Talk:David Irving/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

British / English?

Should he not be described as English rather than British in the first sentence? The quote "Unlike the Americans, we English suffered great deprivations ..." clearly shows that he self-identifies as English, not British. 86.133.206.74 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be "offensive" and "racist" to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentc (talk • contribs) 09:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Overall impression

I came here to be informed, not to edit. I was disappointed. I'm perfectly prepared to accept DI may be a racist, a bigot or a fascist, but what I really want to know is whether he's a mythbuster. I don't feel that this central question has been answered by this article. Maybe the info I sought was there, but I certainly couldn't see it. I note the following specific points:

  • I heard him on Radio4 making a number of specific claims that question the reliability of the 'popular perception' of the holocaust. (Couldn't find a transcript but here's a link to the issue http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/718456.stm) I didn't see any credible discussion of his main 'factual' claims in this article. Is he a fantasist, a liar, a weak historian or a mythbuster?
  • There is no easy-to-find discussion of anyone who may agree with DI's notable revisionist claims. Even if no-one does, it should be stated clearly. I don't know if he's seen universally as a complete nutter or just a very controversial (but credible) historian. I don't wish to accept a judge's view on this, any more than I would ask a car mechanic about nuclear physics.

Even if people writing this article have very strong views about DI, the best way of communicating these is to show that his claims are wrong, and if so why this is.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the definition of a "mythbuster"? In this particular case, the "myth" is the truth, and the "busting" is actually "lying" by distorting the historical record. See criticism of Holocaust denial. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that every single perception of the holocaust that's slipped into popular consciousness from films, etc. is based on hard fact. There are doubtless some aspects or details that are commonly misunderstood or confused - i.e myths. I'm simply asking whether any of DI's notable 'revisions' are now regarded by mainstream historians as being true, or whether the whole lot is a pile of drivel spouted by a man with a very worrying personal agenda. I came to this article to find that out, and I left none the wiser. The more transparent and accurate that this debate is made, the less room for holocaust deniers remains.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
You "left none the wiser"? "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" - that's the verdict of the English legal system, confirmed all the way up to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. Historians are usually less complimenting. Irving is unable to "bust" any "myth" - he does not have the credibility. This is not the forum to discuss each and every claim as if they might have merit. We summarize the opinion of reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just interested to know if he is regarded as having made any significant progress in research, especially as finding errors in widely held beliefs about the holocaust. People believe all kinds of nonsense about various historical events, figures and quotations, and I fail to see why the popular history of the holocaust should be uniquely error-free. Please don't take this as any attempt on my part to deny the holocaust, I'm merely seeking to understand Irvine and hence the holocaust better.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is a little silly. If people seriously want to learn more, they should try reading first, and only then posting questions. For example, the main article lists this book, which should be more than enough for any casual enquirer into the various matters (the title of the book says it all, imho):

(excerpt from article) Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial by Richard J. Evans, New York: Basic Books, 2001, ISBN 0-465-02152-2: The author was a major expert witness at the trial, and this book presents both his view of the trial, and much of his expert witness report, including his research on the Dresden death count. Testbed (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I did read it. Maybe expanding this aspect would be a good idea.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If Andrewjlockley has read this book recently (it's years since I did) and wants to expand the article incorporating it, that could be helpful. Testbed (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed edit and media mention

I've just reversed the following addition.

It strikes me as ignorant shit-stirring by Hacohen and not worthy of inclusion, but do other editors want to do anything about this media reference to this article?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with deletion from the Article. I've added it to this Talk page instead, using the {{press}} Template that is designed for "coverage of Wikipedia in the press".--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ADL allegations

It's about time that this got discussed on the talk page. The disputed sentence is:

According to the Anti-Defamation League, Irving also supported apartheid in South Africa, racist cartoons, and wrote appreciatively of Nazi Germany.

There is then a link to the ADL profile of him. The questions are:

  1. Did Irving do those three things as a student? ("According to whoever..." is neutralising and it's best not to include it.
  2. What evidence is there for any answers in the affirmative?
  3. Is the ADL a reliable source for anything other than its own opinions? (I can't help feeling that this question has come up before. So is the answer recorded anywhere?)
  4. Whether or not it is, is the caption on this edit a WP:BLP problem?

--Peter cohen (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In researching the answer to 3, I have found Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9#Are_these_reliable_sources_and_do_they_conflict_with_NPOV.3F where the consensus was that they were reliable but opinions should be attributed. In that case I would tend to disagree with the removal of the sentence but would rather that a source could be found where we didn't have to attribute the information in the main text of the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My $.02: On a subject as notable as David Irving, notable facts will ordinarily be written up in multiple reliable sources. Unless corroborating sources can be found, my inclination would be to keep this out, also because the article is already too long and overtaxes an average college-educated reader's attention span.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
So between us we have one weak vote each way on that particular desire and a share desired for someone to come up wiht another source. Would any of those amusing themselves with the revert war care to comment? Or do we need some one to protect WP:The wrong version?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Irving devotes many pages of his website to the Daily Mail article which the ADL uses as the basis for the assertion. See "Mild Fascist". So it may be worth noting that he disputes the charge. But the ADL seems to be just repeating a report by a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you (or anyone else) have access to the DM article?
As far as the ADL allegations are concerned I think they refer to the Carnival article. This press release of theirs currently linked form this article says
Q: How long have Irving's right-wing views been known?
A: David Irving's allegiance to right-wing causes has been public knowledge since 1959: in that year he printed a publication at London University which included a "spirited defense" of South African apartheid, an appreciative article on Nazi Germany, and the allegation that "the national press" in Great Britain "is owned by Jews."
We can source much of this elsewhere. This Independent article contains the following paragraph
By 1959 he had became known as an extreme right-winger. His parting shot as a student was to produce a secret supplement to the students' rag magazine, Carnival Times. Irving says it was satirical. Critics interpreted it as containing a racist cartoon, a tribute to Hitler's Germany and the assertion that the national press is owned by Jews. By then he had developed an unusual fixation with Hitler. After a trip to Spain in 1959 he was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying: 'I returned through Germany and visited Hitler's eyrie at Berchtesgaden. I regard it as a shrine.'
This accounts for two of the three points alleged by the ADL.
As for the third, Irving himself says in a document prepared in 1970
In 1959, my last year at the College, I edited a London University newspaper, at the U. L. Union's request, called "Carnival Times". As I learned that the profits of the Carnival were to go to a South African subversive organisation, through World University Service, I deliberately engineered the magazine so that it would incur costs cancelling out the profits of the rest of the Carnival of 1959.
So he certainly opposed the funding of opposition to the Apartheid government.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now used the above material to replace the criticised reference to the ADL.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"the depth of his archival research"

We shouldn't use his own website as a source for his reputation. However if the quoted sources are themselves reliable then we should cite them directly, after having confirmed the accuracy of the quotations.   Will Beback  talk  22:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Also keep in mind WP:UNDUE which would anyway prevent the insertion of such a laudatory but small-minority opinion in the lead of an article.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping attempt in Hungary.

Mossad allegedly wanted to kidnap Mr. Irving from Budapest on 2007 March 15, backed by a 250-strong group of "jewish army visitors", each one armed with semi-automatic pistol, who arrived in Budapest, Hungary on 2007 March 10, to "visit jewish monuments and holocaust memorials in Hungary". Supposedly they wanted to take Irving to Austria first, then "extraordinarily render" him to Tel-Aviv in a highly visible special operation, for an eventual Eichmann-style trial.

The right-wing party "Jobbik" allegedly received a tip from a neighbouring country's secret service about the plot on Mr. Irving and helped him leave safely, cancelling his planned public lecture in Budapest on the occasion of the hungarian national holiday of 15th March, the anniversary of the 1848-1849 hungarian revolution.

Of course everybody denies everything, but the presence of the 250 strong, side-armed jewish military "visitor" unit in Budapest at that time was confirmed by Imre Szekeres, hungarian defence minister, who sad pistols were normal accessory for an official holocaust memorial visit by a foreign military unit. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Implausible. Holocaust denial is not a crime in Israel, believe it or not. Hence, there would be no point to a "highly visible" operation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Did David Irving call a judge "Mein Fuhrer"?

I noticed this fact when it was listed on the main page, and it appeared immediately dubious to me. There was also an in-line comment in the article questioning it as well. I reviewed the cited court transcript, and it appears that "Mein Fuhrer" was not an address to the judge, but rather the second in a list of three Nazi slogans that Irving was reporting having heard at a rally:

When the off-screen chanting of slogans begins at 18:18:59 I am clearly seen to interrupt my speech, shake my head at them and gesticulate with my left hand to them to stop, and I am clearly heard to say, "You must not", because they are shouting the "Siegheil" slogans, Mein Fuhrer, and things like, "you must not always be thinking of the past". I am heard clearly to say: "You must always be thinking of the past. You must not keep coming out with the slogans of the past. We are thinking of the future [voice emphasised] of Germany. We are thinking of the future of the German people. As an Englishman I have to say ...", and so on. So I am quite clearly expressing extreme anger at these people who have come along with their Nazi slogans.

