Talk:David Irving/Archive 4

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

message: What happened?  Having just read a roundtable about D. Lipstadt's updated and apparently changed views of Irving's incarceration, I tried to add the following paragraph:
In July 2007, however, she modified her position regarding Irving's right to free speech, arguing that some speech should not be permitted:
"...there is no such thing as "pure" free speech. One cannot cry fire in a crowded -- or not so crowded -- theatre. One cannot call 911 and say someone is dying when they are not. One cannot engage in libel. One cannot tell state secrets. One cannot incite. Therefore, to suggest that free speech does not have its limitations is to ignore the real world in which we all live." [47]
The reference links here (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B80D0BF73-5861-4B31-968E-98F0F9E81317%7D)
For some reason my entire change was completely reversed in a matter of seconds!  Is the information I added in some way offensive or incorrect?
:Hi. Your edit was reverted by an automated 'bot', not a human editor. I'm not sure why - the reasons for reverting are given here. 
:On the substance of your edit, having read the context of the FrontPage article, I think you are reading too much into Lipstadt's comments. As well as the lines you quote, she makes it clear that she wrote editorials opposing Irving's being jailed, and she doesn't retract that or say she ahs changed her mind - she also says she understands why Austria would have such a law.
:Minor points on formatting - please add new sections to talk pages at the bottom, and (on talk pages only) please sign your comments with four tildas: ~~~~. That will add your username and timestamp. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lipstadt's views on free speech, and any changes in those views, would seem more relevant to the article on her than to this article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Cowboy, you need to find a reliable source, then, claiming that Lipstadt "changed her position". It's you that's interpreting it as a change in position. But what did she say? I can fully understand why those countries would want to outlaw both Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial. Understanding something is not condoning something. For example, I also understand why Germany et al feel a need for such laws; I also think they are stupid and counterproductive. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions about Irving's Incarceration 

message: In the interests of academic accuracy it is necessary to include a citation for this quote at the end of the article
"Irving continues to make his presence felt in Europe, championing far-right causes"
Which far right causes? It is very generalistic to not suggest which causes he is supporting. Patchworkquilt 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irving continues to make his presence felt in Europe, championing far-right causes - SOURCES REQUIRED 

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

message: Maybe the letter mentioned under Holocaust denial  should be cited. Brian Pearson 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re “A Challenge to David Irving,” 

message: So, is he just a holocaust denier, or is he that AND a Neo-Nazi? Arbiteroftruth 02:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read 'Telling lies about Hitler' by Richard Evans - Irving's systematic distortion of the evidence is laid out in there. Historians no longer take Irving seriously because of his tendentious manipulation of archival material. Neo-nazis wont accept this kind of analysis, but that's because they're brainsick. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There appear to be no "facts" that Irving has provided that anyone believes, so they don't think he is worthy of argument.  That seems a fairer description than the last.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not describe Evans' analysis as being 'weak' at all. I would describe it as being 'strong'. He clearly sets out the way that Irving has systematically manipulated quotes, facts and opinions. Darkmind1970 09:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Evans sets out numerous examples of where Irving manipulated sources - Irving was not able to counter any of these when they were put to him in the Lipstadt libel hearing and I'm not aware that he has done so subsequently. If you are aware of other sources refuting Evans' claims then it would be interesting to see them. LeContexte 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-Nazi? 

