Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hitler Diaries/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2015 [1].

---

Hitler Diaries

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The story of the Hitler Diaries has twice been brought to the screen—both times as comedy/farce. There is much to laugh at, as an inept and bungling forger managed to fox the brains of the world's media, and some heavyweight historians in the bargain. Even when read as straight prose, there are still enough moments of suspended disbelief to make you wonder whether the whole was a work of fiction. Sadly for those at Stern magazine, the diaries were the only fictitious element in this story of incompetence, greed, bungling, ineptitude and mismanagement—with a dash of fraud and some old Nazis thrown in for good measure. A strong cast showed up for an extremely constructive and useful PR, which has tightened this up immensely. I welcome all comments and thoughts once again. – SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Blockquotes shouldn't include quotation marks
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for periodicals
• Kentucky is typically abbreviated KY not KT. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• All done - many thanks NM! - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support– I was a latecomer to the PR, by when there was very little I could add. The article sets out a complicated story with great clarity, is well balanced, highly readable, thoroughly referenced, and illustrated as well as one could imagine. Clearly meets the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 13:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks! You may have been a latecomer, but your influence was extremely important to the article's development. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – I've had a quick skim through and see that all my points were addressed at the peer review. Furthermore, the comments given by others have improved this article even more. Based on that, I believe that this article meets every bit of the FA criteria. Cassianto^Talk 23:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your comment here, but also for your important contribution at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Very much enjoyed by me, but in need of one more run-through to pick up assorted nitpicks, as listed. I imagine that you will dispose of these with due speed, and I will be revisiting shortly.

• Lead: "At the press conference to announce the news...." I'd say "to announce the forthcoming publication", as "the news" is a bit vague.
• Lead: "One of the companies involved was The Sunday Times..." A point of rather petty detail, but I think the company involved was Times Newspapers Ltd, not the ST itself. You could get round this by saying "One of the publications involved was The Sunday Times..."
• Seraglio: "near what would become the border with Czechoslovakia." Hmm, I think that it was properly the border, despite the 1938 annexation, so I'd say "near the Czechoslovakian border".
• Kujau: "Among the items smuggled out of East Germany were weapons, and Kujau would occasionally wear a pistol, sometimes firing it in a nearby field, or shooting empty bottles in his local bar." Does this info have any real bearing on our story? I'd scrap it myself, but if you keep it, can you clarify if it was Kujau that was smuggling weapons out of E. Germany?
• Kujau: "Kujau used modern stationery such as Letraset, which he used to create letterheads" → "Kujau used modern stationery such as Letraset to create letterheads"
• Kujau: "Hitler, who had genuinely been an amateur artist as a young man" Delete "genuinely"
• Kujau: "manuscripts" needn't be in quotes. They were, after all, manuscripts.
• Heidemann: "the couple began to have an affair" → "the couple began an affair". And follow this with "Through this relationship..."?
• Heidemann: "Heidemann experienced financial problems caused by the purchase of the yacht..." → "The purchase of the yacht caused Heidemann financial problems..."
• Stern etc: Link CEO? (I know, I know)
• Producing etc: "...the forger refused to do so for nearly a year" – does this mean that for nearly a year the forger kept on refusing to meet , or that he said somrthing like "I'll meet you in nearly a year"?
• Producing etc: "made the connection" or "made a connection"?
• Producing etc: "most of which was still in East Germany" – "was" → "were"
• Producing etc: "two million marks": note "3 million" (numeric) previously in your text. Also, shouldn't it be DM rather than marks?
• Acquisition: " the additional lure" → "an additional lure"?
• Acquisition: "1 million marks" – again the DM question> Important, because East Germany had a different currency.
• Acquisition: "Heidemann visited Maser in June 1981 and came to a deal that enabled him and Stern, for a payment of 20,000 marks..." Need to clarify "him" – as written it could be Maser
• Initial testing etc: Should Bundesarchiv be italicised? It's the name of a German institution rather than an ordinary German word. I'm not clear about the standard WP practice, but I see for example that the articles for Deutsche Bundesbank and Bundestag don't italicise.
• Initial testing etc: "verifying the authenticity of the diaries": "authenticating the diaries" would be neater?
• Initial testing etc: "They did not mention the existence of the diaries" → "They did not specifically mention the diaries..."
• Initial testing etc: I would delete the words "but he was lied to in the briefing" and write: "...he became less doubtful; he was falsely informed that the paper had been chemically tested..." etc
• Initial testing etc: "an additional $750,000 for Britain and the Commonwealth" → ""an additional $750,000 for British and Commonwealth rights"
• Two semicolons in the sentence beginning "After lengthy negotiation Broyle..."
• Released to the news: – can something be "released to the news"? Surely what's released is the news? Perhaps "Released to news media2?
• Released to the news: "He went on to say..." – which of the two is "he"?
• Forensic analysis: "copied across" → "copied"
• Forensic analysis: "By the time the Bundesarchiv had passed the news to Stern, the archive had already passed it to the government" Suggest rewrite: "Before passing the news to Stern, the Bundesarchiv had already informed the government".
• Arrest and trial: "he was bitter that the journalist was still at liberty, and had withheld so much money from Stern" – wasn't his bitterness more that Heidemann had withheld Stern's money from Kujau?
• Arrest and trial: In your brief trial account, you refer both to a "judge" and a "magistrate". Were these the same person? If so, perhaps the same term should be used. Otherwise, the presidency of the course might be indicated by an extra word or two.

