Talk:Deborah Lipstadt/Archive 1

Archive 1

David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt

Could someone make a discussion of the wikisource:David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt case? This is a very important topic in historiography, jewish studies and WWII politics. This really deserves to be in WP. Witty lama 18:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Header

I changed the header since the wording isn't clear. Are we saying she is Jewish? If that is the case that is not appropriate in the lead sentence. Or are we saying that she specializes in Jewish studies. If this is the case maybe something along the lines of "Deborah Esther Lipstadt (born 1947-03-18, New York City) is an American historian specializing in Jewish studies and author of the book Denying the Holocaust." Anyways, this is not about me whitewashing or me being anti-semetic. Its about making the lead sentence make sense.--Tom 17:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is she Jewish, is that the case, take a wild guess.

I fail to see your point. Darkmind1970 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's kinda like asking if someone named Muhammad Al`Jabar-Qurama would be muslim. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Added a short section

I added a short section on Ward Churchills criticism of her. This should perhaps be expanded.Zumbiz 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Churchills criticism deserve a whole section? He hardly has more credibility than Irving now.--Dudeman5685 02:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Churchills criticism is still valid. Just beacuase he has been draged through mud by political opponents doesn't mean what he wrote isn't true or at the very least still an acceptable objection. And remember that although much shit has been talked about Churchill he is still very influencial among many intellectuals and I highly doubt that the last word has been said about his dissmissal. Comparing him to Irving is at least ridicolus if not delibiratly anti-intellectual. Zumbiz 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• • "Delibrately anti-Intellectual"? Thats a bit much, don't you think? He's already been exposed as an academic Grey Owl, and his worldview is at least as radical as Irvings, if on the far left and not the far right--Dudeman5685 16:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

During my enforced absence I read up and seemed to note that Lipstadt was a theologian - not a historian ( citation - Emory University ). I believe her books etc are not peer reviewed historical tracts. Richard Evans was the defense historian of record at the Irvin trial - not Ms Lipstadt. Maybe this is wrong but worth a check - she teaches a studies course not history from the Emory blurp159.105.80.63 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I hope an editor changes the article to theologian - nobody will notice.159.105.80.141 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted section about Ward Churchill. He is not an "academic." What "intellectuals" support him? Even his liberal university had to expell him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.253.18 (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill and ZNET

Removed an extraneous comment by Ward Churchill. 1) Churhill has no expertise on the Holocaust 2)Z-net is not a significant source. This section violated WP:COATRACK WP:BLP From WP:Coatrack#"But it's true!", An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.Historicist (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Historian?

There seems to be an issue here regarding her status as a "historican". Could someone clarify what she studied in university? Nothing that I've read or heard about this person suggests that she is a historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.9.7 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove signatures that are automatically added to unsigned postings, it can be misconstrued as an attempt to obfuscate who made the posting, a situation which I'm sure you would like to avoid. As I posted on your own talk page yesterday, this link appears to be as good as any in demonstrating her assignation as an "historian" [1], can you provide us with any evidence that the information provided on this page is less than accurate? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• The court's factual findings and conclusions of law in the Irving lawsuit are set forth here. Although she did not receive her Ph.D. in history (but in Jewish Studies which is considered one of those multi-disciplinary thingamabobs, with history as a component), she serves as advisor to Ph.D. graduate students who are pursuing history degrees (i.e. in the Emory history department), and no one could seriously contend that she has never written a "history" book. She is obviously skilled in historiography and the methodology of academic historians. If nothing you've read suggests that she is a historian, you just need to read some more. SixBlueFish (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really interesting in the Irving lawsuit, or what the court has decided concerning his status as a "historian". Personally, though, I don't think it's within the jurisdiction of the law to decree who and who cannot be referred to as a historian. But, if one wants to use the criteria from the Irving lawsuit, then the cinclusion can also be drawn that Lipstadt fails to live up to some of them. Her bias and agenda is clear enough, but from what I've seen and heard, her grasp of basic facts relating to the Second World War, at least, leaves much to be desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.159.31 (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Churchill and soft-core denial

The article currently seems to imply that Ward Churchill is is exposing some form of alleged hypocrisy on Lipstadt's part for engaging in "soft-core denial" of Native American genocides. Does Churchill use the term "soft-core denial" or not? Judging by the paragraph, it seems like somebody is putting words into Churchill's mouth. If this is the case, I must insist on deleting the entire paragraph since it has nothing to do with soft-core denial. Unless I hear otherwise, I will delete the paragraph within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph acuratly describes the criticism Churchill puts forward, read A Little Matter of Genocide if you don't belive me. Leave it alone.--Zumbiz (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Zumbiz, do you own A Little Matter? I admit I do not. Would you mind putting forward the relevant quotation in which Churchill accuses Lipstadt of "soft-core denial?" Thanks in advance. --GHcool (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate category

Should this article belong to the category "Holocaust deniers?"

"This category is reserved for articles on people who have actively promoted Holocaust denial. It is not to be used for individuals who may have at some point indicated support for such views, but have not actively promoted them."

--Shanedidona (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust Industry

Removed link to wikipedia entry on the "Holocaust Industry." The article does not cite why this book is relevant to Lipstadt or her work.

Well done. I agree with your edit, and concur with your comment. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)