Talk:David Irving/Archive 2

message: Anyone know what Irving was doing in Austria, when he had an outstanding arrest warrant? It seems most people would avoid traveling to that country. Had he been in Austria in the past, after 1989, but they just never arrested him? Was he there in November 2005 for a speech? Was he turning himself in to authorities? Can't find anything in the news articles about WHAT he was doing back in Austria! --Fxer 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was told by the authorities in 1989 that his speech did not violate Austrian law. He was, however, charged in absentia. British Jews alerted Austria about Irving on several subsequent visits. Having visited Austria several times after 1989, Irving thought the arrest warrant was inactive. He was wrong!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColumbiaMaryland (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is hard to understand as currently written. It says he was barred from entering Austria, but then says he's on trial in Austria. I'll add a sentence saying he illegally entered Austria, since that's what I gather from this discussion actually happened.--Bcrowell 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrested on old warrant 

message: This article is not neutral, it contains many generalizations and in some parts over simplifies holocaust deniers into monstorous lunatics who don't know what they are talking about. Don't get me wrong I don't believe Irving I just believe in neutrality.--154.20.62.186 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose it ever occurs to those who consider David Irving's books excellent, and his research very good, that in all objective fact it is they who are  the "vocal minority". Ironic, in that Irving is one of the few people of whom we can state categorically on Wikipedia that he is in fact a racist, an antisemite and a rehabilitator of the history of Hitler and the Nazis whose scholarship is second to that political agenda, without fear of legal challenge; that having been determined by legal precedent, thanks to Irving's own request to prove the question in court. Of course, the ability to, without embarrassment,  publicly accuse the Jews of locking the article to prevent other editors from defending poor Irving is not something that would encourage one to expect signs of logical coherence elsewhere in the post.Gzuckier 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Spoken like a true Jewish partisan! The article uses numerous loaded phrases and adjectives. It is neutral just as Fox News is fair and balanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColumbiaMaryland (talk • contribs) 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: If he was barred from entering that country in the late 1980's, how, pray tell, did he manage to get back in? According to a poster on the "discussion" page, he was invited by students. If that's true, did Austrian customs officials allow him in knowing who he was or did he enter illegally or what?
*Good question. Where was he coming from? Could be he didn't have to face any border controls at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  barred from entering Austria??? 

message: The article refers to the night of the 21st of February 2006, when local time in Europe right now is between 2:00 AM and 5:00 AM local on February 21, 2006.
--MZMcBride 02:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "arrest and trial" portion 

message: As Christopher Hitchens, the British journalist, quipped, "David Irving is not just a Fascist historian. He is also a great historian of Fascism."
Having just read this, it doesn't seem to make sense. Is this the correct quote? If Hitchens was trying to make the point that Irving was himself a fascist, surely the remark would be phrased the other way around, something like "Irving is not just a historian of fascism, but a fascist historian". As quoted, it appears to mean that Irving is primarily a fascist, secondarily a historian, which is surely backwards in the context in which it was made. As the reference is not cited (and I have been unable to find it) can this be checked/verified? Graham 06:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source: . It seems Hitchens is quoted correctly, but the context in which the quote is used in this article is incorrect. Hitchens is actually defending Irving in the sense that the refusal of the publishers to touch his work is due to his reputation as a fascist, rather than his ability or otherwise as a historian, which Hitchens argues is actually reasonable; he is a historian of fascism, which the publishers are overlooking due to his fascism! The quote is thus misplaced in the context of the article, which is why it looks ass-backwards when read. It's also out of context in the timeline of events, since Hitchens was writing in 1996, whereas the article uses the quotation in the context of his declining reputation during the early 1980s. The quotation remains relevant and the article should probably include it, but it ought to be moved from its present position. Graham 06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, I have commented out the quotation in the text. The problem is that there's nowhere that it could readily be moved to at present - there doesn't seem to be any defence of Irving as a historian post the 1980s, and leaving the quote where it was is out of context and confusing. If this is problematic, please discuss. Graham 06:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Err, simply stating that the comment was made in 1996 (as a new edit does) doesn't address the issue. The problem is that the quote makes no sense in the context in which it is presented, regardless of when it was made. The fact it was made much later than the time described exacerbates this, but putting the date isn't a fix. I will revert the edit... if people want to debate this then please do, I feel the quote is valuable, just misplaced. Graham 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitchens quote?

message: i just reverted  83.217.190.69's removal of the hidden comments. I'm pretty sure those were meant to be there, and they were using the hidden format thingie so they are only visible when viewing the source of the page, so I don't see any reason why they should have been removed.--Alhutch 08:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert 

message: Any explanation as to why his father cut off contact with his wife and children? Toby Douglass 11:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  his father 

message: Can anyone find a copy of the court case transcript for the Feb 2006 trial ? Holocaust denier: 3-year jail term I can't locate it using www.google.com It would be good to add it to Wikisource and reference it to the article. SirIsaacBrock 11:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have heard wrong. However, there are fairly strict privacy laws in both countries, and, moreover, court transcripts are not in the public domain here. Thus, it is unlikely that they can be found online. I don't know if they are available to the general public at all, or just to involved parties. If they are, you probably need to find out where they are archived and request a copy in person. --Stephan Schulz 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcript

message: In the section "Early Life" it says his father's ship was sunk "while escorting Convoy QP-11"
In the section "Historian" it cites a book called "The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17"
I suspect the first reference is in error and it should say "PQ-11" but I'm not expert on WWII British convoy designations.
--Davecampbell 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PQ = From Britain around Norway to the Soviet Union, QP = the return trip. So QP-11 would be the eleventh convoy 'coming home' from the Soviet Union Lovingboth 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ps and Qs

message: This article needs to explain more about why having an irritating opinion is considered illegal in Austria. Theres too much of a disconnection between the punishment (jail) and the apparent crime ("denial"). The Holocaust denial article mentions the concept briefly, but nowhere does it explain in a clear and researched way when and why Austria, France, et al enacted this into law. Without it, theres no substance to the section for which this article has been placed on the MP. -Ste|vertigo 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: We apparently need an article on the crime "Defaming the Memory of the Dead" - Ste|vertigo 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this isn't the article to explain German and Austrian laws regarding the promotion of Naziism. Holocaust denial might be an appropriate place, as would Neo-Naziism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any ambiguous legal statute should be summarised in the article, and stubbed or linked to directly a more elaborated treatment. I would but Im short on time tonight. -Ste|vertigo 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal view 

message: Before I get started ... I came close to converting to Judaism (took conversion classes), and have volunteered for Holocaust memorials. Now, that aside, how is it that someone can be sentenced to prison for denying the Holocaust? If lying about history is a crime, then a lot of textbook writers in the US need to go to prison, as well as many politicians. -- Andrew Parodi 09:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. What? (And since you're interested in my name, it's very common in the Genoa region of Italy. There is a town in the region of Liguria with my name in the title: Parodi Ligure.) And as to the status of my penis, I was born here in the US, so take a wild guess as to its status. -- Andrew Parodi 09:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Different countries have different laws. Heck, in many countries you can even be imprisoned just for criticizing the government. -Will Beback 10:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah c'mon. You can't say it's almost as frightening as the holocaust itself, that's ridiculous. This man knew there was a warrant out for his arrest, he knew he was banned, and he knew he was breaking the law. Once arrested he was tried in an open court and found guilty. He'll serve some of his time in a comfortable jail with three meals a day and then be released and deported, etc. On the other hand, in the holocaust, millions of people were rounded up and imprisoned without any charge whatsoever, shipped off to camps to die from starvation or gas poisoning, after being made to work as slaves with no food for as long as they held out. After death they were interred in mass graves. There is a huge difference here, and drawing any comparison at all is a gross insult to those who were affected by the holocaust. Get a sense of perspective. Irving is a nasty piece of work, good riddance to him I say. Though personally I feel that this will give him more publicity than he deserves, so it may backfire on the Austrians. Graham 13:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So I am german living in austria (so sorry for my english). Due to our history we have the same laws in germany and austria. Nazism and neonazism are seen as majopr hazzards for our democracy. Appeals for a crime, like calling for a murdering is not covered by free speach in democratic countries. Also defamation of dead  or living persons (espescially crime victims) is not covered by free speach in many countries. The majority in german and austria put the deny, justification, relativation and so on of nationalsocialistic crimes against humanity on the same level. And especially to the case of Irving: He was already arrested, deproted and banned in austria in 1984. He visited several times illegal austria and get an arrest warranty in 1989. The austrian gouverment let him run several times, but when he illegal travelled to austria again last time to hold a speach at a right-wing students' fraternity, they had enough. He knew, that there is a arrest warranty, he knew that he is not allowed to enter austria - but he did.--62.178.221.119 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler was a totalitarian, and in my mind it is totalitarian to put someone in prison for stating an opinion that the government doesn't like. -- Andrew Parodi 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the major oppinion in germany and austria is: Faschischmuss ist keine Meinung, sondern ein Verbrechen --- fascism is not an oppinion but a crime.--62.178.221.119 22:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prison time for denying the Holocaust?

message: "In November 1994, Irving spoke at an event sponsored by the American neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby, with the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in attendance." 
Why is David Duke's attendance relevant?  IS it "Guilt by association" - it certainly looks like it.  This sentence should be re-worded or removed, depending on what sources are available. 
"In November 1994, Irving spoke at an event sponsored by the American neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby, and said 'Hitler was a lovely bloke what never did no arm to no-one." Irving was introduced and carried on to the podium by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke." 
In other words we really need a role for David Duke, other just being there, and we need to tie the event (which we should name if possible) to the section "Accusations of Holocaust denial" (which I think if we are careful with our sources could be replaced with "Holocaust denial"). Rich  Farmbrough. 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, we should also stand up the Neo-nazi bit, it looks right from Liberty Lobby but it should be sourced in that article. Rich  Farmbrough. 11:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That depends if you think attending numerous talks hosted by extreme right wing groups and sharing the stage with white supremacists, neo-nazis etc. is a pattern of behaviour which sheds light on his views. --MagicMoose 16:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *His views speak for themselves. It's a sign of laziness to judge him by the company he keeps. lmno 21:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The Lipstadt quote is relevant and should be kept in the article. It was removed by an IP and I have restored it, with comments. The rule is inclusion, not exclusion. Looking in the history, these are other chunks that have been pruned (or censored) by exclusionists. -Ste|vertigo 17:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to include the Hitchens' quote, but it doesn't belong in this position. I made my reasons clear above (you may have missed it, there has been a flurry of discussion since). Things shouldn't be included just because they relate to the topic - they also have to make sense and enhance the article. This quote is useful, but it currently doesn't find a natural home in thge article, since there is no topic about others defending Irving, which is what Hitchens is doing - or rather, he is attacking his publishers for not having the guts to publish Irving's book. Graham 05:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of quotes 

message: Sentencing David Irving for this the same as sentencing people for talking about God and his will.--143.92.1.33 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentencing David Irving for this the same as sentencing people for suggsting 1 + 1 = 3.--143.92.1.33 06:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Athiest Point Of View: 

message: You should nurse your obsession elsewhere and not in an encyclopedia. As it is, far to much time and effort goes into describing Irvings dealings with this subject, allthough he is a WW2 historian, and himself finds the subject boring.
You see, WW2 was a titanic clash of 2 beliefs, 2 ways of governance,democracy versus tyranny. Britain fought alone for nearly 2 years, and in this way rescued our civilisation. 
Winston S. Churchill, General De Gaulle and Dwight D. Eisenhower between them wrote thousands of pages about WW2 without ever mentioning holocaust with a single word, so surely Irving should not be compelled constantly to deal with it?  There were other concerns for the allies, as I sketched out above. And civilians are allways caught out in times of war and unrest - look at Iraq.
Don't you find it deplorable that the jewish nomenclatura apparently hold so much sway, that they feel inclined constantly to over-expose this after all marginal event in WW2, and therefore marginal event in any serious historians mind?
Nick-Rowan 10:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that many people concentrate on the holocaust because it resulted in so many deaths. While the ~360,000 deaths suffered by the British is significant it does seem less so compared to the 8 million or so dead Jews/Slavs/Gypsies/etc killed throughout Europe. This does not seem negligable given that this represents about 12% of the total casualties of WW2. Further, when a military kills it's own people this tends to capture the attention more than conventional battles between two enemies. Also, I would also say that WWII involved a lot more than just 2 sets of beliefs and governments. Even the just the main participants represented several cultural identies (did the Soviet Union lose 50 million people to defend Democracy?). The leaders of the three western allies are, almost by definition, examples of extreme point-of-view and much of their efforts went into promoting and justifying their own actions while minimising those of people they did not get on with. Slinky Puppet 11:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Britain fought alone for 2 years? In your dreams. Go read some history. The only country who fought alone for 2 years was China. "Rescued our civilisation"? What was so good about this "civilisation"? Inhumane treatment of native peoples? Exploitation of colonised lands and resources? The White Man's Burden? Social Darwinism? Imperialism? Why does this reek of typical Anglocentricity? For your information, WW2 was in no way a fight of democracy vs totalitarianism. Poland was totalitarian. Finland had a democracy. The Allies were constantly trying to woo Franco's Fascist dictatorship. I suggest your pick up a history book and read it, before making a bloody fool of yourself. Oh wait, too late. And please, "Jewish nomenclature" immediately gives you away for what you really are. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh the "Jewish nomenclature" bit already gave him away. Direct-from-factory holocaust-industry spiel. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, look at his user contributions and judge what use he is to the whole community. Yellowmellow45 16:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... You know, his writing style (Nick Rowan responds...) reminds me of this bunch of Neo-Nazis on Prussian Blue... They must have all taken the NSDAP Wikipedia Disinformation Crash Course or something... :p -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Why don't you people give User:Nick-Rowan a yellow barnstar? People might then get some idea of your use to the whole community.... lmno 10:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think Wikipedia is a piece of crap (according to your user page), you have the right to vanish. Don't linger any longer than you have to. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'l stay for as long as I feel welcome :-) lmno 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, personal attack warning #1. I'll be watching you. Do you know where China is? In case you don't, find out about the Second Sino-Japanese War, 1937 - 1945. If you can't be bothered to find historical facts simple as these before spewing, then DON'T. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well he even got the European history wrong, Britain wasn't the only free European country in Spring 1940, Switzerland and Sweden were free of Fascism, while Romania, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Spain and Potugal were ot invaded by Hitler at that time at all. As for the claim that the Genocide in Eastern Europe was marginal, has Mr Rowan ever heard of Lebensraum, the reason for Hitler's invasion of Poland? He intended to rid the area of nondesirables to create Living Room for the German people. This includes millions non-Jews, but also millions of those killed in the name of Lebensraum were Jewish. Personally, I cant distinguish Nick's remarks from those Nazis who he pretends to be proud of the allies defeating during WII. Yellowmellow45 18:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Spain? lmno 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Republican government was usurped by a right-wing coup which succeeded in part because of Italian/German military aid. For people who saw Franco as losing, and the former government as legitimate, it qualifies as an invasion. --Davril2020 21:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Germany invaded Poland on  September 1st, 1939. "Russia" had ceased to exist as a state by then, but the Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17th, 1939.  By what miracle do you arrive at "Russia had already attacked and taken over half of Poland long before Germany went a short way into Poland"? --Stephan Schulz 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only ONE chapter in ONE book deals with *it*-why are YOU obsessed with it 

message: This 68 year old's life surely have more facets to it, than a libel suit, he himself launched, and then lost? Only if you have a very narrow point of reference, would you contemplate over-exposing this minor event in this way.
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 decide what a person IS or is not, and what beliefs he holds.  Nick-Rowan 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it extraordinary that a judge would make that judgment? Isn't that exactly what Irving asked the judge to do when he initiated his legal action against Lipstadt? Judges are paid to try the cases that come before them, making findings of law and fact. A soon as Irving launched his case, he asked the court to make a decision on various issues, including whether Lipstadt had told the truth about him. There's nothing "extraordinary" about it. That's how defamation law works. If he didn't like it, he didn't have to initiate a lawsuit for defamation. I find your remark very puzzling. Metamagician3000 10:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. you say it is quite ordinary,then. Lets work on that assumption, shall we? If you are correct then the reaction to the fact that he lost, should be the same as when the english sunday newspaper lost a libelcase launched by Irving in 1996, or the reaction to the hypothetical situation that Lipstadt had lost. But it seems to me that the reaction to Irving loosing ,this time has been far out of proportion, compared to any other person or newspaper loosing something. Nick-Rowan 10:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite ordinary for judges to make findings of law and fact in cases that come before them, such as defamation cases, in which one of the issues is usually whether what someone said - in this instance what Lipstadt said about Irving - is true. That is what judges do. It doesn't mean that all cases are of equal interest to the public, which is a totally different issue. If Irving, and things to do with him, weren't notable and of public interest, there would be no Wikipedia article. Likewise if someone said something bad about Mick Jagger or Tom Cruise and he sued - the case would attract interest because it was Mick Jagger/Tom Cruise, not because it would involve any new legal principle. Anyway, I'll take this no further. You can have the last word, because I doubt that this discussion is much helping the encyclopedia. :) Metamagician3000 12:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally people here seems in need of a marketing make-over, or a PR course. It is generally a good idea to be polite and forthcoming in the opening paragraphs of any other living person's CV,- that is true in business as well as in any other walk of life, except perhaps in the dubious industry, where people are sitting nailed behind their screens all day, re-editing world-history and current events. It would be smart from their PR-point of view, but then again: When have they ever been smart? Nick-Rowan 11:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No matter how you regard it (and I understand many personnal feelings might be involved) in the great perspective of WW2 - you know where armies clash and all that - what happens to un-unioformed civilians in enemy-controlled territory - well, excuse me - but this have never been of over-riding importance to historians.
There is indeed evidence that he tried to moderate his views during the recent trial. However this may solely be attributed to normal opportunistic aspirations for lowering a possible jail sentence.Nick-Rowan 15:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *And he is now far more famous as a Holocaust denier than he was for his books - shouldn't this make one pause to think? lmno 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are still problems with the opening paragraphs -no need to speak of Lipstadt so soon 

message: Trouble is Davids Irving formidable historical works deals only with jews peripherically. Rightly so, cause their fate was as much about civilians getting caught out in the realms of war, whereas WW2 historians for obvious reasons focusses on armies and strategies and political movers and shakers.
 
It is simply un-acceptable that this hidden, anonymous nomenclatura continue to besmear an honorable englishman and God-blessed historical researcher - quite simply the greatest authority on WW2 and the Nazi Regime.
 
If they continue and do not moderate themselves, there is no doubt that their sinister work will be seen in the same way, that the work of their fellow men in setting up communist USSR, are now perceived.  Nick-Rowan 11:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, dude -- if he's the "greatest authority on WW2", then why did he get himself spanked out of court in the UK (the judge basically calling him a liar), when he carefully selected Britain as the jurisdiction to bring his lawsuit because libel is extremely easy to prove there? AnonMoos 11:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *I suspect he 'carefully' chose England because: a) he is English; and b) Penguin, a London publisher, were publishing the work in England. lmno 11:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What is more Lipstadt was using up to 20 lawyers and experts, being financed by the slush-fund being set up by such notables like Steven Spielberg. On the other hand, Irving was defending himself. It has been proved that his most formidable adversary, van Pelt, received funds by this fund.Nick-Rowan 11:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Lipstadt was financed by Penguin (The Times Law Report, 18 April 2000 from Irving's site); Irving was, in part, financed by "a colourful group bound in a dubious cause: a London pensioner, a Saudi prince with an estate in Ascot, a former Nazi U-boat commander and a glamorous blonde model." David Irving's secret backers, The Observer, 3 March 2002. lmno 12:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please let the above stay. It rests very beautifully now as a document within the text. Given that opinion here is overhwelmingly against Mr. Irving, and I now have provided proof of the horendous amounts of pounds spend by Ms. Lipstadt and her accomplishies, I can understand why you want to delete this proof, but shall nevertheless inform you ,that any further attempts to do so, only will exhibit to a larger degree, the prejudies that many, including myself has towards you and your fellow beings. Nick-Rowan 14:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *The table of expenses has no relevance - but I leave the figures relating to totals and the named individual. The comlete list takes up too much space and demonstrates nothing. lmno 14:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: ... Proof of what? You're alleging that they bought justice. Have you actually read the judge's decision? British law isn't a slot machine where inserting enough coins will guarantee a payout in the end. Irving lost on the basis of the evidence presented - as you will see if you actually read the statement pertaining to the trial.  --Davril2020 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice the way he doesn't use the word human in between "fellow" and "beings". It is ample evidence (if any was needed) that Irving's followers have an agenda to spread racist filth. She is allowed to spend as much money as she wants on research, its within the law and so not a big deal (and incidentally, Lipstadt didn't agree with the jail sentance because he would turn into a martyre type figure for the Nick-Rowans of this world). I'm sure if Irving had enough support within society, he would be able to spend a similar amount, but the fact is, he's a minority in his thought and shouldn't be given the oxygen of publicity. I take solace in the fact that Nick Rowan is probaly just one of twenty or so supporters of Irving. P.S, what has Israel go to do with it? Yellowmellow45 14:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *NB: The above figures represent the amounts expended by the defendants, and to a large extent represent payment for experts to go through Irving's work in fine detail looking for bias/inaccuracies/misrepresentations/etc. It is not an amount spent by Lipstadt in doing her own research. lmno 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK, credit where credit is due; I am satisfied, lmno, with the way the expenditures now is presented, and accept your argument that it takes up too much space,when presented in its full lenght, allthough it can hardly be a computer-storage problem, but rather and estetic and convenience based problem Nick-Rowan 14:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks. My objection relates solely to convenience.lmno 14:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Quote from Davril:> British law isn't a slot machine where inserting enough coins will guarantee a payout in the end.< 
No, but using 'coins' certainly helps, and hardly do any harm - and the funds was off course dollar-denominated, and was payed discreetly, out of sight and control of the british juridicial system . Nick-Rowan 14:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *The figures you quote are those submitted to the court by the defendants as their expenses in defending the action, so that the sums could be reclaimed from Irving. Thus the figures are in UKP (sterling) and were paid openly in full view of the English judicial system, by whom they were approved. lmno 15:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinister Nomenclature has hijacked this page, just like any page here, dealing with J-guys and Israel 

message: To avoid an edit war, let's discuss this here. I think that it is POV to call him a historian and that "historical researcher" is more neutral. He has denied that one of the most important events of the 20th century occurred. He cannot be a historian is he denied an important factual event. He has recanted this when it is convenient for him, so he even seems to acknowledge that with regard to the historical argument for which is most famous, he was wrong. Ground Zero | t 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should avoid terms such as :denied. He do not deny that many jews got killed, but happens to believe that the holocaust should be spelled with a small h, as there were many holocausts, and indeed more than 10 million ukrainean peasants died during the famine in the 30'ties, brought about by the jewish controlled Central Commitee of the USSR, deciding to confiscate their grains. This happened before the jewish genocide, and many ukrainians wanted to avenge this on ordinary jews, so the number of jews that were killed during WW2, among them UNDOUBTEDLY have some, that fell victim to revenge by ukrainians. Nick-Rowan 15:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't have to avoid "denied". Irving was unsuccessful in suing Lipstadt for calling him a "Holocaust denier", and Austria has imprisoned him for Holocaust denial. I'm on solid ground here. Ground Zero | t 16:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Off course he should be referred to as a historian. It is academic snobbery to think that one has to have university degrees in order to be a historian. It certainly does you no good if you after having stripped him of his credentials, wants to strip him of his title as well.A painter can be a painter without having frequented academia, a sculptor likewise, and author likewise,even a chemists and a mathematician may well be self-thought.
It is the originality of the thought which counts, and we are many who genuinely believes that academic training more often than not, actually inhibits originality of thought Nick-Rowan 16:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about academic credentials, it is about his denial of histirical facts. I think that disqualifies him from being a historian. I will wait to hear what other Wikipedians think. Ground Zero | t 16:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *It has nothing to do with his academic credentials, or his denial of historical "facts". It is about what is conventional - Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor does it entertain original research. Irving is commonly referred to as a historian. To call him otherwise is to adopt a non-standard position that would amount to POV. lmno 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jpgordon has summed this up well. Metamagician3000 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Couple of points: a. Most mainstream news sources use "historian" describing Irving [][][], even the Telegraph does that [] (maybe we have to clarify this "Telgraph memo" point?). b. WP:NOR states that WP is a tertiary source, so we write what other sources report. So whether I (or Jayjg) think that Irving is not a historian does not count. Thats exactly why I have put him back into list of historians also. --Magabund 11:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He should be described as a controversial historian, as he certainly generates much controversy. Almost all media describe him as a "historian", some as a "controversial historian", and none that I've seen as "disgraced historian". WP:NOR - exactly; it's doesn't matter what we think; it matters what the media thinks. The media manufactures consent. Also, if someone writes novels, he's a novelist; if someone writes poetry, he's a poet. So, if Irving is not a historian, and his books are not history books, what are they? Science fiction? Novels? Poetry? Theorethical physics books?!? No, I believe they are history books (perhaps not very accurate, or even slightly fabricated), which for all practial purposes makes him a historian. 195.29.139.239 15:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an illogical statement. People who write books about physics are science writers and people who write books about history are historical writers. Being a historian isn't about writing; it's about scholarship and research.--Prosfilaes 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And how do you think he gets material for his books other than by research? I believe he has done quite a lot of it. His books are not a mere presentation of other people's research. 195.29.52.1 15:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True; some of it is purely invented. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historian or historical researcher?

message: "According to Irving's twin brother, Nicholas, David Irving gave a "Heil Hitler" salute as a six year-old when a German bomber destroyed a neighbouring house." I hate to disagree with HOTR, who is usually pretty sound, but I don't think this is really relevant. A six-year would not really understand the significance of the gesture. It would be relevant if he were, say, 19 years old, but not six. Ground Zero | t 19:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. You and I find each other sometimes on the opposite side of some aspects of this. Sometimes on the same side. Refreshing that this time we're on the same side. I removed it and left comment. Otheus 01:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance

message: Since Irving would have to be the Worlds greatest historian, shouldn't this fact be noted in the main wikipedia article?
Can people suggest they ways this point be added to the main text. Druidictus 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irving The Worlds' Greatest Historian 

message: However the error in this way of thinking is that it is not about censorship or the confinement of free speech but rather about trying to spread hate or starting turmoils. As long as one can also provide evidence or at least provide some reasonable grounds for the statements that one utters, one is said to give a speech, and thus also falls under the right of free speech. It is naive to believe that everything, for instance a mere assertion like "Kill all X" (or a bit more elaborate) falls under the right of free speech, and one should be advised to look up the legal term speech. In this meaning the following statement of Deborah Lipstadt isn't any better than Irvine's allgeged 'speeches'.
:Sam Spade 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV (moved from article) 

message: See old version
These “sympathetic” quotes, addressed to Irving, were promptly deleted, because, “quotes should be short and only used in context with surrounding commentry to qualify for fair use”.
I would agree on that point. However, quotes taken from Irvings lesser bright moments are still there, (under the “Racism”- part). And they stay there for already a month, with context, nor commentary. 
If Wikipedia calls itself neutral, it should include both series of quotes, or remove them both., but in this way Wikipedia makes itself very vulnerable for Nazis who claim that this encyclopedia is biased. Jeff5102 13:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Although Irving's works were generally ignored by academics, and sometimes criticised as inaccurate when reviewed by specialists, his command of language and a wealth of anecdotes led generalists to write favourable reviews in the popular press, and many of his works sold well. He was particularly noted for his mastery of the voluminous and scattered German war records.
This may be a bit of point of view pushing here. Also, I think perhaps the greatest irony is that Irving gives his readers more in-text citations than many historians noted for their "scholarship". Its a shame that New Left academics and those who reach the popular conclusions while pushing their agenda are getting away with a number of shenanigans - nobody is checking their less documented tracks. And yet, break from the status-quo and the magnifying glass comes forth regardless. Its a shame Irving couldn't distance himself from the material enough to give us a 100% accurate translation and the trial is his own doing, but I suppose the point here is to pass on the realization that academic distortion is probably a greater problem than we are willing to let ourselves know. --Hohns3 01:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something to think about

message: In the most recent archive, one can find references to some archives at Bad Arolsen. They're in the news today: Germany will open records on Holocaust victims. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Arolsen 

