Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Irving/archive1

David Irving
Self nomination, an extensive and detailed look into his controversial life and work. GeneralPatton 03:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (Previous nomination is here). Mark1 04:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support An important and interesting article, comprehensive, well written, and highly readable. I would personally like to see more inline references; for example, where it says Irving referred to the judge as "Mein FŸhrer," it would be good to see a link to a newspaper article about that, but that's just my preference. Slim 06:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. Doesn't mention his activities during the Hitler Diaries affair of 1983 which are extensively described in Robert Harris' book "Selling Hitler". What about his activities with the Clarendon Club and the Focus Policy Group? And then there is this sentence:
 * In 1977, Irving released his most notorious book, Hitler's War, the first of his two-part biography of Hitler, the 1991 edition of which could be read only at the desk in the British Library's Rare Books Room, a space reserved for literature the librarian deems pornographic
 * For one thing, as any BL reader will tell you the Rare Books Room is one of the main reading rooms and is far from "reserved for literature the librarian deems pornographic". For another, it does not appear to be true that a reader may only consult the 1991 edition of Hitler's War in the Rare Books Room, not from this catalogue entry at least which shows a standard Humanities classmark. Dbiv 14:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say that the Rare Books Room is for pornography. It says that there is a desk in the Rare Books Room that is reserved for material the library deems pornographic, and that Irving's Hitler War had to be read at that desk. The source is Prof. Richard J. Evans in Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial, as follows: "I was startled to find that the 1991 edition of Hitler's War could only be read at the desk in the Rare Books Room of the British Library reserved for literature deemed by the library to be pornographic," (from the Basic Books paperback edition, p. 31). For those not familiar with Evans, he's a professor of history at Cambridge and was the chief expert witness for Penguin at the David Irving libel trial. Slim 15:41, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * As written, it does say that the Rare Books Room is reserved for porn. The libel trial also shows that, if this observation was ever true, it has long since ceased to be as Prof. Evans accepted that the 1991 edition of Hitler's War was now as available to BL readers as any other book. There is the distinct whiff of POV here, as indeed is throughout the article. Dbiv 15:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, as written, it doesn't say that. It says: "In 1977, Irving released his most notorious book, Hitler's War, the first of his two-part biography of Hitler, the 1991 edition of which could be read only at the desk in the British Library's Rare Books Room, a space reserved for literature the librarian deems pornographic (Evans 2001)." Where has Evans written about it being as available as any other book? If you have a source for that, then put it in the article after that sentence. What is the POV that you feel you are seeing throughout the article? Slim 16:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * "could be read only at the desk in the BL's Rare Books Room, a space reserved". The room is a space reserved etc. This badly written sentence says that the Rare Books Room is reserved for porn. I never said that Evans had "written about it being as available as any other book" but he did so testify in the libel trial: see transcript, day 18, page 111: "Q. You say that, when you went to the British Museum Reading Room, you asked for a copy of my book Hitler's War, and it was not in the public shelves. Is that correct? A. No. It was on the public shelves. Q. It was on the public shelves? A. Well, I mean as I say, it was available to everybody who had access to the British library." (see source which I know is Irving's site but the trial transcripts appear genuine and unaltered). As far as POV, the article is full of it: to pick three examples, "in reality the book was an attempt at character assassination", "Irving mis-represented various incidents .." and "for the most part it was an incomprehensible and tedious propaganda piece that read as though it had come straight out of Goebbels propaganda ministry" (the latter reporting the views of unidentified others). Dbiv 16:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please present me the evidence that the opinion of the majority of mainstream historians does in fact differ from those quotes? GeneralPatton 16:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * it's now been rephrased into "In 1977, Irving released his most notorious book, Hitler's War, the first of his two-part biography of Hitler, the 1991 edition of which was for a time at British Library available only at desk reserved for literature the librarian deems pornographic in the LibraryÕs Rare Books Room (Evans 2001)." GeneralPatton 16:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You implied above