Talk:David Irving/Archive 4

disambiguation
There are 3 of them, it needs a disambiguation page.217.43.169.139 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions about Irving's Incarceration
What happened? Having just read a roundtable about D. Lipstadt's updated and apparently changed views of Irving's incarceration, I tried to add the following paragraph:

In July 2007, however, she modified her position regarding Irving's right to free speech, arguing that some speech should not be permitted:

"...there is no such thing as "pure" free speech. One cannot cry fire in a crowded -- or not so crowded -- theatre. One cannot call 911 and say someone is dying when they are not. One cannot engage in libel. One cannot tell state secrets. One cannot incite. Therefore, to suggest that free speech does not have its limitations is to ignore the real world in which we all live." [47]

The reference links here (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B80D0BF73-5861-4B31-968E-98F0F9E81317%7D)

For some reason my entire change was completely reversed in a matter of seconds! Is the information I added in some way offensive or incorrect?


 * Hi. Your edit was reverted by an automated 'bot', not a human editor. I'm not sure why - the reasons for reverting are given here.
 * On the substance of your edit, having read the context of the FrontPage article, I think you are reading too much into Lipstadt's comments. As well as the lines you quote, she makes it clear that she wrote editorials opposing Irving's being jailed, and she doesn't retract that or say she ahs changed her mind - she also says she understands why Austria would have such a law.
 * Minor points on formatting - please add new sections to talk pages at the bottom, and (on talk pages only) please sign your comments with four tildas: ~ . That will add your username and timestamp. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, sorry about the formatting. I don't know that I'm overreading Lipstadt's statement although I was surprised to see that she made it (as you see in the context, she came out with it when her host challenged her a little so I thought that gave it a little more credibility than what she said earlier). But others may disagree. Cowboygrasshopper77 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's your own personal interpretation that she has "changed her position". That's the real problem. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm "interpreting" anything and I don't appreciate your tone. At first Lipstadt said that she was against censorship of speech and she disapproved of Irving's prison sentence. The organizer of the panel she participated in expressed disbelief in her sincerity and she responded that she wasn't quite as in favor of unlimited free speech as she had once either believed or claimed to believe. I think that's an interesting development in this case. 24.59.104.63 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lipstadt's views on free speech, and any changes in those views, would seem more relevant to the article on her than to this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True. Cowboy, you need to find a reliable source, then, claiming that Lipstadt "changed her position". It's you that's interpreting it as a change in position. But what did she say? I can fully understand why those countries would want to outlaw both Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial. Understanding something is not condoning something. For example, I also understand why Germany et al feel a need for such laws; I also think they are stupid and counterproductive. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, thanks for responding a little less headstrong than last time. I see your point (and that of Will Beback). I can't imagine a more authoritative source than the one I cited - the person herself - but I cede your point about "fully understanding" something without condoning it. I suppose to me "fully understand" is ambiguous, since colloquially we often say "understand" to mean "sympathize with" (as in 'I understand your pain') and I thought when reading her discussion that's what she meant. I still think she probably does. But I also acknowledge that she says in the discussion that she didn't support Irving been imprisoned. Anyway the point is probably moot and I won't cause any further trouble with it.Cowboygrasshopper77 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Irving continues to make his presence felt in Europe, championing far-right causes - SOURCES REQUIRED
In the interests of academic accuracy it is necessary to include a citation for this quote at the end of the article

"Irving continues to make his presence felt in Europe, championing far-right causes"

Which far right causes? It is very generalistic to not suggest which causes he is supporting. Patchworkquilt 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote Problem
Note 34 references an article by Christopher Hitchens entitled "Churchill Take a Fall" appearing in the April 2002 Atlantic Monthly. The actual article is titled "The Medals of His Defeats," and consists of a review of thirteen World War II-era books on Winston Churchill. The article makes no mention of the incident described in this article, in which it is alleged that Hitchens writes of hearing Irving recite a racist rhyme to his daughter. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia style guidelines on verifiability, I suggest that this "source" be removed. Objections? Cak58 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad sentence
"Contentious in large part for advancing interpretations of the war considered favourable to the German side and for association with far-right groups that advanced these views, by 1988 he began advocating the view that the Holocaust did not take place as a systematic and deliberate genocide, and quickly grew to be one of the most prominent advocates of Holocaust denial, costing him what scholarly reputation he had outside those circles." Can someone fix this? It looks like a disconnected run-on sentence. Brian Pearson 01:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this:
 * He advanced interpretations of the war which were favorable to the German side of the war and began to associate with far-right groups sympathetic to those views. By 1988, he was claiming the Holocaust did not take place, and soon became one of the most prominent advocates of Holocaust denial. His views cost him his scholarly reputation. Brian Pearson 03:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it removes a lot of nuance, to the point of being incorrect. "He was claiming the Holocaust did not take place", by itself, is more extreme than the original; is it accurate? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. He denies anything called "the Holocaust" happenned, but he doesn't appear to deny that a number of residents, possibly in the 100,000s, were killed.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds as if his definition of "Holocaust" is a matter of degree. That is, if it had been less than one or two million than maybe it wasn't a holocaust, whereas if it had been 'only' 500,000 to 800,000 killed, then it wasn't a holocaust. "Genocide" is, by definition, "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." Do you think he was saying it was not genocide, but something else? Brian Pearson 02:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to be definitive as to what exactly he believes, as his view seems to shift from year to year, and from forum to forum. He has sometimes argued hat the numbers killed were much smaller than generally (indeed almost universally) believed, sometimes that there was no systemic plan, and sometimes that there was a planned genocide, but Hitler knew nothing of it.LeContexte 10:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe what's important for this particular paragraph is what he believed in the time period leading to the loss of his 'scholarly reputation.' BTW, I was just reading this site which showed Irving to be leaning to the right at a very early age. Brian Pearson 02:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The ADL is not an objective source in these matters.
 * On the matter of Irving's current views, in an interviewwith John Humphrys on Today on BBC Radio 4 he says there were gas chambers in the northern camps, but not as far as he can ascertain, at Auschwitz. He believes Himmler and not Hitler was responsible, and that the regularly-quoted figure of 6 million is too high. He accepts Hitler's responsibility for killings on the Eastern front. This hardly amounts to Holocaust denial, though that is more of a convenient label used to suppress debate than anything else. 78.147.100.109 16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Justice Gray thought it quite reasonable to describe Irving as a Holocaust denier. Are you suggesting that this was once correct, but is no longer? Looking at the definition in Wikipedia:
 * "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship."
 * By this definition Irving's views still amount to Holocaust denial.
 * LeContexte 11:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. By the somewhat loose standards being proposed, if he suggested that perhaps two or three Jews were accidentally injured during WWII, that would not make him a Holocaust denier. Gzuckier 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

re “A Challenge to David Irving,”
Maybe the letter mentioned under Holocaust denial should be cited. Brian Pearson 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi?
So, is he just a holocaust denier, or is he that AND a Neo-Nazi? Arbiteroftruth 02:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an historian who didn't know his place - he has found it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.181.165 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Good general attack, but is there a specific fact asserted by Irving that you refute? He is quite good at debating alleged facts, and I am sure that he would like you to cite the truth that he denies that you think makes him "not really a [sic] historian". Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.93.250 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah; for a historian, truth is always far preferable to lies. Which is why he's not really a historian. Pity; he does seem to have some good research skills. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Read 'Telling lies about Hitler' by Richard Evans - Irving's systematic distortion of the evidence is laid out in there. Historians no longer take Irving seriously because of his tendentious manipulation of archival material. Neo-nazis wont accept this kind of analysis, but that's because they're brainsick. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  00:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom - no there appear to be no facts anyone wants to argue with Irving. Read up on Evans - other than to Evans and his wiki supporters - his analysis is pretty weak. Telling Lies is pretty good for an adhominem piece, even better to practice spotting bad argumentation, way beyond the wiki crowd.159.105.80.141 17:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There appear to be no "facts" that Irving has provided that anyone believes, so they don't think he is worthy of argument. That seems a fairer description than the last.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not describe Evans' analysis as being 'weak' at all. I would describe it as being 'strong'. He clearly sets out the way that Irving has systematically manipulated quotes, facts and opinions. Darkmind1970 09:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Evans sets out numerous examples of where Irving manipulated sources - Irving was not able to counter any of these when they were put to him in the Lipstadt libel hearing and I'm not aware that he has done so subsequently. If you are aware of other sources refuting Evans' claims then it would be interesting to see them. LeContexte 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Irvin himself admit to not being a historian in one of his many trials? I will check Niskor http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/ and report back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

7.77 In his evidence Irving reiterated on a number of occasions that he is primarily a literary historian and that, at least until the present proceedings were commenced, he did not regard himself as an expert on the Holocaust. Accordingly until April 1988 he believed what he had been told about the killing of Jews in Auschwitz and the other death camps. The 1977 edition of Hitler's War contains several references to the gassing of Jews.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-07-01.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette
What has happened to this article? This is a heated discussion and, whatever our views on Irving, it would help to keep a little etiquette.

