| Revision as of 13:41, 21 February 2024 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,512 edits →Let's Hold Off On Adding DeathTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:12, 5 December 2024 edit undo2601:248:5181:5c70:1502:8587:7bb9:1a6f (talk) →Photo: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
| (28 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) |
| Line 38: |
Line 38: |
|
|topic=Socsci|otd1date=2017-03-24|otd1oldid=771906205 |
|
|topic=Socsci|otd1date=2017-03-24|otd1oldid=771906205 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|living=yes|listas=Irving, David|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Irving, David|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}} |
| Line 46: |
Line 46: |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Historiography-task-force=yes|WWII=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Historiography-task-force=yes|WWII=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject East Anglia|importance=mid|Essex=yes|Essex-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{press|author=Cahal Milmo and Aline Nassif |date=25 April 2008 |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/legal-victory-for--bb-owner-who-evicted-irving-for-being-too-moody-815405.html |title=Legal victory for B&B owner who evicted Irving for being too moody |org=] |section=April 2008 |
|
{{press|author=Cahal Milmo and Aline Nassif |date=25 April 2008 |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/legal-victory-for--bb-owner-who-evicted-irving-for-being-too-moody-815405.html |title=Legal victory for B&B owner who evicted Irving for being too moody |org=] |section=April 2008 |
| Line 63: |
Line 65: |
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Photo== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the photo used a bit too obviously propagandist? He looks mean and "in-your-face" and grumpy. Isn't this just a very basic, a very crude way of immediately portraying him as a villain? |
|
== Year of German atomic bomb book == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd think the article- or the man's works themselves- would do a proper job of displaying him for, well, himself. Having an unflattering picture, while it works on "the plebs", will have the opposite effect on the sort of people who might actually bother reading him. |
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} In the books section, please change the publication date of ''The German Atomic Bomb'' from 1983 to 1967. 1983 might be a later edition or just a reprint. Source: Nuel Pharr Davis, ''Lawrence and Oppenheimer'' (1969 British edition), bibliography section, p. 365. I guess at that time, Irving was still considered credible. ] (]) 07:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EP --> ] (]) 22:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::<small>Marking as answered —⁠''']''' (] • ]) 03:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about finding a neutral picture? Something that doesn't bias the reader one way or the other? |
|
==Shouldn’t this be British Court? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Sorry if my editing isn't proper; I very, very, very rarely engage in this sort of thing) |
|
The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentish ] (]) 20:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
I think I "sign" with three+ tilde signs? ] (]) 03:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:No. There is not a single court system in the UK, the ] are one system, Scotland has a totally different legal system and Northern Ireland has a third. As the case was tried in England it is correct to call it the English court. - ] (]) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I honestly think it is neutral. ] (]) 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|David Irving|answered=yes}} |
|
|
He is not a holocaust denier. He is the most prominent world war 2 historian. ] (]) 09:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*{{notdone}} -- the change you appear to want would be entirely inappropriate, not least because it is not supported by reliable sources. Thanks for your opinion, though. ] (]) 09:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:He is a holocaust denier in the most definitive way possible, declared as such by a court of law. ] (]) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024 == |
|
== Could this be more professional? == |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|David Irving|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Requires n doord comma. ] (]) 15:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 16:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Obviously this man isn't a very good person and that's a fact that this article needs to express. However, the entire opening section reads like someone's angry diatribe about an ex friend or lover. The problem with this method of presenting information is that the site looks heavily biased and deceptive to younger readers who will see the bias in the article and believe the very conspiracies the man professed because the man can easily be seen as a victim of a smear campaign. Even the page on Adolf Hitler is less aggressively negative but that could be due to the overwhelming support for eugenics and the eugenics movement by many editors on this site(look how whitewashed the article on Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory or the Indian Health Service). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== uncited claim about divorce == |
|
If you know anything about Russian propaganda and pseudo-rightwing people on the internet, then you know that nothing fuels their conspiracies like the perceived victimization of their own kind. Whoever wrote the introduction to this article has greatly helped the neo-nazi cause. Nothing solidifies support in bad causes like the perception of victimization of the people involved. That's what Hitler did to rise to power and whoever wrote much of this article is helping the neo-nazi cause. Be professional when dealing with controversial topics since the wrong words can send the wrong message. The causes of men like him are fueled by the over-active censorship and mudslinging. ] (]) 17:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do you have any concrete suggestions? Pure rants do not help. --] (]) 17:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have just read this article and agree it is rather messy and could be improved. I am quite new to this stuff but suggest that the lead is too long, literally for a start. I might have a go, but will wait to see if anyone else agrees/disagrees. ] (]) 23:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The lead is not longer than it should be. What would you delete from it? --] (]) 11:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hi @]. Thanks for the comment. I'd restructure it to two paragraphs. I would edit down the wordage describing reasons for the subjects present low standing. I'd slightly recontextualise, too. The subject has never been regarded as a