Talk:David Irving/Archive 1

message: Anonymous user 65.146.0.29 seems to have been subtly trying to make a point by associating Norman Finkelstein and The Holocaust Industry with Holocaust revisionism. This is a dishonest and wholly inadmissible addition which must be immediately reverted --as I just did. Sir Paul 01:40, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Well, for the sake of NPOV, as hard as it is maintaining this when writing about crimes like Holocaust, it has to be included, since Irving in his paranoia presents the “Holocaust Industry” as going “after him”. Just as this bit on Deborah Lipstadt that was taken out of the article about her should be put back. "Sir John Keegan sums up the view of WW2 historians conserning her with the remark that she is boring, self-righteous, politically correct and that no serious historian will be interested in anything she writes." --GeneralPatton 05:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: from ADL website 
When asked at the time by The Daily Mail about his political beliefs, he replied, "[Y]ou can call me a mild fascist if you like. I have just come back from [Francisco Franco's] Madrid...I returned through Germany and visited Hitler's eyrie at Berchtesgaden. I regard it as a shrine."
--GeneralPatton 11:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :-) It'd be ideal to track down the original Daily Mail reference, but that can wait I suppose. I've also made that page the ADL link in External links - to link to a document rather than a search - David Gerard 11:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  on May 1, 1959 the Daily Mail reporter Clifford Luton quoted David Irving, then a student at London University, as saying, "You can call me a mild fascist if you like.". Of course, Irving is giving it his conspiracy spin, presenting it as another part of some grand conspiracy against his “work”, but the fact remains that he was quoted while still being a nobody and before any of his "work" was published. Its another typical manipulation of his. Distorting facts and ignoring common sense. --GeneralPatton 12:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A self confessed "mild fascist"

message: Para 8, 2nd sentence: "The book tends to ignore Göring's role in the Holocaust and his greedy theft of art treasures."
removed greedy as it is an emotional & relative term. Furthermore, labelling it as greedy only sensationalizes it. It is not helpful
--Duemellon 19:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Greedy" 

message: David Irving has questioned many aspects of the holocaust, rightly or wrongly. Of late he's never "denied" it and i believe it sounds non NPOV to call him a denier, when he does not explicitly deny the holocaust happened.
:Please read the article on Holocaust denial to understand what the term means. Jayjg 04:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Among the holocaust deniers.. 

message: "lay with his associates"; whose associates, Hitler's or Rommel's? Jayjg 21:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cronies" is POV.  Please see the question in the section above this one as well; specifically, who were the far-right groups that Irving associated with in Spain? Jayjg 22:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the first issue, how about "clique"? And for the seccond issue, well, Its generally believed that while he was a fascist sympathizer in the UK, he acquired firsthand contacts with German Nazi sympathizers during his days in the Ruhr steel mills, that’s probably why he went there in the first place. As I’ve said they were not as organized back then, but it helped him open the doors for his later works. GeneralPatton 22:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  the real blame for his forced suicide lay with his associates 

message: I’d say that we have a pretty complete article by now, only the “persona non grata” section needs some work and still some various details could be inserted about his books. From just about 600 words three months ago, the article has almost 3000 words now. GeneralPatton 18:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The article as of September 30, 2004

message: Here are two more images that I have uploaded but didn't quite make it into the current revision of the article, the first one is from the same event as the one with the gun so i didn't want to be repetitive and the second one makes him look too nice. GeneralPatton 04:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I'm new to Wikipedia and I wondered what criteria you use for removing edits to articles?  I added the line, "This was especially ironinic as it was Irving who was challenging Lipstadt's freedom of expression" to the section about his libel trial.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable inference, yet it was removed within minutes.  Does anybody know why?
:It wasn't removed from what I can tell. Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "freedom of expression" irony?

message: i do not understand how people can claim that this article is POV with a straight face. When someone lies, you say, "he lied." Is this POV? This is a fact. David Irving is a more complicated conundrum than this, surely, but it always seems that neo-nazis and their ilk skewer the facts by simply saying it is biased. If Irving fabricated something, that is what he did, and no matter what you think the bias is, he fabricated it. This is usually not a favorable quality in a historian. To stare all the evidence in the face and continue to deny his fallibility is naive. 
This is not necessarily an immediate issue, but I see no reason to even debate this issue. One can claim and raise an issue about anything and act indignant about it; it's whether you have anything to back your claims up. Neo-Nazis, the far right, and David Irving clearly (pov?) don't.
i guess i'm just sick of seeing articles in this category on wikipedia have trouble being factual because of long, pointless, racist debates.
Lockeownzj00 15:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  claims of POV 

message: --Many people across the world know and call the ADL biased.  There are thousands of instances of this press across the world.  You may not like it, but it is true.  The ADL's input on a topic like this is inherently biased.  Irving is their declared enemy.  Why should an partisan organization, an advocacy group, be allowed to be quoted as a honest source for an Encyclopedia article about their enemy?  It defies logic and it's ridiculous for Wikipedia users to accept.   
For the third time please:  Can someone or an "administrator" kindly tell us Wikipedia users:  How has Wikipedia determined that the ADL is credible and reputable?
:I'm an administrator, but it's not the job of administrators to evaluate source material. Rather than argue about the ADL in general, perhaps you could be specific about the passage they were used as a source for, below. If there's something in here that you feel is inaccurate, please say what and we can check it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Irving first gained notoriety as a student at Imperial College London, where he wrote for the student newspaper and served as the editor of the London University Carnival Committee’s journal, Carnival Times. Here, Irving made allegations such as "the national press is owned by Jews", and contributed to a variety of extremist features, including racist cartoons, a defense of South African apartheid, and an appreciative look at Nazi Germany  as a result of which Irving was removed from his editorial duties.
::Why do you feel this is inaccurate?  And please sign your posts. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can Wikipedia be even-handed? 

message: The point is not David Irving, but the intellectually dishonest position that the ADL can be unbiased.  The ADL has been criticized all over the world as a biased advocacy group. It has also been indentified as a "hate group".
The Wikipedia Jews think that they are the only one's whose opinions count. They keep pushing and pushing until finally someone pushes back at which point they invariably cry "antisemitism!". It's no wonder that everyone from Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson to David Duke and Pat Buchanan hate Jews. They fully deserve to be hated. Jayjg and SlimVirgin provide evidence every damn day. --24.30.67.158 00:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody deserves to be hated for their religion or beliefs. Anti-semitism is a nasty and unwarranted emotion, and leaves a very bad taste in most people's mouths. Wikipedia doesn't need to give a platform to fascists and Nazis like you, it only needs to reflect the opinions of most reasonable people. Clearly you are not one of them. So if you don't like it, then fuck off. Go on, get lost. You won't be missed. Cunt. 129.180.1.144 00:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Geni 00:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh heh. A guy who uses the term "Wikipedia Jews" to describe how "they" control Wikipedia asserts the ADL is too biased to quote as a source. Snicker. Snort.Gzuckier 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Do Irving acolytes really imagine that Irving is one of the ADL's "arch-enemies"?  LOL! Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Dude!? Have you ever contributed anything at all to Wikipedia except to alert us all to the Jewish plot to dominate it? Gzuckier 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Millions of dollars?  Sigh.  I suppose there is no point in even asking, but could you possibly provide some sort of evidence for this latest claim?  As for your abusive comments, if you continue you will no doubt be blocked for violation of Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that only jewish supremacists are allowed to edit 

message: Nice try. Aren't slurs against the rules? Isn't defamation against the rules? Jpgordon: You have absolutely no fact to back-up your slurs and personal attacks.
You and the TAG-TEAM are the true fellow travellers of Supremacists, Revisionists, Deniers, Deletionists. Your actions have shown the world that. Tag-Team, you are indeed an impressive exhibition of Supremacist groupthink. When's the next meeting?
:Shavuous. come by.Gzuckier 16:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it's an ugly job, but I'll volunteer. "Your feet smell". Gzuckier 16:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: This (ab)user seems to be using multiple IP addresses.  I've blocked at least three of them.  David Cannon 05:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josh Gordon using SLURS: 

message: This article seems flawed in its current form. There is a persistent emphasis on the opinion of so-called 'serious' historians. I think that passages that use the opinions of such historians to debunk Irving should instead refer to facts: "Irving said this, but instead the following has been established to be true..." It is not sufficient to create an empty pecking-order of seriousness.
I feel I have to stress I don't personally agree with Irving. That is why I would rather see a more strongly written article, one containing persuasive facts.
:I agree completely. It does not help the article to include such things that he considered himself a mild facist at school or killed frogs at kindergarten. --Magabund 11:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Serious' versus 'non-serious' historians 

message: oops.  Here is where it goes:  cut and pasted in correct area
There are 4-5 separate ADL links on the article at any given time.  This is redundant, as one link to the ADL site is sufficient, just as one link to (the subject of the article) Irving is all that is allowed by some editors.  There is a lack of consistency in editing with regards to linkages.69.221.63.132 20:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant Links?

message: Calton and the anon keep deleting the section in bold and the ADL link from this sentence: "Irving also maintains a personal website, which is included on the ADL's list of hate sites,  and which he updates almost every day, focusing heavily on anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli topics."
I can't see what the objection is to this. If he maintains a website that a watchdog group calls a "hate site," that's clearly relevant. Perhaps Irving has responded to his inclusion on the list, and we could include that response? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The sentence is about "Irving's personal website", so if there's a link there it ought to be to what the sentence refers to: Irving's website.  Another ADL link is redundant and POV, and the link duplicates information already found in the article.69.209.210.145 19:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if there's a link in the sentence, it ought to support any contentious or interesting point the sentence makes, and the one here is that Irving's personal website is regarded as a hate site, which clearly has to be referenced. Is that information already elsewhere in the article? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
No, the sentence is about Irving personal site, so the link ought to be to Irving's personal site, not the "contentious" ADL, which is already linked elsewhere.  Information about the ADL on Irving's site is interesting to say the least.  
69.209.210.145 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, that link just proves that Irving's website focuses heavily on anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli rants. GeneralPatton 21:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hate site

message: Obviously written by a detractor of Irving's and certainly not NPOV
Eg. "describes himself as a self-taught historian"... No. He IS a self-taught historian - whether or not you agree with how he interprets history is irrelevant. If he is not a self-taught then what is he - a professional historian? 
"Irving is also one of the most accomplished and successful proponents of Holocaust denial."
Of course he isn't! He lost his libel case against Lipstadt. As a result he has filed for bankruptcy. His reputation, such as it was, is now in tatters. If anything he is one of the most UNsuccessful proponents of Holocaust denial! 
"was found to be a Holocaust denier by the court"
This is deliberately misleading. It wasn't a jury who found against Irving, it was a judge. 
"He is considered an icon by many in the Holocaust denial camp."
What is the "Holocaust denial camp?"
"prominent Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt"
Lipstadt is not a "prominent" Holocaust historian by any stretch of the imagination - except perhaps to her publicist. Until the Irving trial she was just another published academic.
These are just a few examples from the article's introduction.
Irving is a controversial figure, but clearly, this article needs a genuine "non-partisan" to clean it up.
(Redzen 09:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, undoubted Bias

message: I have taken the liberty of adding recent quotes by Irving to the article. In the interests of balance and fairness, I sincerely hope they will remain.
(Redzen 11:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Quotes by David Irving

message: The article says nothing about what might have motivated to knowningly use forged documents. Is there any information on this? (Narkstraws 20:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation 

message: Jusr out of curiosity, would somebody know what exactly is his explanation for the disapearance of 6 million people during WWII (by coincidence all jews)? muriel@pt 15:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Curiosity

message: This artical starts with claims that irving has no good reputation left but ends with a quote from keegan saying that in he things Iving does have some redeaming features as a historian
This article uses overly emotive language and doesn't back up some of its strong claims (or any of the ones that are not related to his trial), whatever our judgment of the man Wikipedia should not do these things
This article has four pictures of Irving looking terribly unhappy and one of him grinning sitting next to a Smeer, are we really saying that this guy was only happy when in close proximity to Nazis? Furthermore the picture of him looking worst is captioned not by any information about the picture or its meaning, but by a general claim that by the 1980s his reputation was in tatters!
come on guys the guy is a nut but these things are just too much.- doesn't sign his posts
Give me a break, you obviously either have little idea of what you're talking about or you are trying to promote your own point of view, either way your comments are inappropriate.  A sane person merely has to take one look at Irving's current website and will understand that what this article says about him is mild by comparison.  The site contains every single discredited anti-semitic hairbrained theory.  And pleasse sign your posts in the future to prevent confusion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pretty poor on the NPV front I think 

message: However, a few quibbles:
* Most serious historians picked the book apart, noting some of its numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations, yet it sold well.
** Which historians, and why are we taking a position on who or who is not a "serious" historian?
** What were the inaccuracies?
* Evans’ final assessment of Irving’s work was both blistering and damning
** My goodness... this possibly may be the case, but again... why on earth are we holding a position?!
* Irving lost subsequent attempts at appeal, and in light of the evidence presented at the trial, a number of his works which had previously escaped serious scrutiny were shown to be irredeemably flawed, and what remained of Irving’s reputation as a historian was destroyed.
** No doubt... however, if we are going to claim this, then we need to back it up. What other words were "irredeemably flawed"? And why are we using the terms "irredeemably flawed"? This, again, is holding a position. 
For these reasons I can't support this as a neutral POV. Might I also make it extremely clear that I feel that he is one of the greatest fools to have walked on this earth. However, if we wish to hold to the neutral point of view policy, we cannot and must not hold a POV on highly offensive topics. 
The fastest way I know of defeating stupidity such as David Irvings is to document it. We don't have to comment on it or hold a position: his foolishness becomes apparent all by itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism understood and constructive intent understood, at least by me. I haven't done much work on this article myself, and I'm basically lazy, so I'd rather let some of the regulars filter out the POV stuff as you mention, and let things speak for themselves. It's hard, of course, to refrain from the easiest way of summarizing things, by just mentioning what screams to be concluded. Any takers? Gzuckier 19:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: One can hardly name an article good that begins with name calling and labeling Irving "holocaust denier". There is no such field of work as someone already pointed out. Not one Irving's book deals specifically with holocaust and he has repeatedly told that he is no expert on that matter. --Magabund 15:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very good article 

message: The following was posted by an anonymous user on the main page:
This is one of the oddest things I have ever read - RE: the Hitler diaries, please go to Wikis own article on "the Hitler Diaries" - use the link given in this article. Their own link shots down this article or the "Hitler Diaries" get shot down, take your pick. This is surreal. If you are going to be so blatantly biased, please read your stuff before it is put on the web. 159.105.80.60 15:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it as it has no place on the front page. At any rate I'm not entirely sure what contradiction between the two is supposed to exist. If you care to post more specific information here we can see if we can address it. --Davril2020 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I cannot understand your objection. The article says that Irving was particularly sceptical of the diaries. It says he was one of the first well known historians to argue they were fake, and one of the last to admit they might be genuine (as tests were carried out, many accepted the possibility of them being genuine, that's not the same thing as saying they certainly are genuine). Irving was right - they were fake. The Hitler Diaries article concurs. This point is, if anything, supportive of Irving. --Davril2020 14:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler Diaries

message: OK, granted I don't know much about David Irving's statements on the Holocaust. I'm quite interested to know how he would explain the people who do insist they lost family in these particular camps. Would someone be able to explain to me where my grandmother's entire family went? Because I'm sure she'd like to know. Kitty 09:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is really clear on Irving's current beliefs as he has made some noises indicating he now accepts the holocaust to have sort-of happened. His classic beliefs were that the Jews dispersed into various countries after WWII. It's a difficult notion to sustain. Other deniers who argue that millions died, but not systematically claim they died through malnutrition or disease. It's also difficult to sustain. --Davril2020 13:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably haven't read Irving as he states in many places that jews and others were in fact systematically killed. For example he cites Eichmann who himself witnessed mass killings. He even talks about gassing in trucks. One has to read authentic material to learn what somebody really claims. Irving on Holocaust: Eichmann himself ... actually witnessed this. He went to see one at Minsk, and being a proper SS officer he went right to the front to make sure that everything was being carried out. He got so close, in fact, that he saw with his very own eyes how the victims were being made to go into the pits and stand there waiting to be shot.  from Irving's speech
If you would really like to know then the Red Cross, who visited the camps during WW2, have extensive records in Arolson. These files are closed except to "trusted" persons - they will probably not let you browse to your hewarts content but they might do a search for you. The Arolson files would certainly never be opened to Irving or any scholar who might not be "trusted" to do their own count and research. This is difficult to "sustain" - the Arolson records should probably be destroyed to protect political correctness, it's doubtful that the current protectors would be happy with a tell all book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.60 (talk • contribs) 12:13, December 14, 2005  (UTC)
*Been reading Zundelsite, huh? He seems to be the one who spells it "Arolson" rather than "Bad Arolsen", the actual name of the place. But you're certainly not alone in wanting it opened; this press release from the US State Department might interest you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: There is a sentence in the article that says:
:This is a theme which appears repeatedly in Irving’s writing: overstatement of putative 'wrongs' done to Nazi-era Germany, while understating 'wrongs' done by Nazi Germany.
I see in the page history that an anonymous deleted that sentence on the grounds of being subjective, but the change was reverted.  The sentence is actually well along the lines of the sort of comment made in judgment against Irving in the libel case — that he had double-standards in his treatment of the historical evidence depending whether it tended to support or oppose his own point of view.  Nonetheless, the anonymous editor does have a point: as the article currently stands, the sentence appears subjective.  Can we replace it with something sourced, e.g. an appropriate quotation from the court judgment?
TerraGreen 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced comment 

message: This talk page is getting rather long.  I suggest archiving some older comments, though I admittedly can't be bothered to do it myself because some people have made a mess of it by adding their comments at the top so it no longer reads chronologically. TerraGreen 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say do it (newer and lower contributor here, certainly than Jpgordon at least). As it stands it's a mess. Holmwood 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggest archiving talk 

message: Sensing this article is little unfair to David Irving, I looked up the Amazon user review of his 'notorious' book Hitler's War. Now decide for yourself who is biased. At least those who have locked this page should think about why is there such a difference. In fact, I am now starting to doubt whether Wikipedia can any longer be unbiased. Focused lobbying groups can really affect the content. However, I don't have a solution suggest.
-Cibu 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What has amazon.com reviews got to do with anything? Most of the people that buy David Irving's books tend to be those that already believe his argument - they're not for sale through mainstream retailers so you have to go to secondary channels. I might add that even the High Court (London) has found him to be an apologist and Holocaust denier - I should point out that we have no Holocaust-denial laws, so the fact he lost his case is important. John Smith's 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is biased? Wikipedia or Amazon reviews 

message: The page in question is highly inappropriate as it several times brandishes David Irving a 'holocaust denier'. No respectable encyclopedia would use such a term, which is a term used by his opponents. No-one can judge any other person as to what he is or is not, or what his beliefs are. To do so is very subjective and should not, I repeat should not be included in an Encyclopedia.
Just look how many times the author tries to smear this honourable historian, whose book 'Hitlers War' from 1977 was compulsery reading at West Point and Sandhurst. This really says a lot of the extent of authority as Mr. Irving enjoyed (then). He is still widely believed to be one of the greatest authorities on WW2 and of the nature of the Nazi regime. All this still stands, as everyone can witness for himself by reading some of his books, which are available free of charge from his website as Downloads.
However ONE chapter of the aforementioned book was about the holocaust. And because of that David got subjected to a smearing campaign hitherto unseen in scope. Booksellers was pressured not to sell his books (no mention of this on Wikipedia) - that is why he gives them away for free. Whereever he goes in the world he find arrangements cancelled ib short notice, the hotelliers or universities being pressed to pull the event.
I find David irving to be a good and honourable englishman. His father was naval officer who took part in The Battle of Jutland. You cannot find ANY factual fault in his work. If you can David is the first who wants to know - email him.
By the way, he do not deny the holocaust, which is why your Wikipedia entry is so wrong. He find the whole subject boring, but hardpresset he will tell you that it should be spelled with a small h as there were many holocausts, poles,russians,gypsies and others got killed. Civilians allways get caught out in war, but it is undeniable that the Nazi regime was especially brutal.
To be a folk without a homeland living among a majority is allways a precaurious situation to be in in times of unrest, or so history has proven many times.
David akcnowledges that many jews got killed, but he happen to hold the view that most died from mal-nutrition and diseases, and that aplyes to ALL inmates in concentrationcamps. So you see he is not denying .
I have now tried to just delete the offensive sentences in the beginning about Mr. Irving being a socalled 'holocaust denier'. He says himself he is not, and acknowledges that many jews were killed during the war, however he does not go along with the 6 million jews killed-figure, as he reckons the number to be lower. And it really comes down to that: " David has the right to question anything relating to history and WW2 is his speciality, and he actually makes a living of questioning and critically examining sources.
I also decided to delete the account about him loosing a court case in 2000. David have launched several libel cases before - in 1996 he won 45000 £ libel-damage against an English Sunday Newspaper. The fact that he this time lost is not something that should figure at the head of his CV. Many people also find it extraordinary that a judge can deside what a person IS or is not, and what beliefs he holds.
I shall demand that if I am not allowed to modify these blatant accusations at the very beginning of a respected historians CV, then the whole page should dis-appear, and not be visible to anyone. Since the text is disputed we should either be allowed to edit it, or it should vanish
With these words, I remain
Yours 
Nick Rowan
:He was found by a British court of law to be a Holocaust denier and to have deliberately falsified historical events, in a case for libel which he himself brought.  You can't get much more factual than that. As well, the 2000 court case was a seminal, infamous court case, and a critical event in his own biography. Finally, his reputation is in tatters; it's hard to imagine how you could claim he is a "good and honorable englishman", much less a "honorable historian". Jayjg (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The text in its current form is smear intended to discredit ,and dishonour Mr.David Irving

message: I'm not sure of the procedure myself, but could someone do something about the persistent vandalism on this page? How do I get in touch with an admin? User Nick-Rowan has been vandalising the page non-stop for three or four days now, yet the last 24-hour ban was simply for violating the 3-revert rule. S/he has not editted a single article besides the David Irving page and has made it quite clear they will continue to vandalise the page until stopped. Could someone tell me how to get in touch with an admin on the subject to try and get this sorted? --Davril2020 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: How can anyone claim the Justice Gray hearing was reestablishing the facts?  The hearing was a civil case between two parties, not a criminal or a public enquiry.  The scope of that case could never question the history other than question did Irving try to disclaim holocaust dogma and they found he did.
That Lipstat is a nasty piece.  I recall her doing an interview on an Australia ABC current affairs show, Lateline, and she was constantly lying and misrepresenting the situation.  The ABC was lapping everything up as they seem to favour the Jewish cause.  Like they recently showed how great Simon Wiesenthal was, but failed to mention his witch hunt style persecutions and lies, like human soap stories.
The only means to questioning the history is to reopen the Nuremberg Trials!
: Sign your posts. Bhumiya 15:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justice Gray Hearing 

message: If you think the title above is biased -even if it is factual - then you might also see that the opening paragraph of the Irving article is also biased. It's difficult being honest, open and able to face up to one's own prejudices.
Holocaust Denial is a particular perspective on a particular part of history, and Irving is known principally for his work in studying history. Hence it might be reasonable to describe Wilde as holding a particular literary perspective because it is central to Wilde's public existence. It would equally be incorrect to describe Irving as a criminal or a man who currently resides in prison because that is not central to Irving's public identity. His public views on the only area of history for which he is well known are, however, of great significance. Equally, if Wilde had been a famous child carer, I would consider it acceptable to use the first clause of your sentence as it would be meaningful and significant in such a context. --Davril2020 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main thing that Irving is know as is a Holocaust denier. It's not true that Socrates was a pederast who used to be thought of as a philosopher.  know of no evidence that isn't purely circumstantial (i.e. he was an Ancient Greek) to indicate that he was a pederast, and there's no one disputing Socrates's position as a philosopher. If Galileo was primarily known as a flat Earth denier, that's what we should start the article with.--Prosfilaes 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ground Zero, Irving was famous for authoring books on WWII long before he became known as a Holocaust Denier. Although, I guess that also depends on how you define  'denier'. But no, he's famous for researching and authoring books on history. He's recently famous for 'denying the holocaust', but that was a matter of opinion that he took to the courts and lost. And about your comment that it's 'historical fact', Do you not understand that 'historical fact' is often merely a consensus of opinions? Is it even possible to distinguish between fact and myth, between truth and whim? Yes, I believe it is possible.  But it's not easy, and it takes revisionists like Irving to point out the weaknesses and fallacies of the arguments on the consensus. Then again, it takes revisionists more careful than Irving to actually improve the quality of truth. Otheus 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscar Wilde was an Irish pederast, who for many years held the reputation of being an author and wit 

message: Greetings. Trying to remove POV from an article like this is pretty much impossible. But I've made an attempt. 
First off, the context. I am evaluating the current situtation (16:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The judge's opinion is that Irving is anti-semitic and a racist, but this is mainly a result from his analyis of Irving's diaries, and what I see as Irving's attempt at shock humor. The judge pays lip-service only to the fact that throughout all of his diaries, the worst he can come up with is a racial nursery-rhyme he taught his daughter in order to 'suitably shock' the intended audience ("half-breeds"). Given Irving's lifelong role as a provacateur/enfant terible, it seems that any fair-minded judge (to borrow his phrase) would err on the side of caution in labeling Irving a genuine racist. The judge, in my current opinion seems to get caught up in the trap of applying the concepts of racism and anti-semitism as broadly as the extremist left-wing. Sigh. Despite all this, I readily stand by the continuance of referring to the ADL and to the judges summary of Irving.  Otheus 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most people try and teach their children the right way to go; if you teach a special nursery-rhyme to your child, I think it's fair to assume you believe it. He also got up and espoused that certain jobs shouldn't be given to non-Whites, which is a racist concept. No one can know another's mind; if you behave and talk like a racist and anti-Semite, people have every right to assume you are one.--Prosfilaes 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not at all fair to assume one belives the nursery rhymes you teach your young. In fact, nursery-rhymes are in most cases completely disasociated from the parent's notion of truth and reality. Take for instance the childhood song "ashes to ashes, we all fall down", or some of Grimm's fairy tales, or "I knew an old lady who swallowed a spider", or "Farmer john(?), he had a dog, e-i-e-i-o", or etc. You believed these were real? Second, he is a bigot, there's no doubt. He prefers to see his own race (and sex) in particular instances, like reading the news on network television. This does not imply that he believes on race is superior to another, but yes, it is a racist "concept", but not exclusively one.  Finally, "if you behave and talk like a racist and anti-Semite" ... yes, people have every right to assume you are one, but does that mean 1 racial slur in your whole life makes you a racist? Maybe 2 last year? Maybe there's a quote -- you know, 3 or 4 per year and then you're considered a racist. At any rate, Irving seems to have made 2 per year, based on the accounts of his diaries. I can't tell if that's racist or not, but I'm guessing it's not. I've been around non-racists who were, let's say, vociferous bigots, and if they kept a diary, uh, you'd not be able to count all the instances. (You may ask how I know they were non-racists. I'd have to write a whole essay on them.)  Otheus 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Judges' agreement with Lipstadt,et al that Irving associates with right-wing extremist groups is undeniable at face-value. It's really not clearly to me, however, where the judge really stands on this issue. He says Irving "no doubt" shares politics with neo-Nazi groups, but that's like saying noting that humans share 93% of their DNA with mice. As long as he's going to use Irving's journals to hang him, he (or the defense) could have done so. But the best he could do is note that Irving knew that he was meeting with the "National Alliance", "whatever they were". On the basis of this, the Judge's quote should stand, but any other references to IRving's association not already covered in the trial, are probably shades of character assassination. Otheus 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to remove POV

message: Was Carr "serious"? His apology of Stalin was close to the Nazi social Darvinism. Is Irving any worse?
Xx236 11:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Hallett Carr 

message: Substituted at 20:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment