Talk:David Irving/Archive 4

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 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

disambiguation

There are 3 of them, it needs a disambiguation page.217.43.169.139 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions about Irving's Incarceration

What happened? Having just read a roundtable about D. Lipstadt's updated and apparently changed views of Irving's incarceration, I tried to add the following paragraph:

In July 2007, however, she modified her position regarding Irving's right to free speech, arguing that some speech should not be permitted:

"...there is no such thing as "pure" free speech. One cannot cry fire in a crowded -- or not so crowded -- theatre. One cannot call 911 and say someone is dying when they are not. One cannot engage in libel. One cannot tell state secrets. One cannot incite. Therefore, to suggest that free speech does not have its limitations is to ignore the real world in which we all live." [47]

The reference links here (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B80D0BF73-5861-4B31-968E-98F0F9E81317%7D)

For some reason my entire change was completely reversed in a matter of seconds! Is the information I added in some way offensive or incorrect?

Hi. Your edit was reverted by an automated 'bot', not a human editor. I'm not sure why - the reasons for reverting are given here.
On the substance of your edit, having read the context of the FrontPage article, I think you are reading too much into Lipstadt's comments. As well as the lines you quote, she makes it clear that she wrote editorials opposing Irving's being jailed, and she doesn't retract that or say she ahs changed her mind - she also says she understands why Austria would have such a law.
Minor points on formatting - please add new sections to talk pages at the bottom, and (on talk pages only) please sign your comments with four tildas: ~~~~. That will add your username and timestamp. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the clarification, sorry about the formatting. I don't know that I'm overreading Lipstadt's statement although I was surprised to see that she made it (as you see in the context, she came out with it when her host challenged her a little so I thought that gave it a little more credibility than what she said earlier). But others may disagree. Cowboygrasshopper77 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • It's your own personal interpretation that she has "changed her position". That's the real problem. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm "interpreting" anything and I don't appreciate your tone. At first Lipstadt said that she was against censorship of speech and she disapproved of Irving's prison sentence. The organizer of the panel she participated in expressed disbelief in her sincerity and she responded that she wasn't quite as in favor of unlimited free speech as she had once either believed or claimed to believe. I think that's an interesting development in this case. 24.59.104.63 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lipstadt's views on free speech, and any changes in those views, would seem more relevant to the article on her than to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
True. Cowboy, you need to find a reliable source, then, claiming that Lipstadt "changed her position". It's you that's interpreting it as a change in position. But what did she say? I can fully understand why those countries would want to outlaw both Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial. Understanding something is not condoning something. For example, I also understand why Germany et al feel a need for such laws; I also think they are stupid and counterproductive. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, thanks for responding a little less headstrong than last time. I see your point (and that of Will Beback). I can't imagine a more authoritative source than the one I cited - the person herself - but I cede your point about "fully understanding" something without condoning it. I suppose to me "fully understand" is ambiguous, since colloquially we often say "understand" to mean "sympathize with" (as in 'I understand your pain') and I thought when reading her discussion that's what she meant. I still think she probably does. But I also acknowledge that she says in the discussion that she didn't support Irving been imprisoned. Anyway the point is probably moot and I won't cause any further trouble with it.Cowboygrasshopper77 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Irving continues to make his presence felt in Europe, championing far-right causes - SOURCES REQUIRED

In the interests of academic accuracy it is necessary to include a citation for this quote at the end of the article

"Irving continues to make his presence felt in Europe, championing far-right causes"

Which far right causes? It is very generalistic to not suggest which causes he is supporting. Patchworkquilt 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote Problem

Note 34 references an article by Christopher Hitchens entitled "Churchill Take a Fall" appearing in the April 2002 Atlantic Monthly. The actual article is titled "The Medals of His Defeats," and consists of a review of thirteen World War II-era books on Winston Churchill. The article makes no mention of the incident described in this article, in which it is alleged that Hitchens writes of hearing Irving recite a racist rhyme to his daughter. Therefore, in accordance with Wikipedia style guidelines on verifiability, I suggest that this "source" be removed. Objections? Cak58 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad sentence

