Talk:David Irving: Difference between revisions

Wanted to put my two cents in

I have noticed the bias against Mr Irving because I myself am a bit biased in favor of Mr Irving's, mainly because of the outstanding accusations (not proven nor disproven convincingly) of the ADL and Nizkor (both of which are political and religious and have close ties in relations and monies to parties opposed to Mr Irving) and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt. I think the current article is vastly improved on the early October version, kudos to Mr. Ortolan88 and others in the spectacular additions and refinement. guest

Article is anti-Irving

This article is quite anti-Irving. Please neutralize it. Taw 14:15 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

That is quite hard since Irving is most of all anti-himself. A self-destructive man if there ever was one.--GeneralPatton 05:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Irving is a man with known connections to European fascists and neo-Nazis. He is the leading Nazi apologist active today. His fallacies were proven in court. Let's not try to make him out as a confused student who got into a debate that was over his head. Danny 00:48 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Dan, did you delete about two hours of my research into the subject just to piss me off, or to Bait me into a conflict? Or both? Ill credit you with the verisimilitude to do the reasonable thing and chop the article up into little bits if you like instead of outright reverting it with the wave of your majestic hand. Im not clear that you bothered to read it. Respectfully -Stevert ( the "Apologist" )

Oh, I read it. And I stand by my revert. Danny

I do not agree with the revert. The previous revision should be edited, not reverted. --Eloquence 04:56 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

While the recent version had numerous dubious, apologetic, and naive remarks, "Irving could be seen as ..." etc, a good deal of what was there was useful as raw material to be edited. I have some material to add, notably the scene in court when Irving referred to the judge as "Mein Führer", and some assistance in sorting out the fact that Irving brought the suit and was found not to have been harmed because what Deborah Lipstadt had said was true. There's no question that some of the article was argumentative and not NPOV, but it was there to be edited in the usual Wikipedia fashion, not simply deleted. Much of what was deleted would have been in any article on this interesting, controversial, and now discredited historian. I will be glad to work on a reverted version, provided there is no edit war and no name-calling. Ortolan88 05:23 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Is it allright if I call you a "damn sturdy Wikipedian"? -Stevert

I would be more than fine if you worked on it, Ortolan. Danny

And due to my ties to the Neo-nazi Filipino hemp mafia, I will forever recuse myself from ever touching the subject ever, ever, again. -Stevert

Nizkor has a fairly good collection of info about Irving. --Eloquence 05:38 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Um ... er ... okay, give me a bit of time, a day maybe, to look over some research. Let's leave the stub for the moment. I hope others will contribute as well, including the people signing in to this talk page. Ortolan88

---

Details of recent edit. Removed several references to Irving's income, desire to earn money, etc. added bibliography, this guy was a real hard worker, added a bit about the prestige he had, particularly the acceptance of his Dresden figures (need to move dresden casualty information from talk page to that article). Proceeding slowly, story of his books needs to be expanded, need much more about trial, Irving conducting his own defense, need to examine previous versions of article to make sure I haven't missed anything, working mostly from secondary sources. I do think this is a fascinating story and hope I am keeping it NPOV and on the up and up. Ortolan88 04:04 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

This article falls short of NPOV. Funny that one of the editors of this article should be making snide remarks about Irving's 'supposed' scholarship when that same author clearly doesn't apply those same high standards of scholarship to themselves.

Obviously, this article is the product of partisans with pre-existing agendas, including perhaps Judaic activism, as is evident from the privileging of Jewish experiences under the Nazi regime over experiences of other abused groups like the Gypsies. Irving is chastised for refusing to consent to the belief that a Jewish soul is metaphysically more valuable than a non-Jewish soul, and thus the reason for his ostracism. Irving shall remain unforgiven for not adopting a Judeocentric perspective in the Goering biography (is it possible that Goering had a life and career beyond the scope of the simplistic dualism of the propaganda of the victors? Such a question is unaskable), for his refusal to cave in to slithering scholarly conformity in general.There is no room for partisanship in a respectable encyclopedia, even considering the improbability of objective judgement of an era so close to the presentday. Yet removing the distemper'd moralism wouldn't mean endorsing his scholarship.

The two previous paragraphs were made by users using two different IP numbers several months apart, so not necissarily the same person (although the seem quite similar in content). Just thought I'd mention that in case someone thought it was all part of the same message. Saul Taylor 22:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Anonymous user 65.146.0.29 seems to have been subtly trying to make a point by associating Norman Finkelstein and The Holocaust Industry with Holocaust revisionism. This is a dishonest and wholly inadmissible addition which must be immediately reverted --as I just did. Sir Paul 01:40, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of NPOV, as hard as it is maintaining this when writing about crimes like Holocaust, it has to be included, since Irving in his paranoia presents the “Holocaust Industry” as going “after him”. Just as this bit on Deborah Lipstadt that was taken out of the article about her should be put back. "Sir John Keegan sums up the view of WW2 historians conserning her with the remark that she is boring, self-righteous, politically correct and that no serious historian will be interested in anything she writes." --GeneralPatton 05:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

However, its not fair to group Finkelstein with the likes of Irving. --GeneralPatton 05:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A self confessed "mild fascist"

from ADL website

When asked at the time by The Daily Mail about his political beliefs, he replied, "[Y]ou can call me a mild fascist if you like. I have just come back from [Francisco Franco's] Madrid...I returned through Germany and visited Hitler's eyrie at Berchtesgaden. I regard it as a shrine." --GeneralPatton 11:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks :-) It'd be ideal to track down the original Daily Mail reference, but that can wait I suppose. I've also made that page the ADL link in External links - to link to a document rather than a search - David Gerard 11:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[1] on May 1, 1959 the Daily Mail reporter Clifford Luton quoted David Irving, then a student at London University, as saying, "You can call me a mild fascist if you like.". Of course, Irving is giving it his conspiracy spin, presenting it as another part of some grand conspiracy against his “work”, but the fact remains that he was quoted while still being a nobody and before any of his "work" was published. Its another typical manipulation of his. Distorting facts and ignoring common sense. --GeneralPatton 12:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And there is also this page about Irving on ADL's website --GeneralPatton 12:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would not hold in high regard the ADL's website in this entry, as it does have political agendas, is active in politics, and by nature has an inherent bias against those with opposing views. May I suggest a neutral source for information, or at least a counterpoint in Irving's own words (from his own publications)? The ADL is also known to change their site frequently due to the high number of offsite-linking of documents and photographs; link with caution. User:Anonymous 19:18 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed "Greedy"

