Talk:David Irving

Not "supposedly"

Text before my edit: 1956 revolt in Hungary, which Irving characterised as "primarily an anti-Jewish uprising", supposedly because the Communist regime was itself controlled by Jews.

Well, on this subject, as to why Irving 'characterised' (stated) as 'primarily an anti-Jewis' is not supposedly, but just 'because' the 'regime' was composed (not 'controlled) not of, but by, but yes, the Jews, by like over 70%. If you look at the photographs of dead people with - did you look? - the officials in Hungary, whom in the uprising the locals killed, with spoons and forks in their eyes and with Party membership document on their bodies - they are all Jews. That is why. Because of the terror there was a revolt which the Jews couldn't contain so they were killed. But the Jews not involved in terror and who were not communist or secret police officials were not. I will rephrase. This is in the book. This is an incredible truth Yuri Kozharov (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit: 1956 revolt in Hungary, which, as Irving stated, was "primarily an anti-Jewish uprising", because the Communist regime, including the secret police, was composed by over 70% of Jews.

Holocaust denier

There seems to be some sort of cabal protecting this bizarre article. It certainly doesn't merit a 'good article' mark. Please can we embark on a constructive discussion towards some sort of sane consensus as this sort of thing gives wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say he is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

please check the above comment. it makes no sense and will be disregarded if not clarified. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, and does not require clarification. General Ization ^Talk 03:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it does not make sense. However I believe the poster NeilN meant 'reliable sources say he is a holocaust denier'. I would be grateful if NeilN would let another more calm editor deal with this as he seems to be taking everything very personally and getting upset. An experienced editor who has broken several guidelines and seems emotionally invested in getting his way is not good for wikipedia.

Now, there is disagreement whether Irving denies the holocaust. Some say he does, some, including himself say he doesn't. Whilst I have no objection to the label being used in this article it doesn't belong at the beginning of the lead. Furthermore, some claims that he shouldn't be allowed to call himself an hitorian is not grounds for a serious site claiming that he is not an historian. He has published books on history. However bad you thin they are they are he is still an historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.233.83 (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, far too much major disagreement about this article for it to be considered even adequate at present. Please list objections to downgrading it.86.154.233.83 (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The terms used to describe the subject in the lead have been discussed numerous times here, most recently just above, and consensus has been established that he will not be called a "historian" in this article. The fact that you did not participate in the earlier discussions (unless you did so using a different account) does not change the consensus. Nor does your opinion that it is not a "good article" change the consensus of the GA process that it is. General Ization ^Talk 03:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm, including being very patient dealing with you and your misperceptions. We don't care what the fringe (including Irving) says. We go by mainstream reliable sources. As for downgrading the article, it's up to you to state how it doesn't meet good article criteria. Not adhering to your personal point of view doesn't count. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And true to form... [1] Guess we get at least a 60 hour break. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Per this edit summary, 86.154.233.83 seems to think that anyone who calls Irving a Holocaust denier is a "Zionist", which seems to me a very odd term to use here. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

"seems to think that anyone who calls Irving a Holocaust denier is a "Zionist"... This is not representative of the facts Cliftonian. Please provide evidence for your bizarre claim. However it is clear 1) there is no consensus above on how the lead should be written 2) Whilst no one is disputing whether holocaust denier should be included in the article, it does not belong as the first item in the lead and historian should certainly be before it. Furthermore, please stick to trying to achieve consensus.217.42.88.190 (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Having just read through the previous heading on holocaust denial I can see there was never consensus on on this issue. It appears there might be some sort of off site campaign to protect this page in its biased form. I think this might be a case for formal mediation. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.88.190 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You removed "Holocaust denier" from the opening sentence with the edit summary: "neutral viewpoint remember people. we're neither zionists nor anti semites!" The implication here seems to me to be that criticising Irving or calling him a Holocaust denier is something done by a "Zionist"—whatever is meant by that word. Anyway, this isn't really relevant. The large majority of reliable sources don't call Irving a historian—in fact they explicitly say "Irving is not a historian." Trying to be "fair" to the minority view that Irving is a historian actually creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Regarding the prominence of the phrase "Holocaust denier" in the opening sentence: this is because Irving is at least as well-known now for his Holocaust denial than for any of his books.

