Talk:David Irving/Archive 3

message: 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 His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable.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 . 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)
thread_title:  Summary of Gray's judgment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is David Irving Anti-semitic? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Internment concluded

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I have now made the intro more fitting and polite

message: 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  Presumably the Soviet control of Austria had somewhat ebbed by the 1990s? Gzuckier 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What about similar laws in liberated Western Germany? Were the Soviets to blame for these, too? --Stephan Schulz 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bad english flourish in the introduction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title: GROSS DISTORTION

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I've added a "controvery" in the imprisonment area. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Images are copyright

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Perhaps we could just refer to him as "legally discredited as a historian", given his unfortunate lawsuit. Gzuckier 14:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  RFC Response 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Metapedia link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self reference