User talk:DM123

You can sign and date you talk page articles by placing ~~~~ at the end.

David Irving

I presume that one you say you, you mean the all the people who wrote the Dresden page. Not me personally. The reason why David Irving is described the way that he is, is because he fooled many people for a long time. His book from the early 60s about Dresden is still very influential. I have not seen the two articles quoted in the Encyclopaedias mentioned, but if they do quote a figure of 135,000 dead then that is from Irving. However He has been found in a British court to be (and I quote the judge):

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

Professor Evans (one of the most respected historians in the UK and an expert on the period who was an expert witness at the trial) said of him:

Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about.

That is the point. Wven if Irving is telling the truth, one can not be certain that he is unless one is an expert on the subject. The problem gets worse. I have a book written in the 1980 which is a popular history (not an academic volume) of bomber command. It quotes Irving as a reliable source because the author like everyone who was not an expert on the raid thought his work was correct. This problem means that there are many secondary books and articles written between the publishing of his book and the court case which use his work in "good faith" are therefore themselves tainted with information which may not be accurate.

To sum up he Irving is mentioned because he had had a large influence on the popular beliefs on what happened in Dresden 60 years ago. His failings are mentioned to show why his books can not be relied upon. Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: Holocaust

While I acknowledge your complaint, I do not understand why you have directed it at me. I did not write the passage you quoted; furthermore, I have had very little to do with the Holocaust article—aside from the occasional reversion of vandalism and/or blatantly POV edits.

Every editor, whether he or she has administrator or "regular user" status, has the same authority over an article and can edit it as he or she pleases. That's not to say you should expect other users to leave your words unaltered, but it does mean you can edit the passage in question yourself. If you see something offensive or inaccurate, go ahead and change it; of course, other users may disagree with your changes. If conflict arises, it would be best to raise your concerns on the article's discussion page (in this case, Talk:Holocaust). As long as you keep our neutrality policy in mind, you shouldn't run into much of a problem.

I will however point out that the quoted passage is very careful in its wording; it does not say that everyone who thinks the Holodomor was on equal footing with the Holocaust belittles the latter; rather, it says that many do. If you know this to be a misrepresentation and can provide a citation to back it up, by all means change it. If you have any further questions or concerns, I will try to address them. -- Hadal 02:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)