In light of BLP rules, I think this statement should be removed unless we can find a source that indicates positively that this isn't simply a misunderstanding of ambiguous sentence structure. Alereon (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence structure is ambiguous, as is often the case with transcriptis of spoken remarks. However, given the context, it's extremely unikely that Irving would have used the term to refer to the judge. If he had, courtroom observers would undoubtedly have reported it. This is why secondary sources are important and why primary sources should only be used with the greatest care.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It was reported, for instance in the NY SUN, that Mr. Irving inadvertently referred to the judge as "mein Fuhrer" instead of "my Lord." And I recall reading another published account where the reporter thought that Irving's craving for a strong authority figure had transferred itself to the judge, as a result of which he addressed him at one point as "Mein Fuhrer". However, I'm fine with not reporting such interpretations as fact, if the primary source is found not to support them. WP:BLP demands it, no matter how unsavory the subject is. (Now would someone please break this gently to user:Sposer and user:Slp1, two editors who cling to "verifiability not truth" and "secondary before primary sources" with the tenacity of drowning men?) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that article/blog reports that Lipstadt says he said it.[1] Since she was a party to the case, I think that if we include this we should attribute it to her, unless there are other sources independent of her who make the same claim.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Then again… I don't think there is video/audio of what he said in the courtroom and how he said it. A transcript, therefore, may itself be an interpretation: it is not "straight from the horse's mouth"; conversely, the transcript (if ambiguous) may call forth different (conflicting) interpretations. What people who were present in the courtroom thought he meant is significant, although I would prefer to use the opinion of someone who was not themselves a party to the case.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
O.K., after searching the transcript for every occurrence of the phrase and reviewing several published accounts, this is the only one that details what Irving said and the reaction of people in the courtroom:
Then, nearly two hours into Irving’s presentation comes the most dramatic moment of the day. Irving departs from his prepared speech. In the midst of refuting the defense contention that he is a neo-Nazi, illustrated early on in the trial by a video in which he is shown addressing a rally where young men begin to chant “Sieg Heil,” Irving turns to the judge, addressing him directly.
He says, “They shouted, ‘Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil’ “ — and then instead of saying “my Lord,” he calls the judge “Mein Fuhrer.”
There is a collective gasp, then a ripple of laughter. Someone tells us later that the judge laughed out loud. I happened to be watching Rampton, Deborah’s attorney. His face rapidly registered incredulity, astonishment, wry amusement and finally satisfaction.
No one could believe what had just happened. Had we imagined it? Could he actually have addressed a British judge as “Mein Fuhrer?” Without a pause or change of inflection, Irving goes on with his speech as though nothing untoward has happened.
The transcript – presumably prepared by a professional court reporter – is clear, omitting inverted commas that would have turned the phrase into a quote. So upon reflection, I believe that the transcript together with published accounts would enable us to report that Irving inadvertently addressed the judge as "mein Führer". But was it a telling "Freudian slip" or a simple mistake of the kind that stress can produce in anyone? We don't know. Too frequently Wikipedia articles give inordinate attention to minor details, and I would suggest this is one. I would be inclined to leave it out simply based on insignificance but I don't care enough to get into a drawn-out argument. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Good research and a good analysis. I agree and withdraw my previous objection. There's also this in The Guardian:
  • He had doubted the existence of gas chambers and at one stage addressed the libel case judge as "mein Fuhrer". [2]
Let's make sure that the assertion is fully cited with these sources so other editors won't make the same mistake.   Will Beback  talk  18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the description of Irving as a 'writer'

Regarding the description of Irving as a 'writer' and the related footnote, might we follow the general academic rule that you are an 'historian' (or geographer or whatever) if you submit your ideas to academic peer-review, whether through journals or academic book publishers? Irving has never does this, so he's not an 'historian.' That seems to be far more important than some people calling him and 'historian' and some not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.215.124 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this comment allowed to grab pride of place at the top of the page, out of chronology? I am not a regular editor of this article/discussion page and do not wish to get involved in any controversies but surely one of the editors here should have relegated the comment to where it rightfully belongs. I appreciate that it is not wiki etiquette to interfere with comments but where would the ‘discussion page’ concept get to if this attention-grabbing practice were widely adopted? Be bold! Give this comment a header and move it to where it chronologically belongs. 3ig-350125 (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That is going to happen. It will be done when someone finds the time to do it. __meco (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Now it's done. 3ig-350125 (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

This article keeps getting longer and longer. We have one editor in particular, who keeps beavering away at it, carrying little twigs to add, one by one, to the dam. On the face of it, his contributions are not only made in good faith but are valid and unopposeable, at least when looked at in isolation. Only the reader is getting screwed. No normal person can read this article comfortably in one sitting. Much information is redundant and would not be missed if left out.

The principle of diminishing returns, visualized.

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has grown by 15k since you made that comment. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This is reaching madness. 188k is far too much. This article needs to be shortened. It should be made a priority. Why not move much of the section on Hitler's War to the article Hitler's War? Generalstaben (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It's now 195k. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's War

The section in this article about Hitler's War is very, very long. Should most of the details about the criticism of the book be moved to that article? Hpanic7342 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be summed up here, summary-style, the rest moved over. SlimVirgin 02:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent anon edits

An anon changed a couple of things that I have no time to check here -- physics to chemistry, New York to Washington, if anyone knows offhand what's right. SlimVirgin 02:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Blatant Relious-based Misuse of Edit Freedom

This biography of a living person is professionally produced for one purpose only--to color everything Irvine has done in his professional career in various shades of anti-Semitism. NOTHING he has done escapes criticism. It is beyond the pale to highlight his occupation as a Holocaust denier when he is in fact a historian of some repute, and then attempt to not permit him to be called an historian. The quibble that his work is not peer-reviewed is like saying Shakespeare is not a “writer” because his plays were not “peer reviewed.”

But my complaint is that religious zealots watch over this site and absolutely refuse to permit ANY edits to remain in place more than 24-hours (except their own). When an edit appears, they instantly jump to the keyboard and replace any and all edits with their stock article. This is not the proper process for discussion, when all disagreement is totally eviscerated, to be immediately replaced by the single, defaming party line.Tholzel (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because everything Irving has done in his professional career is colored in various shades of antisemitism.
I wouldn't go that far. But certainly anything he's written must be viewed with the knowledge that at some point he became a historical liar. The taint he brought upon himself is inescapable. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The quibble that his work is not peer-reviewed is like saying Shakespeare is not a “writer” because his plays were not “peer reviewed.” [3]Gzuckier (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All the negative commentary comes back to the same thing: Someone claims Irving lied and therefore he cannot be called an historian, or even be heard. But who judges the judgers? How is the truth to be arrived at if some special interest group censors anything they object to, using as justification their own interpretation of "the Truth." History is not about "the Truth;" history is about peoples' version of events that happened in the past. RELIGION, on the other hand, is clearly about "the Truth." And that, under every clever guise they can manufacturer, is what this strenuous effort to censor Irving is all about. Tholzel (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If he lied, he cannot rationally be called an historian. But that's all beside the point. If he isn't called an historian by working historians, so we shouldn't call him that, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite follow. if Justice Gray's verdict that Irving "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" is based on religion, shouldn't our article on Charles Gray (English judge) at least mention what religion Justice Gray is? Gzuckier (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
That verdict isn't based on religion. It's based on fact. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Plays are not peer-reviewed in the way that scholarly research is. The correct analogy would be to say that a literary critic is not a "literary critic" because his work is not peer-reviewed. And that would be correct.--Hpanic7342 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole article on david is biased. whomever wrote it is more ranting then reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuzman (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't agree, but if it were true, it would seem appropriate. David is more ranting than reporting (history). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

<<That's because everything Irving has done in his professional career is colored in various shades of antisemitism. >>

Come on! Do we really have to put up with that classic slander by someone who is Jewish against anyone he disagrees with? All one would have to do is pull out any number of facts Irving has reported that are not in any way anti-semitic to show what a smug and blatant insult such a charge is. In their minds, their slander is OK because it is "true;" Irvine's slander may be righteously censored because it is not. Of course only they get to say what is true and what isn't.

How many times must it be iterated? Censorship is not the answer to lies--openess and counter argument are. So routine and reflexive accusation of "anti-semitism" are disrespectful of this audience and this debate, and served only to satisfy the uttering ideologue and his many followers. Tholzel (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Anti semitism groups have certainly tried to slander his career. And this is quite evident from this page.

Irving was one of the most respected authorities on hitler, even after the Hitler Years.

All this heresay on early "facism" and rubbish like that on here. Just attempting to slander his work.

Page should be more honest. Irving was a historical legend for a a long time, and ast least 50% of his work is still world respected.

Trying to slander his entire career, just because he's gone a bit nuts in his later years is an embarrassment to history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.108.118 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

From David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. Evans: 6.1 This examination of Irving's work has demonstrated that there is abundant evidence of his beliefs and activities since 1988 as a Holocaust denier; that is to say, he has actively propagated the view that the Holocaust as conventionally understood did not happen. According to Irving, there were no functioning gas chambers, there was no systematic extermination of the Jews by the Nazis, the number of Jews killed by the Nazis in the Second World War did not amount to more than a few hundred thousand at most, and the evidence on which historians have relied for their accounts of the Holocaust was fabricated by the Allies during the war and further invented afterwards in the interests of sustaining the new state of Israel. Irving has manifold connections with well-known Holocaust deniers in a number of countries, and uses his website to propagate Holocaust denial on the Internet. He has repeatedly implied that such antisemitic outrages as did occur under the 'Third Reich' were the responsibility of the Jews themselves, who in his view gave rise to them as a result of various acts of provocation which they committed.
From the same source:6.5 Irving's claims to be a historian are bogus for a number of reasons. He has repeatedly condemned other historians for supposedly neglecting or suppressing key documents and for merely plagiarising each other; but how can he possibly do this, when on his own admission he never reads their work, and so can have no idea what is in it? At the Zündel trial in Canada, for example, he was even forced to admit that he had not read the standard work on the extermination of the Jews by Raul Hillberg. How can one take seriously the opinions of such a man on what professional historians do or fail to do? In fact, as we have seen, specialist historians do not merely rely on each other's work, but base their investigations on research in the archives that is at least as extensive as Irving's, and in most cases a good deal more rigorous. They cite other historians because other historians have carried out work on archival sources themselves, which it would be otiose to repeat. However, historians always provide precise references to the archival sources on which they base their conclusions, enabling their colleagues to check their accuracy and subject their arguments to critical scrutiny, and this is what commonly occurs when they use each other's work. By contrast, as we have seen, Irving frequently fails to provide proper source references, is often vague about the documents he claims to have used, and sometimes appears to cover his tracks by making it particularly difficult for his readers to track his sources down.
This article by a historian disagrees with the claims made above.Autarch (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
You call upon Richard Evans to witness against Irving? So did Mrs. Lipstadt, so Evans' hardly the most impartial judge, more so as Irving and Evans are engaged in open war, Irving calls him 'Skunky' on his website. I'm not competent to judge Irving's merits as a historian, but it's obvious to me that Irving is the target of an organized and no-holds-barred attempt to destroy his reputation and career. I think this Wiki is a disgrace, but then, given the subject, I didn't expect it to be otherwise. roger.duprat.copenhagen

John Safran skit

I have removed (diff) the following:

The Australian comedian and documentary maker John Safran interviewed Irving for his ABC television series John Safran's Race Relations shown in November 2009. Irving was lured to a London studio under the pretext of conducting an interview which proceeded with Safran asking questions about Irving's libel case and holocaust denial. Safran leaves the room claiming to take a toilet break and barricades the door with a broom. He is then seen by Irving in an adjacent room turning on a gas container which is connected to pipes previously placed in the studio. Safran shouts through the glass "Hey Irving, you're locked in a room and it's filling with gas and if you try to tell anyone, I'm going to deny it". Irving responds with "The name is Mr.Irving to you" whilst Safran runs off to the sound of Irving coughing.

