Talk:David Irving

David Irving: Well-Respected Historian (1967-1977)

Citations

Here is a sample:

Academic reviews of The Mare’s Nest (1967)

“Irving’s prodigious research, his meticulous attention to accuracy, his remarkable clarity in explaining technical developments, and his judicious evaluations are combined in what is truly an exceptional book. It is invaluable to students interested in the broader problems of the acquisition and use of scientific and technical intelligence, the determination of priorities in weapons systems, and the relationship of science and scientists to government.”
Clarence G. Lasby
Assistant Professor, History
University of Texas
Technology and Culture, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Jul., 1967), pp. 429-431. (Technology and Culture is currently published by The Johns Hopkins University Press.)

“Yet Cherwill still held out, and a phrase he then used, ‘At the end of the war when we know the full story, we should find that the rocket was a “mare’s nest,”’ provides the title for David Irving’s scholarly and thoroughgoing history of the V1, the V2, and the British counter-measures.”
Ronald Lewin
International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 41, No. 3. (Jul., 1965), pp. 490-500. (International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) is currently published by Royal Institute of International Affairs.)

“On the cost and effectiveness of the V-2 military contribution, historians should not discard David Irving’s The Mare’s Nest (1964) or Albert Speer’s memoirs and diary, or R.V. Jones’s The Wizard War and Dornberger’s V-2.”
Eugene M. Emme
Historian
Air University, OCDM, and NASA
Technology and Culture, Vol. 22, No. 2. (Apr., 1981), pp. 343-345.

Academic reviews of The Virus House (1968)

“While the research is impressive and the style interesting, [Irving’s] book has two serious faults: the absence of footnote citations will make following Irving’s work much more difficult, and the descriptions of scientific principles and technical processes are sometimes unclear. The chief merit of the Virus House is that it provides are more detailed insight into the German nuclear project than has hitherto been available, and this outweighs the faults.”
John V. Flynn
Historian
US Atomic Energy Commission
Technology and Culture, Vol. 9, No. 2. (Apr., 1968), pp. 243-245.

“A quite different resource for the historian is Atomic Bomb Scientists: Memoirs, 1939-1945, a series of six microfiches reproducing interviews conducted by Joseph J. Ermenc with Lew Kowarski, Aristid von Grosse, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Harteck, […..]. The series focuses on the rivalry between the German and the American atomic bomb efforts and supplements their reminisces with chronologies of their careers and indexes of their interviews. The views articulated here by German participants on the German project are striking, but not widely at variance with those expressed in David Irving’s The Virus House.”
Robert Seidel Historian
Bradbury Science Museum
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Isis, Vol. 81, No. 3. (Sep., 1990), pp. 519-537. (Isis is currently published by The University of Chicago Press.)

“The fascinating book was published in London in 1967 (by Kimber) as the Virus House: Germany’s Atomic Research and Allied Counter-Measures. The incredible story it tells is fascinating in the extreme, especially to all who worked in the Manhattan District.”
W. F. Libby
Department of Chemistry
University of California, Los Angeles
Science, “How did it happen that it didn’t happen?,” New Series, Vol. 160, No. 3824. (Apr. 12, 1968), p. 175. (Science is currently published by American Association for the Advancement of Science.)

Academic reviews of The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe: The Life of Erhard Milch

“Second World War history is coming of age. This fact makes David Irving’s most recent enterprise all the more welcome. Irving’s biography of Erhard Milch must rank as a major contribution not only because it makes use of hitherto unused archival material but because it helps to give a solidly documented background to some major aspects of the military and political history of Nazi Germany. These points are perhaps worth stressing. Very little of the work of the Third Reich is based on original, unpublished source material. Irving has made full use of the collections that have recently been returned to West Germany, though some still remain unused…[Irving’s book] is a welcome and well-researched addition to the history of the Third Reich rather than a reference book for aircraft buffs.”
R. J. Overy
Historian, Queen’s College
University of Cambridge
The Historical Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4. (Dec., 1975), pp. 902-904. (The Historical Journal is currently published by Cambridge University Press.)

