Talk:David Irving/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

National Alliance

Although he denied knowingly having spoken at events organised by the anti-semitic National Alliance (United States), he is reported to have spoken at 8 such events and was filmed speaking at at least one.[1]. That was in October 1995 and he denied knowing who had organised the event despite the large National Alliance symbol near him and wasintroduced by someone who "welcomed the audience to a National Alliance event".[2]. Should this be in the article? Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia (assuming arguendo that Wikipedia is one) should not be a dumping ground for all facts that can be collected on a subject. Just put in enough facts to establish that Irving is a holocaust denier, serial liar, fraudulent historian, losing plaintiff, and convicted criminal. Drop the rest or shove it off to a sub-page. If someone comes along who complains that Irving is shown in an unduly negative light, point them there.--82.113.121.223 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI

This paragraph is an accurate summary:

In the first edition, Irving's estimates for deaths in Dresden were between 100,000 and 250,000 – notably higher than most previously published figures.[20] These figures became authoritative and widely accepted in many standard reference works. In later editions of the book over the next three decades, he gradually adjusted the figure downwards to 50,000–100,000.[21]

This is correct. Irving found new sources post facto and revised his book.

This is incorrect:

According to Walter Weidauer, mayor of Dresden from 1946–1958, Irving based his numbers on a falsified document promulgated by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, as well as claims made after the war by a former Dresden Nazi functionary, Hanns Voigt, without verifying them against official sources available in Dresden.[24] Irving published a letter to the editor in The Times on 7 July 1966, admitting that the data in his book were not credible.[25]

The source [24] is merely a claim, and [25] does not actually support the claim being made in the article. Irving got new information from Weidauer, publicly announced that he had found new sources not available to him in the first draft of the book, and revised his book in accordance with those new sources.

I'm not going to edit that at all because the bias in that second sentence, which basically looks like "IRVING'S BOOK IS FULL OF LIES AND HE ADMITTED IT!", should cause anyone looking for NPOV to roll their eyes. Shii (tock) 04:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read the sources or look for more, there are numerous discussions concerning Dresden and Irving's publications in the early 60's. These are discussed in secondary sources where Weidauer is described as one of Irving's foremost competitors and fiercest critics regading commentaries on the bombing of Dresden. Irving's letter to the Times is mentioned in numerous sources. I watch this page because of periodic edits by Tholzel, a banned user. Removing content without checking for sources is unhelpful. In this case Shii's blanking without checking for sources seems to have been WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Whoever added this content in the first place was presumably a German speaker and someone unfamiliar with formatting references or footnotes. Using capital letters is shouting and quite unhelpful (unless it happened to be an exact quote from a WP:RS). It is unsurprising that a politican such as Weideauer in the GDR immediately after the war should have made outspoken statements of this kind. Apart from the 2010 book published by the University of Amsterdam Press that I added in the notes, these matters are for example discussed by the eminent historian Richard J. Evans in his 2001 book already listed in the bibliography. Evidently the source [25] is about Irving's letter to the Times and the statements from Weidauer's book [24] appear with attribution to Weidauer. The sequence of events is discussed in detail in Evans' book and also here.[3] I have added extra detail to that paragraph. Mathsci (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The revised phrasing is fine with me. Shii (tock) 07:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda

The wikipedia entry on David Irving begins with a blatant ad hominem libel. I can call you a "dumb shit" on one of these pages but unless I were to find some published source and quote that source directly, it wouldn't be proper to an encyclopedia would it? Irving's early work was especially well regarded by the historical community. His use of original sources was EXTRAORDINARY. To label him a 'holocaust denier' is not Mr. Irving's position judging from my reading of his published works. If you think otherwise, I would ask you to provide chapter and verse from Mr. Irving's works or interviews. Otherwise, remove the libel. I think this "un-neutral" entry on this man proves the real worth of Wikipedia, none. 64.6.124.77 (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The label under discussion is "holocaust denier", which Irving denies. Irving's denial of his holocaust denial is not as important as the considered opinions of many others who have commented on Irving. Our best secondary sources say that Irving is a holocaust denier. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Labelling him as "holocaust denier" and "nazi" would be relevant in a separate section for criticisms. The article is not neutral as the idea was clearly to discredit him from the very introduction.--Charrua85 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Works discussing Irving routinely describe him as being best known these days as a holocaust denier and this article reflects that. While Irving has been active on the far-right of politics in several countries, I haven't seen any serious suggestion that he's actually a "Nazi" and the article does not describe him as such despite your implication that it does. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

While on the subject of propaganda what's up with calling him "an English writer" instead of a "controversial or discredited historian?" I looked at the sources provided and none are authoritative. The media still predominantly refer to him as some kind of historian, the judge in the Lipstadt case found him to be a historian and other historians who have had their work discredited (Barton, Pappe, Michelet, Ambrose, etc) are still called historians by the media. Wayne (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see the many previous talk page discussions of the topic: when most recently discussed consensus was for "writer". Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Like Nick says, there was much ado about this, from here on down. Personally I agree that "historian" is more appropriate, considering the preponderance of the term in sources [4] (and the fact that the main sources used against the appellation are clearly not WP:THIRDPARTY). If you want to open this again, I suggest posting an RfC.. -- Director (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that the previous discussion ended up being widely advertised on relevant talk pages, I suspect that a RfC would produce the same results. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that Wikipedia can't always be unbiased. Wayne (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There is bias, definitely. Anti-Nazi bias is still bias, sorry to say :). Its gotten to a point that right-wing cooks have created a ridiculous parallel project - Conservapedia, which takes the extreme opposing view on many issues (ofc, its far more biased than Wiki could ever be).

Anyway, if someone wants to post an RfC for "historian", they have my support. I won't be leading the charge though, not going to bang my head against this wall again, thank you. -- Director (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Citations are of namecalling not verifications

The introductory article cites people calling him a racist and a neo-nazi and holocaust denier over and over, yet does not cite one single source demonstrating that he is. The citation for his 'holocaust denial' stems from a book citing him as one. Why is there so much bias on this? Does there exist one single source where Irving can be shown to support national socialism, espouse fascist views, expressing racist views, or any of the things this article insists he has done? If so, why are they not cited first and foremost? It calls him a holocaust denier, which is factually incorrect since he does not deny the mass murder of Jews and himself has given a figure of 1.3 million Jewish victims of the holocaust. That is holocaust revisionism, not denial. To call this a 'good article' is a real disgrace to Wikipedia. --75.128.245.124 (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following wording used to be in the article and should be put back to answer allegations such as the above:

In presenting his ruling, Mr. Justice Gray concluded (Paragraph 13.167) that he found the following claims against Irving to be 'substantially true':

“ Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. ”

-- PBS (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Experts and journalists routinely note that Irving is a Holocaust denier (which as PBS notes has also been found to be the case in court), and this article references this. It also notes that he does not regard himself as such. As this issue has been discussed multiple times, I've just removed the POV tag. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"Journalists routinely namecall, therefore it's true." So you agree that it's just people namecalling and that there is not one source to verify the truth of this namecalling. Noted and readded the POV tag. Thanks for your support. --75.128.245.124 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To PBS, that does not address the issue with calling him a neo nazi and a racist based only on how other people describe him, nor does it address the factual inaccuracy of calling him a holocaust denier. There should be less hearsay namecalling and more of Irving's own identification of himself. Why not cite the evidence the ruling was based upon? Why do we get to hear only what his opponents say about him and get nothing based in fact other than the fact there was a ruling and that he is a writer? It's ridiculous. --75.128.245.124 (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not going to turn the article into a forum for Irving's self-justifications as you are arguing for: he has his own website. Per WP:NPOV the article reflects the weight of scholarly and other commentary on Irving, and does in fact note his "identification of himself". I've removed the POV tag again as what you're arguing for is to blatantly bias the article towards Irving's views (for it to not be neutral the article needs to not properly reflect the weight of the literature on this topic) and this has all been discussed previously before. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Father severing links

'During the Second World War, Irving's father was an officer aboard the light cruiser HMS Edinburgh. On 2 May 1942, while escorting Convoy QP 11 in the Barents Sea, the ship was sunk by the German U-boat U-456. Irving's father survived, but severed all links with his wife and their children after the incident.'

The connection is not clear. Can you explain? Valetude (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

I've only heard the name David Irving before. May I ask if he really states that no Jews or other human beings was gased to death in the death-camps as Auschwitz, Majdanek and Belzek ? Or is he "just" questioning Adolf Hitler's involvement ? A very farfetched suggestion I've heared about, is that Himmler and the SS took this initiative on their own. In the film "Nuremberg", Göring seems to been unaware of the death-camps, and even stated that "the Fuhrer didn't know". Please note it was a film only. Even if the three death-camps all were taken by Stalin and the Red Army, thousands of surviving witnesses have told the same story. And further also staff of the camps - and even the commander of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höss, wrote about everything while awaiting his execution in Poland (he had to give whitness in Nuremberg before his own trial, hence he had the time). That one have I read, possibly Irwing has not. I'm keen to know what this Irving really means. And has he ever been taken seriously ? Answers much appriciated. Boeing720 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for general topic discussion. Rather, it is for discussion of improving the Wikipedia biography of Irving. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The expert reports and judgement from the libel trial Irving launched answer those questions regarding his views, and are available online here Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Writer?

