 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
What about Irving in Scotland??
David Irving - discredited British writer
editDavid Irving is - without doubt - the most controversial entry on this list. The page has been locked quite a few times in "edit wars" around his definition.
Are there any suggestions in order to arrive at an "mutually agreed" definition?
A long standing one is:
- David Irving, discredited British writer and sentenced Holocaust denier
Is everyone happy with this, or are there alternative suggestions?
HagenUK (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- For reference, my edit removed "discredited" and "sentenced", and dewikified holocaust denier. My edit summary was "Edited David Irving description - discredited is a tautology for a holocaust denier, sentenced not really relevant, dewikified holocaust denial". I said that sentenced is not really relevant, because he was well-known even before being jailed in Austria (due to his attempt to sue Lipstadt). Andjam (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Andjam, I can see your point. My reason for reversing is that in some countries (especially Austria and Germany), holocaust denial is a criminal offence. Therefore, it makes a lot of difference in that context if someone is “only” accused of it (which is a slur) or if someone has been convicted. In David Irving's case, it is clearly the second. Therefore, the “convicted” is basically the justification why he is described as being a holocaust denier. Also, in recent surveys, many (especially young) people have little knowledge about the holocaust. The link to “holocaust denial” is an easy-access option for the “oh – what does that mean?” situation. The fact that David Irving is discredited (there are 24 references in the article only) has also been confirmed as part of his conviction in an Austrian court. This page has been locked several times to protect the “discredited” tag after edit wars. I hope some more people will contribute to this discussion. I am really interested what other people think about this subject. HagenUK (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- False accusations of holocaust denial would be defamatory regardless of whether denial was a criminal offense. Instead of an appeal to authority (which is what mentioning a criminal conviction would be), such labels should be based on reliable sources instead. Andjam (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would just say "British writer." Adding Holocaust denier doesn't help to disambiguate, because he's the only notable British writer with that name. SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with SlimVirgin, we don't need to summarise the article in a link on a disambiguation page. All that is required is a line of text that distinguishes him from other men with the name of David Irving. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I think presenting David Irving as a "British writer" to the potentially unsuspecting public is an insult to all non-controversial writers. In my opinion, David Irving has worked long and very hard to have earned the "discredited" label. But anyway - there appears to be consent to allow him to blend into the crowd and I won't be in the way. HagenUK (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)