• Tweaked slightly. For court cases of a possible 3-7 years imprisonment, a judge is assisted by 2 or 3 lay judges or magistrates. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Arrest and trial: I wouldn't say "subsequent" trial when you are reporting after the event.
• Aftermath: I think "according to" should always precede the relevant quotation rather than appearing at the tail end of the sentence (n.b. Nesser and Hartung, Davenport-Hines)
• Aftermath: "with his satirical German-language film..." → "in his satirical German-language film..."

• Many thanks Brian, both here and at the PR. I've adopted all your suggestions above. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: My concerns have all been adequately addressed. Sorry I forgot to sign off! Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• As always I am hugely in your debt for the work you've put in here and at FAC. Many, many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally (not for action), don't you think that Gerhard Weinberg looks suspiciously like the elderly P.G. Wodehouse? See this. Perhaps the old prankster was behind it all – I think Riley should hear of this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• LOL - I'm not sure even PGW's brilliance in producing contrived plots could have cooked up this one - he'd have rejected it fr being too far fetched! - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • With a touch of Archbishop Carey thrown in, methinks. Tim riley talk 12:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support—I had been intending to get to this subject myself eventually, but I am very pleased to see SchroCat has got here before me and made an excellent job of it. I had my say at the peer review and have also made some copy-edits since then. In my view the article is an excellent, well-sourced account and meets the FA criteria. I have no qualms about supporting. Thanks for your work on this, SchroCat. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Cliftonian. Your copy edits and thoughts have been extremely welcome throughout. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• "A photograph of a black and white grey-haired and spectacled man" (alt text) - I think you mean it's a black-and-white photo?
• File:Sterncover.jpg: would be worth filling in the n.a parameters
• File:FH_AH_Hitlers_Diaries_01.svg: suggest using {{PD-font}} for this, as I'm not sure on what grounds the uploader could claim copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• One done, one waiting for the block on Commons to lift after a trigger-happy admin objected to me asking one of his chums not to bludgeon comments. I'll swap it over in two days. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• All now done. Many thanks NM - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support I was hoping to leave some comments, but after reading through the article I find it very comprehensive and the prose is well written. This article definitely meets the FA criteria. Well done on all the work put into this - it was an interesting read. JAGUAR  23:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Jaguar - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support' entertaining read and no prose-clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Only minor quibbles are non-deal-breakers such as:

which were so amateurish that Kujau later asserted that - "conceded" might capture the essence better here.

• Many thanks Casliber; much appreciated, and I've adopted your above suggestion. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

The Hitler Diaries affair may be my favourite historical and journalistic train wreck, and this article is in excellent shape - thank you for developing it. I have the following comments:

• "to the Alpine Redoubt" - no such "redoubt" existed (its existence was a German wartime deception operation). In reality, the senior Nazis cleared out to southern Germany as it was unoccupied, but only lightly defended. I'd suggest not using this term.
• "a replacement command centre near Berchtesgaden in southern Germany" - note that this was the location of Hitler's residence
• "In January 1973 Heidemann was photographing the Carin II" - the tense and context is unclear here (did he spend the month photographing the ship? Why?). Should this be "In January 1973 Heidemann photographed the Carin II.."
• " Researching into the history of the yacht" - this wording is a bit awkward
• "In mid-December 1982 the author and Holocaust denier David Irving was also involved in tracking the existence of diaries written by Hitler" - you could note that Irving had considerable experience in dealing with Nazi memorabilia and document collectors and sellers. His status at the time should also be noted so that the references to him in the "Released to the news media; the Stern press conference" section make sense - he was generally considered a mildly disreputable expert on Nazi history with expertise in assessing obscure documents. His reputation didn't collapse until later.
• "Jäckel stated that he was "extremely sceptical" about the diaries, while his fellow historian, Karl Dietrich Bracher of the University of Bonn also thought their legitimacy unlikely" - did they voice these views publicly at the time, or where they their personal reflections? The context here is unclear.