It might be worth including an entire paragraph about the skit in an article on David Irving's media image if it were a highlight of the show. I don't think it is a highlight though, and I don't think it's worth even a sentence in the main biography. If you're familiar with Safran's work, you would realise he was only using the skit to prepare audiences for this week's episode, which was really quite difficult to watch. Further, this week's episode itself was more or less a build-up to the finale in which Safran is crucified. Ottre 03:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree it should be removed in its entirety. I am familiar with Safran's work (all of it) & thought it stood alone as a single event. Not sure what you mean by preparing the audience for this week's episode (about his mother) when the preceding episode (with Irving) related to his grandmother. I thought it was relevant enough to Irving's ongoing media relationship to warrant inclusion; hence my authorship of it. Could you restore it, even if in another section? Alexps (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is one of multiple involvements of Irving's, then I guess Irving is "playing along" with Safran, and if so, this should be made clear (Wikipedia is supposed to inform, not entertain). Two other points: the reference to ABC should be spelled out (Australian Broadcasting Company?) to keep it from being confused with the American imitation in the same business; and the coughing at the end of the skit shouldn't be described as "Irving." It can't be seen as such, and probably isn't.--Joe (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Auschwitz I gas chamber

My clarification was removed on the grounds that it is 'standard holocaust denier crap' and says that the source refutes it. Nothing could be farther from the truth: it is cited from Nizkor, the anti-denier website. Let me quote in full the relevant part of the page:

(Denier): In a dramatic and unprecedented filmed interview, Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives at the Auschwitz State Museum, admits on camera that "Krema I," the alleged "homicidal gas chamber" shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at the Auschwitz main camp, is, in fact, a reconstruction
(Sane person): Not accurate. The small gas chamber of Krema I was used for gassing for a short time, and then converted into an air-raid shelter; after the war, it was reconstructed to look as it did when it was used for gassing.

My edit says: 'Interior of the gas chamber of Auschwitz I camp, reconstructed after the war from an earlier conversion to an air raid shelter. ' Thus it is cited from a reliable source as far as anti-denier information goes, and summarises accurately the mainstream view of the gas chamber at Auschwitz (far from the source refuting it, I have basically paraphrased the source). I don't appreciate accurate information being removed by deniers who then try to twist it and make it look like I am the one who is denying the Holocaust. --RagnarokCommando (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted you; given that the source states that this was a gas chamber, at least for a while, there's no need to say anything more in this article, which is about Irving, not Auschwitz. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed it's about Irving, but I think it is important to show how Irving's view depart from the mainstream view of what happened. It is relevant to include the bit about the gas chamber being reconstructed, but from an earlier conversion, because many people may be aware of the out-of-context Piper quote without being clear on the fact that while Irving is 'right' to say it is a reconstruction, he conveniently omits the bit about why it was reconstructed: that is how the man works. I also don't appreciate this particular tack being called holocaust denial. In fact, it sickens me. --RagnarokCommando (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. While I'm prepared to assume good faith, the wording you're adding is vague at best and I don't think that there's a strong case for including it. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the material again. There's no indication that this detail is specifically relevant to Irving, and in any event it's too much detail for a picture caption in an article not specifically about Auschwitz that is already almost 200k. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that we mention that "He has been described as the most skilful preacher of Holocaust denial in the world today", it might be possible to turn this into an example of this skill by placing after the final sentence in the caption In fact this room was restored by the Poles to how it looked when it was a gas chamber. It had previously been converted to being an air raid shelter. I think this then makes it a lot more relevant.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that's not a good phrasing. "Interior of the gas chamber of Auschwitz I camp, reconstructed after the war from an earlier conversion to an air raid shelter" tends to imply that it was always an air raid shelter. I question why it is even important to note that it was converted to an air raid shelter - as has been pointed out by another editor, this article is about Irving, not the Auschwitz I camp. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"historical theorist"

The description of Irving as an "historical theorist" has just been added to the lede. What is an "historical theorist"? Which reliable sources describe Irving that way? Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's Diary Comments

I find the content on the Hitler's Diary fraud controversy to be very biased and unfair. Any neutral observer who looks into this matter will see that, say what you want about Irving and his attempts to rehabilitate the reputation of the Nazi's, Irving played a key role in revealing these forgeries. The content makes it seem like his efforts were irrelevant and self serving, and accuses him of "violently harranging" the panel before being ejected from the press conference. This is, at best misleading, and at worst intentionally distorting the record. Call Irving what you want, he deserves credit for the things he actually did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A lot of the article is attempting to smear I feel. His work with the hitler diaries was one of his finest hours.

The claims about his actions in the press conference are speculative at best. Almost tabloid.


That's the real problem with wikipedia as a forum for history. It's always going to be largely POV based, no matter what the rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.108.118 (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If an editor has specific problems with an article, it is up to them to point out the problems. Keep in mind WP:V and WP:RS.Autarch (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are problems. The problem is that this entire article is a complete piece of trash that exists for no purpose other than to slander a person. Everything from the text to the images is clearly used solely to demonise David Irving. While reading this article, it seemed as if the whole thing was written under the assumption that it is just plain basic fact that Irving is a raving psychopath whom no-one could ever agree with and who has never said anything resembling truth. In other words, the entire article is what should be summarised in a few hundred words in a "negative criticism" section on a truly neutral wiki. Even more disturbing is that it is obvious only a handful of people wrote this entire article, putting many hours into their rabid defamations. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF.Autarch (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention WP:CIVIL.Autarch (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Length

This article is currently 202 kilobytes long. Frankly, this is absurd. I think that we should begin considering how we could go about trimming this article. Since by far the majority of this article is taken up by criticism, that is probably the first place we should look. I think that we should go through, decide what criticism is essential to include, decide what is superfluous, and eliminate the superfluous and redundant material. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As a start, much of the material on Hitler's War could be moved to the article on the book (which is currently very short), with a summary remaining here. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it neccessary to duplicate critism just because it is repeated by different people? "XY and Z agree" is much shorter than having each repeat the same statements. Wayne (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The section on "The Zündel trial" could use some copyediting.

There are two paragraphs, totalling 274 words, on the foreword he wrote to Fred Leuchter's book, which is giving it too much weight. You don't need to mention that the book was first published in the United States. That much is obvious as Leuchter was an American. You don't need to go into any detail about the reparations, simply mention that Irving approaches the "gas chambers" of Auschwitz as a myth, and considers the reparations payments a "swindle". You certainly don't need to note that Irving praised Leuchter, as he later defended himself and Leuchter against the resulting House of Commons motion.

In the paragraph beginning with "In a pamphlet Irving published in London...", there is a sentence about a critical editorial in The Times which is of no apparent relevance to the pamphlet. I would rather see some contemporary criticisms from London newspapers, where the pamphlet was presumably distributed.

  • The "Persona non grata" section would work better as a series of bulletpoints in the "Holocaust denial" section.
  • In the "Arrest and imprisonment in Austria" section, the subsection on his release could be folded into the imprisonment and controversy subsections.
  • Also in the "Arrest and imprisonment in Austria" section, Deborah Lipstadt is quoted three times on her opposition to the jail sentence. See refs #215, #225 and #228. Her statements were made little more than a month apart, I think you should pick the most concise one.

Ottre 15:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All sounds reasonable. I'll admit, I'm very queasy about doing anything (e.g., trimming criticism) that might make Irving look any better. But it's clear something needs to be done, as this article's length is simply unmanageable at present. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that much of the material about individual books should be moved to articles about those books, and just summarized here. Also, much of the material on the Lipstadt trial could be moved to Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt and summarized here. Then reduce the Zundel trial material, and fold the Austria arrest and imprisonment material, as you suggest. I'd start by doing just those things; once that has been done, I think you'd find a very significant reduction in the article size. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

David Irving: Reality of Holocaust

An edit on the article has been reverted. Can you explain your reasons for doing so because your edit summary is not clear to me. I thought the whole purpose of Holocaust Denial meant precisely that one disputes what the "reality" is. If anything would warrant such sweeping conclusions, there would be no such thing as denial of anything. I have read the paragraph two or three times and unless I am mistaken, I see no requirement for the extra words concerning the content itself. Evlekis (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Images in article

The article contains many images of Nazis and Nazi-related themes. David Irving is notable maninly for his work regarding WWII and being a revisionist of History, so one image relevant to that subject could perhaps be legitimately included. But what is the reason to have so many images? They give a slanted, biased impression of the article's subject, a kind of implicit indignant outrage, as if saying "Look at the hideousness of what this man is trying to defend"! If all the images were to be deleted except one (at most), the article would not suffer in the slightest. Thoughts? -The Gnome (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think at least the Lammers image, and one of the two pictures of Auschwitz could be deleted. As far as I know Irving did not write books about them.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I see only three pictures of Nazis, and the article captions quite explicitly explain their relevance to Irving. Perhaps we should go through the images individually, and you can explain your issues with each one. Jayjg (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a picture of Hitler, fairly included, as Hitler is the focus of a serious revisionist work by Irving; vut then there's also a picture of Himmler, whose presence in the Holocaust revisionism work of Irving is not as central as the inclusion of an image would imply. Then, there's another picture of Hans Lammer, whose caption makes the same point as the Hitler caption, i.e. essentially that Hitler "didn't know". I believe we have two more pictures than are needed here; the Hitler portrait would suffice.
Then, there are three pictures from concentration camps. Wouldn't one suffice to illustrate an article about someone who disputes the official history of said camps? The point would be equally made with one picture. The first picture is ostensibly a direct rebuttal to one of Irving's claims, i.e. it pictures an Auschwitz gas chamber while Irving has claimed that gas chambers existed. The second picture is from the Treblinka camp, with a caption that struggles to relate its inclusion to the Irving entry. (If the inclusion of picturesaims to prove a point, we could've inserted a dozen pictures of camps, on the excuse that Irving's work disputed their true purpose. After all, a dozen pictures "work" better than three.) And there's a third image, that of the Auschwitz gate, which is so famous by now, it has become almost generic. This is the one that should probably left and the other two deleted since they add nothing to what's already been conveyed by one picture, i.e. that one of Irving's major works disputes the Jewish Holocaust and that the Nazi WWII concentration camps were actually extremely horrific places. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I too am unconvinced by the assumptions behind this thread. Instead of deleting these pictures perhaps some might be added. E.g. of Churchill and Rommel.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Peter.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Peter about the necessity to include a picture of Churchill, for obvious reasons. (Disagree with Peter, of course, about the need to retain all the existing ones, as well. There are simply too many of them.) If this article is meant to act also as anti-Nazi propaganda, the objective is higly noble but, I'd think, also highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Russian archive plates

Just noting here that I've made a few tweaks to this section to more accurately reflect the sources. This was one of the few areas at the Irving vs Lipstadt trial where Justice Gray found for Irving, so our coverage should reflect that. EyeSerenetalk 11:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Trail of the Fox section

Admittedly it's been several years since I've read Trail of the Fox, but I recognize nothing of what this article alleges is in it. It does not label Stauffenberg co-plotters as "cowards" or "traitors" (though it does accurately state that the plot was an act of treason, which it unquestionably is, but of the right sort). Irving does place Speidel in a bad light because he sold out Rommel, but that's about it. Nor does he claim that Rommel was loyal to Hitler: he simply opposed assassination, but Irving makes it explicitly clear that Rommel was hatching a plot of his own, and thoroughly hated Hitler toward the end. Well, in short, the Trail of the Fox bit in this article is, I'm sorry to say, nothing short of fabrication. --Tsuka (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Article length

In July 2009, User:Goodmorningworld noted that this article was extremely long, thus decreasing its utility, and (correctly, I think) attributed that length to the efforts of one particular editor (see Talk:David Irving/Archive 5#Reminder). The unnamed editor in question was User:A.S. Brown, and at the time the article was 170k. By the end of August he had grown it to 185k, and by the end of September to 195k. The subject came up again in January 2010, by which time A.S. Brown had increased the article length to 202k, and a second discussion was opened (see Talk:David Irving/Archive 5#Article Length). In that discussion, a number of suggestions were made as to how the article could be shortened. As of today, A.S. Brown has increased the article's size to 207k. I feel that the material itself is valuable, but much of it could be placed in 1 or 2 sub-articles - for example, a sub-article on Irving's books and their critical reception (summarized here), and much of the material on the trial placed in Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (and also summarized here). A.S. Brown, what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think a good place to start would be to move most of the information on the trial to the Irving v Penguin and Lipstadt article and change the section here to a single paragraph of a few sentences and a link to that article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
My apologies to everyone for letting this article get so big. I’ll just keep on stumbling across material that I think would be relevant, and thought keeps on occurring to him that what a shame it is that there is all this good material sitting around in books that most people are probably going to read. I would offer my unreserved support for offering a short summary of the Lipstadt libel trial here, and I think most of the material relating to Hitler’s War could be moved to the Hitler’s War page. Personally, I’m not certain that the book is notable enough to qualify for a page, but since one exists, we might as while made us of it. I’m not certain if all of Irving’s books are notable enough to qualify for articles, but there is an article by Andreas Mink (which I have listed in the bibliography, but have not brought any of the material from into the article itself), which deals with how Uprising! is one of the key books of the Hungarian far-right. Right now, I’m little pressed for time, but I am willing to volunteer to use Mink’s article as the basis for creating a page on Uprising! (presuming of course there is a consensus for creating such a page), for which some of the material relating to that book here could then be moved. I’ll just run this by everyone; does the fact that a book is one of the seminal texts of the anti-Semitic scene in Hungary noteworthy enough to qualify for an article here? Personally I’m not certain it does. However, since Hitler’s War is probably Irving’s best known book, and some of the material in this article that comes after the Hitler’s War would be more difficult to understand without reading it, the majority of the material in that section could be moved, but I’ll would to keep at some of it here. Perhaps the first couple of paragraphs summarizing Hitler’s War together some (but certainly not all) of the sharper remarks about Irving’s methods by Charles W. Sydnor, John Lukacs, Lucy Dawidowicz, Martin Broszat, Eberhard Jäckel and Hugh Trevor-Roper. Perhaps that is slightly defamatory, but there has been (and unfortunately probably still will be) an endless battle on the talk pages here about whatever it is right to call Irving a historian or not. I would count myself a supporter of the latter camp, which is why I think it is important to show that there have been long-standing concerns about Irving’s scholarship (or lack thereof) for decades. The fact that Hitler’s War produced some quite devastating critiques of Irving’s methodology (especially his misuse of the "no liquidation" comment), which have been summarized here adds some tangible support for explaining to the neophyte reader about why Irving is not a historian. There is all sorts of material rebutting Irving and explaining why he is not a proper historian, but unfortunately most of it sits in books and articles that most people don’t know about, and in the meantime Irving goes around promoting himself as a great historian, which is why I think that this particular misconception is so widespread and hard to eradicate. Having said that much, I’ll think we can probably profitably reduce the Hitler’s War section down to a few paragraphs. Finally, there is the problem that Irving is a publicity hound who loves to get himself in the news. The last section is essentially a summary of how Irving has managed to attract attention to himself over the last three years. To be frank, I’m not certain how of that is necessary (how important is it that to know that Irving was snubbed by an arts festival in Norway?) and moreover, since Irving is probably going to keep getting himself into the news until he dies, the growth potential for that section is almost unlimited. Unless Irving does and says something especially newsworthy, I’ll think discretion is called for here. Thank you very much Jayjg for answering for my views. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi A.S. Brown. I think your suggestions for shortening the article are quite sensible. Would you be willing to do it? You know the material much better, since much of it is yours, so you'd be in the best position to make the edits. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

682 words agreeing that the article is far too long, but there is so much more that wants to be added?Tholzel (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I merely came to this article to learn who David Irving was. This article is still so long that it is useless. For example, a huge chunk of it should be replaced with something like "Historians were largely critical of Irving's conclusions," followed by about fifty words summarizing their major objections. Irving is not a major figure and doesn't need all this space. If Hitler can be described in 141k, why does Irving need 107k? NWeber (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg. Please accept my apologies for my lateness in responding. I'm been terribly busy, and I keep on meaning to say that I will trim this article in the next day or two, but then I think I don't have the time, so I keep on putting it off. But enough of my lously excuses. Since I am now finally done with the hateful taxes, I devote my attention back here, so I will start working on trimming this article either tomorrow or the next day. I'll hope it will make this article smaller by keeping the more essential information, through I have already started with some trimming, which I hope was constructive. Thanks for your comments, Jayjg!--A.S. Brown (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you A.S. Brown, that's a very good start. The article is already 4k shorter! Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Four percent--a terrific start. I hope you're shooting for 40% reduction.Tholzel (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again Jayjp. I don't like to delete other people's work provided it is factual of course, but it seems to me that perhaps we delete the sections relating to being condemned by Spain and the protests around his 2009 book tour. If Irving does another book tour, no doubt they will be protests again, which led to another section about that. I would welcome suggestions here. Thanks in advance.--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the most funny political smear on Wikipedia

I can't believe they actually have huge pictures of Hitler and Himmler! Oh, you fervent anti-nazis - your fanaticism makes you all so easy to discredit, even when you obsess over pages like this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.10.145 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Irving trial

I had proposed the merger from Irving trial because it's a new article and seems to cover some of the same material in this article. However, noting the size of the current David Irving article, perhaps a split of the litigation sections of David Irving and merger into Irving trial would be more appropriate? Minor4th (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole point was that this article was too large, so material was removed to a sub-article, and summarized here. I suspect it just needs to be renamed to something more specific. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As time permits, I have been attempting to reduce the size of this article. Since Irving’s conviction in 2006 in Austria for Holocaust denial seems noteworthy enough to merit a separate article, so I’ve created one. I think the new article is badly phrased as Jayjp suggests, but what a better article title be Styria vs. David Irving? I was thinking at first of titling the spun-off section David Irving's conviction for Holocaust denial in Austria, but I hate articles with awkward titles. Having said that much, the Irving trial might led to confusion with the libel trial of Deborah Lipstadt in 2000 (why is that everyone keeps on saying it was Irving who was on trial when it was in fact Lipstadt?), so Styria vs. David Irving is probably a better title. Plus, there is also Irving's other trial for Holocaust denial in 1992 in Germany, but that trial is not as well known as the 2006 trial and perhaps more importantly Irving did not go to jail as a result of that trial.--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Litigation of David Irving? Or David Irving litigation? Or David Irving (litigation), or David Irving (Styria trial) ... Styria v. David Irving (Austria). You get the idea, just throwing out ideas. Minor4th (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hints of religious bias haunting this page

Let's remember, David Irving was a world respected Hitler expert until the 1980s. As a history student in the early 1980s,much of my own study was based on his work.

This article for me is attempting to slander his reputation from the very beginning, and never stops.

Even when discussing his most succesful era,there are speculative hints to try and discredit his best work.

