Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:04, 29 March 2016

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 30, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 7, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 4, 2010 Peer review Reviewed February 12, 2011 Good article nominee Listed August 3, 2011 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Mid‑importance 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. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 Associated task forces: /  Military historiography task force World War II task force

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Cahal Milmo and Aline Nassif (25 April 2008). "Legal victory for B&B owner who evicted Irving for being too moody". The Independent. Cnaan Liphsiz (5 May 2009). "Misplaced Pages editors: Coverage of Israel 'problematic'". Ha'aretz.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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 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 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 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 03:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And true to form... Guess we get at least a 60 hour break. --NeilN 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 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have changed the wording so that it now says "David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English author who has written on the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany, and who is primarily known for his Holocaust denial". This seems to be more in tune with the way we generally write about controversial living persons.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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", and claimed that "these men 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 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)

Since it seems that David Irving is not a valid source on his own opinion I suggest that this text should be added instead:

In a 2007 interview 1 Irving claimed that according to a genuine document "over 2.5 million Jews were killed" in three camps by a deliberate policy of the Nazis and "quite definitely of Heinrich Himmler". He referred to these camps as the "Reinhardt camps" and added that nothing "neither stick nor stone" remains where these camps once stood. Irving also reaffirmed his position regarding Hitler, that Hitler was "completely in the dark" and did not knew what went on in these camps. Irving also claimed that Auschwitz was not the "center of the killing operations" and that the gas chamber inside Auschwitz is a fake.

If we want to be objective we should not exclude information that the man has been saying publicly for seven years (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoD5i0xK2Xs | http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Hoefle_No2/Hoefle_doc_No2.html) just because it does not conform to public opinion. This wiki article says Irving has changed his opinion many times regarding the Holocaust and this is what he believes now whether people like it or not. --Nekdolan (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please find secondary sources, as noted earlier. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Secondary source: In 2009 Irving gave an interview to El_Mundo_(Spain) (issue 5th of September 2009). In this he states that:

• Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust
• Heinrich Himmler was mainly responsible for the Holocaust
• The Holocaust was done by part of the Nazi leadership
• The Holocaust was executed in the Reinhardt camps. (He mentions all four camps by name but does not mention operation Reinhardt)

The article in question (the newspaper's archive): http://quiosco.elmundo.orbyt.es/epaper/epaper.asp?tpu=El%20Mundo&pub=05_09_2009&edi=Madrid

The same article on David Irving's website (translated by Irving's affiliate): http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/09/09/El_Mundo_interview_Engl.html

Images downloaded from the newspaper's archive. The images were fed to an OCR and translated to English via google translate. Contains images of just the text as well. An English excerpt was made from the relevant information: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/41aky1t08n2hvnt/AABCLnHbtR4hrrCyduQg2Eaia?dl=0 Nekdolan (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Some of this information was quoted by The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/david-irving-sparks-row-over-holocaust-propaganda-1782545.html Nekdolan (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

An interview with Irving is not a secondary source, and much of that material is already in the "Revisionism" and "Holocaust denial lecture circuit" sections. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you require but such a thing would never be considered reliable since any book that would state such things would be automatically denounced by historians. Misplaced Pages standards does not in fact require such a thing. I understand that it would be a good thing but it will never ever gonna happen. Yes some of this information is already there. His opinion about Hitler is stated at least three times. So what is your point? There are other things at the end of the "denial circuit" that on the other hand is completely opposite to his current position:

• Expanding upon his thesis in Hitler's War about the lack of a written Führer order for the Holocaust, Irving argued in the 1990s that the absence of such an order meant that there was no Holocaust.
• In a speech given in Hamburg in 1991, Irving stated that in two years time "this myth of mass murders of Jews in the death factories of Auschwitz, Majdanek and Treblinka ... which in fact never took place" will be disproved (Auschwitz, Majdanek, and Treblinka were all well known extermination camps).
• They died from epidemics". Irving went on to claim that most of the Jewish deaths during World War II had been caused by Allied bombing.
• In another 1994 speech, Irving claimed that there was no German policy of genocide of Jews, and that only 600,000 Jews died in concentration camps in World War II, all due to either Allied bombing or disease.
• In an interview with Australian radio in July 1995, Irving claimed that at least four million Jews died in World War II, though he argued that this was due to terrible sanitary conditions inside the concentration camps as opposed to a deliberate policy of genocide in the death camps.
• Likewise, depending on his audience, Irving during the 1990s has either used the absence of a written Führerbefehl (Führer order) for the "Final Solution" to argue that Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust, or that the absence of a written order meant there was no Holocaust