Academic reviews of Hitler’s War

“The primary value of [John Toland’s Adolf Hitler and David Irving’s Hitler’s War ], aside from temporarily slaking the general thirst for Hiteriana, is as resource material for professional historians. Toland and Irving are prodigious researchers, willing and able to do the legwork and eyework necessary to run down the ever shrinking pool of witnesses and ever growing fund of documents. Irving even visited the ruins of Hitler’s Wolfsschanze at Rastenburg in what is now part of Poland and utilized a magnetometer in a vain search for a bottleful of documents allegedly buried by Goebbels.”
Geoffrey Cocks
Historian
Albion College
Political Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Autumn, 1979), pp. 67-81. (Political Psychology is currently published by International Society of Political Psychology.)

“The most valuable of books in this category, however, in my view, is one that has been called "the autobiography Hitler did not write" -- David Irving's Hitler's War. Irving is a controversial figure, an Englishman who has identified with the German war experience to a remarkable degree, who has offered a cash award to anyone producing written evidence of Hitler's authorisation of the "Final Solution," and who currently champions extreme right-wing politics in Europe. Nevertheless, he is a historian of formidable powers, having worked in all the major German archives, discovered important deposits of papers himself, and interviewed many of the survivors of their families and intimates.”
John Keegan
Military Historian
The Battle for History: Refighting World War Two (Hutchinson, London, 1996)

Academic reviews of The Trail of the Fox (1977)

“After his controversial Hitler’s War, David Irving has taken up the elusive trail of Hitler’s favorite general, Field Marshal Rommel, around whose daring command of the 7th Panzer ‘Spook’ Division in France and the Africa Corps in Libya and Egypt have been woven military legend and movie drama. Irving’s contribution is to extricate Rommel from the legend, providing a welcome addition to the literature of World War II. Extensive use of American and European archives, the tracking down and deciphering of a lost portion of Rommel’s military diary for 1941, and assiduous interviewing allow Irving to get much closer to the fugacious Field Marshal than the many who have followed the same trail…Irving’s assessments of the military Rommel are not likely soon to be revised.”
Karl A. Schleunes
Historian
University of North Carolina
German Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Feb., 1978), p. 96. (German Studies Review is currently published by German Studies Association.)

“The life of Erwin Rommel will appear to those familiar with earlier writings of David Irving to follow much the same pattern. It is another example of extraordinary enterprise and ingenuity in fettering out material others have overlooked or have resigned themselves to do without. His success here is as dazzling as in Hitler’s War. There is also much brilliant writing, his works which also left something to be wished for stylistically, have gained steadily in sparkle and polish…Despite the controversial character of some of Irving’s positions, which invites other interpretations, his work thus gains a certain definitive character. Aspiring biographers who are less well equipped with personally-discovered material will perforce hesitate to follow The Trail of the Fox.”
Harold C. Deutsch
Historian
U.S. Army War College
The American Historical Review, Vol. 83, No. 3. (Jun., 1978), p. 758. (The American Historical Review is currently published by American Historical Association.)

“For more balanced accounts of Rommel’s military career than the Mitchum volume, the reader should look to Ronald Lewin’s Rommel as Military Commander and his The Life and Death of the Afrika Korps, and to Wolf Heckman’s Rommel’s War in Africa. David Irving’s The Trail of the Fox, though perhaps not always fair to Rommel, discusses the dark side of Rommel’s genius.”
Larry H. Addington
Historian
The Citadel
Military Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 1. (Jan., 1985), p. 44. (Military Affairs is currently published by Society for Military History.)