"Contentious in large part for advancing interpretations of the war considered favourable to the German side and for association with far-right groups that advanced these views, by 1988 he began advocating the view that the Holocaust did not take place as a systematic and deliberate genocide, and quickly grew to be one of the most prominent advocates of Holocaust denial, costing him what scholarly reputation he had outside those circles." Can someone fix this? It looks like a disconnected run-on sentence. Brian Pearson 01:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this:
He advanced interpretations of the war which were favorable to the German side of the war and began to associate with far-right groups sympathetic to those views. By 1988, he was claiming the Holocaust did not take place, and soon became one of the most prominent advocates of Holocaust denial. His views cost him his scholarly reputation. Brian Pearson 03:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it removes a lot of nuance, to the point of being incorrect. "He was claiming the Holocaust did not take place", by itself, is more extreme than the original; is it accurate? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. He denies anything called "the Holocaust" happenned, but he doesn't appear to deny that a number of residents, possibly in the 100,000s, were killed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It sounds as if his definition of "Holocaust" is a matter of degree. That is, if it had been less than one or two million than maybe it wasn't a holocaust, whereas if it had been 'only' 500,000 to 800,000 killed, then it wasn't a holocaust. "Genocide" is, by definition, "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." Do you think he was saying it was not genocide, but something else? Brian Pearson 02:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It's impossible to be definitive as to what exactly he believes, as his view seems to shift from year to year, and from forum to forum. He has sometimes argued hat the numbers killed were much smaller than generally (indeed almost universally) believed, sometimes that there was no systemic plan, and sometimes that there was a planned genocide, but Hitler knew nothing of it.LeContexte 10:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe what's important for this particular paragraph is what he believed in the time period leading to the loss of his 'scholarly reputation.' BTW, I was just reading this site [1]which showed Irving to be leaning to the right at a very early age. Brian Pearson 02:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The ADL is not an objective source in these matters.
On the matter of Irving's current views, in an interview[2]with John Humphrys on Today on BBC Radio 4 he says there were gas chambers in the northern camps, but not as far as he can ascertain, at Auschwitz. He believes Himmler and not Hitler was responsible, and that the regularly-quoted figure of 6 million is too high. He accepts Hitler's responsibility for killings on the Eastern front. This hardly amounts to Holocaust denial, though that is more of a convenient label used to suppress debate than anything else. 78.147.100.109 16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr Justice Gray thought it quite reasonable to describe Irving as a Holocaust denier. Are you suggesting that this was once correct, but is no longer? Looking at the definition in Wikipedia:
"Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust — did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship."
By this definition Irving's views still amount to Holocaust denial.
LeContexte 11:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. By the somewhat loose standards being proposed, if he suggested that perhaps two or three Jews were accidentally injured during WWII, that would not make him a Holocaust denier. Gzuckier 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

re “A Challenge to David Irving,”

Maybe the letter mentioned under Holocaust denial [3] should be cited. Brian Pearson 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi?

So, is he just a holocaust denier, or is he that AND a Neo-Nazi? Arbiteroftruth 02:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an historian who didn't know his place - he has found it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.181.165 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah; for a historian, truth is always far preferable to lies. Which is why he's not really a historian. Pity; he does seem to have some good research skills. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good general attack, but is there a specific fact asserted by Irving that you refute? He is quite good at debating alleged facts, and I am sure that he would like you to cite the truth that he denies that you think makes him "not really a [sic] historian". Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.93.250 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Read 'Telling lies about Hitler' by Richard Evans - Irving's systematic distortion of the evidence is laid out in there. Historians no longer take Irving seriously because of his tendentious manipulation of archival material. Neo-nazis wont accept this kind of analysis, but that's because they're brainsick. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Tom - no there appear to be no facts anyone wants to argue with Irving. Read up on Evans - other than to Evans and his wiki supporters - his analysis is pretty weak. Telling Lies is pretty good for an adhominem piece, even better to practice spotting bad argumentation, way beyond the wiki crowd.159.105.80.141 17:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be no "facts" that Irving has provided that anyone believes, so they don't think he is worthy of argument. That seems a fairer description than the last. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I would not describe Evans' analysis as being 'weak' at all. I would describe it as being 'strong'. He clearly sets out the way that Irving has systematically manipulated quotes, facts and opinions. Darkmind1970 09:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Evans sets out numerous examples of where Irving manipulated sources - Irving was not able to counter any of these when they were put to him in the Lipstadt libel hearing and I'm not aware that he has done so subsequently. If you are aware of other sources refuting Evans' claims then it would be interesting to see them. LeContexte 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Irvin himself admit to not being a historian in one of his many trials? I will check Niskor http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/ and report back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

7.77 In his evidence Irving reiterated on a number of occasions that he is primarily a literary historian and that, at least until the present proceedings were commenced , he did not regard himself as an expert on the Holocaust. Accordingly until April 1988 he believed what he had been told about the killing of Jews in Auschwitz and the other death camps. The 1977 edition of Hitler's War contains several references to the gassing of Jews.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-07-01.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette

What has happened to this article? This is a heated discussion and, whatever our views on Irving, it would help to keep a little etiquette.