The current version of the article says he's "a writer". Doesn't this sound wrong? It could indicate he writes novels for children or something, or, stories, novels about World War II and the Holocaust. A much better title (in my opinion) would be something like "self-proclaimed historian". As I have not made a single edit to this article, I don't know if this has already been discussed, but just in case it haven't, I'd like some opinions on this. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop beating this dead horse. You are supposedly concerned about the word "writer" but then you return to the word "historian" that you have been trying very long to put into the article. I say the word "writer" is appropriate because he writes books, and the word "historian" should be treated much as it is now, with "Irving's reputation as a historian was discredited..." So leave other editors in peace as you will not be successful this time, either. Nobody here agrees with you. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We describe people in line with how reliable sources describe them, and not whatever they call themselves. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusion

Hi, everyone. I haven't read the entire talk page, so sorry if this has already been discussed. I noticed the intro says that Irving is a holocaust denier. I'm confused as to why this is said? Irving has, himself, said that he is indeed not a holocaust denier and those remarks ought to be regarded as anti-Irving propaganda. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should read at least the section of the talk page immediately above this one. It will answer your question. (Hint: Just because Irving doesn't call himself a denier does not mean that his actions do not amount to denial.) - Eron^Talk 22:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I did, but still, you cannot conclude he's a holocaust denier because of his "acts" which is without doubt solely judged by other historians or experts who greatly despise Irving. Irving has also been in court many times to disprove false accusations against him. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, one can conclude that he is a holocaust denier, because of his acts of holocaust denial. As a court has done. - Eron^Talk 23:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Eron wrote "Actually, one can conclude that he is a holocaust denier, because of his acts of holocaust denial. As a court has done." You're conflating a person described as being something -- even by a judge -- with factuality. Anyone who believes that judges are always impartial and accurate ought to bear in mind the fact that a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice declared that Henry Miller was a "pornographer" in his justification for banning "Tropic of Cancer"; Nabokov, Orwell, D. H. Lawrence and a host of other authors have been similarly labeled by judges. And it doesn't require a tinfoil hat (or even an agreement with Irving's views) to see how a judge might be very wary of letting someone with views as politically incorrect as Irving's, off the hook -- especially when under media scrutiny. As for "...(Irving's) acts of holocaust denial": there is no event in history, including events unfolding right now, that does not contain some room for interpretation and differences of opinion, no matter how well-documented the event might be. The Jewish Holocaust of the 1930s-'40s is not something that's been flawlessly qualified and quantified, so just because one does not agree with the numbers currently accepted in the mainstream, that does not necessarily make them a "Holocaust denier". Irving asserts that far fewer than 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis. The Jewish historian Raul Hilberg claimed the total number of Jewish victims was 5.1 million. There are 3 million who have actually been identified by name. As late as 1989, a plaque was displayed at Auschwitz which claimed that 4 million Jews died there alone (based upon the claim of former Commandant Rudolf Hoess); the Camp museum has since lowered that number to 1.5 million. Does that make the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum itself a "Holocaust denier"? Clearly, there is uncertainty as to the exact number of victims on all points along the spectrum. This is not sophistry. To claim that a label as pejorative as "Holocaust denier" applies to someone is not a trivial matter. It isn't up to one judge to decide, nor to the media who very well may have their own reasons for wanting to vilify individuals like Irving. Finally, Irving himself denies the label. So imposing it upon him here is really just an appeal to popularity rather than a desire for accuracy. Bricology (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Irving has deliberately misrepresented evidence to prove his point that far fewer Jews died in the Holocaust. His estimate is not based on scholarship but on a pre-conceived belief, and a wish to distort history. Richard J. Evans of Cambridge laid it all out in Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet wrote "...based on a pre-conceived belief, and a wish to distort history." I'm skeptical that you know what Irving thinks and/or wishes. I'm aware of the fact that Irving has at times misrepresented evidence; that does not disprove the rest of his assertions. I have yet to read any historian who has not done the same, either intentionally or unintentionally due to carelessness or bias. And I'm quite familiar with Evans' arguments which, it should be noted, are not without their critics. Evans' own books are rife with hints at his own biases and ideological PoVs, such as in his unquestioning acceptance of films which were presented at the Nuremberg Trials as "proofs". And yet even I wouldn't claim to know what Evans thinks or wishes. Bricology (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Evans is still the reigning expert on Irving's scholarship, despite your view. The mainstream has accepted the court case as definitive, which is why Wikipedia also accepts it as definitive. Any opposing views (such as Irving's own) must be presented with attribution as very minor and not widely held. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, among others: Bricology might be interested in reading the expert reports which historians provided to the libel trial Irving launched against Lipstadt, which are available online here (these may also help to correct their misconceptions about the nature of scholarship on the Holocaust). Irving has been found to be a Holocaust denier in several court cases, and is regarded as such by experts in Holocaust history and this is routinely noted in media coverage of him. The article rightly notes that he rejects this label, but the current wording is appropriate as it's the common way he's referred to and is factually correct. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D wrote "Irving has been found to be a Holocaust denier..." You're missing my point, and demonstrating that biases in the relative views about the Holocaust exist in both directions, but there's no equivalent term for those on the side opposite from Irving. To give just two examples: former FRG President Richard von Weizsäcker stated that "...six million Jews who were murdered in German concentration camps...". The World Book Encyclopedia states "By the end of 1945, the Nazis had slaughtered more than 6 million Jewish men, women and children". But these claims are demonstrably false. I do not disagree that it's possible that 6 million Jews died in Europe between the mid-1930s and 1945. However, even most mainstream historiographies claim that only about half of the total number of Jews who died did so inside of concentration camps, so Weizsäcker's claim is significantly exaggerated. Also, a sizable number of the Jews who died didn't die due to being gassed, shot, etc., they died of disease, malnutrition, exposure, etc., so the World Book's claim is likewise exaggerated. If one can be labeled "denier" for opining that fewer than the "approved" 6 million Jews died in toto, then by the same logic, Weizsäcker and World Book should be labeled "Holocaust exaggerators". AFAIK, Irving has never denied that the Nazis instituted a program of "ridding" Jews from Germany and the territories that came under their control during the Third Reich, nor has he denied that millions of Jews died during those efforts. Regardless, he has been branded a "Holocaust denier". This is not an objective or quantifiable term. Instead, it is routinely applied to anyone who dares to question specific numbers -- numbers that, over the past 60 years have been inflated, deflated, falsified, supported and so on, and keep changing, even amongst mainstream historians. "Denier" is a term like "anti-semite" being used to refer to anyone who says anything less than favorable about Jews, Judaism or Israel, or "islamophobe" or "kafir" being used to refer to anyone who says anything less than favorable about Muslims or Islam, or "unpatriotic" being used to refer to any American who doesn't support US military intervention overseas. Those labels aren't used because of their accuracy or objectivity; they're used to marginalize any criticism or doubt. It is for these reasons that I dispute the label being applied to Irving. Bricology (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And, I imagine, any other person considered by the preponderance of reliable sources to be a holocaust denier. Too bad; holocaust deniers exist, and it is within Wikipedia's policies to label such people what they are, your opinion of the term notwithstanding. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As Jpgordon notes, your argument is not relevant to how Wikipedia articles are written, or applicable to Irving. More generally, your understanding of how the term 'Holocaust denier' is applied by historians, court findings and the mainstream media is completely wrong. Nick-D (talk)

--jpgordon wrote "And, I imagine, any other person considered by the preponderance of reliable sources to be a holocaust denier." Way to utterly miss the point. What you are declaring to be reliable sources are in fact unreliable since no alternative view to the orthodoxy is allowed to be uttered, much published by any journal or publishing house that wanted to continue in business. That does not constitute a "preponderance" of evidence for anything specific. Here's where your notion falls down: Person A says "The Holocaust never occurred; no Jews were killed by the Nazis, the whole thing is a fabrication". In most people's opinion (including mine and probably including Irving's), Person A would qualify as a "Holocaust denier". But then there's Person Z who says "The Holocaust is a convenient term for the regimen of oppression against the Jews by Nazi Germany which resulted in the deaths of many Jews who may number in the millions." According to you, Person Z would also be a "Holocaust denier", since they do not subscribe to the currently approved 6 million figure with the required certainty. So, in order to avoid being labeled a "Holocaust denier", one must pretend to have certainty about something they cannot possibly be certain about -- any more than they can be certain about the number of people who died in the USSR during the Cold War. How many died? Lots. But certainty is elusive. The reality is that even Holocaust groups have changed their estimates of the numbers of dead and how they died. That is, AFAICT, Irving's position; he does not accept many of the claimed figures that lack primary sources. He has never claimed that large numbers of Jews did not die at the hands of the Nazis, nor have I. The primary differences between our positions are that you claim to have certainty, and you do not believe that others should be allowed to express uncertainty. And so you apply an all-purpose term to others because it reinforces your certainty in some simplistic, black-or-white view. Bricology (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Irving is certainly a holocaust denier, despite his statements to the contrary. All the mainstream observers say so, which is why Wikipedia says so. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. I also feel it's a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy to say his a Holocaust denier because that's the opinion of individuals. But, since I feel further discussion is pointless, I'm going to drop the stick. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet wrote "All the mainstream observers say so..." Ah, those good ol' "mainstream sources". The same sources who, 200 years ago, claimed to have certainty that slavery was just, 150 years ago, claimed to have certainty that evolution was a myth, 100 years ago, claimed to have certainty that women were incapable of being intelligent enough to vote, and 50 years ago, claimed to have certainty about the exact number of Chinese civilians who died at the hands of Imperial Japan, the exact number of Soviets who died at the hands of Stalinism, and the exact number of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis. Even when those same "mainstream sources" first claimed 6 million, then 10 million, then 5 million, and now have actually identified 3 million. Even the plaque at Auschwitz claimed right up through the 1980s that 4 million died there, but then, in 1989 replaced it with a new plaque that says "about 1.5 million" died there. After all, what's a few million, give-or-take, right? That is -- unless it's a number is suggested by someone who isn't part of the "mainstream". Then, the only explanation is that they must be holocaust deniers. Bricology (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Entirely irrelevant. Our policy is our policy, and no one is denying that over time ideas change. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller wrote "Entirely irrelevant." Ah, ipse dixit. What won't people try to use it to dismiss? "Our policy is our policy..." "Our policy"? Spare me the proprietary pretense, pal; I was editing on WP two years before you were. And in the 8 years I've been doing so, I've seen WP become increasingly politically-correct, self-righteous, stifling and hidebound -- a place where some actually believe that argumentum ad populum counts for evidence. Such tendencies need to be resisted by anyone who doesn't want to see it further degraded, regardless of whether on not one agrees with the specific sentiment of any given person or topic. The very fact that "over time ideas change" ought to give pause to those who blithely apply labels like "denier" to others who, in a different political climate would more accurately described as "skeptics". I may not agree with everything Mr. Irving says, but I'm not going to be so cowardly as to bend to popular opinion when it comes to labeling him, any more than I would advocate for labeling George W. Bush a "war criminal" or "terrorist" simply because I think he's done things that are very wrong. Labels matter and it's a bigger mistake to inaccurately apply them than it is to eschew them entirely. Bricology (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

In the early Wild West days of Wikipedia, minor viewpoints benefited from less oversight. Not enough emphasis was placed on following mainstream sources, and there were fewer editors who cared to do so. I have no wish to return to that early practice. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

By "mainstream sources" you mean the western media, predominantly media-mogul-owned sources. Those sources represent a spectrum from the establishment viewpoint in their respective countries to the acknowledged political bias of the publication. Hardly a basis for an neutral encyclopedia entry on someone like Irving. Or anyone else who specifically challenges the establishment viewpoint. Nice cosy, incestuous argument for bias, not neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.79.151 (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Challenging the "establishment viewpoint" by deliberately lying doesn't earn one a lot of respect anywhere, "media mogul owned sources" or otherwise. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Jpgordon: Your comments a bit like blowing a raspberry. You arrive, call Irving a deliberate liar, imply everyone agrees with you, and are off again. Not much of a counter to the point made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.218.219 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not much of a point made. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, the vast majority of which agree that Irving is a Holocaust denier, which means a liar. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Jpgordon: You're exactly the sort of person who should not be involved in this article. You have an agenda, its as plain as day, and its not about creating a balanced article. As I said in a comment below - its the Wikipedia project itself that suffers. The people with their agenda who gravitate to pages like this and make them so one-sided and unbalanced as this one is undermine the good work of everyone else on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.65.140 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Disconnect

From the lede:

• Irving's reputation as a historian was discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books.[4]
• For example, Sir John Keegan, in "The Battle for History: Refighting World War Two" (Hutchinson, London, 1996), states: "The most valuable of books in this category [WWII biographies], however, in my view, is one that has been called "the autobiography Hitler did not write" -- David Irving's Hitler's War...No historian of the Second World War can afford to ignore Irving."

My question: How is the second sentence an example of the first? It seems to be completely unrelated to it. First we're saying his reputation has been discredited, then we're giving him a glowing endorsement from Keegan. Maybe they should be reversed, to show that he once had a decent reputation, and how and when it disintegrated. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Already reverted before I saw this. If Irving had a decent reputation, we need a source saying that, rather than a specific quote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreword to Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five"

David Irving wrote a Foreword for "Slaughterhouse-Five", related to Kurt Vonnegut's plot use of the World War II firebombing of Dresden. Subsequently, Irving's status as a WWII/German/Nazi historian became tarnished by his being found to have been an active Holocaust denier. 49.181.237.37 (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What changes to the article are you suggesting? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

None. It is simply a statement of (trivial) fact; however, I see no need to add anything other than to flag it in Talk, in case someone even more familiar with Irving can make something erudite of the fact. Irving was/is an ardent self-publicist; his use of pop-fiction is unremarkable. (Vonnegut's book was also made into a Film.)49.181.237.47 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Persona Non-Grata - AUSTRALIA - 1992-1994

Perhaps the main article should mention that Irving was also denied entry to Australia in 1992 by the Commonwealth Government. Perhaps the best reference is - Maher, "Migration Act Visitor Entry Controls and Free Speech: The Case of David Irving" (1994) 16 Syd LR 358 at 384. There is also another rejection in 1994, mentioned at the end of Maher's analysis. 49.181.237.47 (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's noted in the Persona non-grata section: "He was also barred from entering Australia in 1992, a ban he made five unsuccessful attempts to overturn." Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The 2002 ABC "Local" Radio's 'The World Today' reference cited is not clear that those five attempts spanned a few years. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s96976.htm

Maher's analysis is very legally detailed; so the reference might be usefully left here for posterity.49.181.237.47 (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@ User:DeCausa Edit

Good spot. I was considering revisiting for precisely that reason, and with precisely the same edit, but you beat me to it! Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Description as Holocaust denier

Irving has claimed he is not a Holocaust denier, although the first sentence of the article describes him as one. Should it be changed to say that Irving has been described as a Holocaust denier instead of asserting that he is one? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped the RfC you started because we have talked about this exact thing many times. The consensus every time is that we discount Irving's own opinion, and instead we look to the mainstream scholarly opinion which happens to be contrary to Irving's wishes. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do we get people popping up once a month or so with this request, and no other comments whatsoever on the article? Is this part of some kind of campaign? I agree with Binksternet BTW: this has been discussed lots of times, and the current wording reflects the consensus outcomes of those discussions on how Irving is described in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Why do we get people popping up once a month or so with this request". Its because new people like me read the article and it sticks out like a sore thumb as biased. A consensus amongst a self-selecting group who want to edit this article isn't much of an argument. You'd expect bias amongst a self-selecting group - and that's what you've got here. Something so disputed should be presented as that - a dispute with both views given. Not as a fact one way. Particularly with a living person as per wikipedia guidelines. A judge's legal opinion is just that - an opinion. Not a fact. Its the Wikipedia project itself which suffers. All the good work by other people is undermined by the agenda driven "consensus" who gravitate to articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.220.143 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This article is biased. If it's going to describe Irving as a current "Holocaust denier", then it should quote Irving himself, who stated during his trial in Austria (as reported by the BBC ): '"I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court. "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."' That doesn't sound like holocaust denial to me. The point about Irving which the article fails to note is that, as a historian, he is "document-driven". If he hasn't seen documentary evidence of something, he tends not to believe it. Exactly what the balance should be between documentary evidence and other evidence is a matter of judgement and opinion, but it should be clearly noted that when Irving sees new documentary evidence, he changes his opinion. That's rational and consistent with his whole approach to historical evidence.Sayitclearly (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

References

The article does in fact note that Irving rejects accusations of Holocaust denial. However, this is how he is commonly regarded. Given that Irving has been found to have deliberately and systematically misrepresented a range of documents over much of his career in order to further his Holocaust denial, your post suggests that you are not actually familiar with this topic. You may wish to read the expert reports and judgement of the Irving v. Lipstadt libel case, which are available here. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why being a holocaust denier should be the very first descriptive line. Surely that should be that is a historian? I mean, this I understand the political and moral notions behind putting that first, but it's unfitting for a encyclopedia entry, it's more like something you'd get in a polemic article. This is not "a good article". The average well educated person may say so, but that's another matter.[[5]]

What he's best known for now is holocaust denial. He was formerly best known as an amateur historian. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Irondome (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's fine the way it is, thanks. --John (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Holocaust denier a profession? What an extremely biased article! I'm pretty sure it was written by a right wing person... Now seriously, if the argument is "he's known for being a Holocaust denier", then it's more politically neutral to say that he's a non-conformist historian. Sorry for not being able to use the right indentation, but I don't know wikipedia editing that well (doesn't make my point any less valid, though).81.84.96.90 (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Do mainstream sources call him a "non-conformist historian"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen the phrase "non-conformist historian" before. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't be a term used by mainstream writers - there's no expectation that historians will "conform" to anything (with the role of historians being to interpret evidence and test preconceived notions), though Holocaust deniers often claim that historians tow a common line due to some combination of cowardice and Jewishness. Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Conformist historian" is a term I've only ever heard used by Irving himself. On the "holocaust denier" label it's footnoted as attributed to the book "Extreme Speech and Democracy" as

edited by Ivan Hare, James Weinstein. May I suggest the judgement given in Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstat [2000] EWHC QB 115 might make a more rock solid reference? 

