Talk:David Irving

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:David Irving/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

There are a number of issues with this article, and it is my belief that it does not comply with the "good article" criteria on the following grounds:

• 1a) The article is not "clear and concise", it is long and rambling. The length is not justifiable either. David Irving is supposedly just a discredited historian, yet length-wise his article is comparable to the article on President Obama.
• 1b) It does not comply with the manual of style for "words to watch". I listed multiple examples in the talk page of "weasel words", vague statements and so-forth, but have been either ignored or opposed by domineering editors.
• 2b) Similarly, there is a lot of contentious material, yet editors seem to think that lax quoting practices are justifiable on the grounds that all of the sources are negative anyway (and therefore editors' expression of bias is already "backed" by a list of books).
• 2c) The article provides original research, such as a heading that finds a "Drift towards Holocaust Denial". Yet the source material only seems to provide a patchwork of specific examples, not an overall drift.
• 3b) Unnecessary detail: ownership of a Rolls-Royce car and an "affluent lifestyle". It is also tall poppy syndrome.
• 4) The material is far from neutral. The editors use a lot of persuasive language to impart an overall negative image of David Irving above and beyond the evidential information and sources. For example: factual information is embellished with terms such as "highly controversial", but without using quotes or attributing the negative opinions to any specific source.

How can it remain a "good article" if it's actually a very bad article? Theoretically, the problems are all fixable, but in a toxic editing environment where even minor improvements are immediately reverted, it seems impossible. While David Irving might well be a nasty character who deserves every ounce of criticism he gets, this does not justify the use of Wikipedia as a propaganda instrument.--Guid123 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a bad faith nomination. The Guid123 (talk · contribs) has claimed on the article's talk page that the article is protected by "a tight-knit group of Zionists who constantly patrol Wikipedia to ensure that only their voice is heard". The editor's concerns with the article have been politely responded to on the article's talk page, and it has been pointed out that many of the statements he claims aren't NPOV and are actually supported by multiple references and reflect the mainstream view of Irving. Throughout Guid123 has ignored the responses of other editors, and keeps repeating his or her claims. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier view about some contributors, which - while it might not be strictly accurate (with various Jewish groups distinguishing themselves from others) - I acquired as a result of my undue difficulties in dealing with the passionate anti-Irving bias. A large majority of the challenges I made have not been rebutted at all, while others have merely been merely brushed off under the catch-all reply that "it's all well-referenced" which it isn't. Earlier on the Talk page, I gave 9 unique examples in a bullet-point list, none of which have been responded to. Re: "keeps repeating his or her claims" - when my reasonable challenges to the content keep getting ignored, what else am I supposed to do? Besides, there is nothing "bad faith" about trying to fix problems in the article. Simple fact is: it's not a 'good' article.--Guid123 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account the reference to the "group of Zionists" underlined above by Nick-D and the kind of contributions (less than 50, by the way) made by Guid123 it seems to me that this nomination has much more to do with WP:POINT than with a fair assessment of the article. --Lebob (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That article is all about subverting policies by satirically over-applying them. There's nothing "satirical" about trying to fix a poorly written article. And because it's poorly written, how can it be a good article? And I love the hypocrisy: earlier I get chastised for commenting about editors and it seems I will never live it down, but now I'm attacked for my lack of seniority on Wikipedia.--Guid123 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Seems like a WP:POINT nomination. Let the nominator clearly suggest their improvements in article talk, without attacking other editors and I am sure we can figure something out. --John (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The material is already there for the reading, and I've already been criticised for repeating myself. It's interesting that the "WP:POINT" link has been whipped out twice already. If one cares to read it in full, they will find an important note under the heading "Important Note", which vindicates my position. I made the nomination because of the article's many inadequacies, and simply because a link at the top of the talk page invited me to reassess it. However, it's easy to see: if there was already some kind of consensus among editors to make it a "good article", that any negative nomination was always likely to be a minority view. That's the democratic nature of a Wiki - just because some people obviously don't like it, that does not make my actions sinister or bad faith in any way. Moreover, I hoped that maybe it might spur other editors to go back, look at the criticisms with an open mind, and clean up the article (how could I be so naive?!). While I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, digging up obscure links about Wikipedia etiquette (WP:point) could itself be construed as an Ad hominem. Anyway, I give up. I never imagined that trying to make some meaningful contributions would be so time consuming and so fiercely opposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guid123 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A fatuous claim. EVERY time anyone puts in a scholar's defense of Irving, it is removed for the usual alphabet of reasons.50.133.253.173 (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To which "scholar's defense of Irving" were you referring? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Judge Gray on David Irving: "As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph 3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans (quoted in paragraph 3.5). But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving's military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.

[Source: from Paragraph 13.7 of the Judgment of Gray J. in Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd and Lipstadt, April 2000. See also: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-13-01.html.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.101.181 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The ultimate 'However' omission. To post this paragraph above, without also posting the PAGES and pages of text, from the same judge in the same ruling, which details the fraud, deliberate lies, overt bigotry and racism and scandalously dishonest behaviour of Irving would be pretty silly, wouldn't it? Judge Gray's ruling is uniformly devastating to Irving and his reputation, and to pick out the one semi-positive paragraph from the pages and pages of detailed, specific and evidenced damnation is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.140.2 (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Racism? More sources needed.

We need a better source for the supposed nursery rhyme than Christopher Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens himself is Jewish, so I mean this whole part doesn't make any sense and I can't take it seriously.(Christopher Hitchens wrote that Irving sang the rhyme to Hitchens following dinner in the family's Washington apartment.)

Also it would be nice to add that Irving invited Professor Tony Martin to the Revision conference. Martin is a black professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The nursery rhyme was also mentioned at Irving's trial in his failed lawsuit against professor Lipstadt. He had the whole thing written out in his personal journal. I can give you a link to a youTube video of the "Nova" program where the trial is re-enacted, although that may not be a reliable source for the article. So, it clearly happened by Irving's own account whether you think it makes sense, whether you take it seriously or not. In any event, Hitchens is a perfectly good source for it as it is.

For the thing about Professor Martin, you'll need sources, at minimum. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens is not Jewish, but of quite partial Jewish descent. This is entirely irrelevant here, of course. Until Hitch-22 this part of his heritage was not widely known. Indeed, as far as I know, it was not known outside the family (and barely within) at the time of the interview, so there is little chance that Irving knew it. And even if he did, he might have ignored it, or even tried to be offensive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me I've seen some videos of Hitchens giving speeches where he mentions his partial Jewish ancestry, but really, it's a very small part of his biography. And, regardless, saying that he's not a reliable source because of it is just, well, fucking stupid. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed the category "Holocaust deniers"

I have removed that category from this page because as he stated in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm he is no longer a denier, and he hasn't been one since 1991 when he received Adolf Eichmann's personal files. Since he is no longer an example of the category, he must be purged from the list. --122.108.159.145 (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted that change. Please see David Irving#Persona non grata. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the retention of the category. It is what he is chiefly known for. --John (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Also concur. In April 2000, nearly ten years after the date you quote, he was found to be an "active Holocaust denier" in the Irving vs Lipstadt libel action he brought (http://www.hdot.org/trial). The reason he rejects the label is that he operates from a different definition of 'Holocaust' to everyone else. Essentially he's playing word games so his claim doesn't mean what it appears on the surface to mean. EyeSerene^talk 10:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

He's not the only one to use this tactic: see Institute for Historical Review#Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, one must note that he made that statement when facing a jail sentence, and had to show remorse for the judge in order to reduce that sentence. A few months later, when he was safe again on British soil, he stated he had "no need any longer to show remorse" for his views on the Holocaust. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

After viewing your sources to say that he is a holocaust denier, I have observed that all court charges that affirm that he is a holocaust denier, are based on statements he has made prior to 1991. So unless you can find a sourced statement that was said by David Irving in the years after 1991 (the year he found Eichmann's personal files) where Irving denies the Holocaust, then he is not a denier.

For the record: I am the I.P who started this thread, but it was only 2 hours after I made that topic that I made an account. --Soft and Stout (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We have dozens of reliable sources that refer to him as a Holocaust denier. He has been judged a Holocaust denier in a libel case which he himself brought to prove he wasn't a Holocaust denier. He has been jailed as recently as 2006 for Holocaust denial. Unless you can provide reliable sources indicating he is not a Holocaust denier, there's little more to discuss. Your personal views on whether or not he is a Holocaust denier are not relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That holocaust denial he performed which he was jailed from was based off a speech he made in 1989, and no later. My main source for him not being a denialist is this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm (BBC News: Holocaust denier Irving is Jailed), and I will refer to paragraph 17: "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now," Irving told the court.. So unless you can find a statement by him where he actively denies it after 1991, the year he apparently stopped being a denier, then he is not a holocaust denier. If you want further quotations then I'll site lines 21 to 22 of the above article: "(21) On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.... (22) History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."

One last point Jayig: He wasn't trying to prove that he wasn't a holocaust denier, he was trying to prove that he isn't. A small detail like tenses can add large differences in meaning. --Soft and Stout (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The first line in that story from 2006 reads "British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison" and later states that "The judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him "an active Holocaust denier... anti-Semitic and racist".". We generally don't consider individuals self-assessments as being reliable, and there are multiple published sources, including court findings, that have described Irving as a Holocaust denier. The article includes Irving's claims about his views during this court case at David Irving#Life after libel suit, and notes that he recanted upon them after being released from jail. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The label 'Holocaust denier' hasn't been given to Mr Irving by Wikipedia but by a large number of reputable sources. As yet those sources haven't retracted what they've said and his word alone isn't sufficient to counter their weight. As Nick's pointed out however, we do provide our readers with his statement and the surrounding context thus allowing them to come to their own conclusions. EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)