| Revision as of 15:54, 21 August 2024 editDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers806,691 editsNo edit summary← 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 |
| (12 intermediate revisions by 7 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 65: |
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? |
|
== Could this be more professional? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about finding a neutral picture? Something that doesn't bias the reader one way or the other? |
|
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) |
|
|
:True, this article needs more citation and be subjective. ] (]) 04:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::This article has over 200 citations. From a bulk quantity perspective it doesn't "need more". What specifically would you change/better cite? ] (]) 17:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Sorry if my editing isn't proper; I very, very, very rarely engage in this sort of thing) |
|
== Years active edit == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
I think I "sign" with three+ tilde signs? ] (]) 03:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 06:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I honestly think it is neutral. ] (]) 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
He may not be dead but I think it's accurate to say he's no longer active (as a writer etc) as of 2023 as the family's statement says "It is with sadness that we must accept that David is now unable to engage in his life’s work".<ref name="ill">{{cite web |title=Beyond History: Supporting David Irving in His Greatest Challenge |url=https://irvingbooks.com/blog/support-david-irving/ |website=Irving Books |publisher=David Irving |access-date=22 February 2024}}</ref>] (]) 15:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024 == |
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|David Irving|answered=yes}} |
|
== Date of order for extermination of Jews. == |
|
|
|
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) |
|
The statement that Hitler still advocated only the expulsion of the European Jews in December 1941 and only changed his mind to order the extermination of the Jews in 1942 is historically inaccurate and should be removed from an edited version of the text. I suggest that the following be inserted in the text as a replacement: "On July 31,1941, Hitler's deputy Fuhrer, Hermann Goering, signed an order authorizing Reinhard Heydrich, head of the the Reich's General Security Office (SD) to prepare a plan for the final solution" and "total solution" to the "Jewish Question." At a conference at a government-confiscated mansion in on Lake Wannsee January 1942, Heydrich. citing the Goering order of July 31 1941 as his authoritzation presided over a meeting of government officials from several departments of the Reich in which detailed plans were drawn up for the extermination of European Jewry, and tasks were assigned to several departments of the Reich to assist in achieving this objective. According to an entry in the Diary of Joseph Goebels, minister of enlightenment and propaganda,Hitler presided over a meeting of senior Nazi Party officials in which he announced that he had ordered the extermination of European Jews. This indicates that the Goering order of July 31, 1941 and the subsequent conference at Wannsee in January 1942 had Hitler's full approval." ] (]) 14:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== uncited claim about divorce == |
|
== Hitler's possible motives for not signing the July 31 "final solution" order and instead apparently delegating this task to his deputy Goering. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
This following addition-revision of the text should be added after my previous suggested edit of the text concerning the date of Hitler's decision to authorize a "total solution" of the Jewish question. "No historian of any repute professes to know why hitler delegated the signing of the "final solution" and "total solution" order to his deputy Goering rather than signing it himself. We sugtgest that perhaps Hitler realized the criminal nature of the order, and felt more comfortable ordering his deputy to sign the order rather than doing so himself. ] (]) 14:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== GA concerns == |
| ⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. Some of my concerns are listed below: |
| ⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|David Irving|answered=no}} |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
Requires n doord comma. ] (]) 15:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*At over 11,000 words, ] suggests that it might be split up or summarised more effectively. |
|
|
*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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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." |
|
|
: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. |
|
|
: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)