Talk:David Irving
(Redirected from Talk:David Irving/Comments)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Binksternet in topic GA concerns
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Irving article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | David Irving has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
| This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Photo
editIsn'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)
I think I "sign" with three+ tilde signs? 85.220.85.93 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requires n doord comma. 64.189.18.44 (talk) 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 "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
uncited claim about divorce
editIn 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)
GA concerns
editI am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:
- At over 11,000 words, WP:TOOBIG 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 WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 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. WP:TOOBIG 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. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- @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 spin out 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: WP:NOR says we should not be making interpretations of the work. Instead, Wikipedia 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 WP:GAR to get additional opinions? Z1720 (talk) 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. In 2010, the peer-reviewed version had 1,162 words worth of blockquotes. The previous GAR attempt (archived at Talk:David Irving/GA2) 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. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Binksternet: Sorry I did not respond to this sooner: I missed it on my watchlist. Responses below