Talk:David Irving/Archive 1

Again on the ADL
First, a matter of personal disclosure: I am a Jew, an avowed anti-Nazi and the direct enemy of those posters below who refer to a 'Jewish agenda' in this article: it's my belief that this article is as unbiased and informative as it is possible to be on Wikipedia.

However, having said that, I have to concur with what is said about the ADL. While I personally don't find it to be anything but a Jewish rights advocacy group, and not 'Jewish propagandists,' its inclusion here is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. It IS an advocacy group, and should not be treated as a mainstream news source or a place for respectable historical information. Its purpose is not to evaluate in a scholarly way Mr Irving's claims, but to oppose them. That is its purpose.

There are many other places one can turn for damning accounts of Mr Irving's deliberate misrepresentations of facts and his undeniable sympathy for the extreme, anti-semitic right - without going to a Jewish advocacy organisation. Not only does it fail to qualify as a sufficiently academic source, it's also damaging to the APPEARANCE of neutrality - as the reams of anti-semitic tantrums on this discussion pages account. We don't need to use it as a source, there are better sources, and as a source it's like a red rag to a bull for those who wish to question Wikipedia's neutrality. For these reasons it should be removed.

And, because making this point has made me feel quite dirty by the company I keep, I wish to restate: I am myself a Jew, and have no dispute whatsoever with the mainstream historical account of the Holocaust.

Neutrality
With these subjects it's hard for people to remain totally neutral, and I agree the overall language of the article does not reflect a NPOV. If Irving wishes to deny the Holocaust or at least question it then thats fine, I don't care that it offends people, only that the article reflects the facts of the case.

Demonizing Irving
As a person familiar with the matter (I've been following his website) I can say that the article is basically correct in factual sense, but at the same time the language of it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia. It starts with statements like "Irving is a well-known Holocaust-denier". But who is a "holocaust denier" (all that newspeak)? Actually, Irving does not deny the Holocaust, but he did deny the killings performed by the Nazis by way of gas chambers and this is quite different. Especially in Austria, where he is currently detained, the warrant against him was served for saying publicly that the gas chambers currently demonstrated in Aushwitz are fake as they were built after 1945. Although this technically is a crime in Austria to say so, the chambers remain to be fake. That is why he did not mentioned the gassings in his Hitler's War, that's his crime bore the History. If you can't support your theories with evidence, you don't publish them. The same with Hitler's order to annihilate the Jews: no trace was ever found. And finally, who are these "experts"? Irving remains one of the world's greatest historians, along with Trevor-Roper, Hilberg. He alone discovered and then offered to scientific community more new and important archival materials that all of other historians combined. Take the Goebbels diaries as one major example. And who is Deborah Lipstadt? She is a Jewish history professor at Emory University, Atlanta, US; her books go on sale in most of bookstores. I have never heard the names of Evans and Van Pelt before spotting Irving's website, the aren't world leading WWII authories, as some would like to portray. And since the gas chambers in question (those in Aushwitz) are really fakes and it was officially acknowledged by museum director and was quoted in the media, I can't believe these people to be good historians. Activists, maybe. On a salary. The article fails to acknowlenge this. And he didn't associate with Hezbollah and supplied the trigger mechanism to Tim McVeigh as Lipstand alleged, read the full trial transcript. The whole article looks like a joint collaborative effort by ADL activists and a groop of starving tabloid veterans.


 * Sir/madam (whoever you are), you are a fool. Irving is a Holocaust denier. Part of denying the Holocaust is denying the murder or Jews in gas chambers. I wish to point out to you that while to date no such specific "Führerbefehl" has been found, there is no necessity for it to exist in order to establish that Hitler was aware of the Holocaust. In addition, particularly in the context of the Wannsee Conference, it has been proven that the upper echelons of the Nazi regime did indeed give orders that resulted in the Holocaust. I would also like to point you to this document. The gas chambers are not fakes. You have not provided us with any evidence in your argument other than to say "they are fakes". You expect us to believe this? Prove it.
 * You state that "if you can't support your theories with evidence, you don't publish them" - please follow your own advise and either put up, or shut up. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "The gas chambers are not fakes." - and how do you prove this (other way than saying that your opponent did not prove his version)? See the video, about 27th minute ... do you consider the document to be fake? Can you prove it? If not - well, at least one chamber was rebuilt after the war => is not original => is fake ... hell, isn't somebody lying?


 * The gas chambers are an important facett of the industrial killing of Jews usually meant by Holocaust. Denying them is Holocaust denail. While it is true that the gas chambers currently on display in Auschwitz are reconstructions (the original ones having been destroyed when the camp was partly evacuated near the end of WWII), he also denies their use in killing millions of Jews. (Yes, of course you could say that 'holocaust' is a Greek word for animal sacrifice and that Irving doesn't deny animal sacrifices in ancient Greece. It would, however, be completely besides the point. And yes, you can of course habour doubt as to the existence of gas chambers and as to Hitlers's knowing about them. Makes about as much scientific sense as doubting gravitiy and testing it once more by jumping off a bridge.) 134.105.168.67 12:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Gravity, my friend? Well, I guess you know what happened when a certain Galileo visited a certain tower in Pisa.


 * Denying gas chambers is NOT the same as Holocaust denial. 6 million Jews and up to 6 million others died in the holocaust. There are full records of this (the Nazis were merticulous in their document keeping) as well as eye witness accounts -- regardless of who you think was giving the orders at the top. To my mind, it is clear that the holocaust victims (Jews and others) were (largely) exectued with Zyclon B and then the bodies cremated. If someone else chooses to say that this "conventional" wisdom is wrong and that major mode of execution took another form (say, shooting, mass drowning or starvation -- all of which are also documented to have been used) then it is NOT the same as denying the deaths actually took place.

If any of the anti-Irving crowd would like to lay this to rest once and for all, have ( or at least try to) the Arolson files of the Red Cross opened for public use. If you don't like the sound of that then tone it down a bit. The Red Cross monitored the camps and mass gassings would be impossible to hide from inspectors for 4 years. Put up or shut up. I am sorry I just tried to look up Arolson on wikipedia - no luck, gee you guys may have never hears of the files - read a lot you may be able to catch up with history.


 * The reason you failed to find it, my friend, is because you are using the incorrect spelling. The correct spelling is Bad Arolsen. Perhaps you owe us an apology? --Davril2020 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wanted to put my two cents in
I have noticed the bias against Mr Irving because I myself am a bit biased in favor of Mr Irving's, mainly because of the outstanding accusations (not proven nor disproven convincingly) of the ADL and Nizkor (both of which are political and religious and have close ties in relations and monies to parties opposed to Mr Irving) and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt. I think the current article is vastly improved on the early October version, kudos to Mr. Ortolan88 and others in the spectacular additions and refinement. guest
 * David Irving sued and lost. He is a holocaust denier, and he has been given far too much time and attention already.

Article is anti-Irving
This article is quite anti-Irving. Please neutralize it. Taw 14:15 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * That is quite hard since Irving is most of all anti-himself. A self-destructive man if there ever was one.--GeneralPatton 05:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes i agree, all the pictures of irving in this article show him looking grouchy which puts him in a negative light. this article should be more neutral. -- Phantomtiger


 * I also note the articles on Hitler, Idi Amin and Stalin focus far too much on their grumpy photos and mass murders. This trivializes their clear positive attributes -- I hear Idi was a big fan of knitting. We need more about how these people were nice to kittens and looked after their mothers. Coricus 07:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Irving is a man with known connections to European fascists and neo-Nazis. He is the leading Nazi apologist active today. His fallacies were proven in court. Let's not try to make him out as a confused student who got into a debate that was over his head. Danny 00:48 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * Dan, did you delete about two hours of my research into the subject just to piss me off, or to Bait me into a conflict? Or both? Ill credit you with the verisimilitude to do the reasonable thing and chop the article up into little bits if you like instead of outright reverting it with the wave of your majestic hand. Im not clear that you bothered to read it. Respectfully -Stevert  ( the "Apologist" )

Oh, I read it. And I stand by my revert. Danny

I do not agree with the revert. The previous revision should be edited, not reverted. --Eloquence 04:56 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

While the recent version had numerous dubious, apologetic, and naive remarks, "Irving could be seen as ..." etc, a good deal of what was there was useful as raw material to be edited. I have some material to add, notably the scene in court when Irving referred to the judge as "Mein Führer", and some assistance in sorting out the fact that Irving brought the suit and was found not to have been harmed because what Deborah Lipstadt had said was true. There's no question that some of the article was argumentative and not NPOV, but it was there to be edited in the usual Wikipedia fashion, not simply deleted. Much of what was deleted would have been in any article on this interesting, controversial, and now discredited historian. I will be glad to work on a reverted version, provided there is no edit war and no name-calling. Ortolan88 05:23 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Is it allright if I call you a "damn sturdy Wikipedian"? -Stevert

I would be more than fine if you worked on it, Ortolan. Danny

And due to my ties to the Neo-nazi Filipino hemp mafia, I will forever recuse myself from ever touching the subject ever, ever, again. -Stevert

Nizkor has a fairly good collection of info about Irving. --Eloquence 05:38 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Um ... er ... okay, give me a bit of time, a day maybe, to look over some research. Let's leave the stub for the moment. I hope others will contribute as well, including the people signing in to this talk page. Ortolan88

Details of recent edit. Removed several references to Irving's income, desire to earn money, etc. added bibliography, this guy was a real hard worker, added a bit about the prestige he had, particularly the acceptance of his Dresden figures (need to move dresden casualty information from talk page to that article). Proceeding slowly, story of his books needs to be expanded, need much more about trial, Irving conducting his own defense, need to examine previous versions of article to make sure I haven't missed anything, working mostly from secondary sources. I do think this is a fascinating story and hope I am keeping it NPOV and on the up and up. Ortolan88 04:04 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

This article falls short of NPOV. Funny that one of the editors of this article should be making snide remarks about Irving's 'supposed' scholarship when that same author clearly doesn't apply those same high standards of scholarship to themselves.

Obviously, this article is the product of partisans with pre-existing agendas, including perhaps Judaic activism, as is evident from the privileging of Jewish experiences under the Nazi regime over experiences of other abused groups like the Gypsies. Irving is chastised for refusing to consent to the belief that a Jewish soul is metaphysically more valuable than a non-Jewish soul, and thus the reason for his ostracism. Irving shall remain unforgiven for not adopting a Judeocentric perspective in the Goering biography (is it possible that Goering had a life and career beyond the scope of the simplistic dualism of the propaganda of the victors? Such a question is unaskable), for his refusal to cave in to slithering scholarly conformity in general.There is no room for partisanship in a respectable encyclopedia, even considering the improbability of objective judgement of an era so close to the presentday. Yet removing the distemper'd moralism wouldn't mean endorsing his scholarship.


 * The two previous paragraphs were made by users using two different IP numbers several months apart, so not necissarily the same person (although the seem quite similar in content). Just thought I'd mention that in case someone thought it was all part of the same message. Saul Taylor 22:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
Anonymous user 65.146.0.29 seems to have been subtly trying to make a point by associating Norman Finkelstein and The Holocaust Industry with Holocaust revisionism. This is a dishonest and wholly inadmissible addition which must be immediately reverted --as I just did. Sir Paul 01:40, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of NPOV, as hard as it is maintaining this when writing about crimes like Holocaust, it has to be included, since Irving in his paranoia presents the “Holocaust Industry” as going “after him”. Just as this bit on Deborah Lipstadt that was taken out of the article about her should be put back. "Sir John Keegan sums up the view of WW2 historians conserning her with the remark that she is boring, self-righteous, politically correct and that no serious historian will be interested in anything she writes." --GeneralPatton 05:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

However, its not fair to group Finkelstein with the likes of Irving. --GeneralPatton 05:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A self confessed "mild fascist"
from ADL website

When asked at the time by The Daily Mail about his political beliefs, he replied, "[Y]ou can call me a mild fascist if you like. I have just come back from [Francisco Franco's] Madrid...I returned through Germany and visited Hitler's eyrie at Berchtesgaden. I regard it as a shrine." --GeneralPatton 11:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-) It'd be ideal to track down the original Daily Mail reference, but that can wait I suppose. I've also made that page the ADL link in External links - to link to a document rather than a search - David Gerard 11:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * on May 1, 1959 the Daily Mail reporter Clifford Luton quoted David Irving, then a student at London University, as saying, "You can call me a mild fascist if you like.". Of course, Irving is giving it his conspiracy spin, presenting it as another part of some grand conspiracy against his &#8220;work&#8221;, but the fact remains that he was quoted while still being a nobody and before any of his "work" was published. Its another typical manipulation of his. Distorting facts and ignoring common sense. --GeneralPatton 12:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And there is also this page about Irving on ADL's website --GeneralPatton 12:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would not hold in high regard the ADL's website in this entry, as it does have political agendas, is active in politics, and by nature has an inherent bias against those with opposing views. May I suggest a neutral source for information, or at least a counterpoint in Irving's own words (from his own publications)? The ADL is also known to change their site frequently due to the high number of offsite-linking of documents and photographs; link with caution. User:Anonymous 19:18 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"but the fact remains" - well not quite. Mr Irving insistes that he never said the above quote. But once a lie is printed it takes on a life of its own. The reporter who wrote the piece has his own interesting history both in and out of jail. ( love this ad hominem stuff - I am a regular Derrschowitz - I saw him at Harvard debating Chomsky, D. is a true embarrassment to the cause ). Wikipedia truly is the largest source for garbage I have ever read - particularly when it is protecting the collective Jewish butt - on nonpolitical issues and topics it is almost okay.