Those are the most recent claims about Irving and the Holocaust. Anyone reading this wiki page would believe that Irving is the worst of the worst Holocaust deniers even though that is in fact not the case. We are lying to everyone at disregard any attempt to bring some objective sanity to this article. We can argue were Irving's latest revelation should be added but it should be added nonetheless. We have reliable source and even video footage. Why can't we write something that reflects reality? --Nekdolan (talk) 10:14, 22 February 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)

Whether he is best known as a holocaust denier or as a hoaxer is moot: he is both. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

On reverts: you comment why not. I.e. how do you prove that not heavily Jewish, there in that time. What parliament or body said this is untrue, which trusted or known person. Because it seems like some wiki editor or many of such, just a consensus. That there are some views that are a problem. Just where Irving used that expression 'controlled by the Jews'? They were mostly Jews, grossly overreprested there and what they did, that is what he wrote. Do you have his books? Go ahead, check. And who says not so. How it is - a no. Why do you distort what is written in the book when you quote the book. Weird. Yuri Kozharov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Irving is an unreliable source and we don't accept his insinuations as facts. If you have good other sources to support this claim (which I find somewhat ludicrous, since neither the question "who is a Jew" nor "who is part of the regime" have clear and unambiguous answer), we can discuss the issue. Otherwise we are conservative and don't suggest that Irving's claim is factual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we then rephrase so as it all (a particular passage) not to appear as he is saying in the book that some Jews control remotely and this is a conspiracy or something, because he did not say anything like that in the book, what he did say people refuse to let him. We may, alternatively, say: this is what Irving "alleges', this is why it is likely untrue. Yuri Kozharov (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Gati claims that by 1940 there were barely more than two hundred activists in Hungary and fewer than fifty reliable survivors in Moscow, with the result that one of Stalin’s four Magyar postwar proconsuls (Rákosi, Gerö, Révai and Farkas), all incidentally Jewish, had to be transferred from the Czechoslovak to the Hungarian Party. The most that can be claimed is that the Party, though small, had enjoyed considerable sympathy between the wars among artists, writers, university students and other intellectuals. What is especially striking, given Central European anti-semitism, is the relatively high number of Jewish members. (One third of Hungarian Jews, about 275,000, survived the war.) The predominance of Jews was a considerable worry to both the Hungarian and the Soviet Communist Party leadership. A black humorist might even claim that the problems of the Hungarian revolution arose from the persistent search for a reliable and popular Hungarian leader who was not a Jew; hence the peasant Imre Nagy in 1953 and again in 1956, and the chess-playing worker, illegitimate son of a Slovak chambermaid, János Kádár, in 1956.http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n22/eric-hobsbawm/could-it-have-been-different Yuri Kozharov <-- it still does not say specifically on secret police though, it is about the Party (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Yuri Kozharov, you are on the wrong page and I'm not sure if there's an article using Gati. You last paragraph is not about this article, please don't use this page to discuss Stalin, Hungary, Jews, etc. Your link is interesting but we can't use letters to the editor. If Gati did mention Irving we could use that but I see no evidence that he does. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That is, from your side, you reply that you don't understand. On this subject, that (if you explain what Irving wrote in the book, ok, alleged), I first heard that Irving is unreliable (while he said that indeed), second that others do not confirm this, but (see above) others do. Gati does. Why Gati should mention Irving I don't know, that is your logic, but he did mention over-representation of Jews, just as Irving. I am not interested in Gati, I am interested in facts, fact is that Irving said Jews were overrepresented in institutions like secret police, others confirm this. Because people are debating credibility of Irving, refusing to just quote what he did say. Why do you need to 'use letters to the editor'. In the article, its like "Irving was wrong", he alleged stuff due to he believes in Jewish conspiracies. He believes in that particular point in reality, which is corroborated by others. Whats the problem, lets just quote what he sais himself in his own book. Yuri Kozharov (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand. Our sources need to mention Irving. Please read WP:NOR. I only mentioned letters to the editor because the website you linked only mentioned Irvin in a letter, not the review. We are not going to present Irving as though what he says is true. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Letters to editors, unless written by the man himself, are never appropriate to a biographical page, especially in light of WP:BLP. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Then, as in this passage: "Irving's depiction of Hungary's Communist regime as a Jewish dictatorship oppressing Gentiles sparked charges of antisemitism" we must attribute, in a mannner such as: Such-and-such (name), who is someone somewhere (where precisely) argued that "Irving's depiction of Hungary's Communist regime as a Jewish dictatorship oppressing Gentiles sparked charges of antisemitism". And then, Irving's opinion or rebuttal of this particular portrayal, if exists. For example, in Norman Finkelstein this is how contents of his book is presented and scientific merit of his books is assessed. Agree? Yuri Kozharov (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust denier

I don't really care about this but.. here's what I suspect is the problem with this designation. Yes, he is a holocaust denier. Yes, it's what he is most notable for. Yet it's simply awkward and unencyclopedic to start like this.