Let's stick to the truth. Irving's early Hitler work, and theories are still widely respected today.

I accept that he's possibly lost the plot in his later years, but there has been a concerted effort by the religious factions to discredit his entire career. And this page is worringly following that formula.

Printing speculation (his supposed seconding of mosely. A Daily Mail article that is largely thought to have been mostly made up) as almopst fact.

Wikipedia pages should be for fact.Not a group of people trying to create a tone that supports their own opinions.

Far too much opinion and speculation in this article. To try and create a tone of "anti semitism" throughout his entire career.

There's no evidence that Irving had any anti semitic views until at least his 60s. IN fact, much of his work fully supports the holocaust view.

His early work was so respected as he blew open the whole subject of history trying to slander enemies of the state. Hitler was obviously one of the worst, but there isn't actually that much historical evidence to support a lot of historical opinion on him.

I assure you, it's still a point made in history lectures to this day.

I believe fully with the first comment. As a historian, reading a supposed fact based article, the agenda of edits does seem to be to try and discredit his entire career, because of his current stance.

I will leave the page alone for now, and trust that editors will re-evaluate to the tone of the article. But I will consider making my own edits (based on POV tone, and speculative, badly researched comments)if the status quo remains.

This is supposed to be an encylopedia. Not a magazine article on the man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.108.118 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 December 2009

From David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. Evans: This examination of Irving's work has demonstrated that there is abundant evidence of his beliefs and activities since 1988 as a Holocaust denier; that is to say, he has actively propagated the view that the Holocaust as conventionally understood did not happen. Given that Irving was born in 1938, that would put him in his fifties from 1988 onwards.Autarch (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I am also a historian (I live off it, but I never took a history degree), and consider that "Hitler's War" is a story about a gambler, starting with the Czech crisis in 1938 and ending really with the 1943 Kursk campaign. As such it is very readable. It is not a paean of praise. In that gambler's mind, the holocaust was simply not a big deal. I can see how that annoys holocaust historians, but the holocaust was incidental to the outcome of the gambles made in 1938-43.86.46.230.144 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we have a definition of "Holocaust denier"? Can we call Irving a Holocaust denier if he once did so, but has since retracted that opinion? If so, he is no longer a denier, and the term must be removed. If, however, the term applies to anyone who has ever denied the Holocaust, even though he has now come around, then we are looking at a religious version of original sin, and the term must for that reason also be removed.Tholzel (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See Holocaust denial for the basics of what Holocaust denial comprises. Also, "original sin" is sin you are born with; no-one is born denying the Holocaust. Irving appears to have made various contradictory statements regarding the Holocaust; what makes you think he has "come around"? Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Only this (from the zealot-controlled aticle):

<<Towards the end of the hearing, Irving again publicly recanted, saying that "I've changed my views. I spoke then about Auschwitz and gas chambers based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that any more and I wouldn't say that now. The Nazis did murder millions of Jews. ..I made a mistake by saying there were no gas chambers, I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place. I apologize to those few I might have offended though I remain very proud of the 30 books I have written". However, Irving continued to insist that Hitler knew nothing of the death camps, and that "The figure of six million killed Jews is just a symbolic number".>>

Does that get him off, or is his original sin far too great? Tholzel (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he said that during the sentencing hearing. Read further along in the section for his later statements, in which he apparently recants his recanting. By the way, if the article is "zealot-controlled", then how did that ostensibly exculpatory material get into it? In any event, I fail to see the point you are trying to make, and I would caution you to review Wikipedia's civility policy. I do note, however, that you've used the phrase "original sin" again. As I've explained before, original sin is something with which you are born; are you claiming that Irving was born denying the Holocaust? Jayjg (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is nothing religious here. Are you perhaps making a broad sweep attack on all Jews who edit this page whether or not they happen to be religious? If so, be aware that admins tend to block people for that sort fo behaviour.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that much like the claim of "anti-Semitism--now a catch-all phrase used to slur anyone with whom you disagree, Holocaust denier seems to be another catch-all phrase. For example, under the term in this article, it is deemed Holocaust denial to question whether a particular room at Auschwitz was or was not a gas chamber. Is that not a legitimate historical question? Or is any question that does not follow the party line "Holocaust denial"?

Also, for the average reader, please note already the hair-trigger suggestions of lack of civility in my comments. Next will come the code phrase that my sentiments, while not anti-Semitic per se, are much like those of Holocaust deniers, etc., etc. It is simply amazing that otherwise intelligent people cannot--I repeat, cannot--discuss this issue if they have strong Jewish beliefs. Ideology blinds even the brightest of us. Indeed, the brighter the more we contrive to blind ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what the religious beliefs are of the people editing this page; don't comment here about editors again, whether to call them "zealots", or speculate about their religious beliefs, or in any other way. All of these are violations of both WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Regarding Holocaust denial, Irving has been found by both British and Austrian courts to be a Holocaust denier. Finally, article Talk: pages are for discussion regarding article content; they are not blogs or Facebook walls. Do you have any changes, based on reliable sources, that you wish to make to the article? Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I ask again what precisely is Holocaust denial? It is cavalier to point to an article on the subject that is thousands of words long. Even the crime of murder can be described in a single sentence. (The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.") We cannot as historians continually bring up Irving's crime and not define what that crime is. To point to a huge article is a not a definition, but a source to find anything one wants. For example, is it Holocuast denial to claim, say, that 3 million Jews died instead of 6 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:TALK. This is not a general discussion board about Holocaust denial, this is a Talk: page for discussing proposed changes to this article. Are there article changes you wish to propose? Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and do not wish to argue Holocaust denial. What I am asking is if someone is charged with a crime, as Irving certainly is in spades, at least the crime should be explicated. It is not, and reading this article, everything but the kitchen sink seems to have been tossed in as "evidence." Evidence for what? That Irving is highly critical of the full Holocaust story as it is currently maintained? Isn't this type of de3bate exactly what historians should be engaged in?

BTW, I noticed that when I entered highly authoritative (Justice Gray) strongly exculpatory evidence about Irving's qualification as an historian, it was immediately removed. Here is my insertion. With all the negative commentary, why was this removed?

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

[Source: from Paragraph 13.7 of the Judgment of Gray J. in Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd and Lipstadt, April 2000. See also: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-13-01.html.]>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(I am slightly spelling dyslectic—I don’t easily notice spelling errors—so I have cleaned up the paras above beginning with “Could we have a definition of “Holocaust denial?" I hope this is not illegal.)Tholzel (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on the specific changes you would like to make to the article. Regarding your edit, are you referring to the insertion you made that began with the words "Strangely, this professional hatchet job left out the following praise by Judge Gray:"? Did you imagine that that kind of editorial comment was appropriate for an encyclopedia article? What did you mean by "professional" and "hatchet job", and to whom were you referring? As for the quote, it was far too long, and not to the point, which was Justice Gray's conclusion. After all, Irving brought a libel suit against Lipstadt (not the other way around), in which he accused her of libel for saying he was a Holocaust denier. Thus we have only one, brief, quote from the action, the judge's conclusion, regarding whether or not Irving was or was not a Holocaust denier, and related concepts, as relayed by the judge. Now, you've avoided answering many of my questions in previous comments; please answer the ones I've asked here. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


I will gladly answer these questions, but I must say, your answer takes my breath away.

1) This is not an encyclopedia article. It is text proofing taken to a high art. Every point made by the “article” is there to denigrate—not describe--an historian of considerable merit in his field. After using 5300 words of ten historians criticizing Irving’s professionalism, I try to add a single paragraph by Justice Gray (who you quote liberally when it suits you) to give counter evidence that essentially negates much of these complaints against Irving--and you find that single 211 word paragraph by this expert too long???

2) This article is a professional hatchet job because it has been produced not by an amalgam of contributors as Wiki contributions are supposed to be created, but by a cabal of religious zealots whose entire interest is to besmirch David Irving. Wiki contributors are specifically told not to contribute if they mind being challenged and contradicted. But there is no warning that certain sites like this one are off-limits to contributors, and which is watched over by a secret priesthood that has taken over complete control of the entire article. Not kosher!

Further evidence of its professional single-source construction can be gleaned by comparing it to a similar article, the one on “Holocaust denial.” Here we find the exact same construction—liberal quotes by experts, a lengthy footnote list, references, etc., etc. A really professional job, and by such coincidence, exactly of the same ilk as the Irving article.

3) You continually come back to the same uncivil tactic: “Are you saying (insert something I did not say into my mouth) because if you did (insert threat)?” How can we discuss Irving if everything anyone says who disagrees with you is uncivil, and only what you say, is permissible. It is looming censorship of the worst type.

4) Now that I have answered your questions, perhaps you will ask the question that you have coolly dodged for several days now: What is Holocaust denial? If you cannot even answer that—and you have used the usual tricks to not do so—not relevant, see another 10,000 word article we wrote--how can you claim Irving is one? Most of the claims in the article are innuendo, a mish-mash of alleged anti-Semitism (is anti-Semitism Holocaust denial?), and massive guilt by association (it is unbelievable how many Nazi portraits grace a biography of this Englishman). Of course you get away with this because you never say what Holocaust denial is. Or put another way, it’s whatever you say it is, plus whatever critics you’ve lined up say it is.

It is not an answer to say he lost at a trial. It is not an answer to say he sued and not the other way around, as if being accused of being a Holocaust denier was in the same league as being called daft. Holocaust denial is a crime in many countries, so calling Irving one—without having to say what that means—is a terrorist act. If I were to call you a child molester, I suspect you would sue me. Then you would be doing the suing, just as Irving had to do the suing, to try to clear his name.