Journalistic reviews of The Trail of the Fox

“English historian David Irving, whose controversial "Hitler's War" was published earlier this year, has gone after this glamour-encrusted figure with the zeal of an investigative reporter, tracking down dusty letters and records on two continents and interviewing virtually every principal who survived. The result is both a thrilling read and a sober portrait of the superhero as a bundle of human contradictions - ruthless and humane, vainglorious and selfless, manic and depressive. We get the whole story through Rommel's eyes, and the worldwide convulsion of which his campaigns were only a part remains shadowy and distant. The man himself is given to us in impressive detail, without any superstructural thesis or indeed much attention to the patterns that emerge.”
Richard Boeth
Journalist, Newsweek
United States Edition, The Arts: Books, October 31, 1977, Pg. 10

General kudos for Irving’s work by other professional historians and academics

“[Gerhard L. Weinberg’s The Foreign Policy of Hitler’s Germany: Starting World War II, 1937-1939] cannot compare with the recent monograph by Messerschmidt and Deist, which gives due attention to the economic and military context. Furthermore, it would seem that a study that relies primarily on diplomatic documents cannot adequately explain Hitler’s policies. Hitler did not trust the professional diplomats. He conferred with a few close advisers, employed private emissaries to carry out policy, and encouraged party organizations to dabble in foreign affairs. Such unorthodox methods produced their own sources, and these usually end up not in public but in private archives. Studies like David Irving’s that have used such sources show that they can be significant.”
Christoph M. Kimmich
Historian
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 96, No. 3. (Autumn, 1981), pp. 524-525. (Political Science Quarterly is currently published by The Academy of Political Science.)

Discussion

First, I want to apologize for the length of this section, but rather than being bold and just re-writing the whole section on my own, I thought that it would be appropriate to document first exactly why I have a serious problem with the following sentence that I deleted from the main article: "Although Irving's works were generally ignored by academics, and sometimes criticised as inaccurate when reviewed by specialists, his command of language and a wealth of anecdotes led generalists to write favourable reviews in the popular press, and many of his works sold well. He was particularly noted for his mastery of the voluminous and scattered German war records." This sentence provoked me to research the academic reviews of Irving's works from 1967 to 1977 (not just the popular press). Before the publication of Hitler's War, the reviews by academics and historians were unquestionably positive. This leads me to believe that we should probably re-write the entire section entitled "Historian" to accurately reflect what the source materials from the period actually said. From the looks of it now, it ironically reads like a bit of revisionist history in its own right. What do other editors think? J Readings (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In before Wikipedia Jews cry "original research!"

Which it is, I'm afraid. :-/ --ざくら木 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Jews"?? Hello? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind...controlled...by....small....cartel....of.....Wikipedia.....Jews.....Must......try.....to.....resist....Can't....Gzuckier (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the cuteness. Here you have reliable citations - that are even the truth, a wiki first maybe. "Original research" - in what way can even wiki call quotes from major historians and book reviewers Original Research. We have wiki editors who have finally got what was asked/challenged for - now what is going to be done with it. ( I suggest ad hominem attacks - against the reviewers et al or the guy who looked them up )must....try....to...resist....why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck to you, J Reading, but I wouldn't expect the cabal of politicised editors who control David Irving's page to allow any more than the tiniest changes. I, and many others, have tried in the past to establish a balanced view, but each attempt is seen off, by the same editors, with reference to a non-existent consensus and polite threats of blocking. For some reason the encyclopaedic Wikipedia fails when it comes to biographies of living people perceived to have right-of-centre political views. Check out Kelvin MacKenzie's article for another example, or Richard Littlejohn's. 217.44.79.183 (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the offer of Irving to pay $1000 to anyone who could produce a document showing that Hitler ordered the mass killing of Jews, it is written: "and for decades afterward as a publicity stunt offered to pay £1000 to anyone who could find such an order." There is no reason for "as a publicity stunt" to be included. That is conjecture, and blatant bias. Marcel.

