Talk:Joel Hayward

Here we go again

As I recreate this bio, I'm going to list what I'm putting in step-by-step and my rationale for including it. I'll check my talk page periodically if you'd like to chime in. I'm not going to flesh out the article very much, I'm just going to put in the basics.

1. {{{UK-historian-stub}}}: Hayward was born and raised in New Zealand, but currently works in Britain, ergo this stub instead of {{{historian stub}}}
2. Categories: Historians, Historical revisionism (political), Living people, Academic scandals, Authors. Great, I haven't even started on the body text yet and already I've hit material that might prove to be upsetting, to wit "revisionism" and "scandals". I'm including "revisionism" because Hayward even acknowledges that he was writing about revisionists in his infamous thesis. "Scandal" however is knottier, and I'm sure will draw fire for being a POV-term. Hear me out though: look at Wikipedia's own definition of scandal: "A scandal is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both." That is a PERFECT description of the events surrounding the 2000 thesis inquiry. Were the allegations against Hayward based in reality, false, or a mix? Let the reader decide. But the fact is that the brouhaha was "widely publicized" and is ergo a scandal. If somebody wants to move the category "Academic scandals" to "Academic controversies" I will not object, but some sort of cat tag along those lines should be present.
3. I'm also adding "1964 births" as a category. I'm omitting "Holocaust denial" as a category, although I think it might fit.
4. Opening sentence: "Joel Hayward (Joel S. A. Hayward) was born in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 1964. He is a military historian and analyst who has worked in the United Kingdom since 2004." That's the opening sentence from the June 9, 2007 Google cache version.
5. Next paragraph/sentence: "Hayward is the author of a critically-acclaimed assessment of aerial warfare at the Battle of Stalingrad entitled Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler’s Defeat in the East 1942-1943." That's also pretty much from the 6/9/07 version, but I've enhanced the language a little. I'm omitting the pub and ISBN info because that info belongs on the page for the book, not the author.
6. For now, I'm tagging the intro section with {{{References}}}. Refs should not be too hard to find.
7. New section, Next paragraph, next sentence: Now we hit the hairy bits. "Hayward was involved a controversy in New Zealand surrounding his 1993 Master's Degree thesis in which he was accused of citing the works of (and expressing support for some arguments of) proponents of the Holocaust denial school of historical revisionism." This is from the 6/13/07 deleted revision. I'm citing this article as support.
8. Sorry, I got tired of documenting this point-by-point. I'll let the final results speak for themselves.

Groupthink 16:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm done, let others carry on

OK, I've invested all the time and energy I'm willing to put into this, for now. I've pre-emptively added the {{{Unbalanced}}} tag because I'm sure that people are going to complain that it's still unbalanced. I've tagged places where expansion could bring about a better balance, but it is my good-faith belief that everything I've put in is reliably sourced and relevant. There are warts here, but in my opinion they're fair warts. Now I beg of y'all, please, don't let my work be in vain. Don't delete, correct and expand! Groupthink 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC) One other note: as I've indicate, there are still some additional cites needed. Also, reference #5 is an indirect citation and should be replaced with a direct citation (I couldn't find one, but I'm sure others more industrious than me can). Groupthink 18:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from BLP's subject

With respect to Groupthink my objection to his original text on my life was that it mentioned an accusation that lay at the heart of a controversy in 2000 but did not adequately point out the result of the accusation: that a working party of the University of Canterbury concluded in December 2000 that the MA thesis contained mistaken and unsustainable conclusions based on my poor supervision and my inadequate preparation and training for such a project, but that no malice, racism or dishonesty led me to my mistakes. Another writer on the talk page alleges that I write controversial books. That is inaccurate. I am author or editor of several well-received and mainstream studies, including one on Lord Nelson, whom I extol. Joel Hayward.