To compare:

• We don't call Adolf Hitler an "Austrian Holocauster" or "German genocider", or a "World War 2 starter" for that matter. We call him "an Austrian-born German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) ... effectively dictator of Nazi Germany, and was at the centre of World War II in Europe and the Holocaust."
• We don't call Lee Harvey Oswald a "President killer" or "Kennedy shooter", we call him "an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."
• We don't call Judas Iscariot a "Jesus-betrayer" etc.

Even though all of the previously given examples are known primarily for one thing, it's just awkward to use a designation that in no way relates to a profession or occupation. It crosses WP:BLP1E.

Anyhow, I don't plan on changing it myself. Just trying to help. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly my point with David Irving's article, and one that you more eloquently conveyed than I ever could. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Straw man argument. None of your examples are supported by the literature calling them those things. Irving is definitely called a holocaust denier. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a strawman argument. It's an excellent point, David Irving didn't spend his life being 'Holocaust Denier', he spent his life as a historian and an academic, who later on, held views that some would label Holocaust Denial (at least, in the always funny European Courts they did).

Also, what literature in particular are you referring to? David Irving is a historian and academic, albeit, a controversial one that supports heterodox views on the Holocaust. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Solntsa90, there is a banner at the top of this talk page which says: "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting." Please do that first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And "heterodox views on the Holocaust"? Seriously? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And I got to ask, given the strange correlations in the past day, Solntsa90, are you the same user as User:Prinsgezinde/Bataaf van Oranje? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The comparisons to Hitler, Judas Iscariot, etc, are really pointless. Irving isn't comparable at all to any of these figures. The wording used at this article seems appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No Marek, I am not user:prinsgezinde, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop following me around Misplaced Pages for a change. Anything better to do with your time? Solntsa90 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you user:prinsgezinde attempting to make me look like I am him in order to get me banned? If so, it's a very obvious guise. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording is in strong violation of BLP, especially as the man is still living, and this is probably why this keeps getting discussed every other day on here. There is no such thing as a 'ten-year old consensus'--things change all the time, especially wikipedia, and that is why we're here discussing it on the talk page today.

The wording does not violate WP:BLP. BLP does not mean that articles about living people contain nothing negative about their subjects. It means that all material needs to be carefully cited, and that negative and other content is included only to the extent that its importance makes this justifiable. Irving is definitely regarded as a holocaust denier by historians, and it is not a BLP violation in any way to call him one. If you are in any doubt about this, take the issue to the BLP noticeboard. The outcome is predictable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I see this has been taken to WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

And again we see this strange, supposedly coincidental collaboration between Solntsa90 and Prinsgezinde (nota bene - Solntsa90 recently got topic banned from the article about RT (TV network). Almost right after, Prinsgezinde showed up to renew their edit war on the same article making exactly the same arguments as Solntsa90. I see "they" are doing the same here and at BLPN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

One for WP:SPI then. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh... Again I'm attacked, mocked and accused of being a sockpuppet, JUST because I suggest something civilly in good faith. Why don't you just go ahead and fully investigate me for sockpuppetry once and for all, Nick-D and Volunteer Marek? I'm not afraid because I know I only have one account. It annoys me that when I try to discuss something controversial and someone agrees I have to be a sockpuppet.

And before anyone asks, no, I know nothing whatsoever about Solntsa90, nor do they know me. We apparently simply shared views on this.

As for the mockery of how I compared it with Judas etc, they were merely examples that came to mind. No elaborate symbolism or plans there. Good day. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Knife fight

Come on, what the hell is this doing in an encyclopedia? Why does a knife fight between two WN groups merit mention in an article by David Irving? Why is it even here? And just because Irving happened to be there, why does it merit mention in his "encyclopediac" biography?

There is no reason why any mention of a knife-fight between white nationalist groups should be mentioned in a David Irving article, just because he attended those events. THAT if nothing else, is a serious violation of WP:BLP, and just makes the encyclopedia look petty and biased against the subjects it should be documenting.

Would the Encyclopedia Brittanica report this? Ask yourself that question. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you search the internet for "David Irving" knife fight it produces many results. See here, where Irving was forced to deny that he knew the man who started the fight. If news sites mention the fight in their accounts of Irving's book tour, it seems strange for Misplaced Pages to exclude this information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not relevant to David Irving's biography, and only exists to create insinuation.

>It seems strange for wikipedia to exclude this information

How so? Do we mention every minute detail in someone's lengthy career, no matter how unimportant, just because it insinuates that they're "the bad guy"? It is poorly sourced, (SPLC is hardly a valid one anyway), and Irving denied knowing the man who started the fight, as you said yourself.

It's literally nothing but to create slander against David Irving. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Irving commented on and responded to the fight in various ways. This was widely reported (again, if you try an internet search, you will see that many newspapers reported this). Is it relevant to his biography? Yes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't proven how this is relevant to his biography, except to say that it is something that he witnessed. There is no evidence that David Irving had anything to do with the fight, and any insinuations are merely that--insinuations, in order to give the reader an idea that David Irving is some sort of nefarious character, which isn't the job of this supposed encyclopedia to be doing.

Ask yourself again: Would the Encyclopedia Brittanica include that mention? They don't even mention the fact that Obama was widely known as Barry (neither does wiki), and yet this extremely minor, impertinent violation of WP:BLP gets a pass in your book.

May I ask again why this is relevant to the article? Why not include what David Irving had for dinner next? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you find this knife-fight so notable, make a separate article on it. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Irving's response to the fight (which is mentioned in newspaper articles about it) makes it a relevant aspect of his biography. In contrast, newspapers have never reported what Irving had for dinner on any occasion, so that certainly is irrelevant. I never suggested that Irving himself was personally involved with the fight, as you bizarrely imply. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So if Irving wasn't personally involved in the fight( as I bizarrely implied) what the hell is it doing in his biography, unless to insinuate a negative moral character? It's a fight that he witnessed, it literally has NOTHING to do with Irving himself. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Saying the same things over and over again does not make your comments any more convincing. The fight should be mentioned in Irving's biography because newspapers recorded his response to it - as I already explained. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You never answered one of my questions. You are editing in poor faith. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• The BLP argument is pure nonsense. And it only excuses edit warring if it is a blatant and unquestionable violation of the policy. That is not the case here. Each of you make your cases for why it should be included or excluded and if you cant come to an agreement have an RfC on the issue. I lean towards exclusion since the relevance to his biography seems tangential.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The detail should be excluded because it is a minor knife fight that:

1.) David Irving had nothing to do with, by the admission of the sources provided;

2.) Irving denied all involvement with the knife fight;

3.) The knife fight is only included to insinuate nefariousness on Irving's part;

4.) It wouldn't be mentioned in a real encyclopedia like Brittanica, because it is such a minor detail as to warrant almost no attention to it;

5.) as you said, it is completely tangential, only serving to make an insinuation about Irving's character.

and most importantly:

6.) This has nothing to do with David Irving's biography, anymore than Celebrity sightings around LA have to do with theirs.

For the six above reasons, I strongly suggest its removal. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I second all those reasons. The info should not be here. --Dmol (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence fragment that a knife-fight broke out, without any explanation as to its outcome and relevance to the biography of the subject is something strange which will tend to confuse the reader. However it is not an egregious violation of BLP and I don't see it as an exemption from 3RR. Therefore, the edit-warring must stop and an RfC should be opened to decide the inclusion of the incident if the disagreement continues. Dr. K. 02:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Before making any judgment about whether material about this issue should be included or not, editors should first try an internet search to see how widely the incident was reported and how Irving reacted to it. Solntsa90's comment that, "The knife fight is only included to insinuate nefariousness on Irving's part" is an accusation of bad faith editing on my part, which I reject. Solntsa90 should read WP:AGF. His other points are simply different ways of rephrasing the same basic (and incorrect) complaint that the incident has no relevance to Irving. If newspapers report that someone reacted to a fight that occurred in his presence, and that his reaction included stating that certain persons were no longer welcome at his talks (which happened here, as you will note from this story, which was one of many), then obviously one is dealing with something that may be worth mentioning in his article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that Irving by reacting to the incident has made it relevant and fit to be included in his BLP. Further, since it is an inclusion that is being disputed I suggest its addition to the article should be delayed until such time as a consensus is formed to include it. Perhaps an RfC would be helpful if consensus does not form quickly. Dr. K. 03:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it is relevant. If someone responds to or comments on an event, then the assertion that the event is in no way relevant to him is baseless. One could more legitimately discuss exactly what form the material on this issue should take. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, why then isn't Irving's reaction to the knife incident included in his bio? What is the logic of including the knife incident but not Irving's reaction to it? Dr. K. 03:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Not Relevant for the 6-Reasons, cited above. Fights happen. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I was looking for an actual argument in response, not simply an assertion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think the most of the reasons given are compelling, I dont think it requires assumption of bad faith, but the result of including the information is what looks like a coatrack type of writing. So I think it is best to leave the knife fight.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Likewise. The arguments against inclusion are strong, while those for inclusion are weak. --jpgordon 05:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Irving and Far Right groups

This recent edit by Solntsa90 removes mention of the fact that Irving has lectured to far right groups: in the sentence, "Irving has actively toured the United States, lecturing to far right groups", the words "lecturing to far right groups" were removed without explanation. I find the edit to be outrageous. It needs to be reverted promptly. I understand the value of WP:AGF, but Solntsa90's editing at this article really is starting to look like politically motivated censorship. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The source given didn't say that he was still speaking to far right groups in the US. I had a look for other references, and his tours of the US don't attract much attention in reliable sources. The sources I could find said that only small numbers of people attend, with Irving and his assistant(s) vetting them. I've added a bit on this. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is notable and significant that Irving has been catering to this particular audience.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not notable, and there is no source for it.

Jesus, half of this crap shouldn't even be arbitrated on, and yet it is, and every single time, your edits get blown down because of the fact they're just petty and an attempt to make a man look worse than his reputation precedes. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Irving's lectures to far right groups/meetings were a significant part of his activities, and an important part of the evidence submitted against him which caused him to loose the libel case he launched. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's going to need a solid source to stick. SPLC hardly being credible. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Then you won't like this source either about his lectures. He seems to have been giving basically private lectures at secret locations, which is more or less what Nick-D found. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The ADL is a self-described "Jewish Pressure Group". Certainly we have a more academic, less interested source than that, for such a bold claim? Hell, even the Jewish Virtual Library would be a start (and that's a group that claims to bolster Israel's image abroad). Solntsa90 (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess my (honest, good faith) question is, what makes the ADL or the discredited SPLC so authoritative on this subject, that they warrant inclusion, especially for something potentially libelous in the UK (Irving supporters may come out and claim not to be far-right, attempt to sue as it happens) in a WP:BLP? Solntsa90 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those orgaizations are "discredited". And the claims are highly unlikely to be considered "libelous" by the courts that already determined that Irving is a fraud and a holocaust denier, and in any case they are supported by reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

SPLC has been discredited by the FBI for being too heavy-handed in its assessments, while the ADL is a self-described lobbying and Jewish pressure group. Unless the source directly pertains to these areas of study (and no, Irving's entire life doesn't fall under the scope of jurisdiction of the ADL's assessments), I'm not sure what this has to do with David Irving. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, the FBI has disagreed with SPLCs evaluation of what is an isnt a hate group and a hate crime. That does not mean that it has been "discredited".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As for the libelous claims, "highly unlikely" or "impossible"? Because "Highly Unlikely" still implies a chance of likelihood, however small. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as the statements are covered by reliable sources that we simply summarize that eventuality is not Misplaced Pages's problem but the problem of the sources. In the unlikely case that Irving should sue ADL or SPLC or any other source that we use for libel and wins the suit then of course we will remove the claims.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why Solntsa90 is repeating their false claim about the FBI after posting directly under my response to that, which was "I note that an editor has made the false claim that the SPLC has been discredited by the FBI. The FBI's webpage "Hate Crimes—Overview" says "The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Association of University Women, Anti-Defamation League, Asian American Justice Center, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Organization for Women, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others." This page calls it an outreach partner and has a link to the SPLC website. It's easy to search the FBI website, dragging up old out-dated events which were misrepresented (it was simply dropped from this page which now doesn't mention any groups) is misleading at best. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)" User:Maunus, has the FBI actually said they disagree with the SPLC? Doug Weller talk 22:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I dont know that they have I was going only by the implication of the obviously quite biased Washington Times editorial.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

What makes SPLC or ADL unbiased, and the Washington Times, "biased"? I wouldn't mind having that clarified for me. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

SPLC and ADl are biased of course - biased against hate groups and antisemitism respectively. But they are also reliable sources, because many official institutions use their information and consider it to be objective enough for many purposes. News articles in WT is also a reliable source, but the editorial is a statement of the opinion of the editorial college, and does not purport to give objective or full information on the issue. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That Irving has associated with far right groups and individuals is a matter of fact, and formed part of the reason why he lost the libel case he launched (relevant sections of the judgement: , , ). Unless I'm missing something, the SPLC isn't actually used as a reference in the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Meshing the two previous points

I have no desire to defend Irving, his coreligionists, or his followers (of whom there appears to be an inordinate number on this and similar pages).

That said, I believe the knifing incident, as originally included in the article (“ lecturing to far right groups and on one occasion a knife fight broke out.”), is totally irrelevant. But I should like to explain that this has nothing to do with the six “reasons” given previously.

Let us first look at these “reasons”:

“The detail should be excluded because it is a minor knife fight that:

“1.) David Irving had nothing to do with, by the admission of the sources provided;

“2.) Irving denied all involvement with the knife fight;

[Irrelevant: First, this is partly a restatement of the previous point.

Second, Irving has denied many things, not the least being his ever having made certain statements on record in court, during his ill-advised trial against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt; on these and other occasions, he was proven to have lied. In any event, his denial of any involvement in the incident, while most likely correct, is of no consequence here, for the reason given in the previous response.]

“3.) The knife fight is only included to insinuate nefariousness on Irving’s part;

[Questionable: Given that it is probably true that Irving had nothing to do with the incident, there can be no insinuation as to his “nefariousness”, at least on this point.

But, as I said previously, the reference to the knifing incident was too pithy to be included in the article as originally expressed, since it left the reader the option of inferring whatever he might wish, and it is not inconceivable that someone would make the wrong inference on the basis of such an elliptic statement.]

“4.) It wouldn’t be mentioned in a real encyclopedia like Brittanica , because it is such a minor detail as to warrant almost no attention to it;

[Ridiculous argument: First, by no stretch of the imagination can Misplaced Pages be compared to the Encyclopædia Britannica, because they are totally different animals: (a) the EB would not even consider accepting contributions from the vast majority of Wiki’s authors, and (b) the EB would not have articles on Papa Roach’s “Time and Time Again” (to give but a random example) or on any other of a number of subjects one might describe as frivolous, yet these and many others apparently deserve their own articles on Misplaced Pages.

Second, it is interesting to note that the author of this “argument” should be so careless in phrasing his thoughts here, yet so meticulous in questioning another person’s comments regarding the likelihood of someone successfully suing Misplaced Pages (“As for the libelous claims, "highly unlikely" or "impossible"? Because "Highly Unlikely" still implies a chance of likelihood, however small.”) Following the logic of that same argument, the fact that “it is such a minor detail as to warrant almost no attention to it” necessarily entails that it warrants some attention, making this “argument” counter-productive in light of its author’s avowed intent.

In short, not a very well-thought-out “argument”.]

“5.) as you said, it is completely tangential, only serving to make an insinuation about Irving’s character.

“and most importantly:

“6.) This has nothing to do with David Irving’s biography, anymore than Celebrity sightings around LA have to do with theirs.”

In short, the 6 “reasons” are mostly nonsensical (and please note that putting bullet points or numbers to nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical), irrelevant, and – as someone else aptly put it – repetitive.

That said, the only reason I would tend to agree to the exclusion of the incident from the biography is that, as presented, it offers nothing of any value in terms of additional information.

However, and this is where I wish to link this to the following point regarding the breakdown of Irving’s typical audiences in terms of associations with specific far-right groups, the incident becomes decidedly relevant if it is included as an illustration of the highly fractious nature of Irving’s audiences: here are two groups, ostensibly like-minded, both obviously supporters of Irving’s racist views, and yet their dislike for each other is so great that members of each group are willing to attempt to kill associates of the other.

Attempts to disqualify the point that Irving speaks to members of such groups (routinely described as “far right”, although better descriptives could surely be found) are unfounded either in logic or in fact. Let us see why:

“It’s not notable, and there is no source for it.” Of course it is notable: as has already been stated by another contributor, it “formed part of the reason why he lost the libel case he launched”. Failure to appreciate this notability, or the inability to find reliable sources that attest to the fact as stated, is tantamount to wilful blindness to plain facts.

Irving himself accepted that his audiences were “cracked anti-Semites” (the quote from Ron Rosenbaum’s “Explaining Hitler”, to be found in the Misplaced Pages article, “Critical responses to David Irving”, is woefully inadequate to reflect Rosenbaum’s amazement at the tone used by Irving to describe his typical audiences, or the eagerness with which he was willing to “shake off this ill-fitting shoe ” as soon as he could “get back onto regular debating platforms”).

Yes, Rosenbaum’s book was written in 1999, and one might argue that the situation has changed since then, but I should point out that my copy is the 2014 edition, that Irving’s statements are still included in the book, and that Irving, a notorious litigant, has yet to file any kind of action against Rosenbaum for anything found in the book, therefore implicitly accepting that what is stated therein is true.

And yes, “anti-Semite” – a term for which I personally prefer the much more accurate “Jew-hater”, from “Judenhasser” – is not the same thing as “far-right”. But that is precisely where the knife incident should come in: it should be included as a separate paragraph, one in which the specific groups present (the “Volksfront” and the “Hammerskins”) are named and described. Mention should also be made of the fact that this audience was by no means atypical: references may be obtained, for example, from the transcripts of the Irving Vs Penguin Books and Lipstadt trial, which include descriptions of numerous meetings at which Irving spoke.

“ your edits just petty and an attempt to make a man look worse than his reputation precedes.” We should ignore the fact that this turn of phrase (“make a man look worse than his reputation precedes”) is somewhat confused, and ask ourselves if the statement, in toto, has any validity whatsoever.

I contend it does not: Irving is not someone to be dismissed lightly; his followers, most of whom do not have the necessary inclination, knowledge, education, or – in some cases, as can be seen from reading some of his correspondence – intelligence to assess historical facts properly, are too easily swayed by his so-called “theories” (if swaying be needed) to allow an encyclopaedic article about him not to mention the audiences he speaks to. But mentioning these last is by no means “an attempt to make a man look worse than his reputation precedes”.

Allow me to explain: such “sanitised” versions of any article on Irving (whether on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere) which some of his more vocal followers would like to see might eventually lead the unwary reader to believe that Irving is merely some kind of controversial historian, one who just happens to be the victim of pressure groups because of his valiant stand against historical lies. In other words, they would paint Irving and his colleagues (whether the “intellectuals” like Faurisson or Mattogno, or the plain and simple rabble-rousers like Zündel or Keegstra) as “revisionist historians”/“revisionists”; those for whom these terms should properly be reserved, i.e. real historians and other academics who apply proper historiographical methodology to re-examine valid historical issues, find it is offensive to apply them to these individuals.

Under this scenario, Irving, particularly, could be depicted as a successful historian who is in constant worldwide demand for his educational lectures on controversial historical topics.

But that is not what Irving and his ilk engage in: they are negationists, pure and simple, and anything that helps the potential reader understand this, so long as it is both true and documented, should be included in any biography of these and any other like-minded worthies.

In summary, my suggestion would be that the knife incident be reinstated in the article, but in a separate paragraph (or even subsection), one which would seek to define (and document) the type of audiences Irving typically addresses. The purpose of such a paragraph would be to stress the fact that he is neither lecturing to people who are likely to know better than to swallow his spite-filled nonsense whole nor addressing large numbers of rational individuals during these lectures (in my humble experience, nowadays, rational individuals seldom bring knives to academic lectures), thus converging with other evidence within the article to the effect that he is a mendacious, marginalised purveyor of pseudo-historical rubbish intended to further a Jew-hating agenda before uncritical, like-minded audiences.

Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Your last sentence actually negates all your other arguments. This is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. --jpgordon 16:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments and for offering your observation. I have no doubt you believe that the last sentence does indeed negate all previous arguments, but that is doubtless my fault for having expressed myself incorrectly. As should be painfully obvious, I am not an Anglophone, and I sometimes (too often, indeed) fail to communicate my thoughts adequately in English.

In no way do I believe that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to further any specific personal agendum; correct me if I am wrong, but is it not supposed to be to present, convincingly (which means with all required support documentation), the current state of knowledge regarding the topic being covered?

If that is so, please consider the following: despite his own feelings on the matter, and despite those of his fellow travellers, proving that Irving is right or wrong is not the end-all and be-all of most people on earth. In fact, most people could hardly care less about him.

A reading of the archives for this talk page would seem to indicate that those who, for any reason whatsoever, come to this article fall into one of several categories: his followers, seeking to ensure that no slander against him is allowed to befoul the article; his detractors, who want to see him pilloried (preferably in a public market place where dogs may come and urinate on his leg); and those who genuinely have little if any idea of who he is and why so much fuss is raised around his person and work.

There are also those who would like to see the article reflect the general consensus on him. And while I personally would not be opposed to seeing him pilloried (with the attendant dogs urinating on his leg), I prefer to see the article expose him for what most historians see him as: a “mendacious, marginalised purveyor of pseudo-historical rubbish intended to further a Jew-hating agenda before uncritical, like-minded audiences” (the description is mine, I hasten to add, and not a quote from a more authoritative source), precisely for the sake of that last category of readers, i.e. those who know little or nothing of him.

You believe that this disqualifies my prior comments, but I would counter that this merely disqualifies me from contributing to the article (which I have been most careful not to do, in any event). However, the consensus does seem to be (and I am sure you have read the first part of Richard Evans’s expert report carefully) that this is, indeed, what he is – at least in the opinion of most qualified professionals.

In proposing the inclusion of the knifing incident in the article, but within a paragraph or subsection such as I described, I was merely trying to stress – ineffectively, it would seem – the twin facts that (a) there are any number of individuals (as may be seen on these and other talk pages) who are willing to apply his own flawed “methodology” and sophistry to further their claims that he is a legitimate historian being unfairly cast out of the community of fellow academics by a cabal of propagandists, and (b) it lies within the mission of Misplaced Pages (as I understood it to be, but I hope you will correct me if needs be) to redress the slant they obviously wish to impart on facts in order to suit their narrative. In my opinion, such a paragraph would go a long way to counter these fallacies.

Consider how one person sought to censure any mention of the knife fight as immaterial, then went on to seek to prohibit inclusion of a description of the makeup of Irving’s audiences as being both unsourced and irrelevant. Surely you would agree that the two items, if properly linked, are both absolutely relevant and of considerable significance.

That was the full extent of my intention in writing the above, and I hope I have managed to clear the misunderstanding up. In any event, as previously stated, I am quite aware of my own bias in the matter, and that is precisely why I intend to limit my own interventions to the talk page: I do not believe someone who is emotionally invested in the topic should contribute directly to the article itself. This may not be a very common attitude within the Misplaced Pages community, but I believe it is the proper one for me, at least, to adopt.

If you read the talk page on Carlo Mattogno, for example, you will note that I made certain observations concerning what I saw as a series of unacceptable claims being made in the article. I tried to substantiate my comments, but I did not touch the article itself, trusting that someone else, possibly on the basis of at least some of my observations, would correct the article. As it turns out, the article was indeed modified, and all but one of my objections have been satisfied in the new version (although I am not so arrogant as to believe it was specifically because of what I wrote). I merely hope someone will do the same here.

Again, thank you for your observation.

Le vrai Sabourin (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material")

Is the last suggested version acceptable to be added to the section about David Irving's holocaust denial position/actions ("In a 2007 interview...") Also please confirm or deny whether a) the source is valid and b) is the information relevant to this section and c) is a secondary source necessary for it to be accepted Nekdolan (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• This RfC is confusing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it's not clear what this is talking about. What is this "last suggested version"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the last suggested version:

In a 2007 interview 1 Irving claimed that according to a genuine document "over 2.5 million Jews were killed" in three camps by a deliberate policy of the Nazis and "quite definitely of Heinrich Himmler". He referred to these camps as the "Reinhardt camps" and added that nothing "neither stick nor stone" remains where these camps once stood. Irving also reaffirmed his position regarding Hitler, that Hitler was "completely in the dark" and did not knew what went on in these camps. Irving also claimed that Auschwitz was not the "center of the killing operations" and that the gas chamber inside Auschwitz is a fake.

There are some other sources that have been deemed unacceptable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoD5i0xK2Xs | http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Hoefle_No2/Hoefle_doc_No2.html --Nekdolan (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. The Guardian is an acceptable source, if that's what you're asking. I haven't checked as to whether the text reflects the source. You may want to clarify if you want responses. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have clarified the main issue, it being that there is no secondary source for this information --Nekdolan (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

David Irving is a historian. Just because someone is controversial does not mean they lose their title. His knowledge of the Third Reich is unrivalled and before he started drawing unfashionable conclusions his bestselling books received favourable reviews in national newspapers. The outcome of the Lipstadt trial also does not mean he is no longer a historian. Trials, particularly in countries such as England, are far from reliable. This one in particular was plainly unfair given the amount of money poured into the defence. This BBC article for instance says he is a historian - is the BBC not a good enough source?

He also is not a holocaust denier, as he has stated on many occasions - he accepts that millions of Jews died. See the Free Speech interview on Youtube. If he is saying on video that he accepts it happened then he is by definition not a denier, regardless of what secondary sources say. There are necessarily going to be a large number of sources attacking a man with fringe views. WP: NPOV and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY still apply here. This is tyranny of the majority. I am aware of the large Jewish presence on Misplaced Pages so to avoid conflict of interest I would kindly invite Jews to withhold from commenting. 188.222.200.124 (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

1. http://www.fpp.co.uk/reviews/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• GA-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• GA-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• GA-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class military historiography articles
• Military historiography task force articles
• GA-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press