Para 8, 2nd sentence: "The book tends to ignore Göring's role in the Holocaust and his greedy theft of art treasures."

removed greedy as it is an emotional & relative term. Furthermore, labelling it as greedy only sensationalizes it. It is not helpful --Duemellon 19:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note about reversion

I've reverted Xed's latest edit -- he jumbled things around (introducing at least one grammatical error in the process) in what I can only assume was an attempt to make Irving look better. Among the additions Xed made was to allege (truthfully, for all I know) that the reporter who quoted Irving as saying he was a "mild fascist" was later arrested on pedophilia charges -- a sick example of ad hominem argument which it pains me to repeat. Also, numerous pro-Irving quotations were added, most of them without an accompanying date (which, I would suspect, would reveal that most of the positive press about Irving predates his increasing alignment with Holocaust denial). I'm open to having some nice quotes about Irving, as long as we balance them with other quotations revealing other POVs. Otherwise we're doing a whitewash job on a very controversial author that most historians seem to feel is beneath contempt. Just explaining my actions... Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The remarks by John Keegan, a respected military historian, were probably contemporary with, or even after, the trial. Keegan was one of Irving's witnesses at the trial. I have no idea where he is coming from on this, but he has been, in his own way, pro-Irving. Many links in this Google search I'm not pro-Nazi at all, but an examination and expostion of Keegan's views on Irving could be appropriate. Ortolan88 02:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hadn't realized Keegan's remark was so recent -- well, that would certainly be one to include. But I think we'd also need to include the view of at least one prominent historian who takes the opposing view, if not more -- after all, prevailing opinion among historians is very against Irving's conclusions, and I think we do NPOV a disservice to pretend either that Irving is a universalyl praised scholar or a deeply divisive writer who is supported by many and opposed by many. I think any fair recounting of the facts has to relate that, whether you think Irving accurate or not, he's mostly alone in the historical community (and I personally suspect he likes it that way). Jwrosenzweig 14:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keegan was an Irving witness because after Keegan refused to testify on his behalf, Irving subpoena'd him anyway. On the stand Keegan said (to Irving) "I continue to think it perverse of you to propose that Hitler could not have known until as late as October 1943 what was going on to the Jewish people." and later stated that Irving's view "defies common sense" and "defies reason." [2] Here are some of Keegan's other views of Irving:[3]

In his _The Battle for History_ Keegan also wrote:

"Some controversies are entirely bogus, like David Irving's contention that Hitler's subordinates kept from him the facts of the Final Solution, the extermination of the Jews..." (p.10)

"No historian of the Second World War can afford to ignore Irving. His depiction of Hitler [in _Hitler's War_], by its relation of the war's development to the decisions and responses of Fu"hrer headquarters, is a key corrective to the Anglo-Saxon version, which relates the war's history solely in terms of Churchillian defiance and the growth of the Grand Alliance. Nevertheless, it is a flawed vision, for it is untouched by moral judgement. For Irving, the Second World War was a war like other other wars - naked struggle for national self-interrest - and Hitler, one war leaders among others. Yet, the Second World War must engage our moral sense. Its destructiveness, its disruption of legal and social order, were on a scale so disordinate that it cannot be viewed as a war among other wars; its opposition of ideologies, democratic versus totalitarian, none the less stark because democracy perforce allied itself with one form of totalitarianism in the struggle against another, invariably invests the war with moral content; above all, Hitler's institution of genocide demands a moral commitment." (pp.50-51.)

Jayjg 04:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, think the previous two paragraphs here (Irving's challenge to conventional Anglo historians, first stated, then answered and rejected firmly by Keegan) and the business about Keegan as a witness and his remarks directed at Irving, all are worth having in the article. The "pedophile" business, no, but the article clearly shows that Irving was in his innermost being, profoundly silly and self-destructive, and a pro-Nazi. Inclusion of this material won't change that, but will illuminate aspects of Irving as a historian, however discredited. I don't think I'm being naive here. I see no reason to reject material that advances the article. And why not unlock the article? We've surmounted edit wars before here and gotten a pretty good article too. Ortolan88 05:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Keegan's views about Irving should be included in the article, both positive and negative. A quote with no context is not the way to do so. Would you like to work on something more balanced and informative, or would you prefer me to? Jayjg 14:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Here's a proposed paragraph about Keegan:

Irving's strongest, and perhaps only remaining supporter amongst historians is the respected British historian Sir John Keegan. During the trial Keegan stated "I continue to think it perverse of you to propose that Hitler could not have known until as late as October 1943 what was going on to the Jewish people." and later stated that Irving's view "defies common sense" and "defies reason." However, after the trial Keegan praised Irving for his understanding of Hitler's military strategy, and in an April 12, 2000 article in the Daily Telegraph stated that Irving had an "all-consuming knowledge of a vast body of material" and "many of the qualities of the most creative historians", that his skill as an archivist could not be contested, that he was "certainly never dull." [4]

Comments? Jayjg 21:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dresden numbers

The article currently lists Irving's Dresden death numbers at "130,000 to more than 200,000". However, every source I have seen on this lists Irving's original statement about the lower bound as 135,000 , which differs from the current text, and also from Xed's persistent attempt to change the number to 35,000. See, for example, the text of Justice Gray's Lipstadt judgement [5] which points out that Irving specifically disbelieved the number 35,000, and insisted that it had been arrived at in this way: "According to Irving, Voigt told him that the estimate of 35,000 made by the Russians had been arrived at by striking off the first digit from the figure of 135,000." The judgement also shows that while at the trial Irving claimed that "estimates of casualties in Dresden have indeed ranged between 35,000 and 250,000", Irving himself has never made estimates that low. Instead, he has made many conflicting statements about the numbers in various editions of the book, other writings, and in public statement, all much higher than 35,000. More importantly, regarding the information in the paragraph itself, "in the 1966 edition of The Destruction of Dresden Irving contended that 135,000 were estimated authoritatively to have been killed and further contended that the documentation suggested a figure between 100,00[0] and 250,000" I recommend that the article be changed to reflect this, namely, that the book stated that 135,000 were estimated authoritatively, and that documentation suggested a figure between 100,000 and 250,000. Comments? Jayjg 18:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Irving states he believes a figure of 25,000 to be accurate in a letter to The Times (1966) - [6]:

Sir, -- Your newspaper has an enviable reputation for accuracy, and your readiness to correct the smallest errors from one day to the next is an inspiration to your readers; but how can a historian correct a mistake, when once he finds himself to have been wrong? I ask the indulgence of your columns.

