Talk:Hitler's Armenian reference

Split

Buidhe, I was initially thoroughly confused when I read this article. I wondered why until I realised that it was recently split and is in fact missing a whole lot of context. I see that you were the one who split the article from Hitler's Obersalzberg Speech. I'm not sure I would have agreed with a split since the content overlap is enormous, but if there must be a split then the necessary background information will need to be included. A reader shouldn't have to read the Speech article first to get all the context for this one. L-3 is barely introduced and the "Veracity" section starts talking about Canaris without any explanation of his connection to L-3 whatsoever. I also propose moving the article to "Hitler's Armenian Genocide reference", the current title is very ambiguous. We wouldn't refer to a Holocaust reference as a "Jewish reference". Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The reason for the split is because most of the content in this article would likely be considered UNDUE in the article about the speech, and the reference is independently notable. (t · c) buidhe 18:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I do think there's a need for a separate article, but I Agree with giving a little more context and with moving as suggested. Rkieferbaum (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Sidney Alderman

Individual is not notable and should not be linked per WP:REDLINK. There is no WP:SNG that applies or WP:GNG coverage of this individual that I can find. He was not the chief proes for thatsecutor (that would be Robert Jackson) but rather a minor assistant. Restoring the redlink is disruptive unless you can find significant coverage. (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

that "minor assistant" seems to have done a lot of the actual litigation, and there appear to be plenty of sources for that without even getting into the academic databases. But I guess I'll just add him to my to-do list rather than argue with this particular wall. It's rather far afield from what I came here to do. Have a nice day.Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

The correct word used in the source is "apocalyptic", not "apocryphal". You can verify it here. I hope you revert your edit, Elinruby, because introducing errors into the encyclopedia is unacceptable. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)