Talk:Denis Avey/Archives/2022

How much detail re. doubts of 'swap' account authenticity in the lead?

I corrected "other Pow inmates" to "other inmates". As you correctly pointed out, that was an inaccurate paraphrasing of the source. But if I understand you correctly you still think this is too much. To explain my reasoning, I think adding the scope of the participants who are doubting his account needs to be added in some brief way with the relevant sources, as they are quite substantial. Its not just one or two biased journalists as Wikiwatcher1 seems to think. Therefore the brief reference that is now in the lead which concisely references to the following people seems to be quite short:

• Sam Pivnik,Polish Jewish inmate: “Avey’s story seems to me highly unlikely”
• Brian Bishop, PoW also at camp E715. “I don’t believe it. I can’t understand how he did it. To do something like that you need to have several people helping on both sides — our side and the Jewish side. Why does he start telling this story now? I don’t understand why all these stories are coming out now. It looks like they’re waiting for everybody to die and then no one can contradict them.”
• Professor Kenneth Waltzer, director of the Jewish Studies Program at Michigan State University and world authority on the Nazi concentration camps: ‘The pattern of sustained silence, despite interviews, and then the tumbling out of the story does indeed raise suspicions.’
• Dr Piotr Setkiewicz (head historian at Auschwitz) said that he did not believe Mr Avey’s story of the swap: "As there are no testimonies by other survivors, I certainly would not include this story in any book that I wrote.’
• The World Jewish Congress "deeply concerned" that Avey’s story "...is exaggerated if not completely fabricated"
• Irena Steinfeldt, spokeswoman for Yad Vashem: ‘We went through several testimonies of Jewish inmates, and none of them mentioned that it happened. There was nothing to substantiate it.’ *--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

---

This was what I wrote before we got into edit conflict

Mysticumwipe I have copied some of your comments of today so they are all immediately above. I answer thenm in general order.

I don't agree at all that the article focuses too much on one incident, if you did a percentage I don't think it would be more than 25% but in any event that is what Avey is most notable for. I can see about subsections but where would you put them, everything is really part of his biography. Chopping it up is arbitary. This is a BLP and you cannot have too much of the article dedicated to criticisms. In the end, from my experience, you may attract a complaint from the subject or an associate and you'll get someone senior from Wikipedia come down and make the article fairly conservative. I think you have to let Avey have his say, not in all the quotes in previous versions of the article, but in a summarised form. I do not think we can challenge the cigarettes to Ernie story, there is no 'reliable source' for this.

The controversy refers back to the previous sentence, the swop account. Details of the controversy should be put in the main section. I would like very much to be able to cite the Imperial War Museum tapes but they are not available online. The BBC are the epitome of a Wikipedia 'reliable source' or indeed should be. (whether they are in the non-Wiki world is another matter) I regard their second programme as a sort of acknowledgement of the defects of the first. I don't know the full wiki rules on blogs but if we mention Duns as having assisted Walters in the daily Mail article that might give added authenticity to his blog.

Can you locate the cite error? Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I've not seen the World Jewish Congress quote, do you have a source. Was Sam Pivnik an inmate at Monowitz? BTW Pivnik and Walters have both been published by Avey's publisher Hodder. The thing is if you are going to add all the critical sources available you will have to add all complimentary sources. Maybe Wikiwatcher will reappear and do just that and I couldn't argue against it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rad Hodder's 'Notes on Sources' for page 131. Pivnik has recanted. I think we have to use his latest words, don't you Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

see Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI announcement dated 10/2/12, Notes on sources dated 17/2/12. Rupert Lancaster is strongly connected with both books. Myst. Do you want to be provocative and highlight this Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

1 : We don't seem to be quite on the same wavelength here. ;-) Let me try again. 2 :* I was saying that the LEAD focused too much on the one issue and did so less than neutrally. 3 :* I'm not suggesting "having too much of the article dedicated to criticisms." 4 :* Subsections go where they are needed. I will have a go when I get time. Just dividing up the areas of his life story. Look at other bio pages. 5 :*There is no need "to add all complimentary sources" if they would be repeating the same info. There are only the three RS critical sources that I know of. Why not have them as they concentrate on different aspects of the controversy? I'm not suggesting having all these quotes of doubts in teh lead? Is that what you thought? Please re-read what i wrote. 6 :* I'm not suggesting that the BBC are not a 'reliable source'. Please re-read what I wrote. 7 :* There is no need to "mention Duns as having assisted Walters". Its just an external link. See WP:EXT 8 :*The World Jewish Congress quote and all the others above come from the Daily mail article by Walters. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

9 :: I didn't see anything in the Sam Pivnik links showing he had changed his opinion on Avey's story? And I don't understand the relevance of Rupert Lancaster?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe I am replying back as far as four asterisks above. It's certainly easier for me if you can put all further further replies below this message. I have numbered your points 1 to 9 for ease of reply and reply only to some.

2. I really don't know what you are talking about here. I quote Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons >Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral<

It's enough to say in the lead that there is controversy. Don't amplify. The other points which establish notability are not amplified. It comes across as an attack.

4 Subsections would be good. My problem had been that 'controversy' was part of the 'biography'. This could be resolved by having the 'Publication and Controversy' as the final subsection of a Biography section.

7 I'd quibble far less about Duns if he is not cited in the lead.

9 I think we can quote Pivnik as he appears to have 'recanted' only after signing his own book deal with Avey's publishers. The announcement of the book deal is dated 10th Feb 12 , the publication of part the letter of recantation 17th Feb 12 note to p.131. However Pivnik was not an inmate of AuschwitzIII/Monowitz. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Mysticumswipe I have put back sections as per your suggestion. I am not entirely happy with the divisoons and titles but I mustn't be too fussed about making a nice well-structured article, someone is going to change it. I removed your additional clause following the word 'controversial' from the lead. There is now a section entitled 'controversy' which readers can easily see. They can go straight there if they want. I mentioned Ingrid Lobethal in this section. On further thought I don't think Pivnik should be mentioned after all as he wasn't an inmate of AuschiwtzIII/Monowitz. If there is anything else you want to mention about controversy that might be a good place for it. I don't know how many of the people who have challenged Avey's swap story could be described as 'historians'. I don't quite know what makes a 'historian'. Guy Walters is doing a PhD in the subject, I guess as and when he gets it everyone would agree that he is one. Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

References