However, its sad to see this article is imbued with heavy personal prejudice and jibes. its detailed and accurate, but from start to finish David is described with evident irony and sarcasm. A little standardisation would not go amiss, I feel. Its a biography, not a piece of propoganda in its own right. Matt Ward


 * And you are a student? I've read this article as a result of your comment and consider it a model of NPOV. Criticisms of Irving are properly cited, Irving's own views are given due weight and overall it cannot be said that this is a "hatchet job" of Mr Irving. Bearing in mind it IS a biography, which means it should neither be a hagiography nor a demonisation, IMO, it is neither of these things. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Discredited" reference
Okay I just added a reference-needed tag to the "discredited historian" bit. I am NOT objecting to the word "discredited". I am pointing out that the reference used to back up this serious claim is very poor - it only mentions (by way of anecdote) that one UK newspaper decided not to call him an historian....in 1969! This neither supports the claim that Irving is widely discredited nor the claim that he is currently discredited. Furthermore, that 1969 anecdote takes place in a newspaper office rather than academia. If he is widely, currently discredited - given he is a fairly prominent figure - it should be easy to find references that actually support this claim. We should also distinguish between being discredited by the press and being discredited by academia esp. historians i.e. Irving's peers. It is perfectly possible that he is hated by his academic peers for his Holocaust denial etc. but still respected for his work on non-Holocaust related history. I'm no fan of Irving's but I am a fan of proper referencing on Wikipedia (so often references don't support claims made....and people investigate less often because  often they see the reference footnote number and just move on). 76.171.0.166 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's unbelievable that this has come up again (check archives). Irving is discredited but is still considered a historian who has been discredited in one area of his expertise. Even this very artical says "Faurisson praised Irving as an historian" despite Faurisson claiming he is discredited (for his holocaust views). NPOV editors get it changed to reflect reality and then move on as they have no particular interest in the artical and then the POV editors come out of the woodwork and change it back to make it look like he is discredited as a historian. If you check mainstream media, Irving is generally refered to as "Historian David Irving" (Guardian BBC etc), "British historian David Irving" (BBC recent), "Holocaust-denier David Irving" (more right wing media), "Mr Irving" (legal mentions) and sometimes as "controversial (or disgraced) historian David Irving" (by all media). Rarely is he refered to as "discredited historian David Irving" except in blogs. Do a search for discredited and you get little more than 1000 hits. I dont care if you hate the guy and oppose his views, accuracy comes first! Wayne 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As explained in lengthy discussion last year, there are publications that in the same article refer to him as a "historian" and a "discredited historian". In addition, Faurisson didn't describe him as discredited, and I'm not sure what you mean when you say only blogs describe him as discredited: The Guardian, The Sunday Herald, BBC News, PBS, Le Monde diplomatique, etc. are not "blogs". Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to be clear about my point here.. My point is that the current reference for the key term "discredited" in the article is VERY BAD, and does not support the term for the reasons I explained above. My point is that many editors don't seem to care about whether references actually logically support claims made. Often editors - often, apparently very experienced editors - will say "this fact is clearly true", "this is obvious" or "this is widely known" and then fail to come up with references support the supposedly widely known statement! I am not particularly interested in whatever partisan disputes over David Irving have gone on this page. I am simply asking for people to come up with proper references. If Irving is discredited or not, so long as IT'S PROPERLY REFERENCED, that's what I'm concerned about. Proper referencing does not just mean throwing in reference footnote with whatever link that comes up that superficially seems to be relevant after 2 minutes searching on google. At the moment, the *current* referencing of "discredited" fails WP:BLP, frankly. t 76.171.0.166 18:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it doesn't. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference refers to an anecdote about one newspaper in 1969. The claim is that Irving is *widely* and *currently* discredited. Are you saying this is the best you can do to prove that key claim - what, Irving's credibility hasn't been discussed as a current issue in the press beyond one newspaper since 1969? This is a "conjectural interpretation of a source" (the conjecture is that a 1969 anecdote at one newspaper proves a claim that Irving is widely and currently discredited) as specifically prohibited by WP:BLP 76.171.0.166 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're focused on the first item in a long list, when there were 23 citations that specifically referred to him as "discredited". Now there are 24. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an easy claim to support. While some editors may disagree as to whether Mr Irving's reputation as an historian should have been discredited, the adjective relates not to the substance of his work but to its public reception (which is to say, reputation), which has indeed been widely discredited and which the article supports with many citations. As to the substance of his work, throughout 4 decades Irving managed to unearth many interesting primary sources on the Nazis (often by befriending key people) and IMHO subsequently either lost his objectivity or somewhere along the way decided to deliberately put a pro-Nazi spin on his work, which ultimately landed him in prison (putting aside any free speech concerns, of which there are many). Calling this man discredited as an historian is to put it mildly. My take is, he has more or less tried to pick up where Josef Goebbels left off. I guess some folks think this has been helpful. I don't think it has, but whatever: His exit from scholarship is widely supported, not a controversial thing to assert and the article should say as much. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not supposed to be engaging in a debate about the substance of Irving's work. Our job is quite clear: we are to document (emphasis on the word document) what reliable secondary sources say about Irving in a NPOV fashion. Sadly, that is not what is happening here. A selection bias in favor of a handful of recent sources that promote one aspect of Irving's controversial nature is being used to overshadow the rest of the article and the myriad of views on Irving's work in both historical and contemporary perspective. That's unfortunate, not to mention unprofessional. By all means, let's document the Irving vs. Lipstadt libel case --- but to take one judge's ruling as definitive of Irving's life and career would certainly not be supported by a majority of editors here (I suspect) were it any other controversial subject such as one judge ruling on (say) global warming or a highly publicized criminal verdict or   something worse. Also, that some editors here sadly take the Evans books as representative of the entire field of knowledge is not only a POV-push; it's unencyclopedic. Eventually, when I get some time, this article needs to be seriously re-written to reflect faithfully the wide range of reliable sources to the history of Irving's life. One of the very first places that needs to be completely changed to reflect the documented reality is the section on Irving as Historian. Currently, it's terribly researched and poorly written. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Better citation needed
-		 -	Someone removed my objection tag to the poor referencing of "discredited" without, I assume, reading my comments above. Let me state again that I *have no opinion* as to whether Irving is actually widely discredited or not as a historian. I just want there to be a proper reference!! The editor who removed my tag commented that "Discredited" is clearly true. The alternative to listing it as fact is to remove all indications that he was ever considered an historian. Reverting anon." If "discredited" (as in currently and widely, not just by one newspaper in 1969(!) - and in the wider public sphere as well as academia (these may be differently treated) is "clearly true" than we should be able to discover much better references than the one given, which does not support the idea that Irving is widely or clearly discredited today. The "alternative" I assume ironically suggested seems to suggest that the editor thinks 1) the main purpose of the article is to ensure that Irving is not seen as a proper historian (I thought Wikipedia was primarily about referenced, verified, NPOV encyclopedia articles?) and 2) references don't matter so long if they get in the way of how we want to shape the article. Also, I am dismissed as an "anon". So much for Wikipedia's openness. I was actually a very active editor for 2 years with a registered account, and I never outright dismissed an anon who had a reasonable edit/objection. One of the main reasons I left Wikipedia was frustration over careless referencing. Occassionally I'll tinker with an article as an anon these days, but perhaps that's futile as well. 76.171.0.166 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Followup on Independent column
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article347567.ece

I now think that the citation from Bernard Ingrams piece in the Independent should be removed entirely as an inappropriate source - this is an opinion column piece not a news article (its not hard to tell the difference!). Furthermore, immediately after the excerpt used in the Wikipedia article, Ingrams comments that people had not adhered to the memo and that Irving is still currently referred generally to as a historian (though that he has recently lost the support of academic peers) i.e. The point of this piece (again, a opinion piece, not a news article ) is that Ingrams *wishes* Irving was more discredited, and that Irving is still widely (at least in Ingrams' opinion) treated as a genuine historian, though Ingrams strongly disapproves of this. So, basically we have one opinion of one columnist who has an anecdote from 1969 for one newspaper which suggests something opposite to the key claim of the Wikiepdia article. 76.171.0.166 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, how about, then, the fact that he lost his defamation lawsuit against Lipstadt, and one of the claims proven true was that Irving was "discredited"? That lawsuit turned Lipstadt into a legally verified reliable source. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lipstadt is ONE source and cannot be used to trump the views of the entire community. The article currently uses this as a reference: "if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian", how encyclopaedic is that definition?. I will point out that the dictionary says: "noun: a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it". The current version "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited" is not accurate and it should read "Irving is a British historian who has been widely discredited". I dare anyone to dispute which is the most accurate. "Irving's status as a historian is disputed" can be used but to say he is not one at all is POV. Wayne 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. What concerns me (and I'm sure other editors) about this article is that some WP editors, perhaps innocently enough, are using a small handful of recently published works (Evans, Lipstadt, Guttenplan and to a lesser extent van Pelt) to unknowingly interpret what the academic "community" must somehow think of Irving's work. One editor the other day has gone so far as to make the sweeping claim that Irving is not recognized as a historian at all, especially by other historians. What a curious thing for a WP editor to say, I thought, especially without any verifiable evidence. Such an unsupported assertion reminds me of what Sir John Keegan said about the constant back-and-forth between Lipstadt (Irving's work has no value as a historian) and Irving (some highly reputable historians wrote very flattering things about parts of my work, therefore it is all good): both positions are "highly artificial." The verifiable facts since the 1960s present a much more nuanced story, especially if one were to read the large body of academic reviews published in peer-reviewed and other well-respected journals about David Irving's numerous works. I encourage WP editors to read them. They might be surprised by what they find. Best regards, J Readings 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lipstadt is ONE source and cannot be used to trump the views of the entire community.  Which community are you referring to? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Irvings' books were criticised when they came out by historians - see the original release of 'Hitler's War' and the subsequent re-release following Irving's extreme revisions. Sloppy work that slants towards bias tends to get criticised. Darkmind1970 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Darkmind1970: What you do not seem to understand (or perhaps you are simply unaware of) is that Hitler's War is one of many books that David Irving researched and wrote since the 1960s. Yes, it's true: Hitler's War did receive mixed reviews in academia (they were not all negative, mind you) when it was first published in 1977. However, would you be surprised to learn that reputable historians around the world praised Irving's work for The Mare's Nest, The Virus House, The Trail of the Fox, and other works? Indeed, in the case of the first three books mentioned, I cannot find a negative academic review on JSTOR at all. They were all overwhelmingly positive. To suggest that David Irving's reception as a professional historian by other professional historians can be found only in the reactions to one of Irving's controversial theses found in Hitler's War -- and then only some of the time -- is to be seriously ill-informed about his thirty-plus year career as a WWII military historian and the reception to his work on a book by book basis in the academic community. Again, I encourage everyone to read the actual academic book reviews before passing judgment on what historians must have thought of him as a historian. One last comment: anyone who reads academic reviews and writes academic books knows one thing for certain: constructive criticism is an unavoidable (and mostly welcome) part of the profession. J Readings 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Irving's early books got positive reviews from scholars. Germany between 1933 and 1945 was a much more complicated place than some readers realize. Irving's later books, however, have demonstrably mis-represented his sources. Somewhere along the way, Mr Irving stopped being an historian, even a biased one (which many/most are anyway) and strayed afar into straight advocacy for the legacy of Adolf Hitler. The thing is, seeing as Hitler had more or less absolute political and military fiat during the period of the industrial genocide of the Holocaust, it's overwhelmingly likely he personally ordered Himmler and Heydrich to implement it, with the records having been burned or otherwise disposed of in 1945. If Hitler was ignorant of their activities, as Irving (and Hitler's half sister Angela claimed), given his administrative power in Germany at the time this would amount to criminal negligence anyway. Some folks get more emotional about Mr Irving than others but either way, advocating a positive legacy for Adolf Hitler, who tried to conquer half the world with a totalitarian government and left Germany in ruins, is, erm, kinda dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal
I propose this article be moved to David Irving (writer) since there are at least two other WP articles about David Irvings. Please comment. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This one's considerably better known than either the footballer or the late politician, so there's not much need to do anything. Most people looking for David Irving are looking for this guy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

a(n) historian
This article uses both "a historian" and "an historian". I noticed that user:Jayjg changed some "an"s to "a"s a couple of days back on grounds of language variety, but mistakenly ignored the fact that Irving is British. However, usage still seems to be inconsistent in the article and is complicated by the fact that there are quotations using both forms which shouldn't be changed. Which form do people think we should use in our own tect? Personally, even as a Brit, I find "an historian" and "an hotel" rather pedantic. --Peter cohen (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think 'an historian' is pedantic, just plain wrong. Nouns beginning with a consonant-sound take 'a', those beginning with a vowel-sound take 'an'. There was a vogue for pronouncing 'hotel' as 'otel' among people who thought french was chic, so in that case it should be 'an hotel' (silent 'h'). This has never been the case for 'historian', which should always take 'a' not 'an'. (In standard formal english the 'h' of historian is pronounced, even if there are some accents which drop all 'h's.)
 * If people quoted use the wrong form, we can't very well correct it for them, but in non-quoted text it should be 'a'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is correct – "an herb" but "a historian". Groupthink (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur and it also fits in with the Associated Press Style Book 2007 edition (page 3). Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the AP style book UK or US English? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

a crime against humaity
that this man is sitting in prison for downplaying or trivialising the holocaust hoax is an outrage. america should be speaking out against this gross and vulgar attack on free speech. but no, that would offend the zionists that control american media and government.

Discussion
First, I want to apologize for the length of this section, but rather than being bold and just re-writing the whole section on my own, I thought that it would be appropriate to document first exactly why I have a serious problem with the following sentence that I deleted from the main article: "Although Irving's works were generally ignored by academics, and sometimes criticised as inaccurate when reviewed by specialists, his command of language and a wealth of anecdotes led generalists to write favourable reviews in the popular press, and many of his works sold well. He was particularly noted for his mastery of the voluminous and scattered German war records." This sentence provoked me to research the academic reviews of Irving's works from 1967 to 1977 (not just the popular press). Before the publication of Hitler's War, the reviews by academics and historians were unquestionably positive. This leads me to believe that we should probably re-write the entire section entitled "Historian" to accurately reflect what the source materials from the period actually said. From the looks of it now, it ironically reads like a bit of revisionist history in its own right. What do other editors think? J Readings (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In before Wikipedia Jews cry "original research!"


 * Which it is, I'm afraid. :-/ -- ざくら 木 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia Jews"?? Hello? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind...controlled...by....small....cartel....of.....Wikipedia.....Jews.....Must......try.....to.....resist....Can't....Gzuckier (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the cuteness. Here you have reliable citations - that are even the truth, a wiki first maybe. "Original research" - in what way can even wiki call quotes from major historians and book reviewers Original Research. We have wiki editors who have finally got what was asked/challenged for - now what is going to be done with it. ( I suggest ad hominem attacks - against the reviewers et al or the guy who looked them up )must....try....to...resist....why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck to you, J Reading, but I wouldn't expect the cabal of politicised editors who control David Irving's page to allow any more than the tiniest changes. I, and many others, have tried in the past to establish a balanced view, but each attempt is seen off, by the same editors, with reference to a non-existent consensus and polite threats of blocking. For some reason the encyclopaedic Wikipedia fails when it comes to biographies of living people perceived to have right-of-centre political views. Check out Kelvin MacKenzie's article for another example, or Richard Littlejohn's. 217.44.79.183 (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the offer of Irving to pay $1000 to anyone who could produce a document showing that Hitler ordered the mass killing of Jews, it is written: "and for decades afterward as a publicity stunt offered to pay £1000 to anyone who could find such an order." There is no reason for "as a publicity stunt" to be included. That is conjecture, and blatant bias. Marcel.

Thanks for posting these review excerpts. The main "consensus" that I see regarding David Irving is that he is second to none in the military history of the Third Reich. It's amusing to see that he has magically ceased to be a "historian" based on four cited opinions, none of which back their claims.David A. Flory (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: $1000 reward offer - for a NPOV you could insert at the end of "publicity stunt" the observation that "noone has been able to collect the reward due to the lack of being able to come up with a document connecting Hitler ( or anyone? ) with mass killings". Is the article hoping that Irving doesn't have $1000, if so I will gladly pay the $1000 ( and sell it for several 1000s or 1000000s the same day ) - just notify me on this site if you find it.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Restore comment, although possibly added in bad faith.) The reason that isn't and shouldn't be in the article is that we don't have a source for the reason that noone has been able to claim the reward.  If we had such a source, the reason would most probably that much of the documentation was destroyed toward the end of the war (obviously), and that he would deny the credibility or applicablility of any such source.  See, for example, Kent Hovind for another person who offers a large reward for disproof of his (Horvid's) theories, and what we can say about it.

"Bad faith?" - thanks for the restoration of a comment that people of good faith don't seem to like( I didn't even know it had taken a short vacation). Ignoring - erasing/censoring comments doesn't make up for anything but excuses for the lack of documentation. Just to show good faith I will let the commentors know that there are several documents - Irving found at least one of them - that fairly definitively show that Hitler had no plans for exterminating anyone ( wellll he didn't like commies, a fault that many deniers share ( ps not me)). Schlegelberger's memo ( not the ones in the article ). a Martin Luther, and I believe from memory that there are a few others. I misworded my statement - I thought that $1000 was for the purchase of the memo - later I realised ( purpose of this visit ) that no memo from Hitler would only be worth $1000, a memo showing Hitler okayed the holocaust ( or even knew about it) would be up for auction at many times my lifetime cumulative earnings. I repeat, however, that "publicity stunt" should be follwed by the admission that no takers of his money as of yet - I'm betting his money is safe( if not and Irving can't pay I will send the finder ( not a forgery please) a $1000 myself( I think my $1000 is the safest $1000 in history). .... The reason noone has made a claim is that noone has found a memo period. Find the memo then make the claim he wouldn't pay up - it's the believers' turn at bat on this one. The memos that point away from Hitler and a holocaust were not out in plain sight ( years of scholrship and luck were involved). If holocaust believers are/have any scholars ( in good faith I will assume they do have such people and many more than Irving's crowd) then they should work harder ( demand and read the archives for a starter) - the German records and the forensic possibilities are extremely large. The deniers biggest pschological weapon is that they see that the believers don't seem to really believe(censorship/muscle/etc. is the sign of a lost argument not a victory - the boy who controls the microphone isn't really the winner 159.105.80.141 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For starters, are you saying you do like commies or that you aren't a Holocaust denier? I believe it's the first, but I can't be sure from the structure.  Of course, this is a silly offer related to a silly demand, and thus seems a bit irrelevant re whether someone has or has not found it.  They never will, of course, because Irving's idea of direct requires a memo to the effect of, "Goebbels: Exterminate all Jews everywhere.  Love, Adolf."  Similar to Hovind's aforementioned "offer," the very structure of the request eliminates any possibility of its fulfillment.  It is, thus, a publicity stunt, proving nothing but perhaps appearing to do so.  Irving does have a limited point in "humanizing" Hitler, tempering the sort of hysterical mania that paints Hitler as a man committed from birth to the extermination of the Jews.  Even Lukacs, an aggressive and rather vitriolic critic of Irving, argues that Hitler was not single-mindedly committed to the complete extermination of the Jewish race.  That particular issue, of Hitler's complexity as a human, though, has no bearing on the existence of the Holocaust as it was, and Hitler's very clear hand in its formulation and execution.  The lack of a direct memo in the style that Irving desires proves nothing but Irving's double-standard, requiring an entirely unrealistic burden of proof against Hitler, one that could not seriously be applied to historical study in general without undermining itself entirely.  Biasedbulldog (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

reliable source
Concerning this:
 * Donald Cameron Watt, Emeritus Professor of Modern History at the London School of Economics, writes that he admires some of Irving's work as a historian though he rejects his conclusions about the Holocaust.[19] According to Watt, prior to the 1996 Irving-Lipstadt libel case, The New York Times asked a number of leading American and British historians whether they regarded Irving as being a historian "of repute".[19] The large majority answered yes.[19]

The sources are Watt's own essay in the Evening Standard. I think this is clearly a reliable source for Watt's views. I do not think they are a reliable source for the NYT survey which is of course public record. I think the truly reliable source on an NYT survey is the appropriate NYT article, and we should find and use that as the source. If the Weekely Standard is the source, we should restrict it to Watt's views which are of course relevant to the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I looked for what Watt describes in the NYT, but I saw nothing of the sort. I'm going to replace that text with a note about Watt's participation in the Lipstadt trial. DBaba (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Harteck Process
The Harteck Process needs some one how kows what of the stuff is fictional. Most of the nuclear program is well documented, but enrichment of uranium in germany sounds ulikely.--Stone (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * According to JSTOR, David Irving’s The Virus House was either reviewed or mentioned 16 times in academic journals.


 * Profs. Flynn, Libby, and Seidel were the only experts to review directly Irving's book. Generally, they were all positive reviews. None of these reviews criticized Irving’s coverage of Paul Harteck and Wilhelm Groth’s ultracentrifuge, Erich Bagge’s “isotopesluice” method, or Manfred von Ardenne’s electromagnetic process.  Prof. Seidel offers the most coverage on the topic. He specifically writes in part:


 * "The Germans disagree as to whether intention or inexperience was responsible for the failure to build a bomb. Paul Harteck, the driving force behind much of the far-sighted research on the German atomic project during the war years, who had worked with industry and knew the scale of effort required to build a bomb, attributes the failure of the project Heisenberg’s and Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker’s lack of prior involvement in large experiment ventures. The chemistry and the technology were more complicated than the physics, Harteck says, and therefore Heisenberg was more a hindrance than a help. Robert Seidel, Isis, Vol. 81, No. 3. (Sep., 1990), pp. 519-537."


 * As a side note, it’s also interesting that several other academics (e.g., Prof. Karl Hufbauer, Department of History, University of California, Irvine) also used Irving’s book to further describe salient details in the review of other historical works on related subjects. I’m not an expert, so I’m only describing what these academics (who were usually either chemists or historians) wrote. Hope that helps a little bit, J Readings (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Occupation
Figured this might be controversial; Currently the infobox lists his occupation as World War II military history writer, after reading the article I think it would be more appropriate to list it as Revisionist World War II military history writer Is there any opposition? Anynobody 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In what sense do you mean "Revisionist"? Historical revisionism or Historical revisionism (negationism)? Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question, I would say he falls into the latter, as there is a sub category for his views:Historical revisionism (negationism). Anynobody 06:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that it's fine the way it is as "World War II military history writer." It was a fair compromise to an already thorny issue. Historical revisionism (negationism) has an overtly pejorative connotation as seen from the page ("In its legitimate form (see historical revisionism) it is the reexamination of historical facts..."). So by choosing one or the other, we would be taking a strong sweeping and strong POV on which category Irving falls from the inception of his work in the 1960s until today, correct? I'm not sure that's such a good idea. J Readings (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I propose this is because both sides of the argument seem to agree on his revisionist stance; Irving is listed on IHR and was Openly called a Holocaust denier by the BBC more than once including in its profile about him. In short we have a choice between:


 * Occupation:World War II military history writer


 * Occupation:Revisionist World War II military history writer12

Who doesn't call him a revisionist (a nice way of saying Holocaust denier) since he lost the libel case? Bear in mind that WP:NPOV is determined by the sources, if they all say a person is a Holocaust denier we're obliged to do so as well otherwise not only are we violating NPOV but are also engaging in original research. It seems like the referenced position is stronger. Anynobody 04:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: J Readings I don't mean to sidestep your point about on which category Irving falls from the inception of his work in the 1960s until today, but it's not really relevant. The truth is it, the infobox, requires current information. We're not talking about his reputation in 196x, currently he is known as a revisionist. Anynobody 04:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he's known as a Holocaust denier. And a fraudulent historian. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How is David Irving currently identified in the Media?
Fair point by Anynobody that the infobox should only use current information. Anynobody cites two examples of publications that support his point. In order to be rigorous, I checked LexisNexis. I wanted to see how the media identify David Irving over the past 5 years (April 2003 to April 2008).

Mentioned keyword results (anywhere in article):

"historian David Irving": 1274 articles. "British historian David Irving": 659 articles. "discredited historian David Irving": 16 articles "historian David Irving, who...": 129 articles. "historian David Irving, who defends Hitler": 2 articles "revisionist David Irving": 83 articles "revisionist historian David Irving": 73 articles "British revisionist David Irving": 1 article "Historical revisionist David Irving": 3 articles "Holocaust revisionist David Irving": 76 articles "British Holocaust revisionist David Irving": 8 articles "Holocaust denier David Irving": 538 articles "British Holocaust denier David Irving": 61 articles "British Holocaust historian David Irving": 1 article "British writer David Irving": 32 articles "controversial writer David Irving": 4 articles "Holocaust writer David Irving": 0 articles "widely discredited writer David Irving": 0 articles "fraudulent historian David Irving": 0 articles "discredited writer David Irving": 0 articles

The above results show how journalists identify David Irving in their articles over the past five years. The majority of articles either refer to him as a historian, a British historian or a Holocaust denier--with the majority of articles on the former. There is a small minority of articles identifying him as a "revisionist" calling into question such things as undue weight being applied to this article in a POV fashion if we were to label him as a revisionist, I imagine. That said, I've avoided revisiting the "historian" issue because I respect consensus (even if I disagree) and I'm busy with other things. Incidentally, I found no evidence to support the claim that Irving is identified as a "fraudulent historian," either. Mine is obviously not the last word on the subject, but it is a start in the right direction. Simply, the journalists found on LexisNexis over the past 5 five years apparently do not identify him as "fraudulent" in the reliable third-party media. I encourage people to cross-check my results. I'm not looking to bamboozle anyone. Regards, J Readings (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The above results show how journalists identify David Irving in their articles over the past five years. I certainly appreciate the effort you put into listing these results, but apologize that it's unconvincing because of information not included in addition to the imprecise nature of search results. Mentioned keyword results (anywhere in article) could include results which actually prove my point with closer examination. For instance do the same search on Google, "historian David Irving". Indeed all the results include the words "historian David Irving", but many also include the words revisionist and even Nazi. Plus, as you can probably tell by the examples I've just provided, compliance with WP:RS isn't guaranteed by inclusion of a specific phrase. (Also, as discussed, he was once highly regarded, so an article including the searches you performed could just be citing an older source.)


 * There's more, but I've actually gotta meet a friend who needs a ride. I'll post more in a few hours. Anynobody 04:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC) On second thought, rather than go on and on about the problems with your evidence thus far it seems like a better course of action would be to ask for specific articles backing your position that he is not a revisionist Holocaust denier as both the BBC and judge in his libel case stated. Anynobody 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A few notable 2008 sources are the Britannica (British Historian), FOX News (Right Wing British Historian), several D Lipstadt websites (Historian) and several University websites split between (British Historian) and (Controversial British Historian). Jewish websites are divided with almost half using "Holocaust Denier" and around the same number using "British Historian" in the intro then calling him a denier later. Most holocaust websites use “Holocaust Denier”. Other descriptions were rare with "discredited" the most popular at 3%. Wayne (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting excercise so I narrowed it to articles from Jan 1 2008 to April 25 2008. This is wording from introductory paragraphs as many sites use other descriptions in the body of their articles and along with skimming through hundreds of lead paragraphs I read dozens of articles to see how they use descriptions. By far the most common is just plain "David Irving" with 80% of all mentions. Taking these out so we only count descriptive names we now get "Historian" the most common at 48% of mentions. Next is "British Historian" and "Holocaust Denier" which is around equal but Holocaust denier is mentioned by a lot of sources with COI problems. Interestingly, most pro Irving sites don’t say historian but use Dr. or Mr. which is almost never used by anyone else so their COI is not so much of a problem as we can ignore it. These three descriptions account for around 90%.
 * What are "sources with COI problems" that describe him as a "Holocaust denier"? Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, Joooz. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the FOX News article Wayne found, Historian David Irving Gets Three Years in Holocaust Denial Case it says near the end  In 2000, Irving sued American Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt for libel in a British court but lost. The presiding judge in that case, Charles Gray, wrote that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist." in addition the AP appears to brand him a Holocaust denier too Holocaust Denier David Irving Released From Jail in this 2006 article FOX picked up. Anynobody 04:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Anynobody and Wayne for their replies. I anticipated that some editors would want to see further variations in the searches and methodology. I certainly welcome it. The problem was, rather than first citing countless newspaper and magazine articles by name generated by LexisNexis, which becomes lengthy, I tried to start with a more basic summary knowing we would probably continue the discussion. As you know, by using a plain vanilla google search, we can get many hits from unreliable sites without editorial oversight (namely blogs). For that reason, I prefer to use LexisNexis, Factiva, or even Google News when doing these types of searches. We are limited to results from (mostly) reliable third-party sources. True, sometimes letters-to-the-editor and the occasional blog register in the search results, but we can control those using the database’s filtering functions. Also, LexisNexis allows for articles to be categorized by type (newspaper, aggregate news sources, newswires and press releases, magazines and journals, web-based publications, news transcripts, blogs, industry trade press, and newsletters). 5-year results, for example, of keyword search "historian David Irving" produce coverage from newspapers (814 articles), aggregate news sources (216 "), newswires and press releases (161 "), news transcripts (34 "), web-based publications (28 "), magazines and journals (16 "), blogs (7 "), newsletters (5 "), and industry trade press (3 "). Subcategory filters then break down those main categories by actual newspaper, etc. It’s a useful database. I highly recommend it for doing Wikipedia research. As for Anynobody's question, it's unclear what kind of research you want shared on this talk page. I guess you are asking me/us to "prove" a negative -- that Irving is not a Holocaust denier. Is that a fair summary of what you are asking? If so, I am not sure I want to get involved in that kind of debate. Here, I was simply describing which qualifiers journalists use when identifying Irving’s occupation in third-party reliable sources over the past five years (which I think was your original point for the infobox). I can list articles with scans of included and omitted words (for example) on this talk page (NB:LexisNexis has that function), but that would entail bringing forth hundreds upon hundreds of articles and analyzing them, too. Please let me know what kind of specific, objective criteria you’d like us to use. There's no rush. J Readings (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For that reason, I prefer to use ... when doing these types of searches. With all due respect, really, I think you've missed my point which is that search results aren't a source in and of themselves. (We can't cite a search in the text.) I know going through results can be a pain in the arse*, but the proper way to add information here is through specific sources which can be verified. Indeed there is no rush, but on the other hand if several sources can be cited which describe him as a denier/revisionist there really doesn't seem to be any point in waiting either as the text can change anytime a new source is found. * (Part of the hassle are results which include my search string but only mention the subject in passing or in a different way or unexpected way. For example some results in the "historian David Irving" precede those words with "revisionist", "disgraced", or "Nazi" meaning were I out to prove he is a valid historian those results would be unhelpful even though they contain what I searched for.) Anynobody 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the proper way to add information here is through specific sources which can be verified. My main concerns are undue weight and original synthesis to advance a position being applied to the occupation entry of the infobox, hence the suggestion that we start with database searches to assess quickly how he's labeled by the media. Personally, I'm fine with Irving's current occupation being identified as "World War II military history writer" which is the product of WP:CONSENSUS and compromise. The back-and-forth on who has the higher number of cited articles for the footnotes to change that consensus and compromise looks like something that will take up a lot of my/our time, beyond what we've already contributed on the talk page. I'm not sure it's worth it. It would be useful to know what others thought about this issue. J Readings (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

To address your concerns;

undue weight I really don't see how this applies considering 1) his status as a Holocaust denier is a major factor of his notability and 2) all the WP:RS, WP:V sources I've seen at least mention it.