that you're familiar with the Rare Books Room, so you presumably know which desk Evans is referring to. The "space reserved" refers to the desk, not the Room. If you feel the sentence is awkwardly written, by all means change it. You're citing transcripts which appear to contradict what Evans said in his book, yet he wrote the book after the trial. It should be easy enough to sort out though. All we have to do is ask him, bearing in mind that Wikipedia can only published what has been published elsewhere. But perhaps the contradiction has been resolved elsewhere, and perhaps Evans can enlighten us. You don't say which book you're referring to regarding the character assassination. The misrepresentation of incidents can hardly be described as POV: Evans carefully documents Irving's misuse of material. As for the last statement about the tedious propaganda piece, it's fine if it's quoting others, but there should be an inline reference, which was the point I made above. But NPOV doesn't mean you're not allowed to quote people who express their POV, so long as they are reputable sources. And in Irving's case, because of the libel trial, his misuse of material can hardly be doubted, and the sources could hardly be more reputable. Slim 17:08, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the BL as it is now. Before 1999 it was much different, based on several different sites; since then it moved to a single building designed by Colin St. John Wilson. Also I don't consult pornography at the BL (I have better things to do there) so I don't know exactly where the mucky books desk is, nor where it was before the move. Evans clearly put in his witness statement that he was required to consult Hitler's War at the mucky books desk, before writing his book about the trial. The quotes I gave are examples of POV from the David Irving article - look for them yourself. Dbiv 02:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Focusing too much on the Rare Books Room.  Just to restore the topic.  Are there other objections?  As Dbiv mentioned above, "Doesn't mention his activities during the Hitler Diaries affair of 1983 which are extensively described in Robert Harris' book 'Selling Hitler'. What about his activities with the Clarendon Club and the Focus Policy Group?"  Peter O. (Talk) 00:08, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm working on Clarendon Club and the Focus Policy Group as well as Hitler's Diaries materials. GeneralPatton 01:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. The article is clearly a defamation, most of the text supporting Irving is "in quotes", even such things as "from Hitlers point of view" and Keegan's quotes, but stuff discrediting him is without quotes. All links under article (except his homepage) are of "big nazi conspiracy" type, but there are a number of supportive websites, which are not presented. Anti-Irving books have links and ISBN numbers, none of Irving books have. However, the most critical errors in this article are not those little POV problems, but the way facts are messed up with irrelevant propaganda. This should be divided into two parts, one dealing with facts about David Irving and another named David_Irving_Controversy. In the last one we can deal with Deborah Lipstadt and such, without forgetting to mention how many millions of dollars and first class lawyers went into defeating David Irving who represented himself alone. 14:20, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Could I request that the anonymous objections above and below this are not counted? These anons have no edit history other than to make a couple of pro-Irving edits. Irving himself has a reputation for monitoring references to his name on the Internet and rebutting anonymously. SlimVirgin 01:04, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. As Keegan points out he is (in the German WWII area) most knowledgeable man living, one expects such people to be a bit eccentric. None would object if some professor studying Roman Empire would wear funny robes or talk in latin sometimes. So why mix his biography with such emotional stuff? I would qualify this as a smear job.
 * David Irving's objectionable agenda, and intellectual dishonesty in support of such, go far beyond the bounds of being "a bit eccentric". Irving is a historical revisionist (i.e., a bare-faced liar) who has been objectively discredited (in a court of law, as well as the court of academic discourse) as a historian, and is about as worthy of intellectual deference as David Icke. Claiming that that's just one opinion is an error of omission much like claiming that evolution or spherical-earth geography is "just a theory" no better or worse than the alternatives. Acb 00:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Well-written and comprehensive. I find these POV objections ridiculous; most people in the discipline do think Irving is disreputable. Saying that most people think he's a fraud is not at all the same as saying he is a fraud -- it's just that you'll be hard-pressed to find many people who've gone on record as supporting him. Madame Sosostris 04:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Object It's the subject not the article that is being promoted in this repeater. There are many better vitæ in Wikipedia. --Wetman 02:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)