13.167 "The answer to that question requires me to decide whether (I am paraphrasing section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952) the failure on the part of the Defendants to prove the truth of those charges materially injures the reputation of Irving, in view of the fact that the other defamatory charges made against him have been proved to be justified. The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. In my judgment the charges against Irving which have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity for it be clear that the failure to prove the truth of the matters set out in paragraph 13.165 above does not have any material effect on Irving's reputation." from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html#14 Were this used then any complaint about it could simply be directed to the courts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.76.225 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

18:23, 11 January 2015‎ 113.21.75.58 Edit

I just changed a part of the first line of the article from "... Holocaust denier and author" to "...historian and author whose work has been discredited on account of his being a Holocaust denier."

I am not basing this edit on my personal opinions, but on Wikipedia policy regarding two central figures of Nazism. E.g. 1: Leni Riefenstahl, in her Wikipedia article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl), is called "...a German film director, producer, screenwriter, editor, photographer, actress and dancer widely known for directing the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will" rather than simply "... a Nazi propagandist most famous for directing the film Triumph of the Will." E.g. 2: Adolf Hitler himself is described in the first line of as "... an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party", and not - much as I would like it - as "the cause behind the Second World War and the Holocaust perpetrated on the Jews", or something like that.

In this case, is it not fitting to mention that David Irving is a HISTORIAN whose work has been discredited on account of his Holocaust denial and Nazi sympathies, rather than referring to him as a "Holocaust denier" at the very beginning? The phrase "Holocaust denier" could be applied to anyone from a driver or gardener to the ruler of a nation; it is a judgment that offers no objective information about the person supposed to be the subject of the article. While it definitely takes precedence over any other contribution he might have, it seems to be Wikipedia's policy to mention nationality and occupation/vocation before political affiliations.

FormerIP, I hope you see the reason behind my edit. I repeat, it has NOTHING to do with opinion. If anything, I would like opinion to be less important in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.21.75.58 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm inclined to agree. Using "holocaust denier" as it currently is in the article sounds rather unencyclopedic and clumsy and as if "holocaust denier" was a job. The IP's solution, which still makes clear he was discredited as a holocaust denier in the first sentence, is a more elegant solution. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DeCausa! In addition, I'd like to quote the text at the top of the edit page, which says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." I believe that using "Holocaust denier" as the first words of an article is certainly libellous to the highest degree! So I'm reversing FormerIP's reversal of my last edit, and I hope the first line will stay relatively unbiased!113.21.75.58 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how having "holocaust denier" in the first sentence would be libelous whereas the having the phrase "on account of his holocaust denial" in the same sentence is just fine. Anyhow, the reason I think this is a controversial edit is not because of the positioning of "holocaust denier", but because of the use of "historian". There's previously been a consensus that this is a misdescription. Consensus can change, so there's no harm in a new discussion, but you need to do that before changing the article. Formerip (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been proven in a court of law that DI is in fact a Holocaust denier, so the libel argument seems somewhat redundant. It was this devastating judgement, based on analysis of DIs methodology which destroyed his reputation as an historian. Based on a close reading of the L v I defence, it is arguable whether DI has ever been a true historian, in terms of his methodology and chronic misuse of sources in a wide variety of subjects. I am inclined to agree with User:FormerIP on this. Irondome (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh IP 113, you've spoiled your case. It's not the least bit libellous to call him a holocaust denier. Also, I hadn't spotted your historian/writer switcheroo - which isn't on. However, I still think the essence of your proposal is an improvement but would word it: "an English author[2] who has written several books on the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany but whose work has been discredited as a result of his being a Holocaust denier" DeCausa (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Colleagues, I would suggest we leave the current wording as is. A couple of hours revisiting the history and thoughts of others on the subject of Mr. Irving as an historian (I had forgotten the memo from the Telegraph, advising journalists of the organ not to refer to Irving as an Historian. This was as early as 1969) has reinforced my belief that the lede description is intellectually, legally and ethically spot on. Revisiting Mr. Irving's past always depresses me and leaves me feeling oddly soiled. So a quick shower, a good ale and bed methinks. Cheers fellow eds! Irondome (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

He is NOT a Holocaust denier

He has stated so, publicly, repeatedly.

Irving went on record denying that he was a denier. So why can some folks not stick with the truth? --91.60.136.228 (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This makes this current article blatantly biased against Mr. Irving. It reads like tabloid junk and badly-veiled libel.

To raise academic questions concerning various details or aspects or scientific validation of the Holocaust story, is NOT Holocaust denial. It is exactly what legitimate academic researchers should be doing. 96.18.186.139 (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The article notes Irving's response. However, the overwhelming weight of opinion by experts and courts is that Irving is in fact a Holocaust denier. Please read the references. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c82WPNFBNnM in this interview he 'admits' 2 million Jews died by the NAZIs... so if "experts & courts" say that the sky is green & grass is blue :P Peace is contagious (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what we do - we go by expert opinion as documented in reliable sources. And yes, claiming (only) two million died is a typical denier statement, just like someone who claims the distance from Ireland to Newfoundland is 100km can be called an "Atlantic denier". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That is what dogmatic people do to maintain their fancyful world. Real people don't ´go by "expert" opinion´. --91.60.153.27 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Your posting to the wrong website then, as this encyclopedia bases its articles on what we call reliable sources. Doug Weller (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I think that lead sentence should be "David Irving is an English historian and author famous for his Holocaust denial" or something. What I mean is that he should be mentioned first as a "historian" and then whatever, Holocaust denier or author or anything. I know that he has doubted many facts of Holocaust but that should not blind us to the fact that he has made many important contributions as a "historian" first of all. So, that should be mentioned in the lead sentence before any other label. Sohebbasharat (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

And before someone says that he is "best known" as that. To give you an example, Osama Bin Laden is surely best knows as a terrorist and one can provide 100s of references but it wouldn't be just to start his article as "OBL is a terrorist......". (You can take a look at that article). I agree that he is described as a "holocaust denier" by many people but only a person who knows very little about the Nazi history can say that he is not well known as a "historian". So, to be unbiased we should write "....is a historian," first and then whatever other labels people know him as. Its Wikipedia guys, it should be Unbiased, its not a forum to vilify someone even if he is a horrible person! Sohebbasharat (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

And also, in the Intro it should be mentioned that he himself denies that he is a "holocaust denier". At present, it seems (after reading the intro) that he is a self declared holocaust denier, which is not the case. Sohebbasharat (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the article and links and check all the t/p threads. D.I is not a historian and he is a Holocaust denier. Grasp that simple reality. Irondome (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed: this has been discussed many times previously, and the consensus has been that modern reliable sources (and especially those written by historians and the like) generally do not call Irving a "historian". Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Our policy is NPOV—neutral point of view "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This means, in short, that if the reliable sources do not generally consider Irving a historian, neither should our article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Are u really saying he was never a "historian"? Wow. Even in the "author" section of the article, it says that some publications call him a historian. I think I can provide some references for that too. I remember one of Hitchen's interview where he described Irving as one of the "necessary historians" of the third Reich. It won't be NPOV IMHO not to mention him as a historian. Just because he had a crazy bent or that he went off the track afterwards doesn't mean that he was never a historian. I am surprised someone would say that he has never been a historian. Sohebbasharat (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are three links I found after a minute's search. He is described as "British historian", "historian and a Holocaust denier" and a "controversial historian". Historian being the common denominator. I think these three links are sufficient to describe him as an historian, or if you still don't think this to be an accurate description, "controversial historian" also seems alright. But the point is in the lead sentence "historian" should be mentioned to make it NPOV.Sohebbasharat (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-david-irving--the-hate-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-8792411.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/10550874/Jeremy-Clarksons-BBC-show-in-battle-with-Nazi-historian.html

Please show me where I or anybody above said Irving "has never been" a historian. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And the most recent story in the Independent does not call him a historian.[6] Nor does [http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/28/hilary-swank-and-tom-wilkinson-to-star-in-holocaust-denier-drama this recent Guardian article. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Sohebbasharat, the links you provided all feature the word "historian" as part of a throwaway journalistic descriptor. In the article we have detailed reasoning from eminent academics regarding what a historian is and whether Irving meets those criteria. To give these equal weight is fallacious. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what the most recent story does or does not call him. This is no wiki standard to shape the article on what one recent report says. And who are we to decide that they used "historian" as a throwaway word or really meant it. It doesn't seem a particularly strong argument to me. In fact, even in the Reception segment of the article it says, had "full respectability as a historian" and "dented his standing as a historian"; surely he must have been a historian for something to dent his authority as a historian! I really think we should write "historian" in the lead sentence, or as I said before, we can write "controversial historian" bcz that is what he is. It should be something on the lines of "....is an author, controversial historian, and a holocaust denier.." I am not sure why you would disagree with such a description. Please share your arguments against why at least "controversial historian" shouldn't be added in the lead. Thanx Sohebbasharat (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

See the archive box on the top of the page? There are actually two different places (don't need both, I'll fix that eventually) where you can search the archives. Look for the word "historian". You'll note that we've been having this discussion for as long as this article has existed. My own take is that he is a historian, and a really lousy one; consensus, however, is quite clear to be that "Historian" is some sort of mark of honor that is somehow tarnished by using it with Irving, and that this article should not refer to him as such, not in the lede. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As Jgordon notes, this has been discussed in depth previously, with the current wording reflecting the consensus of those discussions (which was based on an in-depth discussion of the wording different sources use). Experts who have investigated Irving's work (notably Richard J Evans, but also others) have found problems throughout his career, so the notion that he "went off the rails" or similar and ceased to be considered a historian is not accurate. As a result of this analysis he's now typically (though not always) described as a "writer" or similar. Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you, i will get back after going through the previous discussions. Sohebbasharat (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

Certain users are apparently intent in engaging in a so-called EDit War with regard to Irving's profession. These people are using Wikipedia as a propaganda outlet and not an encyclopedia. How very sad.