original synthesis to advance a position As I said above, it's an assertion made by all the sources I've seen so no synthesis is necessary. If one can say The BBC called David Irving a Holocaust denier then that person is simply repeating a position not creating it. You also appear to be misunderstanding the idea of consensus here, on issues where a choice between two or more solutions which abide by our rules indeed the consensus rules. However a consensus can't be used as a justification to violate policy like WP:NPOV (that'd be mob rule). The simple fact is that with so many sources calling him a Holocaust denier (as a historian) if we do not then we've essentially taken a stand in favor of Irving which is not neutrality as Wikipedia defines it. (Moreover, without a source, calling him a "historian" is also original research on our part.) Anynobody 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced yet by your argument. We're talking about his "occupation," not his "notability." There is a clear difference. It would help your case if you actually demonstrated that the majority of third-party sources think that his stated occupation is "holocaust denier" or "revisionist" in order to demonstrate that it is not undue weight in a POV fashion. All I need to do is demonstrate why the argument has not yet been verified by showing you the number of reliable third-party articles available for undue weight considerations generated by LexisNexis that state that his occupation is not a "revisionist" or "Holocaust denier" or some combination therein, but rather just "historian" or "controversial historian" or "British historian" or whatever. The burden then falls on you (not me) to demonstrate (and verify) that the preponderance of stated identifications are in the reliable third-party media support your argument. After all, you're the editor looking to change the status quo. Not me. Also, you appear to misunderstand what original synthesis means. We cannot put words into the mouth of a journalist, a pundit, or an academic. If any of these authors report X in passing somewhere in the article (without agreeing with it) but clearly state his occupation is Y in the label to David Irving's name, this does not mean that the authors must be thinking and arguing that Irving's occupation is really X instead. That would be synthesizing information to promote a conclusion not held by the author or the source. We can only reference what they clearly state as fact (which ultimately is your concern: What is David Irving's stated occupation by the third-party media?). Mentions of a lawsuit can be used to justify almost any position. In any case, if I were to  footnote carefully a few articles and unilaterally place them in the lead section or the infobox (major areas of the article) would it stand without first consulting with others on the talk page? Probably not. Unilaterally changing his occupation without first gaining WP:CONSENSUS would not be an advisable move under the circumstances. A compromise (however imperfect) was made that the majority of editors seem to accept for several months now. Right or wrong, I respect consensus because there is enough conflicting evidence to make allegations of a biased POV on "occupation" weak at best. The consensus can change, of course, but it requires a lot of work and as I said before, I'm not sure it's a productive use of my/our time. But please don't let me discourage you. I certainly don't WP:OWN this article and you might be right in the end. The Community decides based on the preponderance of evidence. Best wishes, J Readings (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You can add unsavoury Right-wing author David Irving, according to the Daily Telegraph today (surely a friendly fire incident). On a more serious note, the article could do with distinguishing between his reputation in the UK and his reputation abroad. I suspect that most of the "British historian David Irving" hits were from non-UK newspapers who needed to summarise Irving for their readership; a British newspaper certainly wouldn't decribe him as a "British historian". Presumably he would only be featured in non-UK newspapers on account of his imprisonment, his poor reputation etc, as he is non-notable outside the UK for anything else. In the UK he is, or at least was, notable as a perpeturally unsuccessful litigant and historical writer in addition to his controversial views. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent news
. Not notable of course, but can be used as evidence for establishing the notability of other facts - the 1970 libel case should perhaps get some more space here.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to go to the trouble, some people keep track of mentions of Wikipedia in the news, both on talk pages with a template and via the Signpost. Since this article is alleged by the subject to have prejudiced the landlady against him, and so referred to in court, it may be considered a noteworthy mentioned. I'll post a note on the Signpost page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Will Beback, there may be some notability but if Wikipedia hadn't been mentioned in such an "involved" way I'd totally agree with you Paul Pieniezny. Anynobody 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just in case I was unclear - I meant that the article is worth listing on this page as an instance of the article being cited, and may be worth a mention in the Signpost. I don't think a minor lawsuit is worth mentioning in the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You weren't, had I thought it was worth including in the actual article I'd of added it. Anynobody 07:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the banner at the top and alerted the Signpost. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure there is no controversy over this: when I said it was not notable, I just meant that the story saying that according to Irving or his lawyer someone may have been led by this (Wikipedia) article to evict him from his Bed and Breakfast accommodation, was probably not notable enough for this article. So, I was thinking of the legal contention part there, and I did not know that the mention of the Irving Wikipedia article in the press itself (actually, technically speaking it was mentioned in a court case) warranted a mention on the talk page (and I was quite ignorant of the Signpost). I noticed this article looking up completely different information, I noticed Wikipedia mentioned in the article and had a good look at it. I noticed it seemed to attach a lot of attention to the 1970 case, more than one would expect from its treatment here. Knowing that very controversial things and conspiracy theories are often given a lot of scope on Wikipedia, and that it may be interesting to see what other people deem important, I looked it up on the internet and posted it here. Though I agree, if it turns out this landlady has some, even very minor, connection to the guy who sued Irving in 1970 (which may possibly explain the landlady's solicitor getting involved early - but that is Irving POV of course, the landlady would probably say she asked her solicitor "to look up what is wrong with that guy, since he is getting into rows with all my other lodgers"), the point is lost. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Discredited
A number of editors have been changing "widely considered to be discredited[2: 26 separate references]" to "has been discredited by historians such as Deborah Lipstadt.[2]" This is wrong. Not all the references refer directly to Lipstadt, and I'm not convinced that all of them refer indirectly to Lipstadt or the court case.

For talk page history, see (among others):
 * 1) Talk:David Irving/Archive 1 March-April 2005. No consenus, but SlimVirgin got in the last word as "discredited" should be "reputation trashed".
 * 2) A few sections culminating in Talk:David Irving/Archive 3, with the "present" wording established by consensus under an article RfC by May 2007.
 * 3) Talk:David Irving/Archive 4 seems to be arguing that a single reference to a newspaper article is inadequate. December 2007. But that's not what we have now, or then, according to the notes.  It's not easy to check the status of an article as busy is this back that far.  It appears that only a single anon was objecting at that time.

I don't see any reason to revisit, unless we want to split reference 2 into the 24-26 individual references. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no "number of editors"; it's all the same person. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Widely considered sounds good to me, being both ref'd and true. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone else make the 3RR/Sock report, or just block them all (be sure NOT to uncheck autoblock). I have a meeting in 15 minutes.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to file; I'm watching and blocking. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Separately, I've actually read the lengthy Hitler's war (2002 edition) last week, out of curiosity. Where the article reads:
 * "In 1977 Irving published Hitler's War, the first of his two-part biography of Adolf Hitler. In it, Irving tried to describe the war from "Hitler's point of view". He portrayed Hitler as a rational, intelligent politician, whose only goal was to increase Germany's prosperity and influence on the continent. "

... I'd have to say that there is also an amount of material criticizing many aspects of Hitler's management of political and military matters. There are numerous unflattering references (e.g. speaking in "guttural Hitler-German") and if anything it portrays him frequently as a cynical, manipulative opportunist and gambler. Maybe the text has altered considerably between the 1977 and 2002 editions? IMHO discredited as a war historian, no; discredited for not making the link to Hitler's inspiration of the holocaust, in the absence of a signed and dated order, yes. Irving's style is largely to present his chosen facts and let the reader analyse the moral / practical aspects. A good read but I'd prefer John Keegan any day.86.42.219.131 (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Help needed: Kimberley Cornish
If anyone can point me to information about links between David Irving and Kimberley Cornish, author of The Jew of Linz, please reply on my talk page. In particular, would appreciate information on any statements made by Richard J. Evans about Cornish.--Number17 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There were two links in The Jew of Linz though they may not have included Evans. One showed a letter from Cornish on Irving's own site; but they seem to have gone from the article. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... Yes, I had to delete the section titled "The author", because Wikipedia puts author info into separate articles (just found out about this today.) However, I will be able to use only well-sourced info. A blog, for example, would not count as such. Hence my plea for well-documented information. By the way, nice job tidying up the formatting and spelling today, I will to learn from this :-).--Number17 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Support by Rolf Hochhuth
Though Hochhuth's support of Irving is an important aspect of Hochhuth's biography, is it at all an important aspect of Irving's? It seems over-represented here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

American English?
Given that the history of this article appears to continue a pointed (if slomo) reversion to US spelling, and the use of the word "automobile", would I be correct in anticipating that some editors will argue that David Irving is not a "topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation"? Alai (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have tried to sort this in the past. If it's happening again, go ahead and fix what you can, but make sure that quotations from Lipstadt and other Americans aren't Anglicised by mistake.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

NRK Interview
David Irving was interviewed by Norwegian national channel NRK, it was broadcast in todays news. Well, among the things he said were that Auschwitz was as real as Disneyland is (i.e. that Auschwitz is just staged and the gaschambers being fake and whatnot). I couldn't find a reference to it online, but if someone is able to find it maybe this should be added in the article... Gabagool (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I went looking for it, but haven't found anything yet. -- ₪ Amused Repose   Converse!  15:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever his views may have been in the past, Irving very clearly does not deny the Holocaust in his interview with John Humphrys on Radio 4 Today programme after his release from prison.


 * He says the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, including in gas chambers in Treblinka, Sobibor, etc. He says the gas chamber they show the tourists is not genuine. The Polish authorities now say it is a "reconstruction".
 * He says he has no evidence it was on Hitler's orders, and attributes responsibility to Himmler.
 * I think a link to this very informative interview should be included in the article.78.149.207.86 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think an interview at a very specific point in Irving's life isn't enough to define his position. We would need to see a pattern of consistent behaviout to say it is his long term view. The not on Hitler's orders is consistent with his long term business. The comments on gassing needs to be compared with other statemetns.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot see why this interview would not represent his current position. (As for the "single interview" aspect, I am posting in reply to a request for info about a radio interview.) No problem with comparisons with other statements from earlier periods if there is a difference. Find them and link to them.
 * He expresses a similar viewpoint in an Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/29/secondworldwar.highereducation linked to in the Wiki article.


 * However, I have been reading his book on the Hungarian uprising of 1956, and on page 51 he writes: "'Under Nazi occupation Hungary began deporting the provincial Jews to the extermination camps, while those in Budapest itself were herded into labour camps. Only about two hundred thousand Jews survived the war, and they understandably greeted the Soviet army as liberators, a posture which only fuelled the flames of the public’s historic anti-Semitism.' [my italics]"
 * This was first published in 1981. It makes pretty clear that he is not denying the existence of extermination camps.78.149.207.86 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

not an anti semite?
 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

David Irving in an interview on Youtube denies that he is an Anti-Semite. His lawyer was a jew, so was his publisher. he said they are perfectly ordinary and decent people once you get to know them. this is a defamatory thing to say about this man

here is the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ9wiWjvwkQ

Bannedtruth (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not saying it; reliable sources are saying it and we're reporting it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

what better source than the man himself? would a member of the KKK who hated Blacks hire one to be his attorney? Bannedtruth (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What better source than a known liar? Hm. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In Ron Rosenbaum's book Explaining Hitler, there is a reference to a former skinhead leader in Germany (whose name escapes me at present) who renounced his former beliefs, and now is active in anti-racist campaigns. According to this gentlemen, and I’ve have no reasons to doubt him, the vast majority of Holocaust Deniers don’t actually believe their own claims. The only reason why Holocaust Deniers make the sort of statements that they do is the pleasure they get by tormenting Holocaust survivors by denying their suffering. I can’t verify this, and through that statement was made about Holocaust Deniers in general, not Irving, but if is true, then that would mean that all Holocaust Deniers are by definition anti-Semitic. Moreover, if that is true, then makes Holocaust Deniers are all the more despicable if the only reason why they make these bizarre and outrageous statements is to torment people who have already suffered enough. And I’ve haven’t even brought in all those statements by Irving that there is a world-wide Jewish conspiracy out to get him. Perhaps this is just me, but it would strike me that people who believe or at least professed to believe that there is a world-wide Jewish conspiracy out to get them are to considered anti-Semitic. And let’s also consider Irving’s 2005 statement after Hurricane Katrina about why hurricanes never have “Jewish names”, and how just proved how the Jews rule the world; a statement that is as strange as it is offensive. Anyhow, anti-Semitism has to do with disliking and/or hating Jews, it doesn’t necessarily mean that one does not have social dealing with Jews. For all these reasons, Irving is an anti-Semitic, and barring some unexpected change of view on his part, there is no need for any more discussion of this matter. --A.S. Brown (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The subject of an article is a good source for what they claim. So you could use you reference for DI claiming he is not anti-semitic. Subjects are also normally a good source for matters of fact such as date of birth, but some people have been known to lie about their age. They are poor sources for matters of assessment of significance or merit as they may have ulterior motives, be overly self-critical or self-promotional. That is why independnet third party sources are recommended on Wikipedia--Peter cohen (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The editor who initiated this thread has since been indefinitely blocked because of his persistent antisemitism, so I don't suppose much more needs to be said. However I will point out that in a previous version of this article contained a quotation from the judge at Irving's trial. The judge said that "an active Holocaust denier; that he is antisemitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." The quotation has since been slightly altered so that the middle section, with the word, "antisemitic" has since been taken out of the quotation. In my opinion, it was better before. Thoughts? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we've already got the full quote below; do we need it in full twice? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

holocaust questioners(deniers,revisionists) are NOT antisemites. They are labelled this by jews. i am seriously qeustioning the shoah,and judging from a lot of web research so are many more peoplle who previously believed GASSINGS TOOK PLACE IN THESE WORK CAMPS. THERE WERE NO GASSINGS.i will be submiting a list on the wiki deniers site where i will list reasons wich QUESTION why the holocaust needs REVISION Dwnndog (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. And making unfounded claims about "jews" is not anti-semitic either... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "holocaust questioners(deniers,revisionists) are NOT antisemites. They are labelled this by jews" now THAT's funny. Gzuckier (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dwnndog can't see the contratidictions in Dwnndogs own comments! Autarch (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DNFTT --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Support by Rolf Hochhuth section removed
I couldn't see any good reason to keep this material so I removed it. Maybe a mention could return but not a whole section. --John (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notable criticism and notable support should be mentioned. --Dezidor (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mentioned yes, and perhaps this is notable enough for a mention. Having a whole section seemed disproportionate. --John (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I had edited that section just before John's deletion, I agree with the deletion. The information is not gone from Wikipedia but (last I checked) resides at Rolf Hochhuth.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing this discussion per WP:SNOW with the decision to keep the title of this article as it currently exists. Moreover, this was a ridiculous suggestion to make to begin with, intended only to inflame an already volatile situation. See also: WP:NCR. Trusilver 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

entire article needs to be rewritten
many contributors are no up to a standard that leads to the production of useful documents. this wiki article reflects a witch hunt mentality which is expressed through weasel words, inaccuracies, bias toward the generally accepted norm. the examination of commonly accepted notions is part of critical thinking, the scientific method and the accurate piecing together of history fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.113.189 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right, but I wanna be outspoken on saying that. This article is just a zionist propaganda and, only due this reason, it will be awarded by the camera's mafia inside wikipedia.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox edit war
I am freezing edits until we can discuss what should go in the infobox. Right now it says "Holocaust denial. Another editor wants to put just "WWII military history".  I would be okay with revisionist history, but not this obfuscation.  We need to discuss this to prevent edit warring. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that the man has written many famous(?) books since his Holocaust denial days, but he is first and foremost known for this view. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Got my history backwards: he is even moreso a denier now. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Care to explain? His most famous books were written in the 1960s. Only in the late 80s Irving became a "controversial" author. His alleged holocaust denial took place in the 80s (some speeches held by him, but note that he has never denied that Jews were killed by the Nazis, only questioned aspects of the holocaust). He has since changed his opinion on the subject and is certainly not "even moreso a denier now". Also, he has stated that he is not an expert on the topic and that it is not his primary field of interest. Gramsf (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the ethics are of protecting your own Right Version. However, when you do unblock thigns, you may want to consider reversing this edit too.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If a person is best known for A and also for B, what is wrong with writing, "Known for A, B". It is generally understood that the first item in an enumeration is the most important one. I would see nothing wrong with stating that Irving is "Known for Holocaust Denial, WW II history."--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

David Irving has written 30 books since the 1960s. Some of the them are very famous and were international best sellers. He has not written a single book that is primarily concerned with the holocaust, nor has he done any significant research on the topic. As stated by Irving himself in 2006, he is "not an expert on the holocaust". On the same occasion, he also stated that "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews". Please explain how "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews" is "holocaust denial". Gramsf (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And the prevailing military historical opinion is that many of his books are complete rubbish where he gives undue weight, ignores sources, and the like. Most of his life is going around talking about Holocaust Denial, and it's what he's mostly in the news for ... i.e., "known for". -- ₪  Amused Repose   Converse!  18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a history major, one of the things we spend most time on is source analysis which bases itself on other people's work, which again bases itself on other people's work and so forth. In nearly every case (and I am not at all talking about World War II here) the authors concerned with the same field accuse each other of ignoring important sources in order to force their view through. It is quite a common thing to see in historic writings, I am sure other history majors will agree with me on that much. I write this to underline that what you argue is typical for historians who believe deeply in their own cause, regardless of the subject. --130.225.243.84 (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly he does not deny the holocaust, but his views on the methods and his suggestion that to some extent European Jews brought the thing down on their own heads is naturally hard for many to swallow. Since when did judges know anything about history? I think Irving over-argues a thin case too strongly, but by any objective standard he is not a full blown denier. My grandfather died at Auschwitz in December 1944 and so I take an interest in the subject.86.42.219.18 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly he does routinely deny the Holocaust. This is clearly stated in scholarly sources and confirmed in various lawsuits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He does not "deny the Holocaust". This is lazy labelling which has no place in an encyclopaedia. He does not use the term or accept "a package" (his expression) but insists on the right to "open it and look inside". He acknowledges that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, including in gas chambers (though not in the reconstruction at Auschwitz). The fact that he can sometimes have an unpleasant turn of phrase, and on occasion attitudes that might be considered anti-Semitic is not justification for misrepresenting his position with this catch-all phrase. 78.146.252.233 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable, verifiable sources disagree. The consensus (scholarly, legally, and otherwise) is that he is a Holocaust denier; thus, Wikipedia says he is a Holocaust denier. That's how it works. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't cited any. But if Irving has stated consistently that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, what more "reliable, verifiable" source do we need? Unless you believe he is lying, which would seem rather pointless and counter-productive for him, and you would need to show a motive. Someone who believes that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, many of them in gas chambers, and that at least part of this (the Eastern front) was on Hitler's orders, the remainder being organised by Himmler and others, is not a "Holocaust denier". Holocaust deniers exist, and not one of them would accept that position, which is why I called this "lazy labelling", inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. "Holocaust revisionist" may be more accurate, but I am fully aware of the issues surrounding the use of this term. We don't need to use a label. We can say that he accepts the events commonly termed the Holocaust took place, but he does not like the term and questions a number of aspects of the generally-accepted version, including the numbers, Hitler's role and the role of the Auschwitz camp. I think he may have modified his position somewhat over the years, first towards Holocaust denial and later away from it again. If this is the case it is relevant to say so. Wiki's function is to present an objective NPOV picture of an issue. Personal agendas, whether supportive of or in opposition to the subject, have no place. I don't want this article to be supportive of Irving, but I do want it to be factually accurate.
 * If you are going to engage with me on this, please do just that: engage in constructive discussion to improve understanding. 78.146.252.233 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(Karpaten1 (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)) The Dresden numbers of victims are a bit more complex. Irving was not wrong AT THE TIME, and even today, the 25,000 smack of political accounting a la Great Soviet Encyclopedia. In Germany, modern history is not just history, but reeducation. For more details, http://www.bombenkrieg.net/dresden2.htm

Proposed move
No consensus for move. Closed early by request. Not sure who closed it, but not worth finding out. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Speedy decline. Closed early by Trusilver on November 26, 2008. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposal was to rename as "Criticism of David Irving". 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree This a biography and should be named after the subject, not least because that is what people search for. If we were to spinoff a separate criticism section it would be an inappropriate fork, and if the bio remained shorn of any criticism we would be vulnerable to criticisms of censorship. That said, if the reason for suggesting this is that the suggester believes that we have a non-neutral article that breaches wp:bio then please make suggestions on this page as to how we can neutrally but factually write a biography on David Irving.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Could the person who has proposed the move please provide a rationale for this. As this is a new userid I will be particularly interested to hear why they feel the need to do this as virtually their first edit, or why they have created a new id especially for this purpose. As for the substance of the proposal...


