Talk:David Irving
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Asshole[edit]
"asshole" doesn't sound very rational.. — Unsigned, by: 110.168.114.107 / talk / contribs
- I think some of these quotes are taken out of context. I don't apologize for him, he seems like a pretty educated sort of racist, but if you consider his opinion on black players in sports, it seems like he just means the descendants of nineteenth century slavery are being exploited as spectacles in the sphere of entertainment. His TONE is terrible, though, so I think he probably is at least moderately racist. Regarding the Holocaust though, that is just strange.
- ^NOPE. Just finished reading the whole entry. WOW that guy is fucked in the head. — Unsigned, by: 173.230.98.68 / talk / contribs
- "ASSHOLS" is Irving's word for a supposed "Association of Auschwitz Survivors and Other Liars" (Lipstadt judgment @13.95). Calling him an "asshole" looks spectacularly appropriate. ProblemChimp (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of tidying up. It sounds like it was written by an angry child. David Irving makes many claims which have been falsified, and he has indeed made some dubious and thoughtless antisemitic claims. However, the job of the rational critic is to be objective and impartial, and leave judgement and slander to those interpreting the facts. This article is more reminiscent of things I have read on Conservapedia... Hence, work is needed. I don't like Irving, but that would not compel me to drop my intellectual standards so low as to write something like this. The truth should speak for itself. Stick to the relevant facts, and the audience will conclude for itself that Irving is an arse. Do not dogmatically shove it down their throats like a medieval Catholic parent.— Unsigned, by: TestiFry / talk / contribs 08:42, 1 May 2015
- "However, the job of the rational critic is to be objective and impartial" Wrong Wiki, see SPOV. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Legal systems[edit]
L'affaire Lipstadt was decided under English, not British or United Kingdom, law. The courts and legal systems of England and Wales, of Scotland, and of Northern Ireland are wholly separate. It is not uncommon for Acts of Parliament to come into effect in the three jurisdictions at different dates; a recent example is the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. To further confuse matters, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man also have their own independent courts and legal systems, and UK Acts of Parliament only have effect there if special provision is made. ProblemChimp (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also a bit puzzled by this dig at the
UKEnglish legal system: "Penguin and Lipstadt refused, and in 1996 Irving issued a writ for defamation. The English justice system acted with its usual celerity, and the case wasrapidlyeventually heard in the High Court in April 2000." - Since when is 4 years from initial complaint to a verdict considered unacceptably slow? It doesn't sound off the charts to me, unless a case is simply dismissed outright. And it's not clear whether the 4-year span was due to court dithering, some actions by the parties involved, or something about the nature of the case. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Irving no longer a denier[edit]
Took him long enough... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SH47MeOyWV0 --Sailor Haumea (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Irving's book 'Uprising'[edit]
Can be found here [1]. I read the book many years ago (without knowing anything about DI) - some areas with an anti-Semitic flavour, and the given names were rendered into the English form (Steven rather than Istvan etc) and other points which made me consider the author as 'unreliable.' Anna Livia (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)