• Unfortunately it's not made clear in the sources either. I suspect it was to the press, but that's just my guesswork. – SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "the genuineness and importance of the discovery" - could this be replaced with something like "the authenticity of the documents and importance of their discovery"? "genuineness" is a bit awkward.
• "By this stage the historian had growing doubts over the diary" - please state why this was the case

• Not given. In the source, unfortunately. – SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• "and questioned the reporter closely for over an hour.[106] Heidemann accused the historian of acting "exactly like an officer of the British army" in 1945" - it probably should be noted in the body of the article (rather than the notes) that that Trevor-Roper had been a very high performing British Army intelligence officer in 1945, and interrogated Germans to determine the events which led to Hitler's death in the weeks after the war. Part of the reason his views carried so much weight was that he was seen as more than just an academic historian.
• More material on Weinberg would be useful - he gets left out with his views not discussed, despite being accorded a photo
  • I'd suggest also adding that one of the reasons Weinberg was willing to believe that the "diaries" were genuine was because of Trevor-Roper's endorsement of them; this emphasises that Trevor-Roper was the key expert consulted by the people who made the decision to publish. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well, he was the key person for the British papers, certainly: now added. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "That day, when The Daily Express rang Irving for a further comment on the diaries, he informed them that he now believed the diaries to be genuine" - you could note Harris' reasons for why Irving changed his mind (from memory, that the "diaries" tended to support his Holocaust denialist views)

• That's not what Harris says. He guesses, but doesn't know for certain, that it's because Irving preferred being an infant terrible, and found himself "on the side of conventional opinion", which he didn't like. Harris doesn't make any connection between the change of heart and the Holocaust. – SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• On page 339 he appears to be referring directly to an explanation Irving gave him, which includes Irving's view that (to quote Harris) "the diaries did not contain any evidence to suggest that Hitler was aware of the Holocaust", with this helping to bolster the claims Irving had made in his book Hitler's War. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I didn't read that far on. I am troubled by Harris's explanation of Irving's reasons though, as I think most of this is guesswork: no other source makes the connection and others relate only Irving's published and public explanation: that it was connected to the known medical records of Hitler. – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Richard J. Evans endorsed Harris' views in his detailed investigation of Irving's claims to be a "historian", and went a little bit further. See paras 2.4.8 and 2.4.9 of his expert report to the Irving vs Lipstadt defamation trial here (this also appeared in the book he developed from the report, Telling Lies About Hitler). Lipstadt also noted Harris' assessment in her book on the trial, so the key sources discussing Irving's work as a "historian" do make the connection. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• That shows nothing beyond the fact that Evans uncritically accepted and quoted what Harris wrote on this specific point. To clarify, I will add something suitable on this point shortly, but I am still troubled by Harris's guesswork reported as fact here. – SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's rather uncharitable to Evans, who conducted a broad ranging assessment of Irving's work and appears to have concluded that Harris was correct given the similar problems Evans uncovered (to quote Evans, "If an obvious forgery like the 'Hitler diaries' gives credence to his views, he will use it"); Evans found that Irving had used dubious or clearly misrepresented sources to further his views on Nazi Germany on a number of occasions. The material added to the article looks good though. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "he met Kenneth W. Rendell, a handwriting expert in the studios of CBS. Rendell's first impression was that the diaries were forged. He later reported that "everything looked wrong", including new-looking ink, poor quality paper and signatures that were "terrible renditions" of Hitler's" - how did Rendell get copies of the diaries?
• "In April 2012, during the Leveson Inquiry, Murdoch acknowledged his role in publishing the diaries, and took the blame for making the decision, saying "It was a massive mistake I made and I will have to live with it for the rest of my life."" - from memory, Harris states that Murdoch regarded the affair as worthwhile after the diaries were found to be a hoax as he made a profit on the deal. I'd suggest also including this. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Nick-D. I've still got one point to cover—on Weinberg—and I'll get round to that shortly. Thanks very much for your comments – they are very useful and I've adopted them all, except where commented on otherwise. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
• Both the Weinberg info, and Irving's reason now added. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Once again, great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Nick - your comments are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.