It's not at all equivalent. Whatever faults Jayjg may have, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that he is, or might be, a child molester. To make such an allegation would be gratuitous libel, and a court action would be fully justified, and presumably successful. Irving, on the other hand, IS a holocaust denier -- as has been confirmed by judges in Britain and Austria, and repeated by countless reliable sources. RolandR (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So I believe you are absolutely wrong in refusing to allow that short quotation by Justice Gray in the article. I find it utterly incomprehensible that you can blithely brush-off this insertion of trenchant counter evidence by a neutral authority just because his expert testimony happens to negate much of what your article tries to put over on the public. That is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to allow.Tholzel (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You have again described the editors of this article as "a cabal of religious zealots". First, when BBC News ("Holocaust denier to be released") and The Guardian ("Holocaust denier Irving freed early from prison") refer to Irving as a "Holocaust denier", is that because they're also part of that "cabal of religious zealots"? Are they also committing a "terrorist act"? Was Justice Gray also part of that "cabal of religious zealots"? Did he also commit a "terrorist act"? Second, I strongly urge you to re-factor your comments, and remove all reference to Wikipedia editors. WP:CIVIL is no joke, learn to communicate civilly. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If I might cut in here, our biggest problem in maintaining neutrality is the overuse of quotations. I would much rather see editorialising than a he said/she said approach to writing about historical debates. Please get clear consensus (at least ten editors in favour) to add any quotes, no matter how authoritative the source may be. Ottre 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_attacks_on_Jews_by_User:Tholzel. --Peter cohen (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I give up. I can see that no matter how many historians you allow yourself to use in the article to say the Irving is not an historian, me adding a single highly respected counter argument is not going to be permitted. The only compliant you didn't use is that my exculpatory evidence is "unbalanced.” And the way you dwell on secondary complaints, centered not on the issue but on my uncivility in order not to reply to the crux of the issue—well it shows that you are really expert at your job: Master Propagandist cruising under the false colors of a disinterested editor. I hope it pays well.Tholzel (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Repeated attacks on Jews"?? Is that what you guys call my disagreeing with the "editors" of this anti-Irving diatribe? Why didn't you say you were Jewish? Then I would have understood why you are totally unable to present Irving's biography in a neutral, disinterested manner.Tholzel (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether other editors on this page actually are Jews; your attacks are predicated on the assumption that they are, and you use language clearly intended to disparage them as such -- a pattern that you repeat in your comment above. Your comment that Jews are unable to edit this article "in a neutral, disinterested manner" is yet another example of your discriminatory attitude. RolandR (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
That is simple slander. Could you please point to where my attacks (funny, I thought they were comments) are predicated on the assumption that the editors are Jews? It is YOU who called my comments calling your objectivity into question "Attacks on Jews." It's amazing how gratuitously you are in denigrating those with whom you disagree, how facile you are in making a slanderous attack on me, and them blithly turning that attack around and claiming it was I who made it. Wow--that's pretty clever--and very devious. But I forget, criticizing anything you say is uncivil, while you can (and do) say anything you want. The previledge of rank, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.115.134.11 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to comment here with two points. The first point is that I can understand why people would be upset about the following text you wrote "This article is a professional hatchet job because it has been produced not by an amalgam of contributors as Wiki contributions are supposed to be created, but by a cabal of religious zealots whose entire interest is to besmirch David Irving." This is an ad hominem attack, and hasn't really helped your cause. When are new editors going to realise that if they accuse a whole bunch of other editors they don't even know personally of some sort of outragous bias that most editors will get their back up or treat them with disdain?

However, the second point is that your material might actually be reasonably added into the article, but certainly not in the form that you added it, as you wrote Strangely, this professional hatchet job left out the following praise by Judge Gray. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. It's really no wonder you were reverted. Sadly, this has meant that a fairly decent piece of information has been left out of the article and I can see why you think it's unbalanced. I think we should be able to incorporate this into the article - there would be no harm in it.

However, I also wish to address the fact that you seem to feel that the article is calling him a holocaust denier (incidentally, a one sentence explanation the term "Holocaust denier", is a denier that the Holocaust occurred. Intuitive, no?). While I guess I can see why you might think that, because there is quite a bit of information on David Irving and Holocaust denial, nowhere in the article does it explicitly state that he is or is not a holocaust denier. Quite the opposite - it only quotes and explains the opinions of others. If there is some language that is not neutral, then by all means highlight this here so that we can review and, if necessary, make a modification to it. I think that's quite fair.

So I believe that you make a least one good point, but by saying that the article accuses him of being a Holocaust denier, when it does not, and by accusing systemic bias in the article because it has been overtaken by "religious zealots", of which we can only assume you mean Jews, then you are not doing yourself any favours. If you didn't mean Jews, then could you clarify what you mean by the article being controlled by "religious zealots" claim? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for an honest question posed in a civil tone. And I will try to cool my ardor as well. The issue is that Holocaust denial is an extremely volatile subject with huge emotional impact. Thus, just as with any emotionally-laden subject, it is extremely difficult for those to whom it has such deep meaning, to be able to judge in a disinterested manner. Catholics have trouble discussing the virgin birth of Christ; Born-agains have great trouble being neutral in discussing abortion, etc. In my opinion, the first aspect of any encyclopedia article should be a disinterested editorial stance. Thus, is probably not possible to those heavily invested in the history of the Holocaust to carry that burden. This is not an "attack on Jews," it is merely bringing up the extreme difficulty of many Jews to be objective on this particular subject, just as it would be extremely difficult for anyone of strong beliefs to be objective on any subject dear to their hearts.
I tried to point out the imbalance of the commentary on Irving regarding his Holocaust denial. As I mentioned, there were 5300 words by ten historians essentially claiming he was one, and none disagreeing. When I brought up a strong disagreement by a respected source, I was brushed off. And instead of engaging on this issue, the entire response was a repeated complaint that I was being uncivil. Things went downhill after that. On the zealous cabal, I apologize for that graphic overstatement. But the essence of it, I believe, is essentially true. (If not, please say so!) The Irving article appears to me to be a corporate piece, very carefully researched and very well written. It is in no way the usual amalgam of various conributors. Indeed, the rapidity and sterness with which any changes were excised, seemed to me to indicate that the piece was closely guarded by an ideologically-motivated entity (thus my "cabal"). I have contributed to a number of other Wiki subjects, and I have never experienced such tight control--which I believe goes against the very essence of the Wiki effort--that of gertting a large variety of viewpoints. Since the viewpoints expressed in the Irving rticle were all of a kind, I did get my dander up. I do not wish to impune anyone's integrity. If I have done, so I apologize for that. I do hope the Irving piece can be opened up to the public. (THolzel) (I am not at my own computer)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.115.134.11 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Firstly, I need to note that as you have been blocked before editing anything, please first try to get your block lifted via the {{unblock}} tag. However, I do understand your urge to respond. When your block is either lifted or expired, I would suggest first noting what you want added to this talk page. You might be suprised - if you discuss this in a civil tone, only address your points, and don't make any personal comments (at all!) about other editors (even if they say them about you) then you may have some success in rectifying any perceived imbalance in the article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest we insert the following single exception at the end of the ten historians who give a negative reading of Irving’s scholarly capabilities? The quotation is 98 words long, shorter, for example than the existing 128-word quotation (which begins: .”We had deliberately created the conditions…”. This latter quotation is actual 191 words long, having been broken-up by the insertion of a single-sentence comment.Tholzel (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

<<Rosenbaum sarcastically wrote in his book Explaining Hitler that if Irving wanted to be considered a historian, he was going about it in a rather strange way by denying the Holocaust at neo-Nazi rallies.[144]

[Insert begins] Justice Gray, who ruled against Irving at his trial for Holocaust denial, nevertheless summed up his professional capability as an historian thusly: As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. [Source: from Paragraph 13.7 of the Judgment of Gray J. in Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd and Lipstadt, April 2000. See also: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-13-01.html.] [Insert ends]

[edit] Persona non grata

Irving as he was deported from Canada in 1992 After Irving denied the Holocaust in two 1989 speeches given in Austria, the Austrian government issued an arrest warrant against him and barred him from entering the country.>>

That is not at all how Justice Gray "summed up" his assessment as Irving as a historian - it's actually the start of his findings on the matter and pretty much the only positive thing he had to say in the judgement: while he started by stating that Irving was a competent military historian [emphasis in the original judgement], he then went on to state that this wasn't the issue in the case which concerned whether Irving had falsified history relating to the Holocaust. The actual summary of his assessment of Irving as a historian is available here ("I find myself unable to accept Irving's contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence") and here ("My overall finding in relation to the plea of justification is that the Defendants have proved the substantial truth of the imputations, most of which relate to Irving's conduct as an historian"). Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As we agree that this comment by Justice Gray regarding Irving as a military historian was positive, wouldn't it be only fair to include it to inject the smallest amount of balance among the ten completely negative comments? Otherwise the article might give the impression that only negative comments are permitted.173.115.134.11 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)(Tholzel)

Seems pretty reasonable to me. How were you think of phrasing this? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It's already in the article: see footnote 1 and the coverage of John Keegan and Donald Cameron Watt's testimony in the libel trial. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to be sure. But this single footnote entry suffers from the same disproportionality of the main article: 21 positive words by Justice Gray vs 398 negative words by four critics again demeaning Irving's historical abilities. That's a factor of 18 times. Is that considered a balanced description? I should add that one of those negative quotations is 158 words long--longer again than the Justice Gray quote of 128 words which was objected to based on its excessive length.Tholzel (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The court's finding was heavily critical of Irving's historical methods and many other writers have written similar things. Irving is not considered a credible historian by most of his peers, and the article reflects his actual standing. Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a relief to hear that not all of his peers consider him not a credible historian. Perhaps, for balance's sake, we should add one or two of those postive-leaning critics to the article (not to the footnotes, which many people do not read).Tholzel (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they are in an extreme minority that wouldn't be balance.©Geni 14:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"An extreme minority" by which you mean at least Justice Gray. Clearly there are also many other historians who do not agree with this entirely negative assessment of Irving. What percentage of positive opinions would be required to permit a single positive insertion, amidst the uniformly negative ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, the positive remarks of Keegan, Cameron Watt, Trevor-Roper and a few others are already in the article, as is the only part of Justice Gray's finding which was positive towards Irving. Nick-D (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I continue to be puzzled by this notation:

<<David Irving is not a historian in the academic sense of the term. While some media refer to him as a "historian" ("Holocaust denier Irving is jailed". BBC News Online. 20 February 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm. Retrieved 2 January 2010. ), and Judge Charles Gray commented that "his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled", and refer to him as a "military historian" (Gray. "Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Judgment: Electronic Edition". Emory University>>

I still do not understand how can we have an article that makes the claim that Irving is not an historian "in the academic sense" (whatever that means), and then immediately have Justice Gray, who ruled against him on other charges, stating that Irving is "a military historian." This postive assertion, of course, being relegated to a footnote after the end of the article and after a long bibliography. I counted seven pro Irving-as-historian people quoted in the article, so surely the number is not "an extreme minority." The only extreme minority is the historians actually quoted in this article who support Irving's historical capabilities, such as Justice Gray. As I pointed out, even in the remote footnote of Justice Gray, the anti-Irving word count was 18:1 against Irving. Does that give the appearance of even-handedness? I suggest we remedy that disproportionally by having at least Justice Gray's entire quotation included in the main body of the article, to wit:

<<For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent.>> [Source: from Paragraph 13.7 of the Judgment of Gray J. in Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd and Lipstadt, April 2000. See also: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-13-01.html.]