The bombing of Dresden in 1945 has in recent years been adduced by some people as evidence that conventional bombing can be more devastating than nuclear attacks, and others have sought to draw false lessons from this. My own share of the blame for this is large: in my 1963 book The Destruction of Dresden I stated that estimates of the casualties in that city varied between 35,000 and over 200,000.

The higher figures did not seem absurd when the circumstances were taken into account. I had tried for three years to bring to light German documents relating to the damage, but the east German authorities were unable to assist me. Two years ago I procured from a private east German source what purported to be extracts from the Police President's report, quoting the final death-roll as "a quarter of a million"; the other statistics it contained were accurate, but it is now obvious that the death-roll statistic was falsified, probably in 1945.

The east German authorities (who had originally declined to provide me with the documents have now supplied to me a copy of the 11-page "final report" written by the area police chief about one month after the Dresden raids, and there is no doubt as to this document's authenticity. In short, the report shows that the Dresden casualties were on much the same scale as in the heaviest Hamburg raids in 1943. The document's author, the Höhere SS- und Polizeiführer Elbe, was responsible for civil defence measures in Dresden, it should be noted.

His figures are very much lower than those I quoted. The crucial passage reads:

"Casualties: by 10th March, 1945, 18,375 dead, 2,212 seriously injured, and 13,918 slightly injured had been registered, with 350,000 homeless and permanently evacuated." The total death-roll, "primarily women and children", was expected to reach 25,000; fewer than a hundred of the dead were servicemen. Of the dead recovered by then, 6,865 had been cremated in one of the city squares. A total of 35,000 people were listed as "missing".

The general authenticity of the report is established beyond doubt, because within a very few days of receiving the first, a second wartime German report was supplied to me, this time from a western source. It repeats exactly the figures listed in the above report, upon which it was evidently based.

The second report, a Berlin police summary of "Air Raids on Reich Territory", dated March 22, 1945, was found, quite by chance, misfiled among the 25,000 Reich Finance Ministry files currently being explored at the west German Federal Archives. It was forwarded to me by one of their archivists, Doctor Boberach.

I have no interest in promoting or perpetuating false legends, and I feel it is important that in this respect the record should be set straight.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, David Irving

Irving may indeed have stated that estimates were in a broader range, but those were not estimates he believed. Rather, he stated the figure of 135,000 as authoritative. Furthermore, on many subsequent occasions he himself stated the numbers were far higher, as follows:

1. in the 1971 edition the figure for those killed was placed at more than 100,000;
2. in 1989 when launching the 'Leuchter Report' in Britain Irving informed journalists present that between 100,000 and 250,000 were killed;
3. in 1992 Irving told the Institute of Historical Review that 100,000 people were killed in twelve hours by the British and the Americans;
4. in 1993 in a video made for the Australian public Irving contended that over 130,000 died;
5. in the 1995 edition of The Destruction of Dresden the attack was estimated to have killed 50,000 and 100,000 inhabitants;
6. in 1996 in Goebbels: The Mastermind of the Third Reich Irving noted that between 60,000 and 100,000 people has been killed in the raids on Dresden.
7. in a speech in South Africa in 1986 Irving stated that 100,000 people were killed in one night in Dresden;
8. in Ontario in 1991 he told and an audience that over 100,000 people were killed in one night in February 1945;
9. in a television documentary screened on 28 November 1991 Irving said that 25,000 people may have been executed in Auschwitz but five times that number were killed in Dresden in one night, and
10. at the launch of the 'Leuchter Report' to in 1989 Irving stated that there were 1,000,000 refugees in Dresden of whom "hundreds of thousands" were killed.

I note that all of these statements by Irving post-date that letter to The Times. In any event, the article itself deals with the original book, which stated the number 135,000 as "authoritative", and estimated much higher possibilities. Also, it would be helpful if you signed your edits. Jayjg 20:56, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On his web site in 2004/02/13 he used the phrase "which burned alive over one hundred thousand people, mostly civilians". Mozzerati 21:39, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

---

OK, I propose changing the paragraph to this:

In the first edition of the book Irving's figures for deaths in Dresden, which he initially reported as estimated authoritatively at 135,000, and which he himself estimated at between 100,000 and 250,000, were an order of magnitude higher than anyone else's. Nonetheless, these figures became widely accepted and were repeated in many standard references and encyclopedias. Over the next three decades later editions of the book gradually modified that figure downwards to a range of 50,000-100,000, but during that time Irving also made a number of public statements indicating that 100,000 or more Germans had been killed. It was not until the hearing of Irving's libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt in 2000 that the figures were discredited. See the Dresden bombing article for more information on casualty figures, estimated at closer to 40,000.

Comments? Jayjg 20:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Among the holocaust deniers..

David Irving has questioned many aspects of the holocaust, rightly or wrongly. Of late he's never "denied" it and i believe it sounds non NPOV to call him a denier, when he does not explicitly deny the holocaust happened.

Please read the article on Holocaust denial to understand what the term means. Jayjg 04:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"far-right" and "extreme right-wing"

These phrases are used to describe Irving's contacts in a couple of places in the article. They appear vague at best, POV at worst; which groups or people are they referring to? Jayjg 03:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Irving gave lectures to the Deutsche Volksunion in 1982; the West German Office for the Protection of the Constitution categorised the DVU as "right wing extremist", saying in a 1985 report that, despite Irving's insistence that the DVU is/was (not sure if it still exists) a "longstanding democratic party", they "hatred against foreigners, anti-Semitism, playing down [the crimes] of the National Socialist terror regime and disparagement of democratic institutions". (from the ADL). [[User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 04:41, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

That's in the 80s. The article claims he was working with the "far-right" and "extreme right-wing" in the 60s in Spain and Germany; who were these people? Jayjg 04:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The early years of Irving’s radical activism are not as documented as his later hears as he was not that well know then, however ever since his college days his pro fascist feelings have been known. This also has to do with the fact that the deniers were not as organized or as open about it as they are now.GeneralPatton 22:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you have a claim in there that cannot be verified, it will undoubtedly be challenged. Perhaps it is best to leave it out. Jayjg 22:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is verifiable that he got acquainted with many far right and former Nazi leaders. GeneralPatton 22:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be more explicit about that, then. Jayjg 22:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is misleading. Irving is a historian of WWII who has discovered countless new documents through interviewing survivors-- of course he would "get acquainted with" eyewitnesses and historical figures of the war, including prominent Nazis . NapoleonicStudent 04:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the real blame for his forced suicide lay with his associates

"lay with his associates"; whose associates, Hitler's or Rommel's? Jayjg 21:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Rommel's, Irving quite viciously attacked Rommel's chief of staff General Hans Speidel and his other associates, all of whom were passionate anti-Nazis and achieved high rank in post-war Germany. This is why I referred to “Hitler and his cronies” (which they were) as in opposed to Rommel and his associates. GeneralPatton 21:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Cronies" is POV. Please see the question in the section above this one as well; specifically, who were the far-right groups that Irving associated with in Spain? Jayjg 22:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the first issue, how about "clique"? And for the seccond issue, well, Its generally believed that while he was a fascist sympathizer in the UK, he acquired firsthand contacts with German Nazi sympathizers during his days in the Ruhr steel mills, that’s probably why he went there in the first place. As I’ve said they were not as organized back then, but it helped him open the doors for his later works. GeneralPatton 22:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article as of September 30, 2004

I’d say that we have a pretty complete article by now, only the “persona non grata” section needs some work and still some various details could be inserted about his books. From just about 600 words three months ago, the article has almost 3000 words now. GeneralPatton 18:14, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Images

Here are two more images that I have uploaded but didn't quite make it into the current revision of the article, the first one is from the same event as the one with the gun so i didn't want to be repetitive and the second one makes him look too nice. GeneralPatton 04:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

File:Irving book01.jpg

File:Irving archive01.jpg

Picture caption

Why is "Irving, seen here holding a submachine gun in a bookstore, the 1990s, . Its owner, the son of a freedom fighter in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 who had taken it from a soldier he had killed." a better picture caption? It's a paragraph, not a caption, and it's all about the history of the machine gun in the picture. This is an article about Irving, not the stuff he is holding in various pictures. Are we going to put in long captions describing the pen and books he is holding in various other captions? Jayjg 04:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The caption is badly garbled too, but basically the picture is a distraction. Irving wasn't a soldier, did not participate in the Hungarian rebellion, doesn't own the submachine gun, did not shoot up the bookstore, etc. One of the other pictures above would be better if we need another picture at all. Is the point to make Irving not "look too nice"? Really, I repeat, that particular picture illuminates nothing about Irving and takes away from the article by introducing a confusing image. Ortolan88 04:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the article needs the picture at all, it has enough pictures of him already, at various ages. Each section really only needs one picture IMHO, and the second one with him carrying the books and files is quite relevant to the section, which is maily about the trial. However, I think General Patton, who provided these pictures and captions, should weigh in as well. Jayjg 04:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tired of waiting, removed the picture (see over there):

File:Irving gun01.jpg

Irving, seen here holding a submachine gun in a bookstore, the 1990s . The gun is a souvenir of a freedom fighter in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 who had taken it from a Soviet soldier he had killed.

I repeat,

Irving wasn't a soldier, did not participate in the Hungarian rebellion, doesn't own the submachine gun, did not shoot up the bookstore, etc.

The only reason I can think of to put in the picture is to make Irving look bad. I think he looks bad enough as it is, this picture is nothing but "piling on" (term from American football meaning landing on a ball carrier after he's already down). This is a happenstance image that illustrates nothing about Irving, and, in fact, distracts from the article. If you disagree, let's discuss here rather than simply restoring the picture. Ortolan88 20:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought it looked cool, but then I like guns and such. As far as what makes him look "bad" (are we talking michael jackson bad... or michael jackson molesting kids "bad".. or what?) who cares. Their all fair pictures to me, none have been altered to give him a halo or horns, etc..., so why worry? The article certainly has no excess of pics, IMO. Sam [Spade] 20:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In what way is it relevant to the article? What does it add? If a picture isn't relevant, even one picture is an excess of pictures. Ortolan88 23:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Irving wrote a book, Uprising, about the 1956 Hungarian, um, uprising. I am assuming that someone in Hungary read his book, liked it, and presented him with this gun as thanks.NapoleonicStudent 04:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi

Is "neo-Nazi" a correct designation for Irving? -Willmcw 17:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he's been designated as such in the article, has he? It says he associate with Neo-Nazi groups, which is true. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He is in the "Neo-nazis" category. I understand that he associates with neo-nazis, is a holocaust denier, etc. But I'm not sure that anyone calls him a "neo-nazi". Or maybe they do. Unless someone pipes up with a reference for Irving being labelled a "neo-nazi" I'll pull that categorization. -Willmcw 18:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can 100% state he is a Neo-Nazi; openly associating with neo-Nazi groups, and making speeches at their rallies, isn't quite enough in my view. You could put him in the Holocaust denier, or anti-Semite categories, if they existed, since the legal ruling against him specificially stated that. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've come across a reference to Irving being a big supporter of neo-nazis in Germany, which is close enough, I suppose, to leave the categorization. But it would be better if the text matched the category - if he is categorized as a neo-nazi then ideally that label should be in the text as well. Not a big deal. -Willmcw 20:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed "freedom of expression" irony?

I'm new to Wikipedia and I wondered what criteria you use for removing edits to articles? I added the line, "This was especially ironinic as it was Irving who was challenging Lipstadt's freedom of expression" to the section about his libel trial.

This seems like a perfectly reasonable inference, yet it was removed within minutes. Does anybody know why?

It wasn't removed from what I can tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - there must be a caching problem with my browser.

Irving was not discredited as a historian in the defamation suit

I find this article highly biased, particularly as regards Irving's reputation within the historical field. As Judge Gray in his defamation case said in his ruling:

"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.... 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 Two 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 favorable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the caliber of Irving's military history".

An endorsement from Keegan is hardly to be taken lightly.

The judge did not discredit Irving, he remains widely respected in the field. For instance, a campaign to have his biographies removed from the library at West Point (among other military colleges) was pointedly rejected.

The ruling of the trial simply denied that Lipstadt's allegations constituted slander; that's all. (posted by User:209.29.46.2)

Hi, welcome to wikipedia, it's worth reading through the final judgement (which is available online). Lipstadt's primary defense was that Irving had deliberately misrepresented historical documents, told lies and misused historical evidence. In finding for Lipstadt the judge agreed with Lipstadt (otherwise he had to find for Irving; she didn't deny that those were her allegations). Whilst it is true that that is just the opinion of one judge, and Irving could still have appealed, he did not and has failed in a number of other legal situations. Since the primary part of a historian's reputation is his honesty and ability to correctly represent historical sources, it is reasonable to say that the trial has discredited Irving. However, that does not mean his books should be burnt. The work of liars also needs to be available since otherwise it is impossible for people to know what was really said. For this reason West Point was competely correct to keep his books. Mozzerati 16:41, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

209.29, David Irving was trashed as an historian during the trial. Please read the full judgment and Lying about Hitler by Richard J. Evans, the Cambridge historian who was an expert witness. Evans calls the judge's remarks you cited "sugaring the pill." The judge concluded that Irving had been highly selective in the documents he chose to discuss, was not even-handed, had taken no account of the circumstances in which documents had been produced, had deliberately misrepresented and distorted evidence, had made assertions about the Nazis that were irreconcilable with the available evidence, that he is anti-Semitic, that he is racist, that he has associated with neo-Nazis, that he himself is a right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist, that he manipulates the historical record, and that he incontrovertibly qualifies as a Holocaust denier. But yes, apart from the above, Irving is a great historian. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

claims of POV

i do not understand how people can claim that this article is POV with a straight face. When someone lies, you say, "he lied." Is this POV? This is a fact. David Irving is a more complicated conundrum than this, surely, but it always seems that neo-nazis and their ilk skewer the facts by simply saying it is biased. If Irving fabricated something, that is what he did, and no matter what you think the bias is, he fabricated it. This is usually not a favorable quality in a historian. To stare all the evidence in the face and continue to deny his fallibility is naive.

This is not necessarily an immediate issue, but I see no reason to even debate this issue. One can claim and raise an issue about anything and act indignant about it; it's whether you have anything to back your claims up. Neo-Nazis, the far right, and David Irving clearly (pov?) don't.

i guess i'm just sick of seeing articles in this category on wikipedia have trouble being factual because of long, pointless, racist debates.

Lockeownzj00 15:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon deletions

To the anon IP: please stop deleting this reference. [7] This is regarded as a credible reference for Wikipedia, and in removing it, you're leaving the paragraph with no reference at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

To Slim Virgin

There is plenty of credible concern in the USA and the World about the ADL's bias. It has in many instances been called a "hate group". Wikipedia should not rely on sources that are deemed "biased" by most people in the world.

How has Wikipedia determined that the ADL is credible?

There is too much information that proves otherwise about the ADL, which puts their impartiality on many issues in serious doubt for Wikipedia users. (posted by User:69.217.126.180)

Thanks for your reply. The ADL is a source that WP regards as reputable. Although some highly partisan organizations (e.g. white-supremacist groups) claim that the ADL is biased, I haven't seen these claims repeated in mainstream, reputable publications, though if you have such a reference, I'd appreciate seeing it. I know from my own research that whenever I've checked ADL information against other reputable sources, I've always found the ADL to be factually correct. What puzzles me about your deletions is that you don't seem to be disputing the information: you're removing only the source, but not the information that came from the source. Also, could you sign your posts to talk pages please? You can do this by typing four tildes after your post like this ~~~~. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: Can you kindly tell us Wikipedia users: How has Wikipedia determined that the ADL is credible? The ADL has been noted across the world in many countries as jewish-supremacist organization that is highly partisan and focused on jewish and israeli issues. It is not known for impartiality. It is an advocacy group. Also, the ADL has not always been factually correct, that is an impossible assertion. (posted by User:69.217.126.180)

According to whom is the ADL a "jewish-supremacist organization"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you sign your posts please? See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. The ADL campaigns against bigotry, most notably against anti-Semitism, racism, and homophobia. It has been criticized by groups like Stormfront, a neo-Nazi group, and the LaRouche movement, an extreme rightwing, arguably fascist and anti-Semitic cult. Regarding factual accuracy, what I wrote was that, whenever I have checked an ADL claim, I have found it to be factually correct. If you can provide examples of when the ADL published factually incorrect claims, or if you have an example of criticism from a reputable mainstream publication, I'd be happy to see it. But my point still stands: you're removing the source, but not the information the source provided, which seems odd. Perhaps you could explain? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia be even-handed?

--Many people across the world know and call the ADL biased. There are thousands of instances of this press across the world. You may not like it, but it is true. The ADL's input on a topic like this is inherently biased. Irving is their declared enemy. Why should an partisan organization, an advocacy group, be allowed to be quoted as a honest source for an Encyclopedia article about their enemy? It defies logic and it's ridiculous for Wikipedia users to accept.

For the third time please: Can someone or an "administrator" kindly tell us Wikipedia users: How has Wikipedia determined that the ADL is credible and reputable?

I'm an administrator, but it's not the job of administrators to evaluate source material. Rather than argue about the ADL in general, perhaps you could be specific about the passage they were used as a source for, below. If there's something in here that you feel is inaccurate, please say what and we can check it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Irving first gained notoriety as a student at Imperial College London, where he wrote for the student newspaper and served as the editor of the London University Carnival Committee’s journal, Carnival Times. Here, Irving made allegations such as "the national press is owned by Jews", and contributed to a variety of extremist features, including racist cartoons, a defense of South African apartheid, and an appreciative look at Nazi Germany [8] as a result of which Irving was removed from his editorial duties.

Why do you feel this is inaccurate? And please sign your posts. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT even-handed

SlimVirgin: You stated that Wikipedia has deemed the ADL "reputable". Please answer this simple question for the fourth time, by whom and how was that determination made? using what criteria?

I couldn't do a better job of showing the ADL's bias, animosity and hatred of Mr. Irving than he shows himself: http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/ADL/index.html

Look, it's simple, if you are going to allow five links from a biased, advocacy organization like the ADL on a Wikipedia article about Irving, then the Wikipedia article about the ADL ought to contain an Irving link for balance. Let the reader decide which of these two declared enemies is being truthful. The best option is to not allow biased sources for either article. Sure enough, it has already been removed from ADL's Criticism section by Jayjg: # (cur) (last) 21:17, 20 Apr 2005 Jayjg m (→Criticism - David Irving's views are relevant on a David Irving page, not here)

What a disgrace. Do you not see the hypocrisy? 5 ADL links are allowed by "administrators" on Mr. Irving's article, and none are similarly allowed by "administrators" on the ADL's. There is bias at work here, Wikipedia users. Who are these "administrators" and what are they trying to accomplish? (posted by anon IP)

David Irving is a thoroughly discredited source, and has been so discredited by a court. There isn't a reputable publisher in the world who will publish him now, which is why he self-publishes. This is the last post of yours I'm going to answer unless you say what's wrong with the edits you object to and sign your posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

--Slim, you are discredited. It's clear to all who read here you have a bias. You hate Irving it's clear to all, and you won't be even-handed or fair to Wikipedia users. You should avoid this topic, and any other Wikipedia topic if you cannot approach them with a clear, detached mind.

Having the ADL comment on David Irving is the academic equivalent of letting Osama Bin Laden tell Wikipedia readers about the facts of Israel. You show your bias by not seeing this.

Jayjg and SlimVirgin are low-life Jew propaganda artists. They spend their every waking moment weaseling Jew lies into Wikipedia articles and twisting articles to fit their weasely Jew views. They are pathetic sleazy manipulative little liars and perfect examples of why Jews have such a bad reputation. --24.30.67.158 00:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Bias against David Irving is an honorable and correct attitude. There's no moral obligation to be fairminded or even-handed toward Hitler worshippers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • Bias against Jew assholes is also an honorable and correct attitude. There's no obligation to be fairminded or evenhanded towards arrogant Jew bastard propagandists like you Jayjg and SlimVirgin, either. --24.30.67.158 00:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that only jewish supremacists are allowed to edit

The point is not David Irving, but the intellectually dishonest position that the ADL can be unbiased. The ADL has been criticized all over the world as a biased advocacy group. It has also been indentified as a "hate group".

The Wikipedia Jews think that they are the only one's whose opinions count. They keep pushing and pushing until finally someone pushes back at which point they invariably cry "antisemitism!". It's no wonder that everyone from Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson to David Duke and Pat Buchanan hate Jews. They fully deserve to be hated. Jayjg and SlimVirgin provide evidence every damn day. --24.30.67.158 00:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobody deserves to be hated for their religion or beliefs. Anti-semitism is a nasty and unwarranted emotion, and leaves a very bad taste in most people's mouths. Wikipedia doesn't need to give a platform to fascists and Nazis like you, it only needs to reflect the opinions of most reasonable people. Clearly you are not one of them. So if you don't like it, then fuck off. Go on, get lost. You won't be missed. Cunt. 129.180.1.144 00:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Geni 00:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--"Nobody deserves to be hated for their religion or beliefs". Well stated. Why do jewish supremacists on Wikipedia hold such intolerant and hateful views towards other posters? It is clear as day from reading above posts that Jewish-centric posters here are unreasonably biased and hate anyone with differing views. Even on something as simple as simply discussing the bias of the ADL as it relates to Irving? Fact: The ADL is known worldwide to be biased. It is an advocacy group for jews. It has also been called a "hate group".

--Wikipedia is supposed to be an open forum, not the private domain of Jewish-centric historians, editors, and activists. The ADL should be REMOVED as a credible source for this particular article. The "administrators" and their "tag-team" that covet the control of this article's content are not the type of contributors or people wanted on Wikipedia.

--All jewish supremacists are encouraged to take any unreasonable attitudes and comments to a zionist or jewish supremacist website where this type of bias belongs . Wikipedia needs to reflect the fair opinions of most reasonable people. It's clear for all to see that the Wikipedia Jews that "tag-team" to circumvent the 3R Rule are not among the reasonable or honest. Geni: Please do not use comments like: fuck off. Go on, get lost. ever again on this website.

No personal attacks please, and no more slurs either, nobody here is a "nazi" except those whose actions exhibit nasty and racially motivated attempts to control open debate, free speech and fairness. (unsigned comment by 69.219.53.58 (talk · contribs) )

Heh heh. A guy who uses the term "Wikipedia Jews" to describe how "they" control Wikipedia asserts the ADL is too biased to quote as a source. Snicker. Snort.Gzuckier 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Actions speak louder than words, Gzukier. One can "track" the actions and messages of the jewish supremacists' "tag-team" that send each other notices to post to circumvent the 3R rule, stifling other Wikipedians' ability to contribute. It is CLEAR for all to see. It's dishonest, and the fact that "administrators" are involved in this activity is a disgrace.

--Can some other "administrators" take a closer look please? Wikipedia does not need Jewish activists selectively deleting and posting their proprietary content on an open Encyclopedia, it hurts Wikipedia and its mission for honesty. They should be banned. Other "Administrators" that can be fair and honest: PLEASE REVIEW. (SlimVirgin, Jayjg, et al, kindly refrain, you have already been discredited as partisan and biased on this issue).

--The issue at hand: Nobody has yet to answer (for the 5th time), by whose criteria has the ADL been deemed "reputable" when the group is has been criticized worldwide for its selective advocacy? And why should anyone consider the ADL's input on one of its arch-enemies (Irving) unbiased? It defies logic. And lastly, why do selective Wikipedians continually delete others' contributions under the "Criticism" section of the ADL article? The ADL has been criticized, that is 100% fact. Let's stop controlling other peoples' fair right to contribute to Wikipedia, and ban the jewish supremacism we are seeing. (posted by User:69.217.121.160)

Do Irving acolytes really imagine that Irving is one of the ADL's "arch-enemies"? LOL! Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Jayjg, the ADL has devoted millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to studying Irving. If he was not of consequence to the ADL, this would not have occurred. For you to imply that the ADL does not view Irving as an enemy does not hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. The ADL is a biased source on this topic. Now quit being the jewish supremacist that any Wikipedian can see that you are (from your activity on this site) and run along to the next shuffleboard game!! LOL. Or is being a Jewish propagandist your full-time job?

Dude!? Have you ever contributed anything at all to Wikipedia except to alert us all to the Jewish plot to dominate it? Gzuckier 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Millions of dollars? Sigh. I suppose there is no point in even asking, but could you possibly provide some sort of evidence for this latest claim? As for your abusive comments, if you continue you will no doubt be blocked for violation of Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of links

Gzuckier: "Contribute"? Are you serious?!

What do you think I have been TRYING to do? Two days ago I found Wikipedia for the first time, but I have learned how it operates--and I have learned fast.

Who has been harassing me, vandalizing my input, reverting my opinion, and KEEPING ME from contributing?

Just a guess; the unfortunate paranoid fixation which prevents you from turning your attentions from the single random item which has so sadly placed your self in permanent thrall? Gzuckier 16:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gzuckier: more slurs? Stick to the matter at hand or don't post.

It's easy to see, and it's easy to track. It's also easily traceable that this harassment has occurred to numerous other people. Just read the discussion pages. People should be appalled.

Wikipedians: the problem is that every time someone posts input that the "tag-team" of jewish supremacists, activists and polemicists (so far: Jayjg, SlimVirigin, Jpgordon, Hadal, Gzuckier, MPerel, 160.253.0.248) does not like, they immediately team together to circumvent the 3R process. It is obvious to any observer. Thankfully, my IP somehow assigns me a new IP address every time I boot, otherwise I WOULDN'T even be able to contribute this reply and I would be silenced by these people.

It's pretty sad to see this stuff happening on a project that appears to have been started with high ideals and should be honest. The fact that the tag-team includes "administrators" is a disgrace to Wikipedia and it's true potential.

To the "tag-team": Stop harassing others. Stop following contributors around and deleting and reverting their input. Stop banning those with input that you dislike. This is not your personal or group project. It is open for input from people of all backgrounds, creeds, races and religions.

The "tag-team" (so far: Jayjg, SlimVirigin, Jpgordon, Hadal, Gzuckier, MPerel, 160.253.0.248) operates as a team that seeks to prevent open discourse and input. This is a FACT, that their activity easily proves, and I encourage all Wikipedia users to review it and speak up against it henceforth.

This kind of stuff has got to stop. So, can I start contributing now? Let's see what the "tag-team" does, why don't we??

I notice that each time you name the tag-team members, the list has grown slightly. The truth is that there are several hundred editors who will revert neo-Nazi propaganda, so your tag-team list may soon have to incorporate the entire list of Wikipedians. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

You see there? How predictable.

You are incorrect to assume that Wikipedians support your Jewish-supremacist beliefs. The list of the tag-team above, each and every one of them, are all jewish-centric activists. Their activity proves it and anyone can review it, and Wikipedians should do so. Wikipedia may unfortunately include more of this sub-group, but it in no way forms the basis or majority of this online community.

Well, it's good that you got here then to lead the silent majority in their revolt against Jewish domination of world finances, the media, and wikipedia, through the means of personal insult and outraged self-righteousness. I'm sure in no time at all, the newly freed masses will be wondering how they ever survived before your arrival. As a start, perhaps you could prepare an article on The Protocols of the Elders of Wikipedia, i.e. Jayjg, SlimVirigin, Jpgordon, Hadal, Gzuckier, MPerel, 160.253.0.248, et al. Gzuckier 16:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gzuckier: The usual slurs? Is that all you want to do? Stick to article at hand. Media, world finances etc. are not a part of the discussion, stop the snide diversions from the discussion.

Here's an idea; why don't you get yourself a proper userid, read through the Wikipedia policies very carefully, and then only post stuff that actually follows policy. If you do that, you won't have any problems posting on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will do. I will be an INCLUSIONIST. Be aware Wikipedian contributors: the "tag-team" is a serious DELETION machine, esp. when it comes to facts that don't support its jewish-centric activism and its racial and religious views of history. Jayjg, I have looked at your activity very closely on this website. It's clear as day what your focus is. All Wikipedians should look at it closely also.

• Happy inclusionism. Hint: even the inclusionists around here have very little tolerance for Nazis, white supremacists, holocaust deniers, and their fellow travellers. Don't think what you're saying is anything new; we've gone through this before, we'll got through this again, and we know how to deal with you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Inclusionism is one thing, but wikipedia is supposed to be about information and reference; not the inclusion of fringe opinions without identification as such. As they say, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that bats fly through it. Gzuckier 16:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • information and reference is what articles need, and supressing information about the ADL (to suit your biased POV) is not helping make Wikpedia the reference tool is should be. It's not good to have a closed and narrow mind.
      • Fascinating case study. We've come full circle; the subject, who made his entrance here by repeatedly deleting an informational link to the ADL website, has morphed the argument into an accusation towards his opponents of suppressing information about the ADL. We see now why antiSemitism and its variants fail to be convincing to any but the befogged. Gzuckier 16:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • It's a shame that some Jews, Abe Foxman, and the the far-right among them here clearly are blinded and open only to selective facts, and then the Wikipedia articles never get better. We've not come full circle. Gzuckier, the subject at hand was about the inclusion of an Irving link about the ADL on this Irving article. This is not a retrial of the Lipstadt case. Stick to the matter at hand Irving/ADL and stop using slurs. The input on this article regarding Irving/ADL was continually deleted and denied by the tag-team of Jewish propagandists that keep subjects like this on their biased lock-down to the detriment of Wikipedia. [Gzuckier], you need read the discussion closer. This subject also ties directly in the same current lock-down by Jewish-centric nutcases that will not admit that criticism of the ADL exists worldwide. The two have to be reviewed together. The ADL is as biased on the one side, and Irving is on the other. The subject needs more balance, on this article and also on the ADL article. One article cannot be praise, the other scorn, the content determined solely by the same group of far-right Jews (jayjg, SlimVirgin, Gzuckier, Jpgordon, you know who you are). It's just ridiculous, and you know it. Gzuckier, you need to read the discussion closer before you make snide comments.

• • • • • • Right. Hey looka here, your first 'contribution': [9] Gee, you deleted 4 links to ADL, summarized your edit as "The ADL is not an unbiased source. The ADL is considered an extremist and advocacy group and has no place in an encyclopedia", and now request that we believe "Gzuckier, the subject at hand was about the inclusion of an Irving link about the ADL on this Irving article." No, in the real world, the subject was about the inclusion of an ADL link about Irving. You didn't like it and took it out. And now here we are, arguing about that. I suppose if you can be a holocaust revisionist, there is no reason why you should not be a wikipedia edit history revisionist too. Gzuckier 21:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • Gzuckier, nice slur attempt there little buddy, but you are dead wrong. Read above. Read again. Read closer. Comprehend. I wrote: "Gzuckier, the subject at hand was about the inclusion of an Irving link about the ADL on this Irving article." Of course, why not the inclusion of a Irving link on an Irving article? The guy isn't dead. Imagine that, that people could hear and read from the source himself like big boys, instead of having systemic bias from a gang of activist, propagandist Jews (like yourself) who want to whitewash the ADL. Once again, the Jewish Supremacists only want to include their views, a disgrace to Wikipedia! See the INCLUSION I was referring to THAT WAS DELETED by one from your little gang of jewish activists: [10] If 5 ADL links stay in, then one Irving link (on an Irving article) ought to be included, dontcha think?!. But it was deleted. Gzuckier you really must be fogged by your ideological positions. Take a break from the propagandizing and go enjoy the day or something.

--My questions would be:

1) Can the ADL be considered a reliable and unbiased source on Irving? I say no way possible. Not a chance. About the ADL 2) Why are there 5 ADL links on this page, when 1 link to www.adl.org would do? 3) And then, why is there only 1 link to Irving's site? This is an Irving article and the man is not dead. 4) If the ADL links are allowed to stay, then Irving's link rebutting the ADL needs to be included.

Gzuckier, it's clear what the jewish gang wants, from reviewing their actions. They want their 5 ADL links in with no discussion as to bias (in violation of 3R rules), and the Irving link deleted. Please remember, this is an Irving article, about a living person, lets get some balance and hear from the man himself, not make it solely an ADL/Jewish Supremacist soapbox. So, what's it going to be? PS I'm going on vacation, and won't be back for a week.

There's probably no point in saying this, but I'll have one last try. If you would sign up for a user name, stop referring to plots by Jewish supremacists, stop spamming people's talk and user pages with insults, and would try to make your points calmly and clearly, you might actually get somewhere. You might not get everything you want, but maybe you'd get more than you have now. Please think about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'll "get" more than I have now? How very supremacist of you to let me know what I'll "get" from you. SlimVirgin, remember a good lesson in life: You reap what you sow. PS, one does not need a user name to post on Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia rules posted below to Josh. Please reread them. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and help improve it. This article needs some improvement, but the Jews and the ADL love it just the way it is. With 5 ADL links etc. etc. etc., it's obvious who crafted most of it.

Josh Gordon using SLURS:

Nice try. Aren't slurs against the rules? Isn't defamation against the rules? Jpgordon: You have absolutely no fact to back-up your slurs and personal attacks.

You and the TAG-TEAM are the true fellow travellers of Supremacists, Revisionists, Deniers, Deletionists. Your actions have shown the world that. Tag-Team, you are indeed an impressive exhibition of Supremacist groupthink. When's the next meeting?

Shavuous. come by.Gzuckier 16:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So now, which tag-team member is going to throw out the next slur, defamation and insult to people because they get angry? single-file please! You guys are pathetic. I see you for what you are, and it doesn't bother me one iota what Jewish supremacists think.

it's an ugly job, but I'll volunteer. "Your feet smell". Gzuckier 16:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipeida is an OPEN FORUM, get used to it.

This (ab)user seems to be using multiple IP addresses. I've blocked at least three of them. David Cannon 05:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Cannon contributes to the abuse of the tag-team. Nobody has been abused here but me. David, you can have your opinion too. Wikipedia is an open forum.

• No, it is not. It's not a forum at all. Wikipedia is not about opinions, except inasmuch as opinions are discussed -- not promoted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • thanks Josh. David Cannon has not provided any comment of substance to the discussion or the article's matter at hand. He is engaged in protecting aggressive Jewish supremacist opinion that keeps this article from being NPOV and fairly balanced.
• Same guy, different IP, blocked again. -jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JOSH, let's recap the following, since you have started to abuse your privileges:

• • "Wikipedia is the the free-content encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Wikipedia is a WikiWiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected article and have those changes posted immediately to that page. EVERYONE can edit pages in Wikipedia — even this page! Just click the edit this page link at the top of any page (except for protected pages) if you think it needs any improvement or new information."

• • • "You don't need anything special; you don't even need to be logged in. We (on Wikipedia) don't individually try to "own" the additions we make to Wikipedia. We are working together on statements of what is known (what constitutes free human knowledge) about various subjects. Each of us individually benefits from this arrangement. It is difficult to single-handedly write the perfect article, but it becomes easier when working together. That in fact has been our repeated experience on Wikipedia."

• • • • Systemic bias

"Wikipedia coverage is heavily biased by the sorts of people who want to contribute to it. This seems to be a perfectly legitimate concern. Certainly, Wikipedia coverage is patchy. It's easy to find examples of a really long article on one subject, whereas another, equally important subject, has a very short article. Sometimes this is just the result of a single enthusiastic contributor. Other times it is due to systemic bias."

• • • • • Editability

"Wikipedia articles are extremely easy to edit. ANYONE can click the "edit" link and edit an article. Peer review per se is not necessary and is actually a bit of a pain to deal with. We prefer (in most cases) that people just go in and make changes they deem necessary. This is very efficient; our efforts seem more constructive than those on similar projects (not to mention any names). Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."

• Same guy, different IP, blocked again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • bad gramer

When the page can be edited again, can someone sort this out?

>>Born in Essex, England, his father John James Cawdell Irving...

This is bad grammar: literally it means his FATHER was born in Essex (as he may well have been, but that's not what the writer intends to say). I suggest: "Irving was born in Essex, England. His father, [comma missing too]...

Cheers.

'Serious' versus 'non-serious' historians

This article seems flawed in its current form. There is a persistent emphasis on the opinion of so-called 'serious' historians. I think that passages that use the opinions of such historians to debunk Irving should instead refer to facts: "Irving said this, but instead the following has been established to be true..." It is not sufficient to create an empty pecking-order of seriousness.

I feel I have to stress I don't personally agree with Irving. That is why I would rather see a more strongly written article, one containing persuasive facts.

I agree completely. It does not help the article to include such things that he considered himself a mild facist at school or killed frogs at kindergarten. --Magabund 11:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)