Hi there, Dr. Hayward. As an historian, I'm sure you can appreciate that while your perspective on the events culminating in the University report of 2000 is unarguably an invaluable primary source of considerable weight, your perspective is also unarguably biased and inevitably favorably colored. While I will strive to create a fair and balanced encyclopedia entry on you, I will not omit verifiably sourced material on you that may reflect poorly on you or displease you.
Now I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but Wikipedia is very much driven by sourcing concerns and by notability concerns (see WP:N and WP:Verify for more information). Based on what's out there on the web and what's been discussed here on Wikipedia, you seem to be generally notable for two things: Stopped at Stalingrad and the hullabaloo surrounding your thesis. As far as I'm concerned, those two items are the appropriate scope for an encyclopedia article on you. If I do my job correctly, said article will not praise you, but neither will it bury you. Groupthink 16:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you could give us a link or some other pointer to the UofC's working party's report.JoshuaZ 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's here Addhoc 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the link is: http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/hayward/report.PDF It is important to point out that the controversy was in New Zealand, in 2000, has not continued, and that I apologised often, explicitly and unreservedly for those old thesis mistakes. It is entirely unfair otherwise. Joel Hayward

This article was specifically deleted at Mr. Hayward's request. I'm a little spoofed you guys are willing to recreate it. However, if it's recreated, I'm not at all in favor of dumming it down - if he is famous for something, it needs to get mentioned too. Mr. Hayward, we'd be glad to write a balanced article, but all things need to be included - Wikipedia does not shy away from controversy, and if something is well-sourced and notable, it needs to be included. The Evil Spartan 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on deletion review for this article, I took it upon myself to repost this. Now as I've said numerous times, I will stop right now if there's no way that a bio for this person can exist, but if that's the case, I'd like the article salted. Otherwise, this thing's going to keep on coming back. If you think what I've written is unbalanced, you should see what was reposted after the initial delete... Groupthink 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fairness is all I have wanted and asked of you. In 1991/92 I made deeply reretted mistakes as a fledgling and inexperienced research student. But they were honest mistakes. That's my point. Dr Joel Hayward.

Again, with all due respect sir, what you think is fair, what I think is fair and what the WP community are going to regard as fair are all entirely different things. I've noted your assertions throughout, but I have to be bound by what's in verifiable primary and secondary sources. Groupthink 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that you cannot speak for the Wikipedia community, Groupthink. Whatever you write will have to abide by all Wikipedia policies. --Tony Sidaway 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says that I was? In fact, the comment I just made specifically said that what I think is fair and what the WP community is going to regard as fair might very well be entirely different things. Groupthink 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As for abiding by all policies: I've never thought otherwise, but if you think something violates policy, change it. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater by killing the whole article however. Groupthink 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Groupthink's above version looks fine to me as long as we add a sentence noting the working party's conclusion. Hayward's summary of their conclusions looks accurate. JoshuaZ 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We certainly have an obligation to write a fair article by these rules. There's no reason why we can't say "Yes this caused controversy, but it has been said this was due to error, not malice <reference to the working party report, maybe also mention Mr Hayward's apologies and later claims of mistakes (not malice)>. Apart from that, doesn't look like a bad start, and more feedback from Mr Hayward would be excellent. Moreschi ^Talk 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, done and done, but I'll also add a ref to Dr. Hayward's statement in the University report. Groupthink 18:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bravo to Groupthink for writing carefully and very much in the spirit of NPOV. I think we need to be more clear when we invite personal feedback from the subject though, on COI grounds. If the subject can point us to reliable sources containing more information that is appropriate for the article, that's fine. And if he wishes to remove assertions that are unsourced and incorrect, he is welcome to do so. However, we cannot add assertions to the article based solely on his statements, as that would constitute original research, nor should sourced facts be removed by anybody, including the subject, simply because they do not agree with them. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit from left field

I've only just discovered this article (through the AfD for Stopped At Stalingrad - which I opposed) and so am coming to this with little knowledge of past debates. I've made a few edits in the interest of trying to address the balance and bring things more in line with the manual of style. I'm hoping that the balance tag might soon be removed. Victoriagirl 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the MOS cleanup and for resorting in chronological order. I'm still worried that there's going to be charges of bias (I'm waiting with dread for the subject of this blp to object) so I've put in two section breaks and put back an {{{Expand}}} template in the hopes that adding material on Dr. Hayward's later career will bring about sought-after balance. Groupthink 23:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Groupthink, I think what you have written and others have tweaked is, as it reads at this point in time, fair. Thank you for that. Joel Hayward.