After reading that authoritative quote, readers will at least be able to recognize that there is at least some smidgeon of doubt about the overwhelmingly negative description of Irving's capabilities as a resourceful historian.Tholzel (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, Justice Gray did not make an assessment of whether or not Irving was "a historian in the academic sense of the term". In addition, Gray's assessment of Irving as a historian is not as significant as the assessment of actual historians. Finally, as has been explained above, positive reviews of Irving's work, from historians, are already in the article. Justice Gray's judgment regarding Irving, despite his few words of praise, was overwhelmingly damning. Including this quote in the body would violate WP:UNDUE, since it would misrepresent the consensus view of historians regarding Irving, and would also misrepresent Justice Gray's own view of Irving. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe it is the role of an encyclopedia to provide readers with "consensus views." That term imples that a behind the scenes judgement has been made on the readers' behalf, instead of providing the reader with conflicting views, so he can make up his own mind.Tholzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.115.134.11 (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what encyclopedias are supposed to do; provide a summary of current scientific or historical consensus. Wikipedia's approach to this is a little more subtle and nuanced; please review WP:UNDUE, which is a relevant Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this "consensus" consists of 16,914 words of criticism out of an article of 21,134 words, or 80% of the text is critical of Irving. 894 words praise him in one way or another, or 4%. In other words, there are 19 times as many critical words as positive ones.

In addition, from within the article, the following historians had some good things to say about Irving’s abilities as an historian:

John Keegan, Donald Cameron, Watt Hugh Trevor-Roper, Bradley Smith, Kershaw, A. J. P. Taylor, Hillgruber, Hoffman, German historian Rainer Zitelmann, The British historian John Charmley, German historian Hans Mommsen, Craig, Norman Finkelstein

Thirteen well-known historians having words of praise for Irving does not seem like a consensus to me, even though they also expressed reservations. Nor does an 80% vs 4% balance of negative to positive comments seem very measured.Tholzel (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether 4% positive is too much or too little, I think the relevant policy here is Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT. Balancing the article by giving equal weight to fans and foes would be a radical departure from this, and if we tried to apply that generally would require a substantial rewrite of Wikipedia - even if we could find both positive and negative stuff for all our articles. ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Lord, I certainly don't mean to give "equal weight" to a defense of Irving. All I am suggesting is that at 80% against vs 4% for, the weight given to his critics is severely lop-sided. All I am suggesting that we do is include that single paragraph by Justice Gray in which he praises Irving's historical acumen. That might be put just under the quote by Justice Gray in which he severely criticized Irving for being an anti-Semite, or--preferred--beneath the ten historians who say Irving isn't a legitimate historian. Just to introduce a smidgeon of balance.Tholzel (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK well a slight shift like that might well be acceptable. But I'm not sure that a judge is the right person to say that he is a historian, surely if there are some historians who still regard him or his early work as legitimate we should quote a historian rather than a non-historian? ϢereSpielChequers 17:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I’m delighted to find some agreement that a bit more balance is desirable in describing Irving’s historical acumen. But I suspect just searching around for some historian who agrees with him would be suspect, in the sense that ‘who is that historian?’ Irving’s brother-in-law? Whereas Judge Gray is not only well know--his testimony is used in this article-—but can be assumed to be relatively neutral in that he ruled against Irving at his trial. Also, Judge Gray is extremely well-versed in the whole David Irving. And his commentary is trenchant and to the point. (Perhaps this is why some object to it?)

A second issue we should examine is the whether or not we need to A) radically cut the length of the article and B) (again) do something to alter the negative-positive commentary ratio. Even the Wiki article on Josef Stalin is only 13,500 words long. And only 34% of the commentary is negative (compared to 21,000 words of which 80% are negative for Irving). And yet Stalin murdered tens of millions more people than Irving!

With this great imbalance, it could give the impression that Irving is worse than Stalin was, or even that Irving is being piled-on simply because he is still alive and can be badly hurt by a massive negative biography, whereas Stalin is safe from further damage.Tholzel (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll get nowhere with your continued assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks (e.g. "Perhaps this is why some object to it?"). There is no consensus whatsoever that there is any "imbalance" in the impression given of Irving in this article, and your continued use of Argumentum ad nauseam in no way indicates that there is such an imbalance, much less a "grave imbalance". The consensus of historians regarding Irving, is, on the whole, quite negative, and historians are the best people to judge Irving's abilities as an historian. Not judges. The lengthy (and singular) quote from Justice Gray is inappropriate for the body of the text, for the many reasons given above, and this article presents Irving fairly. It doesn't present him, for example, as someone who is responsible for the unwarranted and needless death of millions. Rather, it presents him as he is: a man who, in the words of Justice Gray's conclusion, "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." You seem to believe that by adding Justice Gray's few words of praise for Irving, it will somehow "balance" the overwhelmingly negative view of him held by both historians and the courts. However, it is exactly the opposite. The fact that he is "intelligent" and has a "mastery of the detail of the historical documents" makes this conclusion all the more damning: one cannot claim he did this out of stupidity or ignorance. There are no mitigating factors. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Continual assertion of bad faith, and personal attacks"? And the evidence for that is that I state: "Perhaps that is why some object to it." I'm afraid you've lost me on that one. I thought I was successfully not making any personal attacks. I would be glad to learn who I have attacked "personally," and what I said--other than disagreeing with some aspects of this article--the purpose I believe, of this discussion page. Also, I hope some of the editors might consider the huge enumerated imbalance I report in negative vs positive comments, compared to another unpopular figure, Josef Stalin. This, rather than continued assertion of fairness would be of great help.Tholzel (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if I can understand this: You can and do use Justice Gray to prove the points you want to make, but I can't use him to make any point at all. You justify long quotations of your own choosing to denigrate Irving, but when I suggest a single shorter quote to show another side of the man, you rule it is too long. When I state the obvious, "some object to it," you denounce that as "a personal attack." Yet you can claim that I am exhibiting "continual assertions of bad faith," and that is somehow NOT a personal attack on me. Then, when I spend consider time and effort to enumerate (put numbers on) the excessive length of the piece and the incredible imbalance of negative vs positive descriptions of the man, showing that this bio puts Josef Stalin in a much fairer light, you spend whatever length of time it takes to type your assertion that the article is not unbalanced.

I hope all the Wiki editors will take an open vote (not a secret one) on whether to include the single paragraph by Justice Gray I have urged be included to give readers the tiniest indication that not every living historian thinks Irving is a lunatic. I suggest it be placed beneath the TEN historians you have selected each denouncing Irving. I suggest the following to be added to the article:

<<But, according to Justice Gray: “For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent.”>>

Can we have a vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel 74.104.39.173 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


AMAZING—and wholly expected. The secret priesthood that hermetically controls this site has closed ranks against the apostate interloper who dares to inject the slightest modicum of doubt that David Irving is perhaps not exactly the Anti-Christ re-risen. How dare he suggest that a ratio of 80% negative comments compared to 4% positive is in any way a sign of editorial bias when Josef Stalin only warranted a 34% negative rating. (but, of course, many of those who hate Irving do still harbor a secret affection for Uncle Joe.)

Students of Propaganda Analysis will marvel at this exposition of the tricks of the trade: putting words into the mouth of the miscreant and then accusing him of harboring those sentiments, threats of censorship, veiled and bare, complete unresponsive silence on their weakest points when revealed (pretending to bar a quotation as being too long, when quotations of their own are longer), blank stares when a source is used against them whom they have liberally used for their own purposes or—incredibly—claiming the source (Justice Gray) is not qualified to utter an opinion.

And, the elephant in the room, the vicious pretense that this is not a deeply ideological--rather than merely historical--Jewish issue, as if any of the editors were not deeply committed Jewish ideologues. This secret cabal does not deny any of this—they merely attack and slander anyone who dares to point it out. Note the time stamps of the critical rebuttals to my points—usually less than an hour. My God how they keep watch! Now, when a persistent contributor details their many biased stances and wishes to inject a little democracy into this article by asking for-–gasp—a vote, note the iron curtain of silence slamming down. Whereas previously there was one or two moderating influences, now the Fatwa has been issued and no editor dares to respond, or he, too will be accused of being “uncivil”—and banned. And his disagreement will also be termed “repeated attacks on Jews,” (A hard claim to make if the editors are not Jewish).

