Talk:Per Anders Rudling

Simple query

Why is the only entry for Per Anders (other than his academic credentials in the lead), plus a list of his publications a section entitled Controversy over treatment of Ukrainian nationalism? Considering that he has been featured in recent media articles such as this and this discussing 'Right Sector' and the reality of numbers of Ukrainians involved in OUN/UPA, the entire article (or what little exists of any information as to his significance) is heavily WP:POV and, essentially, reads as a WP:COATRACK for anti-Ukrainian sentiment.

Suggestion: please get the balance right or this goes before an ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Loaded language includes "Canadian-Ukrainian attack on Rudling...". How, precisely, do the words "... signed by a number of leading figures of Ukrainian nationalist groups in Canada..." get paraphrased into "... a group of Ukrainian organizations in Canada delivered a signed protest to his employer, accusing him of betraying his own university's principles...". In fact, where did the "Rudling became the subject of international controversy..." come from? Sources, please: this is out and out WP:PEACOCK and WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A few words here and there can always be adjusted because that's how Wikipedia works. I just did that, thanks for the suggestions. Nobody's making any unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance here (i.e. the gratest visionary that walked the face of the earth etc.) so the peacock claim for a monster flag was out of proportions. Secondly, this article is a bio, not a coatrack. It discusses nothing but the nominal subject and his work which incidentally concerns the history of various ideologies. I hope you like my revisions, thanks. Poeticbent talk 14:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Belarus

Rudling publishes about Belarus rather than Ukraine, so the article is biased describing mostly Ukrainian discussion (Treatment of Ukrainian nationalism section).Xx236 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Did you look at the list of Rudling's selected publications? Please look again. Poeticbent talk 15:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A list of selected publications shouldn't replace an article.Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Book cover

Please allow for policy/guideline WP:NFCI for images, re.: book covers, to illustrate the article on the person → NFCI#1, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8), in the article about the author per NFCC because the book itself is discussed within the article. For historical information, see RfC Jan 2011, RfC Sep 2012, and RfC Dec 2012. Ping: User:Seattle. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 20:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Where, precisely, is the book 'discussed' in the article? Aside from a cursory mention in the lead, the 'body' of the article is dedicated to "Treatment of Ukrainian nationalism"... therefore, how does it satisfy "contextual significance". This is not an article examining the book. WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that the image for 'infobox person' would be an image of the person in question. Could you please point to other BLP's that use an image of anything other than the person? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a few illustrated BLP bios without the image of a person in question (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography; please note how broad is the spectrum of infobox illustrations we have). Poeticbent talk 04:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• William Bliss Baker
• William Brydon
• Alan Duncan Bell-Irving
• Michael B. Ellis
• Alfred William Saunders
• Alice Meichi Li

These are all related to military crosses earned for those who were in the services, or examples of visual artist's works. Even there, I'm not convinced that a single painting is appropriate for 'infobox person'. Personally, I didn't have an issue with the use of the cover until Seattle removed it. The fact still stands that the body of the article doesn't discuss this particular work. As it hasn't been established whether the reproduction of the cover itself violates copyright, wouldn't it still demand that (if the cover of one of his publications is to be used), the removed cover doesn't really meet the WP:PERTINENCE criteria in situ? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here's an example of a contemporary historian's bio with book cover as lead illustration: Franklin M. Davis, Jr.. I suppose the correct approach here would be to use the illustration as stand alone item, not part of the {{infobox writer}}. Therefore, I'm reinstating book illustration as not replaceable publishing achievement of the subject. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 01:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, as long as there's consensus with other editors that it is a relevant substitute (i.e., representative of his achievements and area of research) in lieu of an actual photo of the subject, I'm okay with it under such circumstances. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)