Talk:David Irving

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article David Irving has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Holocaust denier?[edit]

The concept is non-analytic and hardly has content apart from saying what it is not. He is a historian first and foremost. By the way, the mentioned English court did also find in favour of the adequacy of calling him a historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the frequency which this is raised (concerning someone who's now a fairly obscure figure), I can only imagine that there's a campaign going on. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just added a hidden comment to the article concerning this [1] which will hopefully stop some of the doomed edits which are being made. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Possibly a campaign. The IP certainly has now tried to call 3 holocaust deniers historians or in one case even a leading historian. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that there's an off-Wikipedia campaign about this somewhere with people advocating this change to the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda outlet, thus, "historian" is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's actually the other way around. I note that Schutzstaffel you deleted " the SS under Himmler's command was responsible for many crimes against humanity during World War II (1939–45)" claiming it was Allied propaganda.[2]. Your views are clear. Doug Weller (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

THE FINAL WORD: To call Irving an "author" rather than "historian" because some other historians don't like his views or impugn his scholarship is not worthy of an encyclopedia. Rather, it should limit itself to neutrality by stating that he is a historian some of whose work is highly controversial and/or suspected of propaganda, or something to that effect. Else automatic software listing all historians would miss him, which is wrong, especially since he published some bestselling history books that aren't questioned. Historians who assert the reality of Muhammad, Christ, Moses or other figure whose very existence is in doubt don't get this political axe job, do they? How about historians who lie extensively for their political regime, such as the Soviet Union or Red China? They're still historians. A category mistake is something Wikipedia must be above. Or is it kaput? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The final, final word: Irving is regarded as a Holocaust denier because he is a Holocaust denier. That Irving is called here what he is, is something some people find intolerable. AnnaLiver (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Public image of David Irving[edit]

I didn't know this existed. Anyone watchlisting this article should add that one as it gets changed by the same people at times. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems odd that that page does exist considering that most if not all of the things on it are covered here in similar depth. It doesn't really expand on them in any meaningful way, I wonder if it was created at a time when there was less coverage on this page. Is this the only page that links to it? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I just BOLDLY redirected that thing to this biography. The linked article did not cover anything that could not be covered here. I saw it was a POV fork at worst, and completely unneeded at best. If someone wanted to merge parts of that article into this one, feel free to give it a go. If the material is excessive or not neutral, though, it won't stick. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Best solution. Doug Weller (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I also agree Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denier[edit]

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 (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 (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 (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. (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... [3] Guess we get at least a 60 hour break. --NeilN talk to me 03:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Per this edit summary, 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. (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 (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 for block evasion. --NeilN talk to me 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Book PDFs[edit]

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[edit]

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.[1] 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".[2] 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).[3] Speer considered Wolters' actions to be a "betrayal" and a "stab in the back".[4] The original Chronicle reached the Archives in 1983, after both Speer and Wolters had died.[5]

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 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you hear yourself, "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. (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. (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! (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)


  1. ^ van der Vat 1997, pp. 339–343.
  2. ^ Sereny 1995, pp. 226–27.
  3. ^ van der Vat 1997, pp. 359–61.
  4. ^ Fest 2007, p. 196.
  5. ^ Fest 1999, p. 124.