message: What has happened to this article? This is a heated discussion and, whatever our views on Irving, it would help to keep a little etiquette.
However, its sad to see this article is imbued with heavy personal prejudice and jibes. its detailed and accurate, but from start to finish David is described with evident irony and sarcasm. A little standardisation would not go amiss, I feel. Its a biography, not a piece of propoganda in its own right.
Matt Ward
:And you are a student? I've read this article as a result of your comment and consider it a model of NPOV. Criticisms of Irving are properly cited, Irving's own views are given due weight and overall it cannot be said that this is a "hatchet job" of Mr Irving. Bearing in mind it IS a biography, which means it should neither be a hagiography nor a demonisation, IMO, it is neither of these things. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etiquette 

message: Okay I just added a reference-needed tag to the "discredited historian" bit. I am NOT objecting to the word "discredited". I am pointing out that the reference used to back up this serious claim is very poor - it only mentions (by way of anecdote) that one UK newspaper decided not to call him an historian....in 1969! This neither supports the claim that Irving is widely discredited nor the claim that he is currently discredited.  Furthermore, that 1969 anecdote takes place in a newspaper office rather than academia. If he is widely, currently discredited - given he is a fairly prominent figure - it should be easy to find references that actually support this claim. We should also distinguish between being discredited by the press and being discredited by academia esp. historians i.e. Irving's peers. It is perfectly possible that he is hated by his academic peers for his Holocaust denial etc. but still respected for his work on non-Holocaust related history. I'm no fan of Irving's but  I am a fan of proper referencing on Wikipedia (so often references don't support claims made....and people investigate less often because  often they see the reference footnote number and just move on).  76.171.0.166 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unbelievable that this has come up again (check archives). Irving is discredited but is still considered a historian who has been discredited in one area of his expertise. Even this very artical says "Faurisson praised Irving as an historian" despite Faurisson claiming he is discredited (for his holocaust views). NPOV editors get it changed to reflect reality and then move on as they have no particular interest in the artical and then the POV editors come out of the woodwork and change it back to make it look like he is discredited as a historian. If you check mainstream media, Irving is generally refered to as "Historian David Irving" (Guardian BBC etc), "British historian David Irving" (BBC recent), "Holocaust-denier David Irving" (more right wing media), "Mr Irving" (legal mentions) and sometimes as "controversial (or disgraced) historian David Irving" (by all media). Rarely is he refered to as "discredited historian David Irving" except in blogs. Do a search for discredited and you get little more than 1000 hits. I dont care if you hate the guy and oppose his views, accuracy comes first! Wayne 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained in lengthy discussion last year, there are publications that in the same article refer to him as a "historian" and a "discredited historian". In addition, Faurisson didn't describe him as discredited, and I'm not sure what you mean when you say only blogs describe him as discredited: The Guardian, The Sunday Herald, BBC News, PBS, Le Monde diplomatique, etc. are not "blogs". Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I just want to be clear about my point here.. My point is that the current reference for the key term "discredited" in the article is VERY BAD, and does not support the term for the reasons I explained above. My point is that many editors don't seem to care about whether references actually logically support claims made. Often editors - often, apparently very experienced editors - will say "this fact is clearly true", "this is obvious" or "this is widely known" and then fail to come up with references support the supposedly widely known statement! I am not particularly interested in whatever partisan disputes over David Irving have gone on this page. I am simply asking for people to come up with proper references. If Irving is discredited or not, so long as IT'S PROPERLY REFERENCED, that's what I'm concerned about. Proper referencing does not just mean throwing in reference footnote with whatever link that comes up that superficially seems to be relevant after 2 minutes searching on google. At the moment, the *current* referencing of "discredited" fails WP:BLP, frankly. t  76.171.0.166 18:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, it doesn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference refers to an anecdote about one newspaper in 1969. The claim is that Irving is *widely* and *currently* discredited. Are you saying this is the best you can do to prove that key claim - what, Irving's credibility hasn't been discussed as a current issue in the press beyond one newspaper since 1969? This is a "conjectural interpretation of a source" (the conjecture is that a 1969 anecdote at one newspaper proves a claim that Irving is widely and currently discredited) as specifically prohibited by WP:BLP 76.171.0.166 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you're focused on the first item in a long list, when there were 23 citations that specifically referred to him as "discredited". Now there are 24. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: -		 
-	
Someone removed my objection tag to the poor referencing of "discredited" without, I assume, reading my comments above. Let me state again that I *have no opinion* as to whether Irving is actually widely discredited or not as a historian. I just want there to be a proper reference!! The editor who removed my tag commented that "Discredited" is clearly true. The alternative to listing it as fact is to remove all indications that he was ever considered an historian. Reverting anon." If "discredited" (as in currently and widely, not just by one newspaper in 1969(!) - and in the wider public sphere as well as academia (these may be differently treated) is "clearly true" than we should be able to discover much better references than the one given, which does not support the idea that Irving is widely or clearly discredited today. The "alternative" I assume ironically suggested seems to suggest that the editor thinks 1) the main purpose of the article is to ensure that Irving is not seen as a proper historian (I thought Wikipedia was primarily about referenced, verified, NPOV encyclopedia articles?) and 2) references don't matter so long if they get in the way of how we want to shape the article. Also, I am dismissed as an "anon". So much for Wikipedia's openness. I was actually a very active editor for 2 years with a registered account, and I never outright dismissed an anon who had a reasonable edit/objection. One of the main reasons I left Wikipedia was frustration over careless referencing. Occassionally I'll tinker with an article as an anon these days, but perhaps that's futile as well. 76.171.0.166 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lipstadt is ONE source and cannot be used to trump the views of the entire community. The article currently uses this as a reference: "if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian", how encyclopaedic is that definition?. I will point out that the dictionary says: "noun: a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it". The current version "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited" is not accurate and it should read "Irving is a British historian who has been widely discredited". I dare anyone to dispute which is the most accurate. "Irving's status as a historian is disputed" can be used but to say he is not one at all is POV. Wayne 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. What concerns me (and I'm sure other editors) about this article is that some WP editors, perhaps innocently enough, are using a small handful of recently published works (Evans, Lipstadt, Guttenplan and to a lesser extent van Pelt) to unknowingly interpret what the academic "community" must somehow think of Irving's work. One editor the other day has gone so far as to make the sweeping claim that Irving is not recognized as a historian at all, especially by other historians. What a curious thing for a WP editor to say, I thought, especially without any verifiable evidence. Such an unsupported assertion reminds me of what Sir John Keegan said about the constant back-and-forth between Lipstadt (Irving's work has no value as a historian) and Irving (some highly reputable historians wrote very flattering things about parts of my work, therefore it is all good): both positions are "highly artificial." The verifiable facts since the 1960s present a much more nuanced story, especially if one were to read the large body of academic reviews published in peer-reviewed and other well-respected journals about David Irving's numerous works. I encourage WP editors to read them. They might be surprised by what they find. Best regards, J Readings 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Irvings' books were criticised when they came out by historians - see the original release of 'Hitler's War' and the subsequent re-release following Irving's extreme revisions. Sloppy work that slants towards bias tends to get criticised. Darkmind1970 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darkmind1970: What you do not seem to understand (or perhaps you are simply unaware of) is that Hitler's War is one of many books that David Irving researched and wrote since the 1960s. Yes, it's true: Hitler's War did receive mixed reviews in academia (they were not all negative, mind you) when it was first published in 1977. However, would you be surprised to learn that reputable historians around the world praised Irving's work for The Mare's Nest, The Virus House, The Trail of the Fox, and other works? Indeed, in the case of the first three books mentioned, I cannot find a negative academic review on JSTOR at all. They were all overwhelmingly positive. To suggest that David Irving's reception as a professional historian by other professional historians can be found only in the reactions to one of Irving's controversial theses found in Hitler's War -- and then only some of the time -- is to be seriously ill-informed about his thirty-plus year career as a WWII military historian and the reception to his work on a book by book basis in the academic community. Again, I encourage everyone to read the actual academic book reviews before passing judgment on what historians must have thought of him as a historian. One last comment: anyone who reads academic reviews and writes academic books knows one thing for certain: constructive criticism is an unavoidable (and mostly welcome) part of the profession. J Readings 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better citation needed 

message: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article347567.ece
I now think that the citation from Bernard Ingrams piece in the Independent should be removed entirely as an inappropriate source - this is an opinion column piece not a news article (its not hard to tell the difference!). Furthermore, immediately after the excerpt used in the Wikipedia article, Ingrams comments that people had not adhered to the memo and that Irving is still currently referred generally to as a historian (though that he has recently lost the support of academic peers) i.e. The point of this piece (again, a opinion piece, not a news article ) is that Ingrams *wishes* Irving was more discredited, and that Irving is still widely (at least in Ingrams' opinion) treated as a genuine historian, though Ingrams strongly disapproves of this. So, basically we have one opinion of one columnist who has an anecdote from 1969 for one newspaper which suggests something opposite to the key claim of the Wikiepdia article. 76.171.0.166 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lipstadt is ONE source and cannot be used to trump the views of the entire community. The article currently uses this as a reference: "if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian", how encyclopaedic is that definition?. I will point out that the dictionary says: "noun: a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it". The current version "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited" is not accurate and it should read "Irving is a British historian who has been widely discredited". I dare anyone to dispute which is the most accurate. "Irving's status as a historian is disputed" can be used but to say he is not one at all is POV. Wayne 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. What concerns me (and I'm sure other editors) about this article is that some WP editors, perhaps innocently enough, are using a small handful of recently published works (Evans, Lipstadt, Guttenplan and to a lesser extent van Pelt) to unknowingly interpret what the academic "community" must somehow think of Irving's work. One editor the other day has gone so far as to make the sweeping claim that Irving is not recognized as a historian at all, especially by other historians. What a curious thing for a WP editor to say, I thought, especially without any verifiable evidence. Such an unsupported assertion reminds me of what Sir John Keegan said about the constant back-and-forth between Lipstadt (Irving's work has no value as a historian) and Irving (some highly reputable historians wrote very flattering things about parts of my work, therefore it is all good): both positions are "highly artificial." The verifiable facts since the 1960s present a much more nuanced story, especially if one were to read the large body of academic reviews published in peer-reviewed and other well-respected journals about David Irving's numerous works. I encourage WP editors to read them. They might be surprised by what they find. Best regards, J Readings 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Irvings' books were criticised when they came out by historians - see the original release of 'Hitler's War' and the subsequent re-release following Irving's extreme revisions. Sloppy work that slants towards bias tends to get criticised. Darkmind1970 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darkmind1970: What you do not seem to understand (or perhaps you are simply unaware of) is that Hitler's War is one of many books that David Irving researched and wrote since the 1960s. Yes, it's true: Hitler's War did receive mixed reviews in academia (they were not all negative, mind you) when it was first published in 1977. However, would you be surprised to learn that reputable historians around the world praised Irving's work for The Mare's Nest, The Virus House, The Trail of the Fox, and other works? Indeed, in the case of the first three books mentioned, I cannot find a negative academic review on JSTOR at all. They were all overwhelmingly positive. To suggest that David Irving's reception as a professional historian by other professional historians can be found only in the reactions to one of Irving's controversial theses found in Hitler's War -- and then only some of the time -- is to be seriously ill-informed about his thirty-plus year career as a WWII military historian and the reception to his work on a book by book basis in the academic community. Again, I encourage everyone to read the actual academic book reviews before passing judgment on what historians must have thought of him as a historian. One last comment: anyone who reads academic reviews and writes academic books knows one thing for certain: constructive criticism is an unavoidable (and mostly welcome) part of the profession. J Readings 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Followup on Independent column

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

message: Concerning this:
:Donald Cameron Watt, Emeritus Professor of Modern History at the London School of Economics, writes that he admires some of Irving's work as a historian though he rejects his conclusions about the Holocaust.[19] According to Watt, prior to the 1996 Irving-Lipstadt libel case, The New York Times asked a number of leading American and British historians whether they regarded Irving as being a historian "of repute".[19] The large majority answered yes.[19]
The sources are Watt's own essay in the Evening Standard.  I think this is clearly a reliable source for Watt's views.  I do not think they are a reliable source for the NYT survey which is of course public record.  I think the truly reliable source on an NYT survey is the appropriate NYT article, and we should find and use that as the source.  If the Weekely Standard is the source, we should restrict it to Watt's views which are of course relevant to the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I looked for what Watt describes in the NYT, but I saw nothing of the sort.  I'm going to replace that text with a note about Watt's participation in the Lipstadt trial. DBaba (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable source 

message: . Not notable of course, but can be used as evidence for establishing the notability of other facts - the 1970 libel case should perhaps get some more space here.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone wants to go to the trouble, some people keep track of mentions of Wikipedia in the news, both on talk pages with a template and via the Signpost. Since this article is alleged by the subject to have prejudiced the landlady against him, and so referred to in court, it may be considered a noteworthy mentioned. I'll post a note on the Signpost page.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Will Beback, there may be some notability but if Wikipedia hadn't been mentioned in such an "involved" way I'd totally agree with you Paul Pieniezny. Anynobody 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case I was unclear - I meant that the article is worth listing on this page as an instance of the article being cited, and may be worth a mention in the Signpost. I don't think a minor lawsuit is worth mentioning in the article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You weren't, had I thought it was worth including in the actual article I'd of added it. Anynobody 07:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the banner at the top and alerted the Signpost.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to make sure there is no controversy over this: when I said it was not notable, I just meant that the story saying that according to Irving or his lawyer someone may have been led by this (Wikipedia) article to evict him from his Bed and Breakfast accommodation, was probably not notable enough for this article. So, I was thinking of the legal contention part there, and I did not know that the mention of the Irving Wikipedia article in the press itself (actually, technically speaking it was mentioned in a court case) warranted a mention on the talk page (and I was quite ignorant of the Signpost). I noticed this article looking up completely different information, I noticed Wikipedia mentioned in the article and had a good look at it. I noticed it seemed to attach a lot of attention to the 1970 case, more than one would expect from its treatment here. Knowing that very controversial things and conspiracy theories are often given a lot of scope on Wikipedia, and that it may be interesting to see what other people deem important, I looked it up on the internet and posted it here. Though I agree, if it turns out this landlady has some, even very minor, connection to the guy who sued Irving in 1970 (which may possibly explain the landlady's solicitor getting involved early - but that is Irving POV of course, the landlady would probably say she asked her solicitor "to look up what is wrong with that guy, since he is getting into rows with all my other lodgers"), the point is lost. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent news 

message: A number of editors have been changing "widely considered to be discredited[2: 26 separate references]" to "has been discredited by historians such as Deborah Lipstadt.[2]"  This is wrong.  Not all the references refer directly to Lipstadt, and I'm not convinced that all of them refer indirectly to Lipstadt or the court case.
For talk page history, see (among others):
#Talk:David Irving/Archive 1#Irving was not discredited as a historian in the defamation suit March-April 2005. No consenus, but SlimVirgin got in the last word as "discredited" should be "reputation trashed".  
#A few sections culminating in Talk:David Irving/Archive 3#Request for Comment: "discredited" wording, with the "present" wording established by consensus under an article RfC by May 2007.
#Talk:David Irving/Archive 4#"Discredited" reference seems to be arguing that a single reference to a newspaper article is inadequate. December 2007.  But that's not what we have now, or then, according to the notes.  It's not easy to check the status of an article as busy is this back that far.  It appears that only a single anon was objecting at that time.
I don't see any reason to revisit, unless we want to split reference 2 into the 24-26 individual references.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Widely considered sounds good to me, being both ref'd and true. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone else make the 3RR/Sock report, or just block them all (be sure NOT to uncheck autoblock).  I have a meeting in 15 minutes.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to file; I'm watching and blocking. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: "In 1977 Irving published Hitler's War, the first of his two-part biography of Adolf Hitler. In it, Irving tried to describe the war from "Hitler's point of view". He portrayed Hitler as a rational, intelligent politician, whose only goal was to increase Germany's prosperity and influence on the continent. "
... I'd have to say that there is also an amount of material criticizing many aspects of Hitler's management of political and military matters. There are numerous unflattering references (e.g. speaking in "guttural Hitler-German") and if anything it portrays him frequently as a cynical, manipulative opportunist and gambler. Maybe the text has altered considerably between the 1977 and 2002 editions? IMHO discredited as a war historian, no; discredited for not making the link to Hitler's inspiration of the holocaust, in the absence of a signed and dated order, yes. Irving's style is largely to present his chosen facts and let the reader analyse the moral / practical aspects. A good read but I'd prefer John Keegan any day.86.42.219.131 (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discredited 

message: If anyone can point me to information about links between David Irving and Kimberley Cornish, author of The Jew of Linz, please reply on my talk page. In particular, would appreciate information on any statements made by Richard J. Evans about Cornish.--Number17 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed: Kimberley Cornish 

message: Though Hochhuth's support of Irving is an important aspect of Hochhuth's biography, is it at all an important aspect of Irving's? It seems over-represented here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support by Rolf Hochhuth 

message: Given that the history of this article appears to continue a pointed (if slomo) reversion to US spelling, and the use of the word "automobile", would I be correct in anticipating that some editors will argue that David Irving is not a "topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation"?  Alai (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to sort this in the past. If it's happening again, go ahead and fix what you can, but make sure that quotations from Lipstadt and other Americans aren't Anglicised by mistake.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American English? 

message: ϢereSpielChequers 14:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who initiated this thread has since been indefinitely blocked because of his persistent antisemitism, so I don't suppose much more needs to be said. However I will point out that in a previous version of this article contained a quotation from the judge at Irving's trial. The judge said that "an active Holocaust denier; that he is antisemitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." The quotation has since been slightly altered so that the middle section, with the word, "antisemitic" has since been taken out of the quotation. In my opinion, it was better before. Thoughts? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've already got the full quote below; do we need it in full twice? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure. And making unfounded claims about "jews" is not anti-semitic either... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

text: "holocaust questioners(deniers,revisionists) are NOT antisemites. They are labelled this by jews" now THAT's funny. Gzuckier (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Dwnndog can't see the contratidictions in Dwnndogs own comments! Autarch (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DNFTT --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  not an anti semite? 

message: I couldn't see any good reason to keep this material so I removed it. Maybe a mention could return but not a whole section. --John (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable criticism and notable support should be mentioned. --Dezidor (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioned yes, and perhaps this is notable enough for a mention. Having a whole section seemed disproportionate. --John (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I had edited that section just before John's deletion, I agree with the deletion. The information is not gone from Wikipedia but (last I checked) resides at Rolf Hochhuth.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support by Rolf Hochhuth section removed 

message: many contributors are no up to a standard that leads to the production of useful documents.
this wiki article reflects a witch hunt mentality which is expressed through 
weasel words, inaccuracies, bias toward the generally accepted norm.  
the examination of commonly accepted notions is part of critical thinking, the scientific method and the accurate piecing together of history fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.113.189 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, but I wanna be outspoken on saying that. This article is just a zionist propaganda and, only due this reason, it will be awarded by the camera's mafia inside wikipedia.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  entire article needs to be rewritten 

message: No consensus for move. Closed early by request. Not sure who closed it, but not worth finding out.199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Early closure fine by me.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, in fact unless somebody actually makes a case for the move I think another 23 hours would be excessive, I've left a note on an uninvolved admins page. ϢereSpielChequers 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are your hands warmed enough to type in a request for checkuser?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move