That's appreciated, but you should be warned that Wikipedia has a mercurial nature, and what one reads at a given point in time might change substantially further down the road. Already there's some disagreement as to what the Canterbury report does or does not indicate. You might want to check back in a month or two to see if this article settles down to a stable version. Again, I do not speak for WP as a whole, just myself. Groupthink 06:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sufficiently balanced and expanded?

I commend everyone who's stepped in and improved this article, particularly Ace of Swords and Victoriagirl. At this point, I would say that the article is balanced enough to remove the {{{Unbalanced}}} tag, and the post-graduate section has been expanded enough to remove the {{{Expand}}} tag. However, to avoid any semblance of conflict-of-interest, I'm not going to remove the tags myself (but I have put in hidden comments indicating that any editor can feel free to do so).

Assuming the AfD will result in this article being kept (and it sure looks like that's what's going to happen), I will not be actively editing this article, but I am going to keep it in my watchlist for a while to make sure that the warts of this bio are appropriately preserved. I'm worried that the balance of this article's tone is going to tilt too far towards the favorable, so I'd like to urge everyone to remember that this article should not and must not be a fanvertisement for Dr. Hayward. Like I said above, we shouldn't edit to bury, but we shouldn't edit to praise either. Groupthink 11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the {{Unbalanced}} tag which, as I recall, was only put in as a pre-empt and not because any editor actually thought the article really was unbalanced! I didn't think it was unbalanced then, and it has only improved since. So let's see if anyone replaces it and what justification they give. I've left the 'expand' tag later, as I'm sure there's more to be said here. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... I don't think it's a matter of being "favorable" or "unfavorable," just of being fair and accurate or not. There's more to go, both on the controversy and on other aspects of his life. I saw a ref to the Nelson book being placed as a standard for the U.S. Naval Academy, I want to see if another source verifies. I'm about to remove the "expand" tag: yes there's more to add, and I will be adding it as I can. --Ace of Swords 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Information is relevant

We should not overlook the fact that he is the current dean of a major institution ( with verification), that to readers is important and informative. I'm sure his thesis controversy in his youth , 29 to be exact should not be a measure of a persons life's work. The writer has taken the time to inform readers, if you dislike his organization of his entry, I'm sure a revision of suggested changes would be taken as constructive criticism. It is the negative feedback that writers see that demotivate the creative process. My opinion is, great job so far! Keep improving until satisfied. That is what we like best about electronic publishing, the writer can always revise after time to reflect on his work.

Thanks Research 2020 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.201.139 (talk •

contribs) 22:55, 21 June 2007. — 68.219.201.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relevant Information

With all due respect, am I the only person reading this article to think it's turgid gibberish? I mean, really, it does read like a total vanity page. Almost all the references cited are Joel Hayward himself. There is clearly a high degree of original research going on in the writing of this article. Hayward does not εappear to have been the subject of any biography. I'm not disputing notability here: Hayward is obviously notable as an author of some notable work, and is probably notable as an academic, and is obviously notable for the controversy of his thesis. We don't need to know about his early life. We don't need to know about his BA degree, or what papers he studied for it. We don't need to know quite so much information about his early working life at Massey university, either. We don't need a list of journal articles, and conference papers. For somebody who is perhaps notable for three things, there's far too much padding in here. (Randomkiwi 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

