Talk:David Irving/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

There are a number of issues with this article, and it is my belief that it does not comply with the "good article" criteria on the following grounds:
 * 1a) The article is not "clear and concise", it is long and rambling. The length is not justifiable either. David Irving is supposedly just a discredited historian, yet length-wise his article is comparable to the article on President Obama.
 * 1b) It does not comply with the manual of style for "words to watch". I listed multiple examples in the talk page of "weasel words", vague statements and so-forth, but have been either ignored or opposed by domineering editors.
 * 2b) Similarly, there is a lot of contentious material, yet editors seem to think that lax quoting practices are justifiable on the grounds that all of the sources are negative anyway (and therefore editors' expression of bias is already "backed" by a list of books).
 * 2c) The article provides original research, such as a heading that finds a "Drift towards Holocaust Denial". Yet the source material only seems to provide a patchwork of specific examples, not an overall drift.
 * 3b) Unnecessary detail: ownership of a Rolls-Royce car and an "affluent lifestyle". It is also tall poppy syndrome.
 * 4) The material is far from neutral. The editors use a lot of persuasive language to impart an overall negative image of David Irving above and beyond the evidential information and sources. For example: factual information is embellished with terms such as "highly controversial", but without using quotes or attributing the negative opinions to any specific source.

How can it remain a "good article" if it's actually a very bad article? Theoretically, the problems are all fixable, but in a toxic editing environment where even minor improvements are immediately reverted, it seems impossible. While David Irving might well be a nasty character who deserves every ounce of criticism he gets, this does not justify the use of Wikipedia as a propaganda instrument.--Guid123 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a bad faith nomination. The has claimed on the article's talk page that the article is protected by "a tight-knit group of Zionists who constantly patrol Wikipedia to ensure that only their voice is heard". The editor's concerns with the article have been politely responded to on the article's talk page, and it has been pointed out that many of the statements he claims aren't NPOV and are actually supported by multiple references and reflect the mainstream view of Irving. Throughout Guid123 has ignored the responses of other editors, and keeps repeating his or her claims. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by my earlier view about some contributors, which - while it might not be strictly accurate (with various Jewish groups distinguishing themselves from others) - I acquired as a result of my undue difficulties in dealing with the passionate anti-Irving bias. A large majority of the challenges I made have not been rebutted at all, while others have merely been merely brushed off under the catch-all reply that "it's all well-referenced" which it isn't. Earlier on the Talk page, I gave 9 unique examples in a bullet-point list, none of which have been responded to. Re: "keeps repeating his or her claims" - when my reasonable challenges to the content keep getting ignored, what else am I supposed to do? Besides, there is nothing "bad faith" about trying to fix problems in the article. Simple fact is: it's not a 'good' article.--Guid123 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking into account the reference to the "group of Zionists" underlined above by and the kind of contributions (less than 50, by the way) made by Guid123 it seems to me that this nomination has much more to do with WP:POINT than with a fair assessment of the article.  --Lebob (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is all about subverting policies by satirically over-applying them. There's nothing "satirical" about trying to fix a poorly written article. And because it's poorly written, how can it be a good article? And I love the hypocrisy: earlier I get chastised for commenting about editors and it seems I will never live it down, but now I'm attacked for my lack of seniority on Wikipedia.--Guid123 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like a WP:POINT nomination. Let the nominator clearly suggest their improvements in article talk, without attacking other editors and I am sure we can figure something out. --John (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The material is already there for the reading, and I've already been criticised for repeating myself. It's interesting that the "WP:POINT" link has been whipped out twice already. If one cares to read it in full, they will find an important note under the heading "Important Note", which vindicates my position. I made the nomination because of the article's many inadequacies, and simply because a link at the top of the talk page invited me to reassess it. However, it's easy to see: if there was already some kind of consensus among editors to make it a "good article", that any negative nomination was always likely to be a minority view. That's the democratic nature of a Wiki - just because some people obviously don't like it, that does not make my actions sinister or bad faith in any way. Moreover, I hoped that maybe it might spur other editors to go back, look at the criticisms with an open mind, and clean up the article (how could I be so naive?!). While I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, digging up obscure links about Wikipedia etiquette (WP:point) could itself be construed as an Ad hominem. Anyway, I give up. I never imagined that trying to make some meaningful contributions would be so time consuming and so fiercely opposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guid123 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A fatuous claim. EVERY time anyone puts in a scholar's defense of Irving, it is removed for the usual alphabet of reasons.50.133.253.173 (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To which "scholar's defense of Irving" were you referring? Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Judge Gray on David Irving: "As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph 3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans (quoted in paragraph 3.5). But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving's military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.

[Source: from Paragraph 13.7 of the Judgment of Gray J. in Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd and Lipstadt, April 2000. See also: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-13-01.html.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.101.181 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The ultimate 'However' omission. To post this paragraph above, without also posting the PAGES and pages of text, from the same judge in the same ruling, which details the fraud, deliberate lies, overt bigotry and racism and scandalously dishonest behaviour of Irving would be pretty silly, wouldn't it? Judge Gray's ruling is uniformly devastating to Irving and his reputation, and to pick out the one semi-positive paragraph from the pages and pages of detailed, specific and evidenced damnation is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.140.2 (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Guid123, this article clearly should not be designated a "Good Article". The NPOV issues alone are too many to easily list and should disqualify it for "Good Article" status, at the very least. And, no, I'm not a Neo-Nazi, pro-Irving guy.  I just like to read things on Wikipedia that are fair and balanced- and not hit jobs and propoganda. Emeraldflames (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this long and savage entry (which would certainly serve as an effective editorial against a nasty guy and poor historian) is proclaimed a "good article" is very telling of the Wikipedia system. Its clearly POV, highly biased and selective screed. I beg the elite editors who run this page to reconsider the citation. Its not even close to neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.94.202 (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The article's tone seems quite biased to me also. The article seems to be void of any neutrality. The entire article seems to serve the purpose of discrediting Mr Irving. Jason532012 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not NPOV

 * The editor bias against this person is overwhelming. I'm not sure I've read a more negatively slanted article about someone on Wikipedia.  This is an embarrassment.  Emeraldflames (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Listing specific issues and suggestions would be helpful. -- Neil N   talk to me  03:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The issues are self-evident to any open-minded person who reads the article. Just look at the Talk archives for a more complete list of problems with this article.  I have, and I realize how pointless it would be to restate them.  In the end, I think this article makes Wikipedia look worse than it does Irving.  Emeraldflames (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are not prepared to say what specifically you object to, you shouldn’t be surprised that others are not prepared to take your objections seriously. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PS:It would seem to be he same here, too. Xyl 54 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)