Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:24, 6 January 2010

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Irving article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	David Irving is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 30, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 7, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Bounty notice

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Cahal Milmo and Aline Nassif (25 April 2008). "Legal victory for B&B owner who evicted Irving for being too moody". The Independent.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Cnaan Liphsiz (5 May 2009). "Misplaced Pages editors: Coverage of Israel 'problematic'". Ha'aretz.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Historiography / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military historiography task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views Mid‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about David Irving. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about David Irving at the Reference desk.

Blatant Relious-based Misuse of Edit Freedom

This biography of a living person is professionally produced for one purpose only--to color everything Irvine has done in his professional career in various shades of anti-Semitism. NOTHING he has done escapes criticism. It is beyond the pale to highlight his occupation as a Holocaust denier when he is in fact a historian of some repute, and then attempt to not permit him to be called an historian. The quibble that his work is not peer-reviewed is like saying Shakespeare is not a “writer” because his plays were not “peer reviewed.”

But my complaint is that religious zealots watch over this site and absolutely refuse to permit ANY edits to remain in place more than 24-hours (except their own). When an edit appears, they instantly jump to the keyboard and replace any and all edits with their stock article. This is not the proper process for discussion, when all disagreement is totally eviscerated, to be immediately replaced by the single, defaming party line.Tholzel (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because everything Irving has done in his professional career is colored in various shades of antisemitism.

I wouldn't go that far. But certainly anything he's written must be viewed with the knowledge that at some point he became a historical liar. The taint he brought upon himself is inescapable. --jpgordon 21:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The quibble that his work is not peer-reviewed is like saying Shakespeare is not a “writer” because his plays were not “peer reviewed.” Gzuckier (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All the negative commentary comes back to the same thing: Someone claims Irving lied and therefore he cannot be called an historian, or even be heard. But who judges the judgers? How is the truth to be arrived at if some special interest group censors anything they object to, using as justification their own interpretation of "the Truth." History is not about "the Truth;" history is about peoples' version of events that happened in the past. RELIGION, on the other hand, is clearly about "the Truth." And that, under every clever guise they can manufacturer, is what this strenuous effort to censor Irving is all about. Tholzel (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If he lied, he cannot rationally be called an historian. But that's all beside the point. If he isn't called an historian by working historians, so we shouldn't call him that, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. if Justice Gray's verdict that Irving "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; 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" is based on religion, shouldn't our article on Charles Gray (English judge) at least mention what religion Justice Gray is? Gzuckier (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That verdict isn't based on religion. It's based on fact. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Plays are not peer-reviewed in the way that scholarly research is. The correct analogy would be to say that a literary critic is not a "literary critic" because his work is not peer-reviewed. And that would be correct.--Hpanic7342 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole article on david is biased. whomever wrote it is more ranting then reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuzman (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't agree, but if it were true, it would seem appropriate. David is more ranting than reporting (history). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

<<That's because everything Irving has done in his professional career is colored in various shades of antisemitism. >>

Come on! Do we really have to put up with that classic slander by someone who is Jewish against anyone he disagrees with? All one would have to do is pull out any number of facts Irving has reported that are not in any way anti-semitic to show what a smug and blatant insult such a charge is. In their minds, their slander is OK because it is "true;" Irvine's slander may be righteously censored because it is not. Of course only they get to say what is true and what isn't.

How many times must it be iterated? Censorship is not the answer to lies--openess and counter argument are. So routine and reflexive accusation of "anti-semitism" are disrespectful of this audience and this debate, and served only to satisfy the uttering ideologue and his many followers. Tholzel (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Anti semitism groups have certainly tried to slander his career. And this is quite evident from this page.

Irving was one of the most respected authorities on hitler, even after the Hitler Years.

All this heresay on early "facism" and rubbish like that on here. Just attempting to slander his work.

Page should be more honest. Irving was a historical legend for a a long time, and ast least 50% of his work is still world respected.