Ace of Swords has been working extremely hard to make this bio thorough, complete and balanced, and I commend her for that. I disagree that it reads like a vanity page, and there are plenty of non-Hayward refs. However, I do agree that editor focus should shift from expansion to concision. Now that Ace has done a great job of laying out the entirety of the details, the time has come to trim the fat so that the critical/noteworth bits stand out. Groupthink 13:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that a bibliography of peer-reviewed scholarly articles is irrelevant to the biography of an academic. In fact, I would say that such a bibliography should be standard. Similarly, biographical articles standardly include details of their subjects lives (whether early or later). The material about activities during the pursuit of his B.A. degree is also pertinent, particularly with regards to the OAS, which becomes a factor with the controversy over the M.A. degree, as Hayward was both a founder of OAS and was later a subject of OAS's scrutiny and opposition. I disagree that "the editor focus should shift from expansion to concision": although the edits I've performed have served well to balance out the article from the latest AfD's complaint that his notability consisted only in the controversy about the M.A. degree, now the significance of that controversy both as something notable about Hayward (re: the overall debate about Holocaust denial, re: issues of academic freedom in New Zealand) and as a significant event in Hayward's life both academically and personally seems underplayed, and needs expansion. Which is what I'm working on now.

Re: the charge of "original research": although Hayward has not been the subject of a full-length biography (I doubt that most of living academics represented on Wikipedia are), significant biographical details have been included in a number of articles and other documents about him, which have been appropriately sourced. You also might take another read of WP:NOR about what constitutes original research. As of today, this policy reads:

The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas. Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details.

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

I fail to find any place in the article where any of the above has been done, regardless of whether they were my edits or another's.

To put this article in context as a biography, see Template:Biography, which is Wikiproject Biography's suggested template for a biography article to help editors of biographical authors get a good start on articles. Notice that it includes both early life and published works. For further context, see a few other biographical articles on living academics, e.g.: Ward Churchill (a controversial academic if ever there was one), which has is rated as a "GA" article (good) by WP:WPBIO, Richard Dawkins (also rated "GA"), B-class articles Shirley Jackson (physicist) (no bib, but early life is included), John Piper (theologian) (selected bib as well as early life details), James Green (educator) (voluminous bibliography).

Nothing in WP:NOT or WP:PROF requires that every fact presented about a subject be notable in and of itself; only that the subject of the article be notable. That doesn't of course mean that trivial details be included; but if you want to claim that the details so far are trivial, I strongly disagree. --Ace of Swords 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Further note. Also, just in case you think that "Joel Hayward Working Party" is "Joel Hayward himself" -- no, actually that's the name that was given to the Working Party that was convened by University of Canterbury to investigate Hayward's M.A. thesis and the award of his degree. See The Joel Hayward Working Party on the web. --Ace of Swords 18:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Now the significance of that controversy both as something notable about Hayward (re: the overall debate about Holocaust denial, re: issues of academic freedom in New Zealand) and as a significant event in Hayward's life both academically and personally seems underplayed, and needs expansion. Which is what I'm working on now." You're absolutely right on the nose. I knew something still seemed off about this article, but I couldn't quite pin it down, so I mistakenly thought that maybe it had just lost some focus due to an overabundance of extraneous details. I realize now that the problem with this article is not a detail problem, it's a maturation problem. Pruning can and should come later, but right now, Ace is taking the right approach: let's lay everything out and then let it synthesize into a tightly-knit whole. Groupthink 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One other note on sourcing: some of these sources are from Hayward's website. Under WP policy that is perfectly fine as long as the primary sources are backed and balanced with verifiable secondary sourcing, which in this case they are, in spades. Groupthink 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a subset of historical revisionism

From the opening sentence of historical revisionism: "Historical revisionism has both a legitimate academic use and a pejorative meaning. The pejorative use refers to illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes, for example Holocaust denial." Given Hayward's past connections to David Irving, the term is apt. Your edits are not appropriate, Jayjg, and I request that you stop making them. Groupthink 02:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)ε