 * Disagree As with other people who have been involved in extremist politics and have lost several court cases, both civil and criminal, as a result of their activities, the David Irving article does contain a lot of negative material about him. It also contains biographical material. Making the move would generate a WP:Content fork and would therefore be against policy.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. I don't see a good reason for it. This is the main biographical article on Irving. It contains a lot of criticism because Irving has drawn a lot of criticism in his life. The criticism deals with many aspects of his life and work, and hence cannot easily be factored out - certainly not without omitting important information about Irving. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not. What a waste of electrons. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose move obviously. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Slam-dunk oppose. Per the arguments given above. (Note: I've moved the Template to the top because the Template Instructions say, "Place this template on the top of the talk page of the article to be moved.") I propose that this discussion be brought to a close by an admin early, like how about 1600 hrs UTC tomorrow?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Early closure fine by me.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too, in fact unless somebody actually makes a case for the move I think another 23 hours would be excessive, I've left a note on an uninvolved admins page.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Criticism of"? Ludicrous. Come on, close it already. Would you guys have a poll if somebody proposed moving George W. Bush to George W. Bush lulz? What a lot of time we waste in this place. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC). (The uninvolved admin in question, but terribly butterfingered with the closing gambit, sorry.)
 * Oppose pointless disruption. Be careful everybody, the chestnuts in this bag are really hot. I like to hold them in my gloves, to defrost my hands. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, are your hands warmed enough to type in a request for checkuser?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reason for templates
I've added the "verylong" template and two "needs sub-sections" templates. At currently 160KB+ in length, the Article is too long to be read comfortably in one sitting. Also, at least the two sections tagged by me are long expanses of text with only paragraph breaks; they need extra sub-section headings or they should be cut down in length. I have not been one of the Article's principal author-editors, and so I think they should be given the opportunity first to perform the size reduction and reformating in line with what they think is best.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For the sake of readability, perhaps this could be broken up into some sub-sections. However, through this article is a bit long, I don't it is excessively long. Through I feel that the NPOV rule is a good one (through it is in fact often violated), when it comes to a figure like Irving, one does encounter problems. On one hand, Irving's views (however repugnant they are) do deserve to be presented fairly, objectively and concisely. But here comes the problem that to simply summarize Irving's views and leave it like that would present a false impression that all is reasonable and well with what Irving believes about World War II, Hitler and the Holocaust.

The blunt and hard fact is much what Irving writes about these subjects are not only nonsense, but highly malicious and tendentious nonsense. I don’t mean to sound elitist here (please trust me when I say I am a most humble person), but as someone with some familiarity with the period under question, I am struck by the extraordinarily disingenuous way in which Irving misinterprets history. To take an easy example of what I am talking about, let’s consider Irving’s publicity stunt offer to pay £ 1, 000 to the first person who find the written Führerbefehl (Fuhrer Order) for the Holocaust. This offer, which Irving has repeatedly made since 1977 is nothing than a cheap publicity stunt for the very simple reason that it is 99.99% certain that such a order was not committed to writing. However, most people are not aware of that, and simply assume there was a written order from Hitler for “Final Solution”, so when Irving goes up to various historians under the hot light of the television cameras, waves about £ 1, 000, and says he will pay that amount if the historian in question can find such an order, Irving is simply trading on popular ignorance to score a point.

I don’t think Irving is a stupid man (through I have some doubts about his mental stability, but that is another question), and assuming of course that Irving does indeed possessed the unrivalled knowledge of the Third Reich that he is so fond of claiming, than he must know that there was never a written Führerbefehl for the Holocaust. There are the following reasons against the existence of a written Führer Order. First, historians have searched far and wide for a written Führerbefehl since 1945, and nobody has ever found it. Of course, such an order could have been destroyed, but that seems unlikely. There is plenty of documentary evidence implicating Himmler, Göring and other top Nazi leaders in the Holocaust, and it seems strange that if the Nazi leaders were destroying evidence implicating Hitler in the Holocaust that they somehow forget to destroy the documents implicating themselves. Second, in all of the voluminous documentation relating to the Holocaust, there is not one single reference to any sort of written order from Hitler. Third, hardly any of the Nazi leaders who were brought to trial ever mentioned a written order from Hitler, which is odd considering that the usual defence was that they were just following orders. Instead of a written order, almost always the defendants spoke of an unwritten order from Hitler. It strikes me as odd that men on trial for their lives and who were using the defence of just following orders would neglect to speak of a written order, assuming that one existed. There are two and half exceptions to this, and there are good reasons for suspecting that the defendants were lying.

The first was the trial of the Einsatzgruppen commanders before an American military court in 1947, who claimed to have received a written order from Hitler before Operation Barbarossa ordering them to massacre Soviet Jews, but it has been established quite conclusively that these gentlemen were committing perjury in making that claim. The proof in the pudding about the case of the Einsatzgruppen lies in the written draft orders given to them by Heydrich before Barbarossa, which order them to encourage pogroms against Jews, but say nothing about murdering every single Jewish men, women and child. Indeed, initally the Einsatzgruppen, through involved in immense anti-Jewish violence from June 22nd, 1941 onwards did not seek to exterminate every single Jew they came across. That only started in the late summer-fall of 1941. The reasons for why the change occurred from supporting murderous pogroms in the early summer to a program of genocide by the fall of 41 can probably be better discussed on the Einsatzgruppen page

The second exception was Dieter Wisliceny, who made that claim at this trial in 1947, but again it appear quite likely that Wisliceny was lying about that. The half exception was Hermann Göring, who when he was being interrogated prior to Nuremberg claimed to have seen a written order from Hitler for the Holocaust, but did not repeat that claim when he was on stand during the Nuremberg trials, which is strange given that Göring claimed to be (you guessed it) just following orders. Finally, Hitler disliked writing things down, and always preferred verbal orders to written ones, especially in regards to things that might make him look bad. During all of his 12 years in power, Hitler only ever wrote down one state paper himself, and that was the Four Year Plan Memorandum of August 1936. For an example closer to the field of genocide and mass murder, when Hitler ordered the Action T4 program in January 1939, it was a strictly a verbal command. Not until October 1939 in response to concerns about the program’s directors about the legality of their work, did Hitler reluctantly issue a written order for the T4 program with the false date of September 1, 1939. The people killed under the T4 program were mentally and/or physically disabled Germans, and even then Hitler was most loath to issue a written order, and had to dragged literally kicking and screaming into doing so. Given that the vast majority of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were East European Jews (i.e. not Germans), and the demonical role Jews played in the Nazi imagination, a written from Hitler seems scarcely necessary. I rather strongly suspect that Irving knows all this, but he also knows that most people don’t know this, so he banks on public ignorance to make false and malicious claims about Hitler’s responsibility for the Holocaust by this clever publicity stunt of offering £ 1, 000 to the first person who find the non-existent Fuhrer order.

Given that millions of people use Wikipedia as a source, I am concerned about presenting Irving’s arguments verbatim without any sort of critical discussion. I ran into the same problem in 2007 with while I was working on an article on Irving’s admirer and follow tiller in negationism, namely the anti-Semitic philiosopher Ernst Nolte. Just as a aside here, I can’t put this into the Nolte article as it would constituted original research, but based on my own reading of Nolte’s corpus, when Nolte criticizes Zionism and Israel, he is clearly using the terms Zionist, Israeli, Zionism and Israel as a synonym for Jews. But all that can be better discussed on the page on Nolte. For the sake of fairness as noted above, a good article should require a summary of the subject’s views. But given the nature of Irving’s views (or Nolte’s for that matter, through he is a Holocaust justifier rather then a denier), that could place one into a position of unwillingly serving as a propagandist for Holocaust denial, which not something I want to do nor this is something for which Wikipedia is for. Nor will the claim that there are two sides to the argument do. In some historical issues, such an approach might work, and indeed given the hotly contested nature of some historical disputes is probably called for. But not in regards to the Holocaust because there is only one side to this argument. The evidence that the German state murdered approximately 6 million European Jews is so overwhelming and massive that there can be no doubt to the veracity of the fact that 6 million Jews did die in the Holocaust. To take an approach that says that there are two sides to this issue implicitly gives Holocaust deniers a degree of creditability that they do not deserve. There is only side to this issue, and that is that the Holocaust happened, and the claims of the Holocaust deniers need be taken no more seriously then the claims of the flat earth theorists. Or in other words, the opinions of the Holocaust deniers are irrelevant to any discussion of the Holocaust.

My solution is simply to present Irving’s views, and the views of his critics as offering the best summary of his views without endorsing them in a reasonably NPOV way. I am not going to present the proof of the reality of the Holocaust because I don’t think that is really necessary. Anybody who believes that the Holocaust was faked by the international Jewish conspiracy is either A) an incredible anti-Semitic bigot and/or B) really incredibly stupid. In either case, if one is that stupid and/or are warped by hatred that they believe something like that, then there is nothing one can do for them. But in regards to more subtler things, where the average reader may not have the necessary background knowledge (indeed the very fact that they are using Wikipedia probably indicates that they don’t have that knowledge), I have included the response of Irving’s many critics to let one know what are the real facts of the matter.

Finally, and this is perhaps just a personal opinion. I would really like this article to the best article on Irving anywhere on the Web. I have not quite reached that point (I am about 75% done on this article), but I have brought in a great deal of information from a lot of sources that 99% of the people out there will never consult. There is much here that is properly referenced from good sources that one can’t find anywhere else on the Web, and I would hate to see all this good information lost.

And if there are any Irving fans reading this, I have apparently caught Irving’s bête noire, Richard J. Evans out in a lie. In a 2004 interview in the History Today magazine, Evans said that he little contact with Irving’s writings before his work for Deborah Lipstadt, but Evans’s 1989 book, In Hitler’s Shadow denounces those like Nolte who depend very heavily on Irving as a source for their arguments as using a very dubious source to make in turn very dubious arguments (For the sake of fairness, Evans is quite right on this point). Moreover, In Hitler’s Shadow contains a page long endnote rebutting Irving’s work. Of course, in Evans’s defence, it could be argued that either he forget about In Hitler’s Shadow or that he does not consider a page long endnote to be of much consequence. A very small point, but when starts to dig into the woodwork, one often finds interesting things. And to round off my argument, those really interested in Irving will probably like the article the way it is, as this article presents a detailed (but over-detailed), well referenced account of Irving and his work. Those readers who only a casual interest will simply scan it. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A.S., thank you for taking the time to write out your rationale in such detail. You make many good points and I would not want you to get the impression that I am in disagreement with your broad aims in educating the public with a fine encyclopedic article.




 * However, there is this curve here which should perhaps also be taken into account. Consider that most readers of Wikipedia never print out an article but start reading it on screen, hoping to be able to finish it in one sitting . If I put myself in their shoes for a moment, I feel my concentration flagging about halfway through. Not every individual piece of information is of equal significance. I believe that some items may be condensed or even excised altogether with very little detriment to the overall impact. Conversely, after about 80 kilobytes in length not only does the marginal utility (incremental increase) begin to diminish, but at some time the total utility also begins to go down. A longer article, paradoxically, then ends up undercutting its own purpose. That is my opinion, based on my own experiences as a writer and reader.


 * Perhaps the best way to move forward would be if someone actually selects a few paragraphs for condensation and those changes are then discussed here on the Talk page. If nobody wants to do this, I'd like to give it a try sometime next week.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: This is from WP:Article size. While I don't believe in slavishly following guidelines, I would give it a read.


 * {| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="background-color:transparent"


 * valign="top" align="center" | Readable prose size || What to do
 * valign="top" align="center" | &gt; 100 KB || Almost certainly should be divided
 * valign="top" align="center" | &gt; 60 KB || Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
 * valign="top" align="center" | &gt; 30 KB || May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
 * valign="top" align="center" | &lt; 30 KB || Length alone does not justify division
 * valign="top" align="center" width="10%" | &lt; 1 KB || If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Stub.
 * }
 * valign="top" align="center" | &gt; 30 KB || May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
 * valign="top" align="center" | &lt; 30 KB || Length alone does not justify division
 * valign="top" align="center" width="10%" | &lt; 1 KB || If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Stub.
 * }
 * valign="top" align="center" width="10%" | &lt; 1 KB || If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Stub.
 * }


 * Of course, I would not express any disagreements with your sincere desire to keep articles down to manageable size. However, through this article is a bit long, I don’t it is excessively long, and certainly it is readable. Anyhow, as I already mentioned, at least of the length is imposed by the nature of the subject. In fairness to Mr. Irving’s (unfortunately) large fan base, there is probably some truth to the charge that this page is somewhat slanted against him, but given the blatant and malicious falsehoods that he has engaged in over the years, it is hard to see how it could be otherwise. How does one call a liar in a NPOV way? The problem is if one describes just what Irving’s take on various subjects are, and leave it at that, while probably more NPOV, would give Holocaust denial more creditability then what it deserves. Strictly speaking, the page should just say that Irving says that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were built after the war as a “tourist attraction”, and leave it at that. But presenting Irving’s views in such a way would implicitly left the reader with the impression that A) he is right about that or B) that there is a debate about this, that maybe there is something to the (stupendous unbelievable) claim that the Holocaust did not take place. As I have already indicated, this is an approach that I feel most be rejected. The Holocaust did place, and to implicitly place a question mark next to the word Holocaust by blandly describing Irving’s views on the subject does a great disservice to history. Including information that rebuts Irving does make for a longer article, and perhaps not even a totally neutral one, but I can no other way of resolving this problem. Take for example, Irving’s claim that the index books showing who entered Auschwitz and when were released to historians in 1990, and how this was going to reduce the number of Auschwitz survivors in the world. Technically, one should just leave at that, but there is a need for editorial interpolation because what was released to historians in 1990 by the Soviet government were not the index books, but rather the death books recording the weekly death tolls at Auschwitz. Incidentally, that is part of the reason why the figure of 4 million dead at Auschwitz has now be rejected as an exaggeration, and the real figure is probably about 1.5 million (which to be sure, is still an appalling figure, but much less then 4 million). And less anyone could accuse me of doubting the generally accepted figure of six million dead in the Holocaust, it now appears that more Jews were killed at the Operation Reinhard camps of Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, and Majdanek then previously estimated.

Returning to the subject of Irving, I feel that a page should capture the fire, not the embers of the past. Ideally, a page should give one an idea of what this person is like. I can’t put this into the page as it constituted a gross violation of the NPOV and the original research rules, but the one characteristic of Irving’s that stands out to me is his narcissism and his attendant love of publicity. Irving is clearly a man in love with himself who just can’t get enough of the spotlight. He is the Paris Hilton of the neo-Nazi scene. Why else does Irving clash other people’s press conferences and lectures other then all the attention it brings him? In all probability, his decision to sue Lipstadt for libel was probably just another of his publicity stunts, albeit one that boomeranged disastrously against him. Moving beyond his publicity-madness, as a general rule one thing I observed in people is that the quality that the lack is the most is usually the quality that they boost about the most. For an example, the people who tell you how smart they are usually not, the people who tell you about honest they are tended to the more dishonest, and the people who tell how hard they work are more often then not the most laziest.

With Irving, please note his schizoid attitudes towards other historians. On one hand, Irving disparages other historians at every opportunity, grandiosely announcing he and he alone knows anything about the Third Reich, and every other historian in that field is just a fool jabbing away in the dark. But on the other hand, Irving is desperate for the approval of the historians whose skills he denounces with such vitriol. Anytime anybody says anything that remotely smacks of praise, Irving seizes upon such statements as a passionate joy as a validation of his own self-worth. Perhaps this is just me, but I would say that we are dealing with a man whose ego is a fragile and insecure one. Which brings us to the next example of Irving’s schizophrenia. Namely, his desire to be taken seriously as a historian while simultaneously engaging in Holocaust denial. It is almost like he is a Jekyll and Hyde brought to life, at one moment, David Irving internationally respected historian and the next moment turning into David Irving leading light of the Holocaust denial lecture circuit without anybody noticing. Of course, the truth is far more sinister then that. It is because Irving was at one time taken seriously as a historian that he is a star of the Holocaust denial movement, conferring upon that spurious idea the slight degree of credibility that his presence brings, and as a historical writer that Irving’s mission is to rehabilitate the Third Reich, washing away all of the blood to make the Nazis look all shiny and clean. In this regard, his remark in the interview with Ron Ronsenbaum that he is tired of associating with anti-Semitic groups full of “cracked people” (his words, not mine), and he wants be accepted by the historians’ community must be understood. It is too bad I can’t include Rosenbaum’s sarcastic response, which is delivered in a manner that is quite funny, namely if you want be accepted by historians, you are going about in an awfully strange way by engaging in Holocaust denial

There are two strands to this article that are linked, but bear separating. The first is Irving the man, and the Irving the pseudo-historian. Of course, there are one and the same, but it is probably worth to treat separately for the moment. Irving the man can be characterized as a crass publicity-hound with a very sharp tongue who frankly likes and admires Hitler. I realize that Irving’s 1992 remark about there being some sort of mystical connection between him and Hitler is perhaps a detail that this article could do without, but I think it captures well the essence of the man. Likewise, I have included a cross-section of Irving’s remarks from the period 1989-1994 denying the Holocaust (these were the years when Irving was most active on the Holocaust denial lecture circuit). In part, I did this because there is a periodic debate that erupts on this talk-page about whatever Irving is a Holocaust denier or not, and I wanted to put a end to this debate by hanging Irving with his own words. Second, Irving has denied the Holocaust numerous times, and for the sake of fairness, I thought it best to include a summary of his case against the Holocaust. I preferred to use quotes from Irving’s own speeches because even through I could summarize his case up in no less then a paragraph, to do so might led legitimacy to his views. Finally, I think it captures the essential nature of the man, namely his crassness, his total lack of any class, his crudeness, his vulgarity, and his bigotry.

Moving on to an evaluation of Irving the historical writer, merely saying he is a Nazi does not discredit him. Being a Nazi may make one an awful human being, but it does not necessarily make one a bad historian. After all, lots of rotten human beings have also been great historians. To take an example, the German medievalist Percy Ernst Schramm was an ardent Nazi before, during and after the Third Reich and who recalled and wrote about Hitler with open admiration in his 1963 book Hitler: The Man and the Military Leader, yet nobody holds it against his scholarship. Even Norman Cantor, who offered an extremely hostile portrayal of Schramm in his book Inventing the Middle Ages says there is nothing wrong with Schramm’s work on the Middle Ages. So to say that Irving is a Nazi may prove that he is a rotten person, but does not necessarily discredit him as a historian. Through it is distasteful to say this, but it is possible to be a good Nazi and a good historian at once. One does discredit Irving as a historian is his rather peculiar way of handling and evaluating sources, which goes up to forgery and the theft, and beyond. It is for this reason that I have included criticism by various historians of Irving’s distinctive historical methodology, which falls well below accepted scholarly standards. And for the sake of fairness, to avoid giving the false impression that all historians are united against Irving, I have included some words of praise for Irving from various historians.

Finally, through Irving has done immense scholarly damage, indeed in the case of the full version of the Goebbels diary discovered in Moscow in 1992, irreplaceable damage, I would argue that the most damage Irving has done is in the ensuring that the right questions can not be asked about Hitler. The popular image of Hitler is that of the ultimate pantomime villain, a sort of Herr Evil in which is the embodiment of evil, and is blatantly evil in a way that nobody can ever possibly be. In this respect and this respect only, Irving is right to challenge the pantomime villain image of Hitler. Of course, in rejecting one false approach, Irving merely substitutes another by arguing that Hitler was not such a bad guy, and sorry about the Jews, but you know Hitler was a really a nice guy. Please note that in saying this, I can no seeking to rehabilitate Hitler. There was something missing to Hitler, namely any sense of compassion or feeling for anybody else, which combined with overwhelming hate and a fanatical adherence to pseudo-scientific, Social Darwinist worldview that saw the “Aryan race” locked into merciless combat with the “Jewish race” led to the crime known as the Holocaust. So yes, Hitler was evil. Having said that, quite a few people and not all them German at the time actually found Hitler be quite a likeable guy, and nothing at all like the Herr Evil image. This is the same point Irving makes, but I would like to drew a different conclusion. The fact that people found Hitler likeable does not excuse the Holocaust, which the conclusion Irving seems to be drawing. This demonical picture of Hitler does serve any useful purpose. Within Germany, it allows for people to engage in apologetics by blaming everything on the “demon” Hitler while the rest of the German people stood around hapless and passive. Outside Germany, it leads either to the same sort of apologetics or else to the racist “nation of demons” theory (a demonical nation produces a demonical leader) championed by such diverse scholars as A. J. P. Taylor and Daniel Goldhagen. The problem with Irving is that having attacked the Herr Evil picture of Hitler, and instead substituted another apologetic picture of Hitler as a great leader doing his best for humanity, is that now anyone who questions the Herr Evil picture gets attacked as being like Irving. Historians are supposed to get at the truth, and Irving has both directly and indirectly created blocks towards getting at the truth.--A.S. Brown (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A.S. Brown, I am sorry to say this but I find your response disappointing. A few lines in which you airily dismiss my concerns about length, with identical wording including typos as your previous message in the thread, then reams of text about your general approach to the article, which as far as I am concerned is just preaching to the converted. Maybe you did not know this but I've had my own experiences with someone named Kimberley Cornish at The Jew of Linz, where I fought the author for months to improve the article: diff, and see also the Talk page for that article (Number17 and Goodmorningworld are both me).
 * It appears that we're going to some form of dispute resolution over the length of the article. Too bad, you would be by far the best editor to do the trimming thanks to your thorough knowledge of the subject.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The page isn't quite as big as the raw data would imply. WP:Page size indicates that various material should be discarded from the size calculation. The correct figure is 94K which is big but within the known bounds of pages including FAs.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)