Talk:David Irving/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Irving and Far Right groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then you won't like this source either about his lectures.[1] He seems to have been giving basically private lectures at secret locations, which is more or less what Nick-D found. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know why Solntsa90 is repeating their false claim about the FBI after posting directly under my response to that, which was "I note that an editor has made the false claim that the SPLC has been discredited by the FBI. The FBI's webpage "Hate Crimes—Overview"[2] says "The FBI has forged partnerships nationally and locally with many civil rights organizations to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems. These groups include such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Association of University Women, Anti-Defamation League, Asian American Justice Center, Hindu American Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council of Jewish Women, National Disability Rights Network, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Organization for Women, Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center, and many others." This page[3] calls it an outreach partner and has a link to the SPLC website. It's easy to search the FBI website, dragging up old out-dated events which were misrepresented (it was simply dropped from this page[4] which now doesn't mention any groups) is misleading at best. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)" User:Maunus, has the FBI actually said they disagree with the SPLC? Doug Weller talk 22:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

That Irving has associated with far right groups and individuals is a matter of fact, and formed part of the reason why he lost the libel case he launched (relevant sections of the judgement: [5], [6], [7]). Unless I'm missing something, the SPLC isn't actually used as a reference in the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Meshing the two previous points

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

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

Let us first look at these “reasons”:

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

[I should point out that one man, as I understand, was wounded so severely that he was sent to the emergency room of a local hospital. I doubt he would agree this was in any way a “minor” thing.]

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

[Irrelevant: The Walt Disney Company had nothing to do with the presence of intentionally unvaccinated people at Disneyland Resort, but the 2014 outbreak of measles they caused is still deemed worthy of inclusion in an article on “Incidents at Disneyland Resort”. Perhaps a solution, in response specifically to this point, would be to create an article on “Incidents at or related to David Irving’s Lectures”. There is certainly sufficient material available to make this a rather long one.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[This is such an obvious restatement of Point 3 that there is no reason to even respond to it a second time.]

“and most importantly:

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

[Again, this is but a restatement of previous points.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your last sentence actually negates all your other arguments. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, thank you for your observation.

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

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As Nick-D notes below, I finally closed this RfC yesterday with the conclusion that there were no objections to the proposal; only to have him reopen it. Since Nick does object, and there wasn't much support for the proposal either, I will reclose as no consensus. Reopening an RfC like this because it wasn't closed the way one person wants is not the way these things are generally done, but we are not a bureaucracy. I'm guessing this will end here, at least for some time, as Nekdolan hasn't edited in 2 months ... but if I am wrong, and they or any another person do want to object, could they please start a separate discussion? --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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

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

This is the last suggested version:

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

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

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

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

As I've just noted on GRuban's talk page and should have noted earlier, this RfC is an attempt to rehash the discussion at Talk:David Irving/Archive 9#Höfle Telegram material. I don't support including this material for the reasons I noted earlier (in short, that this material is reliant only on claims made by Irving with no secondary sources according it any prominence, and it implies that this is some kind of significant shift in Irving's views without any secondary sourcing and - at least in part - being based on a misunderstanding of Irving's claims about the Holocaust). Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

I suggest Nick-D has his administrative privileges revoked. Reverting an addition to a talk page and banning a user for raising a point on a talk page is fascism and has no place on Wikipedia. Highly unprofessional and childish behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverBel (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"I am aware of the large Jewish presence on Wikipedia so to avoid conflict of interest I would kindly invite Jews to withhold from commenting." Am I allowed to comment? Are mischlings invited to withhold from commenting as well? —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UK speaking tour

Apparently Irving is doing a speaking tour in the UK. Any information on what sort of venues he is using? Officially, the locations are being revealed only to those who buy tickets -- but it's hard to imagine that nothing will leak out... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Irving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008174519/http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article372935.ece to http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article372935.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010220014/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2704141.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2704141.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

Irving received the Eichman papers from Hugo Byttebier, a former Belgian Born German SS, during a conference given by Irving, this took place October 1991 in Buenos Aires. HelmutFritz (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

flak

Flak is a noun in German; as such it is capitalized. Not in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.239.73 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing Irving's "renunciation"

I've just removed a bit suggesting that Irving has renounced Holocaust denial. There are two reasons.

• One was that it wasn't backed by any reliable source. My understanding that YouTube is an acceptable source for self-published material but only for that. I'll let more experienced people determine whether it would be acceptable in this case, but either way no YouTube link was included and the claim was effectively unsourced.
• The other is that such a claim would still need a reliable source that says Irving has abandoned Holocaust denial; otherwise, declaring that he's abandoned Holocaust denial is original research. Holocaust denial is more than merely diminishing the number of Jewish dead; it also involves things like denying the Nazi genocidal policy and the existence of the gas chambers. TheWhangdepootenawah (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on David Irving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517043351/http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/ to http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220125920/http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article347567.ece to http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article347567.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012175133/http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/05/23/irving/index4.html to http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/05/23/irving/index4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070422204331/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article346741.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article346741.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/21/uk.irving.ap/index.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5ihrmyJqg?url=http://www.aftenbladet.no/debatt/medieblikk/927176/Ikke_fullt_saa_Fritt_Ord.html to http://www.aftenbladet.no/debatt/medieblikk/927176/Ikke_fullt_saa_Fritt_Ord.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F2000%2F04%2F12%2Fnirv512.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust Denier

Banned editor HarveryCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a fairly emotive term, may I suggest we change this to Holocaust Revisionist? I also think it's politically biased to use this term in the first paragraph as his main description, Historian would be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.55.183 (talk • contribs) Wikipedia follows reliable sources, which say nothing about "holocaust revisionist" (whatever that is) and instead settle firmly on the label holocaust denier. The historian label has been rightly and definitively debunked. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Has he renounced denial?