Agreed. BTW, back from an absence, now back to work on the material on the controversy and Working Party. --Ace of Swords 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial cannot be a "school of historical revisionism", since it is not historical revisionism at all, as the many sources in the Holocaust denial article attest. On Wikipedia we use the proper term that scholars prefer for Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial isn't historical revisionism? Denying the Holocaust existed isn't an "attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past"? That's silly, Jayjg, and while you many have a notion about correct terminology, I doubt that you speak for the entirety of Wikipedia, much less the majority consensus. Seriously, there's been a lot of hashing out about consensus terminology in this article here, and you're barging in and changing it without discussion. Please don't make these edits again until and unless you make your case here on the talk page. Groupthink 03:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not technically violating the letter of 3RR by reverting this edit again, but I do feel I'd be violating the spirit of it. I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not these edits should stay. Groupthink 04:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial vs. Revisionism:

• "This is the phenomenon of what has come to be known as 'revisionism', 'negationism', or 'Holocaust denial,' whose main characteristic is either an outright rejection of the very veracity of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, or at least a concerted attempt to minimize both its scale and importance... It is just as crucial, however, to distinguish between the wholly objectionable politics of denial and the fully legitimate scholarly revision of previously accepted accepted conventional interpretations of any historical event, including the Holocaust." Bartov, Omer. The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation and Aftermath, Routledge, pp.11-12. Bartov is John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History at the Watson Institute, and is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on genocide ("Omer Bartov", The Watson Institute for International Studies).
• "The two leading critical exposés of Holocaust denial in the United States were written by historians Deborah Lipstadt (1993) and Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (2000). These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial. Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about an historical event, not a denial of the event itself, that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a "certain body of irrefutable evidence" or a "convergence of evidence" that suggest that an event - like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust - did in fact occur (Lipstadt 1993:21; Shermer & Grobman 200:34). Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence..." Ronald J. Berger. Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach, Aldine Transaction, 2002, ISBN 0202306704, p. 154.
• "At this time, in the mid-1970s, the specter of Holocaust Denial (masked as "revisionism") had begun to raise its head in Australia..." Bartrop, Paul R. "A Little More Understanding: The Experience of a Holocaust Educator in Australia" in Samuel Totten, Steven Leonard Jacobs, Paul R Bartrop. Teaching about the Holocaust, Praeger/Greenwood, 2004, p. xix. ISBN 0275982327
• "Pierre Vidal-Naquet urges that denial of the Holocaust should not be called 'revisionism' because 'to deny history is not to revise it'. Les Assassins de la Memoire. Un Eichmann de papier et autres essays sur le revisionisme (The Assassins of Memory - A Paper-Eichmann and Other Essays on Revisionism) 15 (1987)." Cited in Roth, Stephen J. "Denial of the Holocaust as an Issue of Law" in the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 23, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0792325818, p. 215.
