User talk:Gramsf

David Irving
Mr. Irving's notoriety comes from his denial of the Holocaust, not from his general presentation of WWII military history. Burying this concept when it is his only really claim to fame is in itself a POV push. At the very least, he is known for revisionist history, not commonly accepted history. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. David Irving has written 30 books, several of them very famous (The Destruction of Dresden and his Hitler biography being two examples). He does not deny the Holocaust and none of his books deals primarily with the topic. Gramsf (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about this on the talk page before we edit war. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you also at Stig Sæterbakken for the same reason as is mentioned here. Also, Fritt Ord is indeed a freedom of speech organization. Just read the first sentence of that article if you should have any misconception about that fact. __meco (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Fritt Ord is not "Norway's free speech organization" (sic!). It is a private organization that uses a name meaning "free speech", but this does not necessarily mean that the organization is supporting free speech. In today's Aftenposten cronicle, the organization is criticized of obstructing freedom of speech by philosopher and historian Ole Eirik Håtun, who uses "Fritt Ord" in quotation marks. Indeed, simply labelling the organization "Norway's free speech organization" is blatantly POV.


 * As David Irving is concerned, he does not deny the Holocaust. "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews" (Irving, 2006). Furthermore, he is "not an expert on the Holocaust" (Irving, 2006) and his 30 books, some of them very famous (especially the ones from the 60s) are concerned with completely other topics. Gramsf (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem not to understand that Wikipedia has to present the world as it is generally understood to be, i.e. how reliable sources define it. That means that mainstream media are often the basis for primary views that we present on a subject. Both as it relates to Fritt Ord and David Irving these sources contradict your view of what is true. You cannot start making changes to Wikipedia articles based on "what you know to be the truth". That is not how Wikipedia operates. __meco (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem not to understand that Wikipedia has to present the world in a neutral and factually correct way. You cannot start making changes to Wikipedia articles based on "what you know to be the truth". That is not how Wikipedia operates. Gramsf (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please include contrary views into the articles as long as they are cited in reliable sources. __meco (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do include contrary views and I do cite sources. Gramsf (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. ''Additionally, removing references is not a desired action unless you can find a better one, or one that supports the claims made in the article. Without such, the article will be put up for deletion immediately as it fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N.  ₪ Amused ''Repose   Converse!  18:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, your edits to David Irving are absolutely POV. The PRIMARY news story and top links in any Google or NexisLexis search for David Irving relate to his denial of the Holocaust. Continuing such edits is not recommended. -- ₪ Amused Repose   Converse!  18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:TE
Please review Tendentious editing in the context of your edits to David Irving. -- ₪ Amused Repose   Converse!  22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)