However, its sad to see this article is imbued with heavy personal prejudice and jibes. its detailed and accurate, but from start to finish David is described with evident irony and sarcasm. A little standardisation would not go amiss, I feel. Its a biography, not a piece of propoganda in its own right. Matt Ward

And you are a student? I've read this article as a result of your comment and consider it a model of NPOV. Criticisms of Irving are properly cited, Irving's own views are given due weight and overall it cannot be said that this is a "hatchet job" of Mr Irving. Bearing in mind it IS a biography, which means it should neither be a hagiography nor a demonisation, IMO, it is neither of these things. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Discredited" reference

Okay I just added a reference-needed tag to the "discredited historian" bit. I am NOT objecting to the word "discredited". I am pointing out that the reference used to back up this serious claim is very poor - it only mentions (by way of anecdote) that one UK newspaper decided not to call him an historian....in 1969! This neither supports the claim that Irving is widely discredited nor the claim that he is currently discredited. Furthermore, that 1969 anecdote takes place in a newspaper office rather than academia. If he is widely, currently discredited - given he is a fairly prominent figure - it should be easy to find references that actually support this claim. We should also distinguish between being discredited by the press and being discredited by academia esp. historians i.e. Irving's peers. It is perfectly possible that he is hated by his academic peers for his Holocaust denial etc. but still respected for his work on non-Holocaust related history. I'm no fan of Irving's but I am a fan of proper referencing on Wikipedia (so often references don't support claims made....and people investigate less often because often they see the reference footnote number and just move on). 76.171.0.166 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's unbelievable that this has come up again (check archives). Irving is discredited but is still considered a historian who has been discredited in one area of his expertise. Even this very artical says "Faurisson praised Irving as an historian" despite Faurisson claiming he is discredited (for his holocaust views). NPOV editors get it changed to reflect reality and then move on as they have no particular interest in the artical and then the POV editors come out of the woodwork and change it back to make it look like he is discredited as a historian. If you check mainstream media, Irving is generally refered to as "Historian David Irving" (Guardian BBC etc), "British historian David Irving" (BBC recent), "Holocaust-denier David Irving" (more right wing media), "Mr Irving" (legal mentions) and sometimes as "controversial (or disgraced) historian David Irving" (by all media). Rarely is he refered to as "discredited historian David Irving" except in blogs. Do a search for discredited and you get little more than 1000 hits. I dont care if you hate the guy and oppose his views, accuracy comes first! Wayne 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
As explained in lengthy discussion last year, there are publications that in the same article refer to him as a "historian" and a "discredited historian". In addition, Faurisson didn't describe him as discredited, and I'm not sure what you mean when you say only blogs describe him as discredited: The Guardian, The Sunday Herald, BBC News, PBS, Le Monde diplomatique, etc. are not "blogs". Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just want to be clear about my point here.. My point is that the current reference for the key term "discredited" in the article is VERY BAD, and does not support the term for the reasons I explained above. My point is that many editors don't seem to care about whether references actually logically support claims made. Often editors - often, apparently very experienced editors - will say "this fact is clearly true", "this is obvious" or "this is widely known" and then fail to come up with references support the supposedly widely known statement! I am not particularly interested in whatever partisan disputes over David Irving have gone on this page. I am simply asking for people to come up with proper references. If Irving is discredited or not, so long as IT'S PROPERLY REFERENCED, that's what I'm concerned about. Proper referencing does not just mean throwing in reference footnote with whatever link that comes up that superficially seems to be relevant after 2 minutes searching on google. At the moment, the *current* referencing of "discredited" fails WP:BLP, frankly. t 76.171.0.166 18:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, it doesn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The reference refers to an anecdote about one newspaper in 1969. The claim is that Irving is *widely* and *currently* discredited. Are you saying this is the best you can do to prove that key claim - what, Irving's credibility hasn't been discussed as a current issue in the press beyond one newspaper since 1969? This is a "conjectural interpretation of a source" (the conjecture is that a 1969 anecdote at one newspaper proves a claim that Irving is widely and currently discredited) as specifically prohibited by WP:BLP 76.171.0.166 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're focused on the first item in a long list, when there were 23 citations that specifically referred to him as "discredited". Now there are 24. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an easy claim to support. While some editors may disagree as to whether Mr Irving's reputation as an historian should have been discredited, the adjective relates not to the substance of his work but to its public reception (which is to say, reputation), which has indeed been widely discredited and which the article supports with many citations. As to the substance of his work, throughout 4 decades Irving managed to unearth many interesting primary sources on the Nazis (often by befriending key people) and IMHO subsequently either lost his objectivity or somewhere along the way decided to deliberately put a pro-Nazi spin on his work, which ultimately landed him in prison (putting aside any free speech concerns, of which there are many). Calling this man discredited as an historian is to put it mildly. My take is, he has more or less tried to pick up where Josef Goebbels left off. I guess some folks think this has been helpful. I don't think it has, but whatever: His exit from scholarship is widely supported, not a controversial thing to assert and the article should say as much. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not supposed to be engaging in a debate about the substance of Irving's work. Our job is quite clear: we are to document (emphasis on the word document) what reliable secondary sources say about Irving in a NPOV fashion. Sadly, that is not what is happening here. A selection bias in favor of a handful of recent sources that promote one aspect of Irving's controversial nature is being used to overshadow the rest of the article and the myriad of views on Irving's work in both historical and contemporary perspective. That's unfortunate, not to mention unprofessional. By all means, let's document the Irving vs. Lipstadt libel case --- but to take one judge's ruling as definitive of Irving's life and career would certainly not be supported by a majority of editors here (I suspect) were it any other controversial subject such as one judge ruling on (say) global warming or a highly publicized criminal verdict or something worse. Also, that some editors here sadly take the Evans books as representative of the entire field of knowledge is not only a POV-push; it's unencyclopedic. Eventually, when I get some time, this article needs to be seriously re-written to reflect faithfully the wide range of reliable sources to the history of Irving's life. One of the very first places that needs to be completely changed to reflect the documented reality is the section on Irving as Historian. Currently, it's terribly researched and poorly written. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Better citation needed