• "This essay describes, from a methodological perspective, some of the inherent flaws in the "revisionist" approach to the history of the Holocaust. It is not intended as a polemic, nor does it attempt to ascribe motives. Rather, it seeks to explain the fundamental error in the "revisionist" approach, as well as why that approach of necessity leaves no other choice. It concludes that "revisionism" is a misnomer because the facts do not accord with the position it puts forward and, more importantly, its methodology reverses the appropriate approach to historical investigation... "Revisionism" is obliged to deviate from the standard methodology of historical pursuit because it seeks to mold facts to fit a preconceived result, it denies events that have been objectively and empirically proved to have occurred, and because it works backward from the conclusion to the facts, thus necessitating the distortion and manipulation of those facts where they differ from the preordained conclusion (which they almost always do). In short, "revisionism" denies something that demonstrably happened, through methodological dishonesty." McFee, Gordon. "Why 'Revisionism' Isn't", The Holocaust History Project, May 15, 1999. Retrieved December 22, 2006.
• "Crucial to understanding and combating Holocaust denial is a clear distinction between denial and revisionism. One of the more insidious and dangerous aspects of contemporary Holocaust denial, a la Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith and Greg Raven, is the fact that they attempt to present their work as reputable scholarship under the guise of 'historical revisionism.' The term 'revisionist' permeates their publications as descriptive of their motives, orientation and methodology. In fact, Holocaust denial is in no sense 'revisionism,' it is denial... Contemporary Holocaust deniers are not revisionists — not even neo-revisionists. They are Deniers. Their motivations stem from their neo-nazi political goals and their rampant antisemitism." Austin, Ben S. "Deniers in Revisionists Clothing", The Holocaust\Shoah Page, Middle Tennessee State University. Retrieved March 29, 2007.
• "Holocaust denial can be a particularly insidious form of antisemitism precisely because it often tries to disguise itself as something quite different: as genuine scholarly debate (in the pages, for example, of the innocuous-sounding Journal for Historical Review). Holocaust deniers often refer to themselves as ‘revisionists’, in an attempt to claim legitimacy for their activities. There are, of course, a great many scholars engaged in historical debates about the Holocaust whose work should not be confused with the output of the Holocaust deniers. Debate continues about such subjects as, for example, the extent and nature of ordinary Germans’ involvement in and knowledge of the policy of genocide, and the timing of orders given for the extermination of the Jews. However, the valid endeavour of historical revisionism, which involves the re-interpretation of historical knowledge in the light of newly emerging evidence, is a very different task from that of claiming that the essential facts of the Holocaust, and the evidence for those facts, are fabrications." The nature of Holocaust denial: What is Holocaust denial?, JPR report #3, 2000. Retrieved May 16, 2007.
• "The deniers' selection of the name revisionist to describe themselves is indicative of their basic strategy of deceit and distortion and of their attempt to portray themselves as legitimate historians engaged in the traditional practice of illuminating the past. For historians, in fact, the name revisionism has a resonance that is perfectly legitimate -- it recalls the controversial historical school known as World War I "revisionists," who argued that the Germans were unjustly held responsible for the war and that consequently the Versailles treaty was a politically misguided document based on a false premise. Thus the deniers link themselves to a specific historiographic tradition of reevaluating the past. Claiming the mantle of the World War I revisionists and denying they have any objective other than the dissemination of the truth constitute a tactical attempt to acquire an intellectual credibility that would otherwise elude them." Deborah Lipstadt. Denying the Holocaust -- The Growing Assault onTruth and Memory, Penguin, 1993, ISBN 0-452-27274-2, p. 25.