Trying to slander his entire career, just because he's gone a bit nuts in his later years is an embarrassment to history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.108.118 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

From David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. Evans: 6.1 This examination of Irving's work has demonstrated that there is abundant evidence of his beliefs and activities since 1988 as a Holocaust denier; that is to say, he has actively propagated the view that the Holocaust as conventionally understood did not happen. According to Irving, there were no functioning gas chambers, there was no systematic extermination of the Jews by the Nazis, the number of Jews killed by the Nazis in the Second World War did not amount to more than a few hundred thousand at most, and the evidence on which historians have relied for their accounts of the Holocaust was fabricated by the Allies during the war and further invented afterwards in the interests of sustaining the new state of Israel. Irving has manifold connections with well-known Holocaust deniers in a number of countries, and uses his website to propagate Holocaust denial on the Internet. He has repeatedly implied that such antisemitic outrages as did occur under the 'Third Reich' were the responsibility of the Jews themselves, who in his view gave rise to them as a result of various acts of provocation which they committed.

From the same source:6.5 Irving's claims to be a historian are bogus for a number of reasons. He has repeatedly condemned other historians for supposedly neglecting or suppressing key documents and for merely plagiarising each other; but how can he possibly do this, when on his own admission he never reads their work, and so can have no idea what is in it? At the Zündel trial in Canada, for example, he was even forced to admit that he had not read the standard work on the extermination of the Jews by Raul Hillberg. How can one take seriously the opinions of such a man on what professional historians do or fail to do? In fact, as we have seen, specialist historians do not merely rely on each other's work, but base their investigations on research in the archives that is at least as extensive as Irving's, and in most cases a good deal more rigorous. They cite other historians because other historians have carried out work on archival sources themselves, which it would be otiose to repeat. However, historians always provide precise references to the archival sources on which they base their conclusions, enabling their colleagues to check their accuracy and subject their arguments to critical scrutiny, and this is what commonly occurs when they use each other's work. By contrast, as we have seen, Irving frequently fails to provide proper source references, is often vague about the documents he claims to have used, and sometimes appears to cover his tracks by making it particularly difficult for his readers to track his sources down.

This article by a historian disagrees with the claims made above.Autarch (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's Diary Comments

I find the content on the Hitler's Diary fraud controversy to be very biased and unfair. Any neutral observer who looks into this matter will see that, say what you want about Irving and his attempts to rehabilitate the reputation of the Nazi's, Irving played a key role in revealing these forgeries. The content makes it seem like his efforts were irrelevant and self serving, and accuses him of "violently harranging" the panel before being ejected from the press conference. This is, at best misleading, and at worst intentionally distorting the record. Call Irving what you want, he deserves credit for the things he actually did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A lot of the article is attempting to smear I feel. His work with the hitler diaries was one of his finest hours.

The claims about his actions in the press conference are speculative at best. Almost tabloid.

That's the real problem with[REDACTED] as a forum for history. It's always going to be largely POV based, no matter what the rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.108.118 (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If an editor has specific problems with an article, it is up to them to point out the problems. Keep in mind WP:V and WP:RS.Autarch (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are problems. The problem is that this entire article is a complete piece of trash that exists for no purpose other than to slander a person. Everything from the text to the images is clearly used solely to demonise David Irving. While reading this article, it seemed as if the whole thing was written under the assumption that it is just plain basic fact that Irving is a raving psychopath whom no-one could ever agree with and who has never said anything resembling truth. In other words, the entire article is what should be summarised in a few hundred words in a "negative criticism" section on a truly neutral wiki. Even more disturbing is that it is obvious only a handful of people wrote this entire article, putting many hours into their rabid defamations. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

John Safran skit

I have removed (diff) the following:

The Australian comedian and documentary maker John Safran interviewed Irving for his ABC television series John Safran's Race Relations shown in November 2009. Irving was lured to a London studio under the pretext of conducting an interview which proceeded with Safran asking questions about Irving's libel case and holocaust denial. Safran leaves the room claiming to take a toilet break and barricades the door with a broom. He is then seen by Irving in an adjacent room turning on a gas container which is connected to pipes previously placed in the studio. Safran shouts through the glass "Hey Irving, you're locked in a room and it's filling with gas and if you try to tell anyone, I'm going to deny it". Irving responds with "The name is Mr.Irving to you" whilst Safran runs off to the sound of Irving coughing.