I'm too lazy to read up on this but it appears, from links others have posted, that Irving now acknowledges gassings at all the death camps, the shootings on the Eastern front, and a death toll that approximates the 5-6 million accepted by historians. Worthy of note if we can find RS supporting this.

Of course the role denial played in his career is definitional regardless whether he changed. Steeletrap (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Notes section

The Notes section here seems to have both references and footnotes mixed up in it. Is it worth separating them into two sections? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Since both footnotes and a bibliography are types of references, I have combined them into one "References" section, a format which is used on many articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Ken, are you saying, "Yes, it's worth separating them", or "Yes, it's that way for a reason"? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually saying that I've edited those sections. Take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing is that in the References/Notes section, we have nos. 1&2, which are references, then 3, which is a (long!) footnote, then 4&5 (references) then 6&7 (footnotes). The rest of the footnotes further down don't look too obtrusive, but 3, 6 and 7 read like a separate section. If it is desirable to have them linked to the introduction, is it worth labelling them (7 is labelled “discredited”, but the other two aren't) and having them in a footnote section, so they can be read together? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. Yes, it might be worth the effort, but it's far from a trivial job because you can't nest refs inside of refs without special formatting, and I'd think we'd want to have the explanatory text in one section (which I usually call "Explanatory notes") while the source for the explanation would be with the rest of the notes (which I would then usually call "Citations"). I know from experience that this is a laborious job, but perhaps you have an idea of how it could be done more easily, and want to take a crack at it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I had something like this in mind, though having tried it the link merely takes you to the notes, rather than showing them as a box in the text, like here. Maybe I'm missing something...Xyl 54 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like it will work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a fan of breaking into separate sections within References, Notes, Citations and Bibliography, so the text notes are in one section, the citations in another and if needed references cited substantially or repeatedly are in a bibliography section. When I use a notes template, I use a reference template within it and the citation is split out to the section with the other citations. I will see if I can find an example. MrBill3 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I worked up an example at that can be found here. MrBill3 (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@MrBill3: The example you've outlined (which is fine) has the same drawback as the one I used, in that when the notelink is moused over it doesn't produce a box with the text in, so the reader has to click to be taken to the Notes section, which disrupts the flow of the reading. Do you know how to remedy that?

@Both: Despite the drawback I've mentioned, is it OK to go ahead and make the change I've mapped out (it would pull the notes together at least)? Or should I hang on a while? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that drawback is a function of working in sandbox space. I see the text of the note when I mouse over the notelink in articles. I say edit boldly. If you can work on something the result is an improved article, fantastic. Best.MrBill3 (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Before you do, can you explain why the need for 2 notes sections? I don;t understand that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the idea is to separate explanatory notes from references. I find having the reference list concise and uniform is useful and looks better. It makes verification and research easier. I don't like quotes and notes in the citations, in general I will refer directly to the source for additional information or verification. I also think it's better if there are no references in the Notes section so all the refs are together. It makes them easier to find in the article and and to search for. An example in mainspace of my preferred style is at Hillsboro Inlet Light. If you are referring to my sample page, that is just an exercise demonstrating what is sometimes done. Sometimes there are two distinct types of explanatory notes.MrBill3 (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No, separating explanatory notes (or informational notes) from citations is a good idea, but we don't need two sections to do it in, do we?. In the example at User:MrBill3/sb4, you have "Notes" and "Stats: A second notes section". I don't think the second section is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, no second section of notes is needed for this article. The example page was just a sample of what is done in some articles. This article (as with most) doesn't need a second notes section. MrBill3 (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, then it works for me, and I'd join Xyl 54 in saying go ahead and be bold. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It is to @Xyl 54: that we are both saying go ahead. MrBill3 (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, done (I think); Thanks for your comments and support! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Irving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130160544/http://www.london-student.net/2009/05/26/50-years-on-david-irving-apartheid-and-ulu/ to http://www.london-student.net/2009/05/26/50-years-on-david-irving-apartheid-and-ulu/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012070848/http://klassekampen.no/55114/article/item/null to http://www.klassekampen.no/55114/article/item/null
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012211137/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2703646.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2703646.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal, result = merge

I have closed the Hugo Byttebier merge discussion with result merge. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Notable Free Speech Censorship of Mr. Irving

At present, both his FPP website and his email address have been either hacked or blocked. This is rare in the modern world, and should be recorded in Wikipedia.Starhistory22 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Find a published, non-primary and reliable source that mentions it and explains why it's significant and unusual, and we can mention it here. Otherwise, no. General Ization ^Talk 22:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hacking/blocking websites is hardly unusual. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought I recalled this editor. See Talk:Euthanasia#"most of the 5,000 to 8,000 children killed afterwards were forcibly taken from their parents. and [8] and this complaint that we are suggesting that Jews don't really control the media.

Works section

Another question
I notice that the Works section here has a list of Irving's books, and that many of them have links to pdf versions of those books externally. As the conclusions of the various historians quoted here are that Irving is 'a falsifier of history', and that he 'manipulates and misinterprets history', to give 'selective and tendentious account(s)' to 'further his own ideological ends', is there any reason why we should be hosting these links? It seems to violate our principles on reliability and neutral point of view. I'd have thought if anyone wants to read his stuff they can always look it up themselves; I don't see why we should be tacitly endorsing his stuff by linking it from here.
Would there be any objection to simply deleting these links? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Works for me too. MrBill3 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, done (Thanks!). For further justification, this follows the guideline on external links, which says inks should be “minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article”: Two dozen links plugging the guys books are hardly minimal, or directly relevant; and his lack of credibility as a historian robs them of any merit. As for “useful, tasteful, informative and factual”,... Xyl 54 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Late to the party but entirely agree. We should not be acting as a shop front for Irving's wares. KJP1 (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of deleting books of questionable nature we should attempt to lend at least some merit in the general direction of exactly who „we“ are. Part of the purpose of an encyclopedia like this one is to present the facts in quite a dry matter thereby leveraging the reader’s assumed capability for intelligent reflection and conclusion. If we should allow books to be inaccessible in a piece coving the life of an individual we are in essence turning the spotlight on ourselves conveying for all to see our own weakness in our convictions. David Irving has, if anything, brought to the forefront that history is made up of half-truths and it has been that way throughout time immortal. Said another way, I still love the movie “Schindler’s List” very much although I know for a fact that it covered up several very dark secrets of true history that didn’t shine a grand light on certain people; it’s doesn’t matter, because I also know that many people suffered; normal hard-working Jewish people whose story deserved to be told. But I refuse to bow to the narrative that there were no Jews who profited from Schindler’s case and others in WW2, because there is solid gold documentation supporting this and gold does not oxidize, not in a million years. You have a duty to put Mr. Irving’s book-links back up, if for any other reason than to say: “See, there they are, see for yourself what this fool is saying.”Worldneedsplastic (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We should link directly to Irving's website because Schindler’s List is available for sale despite your view that it's a cover up? I don't think so. I agree with the other editors above, especially in regards to Wikipedia's policies concerning external links. The full publishing details are provided for the books, which allows anyone with an interest to easily find them and is entirely in line with how we provide lists of works for other authors. I'd also note that Irving has put out multiple editions of some of his works, with the differences in their content being notable (something which Richard Evans highlighted in his expert evidence to the libel trial), so only linking to whatever version is currently available on Irving's website would do our readers a disservice. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, see, there you go. I did not write "it's [all] a cover up" but the telling gets changed as the story moves on depending on the views of the story teller. So be it. I honestly believe Mr. Spielberg’s story was true based on the intention he wanted to convey and it was indeed necessary for him to tell it and for us to see it. I do not fault him for trimming and conforming the story to fit it into a 196 minute movie; that’s what Hollywood has to do I guess. This discussion page alone is a gem of how things transpire. The David Irving book-links were indeed not removed due to the regulations, rather the links were removed due to palpitations. There's a difference. That’s true history in the making, right here. I will copy this page as I am sure it will go missing sometime soon due to a technicality invoked when problems of this sort arise. Who David Irving is I don’t really know and I don’t really care that much; I too find fault with several of his concepts and belief systems. So leave out the links then as a victory for you. It is not an honorable victory, but a victory just the same. Worldneedsplastic (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Irvings changing views on the Holocaust

• In March 2016, Irving appeared at a Scottish Forum question and answer meeting. The very first question he was asked was about how he currently viewed the Holocaust. He replied that he was "Writing the biography of Heinrich Himmler at the moment" While he still exhibits an antisemitic viewpoint, he also goes on to suggest a complete turnaround in his beliefs concerning the number of Jews murdered and the methods used during the Nazi period. There is video of the session available on YouTube which I understand is not used as a credible information source. Do you think there is space to introduce the updated information about Irving? Zerosprite (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Yes, if reliable source/s can be found of this forum and his answers then it can certainly be added to the article stating his thoughts have changed if that is what the sources say. NZFC^(talk) 03:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the Scottish Forum is part of an alt-right/neo-Nazi meeting network, I doubt that this is going to be added to the article. See this, and check out this search result. Thre's nothing new here, Irving hasn't changed his views in any fundamental way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we'd need a strong reliable source (preferably from someone with expertise in historiography) which states that Irving has changed his views significantly. As was noted in the libel trial, and in the article, Irving's views have changed over time to become more extreme. If reliable sources state that he's becoming more or less extreme, that would be worth noting. But we're not going to base this on Irving's self-assessment, or that of extremists. If Irving is still speaking at meetings of extremist groups it suggests that his political views may not have evolved (his association with such groups is also one of the reasons he's not considered a historian). Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

According to a report of an interview Irving gave to an Australian publication in 2017, Irving remains an anti-semite, and an unrepentant Holocaust denier who expresses admiration for Nazis on the tours he leads in Poland. [9]. I don't think we'll be seeing any softening of this article in regard to Irving's views any time soon. He will almost certainly go to his grave believing the same garbage he's been espousing for decades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

In that response, Irving says that no one wants to talk about whether the Jews "had it coming". If you're going to add anything from this video, be sure to add him saying that. (Of course he's wrong; everyone is willing to talk about whether the Jews had it coming: no, and only a monster could think so.)-- Jibal (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Accusation of bad faith editing

I recently reverted an edit by Beyond My Ken at the article. Beyond My Ken responded by reverting me in turn, with the comment, "No you don't, you're just pissed over our dispute on Neo-nazism, and the fcat that the RfC is going against you, and are using this as a way to get back at me. You're as transparent as ice. I suggest you take this to the talk page, and we can have another 10K bytes while you explain that "actively" doesn;t mean what it means." Beyond My Ken, you might wish to re-read WP:AGF. The reason I reverted your edit was that I disagreed with it, and that's all. I have no wish to try to "get back" at you, and before you make the accusation, I am not stalking you. For the record, my earliest edit at the David Irving article was back in 2015. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted Doug Weller's removal of "actively" from "actively touring" with the edit summary

Sorry, Doug, I disagree. He could be "intermittently touring". "occasionally touring" etc. "actively touring" sayis that it's ongoing and deliberate

I don't think there's a need to say anything else about it.

FreeKnowledgeCreator can now use up the rest of the electrons available to Wikipedia to state whatever his counter-arguments may be, but unlike the ongoing dispute over "and implement" on Talk:Neo-Nazism, [10], [11], [12] I won't be here to participate in the farce this time: once bitten, twice shy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The disagreement is over whether the article should state that Irving "has actively toured" in the United States or simply that he "has toured" in the United States. The reason Beyond My Ken gave for preferring the former is that "He could be "intermittently touring". "occasionally touring" etc. "actively touring" sayis that it's ongoing and deliberate". The reason is unconvincing, since "has actively toured" and "has toured" are both in the past tense. Since "has actively toured" is in past tense, it is hard to see how it could suggest that Irving engages in ongoing touring in the United States, or how such a suggestion would be appropriate. Beyond My Ken, if you really want the article to suggest that Irving engages in ongoing touring in the United States, the correct expression would be "where he tours", not "where he has actively toured." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I get the impression that this dispute about the addition or removal of a single ambiguous word is a waste of everyone's time. Actively is a weasel word that could mean quite a few things. I would suggest that if someone has a figure concerning the number of tours or number of days he toured or any such quantifiable word then use it and add the source otherwise just leave toured. Occasionally, actively, sometimes, intermittently, extensively etc are very subjective. Heres an exemple, 3 tours in a year could be any of the five in terms of one's POV but "3 tours in a year" with a source is verifiable and unambiguous. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That's right. And in any case, as User:Nomoskedasticity pointed out while removing it the entire sentence, "once we have a source for this, we'll know how to phrase it" - or at least hopefully. I should probably have done that in the first place. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I concede Nomoskedasticity's point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing this seems sensible. I presume the intention is to say something like Irving continues to make speaking tours of the US, but source is needed for that. "Actively tours" is unclear. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that Irving's own website (Focal Point Publishers) lists 14 events in a book tour in November 2017, and his annual guided tour of the Wolf's Lair and other WWII sites in Poland in September 2018. [13] A primary source, to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of an order

Hi,

This weekend I watched an interview of Irving's where he was very insistent and specific he was looking for war time evidence that Hitler had knowledge of the Holocaust, not simply an order, which contradicts the piece in the Hitler's War section. I checked the reference already existing and it doesn't support the way it's written either so I'll change it now and add the video as reference too.

I'll go to the linked article and check it's fixed there if there's a similar problem. Yb2 (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a primary source. Your edit also added a falsehood by implying that such a "challenge" would be justified. There is considerable documentary evidence which demonstrates that Hitler ordered the Holocaust, was involved in its execution, and received reports on the murders. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D:

1. "Primary" does not mean "bad" “Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation.“
2. sources should be used carefully “primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.”
3. I was not implying or justifying anything and no falsehood was added. I was pointing out that the reference did not support the statement. It still doesn't and yet you've reverted it.
4. I'm really not interested in your view about the Holocaust, because (a) I already agree with the point of view you've given (b) it's irrelevant here.

Try learning what Wikipedia is for, and what it's not for. When I get time I'll put this up for a 3rd party to rule on because I'm not going to deal with you any more, you lack respect, for facts and for others. Yb2 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No need for a WP:30, because I agree with Nick-D's edits, so there's no two-party deadlock here.

Also, may I say that it takes a lot of nerve for an editor with 127 edits in 8 1/2 years [14] to criticize (close to the point of a personal attacl), an editor with 44 times more edits (83,377) in 12 1/2 years (who is also an administrator) [15] about their understanding of Wikipedia's purpose? I'd say that you somewhat overestimate yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Nick-D's removal of the material added by Yb2. The hooktv link appears to be a copyright violation, and in any case it doesn't support expanding the idea that Irving has been seeking a wartime order to Irving seeking any kind of wartime documentation showing Hitler's knowledge of the death camps, death vans, etc. All of the books talking about Irving describe him looking for a specific order from Hitler. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Repeated use of "holocaust denial" in the lead

I see no problem with using the loaded term "holocaust denier" in the lead, as there are a number of citations given for using it, but it strikes me as rather over the top to want to call Irving a "holocaust denier" in the first sentence, as if it was an occupation, which it isn't, and then to use the terms holocaust denial or holocaust denier three more times in the lead. It has a thoroughly unencyclopaedic ring, as if Irving deserved to be beaten up with the words. I would suggest that a more normal approach would be to use the term at least once in the lead, supported by the numerous citations, but not in the first sentence. At the end of the day it is more of an opinion than a fact, based on a vague term which is far less capable of being factual than (say) "engineer" or "painter". What do others here think about this? Moonraker (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the thing for which he is best known. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Irving is indeed best known for being a holocaust denier, and there is no reason not to mention that he is a holocaust denier in the article's first sentence. Neither in the lead nor anywhere else is there any suggestion that "holocaust denier" is an actual occupation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a significant part of his reputation, that's true, but as it isn't a carefully defined term it isn't a very good one for defining what he is, in an encyclopaedic sense. What about the repetition? Whether we need that term at the outset or not (and I'm uneasy about it, as explained), do you say we need it several more times in quick succession? What exactly does the repetition achieve, except to look opinionated? Moonraker (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has become pointless already. If you challenge the usefulness of the very term "holocaust denier" itself, then it is not appropriate to continue discussion any further, except to note that the term is used in scholarly literature and that personal disagreements with it carry no weight. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, as explained above I see no need to challenge the use of the term, as you say it is used by scholars, but I do not see it as a good definition, and I do not suppose any other encyclopaedias use it in such a way, as a defining characteristic. Anyway, it would be helpful if you would deal with whether you think the repetitive use has any benefit. I don't need to repeat my thoughts on that. Moonraker (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The only problem with the "repetitive use" of the (wholly accurate and personally defining) terms "holocaust denial" or "holocaust denier" is that stylistic quirk of English prose which deprecates the repeating of words. So unless you can come up with some appropriate synonyms for those rather specific -- and, again, accurate and defining -- terms, you're just going to have to live with it. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Irving emphasise that he's now known primarily for Holocaust denial (a movie was even made on the subject), so the lead is appropriate. I note that the term appears four times in the three paragraphs of the lead, which hardly seems disproportionate. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D, I do agree with your first point, except for the last few words. The way I see it, a hard-hitting speech from a political candidate might hit the audience with such terms again and again (and again and again), but it isn't the way encyclopaedias usually carry on. Calton, you say the only problem is "that stylistic quirk of English prose which deprecates the repeating of words", but when they are hard-hitting words it isn't a matter of style, it's more about whether a balanced and neutral tone is maintained. You also say "you're just going to have to live with it" unless different terms can be found, but it isn't the term I see as a problem, it's the impression of over-emphasis which comes across as motivated by intense dislike. Things people "have to live with" are almost always unpleasant, so I guess I see you recognising that the tone is unpleasant. Does anyone have anything good to say about all this repetition? Moonraker (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I should add that I disagree with Calton that the terms holocaust denial and denier are "wholly accurate and personally defining" for Irving. They have been used about him in several reliable sources, yes, so I don't say they ought to be taken out, but our Holocaust denial page defines that as "the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II", and that isn't Irving's position. He says the numbers are overstated and doubts that Hitler knew about the genocide. We aren't in a position to be certain on either point, although detailed study of his work has produced evidence that he is selective in the use of sources and biassed towards defending Hitler. He isnt a classic "holocaust denier", which is one reason why all the overemphasis troubles me. Moonraker (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Irving has been found to be a Holocaust denier in multiple court cases, and reliable sources almost universally refer to him as such. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

He isnt a classic "holocaust denier" -- Irving refers to "what is called the Holocaust" and says that the Jews "had it coming". Maybe you can work that into the lead for variety ... being sure to avoid an unpleasant tone, of course. -- Jibal (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Since I'm not buying your bogus reframing of the (wholly accurate and personally defining) terms "holocaust denial" or "holocaust denier" as being "hard hitting" and therefore requiring some sort of special treatment, my point still stands and there's nothing more to be said. --Calton | Talk 23:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is a non-issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, even though it's not true - it's how he has made much of his money. So it has backfired greatly on his adversaries. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous statement

The following has been in the article since 2008: Irving...spoke of plans to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The effort failed due to fiscal problems. The clear implication is that, if Irving had only had a bit more money, he would surely have been prime minister, at the head of a Neo-Nazi government. It's a ridiculous statement. Can somebody with access to Richard Evans's In Hitler's Shadow please look at p. 166 and edit the sentence in line with what Evans actually said? 2001:BB6:4708:9258:98CC:6F33:27C9:9CBC (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I read the sentence as you do, but it's still pretty dumb, so I removed it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It was pretty dumb as written, because it inappropriately combined info from Lipstadt (1993) with info from Evans (1989) in a way that created the wrong impression. Evans is saying that Irving's move into politics failed because of lack of funds -- he does not say anything about Irving talking about becoming Prime Minister, so that part must have come from Lipstadt. I have re-written the couple of sentences in question to correct them. If someone could check Lipstadt to see if she says the bit about Irving talking about becoming Prime Minister, that would be good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The number of deaths in the bombing raids may never be known

The paragraph that starts The number of deaths in the bombing raids may never be known. The presence in the city of over 100,000 refugees fleeing the advance of the Red Army means there is no accurate record of them. is misleading. It is common in war for the precise number of deaths in a bombing raid to be unknown. This is partly do with how the dead are identified. Those killed by explosive concussion or shrapnel for example can often be easily identified, but those who for example die of a heart attack or some pre-existing ailment may or may not be recorded as casualties. Some may be recorded as missing and never confirmed as dead or alive.

In the case of Dresden the number of deaths are known to be in the region of 22-25 thousand (between 21-26 thousand). This number can be obtained in three ways. The first is primary sources (and that is one area where German bureaucracy is better than most even on the brink of Götterdämmerung). These fall into three groups.

• The police reports and similar.
• The number of burials recorded in and around Dresden at the time including a count of those burnt in the market square.
• Those reported missing (initially about 35,000 but about 10,000 of those were later reported found).

The second is adding those bodies found during post war reconstruction, to those recorded in wartime primary sources.

The third is a statistical analysis based on what happened in other cities "area bombed" by the RAF and the USAAF. All these methods come out at between between 21-26 thousand.

There is a detailed description of how the numbers are obtained and by whom in the section "Fatalities" in the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article. This includes an explanation that the authorities were well aware of the number of refugees in the city.

The point is that the number of dead in the Dresden February 1945 raids has been thoroughly researched and 2st century academic historians are in agreement about the narrow range of the number of deaths. The numbers are probably as accurate as those for other major raids such as those during Operation Gomorrah in July 1943 and the paragraph as it stands it casts doubt on modern research.

Alexander McKee (author) died in 1992 this means his estimates have long since been superseded facts obtained by more recent research of which he was unaware, and for which he is not longer around to defend his assertions or to paraphrase John Maynard Keynes change his mind, when more facts are known.

"Two tourist books, one written by Herbert Wotte and Siegfried Hoyer, published in 1978, give the casualties as 35,000; another compiled by Jurgen Rach and Erwin and Inge Hartsche (1977), agrees with this figure." So what! They are not historians, and they were publishing long before the likes of Frederick Taylor published his book. Taylor based his numbers on those of a German historian (who's name escapes me) working in the 1980s from primary sources.

I suggest that the paragraph is rewritten to mention only the 21st century consensus as laid out in "Fatalities" in the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article. -- PBS (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the German historian referenced by Frederick Taylor was Goetz Bergander (he has his own Wiki bio, but in German), who as a teenager lived through the bombing of Dresden. In the first edition of his book Dresden im Luftkrieg in 1977, Bergander made an estimate of 40,000 deaths, because he thought the true total must be higher than the known total due to the presence of possibly 200,000 refugees from the East. However, in 1993 some very detailed contemporary documents were rediscovered in the city archives, making the 22,000 - 25,000 figure more or less certain, and Bergander published revised editions in 1994 and 1998. The local authorities had known the true figure shortly after the bombing, but Goebbels' propaganda ministry put out a press release with a nought added to turn 25,000 into 205,000, resulting in confusion ever since. The article should not make out that there is any great mystery about this, or that Irving's inflated figure was ever justified. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed the phrase repeated in this talk section doesn't add much to a discussion of Irving's work. I trimmed the paragraph and combined it with previous. There probably is room for another sentence or two about the historical consensus on the Dresden bombing, but we don't need to go into too much detail on sources that don't discuss The Destruction of Dresden. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Does the quote give too much emphasis on Irving's views?

@Binksternet: Hi, I would like to know why you think the quote:

As an independent historian, I am proud that I cannot be threatened with the loss of my job, or my pension, or my future. Other historians around the world sneer and write letters to the newspapers about 'David Irving, the so-called historian', and they and they demand, Why does he call himself a Historian anyway? Where did he study History? Where did he get his Degree? What, No Degree in History, then why does he call himself a Historian? My answer to them, Was Pliny a historian or not? Was Tacitus? Did he get a degree in some university? Thucydides? Did he get a degree? And yet we unashamedly call them historians – we call them historians because they wrote history which has gone down the ages as accepted true history.

gives too much emphasis on Irving's views about what is considered a 'historian'. I understand that he attempts to justify being described as a historian, despite having no academic qualifications and never holding an academic position, but I still think it's important to include the quote into the article because it would demonstrate to readers how Irving was able to perpetuate his erroneous beliefs by calling himself a 'historian' (which he did plenty of times, just check out some of his speeches) to justify his arguments and views for quite some time. I agree with your first decision to revert my edit because the quote does not belong in the 'Reception by historians' section, but I do think it does belong in the 'Revisionist' section.--LeftiePete (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This quote by Irving is not so important that we pass it along to the reader. The quote did not save him or hang him. It is not widely quoted, nor widely considered part of the literature on Irving. Rather, it is one of many quotes that were analyzed by a third party, but this one does not rise above the rest in any significant manner. It would be enough to summarize the issue by saying he called himself an "untrained historian" at some particular date in the 1980s, then an "independent historian" in 1992, and finally a "reputable historian" at the trial. Or to say that he defended his "historian" self-assessment by comparing his scholarship to Pliny and Tacitus who were not university trained. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: You make some fair points.

"In 1982, Irving described himself as an "untrained historian" and argued that his lack of academic qualifications did not mean that he could not be considered a historian and made references to Pliny and Tacitus."

What do you think?--LeftiePete (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Revisionism v negationism

Why is he describe as engaging in historical revisionism in the article rather than negationism? This use of revisionism is technically inaccurate, as it describes a legitimate activity in history. Negationism is the correct term for Holocaust denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.118.150 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong link

There is a mistaken link in the article: it points to Gerhard Frey (mathematician) instead of Gerhard Frey (right-wing politician). This should be corrected. 151.29.42.69 (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021

The line that states "In 1991, Irving espoused a Jewish conspiracy theory" should probably be "In 1991, Irving espoused an anti-semitic conspiracy theory"

This is my first edit request, forgive me if this is wrong :) 82.34.232.67 (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Done, seems like a pretty legit request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Change:

"Irving's estimates and sources were first disputed by Walter Weidauer, Mayor of Dresden 1946–1958, in his own account of the Dresden bombing."

to

"Irving's estimates and sources were first disputed by Walter Weidauer, Communist politician and appointed mayor of Dresden 1946-1958, in his own account of the Dresden bombing."

Reason:

Simply calling him a "mayor" is misleading since it affords him the credibility of a democratically elected representative, which he was not. Furthermore, his party affiliation and status as a de-facto collaborator should be mentioned in the article in order to facilitate a more complete evaluation of his statements. BohemianHermit (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done OP is asking for a PoV edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

David Irving Is Not a Holocaust Denier

Regardless of what Judge Gray claimed in his 2000 decision in the Lipstadt libel trial, anyone who takes the time to actually read David Irving's books will readily see that he does not deny the Holocaust. Irving has always said that at least 3.5 million Jews were killed by the Germans during WW II, and that this was a horrific crime.

Where Irving differs with traditional historians is that he argues that Himmler and other henchmen ordered the Holocaust, that they kept Hitler in the dark about mass extermination until late 1943, and that the number of Jews gassed at Auschwitz was in the thousands and not in the millions.

Irving has actually called out Holocaust deniers/extreme revisionists for questioning or doubting that 5-6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. He has done this on video, and the videos are readily available for anyone to view.

If you were to take someone who knew nothing about Hitler and had them read Irving's books on Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels, especially his book Hitler's War, that person would come away with a very negative view of Hitler. Irving's critics ignore all the negative things that Irving says about Hitler and focus on the fact that Irving does not portray Hitler as being as evil as most other historians paint him to be. Irving still paints him as evil, but just not as evil as most other scholars do.

Anyone who believes that Irving's books whitewash Hitler and/or Nazi Germany should read my article "Lying About David Irving: Refuting the Myth that David Irving's Books Whitewash Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany". I document beyond any doubt that Irving's books contain mountains of damning, critical, negative information and comments about Hitler and the Nazi regime.

Your personal opinion is noted. We'll stick with what's provided by reliable sources. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that Irving has been found to be a Holocaust denier in multiple legal processes (including being jailed for this in Austria) and multiple experts describe him as a Holocaust denier, this doesn't seem disputable. Quite rightly, this article notes Irving's responses to these legal processes and accusations. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Austria had no grounds to jail Irving and jailed him erroneously and falsely based on false information supplied by a Communist organization. Irving was arrested at a speaking engagement where he wasn't talking about Hitler and the Holocaust but about Adolf Eichmann, Joel Brand, and British code-breaking revelations. His sham trial verdict was overturned when the case went to Austria's Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals voided the verdict and ordered that he be released. Mikegriffith1 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

Irving's court case took place in 2001, not 1998. The reference to the article in The Guardian is correct. Bmetech48 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bmetech48 and Ganbaruby: A simple enough request, although the Guardian reports it underway and concluding in 2000, so I made that correction. ~ cygnis insignis 10:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Irving's court case occurred in 2000, not 2001 or 1998. Mikegriffith1 (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Unreliability of Johann Hari

Bearing in mind that Johann Hari has been found to have fabricated elements of stories, I do not think it is appropriate to include quotes from his interview with David Irving in this article. I would delete all material sourced to Hari – I don’t know what the Telegraph supports in the statements which are jointly referenced to JH (ref 13) and the Telegraph under Early life. Does anyone have access to the Telegraph?

Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Do we have any reason to believe specifically that the quotes from Irving were fabricated? Has Irving asserted that they were? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, David Irving has made no comment about the interview. But if a publication has fabricated stories, we do not accept it as a reliable source, even though many of its other stories may be true. Johann Hari is personally an unreliable source, and Wikipedia should not use him as a source for anything. The quotes from the interview about being ‘appointed’ as Hitler’s biographer only have entertainment value – they do not add anything of serious value to the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The source is an article in the Independent. If the Independent hasn't retracted it, then it stands. I suppose you might be arguing that the Independent no longer meets WP:RS, since they sometimes published stuff by Hari. If so -- well, we could explore that one at [[WP:RSN]... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We must wait until specific questions are raised in the media about Hari's interview with Irving. Let's not anticipate. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t agree – the source is plainly unreliable, and we should not be using it. I came to this article as a reader, and I was surprised and somewhat shocked to find that Johann Hari was used as a source. It damages the credibility of Wikipedia to use as a source a man who is known for fabrications, and also for trying to subvert Wikipedia.

The material is, in any event, dubious trivia. Regardless of the source, I think it should be deleted as unencyclopaedic. What value do either of you think it has for readers of the article?

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's colorful; it helps to establish how batshit crazy is Irving. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s my point. It is misleading, because in context, Irving is just using ‘appointed’ as a metaphor. There is nothing in the interview, taken as a whole, which indicates that Irving is crazy. That you get the misleading impression that he is crazy is a reason for deleting the material. And you haven’t answered my point about damaging the credibility of Wikipedia by using a discredited person as a source. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which means Hari is not automatically deemed unreliable in everything he has ever done. Did Irving protest the Hari piece, saying he was misrepresented? No. Has anyone in the media questioned the authenticity of the piece? No. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have read the link you provided, and it supports my position. The Independent is considered generally reliable, but Johann Hari isn’t. So, in context, we should not be using material based on the interview with Mr Hari. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources would be needed to support such a contention. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, don’t understand. Which contention? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I would like a reply to my query. I don’t know which ‘contention’ you are referring to. The article on Johann Hari, which I have previously provided links to, is well sourced, and shows that Mr Hari is chiefly notable for being unreliable. Your edit summary just says ‘nah’, but I can’t guess what you are saying ‘nah’ to. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that say all of this person's work is now considered unreliable if you want to advance such an argument. My understanding is that this is unusual - for instance, the New York Times only retracted part of Jayson Blair's work after a major investigation into it. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hm? We don't need sources to say someone is unreliable as a Wikipedia source; that's something we decide editorially on our own. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. That is not my argument. My view is that Johann Hari is a tainted source who should not be used on Wikipedia. I also think that the material in question is unencyclopaedic and misleading. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sweet6970From what I have been able to find out, it seems that the interview is authentic: Irving's own website says so. Search "Hari" on http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/index.html; also note that Irving provides sources for his claims about Giesing and the objective Englishman (http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Giesing/diary_Chamier.html). Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Harry Sibelius: Thank you for your comment, and for the amendment to the article, which is a distinct improvement. By the way, should ‘to’ be deleted from ‘They won’t to be objective.’ ? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course. As for the grammatical correctness of the quote, I believe that was how it was published in The Independent. I'm not sure if it's misprint or just a Britishicism that I am not familiar with. Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Harry Sibelius: If that’s a quote from the Independent, then I think we’d better leave it. By the way, something strange has happened with the timestamp on your signature – your edit was made on 1 April, but the timestamp says 18 February. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's my fault. I'll fix it. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Framing "holocaust denier"

Is that a profession now? How about objective terms in the introduction such as "historian"? 62.226.78.111 (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Irving did his best to make it a profession. But no matter -- we don't need to insist on occupation as a key descriptor in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The opening is supposed to describe what the subject is most notable for, which may or may not be their profession. Bennv123 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Mao killed up to 60 million people in China. I could not find the term "mass murderer" in the introduction part in his wikipedia article. The term "holocaust denier" is the "pedophilia" of science and polictics, the ultimate smear. And no sane person with a brain would seriously deny the existence of concentration camps and millions of Jews dying there.

Again, in the introduction part you should just remain neutral, objective and give information about what this person is doing as a profession. And David Irving is a historian. 80.131.59.31 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"Most notable for" according to reliable sources, not random Wikipedia editors. Looking just at the titles of the nearly 200 references cited in this article, and the overwhelming majority of them seem to be about holocaust denial. So it does seem like that's what he's most notable for according to these cited references. Bennv123 (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sad to see Irving's achievements belittled and disparaged by a concerted 'no to 5,999,999; no to 6,000,001' media effort and, even sadder, to see that reflected in an encylopaedia right beside his well earned title of 'historian.' I would bet my life that 10x more words of his have been read than have words said about him in the context of his being a 'Holocaust denier,' a term that didn't even exist when he was in Germany acquiring first-hand sources for his books, something those who brand him a 'denier' seem to be afraid to do, giving us all a pathetic, watered-down version of history, leaving a thirst quenched only by the investigative depths ventured by the likes of Irving. This is why I don't use Wikipedia for anything. Reliable sources: what better than the words of the author himself? It's lazy to call Irving a 'Holocaust denier,' even if some judge says he is. All you have to do is skim through his books to see that he isn't one. Lipstadt is also not a reliable source of anything but 'memory' and slander. You should have a look for Irving's video (Irving's, not the movie version written for the benefit of Lipstadt) of when he met Lipstadt in the university - he was sitting in the audience and she was talking about him and failed to recognise him. He called her out on her bull and she had security remove him instead of admitting she was a denier too. I wonder does she have 'Holocaust denier' on her page... 2A00:23C8:9C30:5501:20A3:585F:9631:BD8B (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

oh and you won't find that video on Youtube, probably Odysee or Bitchute - there's a reason for that, as always, with this topic 2A00:23C8:9C30:5501:20A3:585F:9631:BD8B (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

None, obviously. The IP contribution is a WP:FORUM post and does not belong on a Wikipedia Talk page. You were right to delete it, and Harry Sibelius was wrong to reinstate it. Both Harry and the IP should inform themselves at WP:TALK what Wikipedia Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)