Regarding your idea of formal mediation, go ahead. I have no objection whatsoever. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have blocked 217.42.88.190 for block evasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Book PDFs

Wouldn't the PDF links in the bibliography to books on Irving's site be considered commercial or promotional material that we shouldn't be linking to per policy? MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Albert Speer

From Albert Speer:

Following his release from Spandau, Speer presented to the German Federal Archives an edited version of the Chronicle, stripped by Wolters of any mention of the Jews. When David Irving discovered discrepancies between the edited Chronicle and other documents, Wolters explained the situation to Speer, who responded by suggesting to Wolters that the relevant pages of the original Chronicle should "cease to exist". Wolters did not destroy the Chronicle, and, as his friendship with Speer deteriorated, allowed access to the original Chronicle to doctoral student Matthias Schmidt (who, after obtaining his doctorate, developed his thesis into a book, Albert Speer: The End of a Myth). Speer considered Wolters' actions to be a "betrayal" and a "stab in the back". The original Chronicle reached the Archives in 1983, after both Speer and Wolters had died.

So..did Irving uncover a crypto-Nazi? This at least seems to conflict with no scholar taking him seriously. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about the specific incident in question, I must be honest. I'd recommend having a look in the sources given. This seems to be at least some years before Irving began to openly deny the Holocaust, in the mid-to-late 1980s. This is when his reputation really fell apart. Some of Irving's earlier work was taken seriously, in particular his 1964 work The Mare's Nest, on the German V-weapons programme and the Allied measures against it, which continues to be well regarded even today. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The truth doesn't seem to matter on this page. All that is important is that a man is demonised for his opinion. Almost twenty years ago my entire a level history class applied the same standards as Irving was subject to to our beliefs about history and the holocaust. An entire year of bright, talented, mostly liberal and idealistic students would, in that courtroom, have been labelled as holocaust deniers. So would our teacher. He was Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.51.15 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you hear yourself, 81.158.51.15? "He was Jewish"! Please come back when you have something more to offer than anecdotal evidence and speculation. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. "He was a gentleman of semitic persuasion." Is that better? As regards "please come back when you have something more to offer than anecdotal evidence and speculation." I didn't realise you were custodian of this board Cliftonian. I didn't attempt to edit the article. I was talking on the TALK page. I thought new users were encouraged to post and to be bold. I boldly stated my truth and I'm sure there are plenty of other users who might read what I've written with interest even if you and a few buddies of yours don't. By all means disagree but please try not to snarl.86.132.182.229 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. Your comments might be acceptable on a webforum, but this is not a page for discussing David Irving, Speer, etc. It's a page for discussing specific changes to be made in the article, and if these involve content changes you'll probably need sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's necessary to put it another way as Cliftonian's rudeness breaks several Wikipedia guidelines, notably 'be polite to newbies' and 'assume good faith'. Furthermore Cliftonian's criticism of anecdotal evidence on a talk page transcends a more fundamental limit of hypocrisy as, when editing a page about the Israeli Defence Force he cites his own experience as a reason for altering the spelling and labels it 'anecdotal evidence'. The anecdotal post above is relevant to the masses of criticism on this talk page against what appear to be guardians who are protecting it in its current form. Another uses who featured heavily above (who I'll not name out of politeness) is happy to cite the daily mail -one of Britain's most notoriously unreliable tabloids- as a reliable source, yet on the page about Joan Rivers, has fought against including any reference to her hate speech about Palestinians, as 'Wikipedia should not be tabloid in tone'.