Well, have fun at everyone else’s expense. To me, this is only a free-speech issue—you know, the First Amendment. So sorry that this has bumped so harshly against your practice of an intolerant brand of religious extremism. It’s a shame though, that you have to steal a fine public resource such as Wikipedia to practice your editorial perversion. But, then, hey—it’s still more or less a free country, and I’ve got plenty of reasonable people to argue with.74.104.208.103 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Tholzel)

Oh, sorry, one last point: here is an amazing confession by the Ideologue-In-Chief: <<All sounds reasonable. I'll admit, I'm very queasy about doing anything (e.g., trimming criticism) that might make Irving look any better.>>

Good Lord, why didn't you say so in the beginning--instead of pulling out all these trumped-up reasons for not including my suggested Justice Gray's positive comment? You're not going to let it in because it might make Irving "look better." You didn't have to make up all that baloney about the quote being too long (yours are longer) or Justice Gray not being qualified (you mention him five times, so he certainly is). You could just have come out with it: Nothing goes in that makes Irving "look better." I get it. Nothing encyclopedic about that, but it is certainly clear enough: Ideology run amok.74.104.208.103 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Tholzel)

The man is a Holocaust denier, a fascist and a Hitler-lover. He is also nearly universally loathed in the historical profession today. Any article that fails to convey these facts, or attempts to sugar coat them, would be doing the reader a disservice. Also, thank you for the promotion to Ideologue-in-Chief, I really am flattered. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, gentle reader, there you have it: Foaming-at-the-mouth hatred for a subject these so called "editors" are supposed to report on objectively. And, of course, by means of their having pre-empted the editorship of this subject--making it absolutely inmpossible for anyone to offer the slightest balance to this incredibly biased subject. But that's OK--YHWH is on their side.Tholzel (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to insert the fact that the person who burgled Irving's apartment was a known British Jewish activist. But that aditional fact was immediately excised. Is there a reason that we cannot show the idelogical background of this burglar? Otherwise it might seem that the burglarly was a random act. Wiki says everything else about him--he is described as an anti-fascist and a communist, but not Jewish.

Here is my entry: (italicized)

[edit] 1963 burglary of Irving's apartment By November 1963, Irving was in England when he called the London Metropolitan Police with suspicions he had been the victim of a burglary, perpetrated by three men who had gained access to his Mayfair apartment claiming to be General Post Office (GPO) engineers. Gerry Gable, a British Jewish political activist, was subsequently arrested and held at Hornsey police station, where on 14 January 1964, along with Manny Carpel and another, Gable admitted breaking in with intent to steal private papers. At the trial, counsel for the defence claimed that this was no ordinary crime, telling the court, "they hoped to find material they could take to Special Branch". The case was reported in the Daily Telegraph, 17 January 1964 and other newspapers.[22] Irving considered this incident important, and in his video 'Ich komme wieder' he describes this as the first indication he had that he was under attack for some reason.[23] Gable is a former member of the British Communist Party, and would later run Searchlight, a magazine devoted to anti-fascist activities. In a letter from Gable to London Weekend Television in May 1977, he would later boast of his "top level security service sources".[24] Tholzel (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Tholzel (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

First, let us be clear about what changes you made and what was reverted. You made two changes to the article, first, adding the words "a British Jewish political activist", and second adding your sig to the end of the paragraph. You have been here long enough to know that sigs don't go in article space. Further, if you haven't noticed, the last thing this article needs is more text. Anyone interested in further details about Gerry Gable's biography can easily click on his name and read his Wikipedia bio. Also, (and I say this at risk of being accused of a personal attack) I think you ought to realize that your continuous, persistent arguments in favor of whitewashing Irving's holocaust denial are sufficient to cause any reasonable editor to view any edit you make to this article with extreme skepticism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"whitewashing Irving's holocaust denial," is that what you call my trying to point out to readers that the person who burgaled Irvine's home is a British Jewish activist? I'm sorry if I don't follow the logic of that accusation, except to point out that making such false personal attacks on me is probably forbidden by Wiki rules--unless they don't apply to editors. (I didn't realize that you don't tild yourself in the main article-apologies for that.)Tholzel (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How is "Jewish" an "ideological background"? Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, good question. But first let’s review the bidding. In spite of its ridiculous length, one editor doesn’t want to cut out any verbiage denigrating Irving because: << I'll admit, I'm very queasy about doing anything (e.g., trimming criticism) that might make Irving look any better.>> So we can’t take anything out that makes Irving look bad.( A neat trick!) However, when I try to add the fact that a well-known British Jewish ideologue took criminal action against Irving, this makes a Jewish person look bad, so this addition of three words is forbidden based on "adding length."

Now, instead of answering the question of why this salient fact has been excised, second order questions are raised that A) have absolutely nothing to with the question at hand, and B) quote something I did not write. As usual, the question itself is completely ignored.

One editor claims I am writing “continuous, persistent arguments in favor of whitewashing Irving's holocaust denial.” Of course since I wrote nothing of the sort, he is unable to show where it occurs. When I point out that this is a blatant personal and completely unsubstantiated attack on me, instead of apologizing, or being banned, another editor jumps in—again, not to answer my question, but by raising another off-the-wall question, and again by stuffing words into my mouth that I never wrote.

When I complain to the editors, I quote the errors I believe they have made, along with the reasons I believe they should be corrected. If editors are going to accuse me of errors--wild errors in this case (or "incivility")--it would be greatly appreciated if they would also show me where they think this has happened.Tholzel (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than discussing other editors, please answer the question. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are a wonder, Jayjg. You have resolutely stonewalled every one of the many questions I have asked, and now you act surprised when I return the favor. BTW, as an editor, can you tell me if this discussion section is the proper venue for raising a philosophical question such as yours that has nothing to do with anything I said, or the subject at hand? Or are you asking it entirely in hopes of goading me into a response that you can then once again term “an attack on Jews”?

As far as “discussing other editors,” I mention editorial commentary only to identify the lopsided rules you and they seem to have on what you and they can say, compared to what we contributors can say. With no evidence whatever, Stephen J. Anderson says I am “whitewashing Irving's holocaust denial.” This is serious slander, and I hope you will feel compelled to take him to task for his incivility. A simple apology will do. And notice that I quote his errors rather than make up generalized complaints such as the “an attack on Jews”—a claim issued against me a while back, again with no provenance given.

Now, as you do seem to have forgot my original question, here it is again: Why can Gerry Gable not be indentified as a “British Jewish political activist”? That is exactly what he is (as well as a communist), and it seems to me to be very germane in an article which is saturated with Jewish activist opposition to anything and everything that David Irving ever did.Tholzel (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You justified adding the descriptor "Jewish" because, in your view, it showed Gable's "idelogical background". How is "Jewish" an "ideological background"? Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gee, don't you read my notes? You NEVER answer any of my questions; why should I bother with you? But I'll tell you what; you answer my question (and just not with another question, as you have again done this time), and I'll answer yours. Please give me an operational answer to the question: What is holocaust denial with reference to David Irving? (And by the way, forget the fatuous tautology of "Holocaust denial is denying the holocaust.")Tholzel (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tholzel, I find this whole issue of Irving and the peoples' attitude towards him fascinating to say the least. The bias is blatant, but then such bias appears the norm with regards to anyone on the other side of what a society considers right at a specific point in time. With regards the Holocaust Denial it appears that the term is used to refer to those individuals who express any concern over the facts of the Holocaust. Even those on the right side of the fence tread very carefully when dealing with say the numbers, not so careful are those who deal with the numbers of say the second Gulf War or the numbers killed in Iraq as the result of sanctioning. Which is truly amazing when you consider the time period relative to today, and the technology now available to us. Clearly something is amiss.
My understanding is that mainstream historians now agree on figures quite different from those first thought to be reasonably accurate, but you won't find yourself tripping over this information, you have to dig. You can find books on all sorts of history and the writer will be happy to brandish some assumptions on death tolls, but a writer who does so with the Holocaust will find a shadow creeping over them. Why is that? Why is the Holocaust different in this respect from say what took place in Cambodia or Russia? Why don't we have Pol Pot deniers?... who question the figures and have them mocked on TV and radio, news reports of them being screamed at by students for talking at a lecture on free speech... arrested as they attempt to travel? I mean I'm sure Historians exist across the world who take differing positions on the Pol Pot regime. Surely we cannot argue that people actually care more for victims of Nazism than say the Stalin purges? A child murdered systematically is a child murdered... surely? An argument over numbers is no more than that, an argument over numbers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Irving falls into this category, he has been shown to be extremely biased.
I discovered that Irving had altered a lot of his previous opinions on the numbers involved, and I had the opportunity to put that to him at one of his talks. He clearly did not want to appear to have backed down in front of his fans, and instead gave a rather slippery and non-committal answer. Something he his known for. He also spoke positively about Fred Leuchter without regard for the evidence against. Again appealing to his fans. Irving continues to dig a hole for himself, but that does not address the issue of bias that can be found pretty much everywhere one cares to look. Bias need not begat bias, or in some cases begat irrational opinion, e.g. you ask for the evidence that supports the figures and you are greeted with a finger that points and the words "Holocaust Denier" --Angryjames (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a slight fact to the racism and anti-semite section, I am new to this process and so perhaps I haven't sourced the quote well enough, I tried to give the url to the youtube adress where this video can be watched and my quote verified, but there was a technical problem to the way that I arranged it, so I was forced to give the details without that url. Anyone's help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. I realize as well that my edit might be deleted for technical problems it has, so commented help will be appreciated. I also realize that my edit might be deleted merely out of personal bias of previous editors which is witnessed by the discussion on this page, all this controversy had made me hesitant to even join wiki, which I thought was a communal effort at providing accurate and unbiased information. But everything I have done has been in good faith that I do not know the past editors, and so do not wish to slander their intent, but would rather appreciate their feed back, on maybe how my small edit could be properly done and hopefully a permanent change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacanorgan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


RE far above discussion of his 1980s on Holocaust disbelief. If anyone recalls that was about the time of the first Zundel trial. Called upon to testify Irving probably for the first time in his life brushed up on the subject. While there he sat through the Lechter presentation ( or at least was exposed to it). Several of the best anti-Holocaust authorities in the world were assembled in one spot at one time. Irving is one of the few independent, capable, hardworking scholars in the world - if he hadn't been dragged to the evidence he would have been digging for evidence on something else in the box right next to the one he wasn't supposed to see( and he probably wouldn't have ever seen it). Fervor to get Zundel was very costly.159.105.80.141 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Irving/Archive_5&oldid=1069859375"