Sad, sad, little people. 46.7.60.246 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? You changed the article four times in a row, violating WP:3RR despite the fact that your changes were reverted by four separate editors. Who is edit warring? You are. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denier?

The concept is non-analytic and hardly has content apart from saying what it is not. He is a historian first and foremost. By the way, the mentioned English court did also find in favour of the adequacy of calling him a historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.126.198 (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the frequency which this is raised (concerning someone who's now a fairly obscure figure), I can only imagine that there's a campaign going on. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just added a hidden comment to the article concerning this [7] which will hopefully stop some of the doomed edits which are being made. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly a campaign. The IP certainly has now tried to call 3 holocaust deniers historians or in one case even a leading historian. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that there's an off-Wikipedia campaign about this somewhere with people advocating this change to the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda outlet, thus, "historian" is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.60.246 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's actually the other way around. I note that Schutzstaffel you deleted " the SS under Himmler's command was responsible for many crimes against humanity during World War II (1939–45)" claiming it was Allied propaganda.[8]. Your views are clear. Doug Weller (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

THE FINAL WORD: To call Irving an "author" rather than "historian" because some other historians don't like his views or impugn his scholarship is not worthy of an encyclopedia. Rather, it should limit itself to neutrality by stating that he is a historian some of whose work is highly controversial and/or suspected of propaganda, or something to that effect. Else automatic software listing all historians would miss him, which is wrong, especially since he published some bestselling history books that aren't questioned. Historians who assert the reality of Muhammad, Christ, Moses or other figure whose very existence is in doubt don't get this political axe job, do they? How about historians who lie extensively for their political regime, such as the Soviet Union or Red China? They're still historians. A category mistake is something Wikipedia must be above. Or is it kaput? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.57.192 (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The final, final word: Irving is regarded as a Holocaust denier because he is a Holocaust denier. That Irving is called here what he is, is something some people find intolerable. AnnaLiver (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Public image of David Irving

I didn't know this existed. Anyone watchlisting this article should add that one as it gets changed by the same people at times. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems odd that that page does exist considering that most if not all of the things on it are covered here in similar depth. It doesn't really expand on them in any meaningful way, I wonder if it was created at a time when there was less coverage on this page. Is this the only page that links to it? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I just BOLDLY redirected that thing to this biography. The linked article did not cover anything that could not be covered here. I saw it was a POV fork at worst, and completely unneeded at best. If someone wanted to merge parts of that article into this one, feel free to give it a go. If the material is excessive or not neutral, though, it won't stick. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Best solution. Doug Weller (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Book PDFs

Wouldn't the PDF links in the bibliography to books on Irving's site be considered commercial or promotional material that we shouldn't be linking to per policy? MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Albert Speer

From Albert Speer:

Following his release from Spandau, Speer presented to the German Federal Archives an edited version of the Chronicle, stripped by Wolters of any mention of the Jews. When David Irving discovered discrepancies between the edited Chronicle and other documents, Wolters explained the situation to Speer, who responded by suggesting to Wolters that the relevant pages of the original Chronicle should "cease to exist". Wolters did not destroy the Chronicle, and, as his friendship with Speer deteriorated, allowed access to the original Chronicle to doctoral student Matthias Schmidt (who, after obtaining his doctorate, developed his thesis into a book, Albert Speer: The End of a Myth). Speer considered Wolters' actions to be a "betrayal" and a "stab in the back". The original Chronicle reached the Archives in 1983, after both Speer and Wolters had died.

So..did Irving uncover a crypto-Nazi? This at least seems to conflict with no scholar taking him seriously. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about the specific incident in question, I must be honest. I'd recommend having a look in the sources given. This seems to be at least some years before Irving began to openly deny the Holocaust, in the mid-to-late 1980s. This is when his reputation really fell apart. Some of Irving's earlier work was taken seriously, in particular his 1964 work The Mare's Nest, on the German V-weapons programme and the Allied measures against it, which continues to be well regarded even today. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The truth doesn't seem to matter on this page. All that is important is that a man is demonised for his opinion. Almost twenty years ago my entire a level history class applied the same standards as Irving was subject to to our beliefs about history and the holocaust. An entire year of bright, talented, mostly liberal and idealistic students would, in that courtroom, have been labelled as holocaust deniers. So would our teacher. He was Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.51.15 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you hear yourself, 81.158.51.15? "He was Jewish"! Please come back when you have something more to offer than anecdotal evidence and speculation. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. "He was a gentleman of semitic persuasion." Is that better? As regards "please come back when you have something more to offer than anecdotal evidence and speculation." I didn't realise you were custodian of this board Cliftonian. I didn't attempt to edit the article. I was talking on the TALK page. I thought new users were encouraged to post and to be bold. I boldly stated my truth and I'm sure there are plenty of other users who might read what I've written with interest even if you and a few buddies of yours don't. By all means disagree but please try not to snarl.86.132.182.229 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. Your comments might be acceptable on a webforum, but this is not a page for discussing David Irving, Speer, etc. It's a page for discussing specific changes to be made in the article, and if these involve content changes you'll probably need sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's necessary to put it another way as Cliftonian's rudeness breaks several Wikipedia guidelines, notably 'be polite to newbies' and 'assume good faith'. Furthermore Cliftonian's criticism of anecdotal evidence on a talk page transcends a more fundamental limit of hypocrisy as, when editing a page about the Israeli Defence Force he cites his own experience as a reason for altering the spelling and labels it 'anecdotal evidence'. The anecdotal post above is relevant to the masses of criticism on this talk page against what appear to be guardians who are protecting it in its current form. Another uses who featured heavily above (who I'll not name out of politeness) is happy to cite the daily mail -one of Britain's most notoriously unreliable tabloids- as a reliable source, yet on the page about Joan Rivers, has fought against including any reference to her hate speech about Palestinians, as 'Wikipedia should not be tabloid in tone'.

As regards this article, the concerns of many posters are these:

The page may be being protected by an outside campaign. A small group of established users continually cite consensus that Irving is not an historian where no consensus exists. The fact that an English court accepted Irving as an Historian (under any other circumstances this should be the baseline of the issue) is ignored in favor of a campaign started by a tabloid newspaper. Whilst I'm sure Cliftonian's experience of the Israeli Defence Force and self declared knowledge of Hebrew wouldn't make such an experience user prejudiced in this article, there are more general legitimate concerns of double standards, false balance and 'Cabalism' on this highly biased page.159.15.128.174 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have been a little bit brusque before, IP, but I think my basic point still stands—for major issues like this that are open to dispute there is simply no place here for anecdotal evidence, original research and so on. You call me a hypocrite because on my personal talk page I answer another user's query about the spelling of "defence" vs "defense" in the context of the IDF in the article Chaim Herzog, and in doing so cite my personal experience of such things. (In any case, I changed the spelling in the Herzog article to "defence" simply so it would fit the Commonwealth-style spelling used elsewhere therein.) This issue of a single-letter spelling difference is trivial in the extreme. It cannot, in my opinion, be compared to the extremely controversial disputes relating to Irving.

If you want to test whether or not I really have knowledge of the Hebrew language, I'm happy to write some here for you, or even to speak it to you over the phone. Email me through this thing and I'll send you a number you can call me on. I did pick up a little bit of the language during my time in the Israeli Army, you know.

I, at least, am not part of any outside campaign. I actually altered the lead yesterday to put author first and Holocaust denier second, only to be reverted myself. I'm sorry to have been rude in how I worded my initial reply, but I still stand by the basic principle of what I said. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Cliftonian. I'm sure we can move onwards and upwards from here. I'm thinking of registering to become a Wikipedian!80.235.146.221 (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear. If you do, be sure to drop me a line on my talk page if you ever need a hand with anything. In the meantime I hope you're having a pleasant weekend. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Holocaust denier

There seems to be some sort of cabal protecting this bizarre article. It certainly doesn't merit a 'good article' mark. Please can we embark on a constructive discussion towards some sort of sane consensus as this sort of thing gives wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say he is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

please check the above comment. it makes no sense and will be disregarded if not clarified. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, and does not require clarification. General Ization ^Talk 03:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it does not make sense. However I believe the poster NeilN meant 'reliable sources say he is a holocaust denier'. I would be grateful if NeilN would let another more calm editor deal with this as he seems to be taking everything very personally and getting upset. An experienced editor who has broken several guidelines and seems emotionally invested in getting his way is not good for wikipedia.