serious scholar. He has no qualifications or training as a historian, apparently. His personal history is one of obsession and marginal relevance; more like an amateur historian who dug up a few interesting minor points through doggedness. The Lipstadt trial is what made him well-known for a while, and that concluded that he is a minor figure notable only because of the marginality, and offensiveness, of his views. The way the lead is structured, with too much blow-by-blow, makes him look far more significant than he is. IMHO only, of course. But I think I can stand it up enough to reduce the lead. As I also said, that the lead needs fixed is really only the start - actually, it should be the end and come after a re-working of the whole article. The article is very flabby, in my opinion. At points, I think its value is slightly affected by a lack of WP:NPOV in its general thrust. It seems written to encourage the reader to dislike the subject, rather written to allow the reader to draw their own (obvious, in my opinion) views. The subject is a minor, jobbing, non-scholarly author whose preparedness to voice extreme right-wing sentiment relatively late in the century made him a figure of minor note for a while. That doesn't justify listing and critiquing his un-notable works at length as if he were an important author. Again, all my opinion only. ] (]) 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the article, it states that "Irving's affairs caused his first marriage to end in divorce in 1981." - but there is no citation. I think this should be removed as per ]. ] (]) 21:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Let's Hold Off On Adding Death == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== GA concerns == |
|
There have been unconfirmed reports of death, but it's highly inappropriate to speculate that the death toll of David Irvings is the ludicrously high claim of 1 without a ]. I don't believe sources wholly reliant on what a far-right "Unity News Network" has said are considered reliable. ] (]) 22:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed. The Daily Mail, which is of course usually total rubbish and isn't a RS but has published some surprisingly good articles on related topics, reported a couple of weeks ago that he was seriously ill. If he has died it would be covered in reliable sources. ] (]) 00:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Here's another source: reporting on what the "Unity News Network" is saying. ] (]) 01:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
. I suspect the newspaper editor wouldn't allow the declarative statement if they thought it wasn't true, but not sure. ] (]) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. Some of my concerns are listed below: |
|
== Years active edit == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*At over 11,000 words, ] suggests that it might be split up or summarised more effectively. |
|
A user changed David's 'years active' from '1962-present' to '1962-2024' because of his supposed death. I can't edit the article since it's protected so I thought I'd mention it here so someone else can change it. |
|
|
|
*The article relies too much on block quotes: removing and summarising these will help reduce the article length. |
|
|
*There are many sources listed in the bibliography that are not used as inline citations: these should be considered for their inclusion or removed. |
|
|
*Some sections are too large and should be broken up with headings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to ]? ] (]) 02:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 06:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't think the problem is as great as you lay out. The article is written well, and covers a lot of territory with appropriate detail. 156 kb isn't outlandishly big. ] says "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." |
|
:We should wait until there is a reliable source for it; I haven't seen one yet. —] <sup>]</sup> 08:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The GA version in 2011 contained block quotes, too. The block quotes convey a great deal of information including Irving's deeply hateful tone, which would disappear if summarized. |
|
::I've just reverted this change, as there remain no reliable sources stating that Irving has died. If this is true, I imagine that they will be published soon. ] (]) 08:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Feel free to reduce the bibliography. ] (]) 03:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{re|Binksternet}} Sorry I did not respond to this sooner: I missed it on my watchlist. Responses below |
|
|
::*I do not think the scope of this topic can justify the length: if there were already attempts to ] the article, I could agree with this, but this article has not done so yet so I do not think all of this information should stay here. |
|
|
::*Regarding block quotes: ] says we should not be making interpretations of the work. Instead, Misplaced Pages should be presenting what secondary sources have said about the topic. If the block quotes "convey a great deal of information including Irving's deeply hateful tone" then it should be presented from secondary sources. Also, direct quotes might bring copyright concerns if done too often, which is why I recommend using them sparingly and summarising the information instead. |
|
|
::Would you be interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to ] to get additional opinions? ] (]) 22:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Do whatever you think is right. I think the GAR process will unnecessarily waste the community's time. For 14 years now, the article has contained a bunch of blockquotes. had 1,162 words worth of blockquotes. The previous GAR attempt (archived at ]) was a biased attempt to whitewash the article resulting in affirmation of the GA status. The article has been improved bit by bit for more than a decade, and represents standing consensus on the topic. I don't think a new GAR is necessary. ] (]) 22:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
Isn't the photo used a bit too obviously propagandist? He looks mean and "in-your-face" and grumpy. Isn't this just a very basic, a very crude way of immediately portraying him as a villain?
I'd think the article- or the man's works themselves- would do a proper job of displaying him for, well, himself. Having an unflattering picture, while it works on "the plebs", will have the opposite effect on the sort of people who might actually bother reading him.
How about finding a neutral picture? Something that doesn't bias the reader one way or the other?
(Sorry if my editing isn't proper; I very, very, very rarely engage in this sort of thing)
In the article, it states that "Irving's affairs caused his first marriage to end in divorce in 1981." - but there is no citation. I think this should be removed as per WP:BLP. 45.178.73.82 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
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. PianoDan (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)