- - Someone removed my objection tag to the poor referencing of "discredited" without, I assume, reading my comments above. Let me state again that I *have no opinion* as to whether Irving is actually widely discredited or not as a historian. I just want there to be a proper reference!! The editor who removed my tag commented that "Discredited" is clearly true. The alternative to listing it as fact is to remove all indications that he was ever considered an historian. Reverting anon." If "discredited" (as in currently and widely, not just by one newspaper in 1969(!) - and in the wider public sphere as well as academia (these may be differently treated) is "clearly true" than we should be able to discover much better references than the one given, which does not support the idea that Irving is widely or clearly discredited today. The "alternative" I assume ironically suggested seems to suggest that the editor thinks 1) the main purpose of the article is to ensure that Irving is not seen as a proper historian (I thought Wikipedia was primarily about referenced, verified, NPOV encyclopedia articles?) and 2) references don't matter so long if they get in the way of how we want to shape the article. Also, I am dismissed as an "anon". So much for Wikipedia's openness. I was actually a very active editor for 2 years with a registered account, and I never outright dismissed an anon who had a reasonable edit/objection. One of the main reasons I left Wikipedia was frustration over careless referencing. Occassionally I'll tinker with an article as an anon these days, but perhaps that's futile as well. 76.171.0.166 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Followup on Independent column