It might be worth including an entire paragraph about the skit in an article on David Irving's media image if it were a highlight of the show. I don't think it is a highlight though, and I don't think it's worth even a sentence in the main biography. If you're familiar with Safran's work, you would realise he was only using the skit to prepare audiences for this week's episode, which was really quite difficult to watch. Further, this week's episode itself was more or less a build-up to the finale in which Safran is crucified. Ottre 03:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree it should be removed in its entirety. I am familiar with Safran's work (all of it) & thought it stood alone as a single event. Not sure what you mean by preparing the audience for this week's episode (about his mother) when the preceding episode (with Irving) related to his grandmother. I thought it was relevant enough to Irving's ongoing media relationship to warrant inclusion; hence my authorship of it. Could you restore it, even if in another section? Alexps (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is one of multiple involvements of Irving's, then I guess Irving is "playing along" with Safran, and if so, this should be made clear (Misplaced Pages is supposed to inform, not entertain). Two other points: the reference to ABC should be spelled out (Australian Broadcasting Company?) to keep it from being confused with the American imitation in the same business; and the coughing at the end of the skit shouldn't be described as "Irving." It can't be seen as such, and probably isn't.--Joe (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hints of religious bias haunting this page

Let's remember, David Irving was a world respected Hitler expert until the 1980s. As a history student in the early 1980s,much of my own study was based on his work.

This article for me is attempting to slander his reputation from the very beginning, and never stops.

Even when discussing his most succesful era,there are speculative hints to try and discredit his best work.

Let's stick to the truth. Irving's early Hitler work, and theories are still widely respected today.

I accept that he's possibly lost the plot in his later years, but there has been a concerted effort by the religious factions to discredit his entire career. And this page is worringly following that formula.

Printing speculation (his supposed seconding of mosely. A Daily Mail article that is largely thought to have been mostly made up) as almopst fact.

Misplaced Pages pages should be for fact.Not a group of people trying to create a tone that supports their own opinions.

Far too much opinion and speculation in this article. To try and create a tone of "anti semitism" throughout his entire career.

There's no evidence that Irving had any anti semitic views until at least his 60s. IN fact, much of his work fully supports the holocaust view.

His early work was so respected as he blew open the whole subject of history trying to slander enemies of the state. Hitler was obviously one of the worst, but there isn't actually that much historical evidence to support a lot of historical opinion on him.

I assure you, it's still a point made in history lectures to this day.

I believe fully with the first comment. As a historian, reading a supposed fact based article, the agenda of edits does seem to be to try and discredit his entire career, because of his current stance.

I will leave the page alone for now, and trust that editors will re-evaluate to the tone of the article. But I will consider making my own edits (based on POV tone, and speculative, badly researched comments)if the status quo remains.

This is supposed to be an encylopedia. Not a magazine article on the man.

From David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. Evans: This examination of Irving's work has demonstrated that there is abundant evidence of his beliefs and activities since 1988 as a Holocaust denier; that is to say, he has actively propagated the view that the Holocaust as conventionally understood did not happen. Given that Irving was born in 1938, that would put him in his fifties from 1988 onwards.Autarch (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am also a historian (I live off it, but I never took a history degree), and consider that "Hitler's War" is a story about a gambler, starting with the Czech crisis in 1938 and ending really with the 1943 Kursk campaign. As such it is very readable. It is not a paean of praise. In that gambler's mind, the holocaust was simply not a big deal. I can see how that annoys holocaust historians, but the holocaust was incidental to the outcome of the gambles made in 1938-43.86.46.230.144 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we have a definition of "Holocaust denier"? Can we call Irving a Holocaust denier if he once did so, but has since retracted that opinion? If so, he is no longer a denier, and the term must be removed. If, however, the term applies to anyone who has ever denied the Holocaust, even though he has now come around, then we are looking at a religious version of original sin, and the term must for that reason also be removed.Tholzel (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See Holocaust denial for the basics of what Holocaust denial comprises. Also, "original sin" is sin you are born with; no-one is born denying the Holocaust. Irving appears to have made various contradictory statements regarding the Holocaust; what makes you think he has "come around"? Jayjg 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Only this (from the zealot-controlled aticle):