As regards this article, the concerns of many posters are these:

The page may be being protected by an outside campaign. A small group of established users continually cite consensus that Irving is not an historian where no consensus exists. The fact that an English court accepted Irving as an Historian (under any other circumstances this should be the baseline of the issue) is ignored in favor of a campaign started by a tabloid newspaper. Whilst I'm sure Cliftonian's experience of the Israeli Defence Force and self declared knowledge of Hebrew wouldn't make such an experience user prejudiced in this article, there are more general legitimate concerns of double standards, false balance and 'Cabalism' on this highly biased page.159.15.128.174 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have been a little bit brusque before, IP, but I think my basic point still stands—for major issues like this that are open to dispute there is simply no place here for anecdotal evidence, original research and so on. You call me a hypocrite because on my personal talk page I answer another user's query about the spelling of "defence" vs "defense" in the context of the IDF in the article Chaim Herzog, and in doing so cite my personal experience of such things. (In any case, I changed the spelling in the Herzog article to "defence" simply so it would fit the Commonwealth-style spelling used elsewhere therein.) This issue of a single-letter spelling difference is trivial in the extreme. It cannot, in my opinion, be compared to the extremely controversial disputes relating to Irving.

If you want to test whether or not I really have knowledge of the Hebrew language, I'm happy to write some here for you, or even to speak it to you over the phone. Email me through this thing and I'll send you a number you can call me on. I did pick up a little bit of the language during my time in the Israeli Army, you know.

I, at least, am not part of any outside campaign. I actually altered the lead yesterday to put author first and Holocaust denier second, only to be reverted myself. I'm sorry to have been rude in how I worded my initial reply, but I still stand by the basic principle of what I said. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Cliftonian. I'm sure we can move onwards and upwards from here. I'm thinking of registering to become a Wikipedian!80.235.146.221 (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear. If you do, be sure to drop me a line on my talk page if you ever need a hand with anything. In the meantime I hope you're having a pleasant weekend. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Höfle Telegram material

For this material (or something like it) to be retained a reference to a reliable secondary source confriming it and stating that it's of some significance is needed. Irving has never denied that the Germans caused the deaths of large numbers of Jews. Rather, he claims that the figures which are commonly given for the total number of deaths caused by the Holocaust are greatly over-stated, and that Hitler had virtually nothing to do with them and tried to stop the murders he learnt about. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree the material should stay out for now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote from wikipedia:

"Irving claimed that the Holocaust was not the work of Nazi leaders, but rather of "nameless criminals",[68] and claimed that "these men [who killed the Jews] acted on their own impulse, their own initiative, within the general atmosphere of brutality created by the Second World War, in which of course Allied bombings played a part."

The Höfle Telegram was sent to Adolf Eichmann. Adolf Eichmann was not a "nameless criminal". Adolf Eichmann was a German Nazi SS-Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel) and one of the major organisers of the Holocaust (according to wikipedia). Therefore (User talk:Nick-D)-s argument is invalid. The numbers in the Höfle telegram are important because they match the Korherr Report not because David Irving did or did not deny them in the past.

This to me suggests that David Irving's opinion on the matter has changed recently. I have provided two links to two videos from the same David Irving speech where he verbally confirms everything he wrote on his homepage (also linked).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoD5i0xK2Xs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sLV8u4RcPA

What would constitue a valid source? This is the man himself talking and that home page is his homepage. We are talking about HIS opinion. You cannot get more authentic than this.

--Nekdolan (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a reference to a reliable news source, academic expert, etc, stating that Irving has changed his views. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian link from 2007. Quote:

He (David Irving - N.) added: "In my opinion now the real killing operations took place at the Reinhardt camps west of the Bug river. In the three camps here [Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka] Heinrich Himmler's men (mostly Ukrainian mercenaries) killed possibly as many as 2.4 million in the two years up to October 1943. There is now nothing to be seen of the Reinhardt camps, neither stick nor stone, so few tourists go there. I have visited all four sites earlier this year."

He is obviously referring to the Höfle telegram, because:

• He mentions three of the four camps of the Höfle Telegram
• The fourth camp Lublin, that is not mentioned had the fewest victims out of the four camps (five times less as the one with the second smallest number of victims). If we would add that camp's victims to the total it would still be 2.4 million (probably).
• He mentions Operation Reinhard which is also mentioned in the Höfle Telegram
• He also mentions Heinrich Himmler who was the "boss" off Hermann Höfle

Nekdolan (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

However, we don't do 'obviously'. We can't interpret what he says, see no original research. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I realised that the need to add a "reliable" source to David Irving's change of opinion as Nick-D suggested is not valid. David Irving's own webpage or videos of him of his own opinion are considered valid by wikipedia standards: link

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; ✓
• it does not involve claims about third parties; ✓
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; ✓
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; ✓
• the article is not based primarily on such sources. ✓

This is wiki page about David Irving and his opinion about the Holocaust and not about the Holocaust itself. Therefore it is not valid based on - Wiki standards - to use the same criteria as one would use for the latter.

Since neither of Nick-D's complaints is justifiable I believe we can add the original text with the original sources as they are considered valid sources and in no way conflicts with wiki standards. If this is not the case tell us why. --Nekdolan (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is the "we" you refer to? Several editors have commented opposing adding this, and only you support it - please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:WIKILAWYER. Irving is not a reliable source on himself, and there's no reason to add references to stuff he posts on his website or elsewhere. I'm still not seeing the significance of this: even Irving in the Guardian article says it's not a significant change in his views. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

According to the official definition of Holocaust denial if you believe that the Holocaust was not done by high ranking Nazi officials you are a denier. Explain to me how that is not a significant change or how this information is irrelevant regarding David Irving as a Holocaust Denier. Also please explain why David Irving is not a reliable source on himslef even though wiki standards seems to say otherwise. Why is my understanding of wiki standards wrong? Why is David Irving an exception to the rule?

Nekdolan (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so claiming that Irving isn't or no longer is a Holocaust denier is the agenda here. Such a claim would need to be supported by a very strong secondary source - for instance to an expert on Holocaust denial. Irving has always maintained that the Nazis killed large numbers of Jews, just not anywhere near the true figures, and that somehow Hitler not only had nothing to do with it but tried to stop the killings he learned of: this is set out in the Guardian story you linked to. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not claim that he is not a Holocaust denier. I claim that one of the many identifiers of a holocaust denier no longer applies (possibly) to David Irving. Therefore this information is relevant. I made no attempt in my proposed change to claim or suggest that he is no longer a denier. The source I used which mentions the Höfle telegram by name does not mention Hitler at all. The Guardian story does but I cannot link the Guardian story to this source since that would be "research". So I cannot add that: despite the fact that Irving believes the SS was responsible he still thinks that Hitler's not responsible or was at least no involved. This shouldn't disqualify the proposal since no claim is made that his opinion on Hitler has changed and his opinion on Hitler is already there. I also don't suggest that his opinion of Auschwitz or the gas chambers has changed which automatically makes him a denier. Nekdolan (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Violation of BLP

Calling him directly an 'English Holocaust Denier' is a pretty strong violation of WP:BLP, even if it is true. Anyway to rephrase this so as not to violate BLP? Perhaps "Is an English blah blah...known for his works which deny the Holocaust", since he quite clearly never denies the Holocaust, he's a negationist revisionist, which isn't exactly the same thing, which would mean that in a place like England, he could sue for libelous content on a wiki article such as this one.

He isn't primarily known for his Holocaust denial, but the trials surrounding this and his books which supposedly perpetuate such an ideology.

Solntsa90 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

But he IS a holocaust denier. Stating this fact is not a violation of BLP if it is true. Indeed, that denial pretty much sums up his career. --Dmol (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

He is now primarily known as a holocaust denier, because of the publicity from the lawsuit. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Irving is regarded by the community of historians as a Holocaust denier, and there is no reason for the article not to present their view as fact. A source for Irving being a Holocaust denier is given in the lead, and it should not be difficult to find additional sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Journalists also routinely refer to him as a "Holocaust denier". Given that he's been convicted of this in Austria, was judged to be a Holocaust denier in his failed libel action in the UK and there's a clear consensus on the topic among historians, it's not controversial. The article rightly notes that Irving rejects this label, but that isn't what we base the content of articles on. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

But he's not most well-known for being a Holocaust denier, except for those in certain circles who make a living discussing the Holocaust. The accusations and libel trial came later in his career, which spanned almost 50 years, and the way it is phrased gives it extreme wp:undue weight in my humble opinion. Why use a noun, when an adjective works just as fine and appears less accusatory from what should be a non-biased source? Solntsa90 (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)