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article347567.ece

I now think that the citation from Bernard Ingrams piece in the Independent should be removed entirely as an inappropriate source - this is an opinion column piece not a news article (its not hard to tell the difference!). Furthermore, immediately after the excerpt used in the Wikipedia article, Ingrams comments that people had not adhered to the memo and that Irving is still currently referred generally to as a historian (though that he has recently lost the support of academic peers) i.e. The point of this piece (again, a opinion piece, not a news article ) is that Ingrams *wishes* Irving was more discredited, and that Irving is still widely (at least in Ingrams' opinion) treated as a genuine historian, though Ingrams strongly disapproves of this. So, basically we have one opinion of one columnist who has an anecdote from 1969 for one newspaper which suggests something opposite to the key claim of the Wikiepdia article. 76.171.0.166 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, how about, then, the fact that he lost his defamation lawsuit against Lipstadt, and one of the claims proven true was that Irving was "discredited"? That lawsuit turned Lipstadt into a legally verified reliable source. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Lipstadt is ONE source and cannot be used to trump the views of the entire community. The article currently uses this as a reference: "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", how encyclopaedic is that definition?. I will point out that the dictionary says: "noun: a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it". The current version "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited" is not accurate and it should read "Irving is a British historian who has been widely discredited". I dare anyone to dispute which is the most accurate. "Irving's status as a historian is disputed" can be used but to say he is not one at all is POV. Wayne 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. What concerns me (and I'm sure other editors) about this article is that some WP editors, perhaps innocently enough, are using a small handful of recently published works (Evans, Lipstadt, Guttenplan and to a lesser extent van Pelt) to unknowingly interpret what the academic "community" must somehow think of Irving's work. One editor the other day has gone so far as to make the sweeping claim that Irving is not recognized as a historian at all, especially by other historians. What a curious thing for a WP editor to say, I thought, especially without any verifiable evidence. Such an unsupported assertion reminds me of what Sir John Keegan said about the constant back-and-forth between Lipstadt (Irving's work has no value as a historian) and Irving (some highly reputable historians wrote very flattering things about parts of my work, therefore it is all good): both positions are "highly artificial." The verifiable facts since the 1960s present a much more nuanced story, especially if one were to read the large body of academic reviews published in peer-reviewed and other well-respected journals about David Irving's numerous works. I encourage WP editors to read them. They might be surprised by what they find. Best regards, J Readings 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Lipstadt is ONE source and cannot be used to trump the views of the entire community. Which community are you referring to? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Irvings' books were criticised when they came out by historians - see the original release of 'Hitler's War' and the subsequent re-release following Irving's extreme revisions. Sloppy work that slants towards bias tends to get criticised. Darkmind1970 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Darkmind1970: What you do not seem to understand (or perhaps you are simply unaware of) is that Hitler's War is one of many books that David Irving researched and wrote since the 1960s. Yes, it's true: Hitler's War did receive mixed reviews in academia (they were not all negative, mind you) when it was first published in 1977. However, would you be surprised to learn that reputable historians around the world praised Irving's work for The Mare's Nest, The Virus House, The Trail of the Fox, and other works? Indeed, in the case of the first three books mentioned, I cannot find a negative academic review on JSTOR at all. They were all overwhelmingly positive. To suggest that David Irving's reception as a professional historian by other professional historians can be found only in the reactions to one of Irving's controversial theses found in Hitler's War -- and then only some of the time -- is to be seriously ill-informed about his thirty-plus year career as a WWII military historian and the reception to his work on a book by book basis in the academic community. Again, I encourage everyone to read the actual academic book reviews before passing judgment on what historians must have thought of him as a historian. One last comment: anyone who reads academic reviews and writes academic books knows one thing for certain: constructive criticism is an unavoidable (and mostly welcome) part of the profession. J Readings 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Irving's early books got positive reviews from scholars. Germany between 1933 and 1945 was a much more complicated place than some readers realize. Irving's later books, however, have demonstrably mis-represented his sources. Somewhere along the way, Mr Irving stopped being an historian, even a biased one (which many/most are anyway) and strayed afar into straight advocacy for the legacy of Adolf Hitler. The thing is, seeing as Hitler had more or less absolute political and military fiat during the period of the industrial genocide of the Holocaust, it's overwhelmingly likely he personally ordered Himmler and Heydrich to implement it, with the records having been burned or otherwise disposed of in 1945. If Hitler was ignorant of their activities, as Irving (and Hitler's half sister Angela claimed), given his administrative power in Germany at the time this would amount to criminal negligence anyway. Some folks get more emotional about Mr Irving than others but either way, advocating a positive legacy for Adolf Hitler, who tried to conquer half the world with a totalitarian government and left Germany in ruins, is, erm, kinda dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

I propose this article be moved to David Irving (writer) since there are at least two other WP articles about David Irvings. Please comment. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This one's considerably better known than either the footballer or the late politician, so there's not much need to do anything. Most people looking for David Irving are looking for this guy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

a(n) historian

This article uses both "a historian" and "an historian". I noticed that user:Jayjg changed some "an"s to "a"s a couple of days back on grounds of language variety, but mistakenly ignored the fact that Irving is British. However, usage still seems to be inconsistent in the article and is complicated by the fact that there are quotations using both forms which shouldn't be changed. Which form do people think we should use in our own tect? Personally, even as a Brit, I find "an historian" and "an hotel" rather pedantic. --Peter cohen (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 'an historian' is pedantic, just plain wrong. Nouns beginning with a consonant-sound take 'a', those beginning with a vowel-sound take 'an'. There was a vogue for pronouncing 'hotel' as 'otel' among people who thought french was chic, so in that case it should be 'an hotel' (silent 'h'). This has never been the case for 'historian', which should always take 'a' not 'an'. (In standard formal english the 'h' of historian is pronounced, even if there are some accents which drop all 'h's.)
If people quoted use the wrong form, we can't very well correct it for them, but in non-quoted text it should be 'a'. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That is correct – "an herb" but "a historian". Groupthink (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur and it also fits in with the Associated Press Style Book 2007 edition (page 3). Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the AP style book UK or US English? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

a crime against humaity

that this man is sitting in prison for downplaying or trivialising the holocaust hoax is an outrage. america should be speaking out against this gross and vulgar attack on free speech. but no, that would offend the zionists that control american media and government.