<<Towards the end of the hearing, Irving again publicly recanted, saying that "I've changed my views. I spoke then about Auschwitz and gas chambers based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that any more and I wouldn't say that now. The Nazis did murder millions of Jews. ..I made a mistake by saying there were no gas chambers, I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place. I apologize to those few I might have offended though I remain very proud of the 30 books I have written". However, Irving continued to insist that Hitler knew nothing of the death camps, and that "The figure of six million killed Jews is just a symbolic number".>>

Does that get him off, or is his original sin far too great? Tholzel (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he said that during the sentencing hearing. Read further along in the section for his later statements, in which he apparently recants his recanting. By the way, if the article is "zealot-controlled", then how did that ostensibly exculpatory material get into it? In any event, I fail to see the point you are trying to make, and I would caution you to review Misplaced Pages's civility policy. I do note, however, that you've used the phrase "original sin" again. As I've explained before, original sin is something with which you are born; are you claiming that Irving was born denying the Holocaust? Jayjg 03:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is nothing religious here. Are you perhaps making a broad sweep attack on all Jews who edit this page whether or not they happen to be religious? If so, be aware that admins tend to block people for that sort fo behaviour.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that much like the claim of "anti-Semitism--now a catch-all phrase used to slur anyone with whom you disagree, Holocaust denier seems to be another catch-all phrase. For example, under the term in this article, it is deemed Holocaust denial to question whether a particular room at Auschwitz was or was not a gas chamber. Is that not a legitimate historical question? Or is any question that does not follow the party line "Holocaust denial"?

Also, for the average reader, please note already the hair-trigger suggestions of lack of civility in my comments. Next will come the code phrase that my sentiments, while not anti-Semitic per se, are much like those of Holocaust deniers, etc., etc. It is simply amazing that otherwise intelligent people cannot--I repeat, cannot--discuss this issue if they have strong Jewish beliefs. Ideology blinds even the brightest of us. Indeed, the brighter the more we contrive to blind ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what the religious beliefs are of the people editing this page; don't comment here about editors again, whether to call them "zealots", or speculate about their religious beliefs, or in any other way. All of these are violations of both WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Regarding Holocaust denial, Irving has been found by both British and Austrian courts to be a Holocaust denier. Finally, article Talk: pages are for discussion regarding article content; they are not blogs or Facebook walls. Do you have any changes, based on reliable sources, that you wish to make to the article? Jayjg 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I ask again what precisely is Holocaust denial? It is cavalier to point to an article on the subject that is thousands of words long. Even the crime of murder can be described in a single sentence. (The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.") We cannot as historians continually bring up Irving's crime and not define what that crime is. To point to a huge article is a not a definition, but a source to find anything one wants. For example, is it Holocuast denial to claim, say, that 3 million Jews died instead of 6 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:TALK. This is not a general discussion board about Holocaust denial, this is a Talk: page for discussing proposed changes to this article. Are there article changes you wish to propose? Jayjg 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and do not wish to argue Holocaust denial. What I am asking is if someone is charged with a crime, as Irving certainly is in spades, at least the crime should be explicated. It is not, and reading this article, everything but the kitchen sink seems to have been tossed in as "evidence." Evidence for what? That Irving is highly critical of the full Holocaust story as it is currently maintained? Isn't this type of de3bate exactly what historians should be engaged in?