Removed "Greedy"
Para 8, 2nd sentence: "The book tends to ignore Göring's role in the Holocaust and his greedy theft of art treasures."

removed greedy as it is an emotional & relative term. Furthermore, labelling it as greedy only sensationalizes it. It is not helpful --Duemellon 19:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note about reversion
I've reverted Xed's latest edit -- he jumbled things around (introducing at least one grammatical error in the process) in what I can only assume was an attempt to make Irving look better. Among the additions Xed made was to allege (truthfully, for all I know) that the reporter who quoted Irving as saying he was a "mild fascist" was later arrested on pedophilia charges -- a sick example of ad hominem argument which it pains me to repeat. Also, numerous pro-Irving quotations were added, most of them without an accompanying date (which, I would suspect, would reveal that most of the positive press about Irving predates his increasing alignment with Holocaust denial). I'm open to having some nice quotes about Irving, as long as we balance them with other quotations revealing other POVs. Otherwise we're doing a whitewash job on a very controversial author that most historians seem to feel is beneath contempt. Just explaining my actions... Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The remarks by John Keegan, a respected military historian, were probably contemporary with, or even after, the trial. Keegan was one of Irving's witnesses at the trial.  I have no idea where he is coming from on this, but he has been, in his own way, pro-Irving.    Many links in this Google search I'm not pro-Nazi at all, but an examination and expostion of Keegan's views on Irving could be appropriate.  Ortolan88 02:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realized Keegan's remark was so recent -- well, that would certainly be one to include. But I think we'd also need to include the view of at least one prominent historian who takes the opposing view, if not more -- after all, prevailing opinion among historians is very against Irving's conclusions, and I think we do NPOV a disservice to pretend either that Irving is a universalyl praised scholar or a deeply divisive writer who is supported by many and opposed by many.  I think any fair recounting of the facts has to relate that, whether you think Irving accurate or not, he's mostly alone in the historical community (and I personally suspect he likes it that way). Jwrosenzweig 14:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keegan was an Irving witness because after Keegan refused to testify on his behalf, Irving subpoena'd him anyway. On the stand     Keegan said (to Irving) "I continue to think it perverse of you to propose that Hitler could not have known until as late as October 1943 what was going on to the Jewish people." and later stated that Irving's view "defies common sense" and "defies reason."  Here are some of Keegan's other views of Irving:


 * In his _The Battle for History_ Keegan also wrote:


 * "Some controversies are entirely bogus, like David Irving's contention that Hitler's subordinates kept from him the facts of the Final Solution, the extermination of the Jews..." (p.10)


 * "No historian of the Second World War can afford to ignore Irving. His depiction of Hitler [in _Hitler's War_], by its relation of the war's development to the decisions and responses of Fu"hrer headquarters, is a key corrective to the Anglo-Saxon version, which relates the war's history solely in terms of Churchillian defiance and the growth of the Grand Alliance. Nevertheless, it is a flawed vision, for it is untouched by moral judgement. For Irving, the Second World War was a war like other other wars - naked struggle for national self-interrest - and Hitler, one war leaders among others. Yet, the Second World War must engage our moral sense. Its destructiveness, its disruption of legal and social order, were on a scale so disordinate that it cannot be viewed as a war among other wars; its opposition of ideologies, democratic versus totalitarian, none the less stark because democracy perforce allied itself with one form of totalitarianism in the struggle against another, invariably invests the war with moral content; above all, Hitler's institution of genocide demands a moral commitment." (pp.50-51.)


 * Jayjg 04:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I, for one, think the previous two paragraphs here (Irving's challenge to conventional Anglo historians, first stated, then answered and rejected firmly by Keegan) and the business about Keegan as a witness and his remarks directed at Irving, all are worth having in the article. The "pedophile" business, no, but the article clearly shows that Irving was in his innermost being, profoundly silly and self-destructive, and a pro-Nazi.  Inclusion of this material won't change that, but will illuminate aspects of Irving as a historian, however discredited.  I don't think I'm being naive here.  I see no reason to reject material that advances the article.  And why not unlock the article?  We've surmounted edit wars before here and gotten a pretty good article too. Ortolan88 05:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that Keegan's views about Irving should be included in the article, both positive and negative. A quote with no context is not the way to do so.  Would you like to work on something more balanced and informative, or would you prefer me to? Jayjg 14:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's a proposed paragraph about Keegan:

Irving's strongest, and perhaps only remaining supporter amongst historians is the respected British historian Sir John Keegan. During the trial Keegan stated "I continue to think it perverse of you to propose that Hitler could not have known until as late as October 1943 what was going on to the Jewish people." and later stated that Irving's view "defies common sense" and "defies reason." However, after the trial Keegan praised Irving for his understanding of Hitler's military strategy, and in an April 12, 2000 article in the Daily Telegraph stated that Irving had an "all-consuming knowledge of a vast body of material" and "many of the qualities of the most creative historians", that his skill as an archivist could not be contested, that he was "certainly never dull." 

Comments? Jayjg 21:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dresden numbers
The article currently lists Irving's Dresden death numbers at "130,000 to more than 200,000". However, every source I have seen on this lists Irving's original statement about the lower bound as 135,000, which differs from the current text, and also from Xed's persistent attempt to change the number to 35,000. See, for example, the text of Justice Gray's Lipstadt judgement which points out that Irving specifically disbelieved the number 35,000, and insisted that it had been arrived at in this way: "According to Irving, Voigt told him that the estimate of 35,000 made by the Russians had been arrived at by striking off the first digit from the figure of 135,000." The judgement also shows that while at the trial Irving claimed that "estimates of casualties in Dresden have indeed ranged between 35,000 and 250,000", Irving himself has never made estimates that low. Instead, he has made many conflicting statements about the numbers in various editions of the book, other writings, and in public statement, all much higher than 35,000. More importantly, regarding the information in the paragraph itself, "in the 1966 edition of The Destruction of Dresden Irving contended that 135,000 were estimated authoritatively to have been killed and further contended that the documentation suggested a figure between 100,00[0] and 250,000" I recommend that the article be changed to reflect this, namely, that the book stated that 135,000 were estimated authoritatively, and that documentation suggested a figure between 100,000 and 250,000. Comments? Jayjg 18:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Irving states he believes a figure of 25,000 to be accurate in a letter to The Times (1966) - :
 * Sir, -- Your newspaper has an enviable reputation for accuracy, and your readiness to correct the smallest errors from one day to the next is an inspiration to your readers; but how can a historian correct a mistake, when once he finds himself to have been wrong? I ask the indulgence of your columns.
 * The bombing of Dresden in 1945 has in recent years been adduced by some people as evidence that conventional bombing can be more devastating than nuclear attacks, and others have sought to draw false lessons from this. My own share of the blame for this is large: in my 1963 book The Destruction of Dresden I stated that estimates of the casualties in that city varied between 35,000 and over 200,000.
 * The higher figures did not seem absurd when the circumstances were taken into account. I had tried for three years to bring to light German documents relating to the damage, but the east German authorities were unable to assist me. Two years ago I procured from a private east German source what purported to be extracts from the Police President's report, quoting the final death-roll as "a quarter of a million"; the other statistics it contained were accurate, but it is now obvious that the death-roll statistic was falsified, probably in 1945.
 * The east German authorities (who had originally declined to provide me with the documents have now supplied to me a copy of the 11-page "final report" written by the area police chief about one month after the Dresden raids, and there is no doubt as to this document's authenticity. In short, the report shows that the Dresden casualties were on much the same scale as in the heaviest Hamburg raids in 1943. The document's author, the Höhere SS- und Polizeiführer Elbe, was responsible for civil defence measures in Dresden, it should be noted.
 * His figures are very much lower than those I quoted. The crucial passage reads:
 * "Casualties: by 10th March, 1945, 18,375 dead, 2,212 seriously injured, and 13,918 slightly injured had been registered, with 350,000 homeless and permanently evacuated." The total death-roll, "primarily women and children", was expected to reach 25,000; fewer than a hundred of the dead were servicemen. Of the dead recovered by then, 6,865 had been cremated in one of the city squares. A total of 35,000 people were listed as "missing".
 * The general authenticity of the report is established beyond doubt, because within a very few days of receiving the first, a second wartime German report was supplied to me, this time from a western source. It repeats exactly the figures listed in the above report, upon which it was evidently based.
 * The second report, a Berlin police summary of "Air Raids on Reich Territory", dated March 22, 1945, was found, quite by chance, misfiled among the 25,000 Reich Finance Ministry files currently being explored at the west German Federal Archives. It was forwarded to me by one of their archivists, Doctor Boberach.
 * I have no interest in promoting or perpetuating false legends, and I feel it is important that in this respect the record should be set straight.
 * I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, David Irving


 * Irving may indeed have stated that estimates were in a broader range, but those were not estimates he believed. Rather, he stated the figure of 135,000 as authoritative.  Furthermore, on many subsequent occasions he himself stated the numbers were far higher, as follows:
 * in the 1971 edition the figure for those killed was placed at more than 100,000;
 * in 1989 when launching the 'Leuchter Report' in Britain Irving informed journalists present that between 100,000 and 250,000 were killed;
 * in 1992 Irving told the Institute of Historical Review that 100,000 people were killed in twelve hours by the British and the Americans;
 * in 1993 in a video made for the Australian public Irving contended that over 130,000 died;
 * in the 1995 edition of The Destruction of Dresden the attack was estimated to have killed 50,000 and 100,000 inhabitants;
 * in 1996 in Goebbels: The Mastermind of the Third Reich Irving noted that between 60,000 and 100,000 people has been killed in the raids on Dresden.
 * in a speech in South Africa in 1986 Irving stated that 100,000 people were killed in one night in Dresden;
 * in Ontario in 1991 he told and an audience that over 100,000 people were killed in one night in February 1945;
 * in a television documentary screened on 28 November 1991 Irving said that 25,000 people may have been executed in Auschwitz but five times that number were killed in Dresden in one night, and
 * at the launch of the 'Leuchter Report' to in 1989 Irving stated that there were 1,000,000 refugees in Dresden of whom "hundreds of thousands" were killed.
 * I note that all of these statements by Irving post-date that letter to The Times. In any event, the article itself deals with the original book, which stated the number 135,000 as "authoritative", and estimated much higher possibilities.  Also, it would be helpful if you signed your edits. Jayjg 20:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * On his web site in 2004/02/13 he used the phrase "which burned alive over one hundred thousand people, mostly civilians". Mozzerati 21:39, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

- OK, I propose changing the paragraph to this:

In the first edition of the book Irving's figures for deaths in Dresden, which he initially reported as estimated authoritatively at 135,000, and which he himself estimated at between 100,000 and 250,000, were an order of magnitude higher than anyone else's. Nonetheless, these figures became widely accepted and were repeated in many standard references and encyclopedias. Over the next three decades later editions of the book gradually modified that figure downwards to a range of 50,000-100,000, but during that time Irving also made a number of public statements indicating that 100,000 or more Germans had been killed. It was not until the hearing of Irving's libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt in 2000 that the figures were discredited. See the Dresden bombing article for more information on casualty figures, estimated at closer to 40,000.

Comments? Jayjg 20:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Among the holocaust deniers..
David Irving has questioned many aspects of the holocaust, rightly or wrongly. Of late he's never "denied" it and i believe it sounds non NPOV to call him a denier, when he does not explicitly deny the holocaust happened.


 * Please read the article on Holocaust denial to understand what the term means. Jayjg 04:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"far-right" and "extreme right-wing"
These phrases are used to describe Irving's contacts in a couple of places in the article. They appear vague at best, POV at worst; which groups or people are they referring to? Jayjg 03:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Irving gave lectures to the Deutsche Volksunion in 1982; the West German Office for the Protection of the Constitution categorised the DVU as "right wing extremist", saying in a 1985 report that, despite Irving's insistence that the DVU is/was (not sure if it still exists) a "longstanding democratic party", they "hatred against foreigners, anti-Semitism, playing down [the crimes] of the National Socialist terror regime and disparagement of democratic institutions". (from the ADL). [[User:DO'Neil|DO'&#1048;eil]] 04:41, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's in the 80s. The article claims he was working with the "far-right" and "extreme right-wing" in the 60s in Spain and Germany; who were these people? Jayjg 04:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The early years of Irving&#8217;s radical activism are not as documented as his later hears as he was not that well know then, however ever since his college days his pro fascist feelings have been known. This also has to do with the fact that the deniers were not as organized or as open about it as they are now.GeneralPatton 22:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If you have a claim in there that cannot be verified, it will undoubtedly be challenged. Perhaps it is best to leave it out. Jayjg 22:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it is verifiable that he got acquainted with many far right and former Nazi leaders. GeneralPatton 22:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should be more explicit about that, then. Jayjg 22:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This is misleading. Irving is a historian of WWII who has discovered countless new documents through interviewing survivors-- of course he would "get acquainted with" eyewitnesses and historical figures of the war, including prominent Nazis . NapoleonicStudent 04:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the real blame for his forced suicide lay with his associates
"lay with his associates"; whose associates, Hitler's or Rommel's? Jayjg 21:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Rommel's, Irving quite viciously attacked Rommel's chief of staff General Hans Speidel and his other associates, all of whom were passionate anti-Nazis and achieved high rank in post-war Germany. This is why I referred to “Hitler and his cronies” (which they were) as in opposed to Rommel and his associates. GeneralPatton 21:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "Cronies" is POV. Please see the question in the section above this one as well; specifically, who were the far-right groups that Irving associated with in Spain? Jayjg 22:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * For the first issue, how about "clique"? And for the seccond issue, well, Its generally believed that while he was a fascist sympathizer in the UK, he acquired firsthand contacts with German Nazi sympathizers during his days in the Ruhr steel mills, that&#8217;s probably why he went there in the first place. As I&#8217;ve said they were not as organized back then, but it helped him open the doors for his later works. GeneralPatton 22:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article as of September 30, 2004
I’d say that we have a pretty complete article by now, only the “persona non grata” section needs some work and still some various details could be inserted about his books. From just about 600 words three months ago, the article has almost 3000 words now. GeneralPatton 18:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Images
Here are two more images that I have uploaded but didn't quite make it into the current revision of the article, the first one is from the same event as the one with the gun so i didn't want to be repetitive and the second one makes him look too nice. GeneralPatton 04:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)



Picture caption
Why is "Irving, seen here holding a submachine gun in a bookstore, the 1990s, . Its owner, the son of a freedom fighter in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 who had taken it from a soldier he had killed." a better picture caption? It's a paragraph, not a caption, and it's all about the history of the machine gun in the picture. This is an article about Irving, not the stuff he is holding in various pictures. Are we going to put in long captions describing the pen and books he is holding in various other captions? Jayjg 04:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The caption is badly garbled too, but basically the picture is a distraction. Irving wasn't a soldier, did not participate in the Hungarian rebellion, doesn't own the submachine gun, did not shoot up the bookstore, etc.  One of the other pictures above would be better if we need another picture at all.  Is the point to make Irving not "look too nice"?  Really, I repeat, that particular picture illuminates nothing about Irving and takes away from the article by introducing a confusing image.    Ortolan88 04:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't think the article needs the picture at all, it has enough pictures of him already, at various ages. Each section really only needs one picture IMHO, and the second one with him carrying the books and files is quite relevant to the section, which is maily about the trial. However, I think General Patton, who provided these pictures and captions, should weigh in as well. Jayjg 04:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Tired of waiting, removed the picture (see over there):


 * I repeat,


 * Irving wasn't a soldier, did not participate in the Hungarian rebellion, doesn't own the submachine gun, did not shoot up the bookstore, etc.


 * The only reason I can think of to put in the picture is to make Irving look bad. I think he looks bad enough as it is, this picture is nothing but "piling on" (term from American football meaning landing on a ball carrier after he's already down).  This is a happenstance image that illustrates nothing about Irving, and, in fact, distracts from the article.  If you disagree, let's discuss here rather than simply restoring the picture. Ortolan88 20:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought it looked cool, but then I like guns and such. As far as what makes him look "bad" (are we talking michael jackson bad... or michael jackson molesting kids "bad".. or what?) who cares. Their all fair pictures to me, none have been altered to give him a halo or horns, etc..., so why worry? The article certainly has no excess of pics, IMO. Sam [Spade] 20:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In what way is it relevant to the article? What does it add?  If a picture isn't relevant, even one picture is an excess of pictures.  Ortolan88 23:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Irving wrote a book, Uprising, about the 1956 Hungarian, um, uprising. I am assuming that someone in Hungary read his book, liked it, and presented him with this gun as thanks.NapoleonicStudent 04:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi
Is "neo-Nazi" a correct designation for Irving? -Willmcw 17:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's been designated as such in the article, has he? It says he associate with Neo-Nazi groups, which is true. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * He is in the "Neo-nazis" category. I understand that he associates with neo-nazis, is a holocaust denier, etc. But I'm not sure that anyone calls him a "neo-nazi&quot;. Or maybe they do. Unless someone pipes up with a reference for Irving being labelled a "neo-nazi" I'll pull that categorization. -Willmcw 18:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can 100% state he is a Neo-Nazi; openly associating with neo-Nazi groups, and making speeches at their rallies, isn't quite enough in my view. You could put him in the Holocaust denier, or anti-Semite categories, if they existed, since the legal ruling against him specificially stated that. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've come across a reference to Irving being a big supporter of neo-nazis in Germany, which is close enough, I suppose, to leave the categorization. But it would be better if the text matched the category - if he is categorized as a neo-nazi then ideally that label should be in the text as well. Not a big deal. -Willmcw 20:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Since somebody is once classified as 'neonazi' or even 'holocaust denier', everythíng and everybody turns against such person. Even, if before this 'marking', he/she was a serious person. That's the problem about holocaust generally. People can freely claim that Earth isn't a globe, can claim that communists didn't exist, but cannot claim holocaust was different from the official claiming. Why oh why?! --brozkeff

Removed "freedom of expression" irony?
I'm new to Wikipedia and I wondered what criteria you use for removing edits to articles? I added the line, "This was especially ironinic as it was Irving who was challenging Lipstadt's freedom of expression" to the section about his libel trial.

This seems like a perfectly reasonable inference, yet it was removed within minutes. Does anybody know why?


 * It wasn't removed from what I can tell. Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - there must be a caching problem with my browser.

Irving was not discredited as a historian in the defamation suit
I find this article highly biased, particularly as regards Irving's reputation within the historical field. As Judge Gray in his defamation case said in his ruling:

"As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives.... It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War Two is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover, he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favorable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the caliber of Irving's military history".

An endorsement from Keegan is hardly to be taken lightly.

The judge did not discredit Irving, he remains widely respected in the field. For instance, a campaign to have his biographies removed from the library at West Point (among other military colleges) was pointedly rejected.

The ruling of the trial simply denied that Lipstadt's allegations constituted slander; that's all. (posted by User:209.29.46.2)


 * Hi, welcome to wikipedia, it's worth reading through the final judgement (which is available online). Lipstadt's primary defense was that Irving had deliberately misrepresented historical documents, told lies and misused historical evidence.  In finding for Lipstadt the judge agreed with Lipstadt (otherwise he had to find for Irving; she didn't deny that those were her allegations).  Whilst it is true that that is just the opinion of one judge, and Irving could still have appealed, he did not and has failed in a number of other legal situations.  Since the primary part of a historian's reputation is his honesty and ability to correctly represent historical sources, it is reasonable to say that the trial has discredited Irving.   However, that does not mean his books should be burnt.  The work of liars also needs to be available since otherwise it is impossible for people to know what was really said.  For this reason West Point was competely correct to keep his books. Mozzerati 16:41, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)


 * 209.29, David Irving was trashed as an historian during the trial. Please read the full judgment and Lying about Hitler by Richard J. Evans, the Cambridge historian who was an expert witness. Evans calls the judge's remarks you cited "sugaring the pill." The judge concluded that Irving had been highly selective in the documents he chose to discuss, was not even-handed, had taken no account of the circumstances in which documents had been produced, had deliberately misrepresented and distorted evidence, had made assertions about the Nazis that were irreconcilable with the available evidence, that he is anti-Semitic, that he is racist, that he has associated with neo-Nazis, that he himself is a right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist, that he manipulates the historical record, and that he incontrovertibly qualifies as a Holocaust denier. But yes, apart from the above, Irving is a great historian. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

claims of POV
i do not understand how people can claim that this article is POV with a straight face. When someone lies, you say, "he lied." Is this POV? This is a fact. David Irving is a more complicated conundrum than this, surely, but it always seems that neo-nazis and their ilk skewer the facts by simply saying it is biased. If Irving fabricated something, that is what he did, and no matter what you think the bias is, he fabricated it. This is usually not a favorable quality in a historian. To stare all the evidence in the face and continue to deny his fallibility is naive.

This is not necessarily an immediate issue, but I see no reason to even debate this issue. One can claim and raise an issue about anything and act indignant about it; it's whether you have anything to back your claims up. Neo-Nazis, the far right, and David Irving clearly (pov?) don't.

i guess i'm just sick of seeing articles in this category on wikipedia have trouble being factual because of long, pointless, racist debates.

Lockeownzj00 15:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon deletions
To the anon IP: please stop deleting this reference.  This is regarded as a credible reference for Wikipedia, and in removing it, you're leaving the paragraph with no reference at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

To Slim Virgin
There is plenty of credible concern in the USA and the World about the ADL's bias. It has in many instances been called a "hate group". Wikipedia should not rely on sources that are deemed "biased" by most people in the world.

How has Wikipedia determined that the ADL is credible?

There is too much information that proves otherwise about the ADL, which puts their impartiality on many issues in serious doubt for Wikipedia users. (posted by User:69.217.126.180)


 * Thanks for your reply. The ADL is a source that WP regards as reputable. Although some highly partisan organizations (e.g. white-supremacist groups) claim that the ADL is biased, I haven't seen these claims repeated in mainstream, reputable publications, though if you have such a reference, I'd appreciate seeing it. I know from my own research that whenever I've checked ADL information against other reputable sources, I've always found the ADL to be factually correct. What puzzles me about your deletions is that you don't seem to be disputing the information: you're removing only the source, but not the information that came from the source. Also, could you sign your posts to talk pages please? You can do this by typing four tildes after your post like this ~ . Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: Can you kindly tell us Wikipedia users:  How has Wikipedia determined that the ADL is credible? The ADL has been noted across the world in many countries as jewish-supremacist organization that is highly partisan and focused on jewish and israeli issues. It is not known for impartiality. It is an advocacy group. Also, the ADL has not always been factually correct, that is an impossible assertion. (posted by User:69.217.126.180)


 * According to whom is the ADL a "jewish-supremacist organization"? Jayjg (talk) 20:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you sign your posts please? See Sign your posts on talk pages. The ADL campaigns against bigotry, most notably against anti-Semitism, racism, and homophobia. It has been criticized by groups like Stormfront (online site), a neo-Nazi group, and the LaRouche movement, an extreme rightwing, arguably fascist and anti-Semitic cult. Regarding factual accuracy, what I wrote was that, whenever I have checked an ADL claim, I have found it to be factually correct. If you can provide examples of when the ADL published factually incorrect claims, or if you have an example of criticism from a reputable mainstream publication, I'd be happy to see it. But my point still stands: you're removing the source, but not the information the source provided, which seems odd. Perhaps you could explain? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:46, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because a group like Stormfront or LaRouche or whatever else criticizes ADL, that does not constitute an argument for or against the dependability of the ADL. I guess this would be a logical fallacy best described as "honour by disassociation". Having good experiences with fact checking ADL statements also does not constitute much of an argument, as you haven't told us how many arguments you have checked out of how many. And finally, I believe that since you are the one using the source, you need to provide evidence of the reliability of ADL. It is not the other party who needs to prove it is not reliable, as he did not introduce the ADL as a source.
 * However, I do agree that if you remove the source, you also need to remove the information gathered from that source. Of course. (Arild 01:36, Jan 28, 2006 (CET))

Can Wikipedia be even-handed?
--Many people across the world know and call the ADL biased. There are thousands of instances of this press across the world. You may not like it, but it is true. The ADL's input on a topic like this is inherently biased. Irving is their declared enemy. Why should an partisan organization, an advocacy group, be allowed to be quoted as a honest source for an Encyclopedia article about their enemy? It defies logic and it's ridiculous for Wikipedia users to accept.

For the third time please: Can someone or an "administrator" kindly tell us Wikipedia users:  How has Wikipedia determined that the ADL is credible and reputable?


 * I'm an administrator, but it's not the job of administrators to evaluate source material. Rather than argue about the ADL in general, perhaps you could be specific about the passage they were used as a source for, below. If there's something in here that you feel is inaccurate, please say what and we can check it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Irving first gained notoriety as a student at Imperial College London, where he wrote for the student newspaper and served as the editor of the London University Carnival Committee’s journal, Carnival Times. Here, Irving made allegations such as 'the national press is owned by Jews', and contributed to a variety of extremist features, including racist cartoons, a defense of South African apartheid, and an appreciative look at Nazi Germany as a result of which Irving was removed from his editorial duties."


 * Why do you feel this is inaccurate? And please sign your posts. Jayjg (talk)  21:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT even-handed
SlimVirgin: You stated that Wikipedia has deemed the ADL "reputable". Please answer this simple question for the fourth time, by whom and how was that determination made? using what criteria?

I couldn't do a better job of showing the ADL's bias, animosity and hatred of Mr. Irving than he shows himself: http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/ADL/index.html

Look, it's simple, if you are going to allow five links from a biased, advocacy organization like the ADL on a Wikipedia article about Irving, then the Wikipedia article about the ADL ought to contain an Irving link for balance. Let the reader decide which of these two declared enemies is being truthful. '''The best option is to not allow biased sources for either article. ''' Sure enough, it has already been removed from ADL's Criticism section by Jayjg: # (cur) (last)  21:17, 20 Apr 2005 Jayjg m (→Criticism - David Irving's views are relevant on a David Irving page, not here)

What a disgrace. Do you not see the hypocrisy? 5 ADL links are allowed by "administrators" on Mr. Irving's article, and none are similarly allowed by "administrators" on the ADL's. There is bias at work here, Wikipedia users. Who are these "administrators" and what are they trying to accomplish? (posted by anon IP)


 * David Irving is a thoroughly discredited source, and has been so discredited by a court. There isn't a reputable publisher in the world who will publish him now, which is why he self-publishes. This is the last post of yours I'm going to answer unless you say what's wrong with the edits you object to and sign your posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not that I care to entertain this notion that the ADL has to be justified on the spot in response to claims which are hardly presented with comparable justification, but I think it entirely mistaken to appeal to the authority of a court here in speaking of Irving's academic or professional status as a historian. It is not the function of the court to establish these matters. The sole matter at law was whether Lipstadt libelled Irving, which the court found that she did not. The court had to rely on an expert witness for an evaluation of Irving's historical scholarship, and it is to the Evans book that we ought refer, for surely we have as much need of such scholarship as did the court. Buffyg 02:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. The court decided Irving had not been libelled by being called a holocaust denier because of the evidence presented to it, which Evans coordinated. England's High Court does count as a reputable source for Wikipedia. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is simply that the court did not determine itself to be of direct competence to judge scholarship, which is as it should be. The court had necessarily to resort to an expert witness to evaluate substantial evidentiary matters in the case. The proofs of scholarship may be admissible in court, but at the end of the day it is scholars who must judge scholars on scholarly matters, which it is as it should be. It is a demonstration of Irving's lack of judgement, almost certainly the result of his success in other legal actions, threatened or substantially litigated, that led him to appeal to an institution of government to referee what was ultimately a debate about scholarship. That success was correlative to the costs to counsel and the courts of employing expert witnesses to review substantive facts. If you like, this is a logical consequence of Irving's inability to distinguish between what is scholarship and what is not, a hinge that came around or had come loose by the time that he bought into the Leuchter Report as a "scientific" repudiation of the gas chambers. Evidence may have been presented to the court, but the court rightly judged that it was not within its competence to decide between errors and wrongs in terms of scholarship, therefore requiring it to rely on an expert. Appealing to the court in this sense therefore seems to me misleading.
 * The imposition of legal apparatus or the threat of such imposition is a de facto means of censorship in terms of several operative economies, which was, I reckon, Irving's fundamental motive in resorting to threats of libel action (in terms of the cost this imposed on printing in the UK reasonable claims about Irving, such economies compelled an unfortunate complicity from many British publishers in effecting such censorship). Appealing to the court in this sense therefore seems to me profoundly misguided, if not dangerous. Wikipedia has accordingly explicitly repudiated this latter form of appeal as a means of adjudicating disputes between contributors. Buffyg 18:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure what your substantive point is. The court did judge his scholarship, and if you read the judgment, you'll see how it was judged. And courts always rely on witnesses, and often expert witnesses, so again I'm not sure what you're saying. Scholars had had plenty of opportunity prior to the case to judge Irving and many had declined to take it. Where does Wikipedia explicitly repudiate what you call "appealing to a court," which I assume means using a judgment as a source? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

--Slim, you are discredited. It's clear to all who read here you have a bias. You hate Irving it's clear to all, and you won't be even-handed or fair to Wikipedia users. You should avoid this topic, and any other Wikipedia topic if you cannot approach them with a clear, detached mind.

Having the ADL comment on David Irving is the academic equivalent of letting Osama Bin Laden tell Wikipedia readers about the facts of Israel. You show your bias by not seeing this.

Jayjg and SlimVirgin are low-life Jew propaganda artists. They spend their every waking moment weaseling Jew lies into Wikipedia articles and twisting articles to fit their weasely Jew views. They are pathetic sleazy manipulative little liars and perfect examples of why Jews have such a bad reputation. --24.30.67.158 00:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the edits they did on the Israeli Art Students article.
 * Bias against David Irving is an honorable and correct attitude. There's no moral obligation to be fairminded or even-handed toward Hitler worshippers. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (Disregarding the following comment, as I believe the commenter is beyond help) You may be right, but if you cannot be fairminded and even-handed about a subject, then you should not write about it in Wikipedia. It is not here for you to talk about how you feel, it is here to let other people read facts, or as close to that as one can get. I believe you may do well to consider if this is a subject you feel too strongly about to be able to do that. Arild 01:36, Jan 28, 2006 (CET)


 * Bias against Jew assholes is also an honorable and correct attitude. There's no obligation to be fairminded or evenhanded towards arrogant Jew bastard propagandists like you Jayjg and SlimVirgin, either. --24.30.67.158 00:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 24.30.67.158, you are discredited. It's clear to all who read here you have a bias.  You love Irving it's clear to all, and you won't be even-handed or fair to Wikipedia users. You should avoid this topic, and any other Wikipedia topic if you cannot approach them with a clear, detached mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that only jewish supremacists are allowed to edit
The point is not David Irving, but the intellectually dishonest position that the ADL can be unbiased. The ADL has been criticized all over the world as a biased advocacy group. It has also been indentified as a "hate group".

The Wikipedia Jews think that they are the only one's whose opinions count. They keep pushing and pushing until finally someone pushes back at which point they invariably cry "antisemitism!". It's no wonder that everyone from Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson to David Duke and Pat Buchanan hate Jews. They fully deserve to be hated. Jayjg and SlimVirgin provide evidence every damn day. --24.30.67.158 00:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody deserves to be hated for their religion or beliefs. Anti-semitism is a nasty and unwarranted emotion, and leaves a very bad taste in most people's mouths. Wikipedia doesn't need to give a platform to fascists and Nazis like you, it only needs to reflect the opinions of most reasonable people. Clearly you are not one of them. So if you don't like it, then fuck off. Go on, get lost. You won't be missed. Cunt. 129.180.1.144 00:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks.Geni 00:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--"Nobody deserves to be hated for their religion or beliefs". Well stated. Why do jewish supremacists on Wikipedia hold such intolerant and hateful views towards other posters? It is clear as day from reading above posts that Jewish-centric posters here are unreasonably biased and hate anyone with differing views. Even on something as simple as simply discussing the bias of the ADL as it relates to Irving? Fact: The ADL is known worldwide to be biased. It is an advocacy group for jews. It has also been called a "hate group".

--Wikipedia is supposed to be an open forum, not the private domain of Jewish-centric historians, editors, and activists. The ADL should be REMOVED as a credible source for this particular article. The "administrators" and their "tag-team" that covet the control of this article's content are not the type of contributors or people wanted on Wikipedia.

--All jewish supremacists are encouraged to take any unreasonable attitudes and comments to a zionist or jewish supremacist website where this type of bias belongs. Wikipedia needs to reflect the fair opinions of most reasonable people. It's clear for all to see that the Wikipedia Jews that "tag-team" to circumvent the 3R Rule are not among the reasonable or honest. Geni: Please do not use comments like: ''fuck off. Go on, get lost.'' ever again on this website.

No personal attacks please, and no more slurs either, nobody here is a "nazi" except those whose actions exhibit nasty and racially motivated attempts to control open debate, free speech and fairness. (unsigned comment by )


 * Heh heh. A guy who uses the term "Wikipedia Jews" to describe how "they" control Wikipedia asserts the ADL is too biased to quote as a source. Snicker. Snort.Gzuckier 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Actions speak louder than words, Gzukier. One can "track" the actions and messages of the jewish supremacists' "tag-team" that send each other notices to post to circumvent the 3R rule, stifling other Wikipedians' ability to contribute. It is CLEAR for all to see. It's dishonest, and the fact that "administrators" are involved in this activity is a disgrace.

--Can some other "administrators" take a closer look please? Wikipedia does not need Jewish activists selectively deleting and posting their proprietary content on an open Encyclopedia, it hurts Wikipedia and its mission for honesty. They should be banned. Other "Administrators" that can be fair and honest: PLEASE REVIEW. (SlimVirgin, Jayjg, et al, kindly refrain, you have already been discredited as partisan and biased on this issue).

--The issue at hand: Nobody has yet to answer (for the 5th time), by whose criteria has the ADL been deemed "reputable" when the group is has been criticized worldwide for its selective advocacy? And why should anyone consider the ADL's input on one of its arch-enemies (Irving) unbiased? It defies logic. And lastly, why do selective Wikipedians continually delete others' contributions under the "Criticism" section of the ADL article? The ADL has been criticized, that is 100% fact. Let's stop controlling other peoples' fair right to contribute to Wikipedia, and ban the jewish supremacism we are seeing. (posted by User:69.217.121.160)


 * Do Irving acolytes really imagine that Irving is one of the ADL's "arch-enemies"? LOL! Jayjg (talk)  19:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Jayjg, the ADL has devoted millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to studying Irving. If he was not of consequence to the ADL, this would not have occurred. For you to imply that the ADL does not view Irving as an enemy does not hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. The ADL is a biased source on this topic. Now quit being the jewish supremacist that any Wikipedian can see that you are (from your activity on this site) and run along to the next shuffleboard game!! LOL. Or is being a Jewish propagandist your full-time job?


 * Dude!? Have you ever contributed anything at all to Wikipedia except to alert us all to the Jewish plot to dominate it? Gzuckier 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Millions of dollars? Sigh.  I suppose there is no point in even asking, but could you possibly provide some sort of evidence for this latest claim?  As for your abusive comments, if you continue you will no doubt be blocked for violation of Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk)  18:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of links
Gzuckier: "Contribute"? Are you serious?!

What do you think I have been TRYING to do? Two days ago I found Wikipedia for the first time, but I have learned how it operates--and I have learned fast.

Who has been harassing me, vandalizing my input, reverting my opinion, and KEEPING ME from contributing?
 * Just a guess; the unfortunate paranoid fixation which prevents you from turning your attentions from the single random item which has so sadly placed your self in permanent thrall? Gzuckier 16:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Gzuckier: more slurs?  Stick to the matter at hand or don't post.

It's easy to see, and it's easy to track. It's also easily traceable that this harassment has occurred to numerous other people. Just read the discussion pages. People should be appalled. Wikipedians: the problem is that every time someone posts input that the "tag-team" of jewish supremacists, activists and polemicists (so far: Jayjg, SlimVirigin, Jpgordon, Hadal, Gzuckier, MPerel, 160.253.0.248) does not like, they immediately team together to circumvent the 3R process. It is obvious to any observer. Thankfully, my IP somehow assigns me a new IP address every time I boot, otherwise I WOULDN'T even be able to contribute this reply and I would be silenced by these people.

It's pretty sad to see this stuff happening on a project that appears to have been started with high ideals and should be honest. The fact that the tag-team includes "administrators" is a disgrace to Wikipedia and it's true potential.

To the "tag-team": Stop harassing others. Stop following contributors around and deleting and reverting their input. Stop banning those with input that you dislike. This is not your personal or group project. It is open for input from people of all backgrounds, creeds, races and religions.

The "tag-team" (so far: Jayjg, SlimVirigin, Jpgordon, Hadal, Gzuckier, MPerel, 160.253.0.248) operates as a team that seeks to prevent open discourse and input. This is a FACT, that their activity easily proves, and I encourage all Wikipedia users to review it and speak up against it henceforth.

This kind of stuff has got to stop. So, can I start contributing now? Let's see what the "tag-team" does, why don't we??


 * I notice that each time you name the tag-team members, the list has grown slightly. The truth is that there are several hundred editors who will revert neo-Nazi propaganda, so your tag-team list may soon have to incorporate the entire list of Wikipedians. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

You see there? How predictable.

You are incorrect to assume that Wikipedians support your Jewish-supremacist beliefs. The list of the tag-team above, each and every one of them, are all jewish-centric activists. Their activity proves it and anyone can review it, and Wikipedians should do so. Wikipedia may unfortunately include more of this sub-group, but it in no way forms the basis or majority of this online community.


 * Well, it's good that you got here then to lead the silent majority in their revolt against Jewish domination of world finances, the media, and wikipedia, through the means of personal insult and outraged self-righteousness. I'm sure in no time at all, the newly freed masses will be wondering how they ever survived before your arrival. As a start, perhaps you could prepare an article on The Protocols of the Elders of Wikipedia, i.e. Jayjg, SlimVirigin, Jpgordon, Hadal, Gzuckier, MPerel, 160.253.0.248, et al. Gzuckier 16:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Gzuckier: The usual slurs? Is that all you want to do?  Stick to article at hand.  Media, world finances etc. are not a part of the discussion, stop the snide diversions from the discussion.


 * Here's an idea; why don't you get yourself a proper userid, read through the Wikipedia policies very carefully, and then only post stuff that actually follows policy. If you do that, you won't have any problems posting on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk)  19:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will do. I will be an INCLUSIONIST. Be aware Wikipedian contributors: the "tag-team" is a serious DELETION machine, esp. when it comes to facts that don't support its jewish-centric activism and its racial and religious views of history. Jayjg, I have looked at your activity very closely on this website. It's clear as day what your focus is. All Wikipedians should look at it closely also.


 * Happy inclusionism. Hint: even the inclusionists around here have very little tolerance for Nazis, white supremacists, holocaust deniers, and their fellow travellers. Don't think what you're saying is anything new; we've gone through this before, we'll got through this again, and we know how to deal with you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Inclusionism is one thing, but wikipedia is supposed to be about information and reference; not the inclusion of fringe opinions without identification as such. As they say, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that bats fly through it. Gzuckier 16:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * information and reference is what articles need, and supressing information about the ADL (to suit your biased POV) is not helping make Wikpedia the reference tool is should be. It's not good to have a closed and narrow mind.
 * Fascinating case study. We've come full circle; the subject, who made his entrance here by repeatedly deleting an informational link to the ADL website, has morphed the argument into an accusation towards his opponents of suppressing information about the ADL. We see now why antiSemitism and its variants fail to be convincing to any but the befogged. Gzuckier 16:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that some Jews, Abe Foxman, and the the far-right among them here clearly are blinded and open only to selective facts, and then the Wikipedia articles never get better. We've not come full circle. Gzuckier, the subject at hand was about the inclusion of an Irving link about the ADL on this Irving article.  This is not a retrial of the Lipstadt case.  Stick to the matter at hand Irving/ADL and stop using slurs.  The input on this article regarding Irving/ADL was continually deleted and denied by the tag-team of Jewish propagandists that keep subjects like this on their biased lock-down to the detriment of Wikipedia. [Gzuckier], you need read the discussion closer.  This subject also ties directly in the same current lock-down by Jewish-centric nutcases that will not admit that criticism of the ADL exists worldwide.  The two have to be reviewed together. The ADL is as biased on the one side, and Irving is on the other.  The subject needs more balance, on this article and also on the ADL article.  One article cannot be praise, the other scorn, the content determined solely by the same group of far-right Jews (jayjg, SlimVirgin, Gzuckier, Jpgordon, you know who you are).  It's just ridiculous, and you know it.  Gzuckier, you need to read the discussion closer before you make snide comments.


 * Right. Hey looka here, your first 'contribution': Gee, you deleted 4 links to ADL, summarized your edit as "The ADL is not an unbiased source. The ADL is considered an extremist and advocacy group and has no place in an encyclopedia", and now request that we believe "Gzuckier, the subject at hand was about the inclusion of an Irving link about the ADL on this Irving article." No, in the real world, the subject was about the inclusion of an ADL link about Irving. You didn't like it and took it out. And now here we are, arguing about that. I suppose if you can be a holocaust revisionist, there is no reason why you should not be a wikipedia edit history revisionist too. Gzuckier 21:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Gzuckier, nice slur attempt there little buddy, but you are dead wrong. Read above.  Read again.  Read closer.  Comprehend.  I wrote: "Gzuckier, the subject at hand was about the inclusion of an Irving link about the ADL on this Irving article."  Of course, why not the inclusion of a Irving link on an Irving article?  The guy isn't dead.  Imagine that, that people could hear and read from the source himself like big boys, instead of having systemic bias from a gang of activist, propagandist Jews (like yourself) who want to whitewash the ADL.  Once again, the Jewish Supremacists only want to include their views, a disgrace to Wikipedia!  See the INCLUSION I was referring to THAT WAS DELETED by one from your little gang of jewish activists:    If 5 ADL links stay in, then one Irving link (on an Irving article) ought to be included, dontcha think?!.  But it was deleted.  Gzuckier you really must be fogged by your ideological positions.  Take a break from the propagandizing and go enjoy the day or something.

--My questions would be:

1) Can the ADL be considered a reliable and unbiased source on Irving? I say no way possible.  Not a chance.  About the ADL 2) Why are there 5 ADL links on this page, when 1 link to www.adl.org would do? 3) And then, why is there only 1 link to Irving's site? This is an Irving article and the man is not dead.  4) If the ADL links are allowed to stay, then Irving's link rebutting the ADL needs to be included.

Gzuckier, it's clear what the jewish gang wants, from reviewing their actions. They want their 5 ADL links in with no discussion as to bias (in violation of 3R rules), and the Irving link deleted. Please remember, this is an Irving article, about a living person, lets get some balance and hear from the man himself, not make it solely an ADL/Jewish Supremacist soapbox. So, what's it going to be? PS I'm going on vacation, and won't be back for a week.


 * There's probably no point in saying this, but I'll have one last try. If you would sign up for a user name, stop referring to plots by Jewish supremacists, stop spamming people's talk and user pages with insults, and would try to make your points calmly and clearly, you might actually get somewhere. You might not get everything you want, but maybe you'd get more than you have now. Please think about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'll "get" more than I have now? How very supremacist of you to let me know what I'll "get" from you. SlimVirgin, remember a good lesson in life: You reap what you sow. PS, one does not need a user name to post on Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia rules posted below to Josh. Please reread them. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and help improve it. This article needs some improvement, but the Jews and the ADL love it just the way it is. With 5 ADL links etc. etc. etc., it's obvious who crafted most of it.


 * That's probably because they sign their edits. Hint hint. Gzuckier 18:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Josh Gordon using SLURS:
Nice try. Aren't slurs against the rules? Isn't defamation against the rules? Jpgordon: You have absolutely no fact to back-up your slurs and personal attacks.

You and the TAG-TEAM are the true fellow travellers of Supremacists, Revisionists, Deniers, Deletionists. Your actions have shown the world that. Tag-Team, you are indeed an impressive exhibition of Supremacist groupthink. When's the next meeting?


 * Shavuous. come by.Gzuckier 16:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So now, which tag-team member is going to throw out the next slur, defamation and insult to people because they get angry? single-file please! You guys are pathetic. I see you for what you are, and it doesn't bother me one iota what Jewish supremacists think.


 * it's an ugly job, but I'll volunteer. "Your feet smell". Gzuckier 16:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipeida is an OPEN FORUM, get used to it.


 * This (ab)user seems to be using multiple IP addresses. I've blocked at least three of them.  David Cannon 05:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Cannon contributes to the abuse of the tag-team. Nobody has been abused here but me. David, you can have your opinion too. Wikipedia is an open forum.


 * No, it is not. It's not a forum at all. Wikipedia is not about opinions, except inasmuch as opinions are discussed -- not promoted. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * thanks Josh. David Cannon has not provided any comment of substance to the discussion or the article's matter at hand.  He is engaged in protecting aggressive Jewish supremacist opinion that keeps this article from being NPOV and fairly balanced.
 * Same guy, different IP, blocked again. -jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JOSH, let's recap the following, since you have started to abuse your privileges:


 * "Wikipedia is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page.  EVERYONE can edit pages in Wikipedia — even this page! Just click the edit this page link at the top of any page (except for protected pages) if you think it needs any improvement or new information."


 * "You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Wikipedia."


 * Systemic bias

"Wikipedia coverage is heavily biased by the sorts of people who want to contribute to it. This seems to be a perfectly legitimate concern. Certainly, Wikipedia coverage is patchy. It's easy to find examples of a really long article on one subject, whereas another, equally important subject, has a very short article. Sometimes this is just the result of a single enthusiastic contributor. Other times it is due to systemic bias."

"Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names). Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."
 * Editability
 * Same guy, different IP, blocked again. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * bad gramer

When the page can be edited again, can someone sort this out?

>>Born in Essex, England, his father John James Cawdell Irving...

This is bad grammar: literally it means his FATHER was born in Essex (as he may well have been, but that's not what the writer intends to say). I suggest: "Irving was born in Essex, England. His father, [comma missing too]...

Cheers.

'Serious' versus 'non-serious' historians
This article seems flawed in its current form. There is a persistent emphasis on the opinion of so-called 'serious' historians. I think that passages that use the opinions of such historians to debunk Irving should instead refer to facts: "Irving said this, but instead the following has been established to be true..." It is not sufficient to create an empty pecking-order of seriousness.

I feel I have to stress I don't personally agree with Irving. That is why I would rather see a more strongly written article, one containing persuasive facts.


 * I agree completely. It does not help the article to include such things that he considered himself a mild facist at school or killed frogs at kindergarten. --Magabund 11:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Dunno about the frogs, but that he considered himself a fascist at school is entirely relevant to the description of David Irving. But "serious" has to go; the word is inherantly POV. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Redundant Links?
oops. Here is where it goes: cut and pasted in correct area

There are 4-5 separate ADL links on the article at any given time. This is redundant, as one link to the ADL site is sufficient, just as one link to (the subject of the article) Irving is all that is allowed by some editors. There is a lack of consistency in editing with regards to linkages.69.221.63.132 20:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, why are 4 external links so necessary that they get reverted to without discussion? By any measure, that's excessive: what makes so Irving special here? --Calton | Talk 00:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They aren't necessary. One link is sufficient. The article ought to have more Irving links if anything, since it's an article about David Irving, and the man is still living.69.221.60.181 00:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irving deserves better
To question the Holocaust narative does not a Nazi make. Denier indeed! Name calling is childish, grow up, ye mad dog Zionists and dememnted rapacious Holocaust mongers all!
 * -- Unsigned note by User:63.22.124.242 --Calton | Talk 04:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hate site
Calton and the anon keep deleting the section in bold and the ADL link from this sentence: "Irving also maintains a personal website, which is included on the ADL's list of hate sites, and which he updates almost every day, focusing heavily on anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli topics."

I can't see what the objection is to this. If he maintains a website that a watchdog group calls a "hate site," that's clearly relevant. Perhaps Irving has responded to his inclusion on the list, and we could include that response? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is about "Irving's personal website", so if there's a link there it ought to be to what the sentence refers to: Irving's website. Another ADL link is redundant and POV, and the link duplicates information already found in the article.69.209.210.145 19:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, if there's a link in the sentence, it ought to support any contentious or interesting point the sentence makes, and the one here is that Irving's personal website is regarded as a hate site, which clearly has to be referenced. Is that information already elsewhere in the article? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, the sentence is about Irving personal site, so the link ought to be to Irving's personal site, not the "contentious" ADL, which is already linked elsewhere. Information about the ADL on Irving's site is interesting to say the least.  69.209.210.145 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that link just proves that Irving's website focuses heavily on anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli rants. GeneralPatton 21:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It focuses on WWII and the ADL also.69.216.244.52 17:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Illegitimate interference and censorship by protecting this page contrary to Wikipedia policy
Slim Virgin is engaging in the above conduct by protecting the page contrary to Wikipedia's protected page policy (Protected_page). Slim Virgin has breached the policy on two counts: (a) by failing to supply a reason for protecting the page (as at time of writing); and (b) by protecting a page in which he/it is involved in editing ("Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism"). I have no doubt that Slim Virgin will get out of life exactly what he/it puts in - and then turn round and ask, "Why me?" Believers in truth and freedom, please let Slim Virgin know what you think.


 * I regard your edits as vandalism. You're an anon, you've been reverted by more than one editor, you've violated 3RR, you've called someone a Nazi, used multiple IP addresses, and there's no explanation for your edits on the talk page. That fits nicely within our definition. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Irving in Google
When this page will be unprotected from editing, I think it will be worth mentioning that if you search for david irving in google (*), you can see the following text as the first search result.

David Irving's Action Report Web site of disgraced British Holocaust denier David Irving. Contains latest news about himself, as well as articles reproduced from the world media about ... www.fpp.co.uk/ - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

It is obvious that the text about "disgraced ... denier" is missing in this site. These were google's admins (evidently, Jews) who placed this text. --Anthony Ivanoff 18:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's funny, but how is it material for this article? Are we saying that unnamed Google editors are a legitimate source for calling Irving "disgraced"? I think it is too ambiguous for that, since we really don't know where it came from. -Willmcw 19:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if the aforeposting defender of the Irving were to actually read the Irving site's musings on their Googling, he would eventually find this reference:
 * ''"Category editors: mashimaro, jamiemccarthy"

Clearly, two Jewish names. Gzuckier 19:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Irving and Hungarian book Uprising
I read this book a long time ago, before I knew about DI (so I was not prejudging him): I found it very slanted - and he anglicised the people's given names. (There is a difference from, eg indicating that Pal = Paul, Istvan = Stephen, and replacing the names throughout.)

>>I'd just like to say that I find the article to be perfectly fair and balanced. I've read the trial transcript and Lipstadt's book and what they had to say about Irving was perfectly honest. The man's reputation as a historian is utterly trashed. I have a copy of the 1991 edition of Hitler's War and from the moment that I started reading it I could see distortion after distortion. A good example is the aftermath of the St Nazaire raid of 1942, where he stated that hundreds of French civilans were killed on board the Campbelltown when it blew up on the morning after the raid. This was rubbish, there were Germans on the ship when it blew up. As for his comments on the Holocaust, I felt ill after reading them. The article on Wikipedia is a good one. Marc>>>

Bias
The article is clearly biased against Irving, mainly because it does not scrutinize his critics or their agendas. The subject of Irving and his personal history is controversial. Perhaps it would be best for a statement regarding the dispute over its accuracy/bias to preface the article. It is wise that Wikipedia takes a cautious and conservative approach to Irving, something, unfortunately, Irving himself has been reluctant to do!

The impression the article leaves is that Irving is a discredited neo-nazi who has deliberately set out to fabricate and manipulate the facts of the holocaust and WW2 to suit a right-wing anti-jewish agenda. Further it suggests that the earlier approval of his work was misguided and that he had managed to deceive the international community until evidence of his manipulations surfaced at the Lipstadt trial. I don't believe the man and his work can be so easily categorised, nor can one look in isolation at his work without examining the highly emotive disputes which have come do dominate his legacy.

Much of the article focuses on the Lipstadt trial, one of the most contentious legal battles in recent history. On this subject the article is certainly biased against Irving as it provides an entirely one sided analysis of the trial's course and outcome. The judgement against Irving is taken as a vindication of all accusations against him, where a reading of the trial transcript suggests it is not so clear cut. The fact that expert witnesses were employed and paid large sums of money (reportedly up to US$500,000 each) by the defence for their testimony would lead some observers to question the quality of the evidence led.

Irving is clearly a bitter man who feels himself to be the focus of an international conspiracy to destroy his credibility. A resource like Wikipedia should not be drawn into this battle, pass judgement nor be a forum for sectarian battles. Readers should be left to make up their own minds after an unbiased presentation of the available facts. I believe the current article "takes sides" and deliberately steers a reader towards the opinion that David Irving is a bad man with a life long anti-jewish agenda. (preceding unsigned comment by 02:11, October 2, 2005)


 * Didn't the trial judge decide that Irving, more or less, "deliberately set out to fabricate and manipulate the facts of the holocaust and WW2 to suit a right-wing anti-jewish agenda"? Shouldn't we report what the decision was, rather than what Irving and his supporters wish it was? I don't think the article ever says that Irving is a "bad man". It says that he is a bad historian and an anti-semite, because that is what a trial judge decided. If you would like to add a quote from a notable supporter defending him then go ahead. -Willmcw 02:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem, isn't it. Even as an anonymous commentator on this forum I am wary of becoming involved in the debate. Not many people are as reckless about their opinions on this subject as Irving. And few of his supporters would dare put their heads above the barricade. That's partly why I believe the man deserves some slack. The trial judge complimented Irving many times on his abilities as an historian. One of the surprising elements of the case, and one of the reasons it is so interesting, in the general opinion of observers, was Irving's effective presentation his own case against a distinguished opposing legal team. His alleged distortions of historical fact were minimal, only a tiny pecentage of his work, and the interpretation/translations accepted by the judge hotly disputed. These small variations were seized upon by the defence and used as the basis of their case, ignoring the overwhelming evidence supporting Irving's contention of libel.

There have been very few historians who have not got it wrong some of the time. Irving's accuracy appears to be far greater than most. He has identified many faults in the accounts of his "enemies" version of history, yet their crediblity remains unaffected.

The best I could suggest is a summary of the case written by distinguished mathematician and physicist Nick Herbert who is famous for the shortest known proof of Bell's theorem. He approaches the issue as one of free speech, but in doing so is shocked by the course of the court case and the judgement.

Finally, Irving is not a "Holocaust Denier". He has always accepted that Jews were murdered by the Nazi regime and that hundreds of thousands were rounded up and executed by the SS. He disputes the accounts of the use of gas chambers and to my mind presents a range of interesting facts to support his contention.

Irving has clearly moved further to the right and become more reactionary as the attacks on him have progressed. I ask the question: "Was Irving always like this or have events and experience pushed him into new territory?"


 * Regardless of whether you are anonymous or not, please sign your talk page entries with four tildes ( ~ ). I read the Herbert blog piece, but if didn't seem to have much solid info that we can use here. Certainly, many historians have "gotten it wrong", but most historians don't file libel cases against their critics. And very few historians have had to withdraw books because they were found guilty of libel. Regarding "Holocaust denial", Judge Gray wrote, "...Irving displays all the characteristics of a Holocaust denier." I appreciate the need to have all notable POVs represented, and if there is noteworthy material that you think should be added then go ahead. But there is no doubt that Irving has been found by a court of law to be an anti-semite, a Holocaust denier, and, at least on occasion, a bad historian. -Willmcw 06:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First, it appears to me that Irving is bigoted, but by far not a racist or an anti-semite, unless he's a recent one, and it's clear that he's a sloppy historian, or in favorable terms, an imaginitive one. I was almost a fan of Irving, but if the account of his handling of the Hitler Diaries is close to accurate, I'm a skeptic.  Having said that, the above comment reflects what really irks me about this whole case: it's one of circular logic. Lipstadt herself artificed the term "Holocaust denier", formulating the term, in part, around Irving. That term would seem to imply that one denies that 6 million jews died at all, that perhaps none of them really died. The term therefore becomes synonomous with "Neo-nazi", "facist", "anti-semite", "racist", etc. (For proof of this, just read this entire Talk article.) Yet this is not the extent that the term is used -- anyone who doubts almost any aspect of the "myth" of the holocaust is, thanks to Lipstadt's generous semantic use, a denier. (Again, read comments in this talk post for more evidence of this.) So while it's "factually true" that Irving is a "Holocaust denier", it's because Irving let his opponents frame the semantics and justification for connotation of the term. Equally circular is the comment by Darkmind below. We all know Hitler was bad. Why? Because that history was written by historians who were -- gasp -- not on the side of Hitler. You'd have to be crazy or insane to look at Hitler in a favorable view! But a person as intelligent and well-read as Irving can't possibly be insane. What else then can we say? Why, it must be because he's an anti-semite, a neo-Nazi sympathizer. And look! There in his private diaries, 13 discreet instances of brutish bigoted remarks!
 * I sympathize with Irving because I know what it's like to be in his shoes. I was raised by Protestant missionaries; at the age of 17, I found my life-calling as an Atheist and Skeptic. The ipso-facto, reductionist arguments applied to Irving herein and elsewhere are the same as were applied to me when I was young.
 * My point, if any, is that the works of the revisionist must be scrutinized -- and venerated. The revisionist is probably an insane, attention-grabbing, narcisstic, self-destructive, anti-social personality. But his work, be it hubris or genious, must not be treated piously or indifferently, but fairly and conscientiously. It would serve history well, I believe, if we don't mar the author merely because we disagree with his works. Future students of history may come to the conclusion that his work is flawed, but since it's agreed that Irving has contributed to the field of history, let us count him among the historians.
 * Otheus 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not just a bad historian, but one who deliberately falsifies. There's a big difference between errors in historical research and deliberately fraudulent historical research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The judgement made it clear that while Irving has some merits as a historian, in that he has been able to dig out more documents than most historians, at the same time he has deliberately manipulated documents to make them say what he wanted them to say. That is the antithesis of being a professional historian. Furthermore his distortions were not minimal - they were cumulative. Reading a copy of 'Hitler's War' makes this plain - they deliberately slant the facts to make Hitler look better and the Allies look bad. And the trial transcript makes it clear that his courtroom appearance was not as impressive as many people think. The full text of the Judge's comments make for utterly damning reading. 62.173.113.204 15:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Darkmind62.173.113.204 15:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, the Allies were good. According to president Eisenhower, black soldiers (he said: negroes) should be executed on spot by hanging for local French citizens to see in order to deter further rapes and pacify the polupation. Rapes weren't a problem diring the Nazi occupation in France and I am not talking about mass rapes where as much as several hundred women were raped (sorry, liberated) simultaneously by the invading troops. Is it a racist thing to publish stories like that? Irving did it, but this all you can see in the US archives, go on and see. Unfortunately, the Russians did cut women's breasts, something the Germans didn't do. He attempted not to notice the importance of political indoctrination (for it is indoctrination what many other 'historians' do) and suffered the consequences as a result. It is not surprising things to hate the camp from which the pressure originated (namely, the Jewish activists). Only a child would believe that lectures are cancelled when landlords 'learn about the topics', obvously they are pressured by the ADL, their common tactics. Same happens with lectures about Palestine/Israel, same camp, same tactics, same accusations, same outcome. Gas chambers is a myth, a very important myth. Germans, hating the Jews "for just being different, being Jewish" and gassing the innocents with cold blood. Any crime against the ugly Nazis would seem an act of benevolence and any accusation against Israel as a state would seem shallow when "the whole world is united to get us and we are just defending ourselves". And where are the weapons of mass destruction, Mr Wolfowitz? Where are the gas chambers, Ms Lipstadt? To call Lipstand a world's leading Holocaust historian is beyong the limits, anyone could check by googling who she is, a Jewish activist, especially disgusted by "intermarriage". Amazing. Now miss Lipstand is greater that Raoul Hilberg himself! LOL


 * I fail to see how anything you've said has anything to do with this article. (Narkstraws 07:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

Yes, undoubted Bias
Obviously written by a detractor of Irving's and certainly not NPOV

Eg. "describes himself as a self-taught historian"... No. He IS a self-taught historian - whether or not you agree with how he interprets history is irrelevant. If he is not a self-taught then what is he - a professional historian?

"Irving is also one of the most accomplished and successful proponents of Holocaust denial."

Of course he isn't! He lost his libel case against Lipstadt. As a result he has filed for bankruptcy. His reputation, such as it was, is now in tatters. If anything he is one of the most UNsuccessful proponents of Holocaust denial!

"was found to be a Holocaust denier by the court"

This is deliberately misleading. It wasn't a jury who found against Irving, it was a judge.

"He is considered an icon by many in the Holocaust denial camp."

What is the "Holocaust denial camp?"

"prominent Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt"

Lipstadt is not a "prominent" Holocaust historian by any stretch of the imagination - except perhaps to her publicist. Until the Irving trial she was just another published academic.

These are just a few examples from the article's introduction.

Irving is a controversial figure, but clearly, this article needs a genuine "non-partisan" to clean it up.

(Redzen 09:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC))
 * And you are that non-partisan? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't believe the guy should be whitewashed. On the other hand I don't think he should be painted blacker than he really is.

I believe the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide an online resource for accurate and reliable information. Or in the case of contentious issues, a fair and balanced assessment. As they say, two sides to every story.

This article as it currently stands fails on that account because the information, although accurate, has been clearly gleaned from Irving's detractors. In fact, the writer is him/herself guilty of the very thing that Irving has been condemned for.

Examples:

Contentious information. The writer provides no annotation to prove the accuracy of names and figures, leaving the reader to simply "take his word for it"

Eg.

Today, the Dresden bombing casualty figures are estimated as most likely in the range of 25,000 to 35,000 dead, and probably toward the lower end of that range

Most serious historians [some names please]picked the book apart, noting some of its numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations, yet it sold well.

and again

Historians [again, some names please]viewed the book as revisionist nonsense, but, as with most Irving books up to that point, it did well commercially, ending up as Irving’s best selling book ever

Misleading information

Eg

in 1985, his reputation was so diminished that no serious publisher was willing to print his works, - was this was due to the fact that the public was not buying Irving's books at that stage. The last two had been flops - or because of his pro-Nazi sympathies?

Unnecessary use of superlatives:

Eg. Penguin hired the respected British lawyer Anthony Julius (why respected?)

Professor Richard J. Evans, acclaimed historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, (acclaimed? by who?)

(Redzen 07:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Well, two sides to every story, yes. But often one side can reasonably be given far more weight than the other side, especially if the "other side" is provably and proven wrong. Regarding the "historians" who "viewed the book as revisionist nonsense" -- all of them. Regarding his reputation being diminished, if you have evidence that it was because his last two books had been flops for reasons other than growing awareness of his Nazi sympathies, please present it. Details on the Dresden bombing casualty counts can be found in the Dresden firebombing article, where they belong. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that response jpgordon.

In relation to all historians regarding Irving's work as revisionist nonsense.... that is just not true. the article itself states:

in The Daily Telegraph, British historian Sir John Keegan stated that Irving “knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War,” and that Hitler’s War was “indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round.” However, although he praised Irving’s ability to research, Keegan also criticized Irving’s distortions and considered certain of his ideas “perverse.”

Furthermore, As far as I am aware, professional historians such as Gordon A. Craig, A.J.P. Taylor, and Hugh Trevor-Roper are on record for stating that David Irving is at least a brilliant researcher and a compelling writer....

Yes, two sides to every story, and it is usually the winners who write history. So this idea that Irving really isn't a historian at all and has been condemned by all sides is something straight out the Lipstadt camp.... that's one "interpretation" that anyone can accept but some balance would be nice.

For example, in his summing up at the Lipstadt/Irving trial, the judge stated:

''As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history ... and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans'' .... [Richard Evans, a historian who testified for the defense, had stated that Irving has had "a generally low reputation amongst professional historians since the end of the 1980s and at all times amongst those who have direct experience of researching in the areas with which he concerns himself"; although not noted by Judge Gray, Evans also reiterated Lipstadt's charge that Irving was not a historian at all.] But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving's military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.

The judge is implicitly agreeing that Lipstadt libeled Irving by writing he was not a historian and by writing that "no legitimate historian takes David Irving's work seriously." I suppose that in the judge's view this was far less serious than the accusation that he is a holocaust denier - which he is, but that's not the point.

In regard to Irving being dropped by his publisher - no, I cannot say for certain that it was purely sales related - though that would appear to be the logical conclusion considering it happens all the time to any writer. But I am not the one making the assertion that it was for any other reason than that. Surely The onus is on the writer of this article to prove that Irving was dropped because of the nature of his writing - NOT the other way round. How can we know for sure..... a misleading assumption here probably gleaned from places like the ADL - not that I have anything against the ADL, but it's hardly a place where one would expect to find "impartial" information about issues like this.

Any finally Dresden, I haven't read the Wiki article yet, but thanks for the link.

(Redzen 07:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

Recent Quotes by David Irving
I have taken the liberty of adding recent quotes by Irving to the article. In the interests of balance and fairness, I sincerely hope they will remain.

(Redzen 11:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

Interesting. However, IMHO the point is, that such quotes belong at the Wikiquote-section, instead of an article like this. I believe that would be a better place for lists of quotes. 62.177.196.17

Racism
Could this go in somewhere?

http://www.fpp.co.uk/speeches/speech190992.html

For the last four weeks just for once I have gone away from London, where I have been sitting down in Torquay, which is a white community. We saw perhaps one black man, and one coloured family in the whole time I was down there.

I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there -- the black father, the black wife and the black children. I think it is just as handsome a spectacle as the English family, or the French family, or the German family, or the South African family, or whatever. I think that is the way that God planned it and that is the way it should be. When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy (and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy).

[Cheers and Laughter]. But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this -- the way ... the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television set and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they're reading it to me. (If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.)

["Hear, hear", and Laughter]. Because basically international news is a serious thing and I yearn for the old days of Lord Reith when the news reader on the BBC, which was the only channel in those times, he wore a dinner jacket and a bow tie and he rose to the occasion. And at great state occasions one had the satisfaction of knowing that not only was the news reader wearing the dinner jacket and the bow tie, -- at great State occasions I think it was even a white tie that was called for -- but you had the satisfaction of knowing that the gentleman behind the camera was also wearing a dinner jacket. It gave one a certain solid sense of satisfaction that All Was Well in the Best of Possible Worlds.

But now we have women reading out news to us.

If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [Laughter], it would be very interesting.

[Good-natured female heckling]. For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor Macdonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts -- [rest lost in loud Laughter and Applause].


 * Quite a poisonous little shit, isn't he?

87.74.12.83 23:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The comments themselves are typical. More interesting for this biography may be the setting - a meeting of the "Clarendon Club" which Irving apparently founded. More info about it in this article: . -Willmcw 00:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Irving is mentioned several times as having manipulated history - source documents. Any proof?My understanding is that Irving has exposed several manipulations - maybe kinder to say poor quality translations or lazy scholarship. Much of the above discussion seems to imply/state that ADL/Jewish interests seem to run this site - maybe just fear and cowardice or of course survival. Seems that a large proportion of your readers agree with Irving/General Brown/ walter Cronkite about Jewish ownership of the media - wed??


 * The court found that he had done so, and we should be factual. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg - "we should be factual" - what a clown. As though the judge had the courage to go up against the entire "establishment". Can you imagine the judge's sorry social position in England if he had ruled for Irving - he couldn't even get a table by the kitchen, hell he wouldn't get served on the street. Social position is of primary importance in good ole England - Irving didn't have a chance ( I think he knew it before the trial, just wanted to have a little piece of history - one day when the Holocaust apologists have to back down from the facts of science, Irving will be mentioned while Wik* will be forgotten in embarrassment).


 * Whereas Irving was ostracized by the establishment, eh? Anyway, to get back to facts, perhaps you would like to address the judge's findings rather than just hurl random insults at his character. We await. Gzuckier 17:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Irving had EVERY chance, and he himself chose to join the losing side of the moral struggle. He knows bloody well that the holocaust happened, that Hitler ordered it, and that his lawsuit was nothing more than a cynical attempt to supress the truth by intimidation.  Irving is a Nazi himself, and has decided to take on Goebbel's job of decieving the public to give other nazis another chance at completing the crimes they attempted in the twntieth century.  Irving lost this case because he was wrong.

Last paragraph: Interesting - Irving "knows that Hitler ordered the holocaust". I doubt that Irving knows, he would write a book on it. If you have any evidence - memos,etc ( no vague coded messages please) then become famous and print the source. Thank you for your knowledge. Sorry I can't site a source, can you?

Motivation
The article says nothing about what might have motivated to knowningly use forged documents. Is there any information on this? (Narkstraws 20:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

I'm not sure if we can get into it without being POV. I'm sure hypothetical reasons spring easily to mind, the obvious one being to substantially manipulate the truth in order to further a particular ideology. However as Irving has not commented on the knowing use of forged documents we can only speculate. Perhaps we could add in a section on the opinions of historians as to why he may have done this, but it seems unnecessary and inevitably POV. I think it best just to state that he was found in court to have knowingly used forged documents, we needn't go into possible whys. --Davril2020 20:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Curiosity
Jusr out of curiosity, would somebody know what exactly is his explanation for the disapearance of 6 million people during WWII (by coincidence all jews)? muriel@pt 15:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * He states that they emigrated to places like Russia, USA, and a time afterwards to Israel. The Holocaust Denial Page has more on it. (Narkstraws 17:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

pretty poor on the NPV front I think
This artical starts with claims that irving has no good reputation left but ends with a quote from keegan saying that in he things Iving does have some redeaming features as a historian

This article uses overly emotive language and doesn't back up some of its strong claims (or any of the ones that are not related to his trial), whatever our judgment of the man Wikipedia should not do these things

This article has four pictures of Irving looking terribly unhappy and one of him grinning sitting next to a Smeer, are we really saying that this guy was only happy when in close proximity to Nazis? Furthermore the picture of him looking worst is captioned not by any information about the picture or its meaning, but by a general claim that by the 1980s his reputation was in tatters!

come on guys the guy is a nut but these things are just too much.- doesn't sign his posts

Give me a break, you obviously either have little idea of what you're talking about or you are trying to promote your own point of view, either way your comments are inappropriate. A sane person merely has to take one look at Irving's current website and will understand that what this article says about him is mild by comparison. The site contains every single discredited anti-semitic hairbrained theory. And pleasse sign your posts in the future to prevent confusion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Retraction of Statements
I'd say stuff like this is fascinating. If true it needs to be added. Perhaps we should wait until he confirms or denies the statement further? --Davril2020 23:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, according to the judge's decision in his suit vs. Lipstadt, he repudiated a lot of his previous statements during the process of the trial:
 * ''Irving’s concessions
 * ''13.152 It was a striking feature of the case that in the course of it Irving made, or appeared to make, concessions about major issues. In doing so he resiled from the stance adopted by him in relation to those issues before trial. Such concessions were made by Irving in relation to the shooting of Jews in the East; the use of gas vans at Chelmno and in Yugoslavia; the gassing of Jews at the Action Reinhard camps; the existence and genocidal use of gas chambers at Auschwitz and the Leuchter report.
 * ''13.153 Thus the Defendants contend that, having previously asserted that the shooting of Jews in the East was generally unauthorised and carried out by small bands of criminals with Hitler’s partial knowledge but without any order from him, Irving accepted at trial that perhaps as many as 1.5 million Jews were killed on the authority of Heydrich and on a systematic basis. He conceded also that Hitler not only knew of the shooting of the Jews in the East but also sanctioned their murder. He agreed that Hitler had taken the initiative in ridding the Altreich of Jews. Irving’s concessions on these issues were in stark contrast to his case as it stood before trial.
 * ''13. 154 At a later stage in the trial, however, Irving retracted, as least in part, the concessions he had made. He partially withdrew his acceptance of Hitler’s responsibility for the shooting. In a written submission Irving argued that the treatment of deported Jews suggested a lack of system and co-ordination and that there was no clear and unambiguous evidence of Hitler’s awareness of the mass murder in the East of European Jews. Irving claimed that he had adopted the position before trial that the killing of the Jews in the East had been largely systematic and much of it had been carried out under orders. He claimed that there was no significant shift of position on his part. But it appears to me that Irving did shift his ground in a significant way in the course of the trial, especially in regard to Hitler’s authorisation of the killing.
 * ''13.155 In regard to the use of gas vans, Irving was prepared before trial to accept no more than that there had been an “alleged liquidation” of 152,000 Jews at Chelmno and that gas vans had been used on an experimental basis and on very limited scale. At trial he accepted that there had been a systematic use of gas vans at the camp; that in one relatively short period 97,000 Jews had been murdered there and that he had been wrong to say that the use of the vans was experimental. He also accepted that the Nazis used gas vans to kill Jews in Yugoslavia instead of shooting them. Irving’s explanation for these changes in his case was that he was making admissions in order to deal with the issues expeditiously.
 * ''13.156 In relation to the Reinhard camps, having claimed before the trial that there were no gas chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor or Belzec, Irving accepted at trial that he could not challenge the accepted figures for the numbers of Jews killed at those camps which were 700-950,000,200,000 and 550,000 respectively. He again later explained his concessions as having been made “formally” in order to speed the trial along, adding later that he had seen no documentary evidence to support the figures for those killed. I have already given my reaction to that response.
 * ''13.157 I have earlier summarised the manner in which Irving altered his position in relation to the number of Jews killed there by gas but also to the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. On both these issues there was in my view a radical shift of ground. Irving says that he has always accepted that many Jews were killed at Auschwitz. So he has, but not by gassing.
 * ''13.158 I have also described Irving’s concessions in relation to the Leuchter report: see paragraph 7.89. Irving had previously expressed the view that the conclusions of the report were irrefutable. At trial, as has been seen, he agreed without any great protest that the vast majority of Leuchter’s findings were wrong and the report was fundamentally flawed.
 * ''13.159 What is the significance of these alterations in Irving’s stance in realtion to the issue with which I am at present concerned with, namely Irving’s motivation? It seems to me that the Defendants are justified in their contention that Irving’s readiness to resile from positions he had adopted in what he has written and said about important aspects of the Holocaust demonstrates his willingness to make assertions about the Nazi era which, as he must appreciate, are irreconcilable with the available evidence. I also consider that there is force in the Defendants’ contention that Irving’s retraction of some of his concessions, made when he was confronted with the evidence relied on by the Defendants, manifests a determination to adhere to his preferred version of history, even if the evidence does not support it.
 * As stated above, the judge took this as evidence that Irving's stated conclusions were not as solidly based on the evidence as one would expect. Gzuckier 19:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Very good article
However, a few quibbles:


 * Most serious historians picked the book apart, noting some of its numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations, yet it sold well.
 * Which historians, and why are we taking a position on who or who is not a "serious" historian?
 * What were the inaccuracies?
 * Evans’ final assessment of Irving’s work was both blistering and damning
 * My goodness... this possibly may be the case, but again... why on earth are we holding a position?!
 * Irving lost subsequent attempts at appeal, and in light of the evidence presented at the trial, a number of his works which had previously escaped serious scrutiny were shown to be irredeemably flawed, and what remained of Irving’s reputation as a historian was destroyed.
 * No doubt... however, if we are going to claim this, then we need to back it up. What other words were "irredeemably flawed"? And why are we using the terms "irredeemably flawed"? This, again, is holding a position.

For these reasons I can't support this as a neutral POV. Might I also make it extremely clear that I feel that he is one of the greatest fools to have walked on this earth. However, if we wish to hold to the neutral point of view policy, we cannot and must not hold a POV on highly offensive topics.

The fastest way I know of defeating stupidity such as David Irvings is to document it. We don't have to comment on it or hold a position: his foolishness becomes apparent all by itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Criticism understood and constructive intent understood, at least by me. I haven't done much work on this article myself, and I'm basically lazy, so I'd rather let some of the regulars filter out the POV stuff as you mention, and let things speak for themselves. It's hard, of course, to refrain from the easiest way of summarizing things, by just mentioning what screams to be concluded. Any takers? Gzuckier 19:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * One can hardly name an article good that begins with name calling and labeling Irving "holocaust denier". There is no such field of work as someone already pointed out. Not one Irving's book deals specifically with holocaust and he has repeatedly told that he is no expert on that matter. --Magabund 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If documenting ( and hopefully debating the facts of the case ) is the best wy to show how stupid Irving is then by all means go ahead. Wikipedia seems to be ad hominem predisposed toward Irving and his gang. I think a truthful argument on the holocaust, and even minor details of events in WW2, seem to set the JDL and their gang into convulsions that only a fawning Wiki staff can cure.

Hitler Diaries
The following was posted by an anonymous user on the main page:

This is one of the oddest things I have ever read - RE: the Hitler diaries, please go to Wikis own article on "the Hitler Diaries" - use the link given in this article. Their own link shots down this article or the "Hitler Diaries" get shot down, take your pick. This is surreal. If you are going to be so blatantly biased, please read your stuff before it is put on the web. 159.105.80.60 15:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted it as it has no place on the front page. At any rate I'm not entirely sure what contradiction between the two is supposed to exist. If you care to post more specific information here we can see if we can address it. --Davril2020 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite simple - Irving I don't believe has ever implied that the diaries were not fake. The article implies,says, that he was late in joining the crowd of "scholars" who now think they are not fake. Your writer is so biased he /she gets lost and confused - read this junk before you publish it, some people think you are an authority, thankfully not too many.


 * I cannot understand your objection. The article says that Irving was particularly sceptical of the diaries. It says he was one of the first well known historians to argue they were fake, and one of the last to admit they might be genuine (as tests were carried out, many accepted the possibility of them being genuine, that's not the same thing as saying they certainly are genuine). Irving was right - they were fake. The Hitler Diaries article concurs. This point is, if anything, supportive of Irving. --Davril2020 14:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Confused
OK, granted I don't know much about David Irving's statements on the Holocaust. I'm quite interested to know how he would explain the people who do insist they lost family in these particular camps. Would someone be able to explain to me where my grandmother's entire family went? Because I'm sure she'd like to know. Kitty 09:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody is really clear on Irving's current beliefs as he has made some noises indicating he now accepts the holocaust to have sort-of happened. His classic beliefs were that the Jews dispersed into various countries after WWII. It's a difficult notion to sustain. Other deniers who argue that millions died, but not systematically claim they died through malnutrition or disease. It's also difficult to sustain. --Davril2020 13:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You probably haven't read Irving as he states in many places that jews and others were in fact systematically killed. For example he cites Eichmann who himself witnessed mass killings. He even talks about gassing in trucks. One has to read authentic material to learn what somebody really claims. Irving on Holocaust: Eichmann himself ... actually witnessed this. He went to see one at Minsk, and being a proper SS officer he went right to the front to make sure that everything was being carried out. He got so close, in fact, that he saw with his very own eyes how the victims were being made to go into the pits and stand there waiting to be shot.  from Irving's speech

If you would really like to know then the Red Cross, who visited the camps during WW2, have extensive records in Arolson. These files are closed except to "trusted" persons - they will probably not let you browse to your hewarts content but they might do a search for you. The Arolson files would certainly never be opened to Irving or any scholar who might not be "trusted" to do their own count and research. This is difficult to "sustain" - the Arolson records should probably be destroyed to protect political correctness, it's doubtful that the current protectors would be happy with a tell all book. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.60 (talk • contribs) 12:13, December 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Been reading Zundelsite, huh? He seems to be the one who spells it "Arolson" rather than "Bad Arolsen", the actual name of the place. But you're certainly not alone in wanting it opened; this press release from the US State Department might interest you. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: the International Tracing Service of the ICRC have a large archive in Bad Arolsen containing the personal documents of civilian victims of the Nazis. When the archive was established, the eleven nations controlling it limited access for privacy reasons (since of course there would also be personal information about their survivors). The ICRC can't change the access rules on its own, and it's a matter of getting the eleven controlling states to amend the policy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

unsourced comment
There is a sentence in the article that says:


 * This is a theme which appears repeatedly in Irving’s writing: overstatement of putative 'wrongs' done to Nazi-era Germany, while understating 'wrongs' done by Nazi Germany.

I see in the page history that an anonymous deleted that sentence on the grounds of being subjective, but the change was reverted. The sentence is actually well along the lines of the sort of comment made in judgment against Irving in the libel case &mdash; that he had double-standards in his treatment of the historical evidence depending whether it tended to support or oppose his own point of view. Nonetheless, the anonymous editor does have a point: as the article currently stands, the sentence appears subjective. Can we replace it with something sourced, e.g. an appropriate quotation from the court judgment?

Terra Green 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

suggest archiving talk
This talk page is getting rather long. I suggest archiving some older comments, though I admittedly can't be bothered to do it myself because some people have made a mess of it by adding their comments at the top so it no longer reads chronologically. Terra Green 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just assume the stuff posted on the top can be archived too, since it will be ignored by pretty much anyone following the talk page anyway. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say do it (newer and lower contributor here, certainly than Jpgordon at least). As it stands it's a mess. Holmwood 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is biased? Wikipedia or Amazon reviews
Sensing this article is little unfair to David Irving, I looked up the Amazon user review of his 'notorious' book Hitler's War. Now decide for yourself who is biased. At least those who have locked this page should think about why is there such a difference. In fact, I am now starting to doubt whether Wikipedia can any longer be unbiased. Focused lobbying groups can really affect the content. However, I don't have a solution suggest.

-Cibu 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What has amazon.com reviews got to do with anything? Most of the people that buy David Irving's books tend to be those that already believe his argument - they're not for sale through mainstream retailers so you have to go to secondary channels. I might add that even the High Court (London) has found him to be an apologist and Holocaust denier - I should point out that we have no Holocaust-denial laws, so the fact he lost his case is important. John Smith&#39;s 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Detail is buried, academic vs. non-academic
I'm probably an idiot to step into this snake pit. So be it. Make no mistake; I believe it's basic fact that Irving's a holocaust denier who focusses excessively on a bizarre desire to rehabilitate Hitler and defend him against the murder of 6 million Jews and 8-10 million other human beings in KZ camps. That said, I do believe that Irving's skills as an archival researcher are downplayed, and possibly some cautious mention of [lack of] academic credentials should be made.

I also think a lot of his books (pre 80's) are excellent and useful, though should be read with care. (Later editions, especially post 2000, are very suspect with many subtle edits that blatantly distort the truth).

The issue of academic credentials should not be to dismiss criticism of Irving as coming from academic historians, nor should it be used to suggest that as a non-academic he is incompetent; nonetheless, it is probably a useful fact.

I'm going to try a good faith edit on this basis; I'd ask that you please read and respond here before reverting/wiping/altering my edit. Especially, please, please don't just revert. Thanks. Holmwood 01:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First edit complete. A mention of his reputation remaining as an archivist (see Keegan's comments). Also a nuanced edit to his student opinions: Defending the SA apartheid regime (though dead wrong, IMO) was something many mainstream politicians did (see Thatcher). I genuinely believe this was largely a cold-war artifact. Racist cartoons? Defending Nazi Germany? That gets more extreme. Surely we can see a difference between Margaret Thatcher and Adolf Hitler, hence my edit. Holmwood 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Second edit complete. I don't believe everything he wrote in the 60's (or even 70's or possibly 80's) is revisionist, and I speak as someone who a) believes in the Holocaust and its horror, and b) has read many of Irving's works. So I've modified the statement that he  'continued to write revisionist works' etc. I also focused on the academic issue (which I've seen raised repeatedly, and which I believe is of note -- it's analgous to the Wikipedia vs Brittanica arguments (NB-- that does NOT imply Irving is correct; simply that he should not be dismissed on the mere basis of a lack of a particular credential. He should indeed be dismissed when he says Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust, etc.)

Holmwood 02:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You've inserted this paragraph:

"Some controversy has arisen over the years relating to the fact that Irving not only never received a history degree, but never graduated from University. Critics at times attempted to devalue Irving's work on this basis, but neutral scholars pointed out, if nothing else, his value as an archivist."
 * Can you provide any sources for any of it? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The text in its current form is smear intended to discredit ,and dishonour Mr.David Irving
The page in question is highly inappropriate as it several times brandishes David Irving a 'holocaust denier'. No respectable encyclopedia would use such a term, which is a term used by his opponents. No-one can judge any other person as to what he is or is not, or what his beliefs are. To do so is very subjective and should not, I repeat should not be included in an Encyclopedia.

Just look how many times the author tries to smear this honourable historian, whose book 'Hitlers War' from 1977 was compulsery reading at West Point and Sandhurst. This really says a lot of the extent of authority as Mr. Irving enjoyed (then). He is still widely believed to be one of the greatest authorities on WW2 and of the nature of the Nazi regime. All this still stands, as everyone can witness for himself by reading some of his books, which are available free of charge from his website as Downloads.

However ONE chapter of the aforementioned book was about the holocaust. And because of that David got subjected to a smearing campaign hitherto unseen in scope. Booksellers was pressured not to sell his books (no mention of this on Wikipedia) - that is why he gives them away for free. Whereever he goes in the world he find arrangements cancelled ib short notice, the hotelliers or universities being pressed to pull the event.

I find David irving to be a good and honourable englishman. His father was naval officer who took part in The Battle of Jutland. You cannot find ANY factual fault in his work. If you can David is the first who wants to know - email him.

By the way, he do not deny the holocaust, which is why your Wikipedia entry is so wrong. He find the whole subject boring, but hardpresset he will tell you that it should be spelled with a small h as there were many holocausts, poles,russians,gypsies and others got killed. Civilians allways get caught out in war, but it is undeniable that the Nazi regime was especially brutal.

To be a folk without a homeland living among a majority is allways a precaurious situation to be in in times of unrest, or so history has proven many times.

David akcnowledges that many jews got killed, but he happen to hold the view that most died from mal-nutrition and diseases, and that aplyes to ALL inmates in concentrationcamps. So you see he is not denying.

I have now tried to just delete the offensive sentences in the beginning about Mr. Irving being a socalled 'holocaust denier'. He says himself he is not, and acknowledges that many jews were killed during the war, however he does not go along with the 6 million jews killed-figure, as he reckons the number to be lower. And it really comes down to that: " David has the right to question anything relating to history and WW2 is his speciality, and he actually makes a living of questioning and critically examining sources.

I also decided to delete the account about him loosing a court case in 2000. David have launched several libel cases before - in 1996 he won 45000 £ libel-damage against an English Sunday Newspaper. The fact that he this time lost is not something that should figure at the head of his CV. Many people also find it extraordinary that a judge can deside what a person IS or is not, and what beliefs he holds.

I shall demand that if I am not allowed to modify these blatant accusations at the very beginning of a respected historians CV, then the whole page should dis-appear, and not be visible to anyone. Since the text is disputed we should either be allowed to edit it, or it should vanish

With these words, I remain

Yours

Nick Rowan
 * He was found by a British court of law to be a Holocaust denier and to have deliberately falsified historical events, in a case for libel which he himself brought. You can't get much more factual than that. As well, the 2000 court case was a seminal, infamous court case, and a critical event in his own biography. Finally, his reputation is in tatters; it's hard to imagine how you could claim he is a "good and honorable englishman", much less a "honorable historian". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Here you can judge David's own words, and you will see he does not deny that many jews got killed:

Answers to a Sixth Grader on the Big H

I AM a Sixth Grader and I am doing a report on Holocaust Denial and I would like to know if you would mind taking this interview for me. I need this interview for a school assignment due on June 6, 2005.

Sarah O.

1. When did you become interested in the whole controversy of whether or not the Holocaust ever occurred in history and Why?

I HAVE no interest whatever in the commercial package now marketed as The Holocaust. I find it boring. When a Holocaust programme comes on television, I switch to a different channel or I am careful to go out. If Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Dwight D Eisenhower and others could write entire histories about World War II without referring in one line to "The Holocaust" then why should I pay any attention to this post-1970 money-making media invention?

Did this have a big impact on any part of your life or the way you thought of World War II before and after and the Holocaust?

Answer: see above response.

3. What really happened during the Holocaust?

LOTS of Jews were killed. In wartime lots of people get killed, -- see Iraq -- sometimes the ones who were guilty for the war, sometimes the innocents. See the air raid on Dresden. That was a holocaust. I am on the side of the innocents.

4. World War II? -- I don't understand your question.

5. What about the Trial, what was that about? -- See below.

6. What do your family and friends think of the Holocaust and World War II? In 8th grade students are required to learn about the Holocaust and Anne Frank's Diary, How will your children deal with this?

6. Don't you find it odd, shameful even, that "In 8th grade students are required to learn about the Holocaust and Anne Frank's Diary"? Doesn't that smack of propaganda? Isn't that like having something rammed down your throat, like it or not? Real History does not require enforcers, or bans, or prohibitions, or web-filters, or punishments. Poor little Anne Frank, like "the" Holocaust, has become big business, with two rival business empires fighting each other tooth-and-claw for the right to market Anne Frank T-shirts and memorabilia -- one based in Switzerland, where her mega-wealthy father lived and died, the other in Amsterdam where the house is. The good news is this: I think that children who are required to read Anne Frank's diary are capable of thinking for themselves, and they may well think: This proves David Irving right: a. Little Anne Frank, her young sister and her father were Jews, and they were actually in Auschwitz, the "factory of death". They were too young to work. But they were not killed. So much for the legends about a programme of 100 percent extermination of the Jews.

b. Her sister Margot died of typhus. This proves David Irving right. Typhus was the biggest killer in the camps.

c. Her father Otto Frank (with whom I corresponded, and who tampered with the famous Diary, writing fake passages in ball point ink) fell ill with typhus. The Nazi doctors took him into the Auschwitz camp hospital and looked after him. So much for the legend that the Nazis killed all Jews who fell sick.

d. Given the choice of leaving with the Nazis or staying to greet the Russians, in January 1945, most of the Auschwitz survivors chose to leave with the Nazis. Anne Frank went to Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died. . . of typhus.

As you will see if you read The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor, which I found and published, at the end of the war all the German pharmaceutical factories had been destroyed by Allied bombing, and even Adolf Hitler could not get the medicines he needed. This may have been part of the cause of the uncontrolled typhus epidemics that raged through the German camps. And how did the epidemics start? An interesting question.



http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Auschwitz/Ottone_030605.html


 * (a) Sign your posts, please, with ~ . (b) Those answers are pretty damned disingenuous, to put it mildly. . Her sister Margot died of typhus. This proves David Irving right. Typhus was the biggest killer in the camps. That's "All Indians walk single file; at least the one I saw did." One example hardly proves a generalization one way or another. The idea that there were survivors being proof of the lack of an extermination program doesn't prove there wasn't an extermination program; it proves that it wasn't 100% successful. Anyway, feel free to take your historical thoughts to some chat board someplace; this is not that place. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

........................................

Nick Rowan responds:

Here is the 4 paragraphs from the beginning of the text, which I continue to delete, because they are 1) unsubstatiated claims and 2) Highly subjective, opinionated claims with the intend of smear, which is in-appropriate in the beginning of any persons Curiculum Vitae:

>is a British Holocaust denier, who for many years had the reputation of <

>From the late 1960s to the mid-1980s, Irving was considered<

>In the mid-1980s, Irving began openly associating with neo-Nazi and extremist groups.<

>Among Holocaust deniers, Irving is perhaps the only one who for some time managed to maintain the reputation of a serious, if controversial, historian. He is considered an icon by many in the Holocaust denial camp.<

Vandalism
I'm not sure of the procedure myself, but could someone do something about the persistent vandalism on this page? How do I get in touch with an admin? User Nick-Rowan has been vandalising the page non-stop for three or four days now, yet the last 24-hour ban was simply for violating the 3-revert rule. S/he has not editted a single article besides the David Irving page and has made it quite clear they will continue to vandalise the page until stopped. Could someone tell me how to get in touch with an admin on the subject to try and get this sorted? --Davril2020 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Justice Gray Hearing
How can anyone claim the Justice Gray hearing was reestablishing the facts? The hearing was a civil case between two parties, not a criminal or a public enquiry. The scope of that case could never question the history other than question did Irving try to disclaim holocaust dogma and they found he did.

That Lipstat is a nasty piece. I recall her doing an interview on an Australia ABC current affairs show, Lateline, and she was constantly lying and misrepresenting the situation. The ABC was lapping everything up as they seem to favour the Jewish cause. Like they recently showed how great Simon Wiesenthal was, but failed to mention his witch hunt style persecutions and lies, like human soap stories.

The only means to questioning the history is to reopen the Nuremberg Trials!


 * Sign your posts. Bhumiya 15:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde was an Irish pederast, who for many years held the reputation of being an author and wit
If you think the title above is biased -even if it is factual - then you might also see that the opening paragraph of the Irving article is also biased. It's difficult being honest, open and able to face up to one's own prejudices.

Holocaust Denial is a particular perspective on a particular part of history, and Irving is known principally for his work in studying history. Hence it might be reasonable to describe Wilde as holding a particular literary perspective because it is central to Wilde's public existence. It would equally be incorrect to describe Irving as a criminal or a man who currently resides in prison because that is not central to Irving's public identity. His public views on the only area of history for which he is well known are, however, of great significance. Equally, if Wilde had been a famous child carer, I would consider it acceptable to use the first clause of your sentence as it would be meaningful and significant in such a context. --Davril2020 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

'Holocaust Denial' is more than a particular perspective, it is also an emotive label used to vilify people, and suppress considered judgement of the subject. Whether it was the intention or not, placing it at the start of the article taints everything which follows. One can imagine that, in his day, Galileo might have been dismissed, as a 'Flat Earth denier'. To be objective, the writers from history might have mentioned in their article that some people considered Galileo to be a Flat Earth denier; they might also have asked themselves which views Galileo held that made him a Flat Earth denier, and what led him to hold those views? We might ask similar questions of David Irving. Of course, Holocaust denial has to be mentioned, but in the body of the text, and in context. You don't have to agree with his conclusions; I don't. But at least try to keep it neutral so others can make up their minds for themselves. The article might start, something like, "David Irving is a writer and historian whose opinions regarding the Holocaust have often overshadowed the rest of his work, and provoked widespread condemnation." I realise that this is a sensitive subject, but he is a writer, and he is a historian even if one doesn't think he is a very good one, or even an honest one. That first sentence, as it stands, is not neutral by a long way.

All reasonable authorities agree that Irving denies the Holocaust; this has been established not only by other historians but before the law. The sentence is an accurate representation of the situation. Your use of Galileo is spurious; Galileo was criticised because he proposed heliocentrism not the round earth (incidentally, the idea that people of the middle ages and earlier believed the earth to be flat is in itself mythical, all evidence suggests the concept of a round earth was accepted since Greek times). The point in this context is that you are implying Galileo denied that which should be denied and was punished for it: yet Irving is denying, and - this is important - distorting a historical fact that has been supported by overwhelming evidence. We can present all sides of the argument, but we cannot give them all equal weight. Irving is actively denying evidence; he is not simply interpreting it differently to others. --Davril2020 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Davril."All reasonable authorities agree...", "this has been established...", "... all evidence suggests ...", "supported by overwhelming evidence.." Not much grey in your life is there? I doubt any of those bold statements is correct, or if they were, that you would be in a postion to know. If you were a more thoughtful person you might have written, "Many authorities agree..." and instead of "all evidence suggests..." you could write - probably more accurately - "there is much evidence to suggest..." though in your shoes I would have gone with, "there is reason to believe...". Thirty books, forty years of writing, research, and interviews, tons of original documents donated to archives around the world. His books have been read by hundreds of thousands ( maybe millions ) and placed on library shelves in many institutions. In his books, he portrayed the Nazi leaders as human beings with wives and children, ambition, greed and other human failing, rather than the caricatures which war time propaganda had planted in most peoples minds. He reminded us that atrocities are committed by people, not so much unlike ourselves. Read one of his books; you will be surprised at how little Irving praises the Nazis ( not at all ) and how critical he is of their duplicity, war mongering and guilt. The article casts all that aside in the first contentious badly written sentence, then continues to describe Irving's life and work from the viewpoint of someone who is obviously out to highlight the bad over everything else. I'm not saying it's all wrong, just that there is nothing approaching balance. You missed the point about Flat Earth deniers. You grasped hold of my casual use of Galileo's name, and triumphantly hoisted the heliocentric nature of the solar system above your head, but ignored what it was all about. It was about highlighting one distastful aspect of someone's being at the expense of everything else. Here's another one - "Socrates was a pederast who used to be thought of as a philosopher" Strictly speaking it's true, but we would know that the author had an agenda if we read it at the head of an article wouldn't we? If you get caught up on the fact that Socrates wasn't a Holocaust denier you've probably missed the point again.


 * The main thing that Irving is know as is a Holocaust denier. It's not true that Socrates was a pederast who used to be thought of as a philosopher. know of no evidence that isn't purely circumstantial (i.e. he was an Ancient Greek) to indicate that he was a pederast, and there's no one disputing Socrates's position as a philosopher. If Galileo was primarily known as a flat Earth denier, that's what we should start the article with.--Prosfilaes 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to describe Irving as a historian: he can't be a historian because he denies historical fact. So if he's not famous for being a historian, what is he famous for? Well, for being a Holocaust denier, so there's nothing wrong with identifying that early in the article. Ground Zero | t 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ground Zero, Irving was famous for authoring books on WWII long before he became known as a Holocaust Denier. Although, I guess that also depends on how you define 'denier'. But no, he's famous for researching and authoring books on history. He's recently famous for 'denying the holocaust', but that was a matter of opinion that he took to the courts and lost. And about your comment that it's 'historical fact', Do you not understand that 'historical fact' is often merely a consensus of opinions? Is it even possible to distinguish between fact and myth, between truth and whim? Yes, I believe it is possible.  But it's not easy, and it takes revisionists like Irving to point out the weaknesses and fallacies of the arguments on the consensus. Then again, it takes revisionists more careful than Irving to actually improve the quality of truth. Otheus 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "'historical fact' is often merely a consensus of opinions?" But in this case we know that the Holocaust occurred. There is no serious debate on the issue. The only debate occurs at the lunatic fringe where it is led by people who have an anti-Semitic agenda and want to believe that it did not occur. Again, the fact that he denies the occurrrence of one of the most important events of 20th century disqualifies him from being a historian. Maybe he could be described as a "former historian", but really, the main source of his notoriety now is his work as a Holocaust denier, and therefore, that is what should lead the article. We wouldn't describe George W. Bush as a former oil company executive and professional fottball team owner. He is described as President of the US because that is what he is best known for being. Ground Zero | t 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to remove POV
Greetings. Trying to remove POV from an article like this is pretty much impossible. But I've made an attempt.

First off, the context. I am evaluating the current situtation (16:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)) with the Muslim violent reaction and economic boycotts of the Danes for a Danish newspaper printing cartoons of Mohommad. Does the fact that Islam bans the reproduction of images of Mohommad mean that a Danish newspaper is engaging in hate-speech? Eith equal measure, how does Europe regard Holocaust deniers. Clearly, with Irving, it is to imprison him.

This is particularly ironic, since I am an American, living in Austria. I may have a chance to interview Mr. Irving myself when I visit Graz next month. However, I myself am banned from denying or even questioning the holocaust. I'm even banned from questioning whether I can question the Holocaust.

So that piqued my interest in this article. My hope is that I culled away material that could be inflammatory on either side of this debate, while maintaining verifiable facts.

There are some notable exceptions to this, however:
 * I left numbers alone. I did remove the word "authoritative" because well, that whole issue is a mess.
 * I generally left alone other's estimations of Irving's popularity. It's POV, it's bias, but one could research his book's sales to get an estimation of popularity. Nevertheless, such bias is clearly indicated and I attempted to marginalize its influence on the reader.
 * I neturalized some POV criticisms. For instance, that Irving played up the "free speech" motif in the trial is ironic, but that irony is still somewhat POV. I converted it to saying "one might find it ironic...". Reviewing the testimony, I don't think this claim is accurate. Irving was going for gold, by raising claims not central or necessary for him to prove his case. It is ironic, then, that he ended up with lead.
 * Concerning the ADL: they make unverifiable claims concerning Irving. I separated those which can be verified from which those cannot be, and I left those that cannot be as claims clearly made by the ADL. I could not find the 1959 or 1963 articles that accused him of being racist.
 * The judge's opinion is that Irving is anti-semitic and a racist, but this is mainly a result from his analyis of Irving's diaries, and what I see as Irving's attempt at shock humor. The judge pays lip-service only to the fact that throughout all of his diaries, the worst he can come up with is a racial nursery-rhyme he taught his daughter in order to 'suitably shock' the intended audience ("half-breeds"). Given Irving's lifelong role as a provacateur/enfant terible, it seems that any fair-minded judge (to borrow his phrase) would err on the side of caution in labeling Irving a genuine racist. The judge, in my current opinion seems to get caught up in the trap of applying the concepts of racism and anti-semitism as broadly as the extremist left-wing. Sigh. Despite all this, I readily stand by the continuance of referring to the ADL and to the judges summary of Irving.  Otheus 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Most people try and teach their children the right way to go; if you teach a special nursery-rhyme to your child, I think it's fair to assume you believe it. He also got up and espoused that certain jobs shouldn't be given to non-Whites, which is a racist concept. No one can know another's mind; if you behave and talk like a racist and anti-Semite, people have every right to assume you are one.--Prosfilaes 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not at all fair to assume one belives the nursery rhymes you teach your young. In fact, nursery-rhymes are in most cases completely disasociated from the parent's notion of truth and reality. Take for instance the childhood song "ashes to ashes, we all fall down", or some of Grimm's fairy tales, or "I knew an old lady who swallowed a spider", or "Farmer john(?), he had a dog, e-i-e-i-o", or etc. You believed these were real? Second, he is a bigot, there's no doubt. He prefers to see his own race (and sex) in particular instances, like reading the news on network television. This does not imply that he believes on race is superior to another, but yes, it is a racist "concept", but not exclusively one. Finally, "if you behave and talk like a racist and anti-Semite" ... yes, people have every right to assume you are one, but does that mean 1 racial slur in your whole life makes you a racist? Maybe 2 last year? Maybe there's a quote -- you know, 3 or 4 per year and then you're considered a racist. At any rate, Irving seems to have made 2 per year, based on the accounts of his diaries. I can't tell if that's racist or not, but I'm guessing it's not. I've been around non-racists who were, let's say, vociferous bigots, and if they kept a diary, uh, you'd not be able to count all the instances. (You may ask how I know they were non-racists. I'd have to write a whole essay on them.)  Otheus 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed references to "far right" unless that phrase qualified a specific group or within the context of a specific community. "Far right" German extremists are much different than "Far right" Spanish extremists and "Far right" American extremists. Generally, the label "neo-nazi" seems quite sufficient to convey the idea.
 * The Judges' agreement with Lipstadt,et al that Irving associates with right-wing extremist groups is undeniable at face-value. It's really not clearly to me, however, where the judge really stands on this issue. He says Irving "no doubt" shares politics with neo-Nazi groups, but that's like saying noting that humans share 93% of their DNA with mice. As long as he's going to use Irving's journals to hang him, he (or the defense) could have done so. But the best he could do is note that Irving knew that he was meeting with the "National Alliance", "whatever they were". On the basis of this, the Judge's quote should stand, but any other references to IRving's association not already covered in the trial, are probably shades of character assassination. Otheus 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Irving's Creditibility Problems
At this point, my knowledge is all tertiary in nature, but there are numerous claims and reports of claims of Irving's credibility problems:
 * He has defrauded his "investors" and resisted paying them back, even would-be allies such as "the Birdman" Bryant's wife and others.
 * Alexander Baron's book on Irving supposedly (since i haven't read it) lays out a case for Irving to be under the influence of 'Organized Jewry'. To make matters very complicated, Baron agrees with Irving on the Holocaust almost point-by-point, but claims Irving is a shoddy historian.
 * As recounted by Harris, upon hearing that another copy of Hitler's Diaries had emerged, he immediately and vigorously denied their authenticity. But, as Harris related, he "sucked the lemon dry" and found himself without publicity, and worse, in the mainstream, he began suggesting to reporters that they might be authentic. After all, the supposed-diaries didn't refute his thesis that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust. Can we say 'publicity whore'. Yet it bothers me that Harris intimates such insider details on Irving's motivation.
 * Irving has stolen, or received stolen items from many of the document archives he reports to have had access and studied. His theft from Russian archives, according to one source, is why he is banned from Russia. I'd like help finding more about this.

Any of you fans/detractors of Irving care to assist me in my search for objectivity/truth/slander? Otheus

Edward Hallett Carr
Was Carr "serious"? His apology of Stalin was close to the Nazi social Darvinism. Is Irving any worse? Xx236 11:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nick-Rowan respond:

You wrote: > there are numerous claims and reports of claims of Irving's credibility problems:< I allways find it extremely pathetic when someone run along distributing rumors, apparently without thinking for himself,supposing this is possible.And I immediately stop reading.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)