Thanks for posting these review excerpts. The main "consensus" that I see regarding David Irving is that he is second to none in the military history of the Third Reich. It's amusing to see that he has magically ceased to be a "historian" based on four cited opinions, none of which back their claims.David A. Flory (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with David Flory. What consensus? Most of the "citations" are just *news websites* (I mean, what the hell????). And as one user already pointed out, *ALL* the citations refer to the Lipstadt case. It is quite obvious that the "consensus" was reached by a small gang of Jews (User:Jayjg, User:Jpgordon, User:Gamaliel, User:Stephan Schulz, User:Gwernol, User:Arthur_Rubin, to name a few --this is not a "personal attack" as they clearly state it on their profiles), most of whom have managed to gain an admin status here. These people have effectively BULLIED everyone who isn't in agreement with them. Let me reiterate what most posters have been saying in the past year of so: He *is widely discredited* by WHOM? one "historian" hack (Lipstadt) and a bunch of newspaper editors? Whenever someone asks this (esp., in the early days after Irving's release from prison), the same small gang of people just revert their posts and refer them to the "TALK page". What has Wikipedia become? These individuals are ruining it. Jordan Cardiff (Also, thanks to User:Jayjg for proving my point. I was immediately blocked by User:Jayjg after my last edit of the main article. His reason: "a bunch of angry jews did it".)

reliable source

Concerning this:

Donald Cameron Watt, Emeritus Professor of Modern History at the London School of Economics, writes that he admires some of Irving's work as a historian though he rejects his conclusions about the Holocaust.[19] According to Watt, prior to the 1996 Irving-Lipstadt libel case, The New York Times asked a number of leading American and British historians whether they regarded Irving as being a historian "of repute".[19] The large majority answered yes.[19]

The sources are Watt's own essay in the Evening Standard. I think this is clearly a reliable source for Watt's views. I do not think they are a reliable source for the NYT survey which is of course public record. I think the truly reliable source on an NYT survey is the appropriate NYT article, and we should find and use that as the source. If the Weekely Standard is the source, we should restrict it to Watt's views which are of course relevant to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I looked for what Watt describes in the NYT, but I saw nothing of the sort. I'm going to replace that text with a note about Watt's participation in the Lipstadt trial. DBaba (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Harteck Process

The Harteck Process needs some one how kows what of the stuff is fictional. Most of the nuclear program is well documented, but enrichment of uranium in germany sounds ulikely.--Stone (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

According to JSTOR, David Irving’s The Virus House was either reviewed or mentioned 16 times in academic journals.

Profs. Flynn, Libby, and Seidel were the only experts to review directly Irving's book. Generally, they were all positive reviews. None of these reviews criticized Irving’s coverage of Paul Harteck and Wilhelm Groth’s ultracentrifuge, Erich Bagge’s “isotopesluice” method, or Manfred von Ardenne’s electromagnetic process. Prof. Seidel offers the most coverage on the topic. He specifically writes in part:

The Germans disagree as to whether intention or inexperience was responsible for the failure to build a bomb. Paul Harteck, the driving force behind much of the far-sighted research on the German atomic project during the war years, who had worked with industry and knew the scale of effort required to build a bomb, attributes the failure of the project Heisenberg’s and Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker’s lack of prior involvement in large experiment ventures. The chemistry and the technology were more complicated than the physics, Harteck says, and therefore Heisenberg was more a hindrance than a help. Robert Seidel, Isis, Vol. 81, No. 3. (Sep., 1990), pp. 519-537.

As a side note, it’s also interesting that several other academics (e.g., Prof. Karl Hufbauer, Department of History, University of California, Irvine) also used Irving’s book to further describe salient details in the review of other historical works on related subjects. I’m not an expert, so I’m only describing what these academics (who were usually either chemists or historians) wrote. Hope that helps a little bit, J Readings (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Occupation

Figured this might be controversial; Currently the infobox lists his occupation as World War II military history writer, after reading the article I think it would be more appropriate to list it as Revisionist World War II military history writer Is there any opposition? Anynobody 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In what sense do you mean "Revisionist"? Historical revisionism or Historical revisionism (negationism)? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question, I would say he falls into the latter, as there is a sub category for his views:Historical revisionism (negationism)#Holocaust denial. Anynobody 06:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's fine the way it is as "World War II military history writer." It was a fair compromise to an already thorny issue. Historical revisionism (negationism) has an overtly pejorative connotation as seen from the page ("In its legitimate form (see historical revisionism) it is the reexamination of historical facts..."). So by choosing one or the other, we would be taking a strong sweeping and strong POV on which category Irving falls from the inception of his work in the 1960s until today, correct? I'm not sure that's such a good idea. J Readings (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I propose this is because both sides of the argument seem to agree on his revisionist stance; Irving is listed on IHR and was Openly called a Holocaust denier by the BBC more than once including in its profile about him. In short we have a choice between:

Occupation

World War II military history writer

Occupation

Revisionist World War II military history writer¹²

Who doesn't call him a revisionist (a nice way of saying Holocaust denier) since he lost the libel case? Bear in mind that WP:NPOV is determined by the sources, if they all say a person is a Holocaust denier we're obliged to do so as well otherwise not only are we violating NPOV but are also engaging in original research. It seems like the referenced position is stronger. Anynobody 04:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: J Readings I don't mean to sidestep your point about on which category Irving falls from the inception of his work in the 1960s until today, but it's not really relevant. The truth is it, the infobox, requires current information. We're not talking about his reputation in 196x, currently he is known as a revisionist. Anynobody 04:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, he's known as a Holocaust denier. And a fraudulent historian. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How is David Irving currently identified in the Media?

Fair point by Anynobody that the infobox should only use current information. Anynobody cites two examples of publications that support his point. In order to be rigorous, I checked LexisNexis. I wanted to see how the media identify David Irving over the past 5 years (April 2003 to April 2008).

Mentioned keyword results (anywhere in article):

"historian David Irving": 1274 articles.
"British historian David Irving": 659 articles.
"discredited historian David Irving": 16 articles
"historian David Irving, who...": 129 articles.
"historian David Irving, who defends Hitler": 2 articles
"revisionist David Irving": 83 articles
"revisionist historian David Irving": 73 articles
"British revisionist David Irving": 1 article
"Historical revisionist David Irving": 3 articles
"Holocaust revisionist David Irving": 76 articles
"British Holocaust revisionist David Irving": 8 articles
"Holocaust denier David Irving": 538 articles
"British Holocaust denier David Irving": 61 articles
"British Holocaust historian David Irving": 1 article
"British writer David Irving": 32 articles
"controversial writer David Irving": 4 articles
"Holocaust writer David Irving": 0 articles
"widely discredited writer David Irving": 0 articles
"fraudulent historian David Irving": 0 articles
"discredited writer David Irving": 0 articles

The above results show how journalists identify David Irving in their articles over the past five years. The majority of articles either refer to him as a historian, a British historian or a Holocaust denier--with the majority of articles on the former. There is a small minority of articles identifying him as a "revisionist" calling into question such things as undue weight being applied to this article in a POV fashion if we were to label him as a revisionist, I imagine. That said, I've avoided revisiting the "historian" issue because I respect consensus (even if I disagree) and I'm busy with other things. Incidentally, I found no evidence to support the claim that Irving is identified as a "fraudulent historian," either. Mine is obviously not the last word on the subject, but it is a start in the right direction. Simply, the journalists found on LexisNexis over the past 5 five years apparently do not identify him as "fraudulent" in the reliable third-party media. I encourage people to cross-check my results. I'm not looking to bamboozle anyone. Regards, J Readings (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above results show how journalists identify David Irving in their articles over the past five years. I certainly appreciate the effort you put into listing these results, but apologize that it's unconvincing because of information not included in addition to the imprecise nature of search results. Mentioned keyword results (anywhere in article) could include results which actually prove my point with closer examination. For instance do the same search on Google, "historian David Irving". Indeed all the results include the words "historian David Irving", but many also include the words revisionist and even Nazi. Plus, as you can probably tell by the examples I've just provided, compliance with WP:RS isn't guaranteed by inclusion of a specific phrase. (Also, as discussed, he was once highly regarded, so an article including the searches you performed could just be citing an older source.)

There's more, but I've actually gotta meet a friend who needs a ride. I'll post more in a few hours. Anynobody 04:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC) On second thought, rather than go on and on about the problems with your evidence thus far it seems like a better course of action would be to ask for specific articles backing your position that he is not a revisionist Holocaust denier as both the BBC and judge in his libel case stated. Anynobody 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An interesting excercise so I narrowed it to articles from Jan 1 2008 to April 25 2008. This is wording from introductory paragraphs as many sites use other descriptions in the body of their articles and along with skimming through hundreds of lead paragraphs I read dozens of articles to see how they use descriptions. By far the most common is just plain "David Irving" with 80% of all mentions. Taking these out so we only count descriptive names we now get "Historian" the most common at 48% of mentions. Next is "British Historian" and "Holocaust Denier" which is around equal but Holocaust denier is mentioned by a lot of sources with COI problems. Interestingly, most pro Irving sites don’t say historian but use Dr. or Mr. which is almost never used by anyone else so their COI is not so much of a problem as we can ignore it. These three descriptions account for around 90%.
A few notable 2008 sources are the Britannica (British Historian), FOX News (Right Wing British Historian), several D Lipstadt websites (Historian) and several University websites split between (British Historian) and (Controversial British Historian). Jewish websites are divided with almost half using "Holocaust Denier" and around the same number using "British Historian" in the intro then calling him a denier later. Most holocaust websites use “Holocaust Denier”. Other descriptions were rare with "discredited" the most popular at 3%. Wayne (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What are "sources with COI problems" that describe him as a "Holocaust denier"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, Joooz. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the FOX News article Wayne found, Historian David Irving Gets Three Years in Holocaust Denial Case it says near the end In 2000, Irving sued American Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt for libel in a British court but lost. The presiding judge in that case, Charles Gray, wrote that Irving was "an active Holocaust denier ... anti-Semitic and racist." in addition the AP appears to brand him a Holocaust denier too Holocaust Denier David Irving Released From Jail in this 2006 article FOX picked up. Anynobody 04:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Anynobody and Wayne for their replies. I anticipated that some editors would want to see further variations in the searches and methodology. I certainly welcome it. The problem was, rather than first citing countless newspaper and magazine articles by name generated by LexisNexis, which becomes lengthy, I tried to start with a more basic summary knowing we would probably continue the discussion. As you know, by using a plain vanilla google search, we can get many hits from unreliable sites without editorial oversight (namely blogs). For that reason, I prefer to use LexisNexis, Factiva, or even Google News when doing these types of searches. We are limited to results from (mostly) reliable third-party sources. True, sometimes letters-to-the-editor and the occasional blog register in the search results, but we can control those using the database’s filtering functions. Also, LexisNexis allows for articles to be categorized by type (newspaper, aggregate news sources, newswires and press releases, magazines and journals, web-based publications, news transcripts, blogs, industry trade press, and newsletters). 5-year results, for example, of keyword search "historian David Irving" produce coverage from newspapers (814 articles), aggregate news sources (216 "), newswires and press releases (161 "), news transcripts (34 "), web-based publications (28 "), magazines and journals (16 "), blogs (7 "), newsletters (5 "), and industry trade press (3 "). Subcategory filters then break down those main categories by actual newspaper, etc. It’s a useful database. I highly recommend it for doing Wikipedia research. As for Anynobody's question, it's unclear what kind of research you want shared on this talk page. I guess you are asking me/us to "prove" a negative -- that Irving is not a Holocaust denier. Is that a fair summary of what you are asking? If so, I am not sure I want to get involved in that kind of debate. Here, I was simply describing which qualifiers journalists use when identifying Irving’s occupation in third-party reliable sources over the past five years (which I think was your original point for the infobox). I can list articles with scans of included and omitted words (for example) on this talk page (NB:LexisNexis has that function), but that would entail bringing forth hundreds upon hundreds of articles and analyzing them, too. Please let me know what kind of specific, objective criteria you’d like us to use. There's no rush. J Readings (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For that reason, I prefer to use ... when doing these types of searches. With all due respect, really, I think you've missed my point which is that search results aren't a source in and of themselves. (We can't cite a search in the text.) I know going through results can be a pain in the arse*, but the proper way to add information here is through specific sources which can be verified. Indeed there is no rush, but on the other hand if several sources can be cited which describe him as a denier/revisionist there really doesn't seem to be any point in waiting either as the text can change anytime a new source is found. *(Part of the hassle are results which include my search string but only mention the subject in passing or in a different way or unexpected way. For example some results in the "historian David Irving" precede those words with "revisionist", "disgraced", or "Nazi" meaning were I out to prove he is a valid historian those results would be unhelpful even though they contain what I searched for.) Anynobody 04:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

the proper way to add information here is through specific sources which can be verified. My main concerns are undue weight and original synthesis to advance a position being applied to the occupation entry of the infobox, hence the suggestion that we start with database searches to assess quickly how he's labeled by the media. Personally, I'm fine with Irving's current occupation being identified as "World War II military history writer" which is the product of WP:CONSENSUS and compromise. The back-and-forth on who has the higher number of cited articles for the footnotes to change that consensus and compromise looks like something that will take up a lot of my/our time, beyond what we've already contributed on the talk page. I'm not sure it's worth it. It would be useful to know what others thought about this issue. J Readings (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

To address your concerns;
undue weight I really don't see how this applies considering 1) his status as a Holocaust denier is a major factor of his notability and 2) all the WP:RS, WP:V sources I've seen at least mention it.
original synthesis to advance a position As I said above, it's an assertion made by all the sources I've seen so no synthesis is necessary. If one can say The BBC called David Irving a Holocaust denier then that person is simply repeating a position not creating it. You also appear to be misunderstanding the idea of consensus here, on issues where a choice between two or more solutions which abide by our rules indeed the consensus rules. However a consensus can't be used as a justification to violate policy like WP:NPOV (that'd be mob rule). The simple fact is that with so many sources calling him a Holocaust denier (as a historian) if we do not then we've essentially taken a stand in favor of Irving which is not neutrality as Wikipedia defines it. (Moreover, without a source, calling him a "historian" is also original research on our part.) Anynobody 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced yet by your argument. We're talking about his "occupation," not his "notability." There is a clear difference. It would help your case if you actually demonstrated that the majority of third-party sources think that his stated occupation is "holocaust denier" or "revisionist" in order to demonstrate that it is not undue weight in a POV fashion. All I need to do is demonstrate why the argument has not yet been verified by showing you the number of reliable third-party articles available for undue weight considerations generated by LexisNexis that state that his occupation is not a "revisionist" or "Holocaust denier" or some combination therein, but rather just "historian" or "controversial historian" or "British historian" or whatever. The burden then falls on you (not me) to demonstrate (and verify) that the preponderance of stated identifications are in the reliable third-party media support your argument. After all, you're the editor looking to change the status quo. Not me. Also, you appear to misunderstand what original synthesis means. We cannot put words into the mouth of a journalist, a pundit, or an academic. If any of these authors report X in passing somewhere in the article (without agreeing with it) but clearly state his occupation is Y in the label to David Irving's name, this does not mean that the authors must be thinking and arguing that Irving's occupation is really X instead. That would be synthesizing information to promote a conclusion not held by the author or the source. We can only reference what they clearly state as fact (which ultimately is your concern: What is David Irving's stated occupation by the third-party media?). Mentions of a lawsuit can be used to justify almost any position. In any case, if I were to footnote carefully a few articles and unilaterally place them in the lead section or the infobox (major areas of the article) would it stand without first consulting with others on the talk page? Probably not. Unilaterally changing his occupation without first gaining WP:CONSENSUS would not be an advisable move under the circumstances. A compromise (however imperfect) was made that the majority of editors seem to accept for several months now. Right or wrong, I respect consensus because there is enough conflicting evidence to make allegations of a biased POV on "occupation" weak at best. The consensus can change, of course, but it requires a lot of work and as I said before, I'm not sure it's a productive use of my/our time. But please don't let me discourage you. I certainly don't WP:OWN this article and you might be right in the end. The Community decides based on the preponderance of evidence. Best wishes, J Readings (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent news

[1]. Not notable of course, but can be used as evidence for establishing the notability of other facts - the 1970 libel case should perhaps get some more space here.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to go to the trouble, some people keep track of mentions of Wikipedia in the news, both on talk pages with a template and via the Signpost. Since this article is alleged by the subject to have prejudiced the landlady against him, and so referred to in court, it may be considered a noteworthy mentioned. I'll post a note on the Signpost page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Will Beback, there may be some notability but if Wikipedia hadn't been mentioned in such an "involved" way I'd totally agree with you Paul Pieniezny. Anynobody 03:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case I was unclear - I meant that the article is worth listing on this page as an instance of the article being cited, and may be worth a mention in the Signpost. I don't think a minor lawsuit is worth mentioning in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You weren't, had I thought it was worth including in the actual article I'd of added it. Anynobody 07:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the banner at the top and alerted the Signpost. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure there is no controversy over this: when I said it was not notable, I just meant that the story saying that according to Irving or his lawyer someone may have been led by this (Wikipedia) article to evict him from his Bed and Breakfast accommodation, was probably not notable enough for this article. So, I was thinking of the legal contention part there, and I did not know that the mention of the Irving Wikipedia article in the press itself (actually, technically speaking it was mentioned in a court case) warranted a mention on the talk page (and I was quite ignorant of the Signpost). I noticed this article looking up completely different information, I noticed Wikipedia mentioned in the article and had a good look at it. I noticed it seemed to attach a lot of attention to the 1970 case, more than one would expect from its treatment here. Knowing that very controversial things and conspiracy theories are often given a lot of scope on Wikipedia, and that it may be interesting to see what other people deem important, I looked it up on the internet and posted it here. Though I agree, if it turns out this landlady has some, even very minor, connection to the guy who sued Irving in 1970 (which may possibly explain the landlady's solicitor getting involved early - but that is Irving POV of course, the landlady would probably say she asked her solicitor "to look up what is wrong with that guy, since he is getting into rows with all my other lodgers"), the point is lost. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

irving video

there is a video on youtube of irving talking for over an hour. it is very convincing. he is not a denier. maybe someone can look at the video and alter the heading saying "holocaust denial".

Discredited

A number of editors have been changing "widely considered to be discredited[2: 26 separate references]" to "has been discredited by historians such as Deborah Lipstadt.[2]" This is wrong. Not all the references refer directly to Lipstadt, and I'm not convinced that all of them refer indirectly to Lipstadt or the court case.

For talk page history, see (among others):

1. Talk:David Irving/Archive 1#Irving was not discredited as a historian in the defamation suit March-April 2005. No consenus, but SlimVirgin got in the last word as "discredited" should be "reputation trashed".
2. A few sections culminating in Talk:David Irving/Archive 3#Request for Comment: "discredited" wording, with the "present" wording established by consensus under an article RfC by May 2007.
3. Talk:David Irving/Archive 4#"Discredited" reference seems to be arguing that a single reference to a newspaper article is inadequate. December 2007. But that's not what we have now, or then, according to the notes. It's not easy to check the status of an article as busy is this back that far. It appears that only a single anon was objecting at that time.

I don't see any reason to revisit, unless we want to split reference 2 into the 24-26 individual references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's no "number of editors"; it's all the same person. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Widely considered sounds good to me, being both ref'd and true. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone else make the 3RR/Sock report, or just block them all (be sure NOT to uncheck autoblock). I have a meeting in 15 minutes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to file; I'm watching and blocking. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)