BTW, I noticed that when I entered highly authoritative (Justice Gray) strongly exculpatory evidence about Irving's qualification as an historian, it was immediately removed. Here is my insertion. With all the negative commentary, why was this removed?

<<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.

>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tholzel (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(I am slightly spelling dyslectic—I don’t easily notice spelling errors—so I have cleaned up the paras above beginning with “Could we have a definition of “Holocaust denial?" I hope this is not illegal.)Tholzel (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on the specific changes you would like to make to the article. Regarding your edit, are you referring to the insertion you made that began with the words "Strangely, this professional hatchet job left out the following praise by Judge Gray:"? Did you imagine that that kind of editorial comment was appropriate for an encyclopedia article? What did you mean by "professional" and "hatchet job", and to whom were you referring? As for the quote, it was far too long, and not to the point, which was Justice Gray's conclusion. After all, Irving brought a libel suit against Lipstadt (not the other way around), in which he accused her of libel for saying he was a Holocaust denier. Thus we have only one, brief, quote from the action, the judge's conclusion, regarding whether or not Irving was or was not a Holocaust denier, and related concepts, as relayed by the judge. Now, you've avoided answering many of my questions in previous comments; please answer the ones I've asked here. Jayjg 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I will gladly answer these questions, but I must say, your answer takes my breath away.

1) This is not an encyclopedia article. It is text proofing taken to a high art. Every point made by the “article” is there to denigrate—not describe--an historian of considerable merit in his field. After using 5300 words of ten historians criticizing Irving’s professionalism, I try to add a single paragraph by Justice Gray (who you quote liberally when it suits you) to give counter evidence that essentially negates much of these complaints against Irving--and you find that single 211 word paragraph by this expert too long???

2) This article is a professional hatchet job because it has been produced not by an amalgam of contributors as Wiki contributions are supposed to be created, but by a cabal of religious zealots whose entire interest is to besmirch David Irving. Wiki contributors are specifically told not to contribute if they mind being challenged and contradicted. But there is no warning that certain sites like this one are off-limits to contributors, and which is watched over by a secret priesthood that has taken over complete control of the entire article. Not kosher!

Further evidence of its professional single-source construction can be gleaned by comparing it to a similar article, the one on “Holocaust denial.” Here we find the exact same construction—liberal quotes by experts, a lengthy footnote list, references, etc., etc. A really professional job, and by such coincidence, exactly of the same ilk as the Irving article.

3) You continually come back to the same uncivil tactic: “Are you saying (insert something I did not say into my mouth) because if you did (insert threat)?” How can we discuss Irving if everything anyone says who disagrees with you is uncivil, and only what you say, is permissible. It is looming censorship of the worst type.

4) Now that I have answered your questions, perhaps you will ask the question that you have coolly dodged for several days now: What is Holocaust denial? If you cannot even answer that—and you have used the usual tricks to not do so—not relevant, see another 10,000 word article we wrote--how can you claim Irving is one? Most of the claims in the article are innuendo, a mish-mash of alleged anti-Semitism (is anti-Semitism Holocaust denial?), and massive guilt by association (it is unbelievable how many Nazi portraits grace a biography of this Englishman). Of course you get away with this because you never say what Holocaust denial is. Or put another way, it’s whatever you say it is, plus whatever critics you’ve lined up say it is.

It is not an answer to say he lost at a trial. It is not an answer to say he sued and not the other way around, as if being accused of being a Holocaust denier was in the same league as being called daft. Holocaust denial is a crime in many countries, so calling Irving one—without having to say what that means—is a terrorist act. If I were to call you a child molester, I suspect you would sue me. Then you would be doing the suing, just as Irving had to do the suing, to try to clear his name.