message: It says: " He is widely known as a Holocaust denier, although he has at times appeared to change his position,"
The first part of the sentence refers to what he is known for (according to the views of the author on this text, it is as you know highly subjective, as different people knows different bits about other people), whereas the last part states that he have at times changed his position. Now anyone are at any time allowed to change his or hers position, regardless of what they are 'known' for. Changing of positions often takes place due to new insights gained out of scientific research.
Other people are in need of changing their positions, and be more open to people who cast doubt on collectively aquired knowledge. All this doubt is what brings all scientific research forward, also historical research. 
He has the right to question the numbers of jews killed, the way they were killed and to propose whether some of these killings where revenge killings (on something that jews's kinsmen had done in say Bolsjewik Russia) and to ask how many jews died due to the lawlessness in authoritarean ruled Eastern Guvernement with its emphasis of jews clearings. In such an lawless environment, many locals can have committed crimes on their own. As such, allthough the Nazis whgere supremely responsible, - who actually carried out the crimes becomes more muddy. 
What regards the numbers, Irving has a point by referring to the Yad Vashem website, which only lists 2 million jewish victims and here-off clearly many double entries. The issue of the exact numbers is very important, in other words independent research (like Irvings) should be encouraged by all means. Certain people are not interested in getting to the truth on the matter, satisfied with clinging on to the 6  million figure, which is one of the components that the iranian president refers to, when he talks about 'myths' in conjunction with the killiongs of jews under the Nazis.
The iranian president makes a good point when he talks about the need to make independent research into what really happened, and how many perished, and in what way. Because there can be little doubt that the figure of 6 million in its enormity and sshattering scale, palyed a crucial role in the establisment of Israel in Mr Ahmanijads back yard, displacing hundred of thousands of palestinians, a crime which wouldn't have gone unhindered, where it not for the crimes committed against the jews under the Nazis, and which had filled the world with chock.
So it is definately in all right minded and fair peoples interest to get to the bottom at just what went on, just as we would do - and have done - with any other event.
P:S: As a result of the flawed logic, and the inter-spun subjective views (about what he is 'known' of), I have obviusly deleted the sentence, and shall demand that it stays out for ever. Nick-Rowan 06:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flawed logic in text intro

message: Do we really need more than just the judgement (i.e. no libel) on the libel suit? He launched a suit and it failed. OK, plaintiff pays court costs. The suit was not about him: it was about the libel.  I think it is poor style to let a failed lawsuit take up so much room in the lead section.  Surely, his jail conviction is more important than that; the libel suit was merely about money. -- 75.26.7.27 03:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The libel suit was where he first really lost his credibility though as it was established that he was in fact a holocaust denier rather than a bona fide historian. --Guinnog 15:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The idea that the libel lawsuit was "about money" is pretty peculiar. From Irving's point of view, I'd think it would be more about his honor as an historian. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irvings books were neither more or less true after the lawsuit ruling than before. The scope of the lawsuit was simply that: he suit was unsuccessful. What am I to think? That he "was a historian" before the lawsuit and that the lawsuit retroactively made him "not a historian" ever?  We are here to report facts.  You know: those things  that are true today and probably still true tomorrow (unlike social phenomena, such as an individual's popularity).  The lawsuit verdict is one fact.  Lawsuits are complex: if it is really that important, then the lawsuit perahps should have its own article (take inspiration from the O.J. Simpson case for that).  But the lead section is supposed to be brief and balanced. -- 75.24.110.77 18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mustn't have followed the trial at all if you don't see that his credibility as a historian was utterly undermined by some of the things that came out. Take the Dresden death figures, for example. I had quoted (with Kurt Vonnegut) Irving's high figure, but I recall at the trial it was revealed as more or less a guesstimate. I've read and enjoyed one of his books, and on a philosophical level have some sympathy for him in his (self-made) predicament. He did a lot of good research in his day, but by falsifying (some) data and by flirting with Neo-Nazis and Holocaust denial, he lost his professional credibility. He no longer qualifies as a historian. Ex-historian maybe but that sounds even worse. "Holocaust denier and author of several books about the military history of World War II" is just right, and that is what we have now. --Guinnog 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that like "historian" is some sort of badge of honor, though. It's not. Historians do and must interpret facts and ideas, and pretty much any historian has biases that, to a greater or lesser degree, are going to come out in their work. "Qualifies as a historian" -- well, yeah, he's a historian and a fucking liar. He'd hardly be the first. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point I suppose. Of course Irving's mistake was to be stupid enough to be caught being so comprehensively a fucking liar, in a libel court of his own choice. --Guinnog 03:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Guesstimates? Funny, the Nazi German authorities didn't have such a big margin of error in their death toll figures. One wonders what the death toll should be based on. It's a good thing that such speculation isn't what history is based on, much to the chagrin of Mr. Irving. Cantankrus 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lawsuit in the lead section 

message: if only we could put that last statement into the article somehow...however, it is for efforts like this that perhaps we could call him an "on and off historian"? or maybe a "historian when it suits?"
He didn't live up to this title consistantly. Perhaps the footnotes should suggest this, rather than discredit anything and all that he has done. Despite his great knowledge of the war and related subjects, his inconsistency has, in effect, made him a questionable source all the time. For those who are interested, this story really shed light on his personality: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-395810,00.html
It is very insightful.
--72.92.0.83 13:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of Historian, footnotes...again

message: : Irving called the police because he suspected that three men who had gained access to his Mayfair apartment by claiming to be GPO engineers were not genuine
The GPO link here goes to a disambiguation page that offers nothing useful. Could someone more familiar with the subject expand this contraction?--Prosfilaes 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The GPO used to maintain Britain's telephone network, before the advent of British Telecom, so I suppose they could have said they needed to gain entry to conduct tests or repairs to the phone line. That is a great film BTW! --Guinnog 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPO? 

message: So say the warning on top on this very page. Therefore I will have no reference to Irving as a 'Holocasusi denier' which is a highly subjective and libelous term, and it is wrong, since Irving does not deny that many jews got killed, but he do not accept 100 pct. the jewiosh version of THE Holocaust with a capital H. This is allowed for any free man on this planet to symphatise and believe in what he likes. This man is the worlds leading expert of the nature of the Nazi regime, and he has found reasons to questions several points in this Holocaust story with a capital H, as this is his right as an independent historian, and this is what drives research forward. Soi you are right he 'denies' the jewish version of THE Holocaust with capital H, but this denial is only interesting for few people, and should not feature at the very beginng of this mans CV.  Sir-John-Peters 18:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page, this reference has been tested twice in court now as well as being discussed here. --Guinnog 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Two court cases lost is no proof that he really is what the court said. Where did you get the idea, that any court are able to say what a man is or is not? What he believes and believes not?
What regards your reference to any utterings on here and that this in any way should mean anything, I will let it pass. But libel is not allowed here, I know that. Sir-John-Peters 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irving sued someone for, essentially, calling him a "Holocaust denier". It was established that that is an accurate description and not a libel. -Will Beback 19:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: One cannot accuse you of being too clever. With a horrendous stupifying nick-name made popular after its use in connection with the attacks on the WTC on 9/11, you reveal yourself to be american or in tally with mainstream american populism and slang. This willingness to embrace such simplicity also shows off when you apparently consider a single verdict by an english court out of thousands such it has made, as akin to the epitomisation of truth itself. Sir-John-Peters 08:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. 

message: I altered one small portion of the text - a rare stylistic,, rather than POV, edit. The original article read "thereby making [Irving's attack] unnecessary in the opinions of many". This is a poorly worded statement for three reasons I can think of - 1) "making" is generally taught as a word to avoid, for it's rather simplistic, 2) "in the opinions of many" sounds like something from a 9th grade English class, and 3) "Unnecessary" sounds uptight and priggish ("that joke was wholly unnecessary!" - perhaps my time as a class clown has biased me here?). I have changed this to the much more collegiate, "arguably [taking the place of "in the opinions of many", serving the same function of calling to mind the non-unanimous nature of the subsequent analysis] rendering [so much better than "making", am I not right?] [Irving's attack] irrelevant [since this is really the issue - it's not so much a "moral" sin (which "unnecessary" connotes) but more of a "logistical" sin. i.e., telling an old (/homophobic) lady on her deathbed that her beloved son is a homosexual is unnecessary, whereas demanding a President's resignition the day after his term expires is irrelevant]. Hopefully this makes sense. --Action Jackson IV 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit. --Guinnog 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Irrelevant" vs "Unnecessary"

message: The article has alwasy been long, and in the 9 months since I last edited it, the article's substance has moved from irving's writings to more current events.  I vote we try to trim and condense the article, without losing the gist of the themes. My thoughts are as follows:
# Irving is an author, historian, archivist, whatever. That is what he does for a living, this is what he clearly has been passionate about for over 30 years, and thus, it is his most salient feature. It is what he is. But to be politically correct, neutral, whatever, he should be noted as an Author of World War II, period. No more, no less.  Were they historical? Yes and no. Were they factual? Yes and no.  Were they denials of the holcaust? Mostly no. 
# His notariety and attention comes most prominently from his legal batters over Holocaust Denial. I want to make it clear that it is over his legal battles, NOT his denial that has garnered the attention.  This may seem to be splitting hairs, but I believe it's important. Irving gets very little attention for saying anything (these days). He does, however, get lots of press for being in the courtroom.  Having said that, I propose his tagline read something like:
#:Irving is a British author of World War II history, though he is most widely known for his legal battles over his denial of the Holocaust. 
# Tagging Irving as a 'Holocaust Denier' has led to this article evolving from a concentration around his books to a concentration on his legal battles on holocaust denial.  
# Given the observation above, the article should be rebalanced to discuss more of his being an author than his being a holocaust-denial-litigant. And, his tagline should be vigorously guarded as proposed above.
Otheus 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some good points. I still think we need to discuss here and agree before changing the emphasis of the article. I feel Irving is still known to most people as a holocaust denier rather than as a writer. --Guinnog 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't think it was thay way until relatively recently. For instance, take a look at a September 2005 edit, before his arraignment in Austria. --Otheus 17:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also note that your edit removes a reference. --Guinnog 17:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap. Unintended. I was attempting to condense. (why does a footnote have statements made later in the article?) --Otheus 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Any chance you could fix it? We also need to address again whether Irving can best be described as a "historian". An anon has edited the article to describe him as such, whereas I think the rest of the article as well as common sense makes clear that he is utterly discredited and cannot really be described in that way. As this is not simple vandalism but (I would say) POV pushing, someone else should amend it, not me. Let me apologise for having inadvertently broken WP:3RR too; I shan't edit the article again for 24 hours or so, but I think someone should correct this. Thanks. --Guinnog 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:SlimVirgin beat me to it (which is why I couldn't find it earlier), but it looks like he rv'd the whole section back to before my edit *grumble*. --Otheus 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: an author or WWII books and notorious for his Holocaust Denials.
--Otheus 10:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see this analogy. "Holocaust denier" is a descriptive term, describing someone who has denied the Holocaust or significant aspects of it. At least two different legal systems have determined that Irving fits this description. "Draft dodger" is much more a matter of opinion, and requires insight into motives (emigration to Canada may be for better air, going into the national guard may be for patriotic reasons...).  However, I'd be fine with your suggestions or the current text. --Stephan Schulz 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your affirmation.  Your point about draft dodger requiring insight into motives is very well taken -- it is a big part of why I say the term Holocaust Denier is shamefully prejorative. The term calls to motive and leads from "This person says X, therefore he must believe Y".  I have so much to say on this, perhaps I will take up a full time profession editing the Talk:Holocaust_denial page. ;) --Otheus 11:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think we do not quite agree. "Draft dodger" requires an a-priori analysis of the motives to determine if the label fits. "Holocaust denier" can be determined by actions alone (and then is suggestive about motives).--Stephan Schulz 12:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote to Trim Article

message: (moved from SV's talk page) I disagree with your edit regarding British authors.
Picking three at random, Irvine Welsh (Scottish) Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Scottish)and J.K. Rowling (English), I found that none are listed under British.
Furthermore, I dislike the accusations of POV levied at me. My edit was nothing of the sort and you have no evidence to the contrary. Snowbound 06:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's much more common on Wikipedia to note a person's nationality in the first sentence, and his nationality is British. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British/English

message: The article currently states that in Churchill's War Irving has portrayed Churchill as "...corrupt warmonger servile to the interests of "international Jewry"." This is misleading however, trying to show that Irving used such derogatory term, but the only place in the book where term "international jewry" is used, it is attributed (with footnote) to Count Jerzy Potocky, Polish diplomat:
...Count Jerzy Potocki, informed Warsaw, are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is inevitable. He identified the men behind this campaign as Baruch, Morgenthau, Judge Felix Frankfurter, and the governor of New York State they posed, he said, as defenders of democracy but in the final analysis were 'connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry'.
So we have to either attribute this "corrupt warmonger" sentence to some reputable source or rephrase/remove it. --Magabund 10:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was this Gzuckier 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill 

message: I was surprised to find a pseudo-biography on Wikipedia with a polemical summarization in its first paragraph such as this one:  "He served a prison sentence in Austria from February to December 2006 for Holocaust denial[1], and is barred from entering Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand[citation needed]. During an unsuccessful libel case Irving brought against American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 1998, a British court found that he is 'an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.' The judge also ruled that Irving had 'for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.'
I don't recall ever having read such a clearly biased Wikipedia article before.  The hearsay about the nursery rhyme further on struck me as particularly incredible.  While acknowledging that Irving has published over twenty books bolstered by meticulous research in archives, the article itself audaciously represents Irving with conjecture, hearsay, and calumny.  
I've never posted to a "Talk" portion of a Wiki page before, but this kind of partisan bias in an article took me off guard.
172.148.95.127 02:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know who? You've lost me there I'm afraid. However, it is a wiki so make your suggestions here and we can see if they are worth adding in to the main article. --Guinnog 05:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, we shouldn't give You-Know-Who power by refusing to say his name; The anonymous poster is accusing us of being pawns of Lord Voldemort.--Prosfilaes 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 151.202.11.12 wrote: "Wikipedia is a racist propaganda attempt, well financed by you know who." Sorry, but I cannot assume good faith on the part of this contributor. This person is clearly an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist. If the following was true we would all be in serious trouble: "Countless of [sic] individuals find it grossly unfair and in need of a complete re-write". Another form of denial pehaps? Philip Cross 09:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsk tsk. I find it more fun to ask them to suggest their improvements. The silence has been impressive so far. --Guinnog 10:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: The article does not make clear if he has any academic accomplishments. He failed out of a physics programme according to the article; so how do you go from failing out of a science program to writing what may charitably be referred to as historical fiction. This is important biographical information that should be in the article: As it stands there appears to be a gaping hole in the biography.--Lance talk 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their is no missing information regarding Irving's academic career. He is, as it were, "self taught". Philip Cross 20:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. A fascinating if flawed character. I just reread the article as it stands and we should all be very proud of it. It is excellent; well-balanced, well referenced and readable. --Guinnog 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that we don't have a "Category:Independent scholars" here on Wiki. Though I find many of Irving's views pertaining to Jews and the Holocaust absolutely despicable, Irving along with MANY other so-called 'pseudo-historians,' 'pseudo-scholars,' 'rogue scholars,' or educated but nonetheless non-academic historians/writers/etc. would fit quite snugly in that category. In more olden times there were very many notable thinkers, writers, historians, scholars that weren't technically 'academically accredited,' (just look at feudal China, the golden age of the Middle East, Europe, and many scholarly Jews that were too denied places at proper universities for a long time) especially as I say before about 1800 or so. Even if many of these independent scholars sometimes have views that are considered 'controversial' within the mainstream, many of these people (though certainly on the fringe) still produce a definite amount of valid and valuable scholarship, history, and so forth (for instance: some of Irving's work is still considered some of the best historical work done depicting the German side of WWII rather than simply the Anglo-American-French-Soviet side). So, I propose that we create a "Category:Independent scholars" or something similar to reflect many of these so-called 'fringe' (but often still acceptable and worthy) rogue scholars throughout history, Irving being one of them. --172.162.239.214 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Forgot to mention: what about these scholars/thinkers that populate all of these (private, public, or semi-governmental yet still independent) thinktanks, institutes, centres, organisations, foundations, committees, councils, institutions, etc. There are likely tens of thousands (if not more) of these people in The West alone, and many of them often produce scholarly work yet not all of them have PhDs and aren't considered 'proper' academics because they don't work in a university setting. Nevertheless, the work of many of these people are still taken seriously by the mainstream academic establishment in The West as it is generally well-researched, well sourced, and so forth. Thus the proposed category would work for many of these independent or semi-independent scholars too. --172.162.239.214 22:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not that Irving is (and was) not associated with a university, but that he has no relevant formal education in history. An academic is not someone currently working at an academic institution, but someone with an academic education. And even an academic can do work that is not academic. As for your other proposal about "independent scholars": I don't think this is useful. Independent of what? You cannot become much more independent than a tenured professor. Scientists at think tanks, on the other hand, are generally beholden to whoever pays them. Even if they have the integrity of not creating faulty science (and that happens - think tank publications are not, as a rule, "well-researched, well sourced, and so forth"), they usually have no control over which of their results are published. --Stephan Schulz 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tenured professors most obviously are not independent scholars because they work for a university, under the umbrella of a place of higher learning. You seem to miss the whole point: I am talking about people that aren't employed, sponsored, or given funding by ANY organisation, thinktank, university, institute, etc. yet still perform worthy and useful independent research. I am talking about people without a "formal education" (as you write) that still produce valid scholarship and do valuable research in their field(s) of interest, though others may very well have had a formal education and still conduct research/scholarship but have since become entirely independent from any organization. I don't know what you're talking about when you write: "An academic is not someone currently working at an academic institution, but someone with an academic education."  The definition states that an academic is someone associated with or working for an academic institution (people that work in academia are academics: duh), though you are correct to say that many academics don't always produce work deemed 'academic.' There is a definite divergence between the social sciences (which are more conducive to independent research via simple libraries, archives) as opposed to the hard sciences (which usually require very expensive equipment that can only be purchased/owned by a large organization like a university). The independent scholars to which I refer are usually found in the former field.  --172.129.16.220 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be partly a cultural/language issue. In German common parlance, everybody with an academic degree is called an Akademiker ("academic"). Don't you refer to think tanks and similar institutions as a source of employment for "independent" scholars above? Or am I confused? As for the independence of tenured professors: The reason why they receive tenure is to ensure their independence. Yes, they are employed by a university or college. But they typically have no duties beyond limited teaching, no or limited oversight, and are free in their research. They can only be fired under extreme circumstances. Very few researchers are not employed by someone. Can you give some examples of what you mean by "independent scholars"? --Stephan Schulz 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Irving have any academic credentials: Does he even have an undergraduate degree?