Talk:David Irving/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →


Contents

Summary of Gray's judgment

Two pars have been quoted in the section on the ruling in this article. One is effectively the conclusion (par 13.167). The other however was in the introductory part of the final summary section, which reads:

"13.7 My assessment is that, 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 His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable.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)."

See [1]. Now, assuming good faith, what seems to have happened is that someone has tried to be NPOV by coupling the conclusion -- which is very negative towards Irving -- with a paragraph that presents his good points. I don't think that's the right way to do it. Even that "positive" par is immediately followed, for example, by

"13.8 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."

... and the judge goes on to say, eg, that "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" (par 13.163), which rather limits how much Irving might have to commend him as any kind of historian.

Even more oddly, the version I read said that the judge said par 13.167 and "then" said par 13.7 - which is incorrect and VERY misleading.

The correct, NPOV, thing to do is not to try to give a superficially balanced version of Irving in this section by cherry-picking statements from the judge, but instead to give a balanced version of the judgment by quoting its conclusion and if necessary, relevant quotes which explain how the conclusion was reached.

The former option is the one I've gone for, since it's simpler and the least controversial, by simply cutting the second quote. 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is David Irving Anti-semitic?

This is a simple poll: Is David Irving Anti-Semitic? In particular, should we list David Irving under the category "Anti-semitic people". Samboy 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Judge Gray says that he is anti-semitic. Samboy 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. We surely don't need a poll for something as well-established as this? --Guinnog 22:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the few people who we can label as such and cite legal precedent stating that it is correct to do so. Gzuckier 23:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is surprising to see that he is not.--Lance talk 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This poll is a waste of time. He's in the category Holocaust deniers, which means he is in the category Anti-Semitic people. Why can't anyone respond to my technical statements, instead of bringing up strawmen?--Prosfilaes 07:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I already brought this up; a number of pages have people under both categories. Sigh. You complained that it was wrong to have people be under both the "Holocaust denier" and "Anti-Semitic" category, so I pointed out two other articles where people are under both categories. You then complained, in an edit summary, that there was no consensus to keep David Irving in the "Anti-semitic" category, so I have set up a poll to see how people feel about it. We very quickly got consensus (see above). You have been playing revert wars with no less than two different editors over this issue, to the point where you will get blocked if you revert again today. Wikipedia is about consensus. There are many articles that I disagree over the consensus over, but I do not attempt to edit those articles against consensus. In fact, to minimize my Wikistress, I don't edit those articles at all. I'm not making these edits to win some stupid pissing contest. I'm making these edits because I feel that keeping David in that category is what is best for the Wikipedia; it is the most accurate assessment. Samboy 09:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't set up any poll to see how people felt about it. This poll asks a question that wasn't being debated: Is David Irving anti-Semitic? That's a strawman. If you honestly wanted to give a poll, you would have pointed out that Holocaust deniers is a subcategory of Anti-Semitic people and that the disagreement is over whether that means that the category ASP should be removed as redundant.--Prosfilaes 10:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything in Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories which goes against having David Irvine in both categories. It states "Wikipedia's categorization scheme allows for multiple taxonomies. This is a good thing and a powerful feature.". Samboy 11:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support, why does somebody not call/email him and ask? There are lists in Wikipedia (eg. [2]) where simple rule applies "...list of persons who self-identify as X". If used widely, it would actually make WP more reliable. When reader sees some "loaded word" type category under article about individual, he/she has to sort out if this is individuals own view or POV push by some biased contributor. Why not maka a distinction and in the same time get rid of overcategorization? --Magabund 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As being a bigot is now not politically correct, I doubt Irving would say "oh yes, I'm anti Semitic". However, in court he went on and on about having minority help around the house, in an attempt to show how he wasn't a bigot. I don't think the arguement here is about if he is or isn't -- but rather if he should be in a category and a subcategory of the main category. Cantankrus 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd also say that he's a lying bastard, but that's my POV. Darkmind1970 09:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. He's one of the few people who have been declared anti-Semitic by a court. (It's theoretically possible for an honest Holocaust denier not to be anti-Semitic, but it's hard to imagine that there really is anyone in that category.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not Support - he appears to read archives and write interesting - footnoted - books and let the chips fall where they will. I hope pro-truth hasn't come to mean anti-semtic.

Misrepresentation of historical evidence?

Irving's credentials as a historian have been discredited as a result of controversy surrounding his Holocaust denial and misrepresentation of historical evidence - surely, under WP:NPOV, this should read alleged misrepresentation of historical evidence? I am not supporting Irving's viewpoint, but it isn't the job of Wikipedia to make judgements or to dismiss minority views. This is an established principle. Walton monarchist89 11:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that after a number of lawsuits under various rules of evidence (all finding against Irving), we are beyond the "alleged" state.--Stephan Schulz 12:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; see (again) Irving's suit against Lipstadt et al, where the judge ruled that there were numerous significant instances where Irving had misrepresented historical evidence, and detailed them in his summary. Gzuckier 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - Reading Hitler's War brings it all crashing home. The man misrepresents and yes, lies. Darkmind1970 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I repeatedly hear about the significant instances where Irving misrepresented historical evidence but I never see these instances listed. Since you want to slam Irving so badly why not list ( or link to a list) of these instances. I have seen some details of his work that Irving has revised on his own but I can't remeber any serious errors - I would think his Zionist friends would have published a book of all his significant errors by now, maybe they have and I missed it, but anyway give us a link.

(Sigh) A good example of Irving's misrepresentation is in his writings on the destruction of dresden. For years he tried to claim that the death toll was in the region of 250,000 people, basing this on a completely unsourced historical document - which later turned out to be a forgery. Another example is in Hitler's War, where he mentions the explosion of HMS Cambelltown on the day after the St Nazaire raid, and claims that there were French workmen on board at the time. Complete rubbish. Darkmind1970 13:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh - I believe Irving revised that number. The current desire seems to revise the Dresden number to less than the number of bodies recovered so I guess Irving didn't revise it downward enough. I doubt anyone has ever heard of the HMS Cambelltown - but I will soon. Sigh That's it for Irving's misrepresentations? Found it quickly - St Nazaire raid - wiki. I noticed that French civilians were killed in the explosion ( is the complaint about Irving is that they were French, killed, on board,workmen, ..what?). If he made a mistake that they were n the dock getting ready to go on board then I can see the problem but others might think it was a pretty small error.

Well, another journey into [psuedoskepticism]] begins, I see. Since you apparently don't have the will to investigate your own beliefs given enough pointers, we shall have to spoon feed the data to you. Let's being with, as referenced so many many times in your presence, the judge's decision in Irving's attempt to gag Lipstadt et al.
Assessment of Irving as an historian
The convergence of the historiographical misrepresentations
13.140 Historians are human: they make mistakes, misread and misconstrue documents and overlook material evidence. I have found that, in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence. It appears to me that an analysis of those instances may shed light on the question whether Irving’s misrepresentation of the historical evidence was deliberate.
13.141 I have found that most of the Defendants’ historiographical criticisms of Irving set out in section V of this judgement are justified. In the vast majority of those instances the effect of what Irving has written has been to portray Hitler in a favourable light and to divert blame from him onto others. I have held that this is unjustified by the evidence. Examples include Irving’s portrayal of Hitler’s conduct and attitude towards the events of Kristallnacht and the importance attached by Irving to Hitler’s attitude towards the Jewish question as he claims is evidenced by the Schlegelberger note. I have seen no instance where Irving has misinterpreted the evidence or misstated the facts in a manner which is detrimental to Hitler. Irving appears to take every opportunity to exculpate Hitler. The same is true of the broader criticism made by the Defendants’ of Irving’s unwarrantedly favourable depiction of Hitler in regard to his attitude towards the Jews, which criticism I have found in section VI above to be justified. Irving sought in his writings to distance Hitler from the programme of shooting Jews in the East and from the later genocide in the death camps in a manner which the evidence did not warrant. Irving has argued, unjustifiably as I have found, that the evidence indicates that Hitler was unaware of any programme for the extermination of Jews at Auschwitz. In his account of the bombing of Dresden Irving (as I have found in section X1 above) persistently exaggerates the number of casualties, so enabling him to make comparisons between the number of civilians killed in Allied bombing raids with the number of Jews killed in the camps.
13.142 In my opinion there is force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving’s historiographical “errors” converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving’s partisanship for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the Defendants’ contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving.
The nature of some of Irving’s errors
13.143 As I have already indicated it is material to take account of the nature or quality of what Irving claims to have been mistakes or misapprehensions on his part. Certain of Irving’s misrepresentations of the historical evidence might appear to be simple mistakes on his part, for instance the misreading of haben as Juden in Himmler’s telephone log for 1 December 1941. But there are other occasions where Irving’s treatment of the historical evidence is so perverse and egregious that it is difficult to accept that it is inadvertence on his part. Examples include Irving’s rejection of the evidence for the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz; his claim that Hitler lost interest in anti-semitism on coming to power; his account of Hitler’s meeting with Horthy in April 1943; his wholesale dismissal of the testimony of Marie Vaillant-Couturier and his continued reliance on the forged Tagesbefehl No. 47 which purportedly gave the number of casualties in Dresden. I have referred in the course of this judgment to other instances where Irving’s account flies in the face of the available evidence.
13.144 Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to me by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving’s part knowingly to misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions. In my judgment the nature of these misstatements and misjudgments by Irving is a further pointer towards the conclusion that he has deliberately skewed the evidence to bring it into line with his political beliefs.
Irving’s explanations for his errors
13.145 In the course of his cross-examination Irving was asked on numerous occasions to provide explanations for what he had written or said. Thus he was asked why he had omitted to make reference to apparently significant events; why he had relied on sources whose reliability there was good reason to doubt; what was the source of evidence for particular assertions. It seems to me that one way of testing whether Irving’s errors were the product of innocent mistakes on his part is to look at his explanations.
13.146 In his answers Irving offered various explanations for his omission of apparently significant evidence. He gave as the reason why he did not refer to the evidence of Hofmann when dealing with the trial of Hitler in 1924 that it was too long to be included. But the records of Hofmann’s testimony ran to no more than five pages. He sought to excuse his omission to include in his account of the shooting of Berlin Jews in Riga the claim made by Bruns that there had been a Hitler order by saying that it “would bore the pants off an audience”. Asked to explain why he omitted to refer in the 1991 edition of Hitler’s War to the sinister fate awaiting the 600,000 French Jews who were not well-to-do and so not to kept healthy and alive, Irving answered that the 1991 edition was an abridged version and the omission had to be made for editorial reasons. His explanation for not informing his readers of the reasons for supposing that the Schlegelberger note may have been concerned with the problem of the mischlinge was that he was writing a book which had to be kept within the confines of a single volume. Irving gave a similar explanation for his suppression (as the Defendants claim that it was) of material parts of Goebbels’s diary entry of 27 March 1942. Irving excused his inability to answers certain questions about Auschwitz (for example about cremations there and his reason for not having visited Auschwitz) by saying that he is not an expert on Auschwitz. Irving balmed his editor for the retention of his mistranslation of haben zu bleiben as “Jews are to stay” after he had been informed of his error. When he was asked to identify the eye-witness who told him about the telephone box-cum-gas chamber story, Irving replied that he could not recall but that he read about it or seen it some ten years ago. Earlier in this judgment I have cited other examples of Irving’s explanations for his lapses.
13.147 I recognise that it is not always easy for Irving to cast his mind back over the years so as to explain why and how his mistakes were made. In my view, however, in many instances, including those set out in the preceding paragraph, the explanations which he offered were unconvincing. The absence of credible explanations lends further support to the Defendants’ argument that Irving’s misrepresentation of the historical record was not inadvertent.
Irving’s readiness to challenge the authenticity of inconvenient documents and the credibility of apparently credible witnesses
13.148 I accept that it is necessary for historians, not least historians of the Nazi era, to be on their guard against documents which are forged or otherwise unauthentic. But it appeared to me that in the course of these proceedings Irving challenged the authenticity of certain documents, not because there was any substantial reason for doubting their genuineness but because they did not fit in with his thesis.
13.149 The prime example of this is Irving’s dismissal of Bischoff letter of 28 June 1943 dealing with the incineration capacity of the ovens at Auschwitz (to which I have referred at paragraph 7.106 and 7.120).As already stated at paragraph 13.76 I agree with the assessment of van Pelt that there is little reason to doubt the authenticity of this document. Yet Irving argued strenuously that it should be dismissed as a forgery. In my judgment he did so because it does not conform to his ideological agenda. Similarly Irving devoted much time to challenging the authenticity of Muller’s instruction to furnish Hitler with reports of the shooting. I believe that he did so because this was for him an inconvenient document and not because there were real doubts about it genuineness. (Irving ultimately accepted its bona fides). There were other occasions when Irving sought to cast doubt on the authenticity of documents relied on by the Defendants (for example the Anne Frank diaries and the report of the gassing of 97,000 Jews at Chelmno referred to at paragraph 6.71 above). In neither case did Irving’s doubts appear to me to have any real substance. His attitude to these documents was in stark contrast to his treatment of other documents which were more obviously open to question. One example is Irving’s unquestioning acceptance of the Schlegelberger memorandum despite the uncertainty of its provenance. Another is his reliance on Tagesbefehl No. 47 in the teeth of mounting evidence that it was a forgery. In my judgment there is force in the Defendants’ contention that Irving on occasion applies double standards to the documentary evidence, accepting documents which fit in with his thesis and rejecting those which do not.
13.150 As I have already observed in the course of dealing with the historiographical criticism of Irving, there is a comparable lack of even-handedness when it comes to Irving’s treatment of eye-witnesses. He takes a highly sceptical approach towards the evidence of the survivors and camp officials at Auschwitz and elsewhere who confirm the genocidal operation of gas chambers at the camp (Tauber, Olere, Wisliceny, Hoss and Miller). But in relation to other witnesses (such as Hitler’s adjutants, Christa Schroder and Voigt), where there is greater reason for caution about their testimony, Irving appears to adopt it uncritically. I accept that Irving had interviewed personally many of the witnesses in the latter category and so could form his own assessment. Even so, the contrast in approach is remarkable.
13.151 The double standards which Irving adopts to some of the documents and to some of the witnesses appears to me to be further evidence that Irving is seeking to manipulate the evidence rather than approaching it as a dispassionate, if sometimes mistaken, historian.
Irving’s concessions
13.152 It was a striking feature of the case that in the course of it Irving made, or appeared to make, concessions about major issues. In doing so he resiled from the stance adopted by him in relation to those issues before trial. Such concessions were made by Irving in relation to the shooting of Jews in the East; the use of gas vans at Chelmno and in Yugoslavia; the gassing of Jews at the Action Reinhard camps; the existence and genocidal use of gas chambers at Auschwitz and the Leuchter report.
13.153 Thus the Defendants contend that, having previously asserted that the shooting of Jews in the East was generally unauthorised and carried out by small bands of criminals with Hitler’s partial knowledge but without any order from him, Irving accepted at trial that perhaps as many as 1.5 million Jews were killed on the authority of Heydrich and on a systematic basis. He conceded also that Hitler not only knew of the shooting of the Jews in the East but also sanctioned their murder. He agreed that Hitler had taken the initiative in ridding the Altreich of Jews. Irving’s concessions on these issues were in stark contrast to his case as it stood before trial.
13. 154 At a later stage in the trial, however, Irving retracted, as least in part, the concessions he had made. He partially withdrew his acceptance of Hitler’s responsibility for the shooting. In a written submission Irving argued that the treatment of deported Jews suggested a lack of system and co-ordination and that there was no clear and unambiguous evidence of Hitler’s awareness of the mass murder in the East of European Jews. Irving claimed that he had adopted the position before trial that the killing of the Jews in the East had been largely systematic and much of it had been carried out under orders. He claimed that there was no significant shift of position on his part. But it appears to me that Irving did shift his ground in a significant way in the course of the trial, especially in regard to Hitler’s authorisation of the killing.
13.155 In regard to the use of gas vans, Irving was prepared before trial to accept no more than that there had been an “alleged liquidation” of 152,000 Jews at Chelmno and that gas vans had been used on an experimental basis and on very limited scale. At trial he accepted that there had been a systematic use of gas vans at the camp; that in one relatively short period 97,000 Jews had been murdered there and that he had been wrong to say that the use of the vans was experimental. He also accepted that the Nazis used gas vans to kill Jews in Yugoslavia instead of shooting them. Irving’s explanation for these changes in his case was that he was making admissions in order to deal with the issues expeditiously.
13.156 In relation to the Reinhard camps, having claimed before the trial that there were no gas chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor or Belzec, Irving accepted at trial that he could not challenge the accepted figures for the numbers of Jews killed at those camps which were 700-950,000,200,000 and 550,000 respectively. He again later explained his concessions as having been made “formally” in order to speed the trial along, adding later that he had seen no documentary evidence to support the figures for those killed. I have already given my reaction to that response.
13.157 I have earlier summarised the manner in which Irving altered his position in relation to the number of Jews killed there by gas but also to the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. On both these issues there was in my view a radical shift of ground. Irving says that he has always accepted that many Jews were killed at Auschwitz. So he has, but not by gassing.
13.158 I have also described Irving’s concessions in relation to the Leuchter report: see paragraph 7.89. Irving had previously expressed the view that the conclusions of the report were irrefutable. At trial, as has been seen, he agreed without any great protest that the vast majority of Leuchter’s findings were wrong and the report was fundamentally flawed.
13.159 What is the significance of these alterations in Irving’s stance in realtion to the issue with which I am at present concerned with, namely Irving’s motivation? It seems to me that the Defendants are justified in their contention that Irving’s readiness to resile from positions he had adopted in what he has written and said about important aspects of the Holocaust demonstrates his willingness to make assertions about the Nazi era which, as he must appreciate, are irreconcilable with the available evidence. I also consider that there is force in the Defendants’ contention that Irving’s retraction of some of his concessions, made when he was confronted with the evidence relied on by the Defendants, manifests a determination to adhere to his preferred version of history, even if the evidence does not support it.
Extraneous circumstances: Irving’s denials of the Holocaust, his racism, anti-semitism and association with right-wing extremists
13.160 I pointed out in paragraph 13.139 above that there may be circumstances extraneous to Irving’s practice of his profession as an historian from which it may be the legitimate to draw inferences as to whether his misrepresentation of the historical evidence has been deliberate. If the evidence supports the view that Irving is a dispassionate objective student and chronicler of the Nazi era, that would militate powerfully against the conclusion that he is working to agenda of his own. Conversely, if the extraneous evidence indicates that Irving holds views which are pro-Nazi and anti-semitic and that he is an active protagonist and supporter of extreme right-wing policies, that would support the inference that he perverts the historical evidence so as to make it conform with his ideological beliefs.
13.161 I have already set out in section VIII above my conclusion that Irving displays all the characteristics of a Holocaust denier. He repeatedly makes assertions about the Holocaust which are offensive to Jews in their terms and unsupported by or contrary to the historical record. I have also given at section IX above the reasons for my findings that Irving is an anti-semite and a racist. As I have found in section X above, Irving associates regularly with extremist and neo-Nazi organisations and individuals. The conclusion which I draw from the evidence is that Irving is sympathetic towards and on occasion promotes the views held by those individuals and organisations.
13.162 It is not difficult to discern a pattern to the activities and attitudes to which I have alluded in the preceding paragraph. Over the past fifteen years or so, Irving appears to have become more active politically than was previously the case. He speaks regularly at political or quasi-political meetings in Germany, the United States, Canada and the New World. The content of his speeches and interviews often displays a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias. He makes surprising and often unfounded assertions about the Nazi regime which tend to exonerate the Nazis for the appalling atrocities which they inflicted on the Jews. He is content to mix with neo-fascists and appears to share many of their racist and anti-semitic prejudices. The picture of Irving which emerges from the evidence of his extra-curricular activities reveals him to be a right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist. In my view the Defendants have established that Irving has a political agenda. It is one which, it is legitimate to infer, disposes him, where he deems it necessary, to manipulate the historical record in order to make it conform with his political beliefs.
Finding as to Irving’s motivation
13.163 Having reviewed what appear to me to be the relevant considerations, I return to the issue which I defined in paragraph 13.138 above. 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.
Now, you inform us that unless and until somebody stuffs the documents referred to under your nose and props your eyelids open, you assume they do not actually exist, right? Gzuckier 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the examples I gave above (by the way, please sign your posts, as otherwise this can get very confusing) were just examples of Irvings misrepresentation of historical facts. Gzuckier has done a far better job of showing up Irving's failure to show all the facts. Oh and the St Nazaire Raid - no French workmen were killed on the ship. It was the day after the raid, the ship was wedged in the docks and there were still unsecured munitions everywhere. It was covered in German soldiers and sailors investigating it, when the timed charges below (and this, by the way, is a very famous raid) exploded, badly damaging the dock as planned. Now in the aftermath of the explosion there was complete confusion, with German soldiers in a state of confusion and many thinking that they were under attack again. Fire fights between German units started up and French civilians were killed in the crossfire. Darkmind1970 08:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Easy one first - St Nazaire - wiki, maybe an unreliable source - has the crossfire instance at another time I believe. The explosion of the ship killed English commandos( 2 ) , Germans and civilians ( French I assume ). I traced down one of the emminent judge's statements ( the one on Bischoff caught my eye). Bischoff appears to have been a contractor who was working on a hot water boiler. Unless we conclude that contractor Bischoff was prevy to the dictionary of Nazi code words his memo about the intricacies of plumbing is hard to reconcile with the emminent judge's concerns with Mr Irving's honesty. Most of the rest of the judge's concerns appear too vague to actually pin down - he uses "appears" an awfully lot in a legal judgement doesn't he. Besides Irving thinking this memo - series of memos - was a forgery we also have Pressac - an emminent holocaust supporter. However, I believe nitzor et al have found useful items in the memos so they hate to dismiss them entirely - contradicting Pressac no less. The judge obviously agrees with nitzor et al - he must be a holocaust trivia scholar.

That would be SS Captain Karl Bischoff, Sonderbauleiter [Special Head of Construction] for the camp, and later Leiter der Zentral Bauleitung [Head of the Central Construction Management] for the Auschwitz region? and the "letter dated 28 June 1943 from Bischoff to Kammler (the authenticity of which Irving challenges) setting figures for the incineration capacity of the five crematoria, according to which their total capacity is 4756 people in every 24 hours"? and Pressac, who references Bischoff's various memos including this document numerous times with no question of their veracity in his book, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" [3], but refers to this letter as "an internal propaganda lie of the SS" because he believes they were inflating the crematorium capacity to please their bosses? That doesn't constitute a forgery, in any meaning of the term. If I may borrow but alter the judge's words: "In my opinion there is force in the opinion that all your “errors” converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Irving and reflect your partisanship for the Nazi cause. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to me by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on your part knowingly to misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with your own preconceptions. In my judgment the nature of these misstatements and misjudgments is a further pointer towards the conclusion that you have deliberately skewed the evidence to bring it into line with your political beliefs." I reiterate my former position; there are enough fora on the net which would welcome your posting of this material, but I don't feel that it advances the goal of Wikipedia in putting the most accurate and reliable set of facts out as possible. Gzuckier 16:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The only reports of French civilian deaths during the raid are from the firefight between German troops in the aftermath of the explosions from additional explosives left by the Commandos elsewhere on the dock. German officers and other ranks, along with German civilian workers, were killed or injured when the Campbeltown went up. But Irving states - specifically - in Hitler's War that French workers were on the destroyer when it went up. As for Mr Justice Gray's comments on Irving, he uses legal terminology. Read the entire judgement. Darkmind1970 13:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Wiki - St Nazaire Raid - I guess we are reading the same article. The first dock explosion says German soldiers and civilians ( maybe it was just German civilians ) - I will try to check this out.

Not just Wiki- I've looked at a wide range of articles via google. I'll double check later once I get home and access my books. Darkmind1970 15:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


I've checked the web and can find Hitler's War where Irving says 60 French workmen and sightseers were killed. Nothing about on board the ship. Other sources are totally concerned with English losses. Does Irving have another source where he says on board or civilians. I suspect that he just didn't dream up the dock incidence. The source on the wiki St Nazaire Raid - jamesgdorrian - gives little, I doubt Irving would have used him as a reference. Any references for the St Nazaire local cemetary? PS The St Nazaire city homepage says 479 were locals were killed in about 50 bombing raids by the Allies. The site fettes.com/scotsatwar shows a picture of the ship just before it blew up. I can only see three figures in the photo - doesn't match any of the casualty figures ( 40,400,60,etc). I guess until someone took a trip to St Nazaire this may not be anserable by sources. War books tend to count their own guys and minimze civilians. A head count of headstones with the raids date on them would probably be pretty close. Maybe Irving will answer an email about where he got his number - probably some archive.


With Pressac putting forth such a definitive destruction of the Bischoff memos I am surprised that the defense - Lipstadt - and the judge used it so prominately in their case and judgement. I guess that Irving is not a very knowledgeable revisionist, otherwise he would have blown it out of the water - even subpoenaed Pressac ( if he is/was alive ) or at least brought in a documents expert. Probably the judge would have just shifted to wherever Irving missed a point though - I have a better chance to climb Mt Everset in my pajamas than he had to win ( whether he was right or not - stupid to take Goliah to court in Gaza).

Once again, where in the world are you getting this "Pressac putting forth such a definitive destruction of the Bischoff memos"? I guess it makes sense; somebody whose grasp of history is even worse than Irving's, criticizing Irving. Do you know anything about Pressac at all? Pressac was a denialist until he visited Auschwitz and saw the archives with his own eyes and became convinced by, among everything else, the Bischoff documents, which he refers to profusely in his book. (Perhaps you could do so, in lieu of giving us all the benefit of your beliefs that nothing that you have not personally seen exists). His "destruction" as you put it consists of believing that Bischoff overstated the cremation rate in order to look good for his bosses; but the majority of historians who are not David Irving believe that Bischoff's rate is more accurate than Presssac's estimate. Once again I wonder; isn't there anywhere else more dedicated to your quixotic search for hysterical accuracy at all costs than the article talk pages of wikipedia? Gzuckier 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Sorry for the probable confusion - first most of the memos with Bischoff ( not the contractor like I first said but their boss ) are accepted as authenic ( as much as copies of copies can be - Russian archives must hold/have held the originals ). However, Pressac in his very thorough book reprints the copies. Checking out the signatures, Pressac seems to have not noticed, the same man seems to have multiple people writing his signature. I assumed this was well known and also assumed that multiply documents with what appears to be forged signatures left you with at maximun one true document - the question is which one. ( I assumed that Pressac with his thoroughness and his use of the documents unwittingly ruined them. ) Also the word Vergasungkeller, on the cover sheet of one multi-page memo seems to be the first and last use of the word in the German language - at least one "scholar" hasn't been able to find it in any other literature. ( The first and last use of a word makes for a dead end even in the code word realm. )

Glad to have cleared it up for you. Any other confusions you have re the large volume of evidence? Gzuckier 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Internment concluded

I changed the section title from "internment concluded" to "release." Internment is the practice of confining large numbers of people without trial during wartime. If it has a dual meaning as a synonym for imprisonment, it must be much less well known. The use of the word "internment" in an article indirectly related to the Second World War, when it isn't being used in the sense I just described, is misleading. David Irving certaintly had a trial, and was found guilty. JF Mephisto 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe it should be "release from prison", though? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree - release from prison sounds fair enough. Darkmind1970 13:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I have read that Irving spent his time in jail reading the files of Hoess. It appears he is on the trail of writing about Auschwitz and/or Hoess. It will be another non-peer reviewed mammoth of a book I suspect - footnotes to die for. You have stirred up a monster, it would have been better to have left him alone I'm afraid.

You mean another book that selectively quotes from the evidence, leaves out large sections, misrepresents facts and relies on dodgy theories? How large a monster are we talking about? Darkmind1970 09:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


He may get really nasty and just quote proholocaust peer reviewed "historians - now that would be a low blow. I've asked before for a list of his errors ( got 1. whether Frenchmen were on board a boat 2. Dresden body counts - we need more than that - please don't print out the stupid judge's decision again, I/we've all seen that ad nauseum ).

Rereading the article I noticed that much of it was built on Guttenplan - a journalist, not a "peer reviewd historian" one book. Any good source of his background other than the Nation.

Really, is relying on Guttenplan a good, honest move by wiki. Why not use Richard Evans or Mathias, someone we recognize better?

I have now made the intro more fitting and polite

I will have no reference to anybody having 'served' a prison sentence, as if this was some honurable undertaking, like serving the Bush government , for example.

I will have no reference to 'unsuccesfull' libel cases, as the result follows in the next sentence, and it is up to anyone to judge whether he thinks it is succesful or not, it might have been succesfull in some respects in the eyes of David Irving, and it certainly seemed to be a success of Ms Lipstadt, so you see, you cannot coin any juridicial case as successfull or not, as this is not a neutral statement. Sir-John-Peters 09:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Update : Someone has just reverted the text back as it was before, without discussing it here! That is what I was allways told: Do not make any edits without discussing them here. But this nomenclature prefers to rest silently in the background, apparently thinkíng that their rationale cannot survive if brought out in the light, and they may be right on this.Sir-John-Peters 11:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For you cowards hiding in the back, using vandalism to revert my justified and careful argued edits, I will inform you that i have removed this section:

>Irving's credentials as a historian have been discredited as a result of controversy surrounding his Holocaust denial and misrepresentation of historical evidence. He served a prison sentence in Austria from February to December 2006 for Holocaust denial[1].<

This is irrelevant It is not the role of an encyclopedia to report any ones standing in certain quarters of the public domain, and that someone may have criticised him. An encyclopedia should lay out the facts, and let the reader conclude for hilself. And as I said, I will have no reference to anyone having 'served' a prison sentence. Sir-John-Peters 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You make no sense - in fact, I even have trouble parsing your grammar. Irving's prison sentence and the result of the Lipstadt lawsuit are major notable events and belong just where they were, and where I have restored them. --Stephan Schulz 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that you take the liberty to answer back to me, despite bearing the name Schulz.

It surely must be a misunderstanding, or you must be under the dillusion that somehow you and I are equals. Sir-John-Peters 16:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely hope not. --Stephan Schulz 17:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only say it is a terrible family name you have got. I am from Denmark and despise all germans! Sir-John-Peters 17:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider it a rather stupid attitude, but that's your prerogative. Repeated POV pushing and reverting against consensus is not. --Stephan Schulz 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Sir-John-Peters, if you carry on with this aggressive and intransigent tone, you'll very probably be blocked. Please read the civility requirements and the three revert rule. In the meantime, please don't keep making the same changes again and again against consensus. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not making the same changes. Now I am going to change something else Sir-John-Peters 18:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All of you who have been after me now and in the past: shame on you. I don't know if you considered me an englishman or something else, but now that I have reveiled my true identity you seem to retract, and this just makes me disgust you even more! One shouldn't think it was possible to do it more than I have done previously, but it is.Sir-John-Peters 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir-John-Peters why don't you take a break from this article until the edit-war blows over? There are plenty more that can do with edits of your quality. Then after some time return and restate your case for the changes on this talk first asking for responses and in a good faith act to build consensus. Carrying on in this vein will only lead to punitive action by admin as Squiddy already outlined. You are a good editor and your points are valid to my eyes so please consider this constructive advice. D Mac Con Uladh 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

This area looks terrible. Can someone familiar with the article prune back some of the links? It even has a link to a torrent (dead). Perhaps a max of five to get a mixture of commentary and other sources wouldnt look so ramshackle? D Mac Con Uladh 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Bad english flourish in the introduction

like: >Irving's credentials as a historian have been discredited as a result of controversy <

This must be corrected as soon as possible. If no one else does it out of their own initiative, I shall have to look into it. In the meantime, I have added this accurate disription of events from his arrest in November 2005, and till his release in December 2006.:


>On the November 11, 2005 he was arrested in Austria charged under Austria's 1945 "Verbotsgesetz" (Banning Law) with having uttered illegal opinions on history at a 1989 talk . On February 20, 2006 he was sentenced to three years in jail. His lawyers triumphed in the Court of Appeal and he was released on Dec 21, 2006 after 400 days in solitary confinement .<

HISTORICAL NOTE :Austria was occupied by the USSR from 1945-48, and it was their strict Anti-Nazi laws, that got Irving imprisoned. Sir-John-Peters 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Would this be a good place to point out that the anti-Nazi Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz or VerbotsG), passed (unanimously, I believe) on May 8, 1945, as the first law passed under the new Austrian Republic, did not mention Holocaust denial, Auschwitz denial, Holocaust revisionism, or any such item? (Das Verbotsgesetz im Spannungsverhältnis zur Meinungsfreiheit. Eine Verfassungsrechtliche Untersuchung, Wien, Verlag Österreich, 2005) That was added with the rather well known "law 148" enacted in 1992, under which Irving was charged (Bundesgesetzblatt 1992/148), 7 years after the German law enacted in 1985. [4] Presumably the Soviet control of Austria had somewhat ebbed by the 1990s? Gzuckier 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop replacing sourced material. What stands in the introduction is factually correct; more details, including his appeal and release, are provided in the body of the article. I'm not sure what the point of your inaccurate historical note is; Austria was occupied by the US, UK, France, and the USSR until 1955. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In contrast to west-germnany which was solely occupied by western powers, what marks Austria out, is the presence of Soviet Troops until, as you say 1955. And this verbotzgesetz-law from 1945 that the Austrians have, is heavily influenced by the soviet presence, just like similar laws in former East-Germany.

>After World War II, the United States and Britain declared the Austrians a “liberated” people, but the Soviets prolonged the occupation. Finally Austria concluded a state treaty with the Soviet Union and the other occupying powers and regained its independence on 15 May 1955<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria#Austrofascism_and_the_Third_Reich Sir-John-Peters 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What about similar laws in liberated Western Germany? Were the Soviets to blame for these, too? --Stephan Schulz 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the sentence 'He served a prison sentence in Austria from February to December 2006 for Holocaust denial' to the end of the lead para. This fits better chronologically, but I did it because the damage to Irving's historical credentials was more to do with his failed libel action, so (after sentence move) the first two sentences now fit together without the Austrian prison term incongrously placed in between them. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Gzuckier makes a very interesting point above. The anti-Nazi laws/excuse has nothing to do with the Holocaust Protection Laws. They were only enacted about 50 years later to squelch historical research that was getting to be politically embarrassing. By the 1990s it is doubtful that the resurgent(a joke) Nazi party was much of a threat. The oft repeated wiki argument about the need to stop Nazism by stopping research/speech seems hollow when the dates of this need are exposed. 159.105.80.141 13:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GROSS DISTORTION

This entry is egregiously one sided, obviously written by those who conspire against Irving for an agenda other than accurately writing his biography. The administrator, gwernol, reverses any edits that attempt to remove the bias. If this is typical of Wikipedia, then it is the crap website some say it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.93.250 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Any attempts to deny that he's a Holocaust denier or to assert that he is now a recognized historian will require evidence. I don't know what else you're complaining about. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jews editing this page dominate the article. It is a bit like having Nazis edit an article on Ben Gurion, Mr. Rubin.

I am generally an Irving "sympathizer" and suspect the claims about him being a "Holocaust Denier" were unfortunate and ill-formed opinions. Nevertheless, given that the courts have generally ruled against him, (especially when he represents himself), and given that the academic community appears to accept Lipstadt's claims, Rubin is correct. Besides, I've taken a quick look through the article, and I see that it continues to be very balanced and very fair to Irving, despite his best attempts to "shoot himself in the foot". --Otheus 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, I didn't know that I'm Jewish. Oh wait, is that a hint of bias? Please don't make such silly accusations. Darkmind1970 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down - Lipstadt is a theologian and we call her a great historian ( to say nothing of one of the greatest historians, Gibbons ). Historians write history - propagandists write propaganda. Now we have to figure out who is who. Denying the holocaust may turn out to be history or propaganda, ditto supporting the holocaust. Now put up or shut up - we could all meet in Poland with shovels if anyone wanted to settle this once and for all.159.105.80.63 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent a Summer in Poland in 1986. I visited Auschwitz and can tell you it is an experience I will never ever forget. Very moving. --Tom 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That is very touching, Tom. Yes, it is a sad memorial - it is supposed to be that way, you aren't at Disneyland - but there is nothing to be seen that proves anything. Of course, you could take samples to examine later, but then you'd end up like Germar Rudolf. By the way, I was there after the plaque announcing, "Four Million People Suffered And Died Here At The Hands of the Nazi Murderers..." was changed to "Forever Let This Place Be A Cry Of Despair And A Warning To Humanity Where The Nazis Murdered About One and A Half Million..." I guess you missed that. So where do I stand? Nobody has the honor to tell the truth about anything in this world anymore, so I don't even care.--172.145.151.148 04:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"Denying the holocaust may turn out to be history or propaganda, ditto supporting the holocaust." Um, no. The Holocaust happened. Even Irving now denies that he denied the Holocaust, although he has been shown not to be a reliable source. The Holocaust is not questioned by any reliable historians, only by a few cranks on the fringe. An encyclopaedia need not obfuscate to satisfy a fringe minority that denies all of the evidence from extermination camp survivors, from the Allied soldiers who liberated those camps and saw the gas chambers and the piles of corpes, and from historical researchers. The issue is settled. Ground Zero | t 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Allied soldiers ( all except the Russians ) all saw gas chambers that didn't exist ( accepted by all reputable historians ). However, you are right in one issue, there were corpses - but not gassed ones. By persisting in repeating historically inaccurate "facts", it is plain to everyone not on the fringe that the issue is still confused by legend.159.105.80.63 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Allied soldiers... all saw gas chambers that didn't exist...." Mass hallucinations? How could soldiers see something that didn't exist? I don't understand what you are trying to say.Ground Zero | t 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A piece of trivia that would be good in the article. In 1992, in Vienna, a David Irvine ( close but not quite ) was arrested by Austria. David IrvinE, was English but some bigshots kid. There had been a warrant for David IrvinG, issued by the Austrian ambassadore to England ( under pressure from some English group). Whether anyone knew about the warrant I didn't read. David IrvinE certainly was surprised.159.105.80.63 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Above - groundzero - all the camps captured by Allied troops are now know to not have had gas chambers ( historians all seem to finally agree on this one. Of course the exception is the Rusian Allies ( they got all the Polish camps - the alleged gas chamber ones.) So when you hear that an American saw a gas chamber just smile - unless he was with the Russians. 159.105.80.63 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the major death camps were all in the east. Do you have a source for the trivia story? --Guinnog 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the wikipedia article - Holocaust - is probably an okay citation. There are probably several thousand on the internet - Yad Yashem, etc that have put the gas chambers in Poland. Anyone who saw gas chambers outside Poland is up against all historians now ( in the 1950s,60s,70s,80s and maybe the 90s they were still seeing them in Germany but that is really old now ).159.105.80.63 11:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a "controvery" in the imprisonment area.

I've added a much needed "controvery" part in the imprisonment area. There was international controversy concerning his imprisonment and free speech issues so I've added a brief mention of those people who opposed his imprisonment on free speech grounds.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with it, quite apart from how badly-written it is. I doubt whether the references can sustain the conclusion they are being used to sustain at the moment. --Guinnog 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Well give me examples of how it's written badly as well as examples of how the sources don't support what is in the text. I quoted directly from them mostly.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed it and got rid of the "it's" for "its" and the "should of". I am still not convinced that it merits a section of its own. --Guinnog 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Why did you remove the mention of "significant amount of controversy"? The controversy caused by his imprisonment would warrant the lable of "significant". Also the Glass article actually argues that "Arguing that a society that prohibits the free speech of fascists is actually resorting to fascism to fight fascism" stating that, and i'm quoting here.."That is no way to suppress fascism. It is fascism." Moreover Irvings imprisonment was an international issue. It was covered by many international news organizations.Wikidudeman (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned, it was awfully badly written and I was trying to get it into more encyclopedic style. I don't think any significant meaning was lost. --Guinnog 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Images are copyright

I noticed that the images are suspect, and checked to find that the uploader had stolen them. 4 of them now listed as copyviolations. Dee Mac Con Uladh 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Discredited?

Couple of problems. From what I can tell, he has no "credentials" as a historian and never had such credentials so right there we have a problem. Second, his research in books like "Goebbels" has been defended by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and others in the mainstream, so I'm wondering if condemning all his work in this article is appropriate. It would be more NPOV to state that his research in the area of the Holocaust (and maybe the Dresden bombings) has been discredited. Khorshid 03:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In a 2001 article Christopher Hitchens himself described Irving as "discredited".[5] Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: Has he ever denied the Holocaust outright, e.g. has he ever said "The Holocaust never happened"? The article doesn't seem very clear on this issue. Khorshid 03:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust deniers are usually quite careful not to state outright that "the Holocaust never happened", and that's not what Holocaust denial is anyway. Please read the Holocaust denial article for further information on how Holocaust denial is defined. Also, it's not particularly relevant; he has been described as a "Holocaust denier" in several court cases, and even jailed for it. Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's bias to say he has been "Discredited". Maybe some things he believes in have been discredited but his status as a "historian"? Has it? Wikidudeman (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes.--Stephan Schulz 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
When? How? Sources? Simply being a "bad" historian doesn't mean one is not a historian at all. How exactly has his status as a historian been "discredited"?Wikidudeman (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
He's been discredited for three reasons. First, he supports (or supported, or maybe supports, or maybe once supported, depending on who you ask and when and how often) extremely unpopular and very politically incorrect opinions; namely that Hitler maybe wasn't so bad after all and that maybe the Holocaust wasn't quite as bad as is said. Two, Lipstadt essentially discredited him as an historian by labeling him as a holocaust denier and during the trial, proved it. Third, during that trial, a real, live, professional, degree-holding, credentialed, peer-review-published historians demonstratively showed how Irving had twisted and distorted history to either shape his world view or to sell books. --Otheus 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how any of that means he had been "discredited as a historian". Maybe some of the things he supports or pushes has been discredited. However it doesn't follow that his "status as a historian has been discredited". What exactly does "status as a historian" mean? Wikidudeman (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If you claim to be a historian, you profess the truth when it comes to historical matters. When it becomes apparent - as it clearly has with Irving - that he deliberately ignores, distorts, or outright falsifies facts in order to promote an ideology, he no longer has credibility as a historian. --Leifern 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The judge in the Lipstadt case pointed out: "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". The judge was not just saying he was a "bad" historian. You might also want to review these statements:

  • "In 1969, after David Irving's support for Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright who accused Winston Churchill of murdering the Polish wartime leader General Sikorski, The Daily Telegraph issued a memo to all its correspondents. 'It is incorrect,' it said, 'to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author.'" Ingram, Richard. Irving was the author of his own downfall, The Independent, 25 February 2006.
  • "It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of ‘historian’ to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as ‘historical writer’ instead. Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian’s primary concern, however, is with the past. That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian." Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books, Expert Witness Report by Richard J. Evans FBA, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, 2000, Chapter 6.
  • "State prosecutor Michael Klackl said: 'He's not a historian, he's a falsifier of history.'" Traynor, Ian. Irving jailed for denying Holocaust, The Guardian, February 21, 2006.

--Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that last statement is state-propaganda. He's just (IMNSHO) parroting the pc line and the state's case. That's not to say he isn't right, of course. --Otheus 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So judges now decide who is or isn't a historian? hmmm.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Judges, historians, etc. This was a case that Irving brought, in which the prosecution had to prove that Irving was discredited. The judge heard thousands of hours of testimony, and specifically ruled that Irving had been discredited as a historian. I've added a footnote that makes things very clear. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe we should put "discredited in court as a historian"? I don't believe judges have any bearing on who or who isn't a 'historian', nor should they.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need to qualify it, since so many reliable sources have all stated that he's discredited. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Your 1st citation seems not to be in sync with wikipedia formating. it's too big and bulky for a citation.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Many articles, including featured articles, use citations exactly like that. It's commonly done when citing multiple sources. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Discredited" is a POV term. Just because many sources say he is "discredited" doesn't mean we should actually claim he is 'discredited' simply disputed as per those sources.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You've been arguing about this for days; "discredited" is the term many reliable sources use. After the lengthy discussion here, and the addition of at least 8 sources that use the term "discredited", your most recent attempt to use "disputed" (a meaningless term) is either WP:POINT, or vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, You need to assume good faith. Calling me a vandal because I disagree is not assuming good faith. Secondly, Just because a source uses a term does not men it's POV. Wikipedia needs to be NPOV and calling someone "Discredited" is clearly POV. See WP:WTA which says words to avoid include words that.."Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint." Wikidudeman (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not that you "disagree"; the issue is that after almost 10 different sources, all describing Irving as "discredited", are put up, you nonetheless change the word to "disputed", despite the fact that the sources use the word "discredited", not "disputed". Which reliable sources assert that Irving is not discredited? Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You are jumping to conclusions here. Calling me a vandal. The point isn't the sources. Wikipedia needs to be NPOV and calling someone "Discredited" is clearly POV. The sources can be referenced that his "status as a historian" has been disputed but "discredited" is a loaded POV term. See WP:WTA which says words to avoid include words that.."Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint." Just because the sources say he has been "Discredited" doesn't mean wikipedia needs to use that bias and loaded wording. I will be forced to take this through dispute resolution unless you give a better reason for it's being used.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. What little credit Irving had earned for his intimate knowledge of sources has been lost once his dishonesty in presenting them has been detected and confirmed in a number of lawsuits, all of which he lost on the merrit. This is a poster case for the use of the term. --Stephan Schulz 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You're letting your own personal opinions cloud your view. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No. --Stephan Schulz 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we're just citing what reliable sources have to say on the subject. And nine of them say "discredited". Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained why that makes no difference. The point isn't the sources. Wikipedia needs to be NPOV and calling someone "Discredited" is clearly POV. The sources can be referenced that his "status as a historian" has been disputed but "discredited" is a loaded POV term. See WP:WTA which says words to avoid include words that.."Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint." Just because the sources say he has been "Discredited" doesn't mean wikipedia needs to use that bias and loaded wording. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
According to whom is calling Irving discredited "clearly POV"? Please find a reliable source for your claim. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree either. Calling Irving "discredited" has been discussed to death here already, and as has been pointed out above, is totally fair and NPOV. --Guinnog 23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've now added 13 different reliable sources describing him as discredited. I'm still awaiting the reliable sources that say he's not discredited. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the last time I'll repeat myself on this matter. The point isn't the sources. Wikipedia needs to be NPOV and calling someone "Discredited" is clearly POV. The sources can be referenced that his "status as a historian" has been disputed but "discredited" is a loaded POV term. See WP:WTA which says words to avoid include words that.."Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint." Just because the sources say he has been "Discredited" doesn't mean wikipedia needs to use that bias and loaded wording. If you don't address my actual post then I will use dispute resolution.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Jayjg has shown you the sources for this. A POV which is sourced properly can only be criticised if it seems like undue weight. Show us your verifiable sources for Irving not being discredited and we can talk about this some more. --Guinnog 00:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Where are you getting this info? Nowhere on wikipedia does it say that. It doesn't say that articles can be bias if properly sourced. WP:WTA clearly says which words to avoid include words that.."Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint.". Nowhere does it say "exceptions including have sources". I have no doubt that Irving has been discredited numerous times. However to say he is a "Discredited historian" is blatantly bias and POV. Get it?Wikidudeman (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't get it. If we can show verifiable sources stating he is discredited, then that is just reporting the facts, as we are supposed to do. Do you have a suggestion for how you would like the lead to read? Feel free to post it here to see if it gets consensus. --Guinnog 00:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Just because a source says it doesn't make it NPOV. 2. Wikipedia is not a democracy. 3. I would change "discredited" to "disputed".Wikidudeman (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy had been discredited, period. We have multiple RSs which state that fact. We have none which state otherwise. This is not a NPOV issue, it's a fact issue. To present it otherwise is a perfect example of how appeals to NPOV end up producing weaselly text which ends up deceiving the reader. <<-armon->> 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all RS call Irving "discredited"

Wikidudeman may be correct. That he has been discredited is not in doubt. However, there are reliable sources which have other qualifiers than "disgraced":
There were others. In fairness to Irving, the phrase in the lead should be balanced. This does not mean whitewashing his status as being discredited. However it's clear that not all 2ndary sources, not even the Israeli Insider, considers using "discredited" to describe Irving. --Otheus 05:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a red herring, of course. If I have 10 reliable sources that claim apples are round, and 20 others that discuss sweetness and colour, but not shape of apples, that does not make the roundness of apples disputed. As Jayjg explains below, for that you need a source that disputes the fact in question, not one that does not address the issue at all.--Stephan Schulz 21:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sources don't have any obligation to be NPOV. Just because a source says he has been "disgraced" or "Discredited" doesn't mean it's a POV word. Look at the Michael Richards article for example. You won't find the word "racist" there even though what he said was racist you simply see "racial epithets" which is neutral. It doesn't claim he's racist even though he may be and even though the sources may claim he is. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral even when citing non-neutral sources. Wikipedia can't for example cite a source that says Hitler was a 'very evil man" simply because it's POV. Even if the source is right, It's still POV. "Disputed" isn't a "weasle word". It's a NPOV alternative to "Discredited".Wikidudeman (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's completely correct. First, sources that have a clear strong POV may be, by their strong bias, considered unreliable. This is a thorny issue, but I think some clear examples can be made; I would not rely on press release from Zundel or some publication calling itself the "Holocaust Denial times". Second, while I agree your Hitler analogy is correct, it would by contrast, not be POV to say Hitler caused the death of 50+ million human beings. This is because of the curtailing policy WP:WEIGHT -- we don't have to present every point of view as being equal; some have more weight than other. Now, how that applies in Irving's case, sigh, I can't say. But after seeing that even the Israeli press describes him as merely a "British historian", I would go along with "disputed" in the lead. --Otheus 12:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The term "disputed" is meaningless, and none of the sources say that. Just because a source doesn't specifically say "discredited" every time they refer to him, it doesn't mean that he isn't discredited. Indeed, some sources call him both a "historian" and a "discredited historian"; the former description does not preclude the latter (see, for example, this). The reason he took Lipstadt to court was, in part, because she said he was "discredited"; the judge found in her favor, that he was indeed "discredited". We now have 26 sources that say he's discredited; find some reliable ones that say he is not discredited. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. "Disputed" is more POV and as you say even those sources support it.Wikidudeman (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"Disputed" is indeed "more POV". Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many sources about that man. For some people is he discredited, for another people not. Some people and sources call him historician (there are many sources) and another not (there are also many sources). So why we should support one (anti-Irving) point of view? --Dezidor 12:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Policy?

Wikipedia should not support any view. It should simply say his status as a historian is "disputed" without coming to conclusions about it actually being discredited or not (even though it is).Wikidudeman (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Though we don't have to come to that conclusion, we can certainly quote or summarize those who do. --Otheus 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Should we change "Discredited" to "disputed" now?Wikidudeman (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course not. On top of the longstanding consensus on the appropriateness of the term "discredited", the term "disputed" is meaningless, and none of the sources refer to him that way. We now have 26 sources that say he's discredited; find some reliable ones that say he is not discredited. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring what I said.Wikidudeman (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant to policy or article content. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't about "what has the most sources". "Discredited" is a POV word and "disputed" is NPOV. Please see [[6]] for further information. I have asked for a comment on this dispute here [[7]].Wikidudeman (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"Discredited" is not listed as a "Word to avoid", and presenting fact based on numerous sources is precisely what Wikipedia is all about. Please review WP:V, and then provide some reliable sources for your claims. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, please see the beginning of this section where I list such reliable sources. That was an example culled from 10 minutes of work. As for "disputed", I don't see why we can't use disputed when there are sources saying he's discredited and some saying he's not. We could settle on "controversial", which is true, but hardly casts any doubt on his authority as a historian. Could we qualify "discredited" with "so-called"? That is, "Irving, a so-called discredited historian..."? --Otheus 20:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've already responded to that above. The fact that some sources describe him as a "historian" in no way vitiates the fact that he is also discredited, nor does it indicate that those sources think he is not discredited. Indeed, I have brought example of sources that describe him both as a "historian" and a "discredited historian" in the same article! Given the huge preponderance of the view that he is discredited, including the fact that the finding in the court case he brought (and lost) was precisely about that issue, you're going to have to find sources that explicitly contradict that view; that is, reliable sources that say he is not discredited. I've said this quite a few times, I'm hoping I won't have to repeat myself any more, but rather that you and others will actually try to see if there is an opposing view beyond that of a couple of editors of this page. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems obtuse not to call Irving a discredited historian. It's hard to imagine how he could be more discredited as an historian than to have the High Court say he had deliberately misrepresented historical evidence. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, Mea Culpa -- I read where you said "the former does not preclude the latter", but that didn't click. Rather, I couldn't see what point you are arguing. On the one hand, you (along with others) seem to be arguing that a "discredited historian" is not a "historian"; for instance, see the recent diff where an editor removed the "British Historians" category. On the other hand, you're arguing that a reliable source that describes him as "historian" really might imply "discredited historian" (even though they don't explicitly say so). I'm sorry, Jayjg, but you asked for a target, I hit it, and now you're moving the target. ---Otheus 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, first, the target has never "moved"; I have asked, from the start, for a source that says he not discredited. You have so far failed to provide one - none of your sources say he is not discredited, you have merely inferred that, based on your own original research assumption that if a source doesn't explicitly state "discredited", then it implies he is not discredited. But, as I've said before, finding a source that simply describes him as a historian is not good enough for you to make that inference, and I've proved it by providing sources that describe him both as a "historian" and a "discredited historian" (e.g. here). Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, You weren't moving the target. Mea culpa ad infinitum. Remark stricken. As for the rest of your remark, I reply below. --Otheus 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, for the purposes of wikipedia, we're not in the position to question the judge on that. However, surely, other sources have examined the judge's conclusions and come to their own conclusions that his conclusion lacks sufficient merit to label all of Irving's works as "discredited history". --Otheus 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Find one that explicitly says so. Also, keep in mind the issue is whether Irving has been discredited as a historian, not whether any specific work has some amount of accurate material in it. Finally, keep in mind that he sued Lipstadt because she called him "discredited", and the judge concluded that Irving was indeed "discredited"; it was an explicit conclusion of his. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's OR to assume that these sources agree that he is discredited when they don't say that he is. Further turning the tables on you, just because the other sources that say that he's a discredited historian doesn't mean they don't also consider him a historian. (That's your reasoning, not mine.) So what you're saying, according to your logic, is that it's perfectly valid to call him both a "historian" and "discredited historian". I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth -- its your asking for sources that demonstrate that he's "not a discredited historian". (I'm giving it a rest for the night.) --Otheus 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
But I don't make that assumption. I make no assumptions at all about the sources, only you do. As Stephen points out, we have over two dozen reliable sources that say he is discredited, and a bunch of other sources that make no comment on whether or not he is discredited. You are making a logical fallacy here, an argument from silence. That is original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Given my prior contextual editors, and the seriousness of your claim (that I'm invoking a logical fallacy), I'm going to give this topic a rest until I've turned it over in my mind for a few days. --Otheus 15:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The other issue is that the cites Otheus referred to do state that he's a holocaust denier. No legitimate historian denies this historical event. <<-armon->> 06:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC) The only real controversy about the guy is over the issue of whether he should be jailed. <<-armon->> 06:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
However, this I cannot let go so easily. Here's the gist of your logic:
 1   No legitimate historian accepts X
 2   Person I accepts X
 3   Therefore, person I is not a legitimate historian.
It's very fine logic. The problem is that the concept of a historian or legitimate historian is not defined by what beliefs he holds. Otherwise, one could easily substitute for X "The resurrection of Christ", or the "prophethood of Muhammad", etc. --Otheus 15:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish. Not all "beliefs" are germane. If an electrician believes in the virgin birth, it has no bearing on how good an electrician he is. On the other hand, if he doesn't "believe" in grounding his wiring, he's going to get in trouble. Given that you can find a crank who'll dispute almost anything we write on WP, this is precisely why we must attribute, use reliable sources, and remove original research. <<-armon->> 01:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed my point here. To use your example: "No legitimate electrician accepts the theory that lightning can strike the same place twice." Seems reasonable enough, and yet how is it germane to being an electrician? Similarly, if you are an historian of Germany in the 1600's, does this mean you must accept all "known history" of Germany? I think not. So the problem here is that your premise must either be logically deduced from all available examples, in which case your syllogism fails for proving what is contrary to the given, or its a teleological statement, in which case it is your point-of-view. Either way, it's not really an argument in this case. --Otheus 21:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC Response

I'm here via a request for comment made about this article. In my personal opinion, and with my limted knowledge, I have no doubt this guy is a discredited historian; however it is also true that to simply call him "discredited" in the article is POV. For the sake of neutrality I am more inclined to agree with "disputed" since any reliable source which considers him to be a credible historian (if such thing ever exists) is unlikely to go out of its way to qualify the word "historian" with "credible" "reliable" etc. My suggestion would be to say something like "Irving's status as a historian is often said to have been discredited", or maybe "The predominant view is that Irving's status as a historian has discredited"...? Phonemonkey 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just WP:WEASELing around the issue. Reliable sources call him discredited, none disagree. The claim is referenced and attributed via the references. --Stephan Schulz 22:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also responding to the RfC. I have to say that I see the validity of both sides of this argument. First off, I agree that 'disputed' is a weak and somewhat weasely word for this man; it's like calling creationism 'disputed biology'. It makes it seem like there is a reasonable debate over two potentially valid viewpoints, when clearly there is not. On the other hand, to say flat out that he is discredited could be interpreted as POV. Is a discredited historian still a historian? There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on that, from what I've read above. Some people could interpret this as saying that he is not a historian, while he obviously claims that he is; they would then interpret this as a POV statement, siding with his critics and against him. I think we need to include the fact that he is regarded as discredited, without applying the epithet directly to him, somewhat like this: "Irving's status as a historian is considered to be discredited by many authorities, including the British judge of his libel suit and many historians. (Brief description of case as in current intro)". It's not very elegant as I just wrote it, but maybe we can work on that. I think this type of intro avoids both POV, by explicitly saying who considers him discredited, and weasely-ness by pointing out that he is in fact discredited. Makerowner 16:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that my initial suggestion may have contained weasle words and would like to change it to something more similar to what Makerowner suggests. Phonemonkey 17:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Makerowner. I would however move the mention of his purported discredition to the end of the intro opposed to the very first of it. I don't know exactly how best to word it, However "disputed" isn't considered a weasel word as long as you cite the sources. Possibly "However, Irving's status as a historian has frequently been argued to have been disputed. (citations)Wikidudeman (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I realize that I didn't make clear what I meant. The example I wrote above was intended to replace the sentence "Irving's status as a historian has been discredited" in the second paragraph of the intro. Makerowner 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Undueweight? Claiming that Irving's status as a historian is "disputed" opposed to "discredited" is not "undue weight" for many reasons. Firstly, As explained above, "discredited" is a POV word. It's simply bias to say he has been "discredited as a historian". Secondly, WP:UNDUE says that "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." This simply means that we should not have as much info dealing with the factuality of his assertions as much as we deal with what has been disproved. This doesn't mean that we can use POV terms such as "discredited historian". As exampled above, there are quite a number of sources that claim that he is "disputed" and not straight out "discredited". A large enough fraction not to warrant the assertion that he is a "discredited historian".Wikidudeman (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You keep claiming it's a POV word, but that doesn't make it so. There are no sources that describe him as "disputed", but two-dozen good ones that describe him as "discredited". Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like some editors here want to judge whether or not Irving is a credible historian. But it is not for us to judge. The question is, are there verifiable sources that present Irving as discredited. Jayjg provided a source from Hitchens, and he and other have cited the trial testimony and decision. Above, Wikidudeman suggests that Jayjg is not assuming good faith. Well, let's leave good or bad faith aside. Two things are clear: first, Wikidudeman does not understand NPOV. Above, he says that "discredited is POV" as if this is an argument that using the word in the article violates NPOV. Wikidudeman either does not understand our policy or is deliberately misconstruing it. Let me assume good faith and explain to him why he is wrong: NPOV does not mean that articles express no points of view. It means that article express all major points of view, and attributes the views to verifiable sources, and not to contributors to articles. Of course "discredited" is a point of view. but it is a point of view held by many people, including historians, and this view is found in verifiable sources. We must include it in the article to comply with our NPOV policy. The only question is, who defends Irving as a credible historian? I do not mean among Wikipedia editors, whose views do not count. But what reliable, verifiable sources do we have that claim he is a credible historian? Let's see the sources and then we can figure out how to incorporate them into the article. Yes, Otheus provides several sources that identify him as "controversial." But the same sentence that identifies him as discredited also identifies him as controversial so both biews are already in the article!Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just refer to him as "legally discredited as a historian", given his unfortunate lawsuit. Gzuckier 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The law isn't what determines whether a historian is "discredited" or not. Historians are discredited by their peers. Moreover, Just because much of what Irving says has been discredited, that doesn't mean he is a "discredited historian". At what point does a historian become a discredited historian? When one thing they say has been disputed? 20% of what they say? 50% of what they say? It's totally arbitrary. We can say that some of the things he believes has been discredited such as holocaust denial, but to say that he is a "discredited historian" is POV and bias.Wikidudeman (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, You're confused. Just because sources claim something doesn't make it NPOV. I could find 50 sources that claim George Bush is an "Idiot", "Moron" or "Retarded". George Bush may very well be an idiot or a moron, but that doesn't make it NPOV and it doesn't mean I can put it in his wikipedia entry. Just because the sources claim he is a "discredited historian" does NOT make it a NPOV or non-bias term. Wikipedia must in order to maintain neutrality assert that his status as a historian is "disputed" and that his specific beliefs have been discredited, such as denying the holocaust.Wikidudeman (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Retain the word "discredited" - The controversial sentence reads: "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited[1] as a result of controversy arising from his Holocaust denial and misrepresentation of historical evidence.". I would argue that this is NPOV simply because it refers not to what the author of the article thinks but what others (especially experts or social commentators) think. The sentiments could only be considered POV if the sentence had read something like: "Because he has denied the Holocaust Irving cannot be considered a true historian". --Suidafrikaan 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


"Because he has denied the Holocaust Irving cannot be considered a true historian". I believe this is exactly what the term "discredited" is meant to convey. He could have denied any other subject but the folks who don't own our media have decided that this is too far. I can't imagine how people who have no control seem to get their way but lots of things happen by magic in this area. 159.105.80.141 13:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: "discredited" wording

This is a dispute over the accurate wording of David Irving's being "discredited" as a historian.

Comments
  • Jayjg's references pretty much suffice for demonstrating the appropriateness of the term. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that Irving's views have been discredited. However, I think it's bias and POV to say he has been "discredited as a historian". "Discredited" is a POV term, even if true. Just because many sources say he is "discredited" doesn't mean we should actually claim he is 'discredited' but simply 'disputed' as per those sources. Just because a source uses a term does not men it's POV. Wikipedia needs to be NPOV and calling someone "discredited" is clearly POV. See WP:WTA which says words to avoid include words that.."Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint." Sources have no obligation to be NPOV. Just because a source says he has been "disgraced" or "Discredited" doesn't mean it's a POV word. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral even when citing non-neutral sources.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    See WP:UNDUE. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    This isn't where we debate it. If you want to debate it, Post it in a new section.Wikidudeman (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    "We" includes you; if you want to remove your own response to my original comment here, feel free to. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As posted on section above.Phonemonkey 04:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • An attributed POV is NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jossi is right. Wikidudeman simply does not understand NPOV. He states that discredited is a POV term as if that meant it should not go into the article. NPOV insists that we include various POV's if the are verifiable/attributable. This particular POV has been attributed and verified so if must be included. "Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral even when citing non-neutral sources" - I wonder what Wikidudeman thinks this means. It sounds like he thinks it means that when we cite non-neutral sources we can cite them but not what they say. That is absurd. A host of reliable sources say Irving is discredited. We have to report that. Reporting a widely held view is not in violation of NPOV, it is complying with NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The mainstream view is that he's been discredited. Any serious encyclopeia would note this.--Urthogie 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We have multiple reliable sources that describe him as being discredited. We seem to have about 15 sources, about 10 of which explicitly use the term "discredited". If any part of the description is not NPOV, it is not making clear how close to universal the description of him as discredited is. JoshuaZ 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with the word "discredited." Jay gives many solid citations for it, and surely there are hundreds more. I do wonder however why we've substituted the word "author" for "historian." "Historian," like "poet," is a neutral, descriptive word in neutral and encyclopedic language, and a special honorific only in more rhetorically elevated language and oratory. Wikipedia is written in the former register, not the latter. There are good poets and historians as well as dismal ones.
To be fair to Wikidudeman, though, I don't think he's contesting that Irving has been discredited by his Holocaust denial. I think he's saying that the exact phrase "discredited as a historian" is not NPOV. That Irving is discredited is a matter of almost universal consensus; to what extent his present quackery discredits everything he's ever written, however, is a matter of significant dispute. The Hitchens piece from 2001 that has been cited as support for the phrase in question, for example, has this to say about Irving's earlier work: "That he had a sneaking sympathy for fascism was obvious enough. But his work on the bombing of Dresden, on the inner functioning of the Churchill government and on the mentality of the Nazi generals was invaluable. He changed sides on the issue of the Hitler diaries, but his intervention was crucial to their exposure as a pro-Nazi fabrication."

Wouldn't it make sense to substitute a sentence like this for the one Wikidudeman disputes: "Though Irving's early work was praised for its depth of archival research, his functionalist account of the Nazi Holocaust was seen by many to cross the line into rhetorical apologetics, and his subsequent forays into outright Holocaust denial have left him almost universally discredited."--G-Dett 19:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The citations also indicate why he is no longer considered a "historian". As for Wikidudeman, in fact he insists that only Irving's Holocaust denial views have been discredited, but that Irving himself has not been. The overwhelming mainstream view is that he is "discredited"; I've provided 26 sources for that, including 23 that explicitly use the word "discredited". Those claiming he is not discredited have yet to provided even one source which says he is not discredited. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Discredited" is certainly accurate and well-sourced, and a matter of universal consensus. Maybe I've misunderstood Wikidudeman, but I thought his quibble was with the specific phrase "discredited as a historian," because of its ambiguity it introduces. There are those like Hitchens, Craig, et al who would never credit another word Irving writes, but still think some of what he wrote in the past has value. Would my proposed wording be acceptable?
The Daily Telegraph's editorial directive is interesting and deserves mention, but I don't know that it should regulate our editorial policy. The other statements cited (Richard Evans and state prosecutor Michael Klack – "if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian" and "He's not a historian, he's a falsifier of history" – are morally compelling rhetorical statements, but not self-evidently good guidelines for NPOV word choice in an encyclopedia. They're invoking "historian" in its honorific as opposed to descriptively neutral sense. "If by doctor we mean someone who takes seriously the Hippocratic oath and the duty to alleviate suffering, then so-and-so is no doctor," and "If by poet we mean someone who transcends verbal craft and looks unflinchingly into the heart of man, then so-and-so is no poet" would be equivalents. No matter how morally compelling such statements may be in certain contexts, they shouldn't guide editorial policy unless they reflect the editorial policies of the majority of our reliable sources. --G-Dett 22:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
A person can be described as a "historian" either because of academic qualifications, or because he has written respected works of history. Irving never had the former, and as a result of the court case and subsequent investigations, the reputation of the latter has been destroyed. This isn't a new thing, either; as early as 1968 he was sued for defamation, lost, and had to withdraw works he had written. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"...unless they reflect the editorial policies of the majority of our reliable sources": which they do, as Jayjg has shown, with 23 verbatim instances. We can't wait til Edward Gibbon raises from the dead to have the last authoritative word. --tickle me 00:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Jayjg, Jpgordon and others that reliable sources back up the claim. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto here. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I too agree with Jayjg and the others that there are reliable sources that support the content. This one is done. Next. FeloniousMonk 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Tickleme, you misunderstand what I was referring to by the phrase you quote. "Discredited" is correct and amply supported by Jay's sources; as I said, there are no doubt hundreds more. I'm talking about whether we should refer to Irving as a "historian" or as a "writer." Jay points to several sources that explicitly prefer the latter. But the majority of sources use the former, and use it as a neutral designation, not intending any honor to Irving by it.--G-Dett 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
G-Dett, if there is an agreement that he is a discredited historian, why would we describe him as a "historian" and give him credit that is undue? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
My point once again is the the word doesn't confer any credit at all. The majority of sources use it, and use it merely as a description of the sort of writer he is – not to assign any credit or honor to the old fraud. Being a historian is not like being a lawyer or a doctor, where you're disbarred or stripped of your medical license for malpractice. No, a "discredited historian" is still a "historian," as Jay demonstrated by giving several sources that use both with reference to Irving. "A British writer," the innocent reader reads. What sort of writer? A novelist? A poet or dramatist? He was "discredited as a historian." Hmmmm, OK, so he once wrote histories but no longer does. What's he write now? Journalism? Walking tours of Provence? A weekly chess column like the late Omar Sharif?
What is the point of our coy, moral intervention in refusing to call him a "historian," when most sources do just that? Do we take editorial dictates from the Daily Telegraph? He's a British historian now almost universally discredited because of his Holocaust denial. It's a simple truth; let's just say it.--G-Dett 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"Discredited" is "to be undeserving of trust or belief; destroy confidence in" (dictionary.com); I think it's safe to say that Irving's work as a historian has been discredited, because people will no longer have confidence in his work. Even his earliest work (prior to his discrediting) would be looked at more carefully as a result of his later work. That's a classic example of "discredited". --lquilter 14:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Some things have more lasting impact than others. As the old joke goes: (NSFW) "You build one fence, they don't call you David Irving the fence-builder. You bake one cake, they don't call you David Irving the cake-baker. But you screw one sheep....." Gzuckier 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
As an "encyclopedia" wikipedia is probably best used as a jumping off place for further research. to refer to irving as a historian without a very notable note that his views are far from mainstream, and even that he resoundingly lost a lawsuit he pressed against someone who debunked his "history" is to do a serious disservice to those who would actually use Wikipedia as a source of information, rather than a soapbox. NPOV doesn't mean we have to refrain from noting that the opinions of David Icke are generally considered unreliable, for instance; this is another such instance. Gzuckier 14:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree absolutely with the principles you outline here Gzuckier. No NPOV issues arise from telling the reader that Irving is discredited. The reader should be apprised very quickly by the article lead that Irving is these days primarily known as a crank and a Holocaust denier and so on. No problem there. All I'm saying – and it's not an NPOV issue – is that we ought to specify what sort of "writer" Irving is. He's a historian. That's the genre of his writing. In formal, neutral, encyclopedic prose (as opposed to rhetorically elevated speech), "history" refers to the genre of a piece of writing, not the intrinsic value of its truth claims, and a "historian" is a writer who works in that genre, however well or badly. It is natural to want to hold one's nose when dealing with anything to do with Irving (I'm holding mine now), but it's coy, priggish and amateurishly unnecessary to not tell the reader what sort of "writer" our article is about – just because we want to show we're on the side of goodness and light and give the old fraud his just desserts or whatever.--G-Dett 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Irving's early work will be – and already has been – looked at more carefully in light of his having been discredited. While I bow to the great authority of dictionary.com, the fact remains that in academia, "discredited" means thrown out the window as hokum and bunkum. This hasn't quite happened with Irving's early work (though his figures for Dresden are now seen as grossly exaggerated). Serious scholars of World War II and Nazi Germany still find parts of his early work invaluable, troubling as that is to think about. The case of David Irving is a very unsettling one of a talented writer and historian with right-wing sympathies morphing over time into a crank and outright propagandist. It might be comforting to imagine he was always a complete fraud, and that it just took time to expose him, but the point of an encyclopedia should not be to comfort.--G-Dett 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But I thought the question was, is Irving discredited as a historian? And yes, he is: all of his work in the field is looked at very carefully and evaluated, and much of it turns out to be bunk [rewrite] a significant portion of his work has been notably critiqued [/rewrite] (the reason he is discredited). I didn't think the question was, is every iota of Irving's work discredited?. A scientist can be discredited as a scientist by showing that a significant part of his papers were fraudulent; that doesn't mean that none of his work survives scrutiny. Carlos Castaneda is discredited as an anthropologist because much of his work was completely made up, although there may be a few kernels of truthful observation buried in his earliest work. Etc. It's specifically one's career in a field that is destroyed and discredited by one's high-profile or blatant disregard for the principles of one's field: in this case, accurate and unbiased description, assessment, and analysis of history. Thus, we make the judgment about the person as a historian rather than about each and every piece of his work. It's about one's reputation and Irving's is shot. --lquilter 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Bias and fabrication are not at all the same thing, and revealed bias is decidedly not tantamount to discrediting. Are you saying his earlier work has been shown to be full of fabrications?--G-Dett 14:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No. You may be confusing the examples I gave (scientist, Carlos Castaneda) with my point about Irving. However, I'll rephrase my sentence about Irving to make it clearer. --lquilter 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Nor is "notably critiqued" equivalent to "discredited." My point is only this: nothing Irving writes now or in the future will be taken seriously. Historians are all but unanimous that he is "discredited" in this sense, so no NPOV issues arise from saying so. There is no such unanimity regarding his earlier work, however, so we have to be more careful about suggesting that this too has been "discredited." "Discredited as a historian" is an unnecessarily ambiguous phrase, because it can mean both of these things; read one way it's NPOV, read another way it isn't. Which is why I suggest the following sentence: "Though Irving's early work was praised for its depth of archival research, his functionalist account of the Nazi Holocaust was seen by many to cross the line into rhetorical apologetics. His subsequent forays into outright Holocaust denial have left him almost universally discredited, and triggered more skeptical scrutiny of his previously accepted work." Or something to that effect.--G-Dett 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This was supposed to be a RFC from outside neutral sources, not a debate area. Those of you posting have totally destroyed the format in which outside sources from the RFC post their comments. I'm going to have to take the next step in dispute resolution.Wikidudeman (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever makes you think there's a "format" for article RFC's? It's a request for comment. You got comments. It's not a request for certain people to comment; it's a request to get more people involved in the discussion, and you did that. That's the proper thing to do with content disputes; the next proper thing is to recognize that the consensus does not correspond with your desires, and move on. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Discredited" is incredibly well-sourced here and reflects the mainstream media's representations of Irving. The sources are RS. What's the issue? With all the frantic arm-waving here and at the RFM, you'd think there was just one cite of the National Enquirer instead of the 23+ from mainstream media there is now. FeloniousMonk 06:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, Just because a POV phrase is "incredibly sourced" doesn't mean it's NPOV. I could find 50 sources that claim George Bush is an "Idiot", "Moron" or "Retarded". George Bush may very well be an idiot or a moron, but that doesn't make it NPOV and it doesn't mean I can put it in his wikipedia entry. Just because the sources claim he is a "discredited historian" does NOT make it a NPOV or non-bias term.Wikidudeman (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have sources that were reliable sources that said he was an idiot that would be fine. Good luck finding things that aren't opinion pieces or other rants. JoshuaZ 14:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


mainstream media's representations of Irving - isn't this a circular reference - the people who call Irving discredted own the media and are the people with a dog in this fight. Maybe there is a small chance that they(media) have a vested interest in this fight. Is there some media outside "our medias" control - not the Middle East( they have a dog in this fight). I can't think of any - or at least any that gives a hoot one way or the other about the holocaust or holocaust denial). The almost family relationship that exists between the cause and the accusors and the bullhorn would make me think that most of the wiki "reliable sources" on this subject ( and all related subjects ) are more than slightly contaminated.159.105.80.141 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if true, irrelevant. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 14:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


This is one of the more hilarious aspects of wiki. Verifibility has to be published source but it doesn't have to be true. It makes the little ()s citations look like joke markers. Strange to see all the self-proclaimed ( maybe the truth, maybe not ) expersts and PhDs using verified but not the truth citations. Reliable source - does that mean a truthful source? 159.105.80.141 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Value of Irving's early work in light of his subsequent discrediting?

Back-to-back articles in the Times of London following Kurt Vonnegut's death give an indication of how much this question is still contested. The first was the Times obituary on Vonnegut,[8] written by Peter Stothard and published on the 14th:

Published in 1969, during the mounting protests against the Vietnam War, [Slaughterhouse Five] also increased public awareness of the tremendous loss of life that had been caused by the unnecessary bombing of Dresden in February 1945, notwithstanding that this had been eloquently enough described by David Irving in his historical account, The Destruction of Dresden, several years previously (a well researched and dispassionate account from the period before its author turned apologist of Nazism). It is a subject that has been often revisited since and continues to vex consciences to this day.

The next day (yesterday), Times op-ed columnist Oliver Kamm wrote a piece[9] with a different take on Irving's early work (not to mention Vonnegut):

Vonnegut’s philosophy and history are simplistic. Dresden was hellish — but there were not 135,000 deaths. The true figure was probably no more than a fifth of that. Vonnegut’s number came directly from the now discredited work of the Holocaust denier David Irving. (In Slaughterhouse-Five, Irving is cited by name, and a long passage, by a retired air marshal, from the foreword to Irving’s book The Destruction of Dresden is reproduced.) To a PoW digging up cadavers, accurate numbers will ever after seem pedantic. But the issue is important to historical truth and also to the ideas that Vonnegut dramatised. Dresden, whose beauty Vonnegut likened to Oz, became a sacrificial myth in a litany of Western crimes, unrelated to its industrial and political importance to the Nazis.

--G-Dett 17:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would probably be best to refer to Irving as an "Author" not a "Historian" and simply say that the specific things he supports such as holocaust denial has been discredited. Assuming that he is even a "discredited historian" then that means he isn't a historian, Right? Then why even refer to him as a "discredited historian"? It seems to me that phrase is simply used to insert anti-irving POV into the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
To the extent that Irving describes himself as a historian, and has proven to deliberately and systematically falsify the historical record, he is indeed a "discredited historian." There's a difference, btw, between promoting a kooky theory and misrepresenting facts. This is why considerable latitude is afforded historians and other social scientists, for the sake of academic freedom and other civil liberties. I don't think we should invoke "discredited" lightly, but in this case it applies. --Leifern 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Leifern here. I also agree with Jay's point that "some sources call him both a 'historian' and a 'discredited historian'; the former description does not preclude the latter." "Historian" is a category of writer, not an honorific. You don't need a license to write history, like you do to practice law or medicine or drive a car, so there's nothing to strip away from you when you've been shown to do it badly.
Wikidudeman, I thought I concurred with you, but in fact I think our positions are fundamentally opposed. I don't see NPOV issues arising from describing Irving as discredited; the almost-two-dozen sources Jay has supplied for this are surely only a drop in the bucket, and he's right that there's virtually no one who's contradicting this. You're right that "Irving is discredited" is subjective, but not in the same way or to the same degree as "Bush is a moron." My only concerns, and they're mild ones I'm not inclined to fight over, is that 1) Irving should be described specifically as a "historian," not generically as a "writer," because the latter is information-poor and the former (in encyclopedic prose as opposed to rhetorical speech) is a neutral designation of genre rather than an ascription of value (you can be a discredited historian and still a historian, as Jay stresses), and is moreover the word of choice for most sources; and 2) whatever sentence designates Irving as "discredited" should be phrased carefully, so as not to foreclose debate about what, if any, lasting value qua history resides in the works he wrote before he embraced Holocaust denial and discredited himself as an outright propagandist. Again I won't fight over this, but I will note here that no one in this debate has engaged with – much less challenged – my reasoning and evidence for these two points. Irving is a unique figure in that he is repellent to almost all literate people; I would hope however that even in extreme cases Wikipedia would follow its standards rather than its impulses.--G-Dett 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference between bringing up 50 sources saying "Bush is a moron" and bringing up 50 sources saying "Irving is a discredited Historian"? Both are bias and POV phrases that have no business in an encyclopedia. Just because something is supported by sources does not mean it's NPOV. I have already quoted the WP:WTA which says that words that "Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint." should be avoided. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That Irving has been discredited by his Holocaust denial is a central fact of his public identity and is therefore germane to this article. It's not a slangy ad hominem insult, but a specific evaluation of him that is widely, indeed almost universally held, and one that goes right to the heart of his work as a historian. --G-Dett 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You (Wikidudeman) are getting into flat Earther territory. If someone is described as a falsifier and distorter of the historical record, sues, and loses, then they are discredited. That's what the word means. Bush hasn't sued for libel after being described as a moron. End of story. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Not hardly. It's a matter of arbitrary POV phrases. At what point does a historian become a 'discredited historian'? When one thing they say has been disputed? 20% of what they say? 50% of what they say? It's totally arbitrary. We can say that some of the things he believes has been discredited such as holocaust denial, but to say that he is a "discredited historian" is POV and bias. The best and most rational and POV thing to say is he is a "disputed historian" and then list the specific things that he says that have been discredited.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
When other historians (Richard J. Evans, Christopher Browning) have examined their use of primary sources and concluded that they have deliberately misrepresented them? </rhetorical question>? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia policy, someone becomes a "discredited historian" when over two-dozen reliable sources describe them that way, and when no sources dispute that designation. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That Irving is not to be trusted or taken seriously as a historian is an opinion, yes. That this opinion is shared by an overwhelming majority of fellow historians, media figures, and laypeople, however, is a fact. It is moreover a crucial fact about him and a great part of what makes him notable enough for a Wikipedia article in the first place; for the article to withhold this fact on NPOV grounds would be completely specious, as absurd as withholding from readers of the Shakespeare article that its subject is "widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language, and as the world's preeminent dramatist."
What follows is not meant to patronize you, Wikidudeman, and if I'm wrong in my surmises just say so, but I gather that your goal here is to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't just relax core principles like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and pile on, so to speak, when dealing with a universally reviled subject, thereby cheapening itself in the process. If so, it's a noble goal and I'd like to join you in it. To that end, I think what's important is that the article avoid coyly holding its nose with prim phrases like "British writer," and that it deal more impartially with the controversial status of his early work. If this isn't your goal, then I'm afraid you're on your own.--G-Dett 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, Can you provide a link to this "Wikipedia policy" that claims "someone becomes a "discredited historian" when over two-dozen reliable sources describe them that way, and when no sources dispute that designation."? Please provide a link to this "policy". ThanksWikidudeman (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. See WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
G--Dett, That is my goal. As you say "to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't just relax core principles like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and pile on, so to speak, when dealing with a universally reviled subject, thereby cheapening itself in the process.". When I first read this article I instantly thought "worthless" due to the obvious bias editing. I feel that most people will have the same feeling. This is why wikipedia tries to be NPOV.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, Nowhere in WP:VERIFY does it mention anything about "discredited historians" or using the terminology of "discredited historians". The word "discredited" doesn't even appear on that page. WP:VERIFY can't trump WP:NPOV. If a phrase violates WP:NPOV then it must be removed even if it can be sourced. I've already explained now it isn't NPOV. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It obviously doesn't violate WP:NPOV, which says that if there are any conflicting views they must be presented. I've asked you many times to produce a reliable source that states he is not discredited. So far you have failed. Apparently there are no conflicting views on this subject. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A Request For Mediation has been filed.

I have filed a formal Request for Mediation for this article with the Mediation Committee. Those of you listed as involved parties should sign the "agree" if you want to mediate this problem. The case request page can be found here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving. I have also added it to all of your talk pages. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The RfM was rejected, with the reasoning It appears to me that consensus has already been formed via the RFC, however I could be wrong. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
They weren't wrong; you can't "mediate" your way around consensus. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Consensus can't prevent a mediation.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
When consensus has been reached, there's no need for mediation. Consensus has been reached. And consensus does not mean "100% agreement", because some editors will insist on their own view regardless of the arguments, evidence, and numbers against them. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Point to me the Wikipedia policy that says "Mediation can't occur with a consensus". You can't. Why? Because it doesn't exist. Consensus can't prevent a mediation when there is still a dispute. Period. I've addressed all of your so called "proofs". Wikidudeman (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about any more. You started a RFC, a bunch of people commented, consensus was reached. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And the only way mediation works is if al parties agree it's necessary. I think virtually all parties here agree it isn't. IronDuke 03:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case and a mediation can't occur then arbitration must be the next resort.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration doesn't deal with content issues. However, it might deal with a behavior issue. For example, say one editor insisted on forum-shopping for ways of inserting his POV into an article, even though an overwhelming consensus had developed against him - well, that editor might be eventually be sanctioned. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, You're not assuming good faith again. This is the 2nd time you've accused me of violating rules or being bias. I find it disturbing coming from an administrator. Here are the facts, I've explained how "discredited historian" is POV and bias. I've proven it as a fact and addressed all of your retorts. Wikipedia policy agrees with me. Since when is obeying wikipedia policy and insisting on neutrality a violation of rules? Never has been. Moreover, You're wrong. The arbitration committee frequently deals with content issues. You as an admin should know this. I suggest you take a look at the current cases. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration up for arbitration.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I can virtually guarantee you that arbcom won't take this case on, but I suppose you're welcome to try. They really are supposed to avoid content issues (although they slip a bit now and again), and they wouldn't tread into content here. "Policy" does not trump reality; please take my well-intentioned advice and give your fight up for lost. I know it isn't pleasant, but I've had to walk away from articles where I was quite certain I was right, because I was vastly outnumbered. (And who knows? Perhaps I wasn't as right as I thought I was.) IronDuke 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I care about Wikipedia policy and I don't want to see it ignored. People tend to ignore wikipedia policy on articles like this where most people agree on something and even though that something violates WP policy, they keep it on the article to push their POV. If we can't maintain policy on these articles how can we maintain it on any articles? Does policy get to be ignored and bias become ok when most people agree? What does that say about Wikipedia itself? Wikidudeman (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case, it says that you are wrong and the rest of us are right that this usage is extremely well-supported and well-sourced, and hence not "biased" -- rather, it is NPOV reportage of Irving's status. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Explain how I'm wrong and address what I have said. I have established how "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited" is a POV phrase. Your constant quips that "But it's been sourced" have also been refuted and addressed. Just because something is source doesn't mean it's NPOV. Explain how saying "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited" is NPOV. This is making an assertion about his status as a historian when it should simply be saying that it's "disputed" without coming to conclusions. See WP:WTA which says words to avoid include words that.."Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint." The point isn't the sources. The sources can be referenced that his "status as a historian" has been 'disputed' but "discredited as a historian" is a loaded POV term.You've really got nothing left to argue. I've shown your points to be wrong and established mine as facts supported by wikipedia policy. You keep hiding behind "consensus" to avoid discussing the facts and mediating the dispute.[[10]] This won't help the article. And this definitely won't help wikipedia become more neutral and trusted. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It obviously doesn't violate WP:NPOV, which says that if there are any conflicting views they must be presented. I've asked you many times to produce a reliable source that states he is not discredited. So far you have failed. Apparently there are no conflicting views on this subject. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Irving a Historian?

You're ignoring everything I've been posting and keep parroting the same old refuted arguments.Wikidudeman (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No, actually, I've been carefully attending to your arguments, and disagree. Proof by repeated assertion doesn't work well here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've taken a few days off to try to get a birds-eye view of this.
The argument is not whether the phrase is sourced, but whether even as a sourced statement, it is POV. For that, I think there are several sub-issues. The first is, should such a sourced POV be included in an article? Of course it should be. The next question is, should such a POV be balanced by other statements that are contrary to it, according to weight? Again, of course. The next questions are where we run into problems: Does this POV belong in the lead? That, I don't know. The next tricky one is the point I think Wikidudeman and myself were making earlier, and that is this: Can this POV be balanced by reliable sources? It is at this point that the argument seems to break into a myriad of fragments. Let's assume for a moment that it cannot. The question I want to know from everyone is this: Does Irving's being "discredited" mean that he is not a historian?--Otheus 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The view that he is discredited can't be sourced to a single source because so many sources say he is discredited. There do not appear to be any reliable sources which contradict this view. WP:NPOV indicates, then, that this is the prevailing view. His being discredited is one of the most significant facts about him. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's one where you and I might well agree. Some seem to be arguing as if "historian" was some sort of badge of honor or a credential or something; I don't think it is. As I've said elsewhere (probably archived now), of course Irving's an historian -- a really really bad historian. A fraudulent historian. A discredited historian. Probably discredited enough that it's an insult to real historians to refer to him as an historian other than obliquely ("a writer who specializes in history"), but that doesn't have much bearing on whether or not we should refer to him as one on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well said.--G-Dett 22:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe the phrase "Discredited as a historian" belongs anywhere in the article due to it's clearly bias tone. I think it should be removed and replaced with "Status as a historian disputed". It's not a "weasle word" if you can provide the actual people disputing his status as a historian.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think if you repeat yourself 100 more times it will make people start to agree with your assertions? Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself UNTIL YOU ADDRESS MY ARGUMENTS.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Your assertions have been addressed many times, but you appear not to be listening. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Where have they been addressed? Now you're making things up. All you have done is ignore my posts and make the same refuted claim that somehow the fact that your sources claim he is "discredited" that trumps any POV issues. It doesn't. You never addressed any of my actual claims. Please see the bottom thread and address everything I brought up.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Discredited as a historian" is a POV phrase...

First of all let me say that I agree that Irving's historical claims have been 'discredited'. So please do not claim I am pushing some sort of POV here. I am simply trying to make this article less bias. "Discredited as a historian" is a POV term. Just because many sources say he is "discredited" doesn't mean we should actually claim he is 'discredited as a historian' simply 'disputed' as per those sources. Wikipedia needs to be NPOV and calling someone a "Discredited historian" is clearly POV. See WP:WTA[[11]] which says words to avoid include words that.."Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint." The point isn't the sources. The sources can be referenced that his "status as a historian" has been 'disputed' but "discredited as a historian" is a loaded POV term. Just because the sources say he has been "Discredited" doesn't mean wikipedia needs to use that bias and loaded wording. Sources have no obligation to be NPOV. Look at the Michael Richards article for example. You won't find the word "racist" there even though what he said was racist you simply see "racial epithets" which is neutral. It doesn't claim he's racist even though he may be and even though the sources may claim he is. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral even when citing non-neutral sources. Wikipedia can't for example cite a source that says Hitler was a 'very evil man" simply because it's POV. Even if the source is right, It's still POV. Another example, I could find 50 sources that claim George Bush is an "Idiot", "Moron" or "Retarded". George Bush may very well be an idiot or a moron, but that doesn't make it NPOV and it doesn't mean I can put it in his wikipedia entry. Just because the sources claim he is a "discredited historian" does NOT make it a NPOV or non-bias term. Wikipedia must in order to maintain neutrality assert that his status as a historian is "disputed" and that his specific beliefs have been discredited, such as denying the holocaust. Moreover, What exactly does a "discredited historian" mean? At what point does a historian become a discredited historian? When one thing they say has been disputed? 20% of what they say? 50% of what they say? It's totally arbitrary.I care about Wikipedia policy and I don't want to see it ignored. People tend to ignore wikipedia policy on articles like this where most people agree on something and even though that something violates WP policy, they keep it on the article to push their POV. If we can't maintain policy on these articles how can we maintain it on any articles? Does policy get to be ignored and bias become ok when most people agree? What does that say about Wikipedia itself? Please address all of my points here if you believe the phrase "Discredited historian" should be kept in the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading all the above sections, please give it a rest. This constant frantic arm-waving on your part is becoming disruptive. FeloniousMonk 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I too think it's time to move on. "Widely discredited" is true as a matter of simple math. And your analogy doesn't hold--no one is calling Irving a moron in this article. It might yet be possible at some point in the future to say the Bush presidency was widely discredited as well. It would simply have to be overwhelmingly verifiable by reliable sources, as the phrase is when used here. IronDuke 12:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No. I don't oppose to saying that his "claims have been widely discredited". I oppose saying "HE" has been widely discredited "as a historian". There's a difference. One is POV, one isn't.Wikidudeman (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is why we support it with sources. He is, indeed, discredited as an historian, according to the bulk of evidence. He's discredited very much in the same way Trofim Lysenko is discredited as a biologist; even if some of Lysenko's science happened by chance or circumstance to be factually correct, it is useless because Lysenko has no credibility in the scientific world. Similarly, Irving credibility is sufficiently damaged by his fraudulent work that all of his work is suspect. Hence, discredited historian. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordon, who are you speaking for when you say that "all of his work is suspect"? There is a scholarly consensus about his recent and present work, but not, to my knowledge, about his early work.--G-Dett 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Early work such as The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17, for which he was successfully sued for libel and had to withdraw? Anyway, once a historian is discredited, all of their work is suspect. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I had in mind The Destruction of Dresden, which was cited approvingly in the Times of London three days ago. Once a historian is discredited, all of their [sic] work is suspect has the ring of good home-spun wisdom, but the fact is that the reliable sources are divided about the value of Irving's early work. We should be careful that our phrasing doesn't foreclose a debate that is unresolved in the real world.--G-Dett 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Jpgordon, I've addressed all of those arguments already. You haven't addressed ANY of mine. You ignore them and keep repeating yourself. The Trofim Lysenko article doesn't say "Discredited as a biologist". It uses less bias phrases such as "was a Soviet politician who made pretense of being a biologist."Wikidudeman (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Shrug. Whatever. In the absence of consensus, it really doesn't matter at all what your arguments are. Bye. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a sad cop out if I've ever seen one. You can't use consensus to avoid discussing the matter. That violates Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean you can ignore anyone disputing the matter and stubbornly resist discussion. That goes against everything Wikipedia stands for.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the phrasing "discredited historian" only appears in the footnotes (as of this writing [12]). I can't argue against the mention that "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited", can you? It clearly indicates that a POV exists "widely", but it is not a POV reported as fact. --Otheus 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what i'm saying. I'm saying that saying he is a "Discredited historian" opposed to saying a "disputed historian" is POV.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And it has been explained to you that
  1. "discredited" has been properly sourced from over two dozen reliable sources,
  2. there are no reliable sources which dispute that view,
  3. therefore the statement "widely discredited" satisfies both WP:V and WP:NPOV, and
  4. "disputed historian" is both ungrammatical and unsourced.
Provide reliable sources for your claim that his status as a historian has not been discredited, and that he is a "disputed historian". Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You're ignoring everything I've been saying. That's no surprise though.
1. Irrelevant. Sources don't have any obligation to be NPOV. Just because a source says he has been "disgraced" or "Discredited" doesn't mean it's a POV word.
2. Irrelevant.
3. WP:V does not trump WP:NPOV. How does having references for a bias phrase make it NPOV? That doesn't make any sense.
4. All of your sources agree that his historian status is "disputed" because they're disputing it by claiming he's "discredited".Wikidudeman (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Provide reliable sources for your claim that his status as a historian has not been discredited, and that he is a "disputed historian". Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you read what I posted? All of your sources agree that his historian status is "disputed" because they're disputing it by claiming he's "discredited". And again, Sources don't have any obligation to be NPOV. Just because a source says he has been "disgraced" or "Discredited" doesn't mean it's a POV word. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't engage in original research. The sources I provided all say he is a "discredited" historian. Provide reliable sources for your claim that his status as a historian has not been discredited, and that he is a "disputed historian". Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research. It's deductive reasoning. If someone claims someone else is a "discredited historian" then they are DISPUTING THEIR STATUS AS A HISTORIAN. This is a fact. Your sources are "disputing his status as a historian" because they are claiming his status as a historian has been discredited. All of your sources support my contention. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not original research. It's deductive reasoning.. LOL! Thanks, that was a good one! Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You didn't address what I said. If someone claims someone else is a "discredited historian" then they are DISPUTING THEIR STATUS AS A HISTORIAN. This is a fact by definition of the word 'disputed'. Your sources are "disputing his status as a historian" because they are claiming his status as a historian has been discredited. All of your sources support my contention.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Responses to both Jayjg and Wikidudeman: Wikidudeman is correct in that the qualifier "disputed" if of a weaker variant than "discredited", and is therefore not OR; calling it OR is some kind of wikilawyering; calling it OR is saying you cannot use aggregation or summarization of concepts that we're writing about. On the other hand, Jayjg is correct in that WP:V does to a large extent trump WP:NPOV. The key is balance and weight. In the article, Irving's actions and the historical context in which he is described as "discredited" are clearly explained. Therefore, a reader who encounters the article, sees the lead, and fails to read further will only be reading what a majority of reliable sources now say about Irving. Thus, it is balanced according to weight. If in the future, what the sources say about IRving change (unlikely), then this phrase can change.
And did you or did you not notice that "discredited historian" is no longer in the article body? --Otheus 01:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Otheus, I'm going to give it a break for a while since it's hardly that big of a deal.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


He may be discredited after all. I recently heard a quote from him along the lines that more women died in Teddy Kennedy's car than in a gas chamber. I can't believe that Irving thinks that 6,000,001 women could fit in Teddy's car. Maybe he was just joking about this and we can all be friends. 159.105.80.141 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I hope someday you'll make a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Over 300 edits, and not a single one to an actual article; just scores of cute comments like these. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Sorry jpordon - surprising a couple of my comments have been incorporated into wiki holocaust articles. Do you remember the cremation using fat ladies and bllod - seems to have gone somewhere ( at least for awhile ). Check out the big lie article -did Hitler invent it ( a few still think so - article switches sides every few days/hours ). How many edits have you done - 1000s?- how many will survive the chipping away of the truth. In other areas I just put out some ideas - 911( how do you melt steel with kerosene(jet fuel) - I am still waiting to see the patent details).etc... RE Irving - Irving would love to see all the documents hidden in Russia, England, US, Israel, Arolson,... made available. He would also like to see some forensic work done in Poland, etc. I wonder if most of his opponents ( the consensus of peer reviewed historians ) would like to see this stuff ( I think they would torch it first if they could - some have sat on memos for years - not just Russians( I forget the historians name but it is in one of my 300 "edits")). Shilling for Irving would be foolish, thankfully it isn't neceassary - likewise shilling for the holocaust would be foolish, let's grab those shovels and head to Poland, this can be cleared up in days. RE the Teddy joke - Irving has 1 confirmed death versus 0 for gassing ( confirmed not affirmed). You've got a long way to go to get to 1.159.105.80.141 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He's discredited. He's been proven to have distorted history. He's used forgeries in the past. We need to move on from this. Darkmind1970 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


The RAF website lists the Dresden deaths as 50,000 or more. Maybe they don't know much about the RAF but their numbers for Dresden seem to be considerably higher than some, getting near the range Irving suggested. The RAF also claims precision bombing totlaly destroyed transportation in Germany. No food for people or camps. Gradually the number of deaths in Dresden will probably at least approach the number of homes destroyed ( it seems likely that few were sleeping outdoors in the countryside). With destroyed transportation starvation and disease is almost as fast as gas - if there were or weren't gas chambers the death toll would have been about the same with no food for weeks. 159.105.80.141 19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Figures for Dresden have been keenly debated for years. The estimate of 36,000 dead takes into account the number buried at the time, the number cremated in the limited space of the Altmarkt, the number discovered in the ruins after the war and so on. Irving's estimate was based on TB47 - a document that is a forgery. It has been shown to be a forgery. Irving has admitted that it is a forgery. It has been 52 years since the Dresden raid. No new bodies have been found for some time. Transportation in Germany was badly disloocated, but was not totally destroyed - the Germans could still move troops around. If you are now blaming the RAF for the deaths in the camps then you are ludicrously incompetant in your approach to history. Darkmind1970 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


"ludicrously incompetant" - if the RAF and USAF couldn't destroy transportation in Germany - at the end of the war when the Lufwaffe didn't have ammo or gas - then I guess they would be ludicrously incompetant. Without transportation starvation sets in fairly quickly. The captured camp records showed well provisioned kitchens/hospitals/etc up to the final months of the war. As far as the number of bodies found in Dresden - I would think a holocaust believer would be lenient on the topic of magically disappearing bodies.159.105.80.141 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


RE the judgement - I have recently read that the judge listed ( or someone else ) that Irving is credited with 19 errors. Earlier 2 were mentioned - Dresden death toll ( really important to some - his estimate is about in the middle encyclopedias, etc ) and the number of people on board the ship at St Nazaire ( another bibby ). Do you have a link to the other 17 errors/lies? I stumbled onto the trial transcript - day 28 I believe . The judge seemed to have an odd/unjudgey tone with Irving - I will have to read the entire transcript some day/s. In Irving's website there is a document ( from an ADL agent ) that goes back to 1977. The animosity against Irving is very old and very deep. It appears that the agent had a lot of respect for Irving's knowledge and honesty, oddly it was the main reason the agent thought he was so dangerous. An interesting read - explains alot of the post 1977 events. 159.105.80.141 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RE Dresden. I am having difficulty understanding how the low figures of 25,000-40,000 could even be serious. Factors for a higher number:-

1/Dresden's population effectively doubled by refugee fleeing the Red Army's massive breakthrough into Nazi Germany in January. Go and look at a War Atlas, the German eastern front desintegrated. (Hitler stripped his eastern forces to get the armour to conduct the "Battle of the Bulge" in the West)

2/ 3,900 tons of bombs were dropped on Dresden in three widely spaced separate air raids. Only the first one had any effective warning. This is specficially to defeat the fire fighters on the ground.

3/Dresden was a historic city with buildings with wooden frames in many cases, the cellars often had "breakthoughs" or links that were not fire proof or air tight. There was a widespread belief that Dresden had been spared from allied bombers on purpose - the provision of purpose built deep and physically strong air raid shelters was very very limited as a result.

4/No effective "Wild Boar" Night fighters were available to harass the bombers, so the bombers executed a heavy raid without any mistakes to weaken the effect. Flak was very weak.

5/http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/dresden_ft_11feb1995.jpg

This picture is the best I can find. I hope it is ok to post a link like this on the talk page? I know Irving has made a lot of mistakes, he seemed to go off the rails completely arround 1988 or so. However, the low numbers quoted now seem to me to be very wrong and IMHO defy common sense. Does anyone agree? NightmarevisionsNightmarevisions 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


1988 was soon after the Zundel trials - Leuchter and the givernments witnesses imploding on the stand may have affected Irving mot=re than many thought. Before then you had a scholarly believer after that a skeptic. He had never really given the holocaust much thought - when he did he probably resented having been fooled for much of his life. Attacking Zundel was a strategic error - should have left the guy alone, you/we would have been spared Leuchter et al and seeing the emptiness of the holocaust academic powerhouses.159.105.80.141 12:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


The idea that a city swollen to 600,000+- had only 25,000 killed after being totally destroyed in the night in the depths of winter is slightly amusing - the number that is. For some reason it has become a holocaustic lynchpin - maybe it is the weakest research link in Irving's writings or maybe there is some other reason that I have not hit upon, but the chance to attack Irving on this does seem to be a popular theme.159.105.80.141 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At least two witnesses who were in Dresden on the night of the bombing - Georg Feydt and Gotz Bergander - have gone on public record to say that the so-called floods of refugees were not present in the city during the bombing. The prebombing population of Dresden was in the region of 650,000 - and that does not take into account the number of men away on active service. It was Irving who claimed that this had doubled with the influx of refugees and Russian prisoners of war. He even tried to claim that concentration and death camp survivors were in the city. This was based on pure speculation, as well as figures supplied by someone called Howard Gee. Mr Gee has never since been heard of again. Irving has, however, since retracted this claim as the RAF dropped millions of fake ration cards in the area in an attempt to confuse the local authorities. Yes, there were refugees passing through the city, but I stress passing through - never meant to stay longer than a few days before being moved westwards. Irving's figures never had a leg to stand on and he knew that. The city was NOT totally destroyed. Fifteen square kilometers were destroyed. The city itself was substantially bigger than that. Irving used TB 47 as a source for his estimates for the number of dead. IT IS A FORGERY. Look it up. Even Irving has admitted that it is a forgery. As for Leuchter, it has been pven, again and again, that his 'study' was so full of scientific holes that it might as well have been nothing but air. He was not an expert. The Zundel triel revealed him to be a fraud. As well as Zundel. Why are you bringing up points that have been shot down so many times before that they're getting to be easy targets? Darkmind1970 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Got any links to Gotz and Georg - what I found on them was meager. How many nights do you have to be in Dresden to get killed? Is the new official version of Dresden morphing into the claim that all the houses actually were empty?159.105.80.141 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


The Zundel trial - transcripts please! - showed that the prosecution witnesses couldn't defend their premise. Hilberg even refused to testify a second time - the others weren't even asked. Leuchter and his study have done quite well over the decades - anyone who wants to improve on it will have to go to Poland and try to replicate it or refute it. While they are doing the study take a complete forensic team - chemists, backhoes, GPR, .... Someone is going to be really surprised and unhappy - I am not totally sure ( fairly confident but always open to being surprised) but willing to see ( some people seem to be sure without checking - actually seem to resist checking ).159.105.80.141 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


From above - I found the source of the 19 - Evans for Lipstadt. It seems the judge threw out 7 of the errors that Evans "found". The St Nairze ( 6 on board ) and the Dresden ( how many dead ) plus 10 others made the cut. The ten seem to be disputes in intrepretation of some documents etc. The judge seems to have become an expert on esoteric details of a surprising number of subjects, and he always seems to come down against Irving. I wonder if the participants switched sides ( just to mess with his mind ) if he would notice and/or switch his decision. 159.105.80.141 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC) By throwing out 7 is the judge saying the Evans lied or that Irving was correct - anyone know what the 7 were?159.105.80.141 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this is, again, totally incorrect. All 19 of Evans's criticisms of Irving's manipulation of the historical record stood up and were justified. I'll repeat that - all 19. I won't list them all, as that would take far, far too long, so I'll just quote the relevant part of Lord Justice's Gray's findings, in which he tore Irving's reocrd as a historian to pieces.
The specific historiographical criticisms of Irving
13.9 As appears from section V above, the Defendants have selected nineteen instances where they contend that Irving has in one way or another distorted the evidence. Having considered the arguments, which I have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that the criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably well-founded. For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the question of Irving's motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the Defendants Irving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined, reveals.
13.10 Whilst it is by no means a conclusive consideration, it is right that I should bear in mind that the criticisms which the Defendants make of Irving's historiography are supported by the evidence of historians of the greatest distinction. They are set out (along with many other similar criticisms that the Defendants have not pressed in the submissions made in these proceedings) in the meticulous written report of Evans, who is himself an historian of high standing. In the course of his prolonged cross-examination, Evans justified each and every one of the criticisms on which the Defendants have chosen to rely. In several instances his criticisms were supported by the Defendants' other experts, van Pelt, Browning and Longerich. I am satisfied that each of them is outstanding in his field. I take note of the fact that the expert witnesses who were summoned by Irving to give evidence on his behalf did not in their evidence dispute the validity of the points made by Evans; nor did they seek to support or justify Irving's portrayal of Hitler.
Satisfied on this? Darkmind1970 08:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