I hope that makes my position clear; I'm going with what the scholars say on this topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to concede the point that Holocaust denial is not a legitimate branch of academic/mainstream historical revisionism. But what about the pejorative usage of the term, to wit, Historical revisionism (negationism)? Wouldn't it be fair to say that Hayward studied "Holocaust negationism?" Groupthink 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "negationism" is sometimes used as a general term for denial of history, but the common term for denial of the Holocaust is "Holocaust denial". As a simple test "Holocaust negationism" gets around 250 Google hits, "Holocaust denial" around 775,000. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Is it worth noting that in 2011 Dr Hayward converted to Islam?203.184.41.226 (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It is already well covered in the article (and well referenced) and clearly it was not in 2011. He spoke at the 2010 GPU as a Muslim. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sequence of sections in this article

The first time I read this article I was looking for information on Hayward's thesis controversy, and was surprised to find it at the end of the second section rather than in chronological order in the "Education at UC" section. This seems to be both counter-intuitive (chronological order of events being intuitive) and counter to the standard writing of biographies of either living people or dead, when similar information is grouped together (i.e. all information about the person's education at UC should be grouped together). TBH, I was looking for this information and almost gave up after reading the "Education at UC" section, assuming it wasn't included at all. I had to read through almost the whole article to find it, which doesn't make it easy for readers to access. Thus, I moved the sub-section on the thesis up to the appropriate chronological point at the end of the "Education at UC" section. However, @GorgeCustersSabre: disagreed with me and undid my revision. I stand by my view that chronologically and logically that sub-section should sit in the "Education at UC" section. Any other thoughts from other editors?? MurielMary (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear MurielMary, thank you for your reply. I don't want to edit war with you, and I don't feel super passionately about your edit. Why don't we both sit back and see if it's edited again (or not). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, let's see if there are any other opinions. (BTW I love how "edit war" is a verb here, there should be a Wikipedia dictionary/glossary of terms!) MurielMary (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Joel Hayward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.londondeclaration.com/shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001104653/http://www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/APRVol13No3%20-high.pdf to http://www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/APRVol13No3%20-high.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927184808/http://www.delaguerra.es/PDFs/Campana_Bombardeo_Alemana_contra_Petroleo_Sovietico.pdf to http://www.delaguerra.es/PDFs/Campana_Bombardeo_Alemana_contra_Petroleo_Sovietico.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725210558/http://www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/Final-revised-APR%20Booklet_%20Vol%2013%20No%202_Final.pdf to http://www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/Final-revised-APR%20Booklet_%20Vol%2013%20No%202_Final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001104653/http://www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/APRVol13No3%20-high.pdf to http://www.airpowerstudies.co.uk/APRVol13No3%20-high.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511104950/http://www.joelhayward.org/Global%20War%20Studies%207.2.pdf to http://www.joelhayward.org/Global%20War%20Studies%207.2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903131716/http://www.airpowerstudies.com/APR%20Vol14%20No1%20Booklet.pdf to http://www.airpowerstudies.com/APR%20Vol14%20No1%20Booklet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110422113416/http://www.kubepublishing.com/pages.php?pID=12&CDpath=0 to http://www.kubepublishing.com/pages.php?pID=12&CDpath=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Joel Hayward scholar.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• For% 20website% 20Joel% 20Hayward-1.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ProfessorJSAHayward.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Trimming

Much of Hayward's academic biography is based inappropriately on his autobiography and organisational biographies he's likely to have had a hand in writing. The article also contains claims which were questioned by the canterbury report (such as 'maternal grandmother's Jewishness'). I trimmed much of this and rewrote it in the style of most other wikipedia biographies of academics. I left the Islamic stuff, since to be honest I don't have the background to evaluate that side of the biography. These changes should be bought back, but I'm not going to edit war over it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Stuartyeates. I see your good faith but continue respectfully to disagree. Unless you can demonstrate which "organisational biographies he's likely to have had a hand in writing" it seems unhelpful to remove information based on a supposition. This would surely apply to very many articles. Other statements about Hayward are certainly from third-party sources and should not be removed and need not be trimmed. I see the article as a reasonable and balanced (and solidly referenced) overview of a full academic and scholarly career without much personal or non-encyclopedic material in it. Thank you for not wanting to edit war. I appreciate the wisdom. All the best, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you on multiple points above. I'll start with tagging some sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope you will do more than that and cut the BLP down to 25% of its present size by removing the exorbitant bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC).

• I trimmed the works with this edit. My rationale was: "remove excessive entries (articles, book chapters, works in progress, etc) -- these are generally not included". --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've cut out a lot, and User:Iskandar323 has sliced a great deal as well, but there is much more work to be done. Groupthink (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  The books with their own Wikipedia links are ostensibly notable in their own right (by virtue of having their own pages), and should go back in, if only in a simple list of his published works. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced each of those books merits its own page and I intend to investigate their notability. But for now, a simple bibliography would be fine by me. Groupthink (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Jacked up AfD nom

Hi all, I appear to have bollocksed the AfD process for this article. I got thrown by the fact that there were already three other AfD reqs, two of which were titled "2nd nom" and "second nom". Rather than continue to try to manually fix this, I've reached out for help at Wikipedia:Help desk. Apologies. Groupthink (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)