Now, there is disagreement whether Irving denies the holocaust. Some say he does, some, including himself say he doesn't. Whilst I have no objection to the label being used in this article it doesn't belong at the beginning of the lead. Furthermore, some claims that he shouldn't be allowed to call himself an hitorian is not grounds for a serious site claiming that he is not an historian. He has published books on history. However bad you thin they are they are he is still an historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, far too much major disagreement about this article for it to be considered even adequate at present. Please list objections to downgrading it.86.154.233.83 (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The terms used to describe the subject in the lead have been discussed numerous times here, most recently just above, and consensus has been established that he will not be called a "historian" in this article. The fact that you did not participate in the earlier discussions (unless you did so using a different account) does not change the consensus. Nor does your opinion that it is not a "good article" change the consensus of the GA process that it is. General Ization ^Talk 03:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm, including being very patient dealing with you and your misperceptions. We don't care what the fringe (including Irving) says. We go by mainstream reliable sources. As for downgrading the article, it's up to you to state how it doesn't meet good article criteria. Not adhering to your personal point of view doesn't count. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And true to form... [9] Guess we get at least a 60 hour break. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Per this edit summary, 86.154.233.83 seems to think that anyone who calls Irving a Holocaust denier is a "Zionist", which seems to me a very odd term to use here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"seems to think that anyone who calls Irving a Holocaust denier is a "Zionist"... This is not representative of the facts Cliftonian. Please provide evidence for your bizarre claim. However it is clear 1) there is no consensus above on how the lead should be written 2) Whilst no one is disputing whether holocaust denier should be included in the article, it does not belong as the first item in the lead and historian should certainly be before it. Furthermore, please stick to trying to achieve consensus.217.42.88.190 (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Having just read through the previous heading on holocaust denial I can see there was never consensus on on this issue. It appears there might be some sort of off site campaign to protect this page in its biased form. I think this might be a case for formal mediation. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.88.190 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You removed "Holocaust denier" from the opening sentence with the edit summary: "neutral viewpoint remember people. we're neither zionists nor anti semites!" The implication here seems to me to be that criticising Irving or calling him a Holocaust denier is something done by a "Zionist"—whatever is meant by that word. Anyway, this isn't really relevant. The large majority of reliable sources don't call Irving a historian—in fact they explicitly say "Irving is not a historian." Trying to be "fair" to the minority view that Irving is a historian actually creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Regarding the prominence of the phrase "Holocaust denier" in the opening sentence: this is because Irving is at least as well-known now for his Holocaust denial than for any of his books.

Regarding your idea of formal mediation, go ahead. I have no objection whatsoever. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have blocked 217.42.88.190 for block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have changed the wording so that it now says "David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English author who has written on the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany, and who is primarily known for his Holocaust denial". This seems to be more in tune with the way we generally write about controversial living persons.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Höfle Telegram material

For this material (or something like it) to be retained a reference to a reliable secondary source confriming it and stating that it's of some significance is needed. Irving has never denied that the Germans caused the deaths of large numbers of Jews. Rather, he claims that the figures which are commonly given for the total number of deaths caused by the Holocaust are greatly over-stated, and that Hitler had virtually nothing to do with them and tried to stop the murders he learnt about. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree the material should stay out for now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote from wikipedia:

"Irving claimed that the Holocaust was not the work of Nazi leaders, but rather of "nameless criminals",[68] and claimed that "these men [who killed the Jews] acted on their own impulse, their own initiative, within the general atmosphere of brutality created by the Second World War, in which of course Allied bombings played a part."

The Höfle Telegram was sent to Adolf Eichmann. Adolf Eichmann was not a "nameless criminal". Adolf Eichmann was a German Nazi SS-Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel) and one of the major organisers of the Holocaust (according to wikipedia). Therefore (User talk:Nick-D)-s argument is invalid. The numbers in the Höfle telegram are important because they match the Korherr Report not because David Irving did or did not deny them in the past.

This to me suggests that David Irving's opinion on the matter has changed recently. I have provided two links to two videos from the same David Irving speech where he verbally confirms everything he wrote on his homepage (also linked).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoD5i0xK2Xs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sLV8u4RcPA

What would constitue a valid source? This is the man himself talking and that home page is his homepage. We are talking about HIS opinion. You cannot get more authentic than this.

--Nekdolan (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to a reliable news source, academic expert, etc, stating that Irving has changed his views. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian link from 2007. Quote:

He (David Irving - N.) added: "In my opinion now the real killing operations took place at the Reinhardt camps west of the Bug river. In the three camps here [Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka] Heinrich Himmler's men (mostly Ukrainian mercenaries) killed possibly as many as 2.4 million in the two years up to October 1943. There is now nothing to be seen of the Reinhardt camps, neither stick nor stone, so few tourists go there. I have visited all four sites earlier this year."

He is obviously referring to the Höfle telegram, because:

• He mentions three of the four camps of the Höfle Telegram
• The fourth camp Lublin, that is not mentioned had the fewest victims out of the four camps (five times less as the one with the second smallest number of victims). If we would add that camp's victims to the total it would still be 2.4 million (probably).
• He mentions Operation Reinhard which is also mentioned in the Höfle Telegram
• He also mentions Heinrich Himmler who was the "boss" off Hermann Höfle

Nekdolan (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

However, we don't do 'obviously'. We can't interpret what he says, see no original research. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I realised that the need to add a "reliable" source to David Irving's change of opinion as Nick-D suggested is not valid. David Irving's own webpage or videos of him of his own opinion are considered valid by wikipedia standards: link

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; ✓
• it does not involve claims about third parties; ✓
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; ✓
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; ✓
• the article is not based primarily on such sources. ✓

This is wiki page about David Irving and his opinion about the Holocaust and not about the Holocaust itself. Therefore it is not valid based on - Wiki standards - to use the same criteria as one would use for the latter.

Since neither of Nick-D's complaints is justifiable I believe we can add the original text with the original sources as they are considered valid sources and in no way conflicts with wiki standards. If this is not the case tell us why. --Nekdolan (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is the "we" you refer to? Several editors have commented opposing adding this, and only you support it - please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:WIKILAWYER. Irving is not a reliable source on himself, and there's no reason to add references to stuff he posts on his website or elsewhere. I'm still not seeing the significance of this: even Irving in the Guardian article says it's not a significant change in his views. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

According to the official definition of Holocaust denial if you believe that the Holocaust was not done by high ranking Nazi officials you are a denier. Explain to me how that is not a significant change or how this information is irrelevant regarding David Irving as a Holocaust Denier. Also please explain why David Irving is not a reliable source on himslef even though wiki standards seems to say otherwise. Why is my understanding of wiki standards wrong? Why is David Irving an exception to the rule?

Nekdolan (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so claiming that Irving isn't or no longer is a Holocaust denier is the agenda here. Such a claim would need to be supported by a very strong secondary source - for instance to an expert on Holocaust denial. Irving has always maintained that the Nazis killed large numbers of Jews, just not anywhere near the true figures, and that somehow Hitler not only had nothing to do with it but tried to stop the killings he learned of: this is set out in the Guardian story you linked to. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not claim that he is not a Holocaust denier. I claim that one of the many identifiers of a holocaust denier no longer applies (possibly) to David Irving. Therefore this information is relevant. I made no attempt in my proposed change to claim or suggest that he is no longer a denier. The source I used which mentions the Höfle telegram by name does not mention Hitler at all. The Guardian story does but I cannot link the Guardian story to this source since that would be "research". So I cannot add that: despite the fact that Irving believes the SS was responsible he still thinks that Hitler's not responsible or was at least no involved. This shouldn't disqualify the proposal since no claim is made that his opinion on Hitler has changed and his opinion on Hitler is already there. I also don't suggest that his opinion of Auschwitz or the gas chambers has changed which automatically makes him a denier. Nekdolan (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Since it seems that David Irving is not a valid source on his own opinion I suggest that this text should be added instead:

In a 2007 interview 1 Irving claimed that according to a genuine document "over 2.5 million Jews were killed" in three camps by a deliberate policy of the Nazis and "quite definitely of Heinrich Himmler". He referred to these camps as the "Reinhardt camps" and added that nothing "neither stick nor stone" remains where these camps once stood. Irving also reaffirmed his position regarding Hitler, that Hitler was "completely in the dark" and did not knew what went on in these camps. Irving also claimed that Auschwitz was not the "center of the killing operations" and that the gas chamber inside Auschwitz is a fake.

If we want to be objective we should not exclude information that the man has been saying publicly for seven years (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoD5i0xK2Xs | http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Hoefle_No2/Hoefle_doc_No2.html) just because it does not conform to public opinion. This wiki article says Irving has changed his opinion many times regarding the Holocaust and this is what he believes now whether people like it or not. --Nekdolan (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please find secondary sources, as noted earlier. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondary source: In 2009 Irving gave an interview to El_Mundo_(Spain) (issue 5th of September 2009). In this he states that:

• Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust
• Heinrich Himmler was mainly responsible for the Holocaust
• The Holocaust was done by part of the Nazi leadership
• The Holocaust was executed in the Reinhardt camps. (He mentions all four camps by name but does not mention operation Reinhardt)

The article in question (the newspaper's archive): http://quiosco.elmundo.orbyt.es/epaper/epaper.asp?tpu=El%20Mundo&pub=05_09_2009&edi=Madrid

The same article on David Irving's website (translated by Irving's affiliate): http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/09/09/El_Mundo_interview_Engl.html

Images downloaded from the newspaper's archive. The images were fed to an OCR and translated to English via google translate. Contains images of just the text as well. An English excerpt was made from the relevant information: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/41aky1t08n2hvnt/AABCLnHbtR4hrrCyduQg2Eaia?dl=0 Nekdolan (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of this information was quoted by The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/david-irving-sparks-row-over-holocaust-propaganda-1782545.html Nekdolan (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

An interview with Irving is not a secondary source, and much of that material is already in the "Revisionism" and "Holocaust denial lecture circuit" sections. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you require but such a thing would never be considered reliable since any book that would state such things would be automatically denounced by historians. Wikipedia standards does not in fact require such a thing. I understand that it would be a good thing but it will never ever gonna happen. Yes some of this information is already there. His opinion about Hitler is stated at least three times. So what is your point? There are other things at the end of the "denial circuit" that on the other hand is completely opposite to his current position:

• Expanding upon his thesis in Hitler's War about the lack of a written Führer order for the Holocaust, Irving argued in the 1990s that the absence of such an order meant that there was no Holocaust.
• In a speech given in Hamburg in 1991, Irving stated that in two years time "this myth of mass murders of Jews in the death factories of Auschwitz, Majdanek and Treblinka ... which in fact never took place" will be disproved (Auschwitz, Majdanek, and Treblinka were all well known extermination camps).
• They died from epidemics".[94] Irving went on to claim that most of the Jewish deaths during World War II had been caused by Allied bombing.
• In another 1994 speech, Irving claimed that there was no German policy of genocide of Jews, and that only 600,000 Jews died in concentration camps in World War II, all due to either Allied bombing or disease.
• In an interview with Australian radio in July 1995, Irving claimed that at least four million Jews died in World War II, though he argued that this was due to terrible sanitary conditions inside the concentration camps as opposed to a deliberate policy of genocide in the death camps.
• Likewise, depending on his audience, Irving during the 1990s has either used the absence of a written Führerbefehl (Führer order) for the "Final Solution" to argue that Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust, or that the absence of a written order meant there was no Holocaust

Those are the most recent claims about Irving and the Holocaust. Anyone reading this wiki page would believe that Irving is the worst of the worst Holocaust deniers even though that is in fact not the case. We are lying to everyone at disregard any attempt to bring some objective sanity to this article. We can argue were Irving's latest revelation should be added but it should be added nonetheless. We have reliable source and even video footage. Why can't we write something that reflects reality? --Nekdolan (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Violation of BLP

Calling him directly an 'English Holocaust Denier' is a pretty strong violation of WP:BLP, even if it is true. Anyway to rephrase this so as not to violate BLP? Perhaps "Is an English blah blah...known for his works which deny the Holocaust", since he quite clearly never denies the Holocaust, he's a negationist revisionist, which isn't exactly the same thing, which would mean that in a place like England, he could sue for libelous content on a wiki article such as this one.

He isn't primarily known for his Holocaust denial, but the trials surrounding this and his books which supposedly perpetuate such an ideology.

Solntsa90 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

But he IS a holocaust denier. Stating this fact is not a violation of BLP if it is true. Indeed, that denial pretty much sums up his career. --Dmol (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

He is now primarily known as a holocaust denier, because of the publicity from the lawsuit. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Irving is regarded by the community of historians as a Holocaust denier, and there is no reason for the article not to present their view as fact. A source for Irving being a Holocaust denier is given in the lead, and it should not be difficult to find additional sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Journalists also routinely refer to him as a "Holocaust denier". Given that he's been convicted of this in Austria, was judged to be a Holocaust denier in his failed libel action in the UK and there's a clear consensus on the topic among historians, it's not controversial. The article rightly notes that Irving rejects this label, but that isn't what we base the content of articles on. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

But he's not most well-known for being a Holocaust denier, except for those in certain circles who make a living discussing the Holocaust. The accusations and libel trial came later in his career, which spanned almost 50 years, and the way it is phrased gives it extreme wp:undue weight in my humble opinion. Why use a noun, when an adjective works just as fine and appears less accusatory from what should be a non-biased source? Solntsa90 (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether he is best known as a holocaust denier or as a hoaxer is moot: he is both. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not "supposedly"

Text before my edit: 1956 revolt in Hungary, which Irving characterised as "primarily an anti-Jewish uprising", supposedly because the Communist regime was itself controlled by Jews.

Well, on this subject, as to why Irving 'characterised' (stated) as 'primarily an anti-Jewis' is not supposedly, but just 'because' the 'regime' was composed (not 'controlled) not of, but by, but yes, the Jews, by like over 70%. If you look at the photographs of dead people with - did you look? - the officials in Hungary, whom in the uprising the locals killed, with spoons and forks in their eyes and with Party membership document on their bodies - they are all Jews. That is why. Because of the terror there was a revolt which the Jews couldn't contain so they were killed. But the Jews not involved in terror and who were not communist or secret police officials were not. I will rephrase. This is in the book. This is an incredible truth Yuri Kozharov (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit: 1956 revolt in Hungary, which, as Irving stated, was "primarily an anti-Jewish uprising", because the Communist regime, including the secret police, was composed by over 70% of Jews.

On reverts: you comment why not. I.e. how do you prove that not heavily Jewish, there in that time. What parliament or body said this is untrue, which trusted or known person. Because it seems like some wiki editor or many of such, just a consensus. That there are some views that are a problem. Just where Irving used that expression 'controlled by the Jews'? They were mostly Jews, grossly overreprested there and what they did, that is what he wrote. Do you have his books? Go ahead, check. And who says not so. How it is - a no. Why do you distort what is written in the book when you quote the book. Weird. Yuri Kozharov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Irving is an unreliable source and we don't accept his insinuations as facts. If you have good other sources to support this claim (which I find somewhat ludicrous, since neither the question "who is a Jew" nor "who is part of the regime" have clear and unambiguous answer), we can discuss the issue. Otherwise we are conservative and don't suggest that Irving's claim is factual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we then rephrase so as it all (a particular passage) not to appear as he is saying in the book that some Jews control remotely and this is a conspiracy or something, because he did not say anything like that in the book, what he did say people refuse to let him. We may, alternatively, say: this is what Irving "alleges', this is why it is likely untrue. Yuri Kozharov (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Gati claims that by 1940 there were barely more than two hundred activists in Hungary and fewer than fifty reliable survivors in Moscow, with the result that one of Stalin’s four Magyar postwar proconsuls (Rákosi, Gerö, Révai and Farkas), all incidentally Jewish, had to be transferred from the Czechoslovak to the Hungarian Party. The most that can be claimed is that the Party, though small, had enjoyed considerable sympathy between the wars among artists, writers, university students and other intellectuals. What is especially striking, given Central European anti-semitism, is the relatively high number of Jewish members. (One third of Hungarian Jews, about 275,000, survived the war.) The predominance of Jews was a considerable worry to both the Hungarian and the Soviet Communist Party leadership. A black humorist might even claim that the problems of the Hungarian revolution arose from the persistent search for a reliable and popular Hungarian leader who was not a Jew; hence the peasant Imre Nagy in 1953 and again in 1956, and the chess-playing worker, illegitimate son of a Slovak chambermaid, János Kádár, in 1956.http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n22/eric-hobsbawm/could-it-have-been-different Yuri Kozharov <-- it still does not say specifically on secret police though, it is about the Party (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Yuri Kozharov, you are on the wrong page and I'm not sure if there's an article using Gati. You last paragraph is not about this article, please don't use this page to discuss Stalin, Hungary, Jews, etc. Your link is interesting but we can't use letters to the editor. If Gati did mention Irving we could use that but I see no evidence that he does. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That is, from your side, you reply that you don't understand. On this subject, that (if you explain what Irving wrote in the book, ok, alleged), I first heard that Irving is unreliable (while he said that indeed), second that others do not confirm this, but (see above) others do. Gati does. Why Gati should mention Irving I don't know, that is your logic, but he did mention over-representation of Jews, just as Irving. I am not interested in Gati, I am interested in facts, fact is that Irving said Jews were overrepresented in institutions like secret police, others confirm this. Because people are debating credibility of Irving, refusing to just quote what he did say. Why do you need to 'use letters to the editor'. In the article, its like "Irving was wrong", he alleged stuff due to he believes in Jewish conspiracies. He believes in that particular point in reality, which is corroborated by others. Whats the problem, lets just quote what he sais himself in his own book. Yuri Kozharov (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand. Our sources need to mention Irving. Please read WP:NOR. I only mentioned letters to the editor because the website you linked only mentioned Irvin in a letter, not the review. We are not going to present Irving as though what he says is true. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Letters to editors, unless written by the man himself, are never appropriate to a biographical page, especially in light of WP:BLP. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Then, as in this passage: "Irving's depiction of Hungary's Communist regime as a Jewish dictatorship oppressing Gentiles sparked charges of antisemitism" we must attribute, in a mannner such as: Such-and-such (name), who is someone somewhere (where precisely) argued that "Irving's depiction of Hungary's Communist regime as a Jewish dictatorship oppressing Gentiles sparked charges of antisemitism". And then, Irving's opinion or rebuttal of this particular portrayal, if exists. For example, in Norman Finkelstein this is how contents of his book is presented and scientific merit of his books is assessed. Agree? Yuri Kozharov (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust denier

I don't really care about this but.. here's what I suspect is the problem with this designation. Yes, he is a holocaust denier. Yes, it's what he is most notable for. Yet it's simply awkward and unencyclopedic to start like this.

To compare:

• We don't call Adolf Hitler an "Austrian Holocauster" or "German genocider", or a "World War 2 starter" for that matter. We call him "an Austrian-born German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) ... [and] effectively dictator of Nazi Germany, and [he] was at the centre of World War II in Europe and the Holocaust."
• We don't call Lee Harvey Oswald a "President killer" or "Kennedy shooter", we call him "an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."
• We don't call Judas Iscariot a "Jesus-betrayer" etc.

Even though all of the previously given examples are known primarily for one thing, it's just awkward to use a designation that in no way relates to a profession or occupation. It crosses WP:BLP1E.

Anyhow, I don't plan on changing it myself. Just trying to help. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly my point with David Irving's article, and one that you more eloquently conveyed than I ever could. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Straw man argument. None of your examples are supported by the literature calling them those things. Irving is definitely called a holocaust denier. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a strawman argument. It's an excellent point, David Irving didn't spend his life being 'Holocaust Denier', he spent his life as a historian and an academic, who later on, held views that some would label Holocaust Denial (at least, in the always funny European Courts they did).

Also, what literature in particular are you referring to? David Irving is a historian and academic, albeit, a controversial one that supports heterodox views on the Holocaust. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Solntsa90, there is a banner at the top of this talk page which says: "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting." Please do that first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And "heterodox views on the Holocaust"? Seriously? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And I got to ask, given the strange correlations in the past day, Solntsa90, are you the same user as User:Prinsgezinde/Bataaf van Oranje? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The comparisons to Hitler, Judas Iscariot, etc, are really pointless. Irving isn't comparable at all to any of these figures. The wording used at this article seems appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No Marek, I am not user:prinsgezinde, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop following me around Wikipedia for a change. Anything better to do with your time? Solntsa90 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you user:prinsgezinde attempting to make me look like I am him in order to get me banned? If so, it's a very obvious guise. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording is in strong violation of BLP, especially as the man is still living, and this is probably why this keeps getting discussed every other day on here. There is no such thing as a 'ten-year old consensus'--things change all the time, especially wikipedia, and that is why we're here discussing it on the talk page today.

The wording does not violate WP:BLP. BLP does not mean that articles about living people contain nothing negative about their subjects. It means that all material needs to be carefully cited, and that negative and other content is included only to the extent that its importance makes this justifiable. Irving is definitely regarded as a holocaust denier by historians, and it is not a BLP violation in any way to call him one. If you are in any doubt about this, take the issue to the BLP noticeboard. The outcome is predictable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I see this has been taken to WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

And again we see this strange, supposedly coincidental collaboration between Solntsa90 and Prinsgezinde (nota bene - Solntsa90 recently got topic banned from the article about RT (TV network). Almost right after, Prinsgezinde showed up to renew their edit war on the same article making exactly the same arguments as Solntsa90. I see "they" are doing the same here and at BLPN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

One for WP:SPI then. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh... Again I'm attacked, mocked and accused of being a sockpuppet, JUST because I suggest something civilly in good faith. Why don't you just go ahead and fully investigate me for sockpuppetry once and for all, Nick-D and Volunteer Marek? I'm not afraid because I know I only have one account. It annoys me that when I try to discuss something controversial and someone agrees I have to be a sockpuppet.

And before anyone asks, no, I know nothing whatsoever about Solntsa90, nor do they know me. We apparently simply shared views on this.

As for the mockery of how I compared it with Judas etc, they were merely examples that came to mind. No elaborate symbolism or plans there. Good day. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Knife fight

Come on, what the hell is this doing in an encyclopedia? Why does a knife fight between two WN groups merit mention in an article by David Irving? Why is it even here? And just because Irving happened to be there, why does it merit mention in his "encyclopediac" biography?

There is no reason why any mention of a knife-fight between white nationalist groups should be mentioned in a David Irving article, just because he attended those events. THAT if nothing else, is a serious violation of WP:BLP, and just makes the encyclopedia look petty and biased against the subjects it should be documenting.

Would the Encyclopedia Brittanica report this? Ask yourself that question. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you search the internet for "David Irving" knife fight it produces many results. See here, where Irving was forced to deny that he knew the man who started the fight. If news sites mention the fight in their accounts of Irving's book tour, it seems strange for Wikipedia to exclude this information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not relevant to David Irving's biography, and only exists to create insinuation.

>It seems strange for wikipedia to exclude this information

How so? Do we mention every minute detail in someone's lengthy career, no matter how unimportant, just because it insinuates that they're "the bad guy"? It is poorly sourced, (SPLC is hardly a valid one anyway), and Irving denied knowing the man who started the fight, as you said yourself.

It's literally nothing but to create slander against David Irving. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Irving commented on and responded to the fight in various ways. This was widely reported (again, if you try an internet search, you will see that many newspapers reported this). Is it relevant to his biography? Yes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't proven how this is relevant to his biography, except to say that it is something that he witnessed. There is no evidence that David Irving had anything to do with the fight, and any insinuations are merely that--insinuations, in order to give the reader an idea that David Irving is some sort of nefarious character, which isn't the job of this supposed encyclopedia to be doing.

Ask yourself again: Would the Encyclopedia Brittanica include that mention? They don't even mention the fact that Obama was widely known as Barry (neither does wiki), and yet this extremely minor, impertinent violation of WP:BLP gets a pass in your book.

May I ask again why this is relevant to the article? Why not include what David Irving had for dinner next? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you find this knife-fight so notable, make a separate article on it. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Irving's response to the fight (which is mentioned in newspaper articles about it) makes it a relevant aspect of his biography. In contrast, newspapers have never reported what Irving had for dinner on any occasion, so that certainly is irrelevant. I never suggested that Irving himself was personally involved with the fight, as you bizarrely imply. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So if Irving wasn't personally involved in the fight( as I bizarrely implied) what the hell is it doing in his biography, unless to insinuate a negative moral character? It's a fight that he witnessed, it literally has NOTHING to do with Irving himself. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Saying the same things over and over again does not make your comments any more convincing. The fight should be mentioned in Irving's biography because newspapers recorded his response to it - as I already explained. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You never answered one of my questions. You are editing in poor faith. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• The BLP argument is pure nonsense. And it only excuses edit warring if it is a blatant and unquestionable violation of the policy. That is not the case here. Each of you make your cases for why it should be included or excluded and if you cant come to an agreement have an RfC on the issue. I lean towards exclusion since the relevance to his biography seems tangential.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The detail should be excluded because it is a minor knife fight that:

1.) David Irving had nothing to do with, by the admission of the sources provided;

2.) Irving denied all involvement with the knife fight;

3.) The knife fight is only included to insinuate nefariousness on Irving's part;

4.) It wouldn't be mentioned in a real encyclopedia like Brittanica, because it is such a minor detail as to warrant almost no attention to it;

5.) as you said, it is completely tangential, only serving to make an insinuation about Irving's character.

and most importantly:

6.) This has nothing to do with David Irving's biography, anymore than Celebrity sightings around LA have to do with theirs.

For the six above reasons, I strongly suggest its removal. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I second all those reasons. The info should not be here. --Dmol (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence fragment that a knife-fight broke out, without any explanation as to its outcome and relevance to the biography of the subject is something strange which will tend to confuse the reader. However it is not an egregious violation of BLP and I don't see it as an exemption from 3RR. Therefore, the edit-warring must stop and an RfC should be opened to decide the inclusion of the incident if the disagreement continues. Dr. K. 02:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Before making any judgment about whether material about this issue should be included or not, editors should first try an internet search to see how widely the incident was reported and how Irving reacted to it. Solntsa90's comment that, "The knife fight is only included to insinuate nefariousness on Irving's part" is an accusation of bad faith editing on my part, which I reject. Solntsa90 should read WP:AGF. His other points are simply different ways of rephrasing the same basic (and incorrect) complaint that the incident has no relevance to Irving. If newspapers report that someone reacted to a fight that occurred in his presence, and that his reaction included stating that certain persons were no longer welcome at his talks (which happened here, as you will note from this story, which was one of many), then obviously one is dealing with something that may be worth mentioning in his article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that Irving by reacting to the incident has made it relevant and fit to be included in his BLP. Further, since it is an inclusion that is being disputed I suggest its addition to the article should be delayed until such time as a consensus is formed to include it. Perhaps an RfC would be helpful if consensus does not form quickly. Dr. K. 03:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it is relevant. If someone responds to or comments on an event, then the assertion that the event is in no way relevant to him is baseless. One could more legitimately discuss exactly what form the material on this issue should take. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, why then isn't Irving's reaction to the knife incident included in his bio? What is the logic of including the knife incident but not Irving's reaction to it? Dr. K. 03:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Not Relevant for the 6-Reasons, cited above. Fights happen. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I was looking for an actual argument in response, not simply an assertion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think the most of the reasons given are compelling, I dont think it requires assumption of bad faith, but the result of including the information is what looks like a coatrack type of writing. So I think it is best to leave the knife fight.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Likewise. The arguments against inclusion are strong, while those for inclusion are weak. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)