No, not satisfied - I guess I'll have to download the trial transcripts and evidentiary packets and bore my way through it. I thought someone had a list ready-made, appears not. When the judge says 19 and then most, I am wondering if "most" means all or 12.159.105.80.141 11:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I can give you a list. It's a pretty brutal list as well. It shows up Irving's twisting of the truth. You can check it against Gray's findings. You'll find that they're all there. You can find it under "Section 5 - The Defendants' histiographical criticisms of Irving's portrayal of Hitler, In particular in regard to his attitude towards the Jewish Question." It's unpleasant reading, as it shows up Irving's omissions and blurring of the truth. I need to summarise it all, which will take me a while. Darkmind1970 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're collecting opinions of Irving here's another one. While researching something else I came across a page on the "History News Network" concerning Irving's "Real History, USA," conferences. An editorial remark describes Irving as "a pariah among historians."[13] ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

AEB

No I have little interest in opinions - I would like to see what the judge thought were his lies - later I will check out Evans, et al ( others on the web have pretty well taken Evans apart but I will reread that later on my own ). The couple of cases of Irving's falsehoods that I have been shown here so far are less than impressive ( mostly vague 9 inconclusive details that it appears that Irving is probably right or righter than his critics ). Intested to see if the other 17 or 10 are of even less weight ( I can't imagine they have much more than ad hominem clout. Wikians talking to wikians don't cut it in the entirety of the rest of the world - "just the facts mame").159.105.80.141 10:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a thorny problem because Irving was also convicted for making truthful statements as well as distortion and lies. He was fined ($20,000) for one earlier claim he made even though the government admitted it was true (true or not it was still illegal to say it). The judge in his Austrian trial even ruled that Irving could not use truth as a defence hence his concentration on freedom of speech in his trial (or he did something that had the same effect, he warned Irvings attorneys that if they used truth as a defence they would be arrested themselves). That Irving made ridiculous claims is beyond dispute but so do many historians in their own subjects. Being discredited does not stop him being a historian so the word is POV as it implies that all his views are wrong. Although I abhor deniers, we have to avoid letting emotion get the better of us in deciding what is POV and what is not. “Disputed” is NPOV. The use of “discredited” can possibly be used as long as mention is made that not all his views are incorrect to qualify it. Wayne 16:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"Discredited" does not mean or imply that "all his views are incorrect". If it's his view that the sun rises in the East, I'll double-check, but allow as that he's correct about it. "Discredited" means discredited as an historian -- it's entirely possible that 95% of his views are correct, but he's still discredited as an historian because of the remaining 5% -- and that he is discredited isn't my opinion, or the opinion of any one person here, but rather the overwhelming majority opinion of the scholarly sources we cite. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying Irving is not discredited. My point is that it is POV unless the artical makes more than a token mention of him being prosecuted for truthfull statements as well and I can't see that happening due to the natural bias people tend to have against historians with similar views. Due to the subject matter itself no mention and using the word "discredited" does lead to the asumption that "all his views are incorrect". Thus "disputed" should be used for NPOV instead. Wayne 23:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In which cases has Irving been prosecuted for truthful statements? --Stephan Schulz 23:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The one he was fined for was many years ago and I can only remember reading about it. My mention of truth not being a defense was for Irvings Austrian trial where he was sentenced to 3 years. Because freedom of speech was the only defense presented there is no way to tell which of the statements he made were true (if any). I'm not actually claiming any were but we cannot assume there were not, as evidence was not allowed to be presented.
Back to the discredited dispute.......I would point out the Irving Vs Penguin books case (in 2000?). Although Irving lost, the judge said Penguin only had to prove "substantial truth" of their claims not prove all their claims. The one claim Penguin failed to prove was the accusation that Irving is discredited as a historian and the judge actually commended Irving as a military historian. Wayne 08:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Above, you didn't claim "truth was no defense", you claimed we should mention "him being prosecuted for truthfull statements as well", implicitely assuming that he was prosecuted for truthful statements. You apparently have no source for this, and just a recollection about a situation where he was not allowed to present evidence about his claims. Of course not, the relevant statements are not true, and this fact is recognized in the relevant Austrian (and German) laws (which I, on principle, don't support, but that is another question). To summarize: there is no evidence of Irving being prosecuted for true statements ever.--Stephan Schulz 09:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


I believe in Austria, etc if you claim anything contradicting the holocaust ( even minor details ) while in court you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself. Zundel's lawyer is/has undergone psychiatric evaluation for even attempting to contradicting details of the holocaust, next she will probably be tried and jailed. Claiming something that all reputable historians agree on can still get you in the slammer - particularly in Austria for some reason.159.105.80.141 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm eagerly awaiting your long list of reliable sources.--Stephan Schulz 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You (Stephan Schulz) have misread almost everything I wrote. I said that mention should be made of truth not being a defense if you use the phrase discredited historian in order to act as a counter to POV. The recollection was for the first item only not the Austrian trial where it is public record that the lawyers were not allowed to present truth as evidence. I never said irving was prosecuted for truthfull statements, I will repeat exactly what i said: "I'm not actually claiming any were (true) but we cannot assume there were not, as evidence was not allowed to be presented." I just did a search and found my "recollection" was of a 2003 trial in Munich but although I find it mentioned I haven't been able to find what the statement actually was. Wayne 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I fail to see your point. You don't create an NPOV article by adding wrong or irrelevant statements to counter an (alleged) POV statement. What you get is a bad article, instead. "Truth being no defense" is irrelevant because the basic facts about the Holocaust are historical fact, not "point of view". They are no more debated in court than Newton's law of gravity (see how far you come if you want to dispute a bullet trajectory based on general relativity). Several courts in the US and the UK have taken legal notice of the factuality of the Holocaust. Courts now rightly refuse to server as a platform for futile but publicity-generating to dispute these facts.--Stephan Schulz 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as you seem to be on a different page from the rest of us. What has the factuality of the Holocaust got to do with what we are talking about? I point out provable facts and you claim they are wrong and if right are irrelevant. A judge ruled that Irving was not discredited as a historian (although he was as a Holocaust historian). Please tell me what is wrong or irrelevant with that considering that is what this entire discusion is about? Wayne 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a bizarre misreading. Where did a judge rule that Irving was not discredited as a historian? And what again does that have to do with the statements Irving was or was not prosecuted for? --Stephan Schulz 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
?? "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". Well, as long as he's not discredited as a historian, though.... Gzuckier 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Judge of common plea as arbiter of history? Good joke. It´s better to write about criticism of Irving by other historians. --Dezidor 18:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I misinterpreted the artical. I thought it was a Bio of David Irving when it is actually a critique. Wayne 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Neither, actually. It's an encyclopedia article. A honest biography would be far more scathing; for example, the phrases "Nazi sympathizer" and "historical fraud" never come up at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is your point? You vaguely recall some trial in which you think Irving was convicted for "telling the truth", but you can't quite put your finger on what it was exactly he said? Or that some Austrian lawyers weren't allowed to present the truth somehow in some trial? Tell you what, why don't you come back when you have some concrete information from reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you actually read what people write or do you just try to discredit whatever doesn't suit your POV? Firstly it wasn't "vaguely recalled" as I found several mentions of it and what was said was not reported because it is still illegal to say it. Why should I "come back" as I never asked for the information to be included. My point was that "disputed" should be used for "discredited" as you would have noticed had you bothered to actually read everything before jumping into a discussion to attack someone. Wayne 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You're using your claims as basis for using "disputed" rather than "discredited". If you can't support your claims, it's going to be hard for us to agree to use the language you're supporting. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Discredited" is how dozens of reliable sources describe him. Do you have any sources at all to support anything you're saying? Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to put to rest Jayjg's claim that Irving was not fined for the truth. I finally found out what Irving was convicted of that was actually true. Irving claimed the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers were fake and built after the war ended. Irving was fined $20,000 for saying it even though the Polish forensic institute (and other independent specialists including Robert Van Pelt) had confirmed the truth of that statement in 1989 and the research results published. Wayne 08:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Having read the above again I better head off claims by some who won't think before replying and accuse me of saying the chambers never existed. The Germans destroyed them before the liberation. Until the 1980's the replicas were believed by the public to be the originals. The Auschwitz museum now acknowledges this. Wayne 12:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for you claims? Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Dezidor above makes an interesting point - if the critcism's of Irving were confined to historians what would be the result. IE if the judge's learned historian opinion was redlined how much of this discussion would disappear. Evans, et al would be more informative than judge Gray's opinion of Evans. Evans et al are some interesting characters in their own right. Discussing "the judgement" seems like a ( very good ) divirgenary tactic. The "historians" obviously had a bone to pick long before the trial - the judge picked their bone but his historical expertise is unknown - unless some of Lipstadt's supporters have some good background material on Gray's expertise at evaluating historical evidence.159.105.80.141 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Historian category

As the article points out, reliable sources have said Irving is not a historian:

  • "In 1969, after David Irving's support for Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright who accused Winston Churchill of murdering the Polish wartime leader General Sikorski, The Daily Telegraph issued a memo to all its correspondents. 'It is incorrect,' it said, 'to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author.'" Ingram, Richard. Irving was the author of his own downfall, The Independent, 25 February 2006.
  • "It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of ‘historian’ to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as ‘historical writer’ instead. Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian’s primary concern, however, is with the past. That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian." Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books, Expert Witness Report by Richard J. Evans FBA, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, 2000, Chapter 6.
  • "State prosecutor Michael Klackl said: 'He's not a historian, he's a falsifier of history.'" Traynor, Ian. Irving jailed for denying Holocaust, The Guardian, February 21, 2006.
  • "...Irving has never examined and interpreted facts for the simple reason that he is not a historian. He twists or suppresses evidence to fit a foregone conclusion -- the opposite of what any reputable historian does." Taylor, Charles. Evil takes the stand, Salon.com, May 24, 2001.

WP:CAT is quite clear: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It is not "self-evidence and uncontroversial" that Irving belongs in the category, therefore he should not be added to the category. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Just out of curiousity, should Trofim Lysenko be removed from the categories Ukrainian scientists and Russian biologists? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If his status as a scientist or biologist has been disputed by reliable sources, then yes. There's a difference between someone who was completely incorrect in their theories or views, and someone who was a fraud. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Many sources contains: "British historian", "right-wing historian", "revisionist historian", "controversial historian" etc. See: [14], [15] [16], [17] and many a many [18] [19] sources where is written "British Historian". Many of his opponents call him discredited historian. So he is called historian, he is British and many and many sources call him British historian. Deleting that categy is supporting only only one point of view. --Dezidor 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part of "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." are you having difficulty with? --Guinnog 20:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
David Irving said "I'm not a Holocaust denier" and I think it isn´t reason for deletion that category in this article. There was also civil proceedings (=conroversy) about this description but it doesn´t change my opinion, that he his very ofen refered as Holocaust denier (as well as historian) and he should be put into a that category. --Dezidor 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Irving has played around over the years, sometimes denying being a Holocaust denier, sometimes not. We cannot take his own word for a matter like this, we need reliable sources which establish this. I was talking about the "historian" category, and relating it to our policy on categories. --Guinnog 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources have said that Irving is not a historian, so his inclusion in that category is not "self-evident and uncontroversial"; which reliable sources have said that Irving is not a Holocaust denier? Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the court transcripts for the Irving Lipstadt case you will find that Lipstadt could not prove Irving was discredited as a historian unless I misread the definition of defamation. Justice Gray concluded that the passages did in fact bear meanings defamatory to Irving, including that: 1) Irving is an apologist for and partisan of Hitler; 2) Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial; and 3) Irving is discredited as a historian. ..... and found much to commend Irving's role as a military historian.... The judge found Irving was a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, a racist, and an associate of several extreme right-wing individuals and U.S. organizations and that these were of sufficient gravity to render the remainder (points 1, 2 and 3) of no material effect on Irving's reputation. That he is discredited as a "Holocaust" historian is undisputed but the article does not say that. It implies he is discredited as a historian(for everything). Which reliable sources do we use? The Irving critics or what is provable in law? Wayne 02:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The judge also said that Irving "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". He also said that calling Irving a discredited historian has no material effect on his reputation. Found any reliable sources yet that insists he is not discredited? Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So this is now an article on Irvings reputation? Judge Grey found the accusation that Irving was a discredited historian "false and defamatory" but according to you Irving has a reputation so truth is no longer relevant. Why is a court transcript not a reliable source? Because it does not agree with your own view? Wayne 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making me work to find sources I'm sure you already know about Jayjg.

  • "He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the truly enormous mass of German documentation. A recent survey of leading American and British historians found that a large majority agreed that Irving is a historian of repute." - Prof Donald Cameron Watt
  • "His skill as an archivist cannot be contested." - Sir John Keegan
  • "In the area I am competent to talk about, namely Churchill, although I don't always agree with your conclusions, I am always impressed by the rigor and range of your scholarship ... there are few historians with your record for turning up new and relevant documents." - Prof John Charmley

These quotes are all post Lipstadt trial. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't make it right to accept POV appellations Wayne 08:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide reliable sources for your quotes please? Which website did you get them from? Don't bother with the second, that's about archivist skills. Jayjg (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The first is supposedly from a British paper - The Evening Standard, April 11, 2000 "History needs David Irvings" by Donald Cameron Watt. This paper has been cited in everything from pro-Zionist to neo-Nazi websites, so I think the article must exist, though I don't think the Evening Standard publishes their articles online (so a trip to a UK Library would be necessary). Thanks, Jgui 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I need to see some source, so I'd appreciate it if Wayne could point me to the ones he is using. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The best "joke" is that users like User:Guinnog and USer:Jayjg believe that holocaust deniers are not historians and historians can´t be holocaust deniers. That claims also Jewish Lipstadt. User Dezidor proved that many reliable sources calles Irving historian, but thats not reason for that POV editors that vandalize this article, who don't like Irving, to delete category Holocaust deniers in article. But some opinions of some opponets who claims that "Irving is not hostorian" and many sources that calles him "holocaust denier" are reason for deletion category "British historians". Thats typical double standard. --Peter Saur 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take your red herrings and your personal misrepresentations away. It's very hard to figure out what you're trying to say but I suggest you follow Wikipedia policies and everything will be all right. --Guinnog 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Peter, please comment on article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Saur made a very valid point - it should become wiki policy. Many reliable sources call Irving a great historian - in his field the best. The ad hominem biases in wiki are so overwhelming that it may eventually become necessary to have citations for prime number theory come from nizkor. Nizkor can't be the only "reliable" source available ( by the way do you have a list of reliable sources - that way wiki might not even be necessary ).159.105.80.141 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

@ Peter Saur: It's very difficult to understand you, but you are true in one argument. Jewish historitian Deborah Lipstadt wrote in her book Denying the Holocaust that there are two groups of people: "historitians of holocaust" and "holocaust deniers". That groups are very different and nobody could be historitian and holocaust denier together. I submitted hundreds of reliable sources where is written "David Irving is historian". It proves that category "holocaust deniers" is controversial as well as category "British historians".

Post scriptum: Read Wikipedia:Be bold in updating articles and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles to understand how Wikipedia works. --Dezidor 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I got my info from doing Google searches of names. The evening Standard is not available online but the article is available in it's complete form on revisionist websites. Unfortunately "reliable" websites dont like to mention they exist. I did find the same quotes partially repeated in a book review of "History on Trial" by Deborah Lipstadt in which it was suggested that the word "Holocaust" be used in place of "World War II" (in those quotes). Understandably the review is biased against Irving. The point is that those quotes are real. Irving is discredited as a Holocaust Historian (which he has never claimed to be) but is still reputable as a WW2 Historian. You may point out that he had POV errors in some of his WW2 work (ie Dresden) but consider how many extremely reputable historians have written that the US administration were implicated somehow in 9/11 and yet they are not discredited because a part of their work is controversial. Discredited is POV, Disputed is NPOV. Wayne 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, so you don't have any reliable sources for those quotes, and the closest you have is an article that says, among other things:

Irving's supporters -- and I include in that group not just the pathetic fools who greet with laughter his comments about "Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars," or "ASSHOLS," at the white-supremacy rallies and conferences he often addresses, but the more upscale fools who are not Holocaust deniers but who continue to believe in his efficacy as a historian...

In any event, you continue to argue pointlessly. Over two dozen reliable sources describe him as "discredited". Zero reliable sources say he is "not discredited". Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I still contend that court records are a reliable source. That quote you found is typical of the POV opinions of people who are unable to separate emotion from their view and try to deny that Irving is a historian in case it lends any credibility to his holocaust views (which were discredited). It is interesting that the source of your quote also mentions those quotes supporting Irving as well, so there is no denying they exist no matter how much you try to work around it. The problem we have is that the media is itself biased hence the difficulty in finding a "plethora" of sources. Wayne 07:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note what I wrote above: there is no need to find an online reference, as long as someone can verify the source in question at a library. Anyone in the UK with access to a library should be able to verify that the British paper "The Evening Standard", on April 11, 2000 contained an article titled "History needs David Irvings" by Donald Cameron Watt. And then verify that the text cited above is in this article. This paper has been cited in everything from pro-Zionist to neo-Nazi websites, so there is little doubt in my mind that the article really exists. And then there would not be "Zero reliable sources" but at least one saying he is "not discredited". Thanks, Jgui 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Which "pro-Zionist" sites have cited this? Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


I must have misunderstood what you just wrote. If I can find places that say Irving is credible then the article would have to say disputed or well-known. Sounds too easy. Citation (1) appears to be a collection of tabloids ( and chickens ) who are following the crowd - ie who first said "discredited" and how fast did the orhters follow. If you take out the opinions of tabloid writers the list becomes even funnier ( actually less funny - leave it alone ). I am still hoping to see the list of Irving's dastardly errors. The transcripts are doable but slow. 159.105.80.141 14:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. You need to find sources that say Irving is "not discredited". Note, the article states that he is "widely discredited", not "completely discredited", so one or two sources won't be enough. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


You misunderstood - the tabloids were flooded with the same story - multiplying the same story by 10 still makes it one story. Using poll numbers would be a good tactic too. If ever denial site - hundreds - were listed then i suppose the wiki problem would be "reliability" - the crux is why is a tabloid "reliable" if it criticises Irving but a site that supports him is "not reliable". We really need the list that wiki uses for "reliablilty". 159.105.80.141 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a very odd definition of "tabloid"; you appear to define it as "any news source that says Irving is discredited". Since when did The Guardian or the BBC or PBS become tabloids? As for this "flooding" process you mention, the sources themselves span a period of over 6 years, so it would have to be a very slow flood. In any event, the issue, as always, is sources for your claims. Please provide reliable ones. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article mentioned above is here: http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial2/EvStd110400.html if anyone wants to use it. Makerowner 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's David Irving's website; we would need a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


This is the fundamental problem. Any source that praises Irving is by wiki defintion "unreliable". We need a list of "reliable" sources before providing the evidence - or - circular argument - it is labeled "unreliable". The above link is a letter/article by a professor of history ( now he is forever "unreliable" ).159.105.80.141 11:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Any source that praises Irving is by wiki defintion "unreliable". -- that's simply an untruth. This particular source is Irving's own website, and thus, like all Holocaust denial websites, is unreliable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This above link to Irving's site - this is an excellent article ( fpp's ) in its own right. It betrays the weakness of the arguments against Irving visavie the "historian" harangue. The article is written by a holocaust supporter ( one good reason to call it unreliable I guess ) who lets slip the lack of historical ( as in facts )rigor common to all historical writings. He unwittingly shows his own shortcomings - I don't think he caught that angle on his own work. Very interesting.159.105.80.141 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"lets slip the lack of historical ( as in facts )rigor common to all historical writings"? You may wish to consult Historical_method for a more fine-grained analysis of differential reliability of various historical sources and writings. It's not exactly a binary determination, let alone one where all the ratings are "Not reliable". That kind of supercilious puffed-up niggling hectoring nihilistic contrarian oppositional-defiance is just an attempt to deny that there exist authorities in any field, whose dedication, hard work, long experience, or innate intelligence confer upon them the right to be cited in Wikipedia, for instance, in contrast to you and me.
and, with reference to the particular article in question, the author indeed praises Irving's non-Holocaust work, albeit from decades past; and notes that "the large majority of ... leading American and British historians ... regarded Irving as being a historian 'of repute'", albeit eight months before the case came to court. He also states, however, that "As a historian he betrays some of the characteristic faults of the self-taught. He refuses to look beyond the documentation. Like every victim of con-artistry he is beguiled rather than warned by evidence which seems to confirm his views. He can be seduced by the notion of conspiracies, to mislead, to cover up the misdeeds of the 'good guys'". That, you suggest, "betrays the weakness of the arguments against Irving visavie the 'historian' harangue"? Well, if those are the "weak" arguments, then I think the case is closed and you have not prevailed. Of course, you also think that since the author says he "grew up among those who were fortunate to escape" the Holocaust, therefore he is "a holocaust supporter (one good reason to call it unreliable I guess)", so if I may attempt to suggest without attack, your judgement isn't exactly what might be expected of the proverbial "reasonable man" and we're spending way too much time and effort catering to it. Still and all, as the author of that piece closes with, "The truth needs an Irving's challenges to keep it alive."; he neglects to understand, however, that there is indeed a world of scholarly inquiry and debate regarding the Holocaust, the evidence regarding the Holocaust, and the interpretation of said evidence without the need to conform to some predetermined point of view whose major favorable point is that it makes you insanely popular in certain small circles. Gzuckier 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So... "David Irving is a reliable historian, his website says so, and it's true, because he's reliable, which we know because his website says so". Gzuckier 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave your bias at the door for a minute. As discussed earlier, that article was not written by Irving. It is a copy from a reliable source that does not publish on the net. Irving was discredited as a "Holocaust" historian which he never claimed to be, but not discredited as a military historian which is his field of expertise and this is backed up by court decisions that he is reputable in that field. The WP artical does not make that distinction. Wayne 02:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the judge's ruling in the Irving case, it is extremely difficult to trust anything on Irving's website. Impossible, in fact. And please comment on article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gzuckier can attack an editor for suggesting that an article is "excellent" without you commenting but I get told off for rightly calling that a biased opinion? On top of that you say it is impossible to trust an article from a reliable source just because it has been reproduced on a website you don't like? What does that say about your own bias? You can tell me off for saying that now to if you like. Wayne 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We're not going to go through the debate again that's repeatedly concluded that community consensus is that holocaust denial sites are per se unreliable sources. In a nutshell: since holocaust denial sites are dedicated to perpetuating a lie, all information on them is suspect. Linking to fpp.co.uk is only acceptable as examples of holocaust denial or as direct quotes ("this is what David Irving said"),the latter only in an article about David Irving. And everyone knock off the personal stuff; this subject is annoying enough without it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
??The guy can think the article is excellent all he wants, I just felt the logic of citing an article on Irving's website as "proof" of his reliability needed improvement. it would be fine as a source for the statement that Irving himself thinks he's reliable, though. as for the larger question of irving's overall reliability, it's similar to the question regarding John Lott. Once somebody has a tarnish on their integrity in one context, does it affect how they are viewed in other contexts? And the answer is, once one's professional academic reputation has been tarnished in any context, yes indeedy you have a damned hard time being taken seriously by the academic community again in any context. So, although the judge did indeed give a positive note to Irving's military history, which can certainly be noted in the article if it isn't already, my guess (unsubstantiated by research and subject to revision given factual data opposing it) is that you're not going to find a lot of serious historians referencing that work any more. Gzuckier 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example of the bias i'm talking about. I mentioned earlier that I found it in full on revisionist websites but neither myself, 159.105.80.141 nor anyone else has asked to use Irvings website or any other revisionist site as a source. Despite this we now have posts by several editors lecturing us saying we are asking to use it. User:159.105.80.141 said "this is an excellent article ( fpp's ) in its own right" which it is if we can find it on a reliable site and he only pointed out where it can be found so others can read it for themselves.
Also i keep hearing "we have plenty of reliable sources that Irving is discredited" yet I notice that none appear to be historians. It's my turn to ask for sources as newspaper articles by writers are not reliable (although the newspaper itself may be) as they lack the expertise to judge. In other words an editorial is OR unless the author is a historian. Wayne 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is the intent of
You are making me work to find sources I'm sure you already know about Jayjg.
"He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the truly enormous mass of German documentation. A recent survey of leading American and British historians found that a large majority agreed that Irving is a historian of repute." - Prof Donald Cameron Watt
..
These quotes are all post Lipstadt trial.
if it's not to provide a source? And what is the intent behind using that as a source to indicate Irving is considered a valid historian, without noting that the context is that the preceding sentences are:
As a historian he betrays some of the characteristic faults of the self-taught. He refuses to look beyond the documentation. Like every victim of con-artistry he is beguiled rather than warned by evidence which seems to confirm his views. He can be seduced by the notion of conspiracies, to mislead, to cover up the misdeeds of the "good guys". He has a flair for self-publicity.
If the question were, can you never believe a single word Irving writes, I would indeed say that is overly damning. If the question is, when a lay person needs to consult a source to determine the currently most widely accepted historical thinking on some random subject (which is what lay persons usually want to know), do we really want to send them innocently to consult Irving? Is there a scarcity of other WWII historians in the world who have not been identified as unduly biased, so that we need to recommend Irving, as the best source? If someone is already somewhat familiar with the field of modern WWII history, then they are presumably informed enough to consult Irving and separate the wheat from the goats on their own; but they don't need us to give them a "historian" to consult. But here at Wikipedia, if we were to cite Irving as a "historian" for public consumption, then we would be ethically bound to ensure that the user understands the very definite limitations of said description.
and as for the suggestion that we are limited to newspaper articles as sources for Irving's status as a historian being discredited, did you not notice in the article the legal opinion stating that "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence"? This would seem to be generally considered reliable, in that it is considered reliable enough to determine serious financial matters regarding both Irving and those he sued. And the rebuttal to that statement would be "Yeah, but not every time"? Gzuckier 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That comment to Jayjg was because I noticed in my contributions that he had already asked me the same question once before and I gave him the link then which he accepted for the purpose of an edit in another article.
I just used editorials as an example. Others I never mentioned are D.A.'s and playrights etc. Historians are largely absent from the sources.
That legal opinion related to his Holocaust views and the judge specifically mentioned that Lipstadt failed to prove that Irving was discredited as a historian.
Whatever Irvings faults as a historian he is still one who's books are mostly still in use as reliable by historians. Almost all the controversies are over his Holocaust views. This article already ensures that the reader knows he is discredited in that field because it concentrates almost solely on it despite it not being Irvings area of expertise. It should not include incorrect information as well just to reinforce the view of that side of his work. Wayne 05:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Vad Yashem, Broszat, etc all say the eye witnesses to the holocaust are largely unreliable - question, can we use Vad Yashem as a reliable source anymore? 159.105.80.141 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

to which the only possible reply is "oy".Gzuckier 18:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
How about "doh!!" Darkmind1970 10:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


With all the trivia to wade through it is surprising to find important stuff that is almost unknown - at least to me. The memo - 1942 - called the Luther memo I believe - was this discovered by Irving.? A short section of an article I read recently implies that he was the one who found it - probably archive searching. Is this when/where the animosity toward Irving started? I can see why he would become personae non gratia.159.105.80.141 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry I said Luther ( whose memo confirms the Schlegelberger memo ) when I should have said the Schlegelberger memo. A Professor Jaekel went and pulled it from the file of the German Federal Archives ( file R.22/52). It appears that from reading the NurembergDocument 4055-PS that Irving knew this memo must exist. Irving immediately used it in his Hitler's War etc - endearing himself forever to all true believers - in 1978ish. The memo was surprisingly misplaced in the records after being in the hands of a Robert Kempner - Nuremberg prosecutors staff - the same man who found the Wannsee report. The misplacement, however, due to the large amouont of paper flying about left a scent that Irving was able to detect. Tracing this down there appears to be some interesting details about the IG Farben crematorium contracts that should interest some holocaust scholars - happy hunting. 159.105.80.141 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


holocaustdenialontrial - endless others, Irving, etc..... Day 5, Jan 19, 2000, trial transcripts of Irving v Lipstadt.


"he refuses to look beyond the documentation"... At least he does refuse to look at the documentation. This has got to be one of the oddest indictments I have ever heard - "your Honor all the prosecutor wants to look at is evidence". What - the writer fails to mention - should he look beyond to see. I thought the problem was his intrepretation of the documents - now it appears to be the documents themselves. I have asked this before - if a historian finds a document that contradicts received wisdom - what is he supposed to do with the document ( use it or as some have done, bury it).159.105.80.141 11:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section needs to be edited.

The section on criticisms of David Irving seems incredibly underwritten, and, in some cases, includes extensive passages which seem to praise him, such as this one:

<In an April 20, 1996 review in The Daily Telegraph of Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, Keegan wrote that Irving "knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War", and claimed that Hitler's War was "indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round."[36] In an article in The Daily Telegraph of 12 April 2000, Keegan spoke of his experience of the trial, writing that Irving had an "all-consuming knowledge of a vast body of material" and exhibited "many of the qualities of the most creative historians", that his skill as an archivist could not be contested, and that he was "certainly never dull." However, according to Keegan "Like many who seek to shock, he may not really believe what he says and probably feels astounded when taken seriously."[38]>

The quotes contained in this passage all praise Irving, and it should be noted that Keegan has been criticized by many for speaking so glowingly of Irving and his work, and the accuracy of his statements has been heavily disputed.

The selection I quoted above should be deleted. The entire section should be added to. Perhaps it would be a good idea to use selections from the judge's ruling on the Irving vs Lipstadt libel case, which I believe was posted on this talk page.

This article also features some useful criticism of Irving:

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/02/07/lipstadt/index.html?pn=1

Featured article

This looks like an excellent article, why not renominate for featured? --90.241.129.187 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Link edit war

I notice an edit war over including a link -- is there a reason this isn't being discussed, instead of fought over? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's not much to discuss – it's obvious POV link spammage. Besides, it's kind of hard to assume good faith when an editor puts "rv of Jewish admin" as part of their edit explanation. Groupthink 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if the user's only been on the wiki for a short while (less than a day, it looks like), it may be a bit early to give up on them. I'd rather take a chance and maybe get a good contributor out of the deal -- taking challenges and turning them into opportunities. If they continue down that road, we can deal with things easily enough. I could be missing something, but this doesn't seem quite that urgent, just yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing this link without specifying why does not seem to be good policy either. I'm not saying that this link belongs to this article, but part of the criticism is certainly valid. Wikipedia "owners" should think if they want articles (be it about Irving or whoever) be for defaming purposes. Maybe some neutral admin (who has never edited this article) should look it over and ensure that it really passes Biographies of living persons policy. --Magabund 12:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Both Arthur Rubin and I specified our reasons for removing the links, and the user has been appropriately warned on her/his talk page. As for neutrality, it seems to me that that's been extensively discussed here, but one more RfC could never hurt. Groupthink 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Could I say: "Sorry, Arthur Rubin isn't Jewish and this article isn't sourced by enemies of David Irving". I could write it but it won't be true. --Girderen 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:DFTT folks... Groupthink 15:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Girderen, you could just refrain from commenting on someones ethnicity (or admin status), especially if there is no sign that it is at all relevant.--Stephan Schulz 15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The External link in question is not about Irving, and fails WP:EL. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The "link" in question is just a hamhanded effort to get this shmuck's allegations regarding his being persecuted by a wikipedia editor into wikipedia. Given that a search of both the editor in question's edit history and the talk page belonging to the IP in question's edit history gives no evidence of the obscene racial threats quoted verbatim in Irving's fantasy page, posting this "link" seems like even more of a bad idea. If "Christopher (last name known to us) of Leesburg, Virginia, USA" has some beef with an editor, there are plenty of places in wikipedia to complain; he could even find one of our many fine nutcases to go to bat on his behalf. But he hasn't, probably because, as I said, a search of both the editor in question's edit history and the talk page belonging to the IP in question's edit history gives no evidence of the obscene racial threats quoted verbatim in Irving's fantasy page.
On the other hand, this would be a good link to post in some page dealing with slander, examples of use of evidence made up out of whole cloth by holocaust denialists and their hangers on, and people who are so paranoid they believe that there is a "Wikipedia staff". Gzuckier 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Two side points: I searched and was unable to find where the supposed remark by the admin was actually made. Coelacan certainly didn't make it, and I can't find it on any page. Second, Leesburg, a small city in Vriginia, is also the HQ for the LaRouche Movement, and Christopher (CWC) may be an associate. On the main issue, I don't think the link adds anything worthwhile to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The external link is not about Irving and libels Coelacan who, checking edit histories, never made the comments the link attributes to him. Perhaps the comment 'rv off-topic falsehoods' should be used if someone attempts to reintroduce the link. Edward321 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with that link. This article is well written and shows that Irving is cunt. There is not reason for his poisonous opinions and arguments. Internet is full of antisemitism and I am glad that Wikipedia presents facts written by honourable Jewish and anti-racist scholars. --Badpound 10:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Metapedia link

I disagree with link to en.metapedia.org/wiki/David_Irving. [harsh words redacted] --Badpound 10:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

→ I just have to say this is the lowest standard I have seen a serious wikipedia article at... religious fundamentalists being allowed to add zero citation paragraphs 24/7 and anyone who touches it being bullied and labelled racist and "anti-semitic" despite most semites being Islamic. It is truly apocalyptic that the religious fundi virus in mainstream media has spread here so rapidly when an issue includes anything remotely offensive to you-know-whats. Merely typing "they r rasiciest cuntz!!" as a justification for an edit is pitiful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.246.208.183 (talk • contribs).

I have only a faint notion what you are talking about. Can you elaborate? Anyways, whether you are aware of it or not, the term "anti-semitism" has a well-defined meaning that is not immediately obvious from its constituent parts. This is in no way unusual. --Stephan Schulz 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I was mainly replying to Badpound's & Gzuckier's contributions to the discussion such as: "shmucks", "they are racist cunts!!!" and stating that wikipedia needs facts sourced from "honourable jewish scholars". As well as: a large portion of the article seeming to lack citations, any source remotely siding with national socialism being called invalid, which is akin to anyone who disagrees with capitalism calling all CNN sources invalid even if they are based on seemingly fact. About the use of anti-semitic, thats possibly up for debate on its given discussion page. I am quite new to wikipedia and have not made any important edits yet so if I am wrong and this is normal behavior forgive me. Cold polymer 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS for what we consider reliable sources. I have not seen any "religious fundamentalists [... adding] zero citation paragraphs 24/7", so I have no first-hand knowledge if they would be allowed to do so. From my experience, though, I strongly doubt it. The article is very well referenced indeed. Nearly all of the paragraphs without inline citations seem to be uncontroversial. Also note the references section, which contains a significant number of additional sources, several comprehensive. If you miss sources for anything in particular, please feel free to add a request. As for the meaning of "anti-semitism", your beef is with Wictionary ("Discrimination or hatred against Jews, Judaism or the Jewish people"), the OED ("Anti-Semitism is theory, action or practice directed against the Jews"), Webster's ("hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination"), Encarta ("Anti-Semitism is policies, views or actions that harm or discriminate against Jewish people."), and essentially any other dictionary I could find. --Stephan Schulz 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm all for spirited debate, I object to the vulgarisms employed by Badpound. I suspect trolling at play here. Groupthink 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Self reference

I noticed that David Irving now seems to be aware of his Wikipedia biography and has expressed some concerns about it here and here, the latter of which seems to include some info from the Wikipedia Watch hivemind page. Can we somehow fit that into the article?--76.220.203.140 10:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a talk page template for "this (Wikipedia) article is referred to in the news media." I don't know if we have one for "The subject of this article objects to it." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)