So I believe you are absolutely wrong in refusing to allow that short quotation by Justice Gray in the article. I find it utterly incomprehensible that you can blithely brush-off this insertion of trenchant counter evidence by a neutral authority just because his expert testimony happens to negate much of what your article tries to put over on the public. That is exactly what Misplaced Pages is supposed to allow.Tholzel (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You have again described the editors of this article as "a cabal of religious zealots". First, when BBC News ("Holocaust denier to be released") and The Guardian ("Holocaust denier Irving freed early from prison") refer to Irving as a "Holocaust denier", is that because they're also part of that "cabal of religious zealots"? Are they also committing a "terrorist act"? Was Justice Gray also part of that "cabal of religious zealots"? Did he also commit a "terrorist act"? Second, I strongly urge you to re-factor your comments, and remove all reference to Misplaced Pages editors. WP:CIVIL is no joke, learn to communicate civilly. Jayjg 04:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If I might cut in here, our biggest problem in maintaining neutrality is the overuse of quotations. I would much rather see editorialising than a he said/she said approach to writing about historical debates. Please get clear consensus (at least ten editors in favour) to add any quotes, no matter how authoritative the source may be. Ottre 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_attacks_on_Jews_by_User:Tholzel. --Peter cohen (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I give up. I can see that no matter how many historians you allow yourself to use in the article to say the Irving is not an historian, me adding a single highly respected counter argument is not going to be permitted. The only compliant you didn't use is that my exculpatory evidence is "unbalanced.” And the way you dwell on secondary complaints, centered not on the issue but on my uncivility in order not to reply to the crux of the issue—well it shows that you are really expert at your job: Master Propagandist cruising under the false colors of a disinterested editor. I hope it pays well.Tholzel (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Auschwitz I gas chamber

My clarification was removed on the grounds that it is 'standard holocaust denier crap' and says that the source refutes it. Nothing could be farther from the truth: it is cited from Nizkor, the anti-denier website. Let me quote in full the relevant part of the page:

(Denier): In a dramatic and unprecedented filmed interview, Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives at the Auschwitz State Museum, admits on camera that "Krema I," the alleged "homicidal gas chamber" shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at the Auschwitz main camp, is, in fact, a reconstruction

(Sane person): Not accurate. The small gas chamber of Krema I was used for gassing for a short time, and then converted into an air-raid shelter; after the war, it was reconstructed to look as it did when it was used for gassing.

My edit says: 'Interior of the gas chamber of Auschwitz I camp, reconstructed after the war from an earlier conversion to an air raid shelter. ' Thus it is cited from a reliable source as far as anti-denier information goes, and summarises accurately the mainstream view of the gas chamber at Auschwitz (far from the source refuting it, I have basically paraphrased the source). I don't appreciate accurate information being removed by deniers who then try to twist it and make it look like I am the one who is denying the Holocaust. --RagnarokCommando (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted you; given that the source states that this was a gas chamber, at least for a while, there's no need to say anything more in this article, which is about Irving, not Auschwitz. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it's about Irving, but I think it is important to show how Irving's view depart from the mainstream view of what happened. It is relevant to include the bit about the gas chamber being reconstructed, but from an earlier conversion, because many people may be aware of the out-of-context Piper quote without being clear on the fact that while Irving is 'right' to say it is a reconstruction, he conveniently omits the bit about why it was reconstructed: that is how the man works. I also don't appreciate this particular tack being called holocaust denial. In fact, it sickens me. --RagnarokCommando (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. While I'm prepared to assume good faith, the wording you're adding is vague at best and I don't think that there's a strong case for including it. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the material again. There's no indication that this detail is specifically relevant to Irving, and in any event it's too much detail for a picture caption in an article not specifically about Auschwitz that is already almost 200k. Jayjg 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that we mention that "He has been described as the most skilful preacher of Holocaust denial in the world today", it might be possible to turn this into an example of this skill by placing after the final sentence in the caption In fact this room was restored by the Poles to how it looked when it was a gas chamber. It had previously been converted to being an air raid shelter. I think this then makes it a lot more relevant.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"historical theorist"

The description of Irving as an "historical theorist" has just been added to the lede. What is an "historical theorist"? Which reliable sources describe Irving that way? Jayjg 04:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military historiography articles
• Military historiography task force articles
• B-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles