more broader, and less specific, title of just a writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.86.206 (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Irving is not considered "an authority" on anything related to history, by anyone who is capable of making that judgment. One does not "establish oneself as an authority" the scholarly community establishes you (or destablishes you) as such.
That's not the issue here at all. -- Director (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Historian, He may not be a very good one (but good enough to realise the Hitler diaries were fake (unlike others whoes credentuials are not under scrutiny). But he is a recognised historian.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Historian: the experts weren't really saying he wasn't a historian, they were using it as a proxy for "he's not a very good historian" and possibly "he's bringing a bad name to historians". All the definitions I checked with didn't put any bars in the way of Irving ("A student... of history", "A writer, student, or scholar of history", etc. only "a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it" came up on the other side, and that seems remarkably strict. Few historians by any other measure are true authorities). As to whether his should be "[something, e.g. "controversial"] historian", well, I think generally that that would be prominent enough outside the first sentence. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think discredited historian is adequately sourced, and "historian" without any further comment violates WP:FRINGE. But, perhaps writer and student of history (carefully avoiding the word "historian") in the lede might be adequate. (Discredited does appear in the body with adequate sourcing.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the fringe violation, perhaps you could elaborate. I think any way we have it the lead is going to throw itself into serious mention of the controversies of his work, which it does at the moment. However, I don't understand the fringe point, so I think there's some part of your argument I'm missing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • <sarcasm> Writer of historical fiction? </sarcasm> There's dispute as to whether any of his writings are accurate, but there's no dispute that some of his writings are fictional. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


Re "discredited historian". While there certainly are efforts to discredit Irving (perhaps well-grounded and justified), I think its rather OR to pass judgement on this issue and call him a "discredited historian" outright. I've found about 24 hits for "discredited historian" on Google Books [1], whereas "controversial historian" renders about 131 [2]. "Irving is a discredited historian" is also basically like saying "Irving is a not-historian": he can't very well be a "historian" anymore if he's been "discredited" as such, and there are still about 2,300 published sources that refer to him as a "historian" without even using the word "discredited" [3]. Plus a third of the lead is already dedicated to his discrediting. In short, I essentially prefer "controversial" since its more common, and since it makes more sense imo. -- Director (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, you have to read the sources, rather than count them. Since, when you attempt to list sources, you include blogs and publications of denialist organizations, I see no point in going through your list.
The present consensus among reputable historians is that Irving is not now an historian. There seems some debate as to whether he was ever really an historian. Using "historian" without "discredited" in the lead sentence, is not an accurate summary of the article or of the reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Then I should read about 10 of them to have double the number currently listed in the article against them? Counting isn't necessary at all: a blind man can see there is a vast body of published material that refers to Irving as a historian. Certainly incomparably greater than the number who dispute the propriety of the appellation. Further research that took into account only recent sources since the 2001 libel trial returned the same ratios.
So, from what I can see, the actual consensus is that it is currently justified to refer to this person as a historian. Please forgive me if I do not take your word on the above. While there has been some "discrediting" done (as a third of the lead stastes), it is imo not in accordance with Irving's presentation in the sources to refer to him as a "discredited historian" -- Director (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have raised the issue at NPOVN. TFD (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Writer. To be called a historian implies some sort of accreditation by the academic community. As Irving has no degree in History (or anything else), he is technically less of a historian than I am (I have a Chemistry degree with History of Science on it). We can only go by his writings; does the academic community recognise him as a self-taught historian on the basis of his books? My feeling is no; as he is still mainly known for having been a holocaust denier, he should be known (and described on Wikipedia) as a writer, not a historian. --John (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Historian. Did I miss something? Where is it required for any community but ours to reach consensus on this issue? (And, BTW, the usual definition of "consensus" I've seen is "majority vote"...) If Irving is called a historian in RS, that makes him one by every WP standard I've seen to date--except in this debate. The fact this debate is the sole example to set the bar higher, evidently because of dislike of Irving's views, is POV & unwarranted. That he's a historian doesn't make him less a nutcase, any more than it makes Stinnett's views on Pearl Harbor less laughable. Call him "historian & Holocaust denier" & be done with it: that encapsulates the position clearly & concisely. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

David Irving is not a member of the community of historians; his works have been emphatically rejected by the community of historians since the 1990s; this has been previously asked and answered at noticeboards. (My involvement was solicited due to my editorial interest in historical issues.) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Irving does not have to be a member of the "community of historians". If his work in it's entirety has been "emphatically rejected by the community of historians" then there should be a considerable number of sources saying so but there are few if any and those mainly reject his interpretation of the research which can be said of the work of many historians. Wayne (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As it is buried in the mass of text above I will repeat my earlier suggestion for the new eyes.
"is a historian widely discredited for his interpetation of...".
Director and Nick-D have both indicated that it is the best compromise so far and it does tick the relevant WP policy boxes. Wayne (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As noted above, I prefer Steven's suggestion of "Irving is called a historian by some, however, this is disputed by others" as it makes things more explicit (though it probably needs to be tweaked a little so it works as part of a sentence), but your suggested wording also works for me as it acknowledges both views. Thanks also to everyone who's responded to the requests for fresh views on this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
My problem with that is that "some" implies a far smaller number than is actually the case. Disputed by others implies far more than the handfull that actually do. To say he a historian is a statement of fact. This was discussed in the Lipstadt case where he was found not to be an "objective historian" as he had "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence", it was never found that he was not a historian at all. Saying he is not a historian is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Wayne (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that calling someone an historian is a statement of fact, while saying they are not an historian is a statement of opinion? TFD (talk)
What he's implying is that the position that he is a historian has far more support in sources, and that the text should reflect that - rather than the opposite. -- Director (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, in all objectivity at this point I'm not seeing any reason to ignore a pretty overwhelming majority in published sources. The arguments presented are, in my view, very obviously flawed and not really relevant with regard to policy. If we do actually go with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and disregard such a clear advantage in sources by presenting the two positions as somehow "equal", we'll be doing a great disservice to the reader, and the encyclopedia itself. A minority view is a minority view, and has to be covered as such. Having it take-up a third of the lead is generous already. -- Director (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute. What minority view is taking up a third of the lead? That he's discredited? That his reputation as historian is completely tarnished? That's actually the most important thing about the man today; if he was just another WWII historian, we'd not be having this conversation. Yes, he's a historian -- a historian who is willing to lie to promote his ideology. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Director, views may be consensus, majority, minority or fringe. If they are consensus (e.g., bin Laden was behind 9/11), then we present them as a fact. If they are majority or minority then we present both views. If they are fringe (e.g., 9/11 was an inside job), then we ignore them. So far only sources explaining why Irving, who denies the holocaust and has deliberately misrepresented history, is not an historian have been presented. You have presented zero sources explaining why he should be considered an historian. The compromise I suggest is that we do not say he is not an historian, but that we do not say he is. TFD (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
@Jpgordon, for goodness' sake - no. The view that he is not a historian. Yes of course his reputation is completely tarnished, and yes he's been discredited by a number of reputable historians, and lets explain that in the entire third paragraph of the lead. But apparently, according to the sources, the view that he's actually not a historian is a minority view. And in TFD's terms just above, we're currently treating the majority view as fringe, and the minority view as a consensus view. That's basically what this is about. We should refer to him as a historian in the first sentence.
@TFD, that's called raising the bar. You won't accept sources that say he's a historian, you want sources that say he isn't not a historian. I.e., you'll only accept sources that actually defend him. That's not WP:V, its your own demand. The person has published dozens of syntheses on historical subjects: noone needs to explain why he is a historian, but one does need to explain, in detail, as to why he isn't one. -- Director (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ jpgordon: The minority view is that Irving is not a historian. This should be obvious to anyone reading this page.
@ TFD: A large number of reliable sources have been presented supporting that Irving is a historian, even some Jewish sources such as the World Jewish Congress have called him one recently. Despite several requests, not a single source supporting that he is not and only two sources giving an opinion that he is not have been provided. The majority of this page is filibustering to prevent any mention of his occupation. I fail to see why it is so important to avoid mention that WP policy can be ignored. Wayne (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The various links I provided to news stories about Irving which call him a 'writer' or similar are obviously coming down on the side of not calling him a 'historian'. To avoid having to dig through the lengthy discussion above, here are some examples: The New York Times appears to have consistently used 'writer' since about 2009: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Other sources I found with a quick search are: The New Yorker, The Guardian (though a recent story used 'historian'), Salon.com, the Australian ABC (as the introduction of an interview with a historian at the Yad Vashem who argues that "I think that David Irving labelling himself a historian has been something of a delusion all along. He really isn't an historian and never has been. He's a writer who writes about historical subjects, who writes about them rather creatively we could say.") - this article from the museum on the trial also refers to Irving as a "a British writer who has published books about the Nazi period", The Daily Mail, De Spiegel (though some of its other articles on Irving use 'historian'), Associated Press, this scholarly book This story in The Economist refers to him as someone "once seen as a serious historian" (though other post-libel trial stories use 'historian'). In articles from 1978 and 2000 reprinted in her book The German Trauma Gitta Sereny refers to Irving only as a "writer" (p. 155) and "revisionist" (p. 267) respectively - in the second reference she recounts an incident in 1977 where Irving lent her some of the index cards he'd used to record his references while writing Hitler's War so she could check the accuracy of his claim that Hitler had not known about the Holocaust, only for her to find that the files in the German archives he'd referenced didn't support what he'd written; she writes that her resulting article on the subject "completely discredited his [Irving's] claims". That said, either your or Steven's suggested wording works for me; the key thing is that the lead sentence needs to acknowledge the differing opinions. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As a couple of further examples of historians arguing that they do not consider Irving to be a Historian, in this article about the results of the libel trial, historian Tony Judt refers to Irving as "a prolific writer on Nazi-era German history" and states that "Among scholars, David Irving has few admirers. But he does have defenders, including some very senior and respected historians". In this article about the trial historian and journalist Neal Ascherson never calls Irving a 'historian' or 'writer', but states "Irving's reputation has always been a double one: as a writer of history, but also a hunter of un-known, sensational documents. The first part - his reputation as an interpreter of those documents - lies in ruins. The second survives." Richard Evans discusses the post-libel trial debate among historians and journalists over whether Irving should be considered a historian in his book Telling Lies About Hitler (pages 243 to 265). Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, *sigh* that's why it isn't a fringe view... if it were only the three sources listed in the article (I'm not counting the prosecutor) then it would be a fringe view. Is your argument somehow more valid if you actually quote something here? Should I now start quoting various passages from the 2,500 sources that support the usage of "historian" in reference to this person? Should I copy-paste the links again? I don't see your point.. -- Director (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"He's a writer who [researches and] writes about historical subjects." FYI, writers who do this are called "historians". Your sources are admitting it is their personal opinion that he is not one. Here is an example that carries no emotional bias. If my mechanic messes up a car repair and I tell people that he is not a mechanic, it carries no weight. What he did wrong carries weight and it is up to the customers themselves to decide whether they can trust him. Wayne (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
How do you know he is a mechanic? TFD (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Because he fixes cars. He didn't fix your car - but he does fix cars. Its not a perfect analogy, but is that what you were getting at? -- Director (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
How do you know he repairs cars? TFD (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Because 2,500 sources say he does. That's good enough for me. -- Director (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Wayne, I'm not sure what you're looking for here. I provided those references in response to your comment that "Despite several requests, not a single source supporting that he is not and only two sources giving an opinion that he is not have been provided". The four historians I've cited above explain why they don't think that Irving is a historian, and Richard Evans wrote a whole book on the subject. The common thread from my reading is that they don't consider him a 'historian' as he has a track record of falsifying references in order to write historical works which advance his antisemitic views (eg, their definition of a 'historian' is someone who writes reliable historic works, and people who do not do so are not 'historians'; Evans discusses this in great detail in his book) - the evidence they provide for this is his repeated instances of falsifying references. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes that's a very interesting and valid point of view. And as I've been saying from the start - its not fringe. It is however, a minority view. It cannot be represented as it is now, at least not if we're to follow policy. -- Director (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Happily enough, that's why I've endorsed either of "Irving is called a historian by some, however, this is disputed by others" (my preference) or "is a historian widely discredited for his views/interpetation of" as suggested above as either of these options acknowledge the differing views. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Unhappily, though, that is not a representation consistent with a minority view. That is 1) a textbook WP:WEASEL-WORD representation 2) of two completely equal points of view.
As for "discredited", I will say again: its one thing to state that a person "has been discredited by this or that scholar/number of scholars etc." (that's NPOV if you've got a source for it), its another thing entire to label a person a "discredited historian" in the first sentence without any kind of substantial support in sources for that phrasing. As the phrase implies someone is no longer a historian (a "non-historian"), the sources that simply refer to him as a "historian" can be used against it as well. -- Director (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
From my reading of the above discussion, there's a rough consensus for some variant either of the two options I favour (eg, that Irving is a person whose status as an actual or credible historian is disputed), and your preferred option of 'controversial historian' has not received much support. I think that the sourced material in the article is sufficient to substantiate either of the two options. I don't intend to debate the various issues you raise yet again - I think it's time to move on. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't me most of the time anyway :).
I myself would not say there's a consensus as yet of any sort, rough or polished. A WP:CONSENSUS must be based on sources, not on "I like 'discredited historian' and those two people agree with me". And "controversial historian" is not, strictly speaking, my "preferred option". All I'm saying is that the sources indicate we should refer to this person as a historian in the first sentence, and not as a "non-historian" ("discredited historian"). I'm sure there's a whole range of various possibilities we could discuss that do not simply represent the same minority viewpoint in a roundabout way. But since you're apparently going away - I bid you farewell. -- Director (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going away, I just don't see the need to go around in circles with you. I've responded to your views several times above (in essence: that I don't think that your preferred option of some form of wording which does not explicably acknowledge the views of Irving's reputation/status is viable given the negative tone of the literature and news coverage of the man - it's probably not a minority view to see him as 'discredited' or the like, and if it is a 'minority', then its sufficiently large to acknowledge per WP:NPOV) and you've responded to mine. It would be very helpful if you could post your preferred wording for the first sentence. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think we can ignore the discussion at WP:NPOVN. At best we can say that his status as historian is disputed. There's reason his books, books (eg The Destruction of Dresden are rejected by people no one would doubt are historians. He has no academic qualifications in anything. He's a writer whose main interest is WWII. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nick-D. Ah yes, but noone is suggesting that the said literature be ignored, we're only talking about the first sentence. You wish to insert the minority view in the first part of the first sentence, and apparently will not budge on that issue whatever the state of the sources might be - that much I do understand. In that respect you're correct in your assertion that the discussion has become circular. No policy or source has availed to shift your position in the slightest.
If we're to follow the sources on this article, the first sentence must state this person is a historian. As far as I'm concerned, you can hypothetically call him a "lying, cheating, fascist bastard of a historian" if you want - but a historian he is. That is to say, don't simply use the word "historian" to deny the propriety of the appellation such as using "discredited historian" or "former historian" or anything along those lines - because that is not a concession at all: its the same thing in a different package. -- Director (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus here or at WP:NPOVN for that. Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wasn't aware of that discussion at WP:NPOVN (I'm not sure if a notification of the post was made here? - if not, it should have been as a courtesy), but the results of it are obviously very relevant to reaching a consensus on this topic. I'd note that some people who are unquestionably historians have referred to Irving as such since the libel trial though (though they then frequently note that he's not considered reliable/in good standing). Nick-D (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Dougweller. So far as I can see (am I wrong?), at WP:NPOVN the requirement was agreed-upon that only the point of view of other historians be accepted in judging the propriety of the appellation "historian"? While I can find no foundation for this new requirement either in WP:V or in WP:NPOV, I assure you that one would have no problem listing a large number of historians among the hundreds of sources that refer to this person as a "historian". I'm not a fan of unnecessary work, so, would that hypothetically satisfy you? -- Director (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." TFD (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Right. Also see WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." -- Director (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Haven't we already agreed that not making a claim is not the same as making the opposing claim? The two policies are not incompatible nor even conflicting - we can give due weight to a majority position without endorsing it ourselves. We can endorse one view only if competing views are indeed WP:FRINGE, which you also agree in this case does not aply. Not to mention that we still have no sources actually dealing with the status of Irving as a historian that support the claim that he is one - we only have sources using the appellation in passing. All sources explicitly dealing with the topic seem to say he is not a historian. --Stephan Schulz (talk)
The two policies are not conflicting. I don't think they're even two policies, strictly speaking (they're both WP:NPOV). WP:UNDUE is the relevant section of the policy, as it deals in more detail into what constitutes a neutral depiction of a minority view. And we do not "endorse" anything by following sources. Such a term implies propagandistic favoritism, which is inappropriate if all we're doing is following what the majority of the published sources have to say. On the other hand, I could not say that the current lead does not constitute a rather blatant endorsement.
@"We can endorse one view only if competing views are indeed WP:FRINGE." Not so. As TFD quite accurately explained somewhere above, you have a fringe view, and you have a minority view. And again, by following sources we're not "endorsing" anything, that's wordplay.
@"Haven't we already agreed that not making a claim is not the same as making the opposing claim?" That is true, but the challenged (over-emphasized) claim in this case is a negative ("Irving is not a historian"), which is by no means the same as a positive claim. An explicit negation of a negative claim is not necessary and often impossible, and a negative claim is indeed opposed by the positive.
A more accurate rendition of the above quoted sentence would be "Haven't we already agreed that not negating a negative claim is not the same as making the corresponding positive claim?" Again that's true, but rather irrelevant. The positive statement does negate the negative. That is the most basic logic, and as far as I can recollect, we made no agreement as the one you describe. -- Director (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Writer. As has been pointed out above, where a statement is clearly and obviously contentious, it doesn't matter how many sources say it. To comply with policy, we have two options. We could use something like "David Irving, who some consider to be an historian but others do not...", but I think that's ugly. The better solution is to use the best term that is not seriously disputed. I would suggest a formulation such as "discredited writer on European history". (Incidentally, "discredited" is not contentious, because Irving is only taken seriously by right-wing conspiracy theorists). Formerip (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, what can I say? All of the above is basically either contrary to sources or policy, and/or unsourced in itself.
  • "Where a statement is clearly and obviously contentious, it doesn't matter how many sources say it." - contrary to policy
  • "The better solution is to use the best term that is not seriously disputed." - contrary to policy. The "better solution" on this project is the one with vastly more sources to its name.
  • "'discredited' is not contentious" - contrary to sources. It is not contentious that he's been discredited by some, but it certainly is contentious to use the term as a label in the lead. Comparatively very few sources use the term "discredited" to actually describe Irving as such (compared to "controversial", for example).
  • "Irving is only taken seriously by right-wing conspiracy theorists" - possibly, but that's unsourced. Also irrelevant, because it does not mean he isn't a historian.
I don't mind opposition as such, as long as its based on some kind of relevant argument, but in all honesty, I have to say these sort of WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments are not helpful. I don't like this person either, but this project is about sources. -- Director (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Recommended reading. This really ought not to be very complicated. Whether Irving is an historian or not is a matter of opinion. There is clearly very strong sourcing to show that there is a significant body of informed opinion that he is not an historian. We therefore cannot, whatever else we do, describe him as an historian in Wikipedia's voice. Formerip (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Writer per NPOV where it says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Irving's notional status as a historian is disputed, so he cannot be presented as a historian in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, Irving never graduated college, let alone became a professor of history. Most of the time when we say someone is a historian we mean that they are a lecturer, professor or university researcher of history. Irving is not. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Writer It seems relevant sources discussing his status claim he is not a historian. He doesn't have the academic background to be called a historian, and his works have widely been discredited. It seems painfully obvious, and I'm not sure why there is such resistance to this. AniMate 20:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Writer. His standing in the academic community is zero, and it would do a great dis-service to our readers if they came away with the impression that he was a respected scholar. Qualifying 'historian' with 'controversial' is nowhere near enough to prevent this. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
@ Formerip. Irving not being a historian is a matter of opinion. That he is one is a fact. By your aregument we can change the George Bush article because we cant "describe him as an [politician and businessman] in Wikipedia's voice" because there is a significant body of informed opinion that he is crap at both.
@ Binksternet. Irving's status as a historian is not disputed. The sources, including those that call him a historian, all agree that he is a bad one. The rest of your arguement is WP:OR.
@ AniMate. Some relevant sources claim he is not a historian but most say he is. Not a historian is an opinion.
@ Squiddy. Are you seriously suggesting that someone reading the article will come away with the impression that he is a respected scholar?
All I'm hearing are WP:JDLI arguements. We are not discussing what Irving is as that is covered throughout the article, we are discussing what his career/job/vocation is called and it is to quote AniMate; "painfully obvious" that Irving researches and writes about historical topics and as far as I know they generally call such people historians. "Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions. Wayne (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
By your aregument we can change the George Bush article because we cant "describe him as an [politician and businessman] in Wikipedia's voice" because there is a significant body of informed opinion that he is crap at both. AFAIK, there is not a significant body of opinion that George Bush was not a politician and businessman. Clearly, he was crap, but that's not really relevant. Formerip (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


Well, I can see what the public opinion is on the question, so I'll just be withdrawing. Anyone who's been editing here for years knows full well Wikipedia is, in fact, a democracy; and I had no idea the antagonism this person has provoked. The sources are there, though. Hundreds and thousands of publications referring to this person as a historian, quite unambiguously, and equally so after the libel trail. Certainly a very large number of historians among them. Few fail to outline the shortcomings of his work and the negativity of his reputation, but, nevertheless, refer to him as a historian. Hopefully, the lead will be revised somewhat so as to incorporate them - and generally to reduce the rather farcical amount of bias therein. At the very least I hope someone will remove his prosecutor as a reliable source, and rephrase the completely unsourced "best known for Holocaust denial" statement. I honestly doubt any of that'll happen, though, and it seems it'll be a good thing if he isn't described as a fairy-tale writer by the end. What I found rather silly is that even Hitler himself has a more neutral-sounding lead. -- Director (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea the antagonism this person has provoked. You could have saved yourself some time, then, by looking back at the archives of this talk page. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That Irving is barred admission to Germany, Austria, Italy, Canada and Australia is evidence that he has provoked antagonism. TFD (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
@Jpgordon. Perhaps. But even so I would not have imagined it was so widespread and intense as to facilitate what is, in my view, the sidelining of many WP:V reliable sources. Much of my editing concerns Balkans articles, and intense bias is, of course, endemic to the whole topic. However, I've usually met with strict impartiality from "mainstream" users. This whole affair has somewhat shaken my view that most of Wiki is indeed scientific in its approach. But, if there exists some bias, I suppose its better it be anti-fascist bias than something else :).
@TFD. That's evidence he's violated a law, not necessarily that he's provoked antagonism (though as I said, he certainly has). I shudder at the implication that being unpopular is grounds for having one jailed. -- Director (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
As you should. However, the experience of a few countries has resulted in those countries banning most expressions of Naziism; one must assume that the same laws would apply to a popular Holocaust denier as well as an unpopular one. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but would someone who is genuinely "popular" be considered a "holocaust denier"? :) The term is quite flexible: its not limited to people who actually deny the holocaust took place, it suffices that he/she advocate a lower casualty figure. Those laws bother me, but to be clear: its not that I'm necessarily for or against free speech - its the hypocrisy alone. The societies that enforce such laws profess to defend free speech by limiting it.
Well, anyway, its been interesting discussing with you folks, that's it from me. I'll be withdrawing from the article.. honestly I find the whole affair rather depressing. -- Director (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Astonishing that Hugh Trevor-Roper should be quoted in the very first footnote on whether David Irving should be considered an historian. Can we really expect an impartial opinion from Trevor-Roper after he was made to look so foolish by Irving in the affair of the Hitler Diaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldiboronti (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would point out the Irving Vs Penguin books case. The one claim Penguin failed to prove was the accusation that Irving was discredited as a historian. The judge found the accusation that Irving was a discredited historian "false and defamatory" and commended Irving as a "military historian". Wayne (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

New idea

I came across this while surfing around Wikipedia. How about the term: "author of history"? Irving is an author and his subject is history. Seems more subject-specific than writer and, because at times Irving was both a writer and a historian, more neutral.--78.53.86.163 (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not likely, considering the mood on the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not see that that would be an improvement because it is a vague term. TFD (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
We'd have to add "...and historical fiction..." or perhaps "...and historical fraud..." Might not work well. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, just like Turtledove? Why not "random nonsense writer" or "children's storybook author"? :)
The fact that the unsourced claim "best known for his holocaust denial" is still up in the first sentence of the lead (in spite of being known as being without support) speaks volumes about the neutrality of the prevailing sentiment here. -- Director (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And for prevailing research. You were wise to walk away from this one. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
"Author of history" gives Irving too much credit, with a high-sounding term, one that is not used by any of our sources. "Author of history" sounds to me like a very highly placed and influential statesman, one who has an effect on history. "Author of history books" is more like it, but still gives his books too much credence. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jpgordon. Perhaps I was, this is a different issue, though.
"Prevailing research"? You mean WP:SYNTH? There's no source in the article that supports that statement, and I've not seen one on the talkpage after asking for it many times. WP:V; adding {{cn}}. -- Director (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The cited source is a brief summary of all of Irving's holocaust denial activities. It makes no claim on what Irving is "best known" for. WP:SYNTHESIS is, as we all know, against policy: we do not get to "interpret" the source and "decide" it says something it doesn't.

Unless a source actually states Irving is "best known" for holocaust denial (or "most infamous for",etc..), please do not remove the tag. There's enough bias, interpretation and cherry picking on this article. -- Director (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That came up before and no one has yet provided a source. TFD (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
In all fairness the claim should already have been removed, and I actually thought it had been. -- Director (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just tweaked the wording to remove that claim as I wasn't able to find a direct source (though I believe it is correct, judging from the high frequency with which recent news stories about Irving introduce him as "Holocaust denier David Irving" or similar, and, more importantly, the fact that most recent coverage of Irving has been in relation to this in one way or another). The source added by Binksternet is good, but it states that Irving is the best known Holocaust denier, and not that it's what he's best known per-se, and tweaking the wording in the lead sentence to simply state that he's a Holocaust denier gets around this issue while still giving appropriate weight to the importance of Irving's Holocaust denial to his reputation. If anyone disagrees with my change, feel free to revert it and discuss it here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Now it looks like we're saying he's "a holocaust denier who specializes in the military and political history of WWII".. Holocaust denial isn't really a profession, any ideas on a more appropriate wording? Hopefully I won't be perceived as a dangerous radical if I suggest moving (the textbook unattributed WP:LABEL) "holocaust denier" to the second sentence of the lede? -- Director (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is one of the things Irving is best known for, and it is in fact a key part of his professional life (his books include Holocaust denial - and many deliberetly distort historical evidence to further this goal, he's been a featured speaker at many events relating to Holocaust denial and the reference provided by Binksternet notes that he's prominent in this field). Given its central importance to his reputation, there's no reason to not include this in the way Irving is introduced, and doing so is consistent with much of the recent media coverage of Irving. I don't understand why you're claiming that this term is a case of WP:LABEL - it's how Irving is generally regarded, and has been established as a fact in several court cases and so is not at all a contentious description of the man. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
And Bin Laden is generally regarded as a terrorist, Hitler is regarded as a dictator, mass murderer etc, etc. This is an encyclopedia, though, and they're not given these labels.
In my opinion my position is moderate. I'm not contesting that this person is a holocaust denier, I know he is and hence I don't mind even if we do use a WP:LABEL. All I'm saying is it makes more sense to at least move into the second sentence. The whole lede introduces this person, not just the first sentence. -- Director (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No, this aspect of Irving is of the foremost importance, and its presence in the first sentence is perfectly appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you. It's a textbook unattributed WP:LABEL, literally "textbook", as its actually mentioned as an example of a label. Is there some clause whereby policy and guidelines don't really apply to "bad people"? I mean the POV is really off the charts here. I don't even want to go into the other stuff.
Basically, if we're going to follow policy (we could also ignore it, that's an option too), then we can say he does holocaust denial, but we can't call him a "holocaust denier" without attribution (and thorough sourcing). -- Director (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This is how Irving is commonly described in reliable sources (which are cited in the lead and discussed in the body of the article), so it isn't actually a contentious label. Please stop making accusations of bad faith, POV, etc, as they're really unhelpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I am making no accusations whatsoever, rather what's unhelpful is your restarting the pattern of misrepresenting what I say in a malicious and provocative way. I really do hope you'll stop at some point.

You also appear to be misrepresenting WP:LABEL. This is the actual text (beyond the title):

"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

The term "denialist" (which is essentially the same thing) is also explicitly mentioned as an example of a value-laden label. I do not contest that the term is widely used in sources, but it does need in-text attribution. Which is why I am proposing the radical step of moving the very much value-laden WP:LABEL to the second sentence, where it can be attributed and generally given a slightly more neutral treatment. -- Director (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It is you who misrepresent WP:LABEL. The example is "denialist" alone. What we have with Irving is the well-understood term "Holocaust denialist". Sorry, but it belongs right up front, in the first sentence. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This is textbook LABEL. Labels like "racist", "denialist" and "holocaust denier" are just about as value-laden as it gets. All of them are very well "understood", but that's hardly the point. -- Director (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The second bit of what you posted from WP:LABEL ("and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution") is what I'm getting at: Irving is frequently labeled a holocaust denier by reliable sources, typically as soon as they first mention him. As such, the use of the term in this context isn't a contentious label, and the article provides plenty of sources to support the use of the term and explain how this it is justified. Irving has called himself a "hard core disbeliever" in the Holocaust (source: Michael Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman, Denying History, p. 258) and courts have ruled that he's an active Holocaust denier, so it's not a controversial or 'value laden' statement given that this is a proven fact. Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Irving decided to deny the holocaust and we report that. I have seen no sources that he is best known for that. Presumably if he had not been notable before he denied the holocaust that he would not be a notable person. TFD (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
@Nick. WP:LABEL does not deal with the usage of terms disputed in the sources. How to deal with a sources conflict etc. is obviously covered in great detail elsewhere. WP:LABEL deals with the usage of - labels, strong, value-laden terms such as "terrorist", "dictator", "racist", and "holocaust denier". There is no dispute whatsoever that Osama Bin Laden was indeed a "terrorist", or that Adolf Hitler was a "dictator", or that Charles Manson is a murderer etc. etc. Yet we nevertheless do not use labels to describe them. That's the point of WP:LABEL. The fact that a term is a value-laden label restricts its use without in-text attribution, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style which deals with maintaining an encyclopedic style in the content of this project, quite apart from the subject of neutral representation of disputed information (I do not wish to sound like I'm lecturing anyone, I know participants here are well aware of all this)
The application of the term "Holocaust denier" to this person is not, and can not, be disputed in general terms. It's usage without attribution in an encyclopedic text can be disputed, and on good grounds. -- Director (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Label is a guideline and is not relevant here. The purpose of the guideline is to stop people from saying that for example the Sandinistas in Nicaragua were terrorists while the Contras were freedom fighters. Obviously some rs will claim this but others will dispute it. The policy however is WP:WEIGHT. If there were a consensus that the Sandinistas were terrorists then we would call them that. TFD (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Right. Or that someone is a "racist", or "murderer" or "holocaust denier"? Those are actually much better examples of the purpose of LABEL.
Label explains that value-laden labels in widespread use in sources (such as in this case) are supposed to be attributed in the text. It does not list as a requirement that labels need necessarily be contested in reliable sources, it is sufficient that they are "value-laden labels" and that they "may express contentious opinion" - not necessarily represented in a significant way in published scholarly sources. Irving himself, for example, would contest the label at least, and probably scores of his neo-nazi buddies and organizations across the world (I guess "nazis are people too" :)). I have twice listed examples of articles where labels are explicitly avoided even though there can be no question that there is consensus for their use. There are many more, of course.
The issue here isn't sourcing at all, it's encyclopedic style. -- Director (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:LABEL says that "denialist" is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". Irving is widely described as a Holocaust denialist, and it is a central part of notability/notoriety, so we are free to use inline/in-text attribution to cement it in place in the first sentence. To your point of good writing style, we are also free to describe Irving's Holocaust denial in greater detail in other sentences of the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I have no problem with using the label in the text if its attributed. Being familiar with LABEL I thought it might make more grammatical sense to include it in the second sentence (after all, this person is a writer first and holocaust denier second: it is through his writing that he does the vast majority of his holocaust denying). But that's a matter of consensus (and possibly good taste). Imo this article needs to slightly tone down the "Wikipedia hates this Nazi racist bastard" slant. But, if the community wants to "cement" or "shove" the message in :), I can only complain and say its a bit much for an encyclopedia. Strict neutrality brings credibility to an article. This person isn't a murderer, rapist, or thief, and he's perfectly entitled to his wacky, incredibly offensive opinions. -- Director (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
It is a guideline and therefore we need to use judgment in applying it. Another guideline, In-text attribution, warns against neutrality violations. Saying that so-and-so called Irving a holocaust denier casts doubt. We could say though that he denies or has denied the holocaust. TFD (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I basically agree. You can say Charles Manson was convicted of murder, but we can't call him a "murderer" (because that's a label). Though, conceivably an elegant formulation along the lines of "Irving has been widely described as a holocaust denier by authorities such as x, y, and z[source][source][source]" would also leave little in the way of doubt. -- Director (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't like saying "has been widely described as" and providing sources for people who have said that. It is original research and subject to POV abuse. There should be a source that says he has been widely described as, but there probably is not, because it is a fact, not an opinion. TFD (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right. Scrap the "widely"; "Irving has been described as a holocaust denier by authorities such as x, y, and z[source][source][source]". For me, such a statement would actually carry a lot more credibility than just simply saying "he's a holocaust denier" (in addition to being more encyclopedic). Though again this is all if we choose to use the label, if not.. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Book sources

  • Irving was said to be "the movement's best-known figure", talking about the Holocaust denial movement (Extreme Speech and Democracy, Oxford University Press).
  • Leonard Zeskind wrote, "Holocaust denial had failed to establish itself as a scholarly pursuit in the Anglo-American world, however, and its best-known practictioner, David Irving, lost a libel case in British courts..." (Blood and Politics, Macmillan).
  • University of Wisconsin-Whitewater sociologist Ronald J. Berger writes, "David Irving, best-selling author of some thirty popular history books, is perhaps the most knowledgeable and sophisticated Holocaust denier." Berger continues, "throughout his career Irving has moved increasingly closer to the denial camp" (Fathoming the Holocaust 2002).
  • Editor and publisher Adam Parfrey joins with conspiracy theorist Kenn Thomas to say of Holocaust deniers, "The best known is British historian David Irving..."
  • The Encyclopedia of Genocide biographical entry on Irving says, "David Irving, considered by many Holocaust commentators to be a Holocaust/Shoah denier/revsionist, is perhaps the best known due to the sheer quantity of his published works..." (Encyclopedia of Genocide, volume I, 1999. Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem. ISBN 0874369282)

There is general popular and scholarly consensus that Irving is very prominently a Holocaust denier, one of the top deniers, perhaps the top denier, and that his Holocaust denial position is what makes him notable. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah.. can you imagine the list for Osama being a terrorist. Your point is? Did anyone contest this? Please read the discussion. I'm quoting MoS here, the issue has nothing to do with sources, its about enyclopedic style. -- Director (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
There are literally dozens of reliable sources that describe Irving as a denier. There are no reliable sources that dispute it. One need not qualify facts which are not disputed by reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I can see this discussion is going to be repetitive as well.. Yes he does if its a value-laden label, see WP:LABEL and please read the discussion. Again: this topic has practically nothing to do with sources. -- Director (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You yourself are repeating, giving us LABEL again when it has been shown to be not applicable in this instance. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Um, no you've "shown" nothing of consequence, Binksternet. This is essentially a textbook application of LABEL, as is blatantly obvious from the definition of the guideline itself. Simply saying it "isn't" over and over again (and forcing the other to repeat) is not productive discussion. -- Director (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It is similar to saying Barack Obama "has been described as a president of the United States by authorities such as x, y, and z". It does not "carry a lot more credibility than just simply saying "he's the president of the United States"". In fact, it promotes doubt, especially since there are prominent fringe views that he is not in fact the U.S. president. TFD (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
"President of the United States" is not a WP:LABEL. Treating labels with care is the whole point, you can call it "promoting doubt" if you like but I do not see it that way at all. I find the above formulation far more credible due to its less flippant usage of such strong terms.
@Binksternet, this is me from above: Label explains that value-laden labels in widespread use in sources (such as in this case) are supposed to be attributed in the text. It does not list as a requirement that labels need necessarily be contested in reliable sources, it is sufficient that they are "value-laden labels" and that they "may express contentious opinion" - not necessarily represented in a significant way in published scholarly sources. Irving himself, for example, would contest the label at least, and probably scores of his neo-nazi buddies and organizations across the world (I guess "nazis are people too" :)). I have twice listed examples of articles where labels are explicitly avoided even though there can be no question that there is consensus for their use. There are many more, of course.
-- Director (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Label is guideline. Reliable sources use descriptions such as terrorist, sect and cult that we should normally avoid. That is because these terms are often applied in a "value-laden" way. For example, climate change sceptics have been called "denialists"; the Iranians, "terrorists"; Scientology, a "cult". What is value-laden about saying that Irving denies the holocaust? There is no doubt that the holocaust happened and no doubt that Irving denied it happened. Or do you have any sources that challenge that assertion? TFD (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. You're using exaggerated, flawed analogies to complicate and get around what is a very simple guideline. What scholarly source would call Iranians "terrorists"? Very strange, if you don't mind me saying so.
A label is a label, regardless of whom it is applied to. Its a category applied to a term as such, irrespective of context. You can invent exaggerated examples where a label would be obviously absurd, and contrast them with more reasonable context, but its completely irrelevant. The guideline simply does not support you in your assertion. -- Director (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of "Holocaust denial" isn't as much of a label as it seems. Consider the following. If you walked up to David Irving, and asked him, "Sir, are you a Holocaust denier?" He would tell you, "Yes I am." Or "Sir, did the Holocaust happen?" He would tell you "Of course not."

Walk up to a terrorist, ask them "Sir, are you a terrorist?" and they will likely say, "No, I am a freedom fighter." Walk up to a family of someone killed by the "freedom fighter," and ask "Sir, is that person a freedom fighter?" And they will tell you most likely "No, that person is a terrorist." In such cases, the labeling would apply.

In one case, the latter, it's a matter of perception. In the other case, the first, it's an undeniable fact - you either accept the Holocaust or you don't. And if you don't, you deny it. Saying that it's "defamatory" or a "label" doesn't deny the fact. --Jethro B 05:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As has been quoted before, these are Irving's views on the term "holocaust denier", in general and as applied to him:

"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.."

I do contend that it is, in fact, one of the most value-laden terms in existence. Also, as a side note, it seems this person's own views on the matter aren't included in the article? -- Director (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Care to provide a reference for that? And if anything, that just shows even more so he's a Holocaust denier... It's like a racist saying "I'm not a racist, I simply question whether blacks are on the same level as whites, which we know is obviously not true." --Jethro B 16:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Unlike Jethro, I don't give a flying fig what Irving thinks about the term. What is important is how scholarly and popular sources describe him. Irving's rebuttal does not change that. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well of course he's a holocaust denier, and naturally its the sources that we'll follow. The point is the term is a value-laden label if there ever was one, and needs to be handled with care in accordance with MoS. Irving's own views don't change anything, but they're certainly worthy of inclusion (though that's another topic, lets not get sidetracked). -- Director (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Then how should it be handled? --Jethro B 16:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
We can either not use it, and say he "does holocaust denial", or something to that effect, or we need to attribute the label in the text. -- Director (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see much of a difference between "Irving is a Holocaust denier" and "Irving engages in Holocaust denial." One who engages, does. Those who cannot engage, teach. --Jethro B 16:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As a proposal, the article could go back to the longstanding wording, but instead of saying Irving is "best known for his denial of the Holocaust", it could say Irving is "notorious for his denial of the Holocaust". This addresses the concerns of any editor who thinks WP:LABEL applies here, and there are lots of reliable sources to back up that specific statement, thus addressing any concerns about WP:V and WP:NOR. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have anything against it, but wouldn't it just be simpler and shorter to write "Irving is notorious for his Holocaust denial?" Saves words and space. Or is that a labelling issue as well? --Jethro B 18:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any issue with your wording either; the thrust of my suggestion was to replace "best known" (which wasn't explicitly sourced) with "notorious" (which has many sources). Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately that just brings us back full circle. It looks like WP:SYNTH, do we have a source that says he's "notorious" for his holocaust denial? What we could use is a similar phrase from a reliable source. -- Director (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
30 seconds I know plenty. --Jethro B 18:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • [8] - ADL describes him as one of the best known Holocaust deniers.
  • [9] Coordination Forum for countering anti-Semitism lists him under "notorious Holocaust deniers."
  • [10] - NY Daily News calls him "notorious Holocaust denier."
  • [11] - New York Times/Associated Press call him "Notorious Holocaust denier." This one is the most RS out of all here.

--Jethro B 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be acceptable to use wording that represents a loose paraphrase of the wording that is explicitly used by sources unless other editors object to the paraphrased wording and at that point I think article wording should be expected to adhere closely to the wording that is actually used by sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I wrote, there are many sources that support this. A brief sample:

There are many more sources besides these, but I think these should be sufficient. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait a sec, all these sources say this person is "notorious" for his holocaust denial? That's the term they use? -- Director (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The ones I gave have a link, so you can check and verify it (they do, except 1st one which is slightly different). The ones by Jay, I can't check all of them, but On Russian Music writes "David Irving's notorious attempts at Holocaust denial"; Genocide Or Ethnocide says "David Irving, another notorius denier; The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics writes "the notorius Holocaust-denier David Irving." I can't check the rest. --Jethro B 20:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that describing someone as "notorious" is appropriate because it is judgmental and probably against BLP policy. Incidentally, LABEL says not use the term "denialist" not "denier". TFD (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
TFD, there's no way using the cited term "notorious" violates BLP. You might make an argument that you prefer "best known" as less "judgmental", but then we're back where we started. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes DIREKTOR, all of these sources state he is "notorious" for his Holocaust denial; that's why I brought them. There are many more that say the same. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Jay. Firstly, WP:LABEL only says to avoid these terms. If we've got a huge amount of reliable sources writing that he's a notorious Holocaust denier, then I don't see why we should avoid it. It's a simple fact. --Jethro B 22:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Its a step in the right direction.. but how about we tone it down to "notable" or something like that for BLP's sake? It's basically the same word. Alternatively, have you encountered any other formulations in the sources? Imo we should review the options. -- Director (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hardly the same word. "Notable" makes him sound important, distinguishable, a positive connotation. --Jethro B 22:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well yes "notorious" has a distinct negative sound, whereas "notable" is probably dead neutral in terms of connotations. Every article on Wikipedia is "WP:NOTABLE". I really don't see how "notable for his holocaust denial" can be interpreted as sounding "distinguished" or "positive". In fact we've heard it said in this thread that holocaust denial is what makes this person "notable". But of course it's a matter of consensus I suppose. -- Director (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
That's why I think it's best to just write he's a Holocuast denier or he's known for his Holocaust denier, rather than insert another descriptive phrase next to it. --Jethro B 23:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It shouldn't be this difficult. It's just the insistence on cramming it into the very first sentence. -- Director (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
"Notable" often implies praise, see the definitions.[12] TFD (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This conversation has gotten very long with many offers suggested. I'm going to list some of the suggestions, feel free to add any I haven't listed, and please comment below which ones you support. No explanation is required, as we have the above discussion. This should help in gauging consensus:

  • Current version - just says he's a Holocaust denier in the first sentence of the lead.
  • Notorious Holocaust denier
  • Notable Holocaust denier
  • Remove that he's a Holocaust denier

--Jethro B 23:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


Seriously folks, what is wrong with using two sentences?

"David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English writer specialising in the military and political history of World War II. Irving has been described as a holocaust denier by numerous authorities such as X, Y and Z, while his views have been criticized as condoning or downplaying German WWII atrocities."

Is this "lenient"? Really? Grammatical ideologizing? -- Director (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not that "he's been described," it's that he is, and that's established in various RS. --Jethro B 00:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Compare with "Charles Manson is an American prisoner. He has been described as a murderer by numerous authorities such as a California judge, the New York Times and Fox News." TFD (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes I'm sure he is but this is supposed to be a neutral, detached encyclopedia. You can't just call him a "holocaust denier" anymore than you can call Manson a "murderer". A neutral treatment of such heavy terms requires more than one sentence. These sort of grammatical restrictions just seem completely absurd.. -- Director (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, it's apparent that there are only three options here that have any hope of achieving consensus: Describe Irving as
  1. "Holocaust denier",
  2. "best known for denying the Holocaust", or
  3. "notorious for denying the Holocaust".
It's probably not helpful to make additional wording suggestions that clearly only one editor will support, and that all other editors will oppose. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes alright, granted. "Notorious" would be my second choice then, at least it's sourced. -- Director (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry is this a joke? "anymore than you can call Manson a "murderer""? Wikipedia is not allowed to call Charles Manson a murderer?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.176 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Irving/Archive_8&oldid=1142437614"