Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Prioryman in topic Discussion about David Irving
Discussion about David Irving edit
Moved from the FAC page:
Oppose. You may have a contender there for the least reliable source ever (the current self-published edition, I mean). Scrap it; Milhist people will help you find other sources if you need them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- What about the 1965 original? I did actually cite that originally; someone later changed it to the 2010 self-published edition, presumably for convenience. As I said above, there's no indication that the original has ever been the subject of controversy or disputes over factual accuracy. And by the way, it would be helpful if you could address my comments above rather than saying in effect "Irving bad!" without trying to provide anything to back up your position. Put it another way: if current professional military historians are happy to use it as a source, why shouldn't we? Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Did you consult the 1965 or the 2010 edition? - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The 1965 edition, which is in the British Library. The quotes referenced to the 2010 edition are unchanged from the 1965 original. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some of those hits do seem to suggest that people think his earlier material is necessary and reliable. I'm pretty sure others will disagree with me, but cites to his 1965 book are okay by me as long as you use the absolute minimum number necessary, and as long as you provide a footnote along these lines: "Despite being discredited as a Holocaust denier, [see for instance this link to the US public television series, and other refs from David Irving ], his earlier work continues to be cited by historians as the most complete treatment of (whatever)". Solidly source both parts of that statement, and I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've used the absolute minimum, basically just the translated quotes, but do you want me to revert the citations to the 1965 edition? (which will require changing a lot of the page numbers). I don't like the idea of putting a "footnote of shame" in the article itself – I can't think of any other article in which we would do that, and it certainly isn't consistent with how mainstream historians have treated that source. If they don't do it, we shouldn't do it. I wouldn't object to putting something on the article's talk page, though, as a record/reference on the issue. Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, I'm opposing again. The Featured Article criteria require high-quality sources, so without a footnote, we're claiming that we believe David Irving is a high-quality source. Without an explanation, a reasonable interpretation would be that we believe he's a high-quality source in general. I don't intend to have any part, however tangential, in promoting this guy's career or his views. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're arguing that we should make an explicitly political point, in Wikipedia's own voice, about a particular source which reputable historians have used and continue to use. How is that compatible with either professional standards or NPOV, for that matter? You're not disputing that the source is accurate, you're not suggesting that it's in any way controversial, you're simply arguing that you don't like the author. I agree that his later works are deeply objectionable and unusable, but we have plenty of evidence that this particular work is well-regarded and well-used. Again, why are you arguing for a different approach from that taken by professional historians who have used this source? Prioryman (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Per the link you provided, the footnote says the same thing as your other sources say, and the same thing that you just said. POV would be hiding this critical information from the readers, which may affect how they choose to interpret the material. Sources in a Featured Article (per the WIAFA criteria, at least) have been vetted as "high quality"; that's a higher standard than "correct". I'm pretty sure about this one, Prioryman. And ... you completely misread me if you're saying that I don't think that this material is in any way controversial or objectionable. The same mind that wrote his other stuff wrote this stuff; that should create at least a little skepticism for any critical reader, unless they don't know about it, because we withheld the information. If you don't like the footnote, don't use him as a source. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Could you answer my question about why you want to approach it differently from professional historians? I'd genuinely like to know the answer. If they don't do what you suggest, why do we need to do it? What makes Wikipedia different? Prioryman (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just answered that question ... it's the professional historians who are saying what the suggested footnote would say. If they're not putting it in a footnote, it's because they don't have to, because writers are generally credited; they can say one thing in one place, and you still know that that applies when you read a different work of theirs. Wikipedia articles aren't credited in article-space; we have to put whatever the reader needs to know in the article or, sometimes, in a link. And, to clarify, I didn't mean the footnote will be just one sentence, that was an over-simplification; we would have to say some historians cite him and here's why, others don't and here's why (and clearly, some don't cite him). There's a good chance that a carefully constructed footnote could become too much of a distraction, as you're suggesting, in which case it would be better to remove material that can't be cited to anyone else. If other historians have found his material essential and credible, as you're suggesting, then we can cite them, on their authority, rather than him. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The advantage of Irving (and to be fair, this was his main cachet before he turned to the dark side) is that he tells much more of the story from the German side - because he's using translations of original German documents - than anyone else. That's why he's used by other sources discussing the V-weapons. Irving gets quoted by them for what he says about what the Germans said. I might be able to find the same material in another source - but the problem is, they would be quoting Irving. Like it or not, as the people I quoted said, he did write one of the most complete and authoritative accounts of the V-weapons - you can't get away from his work when it comes to writing about them. I'll have a think about a possible footnote and discuss it with a few people, but I think it will have to be done with a light touch, if it's to be done at all. It certainly shouldn't give the impression that there is any dispute over the source in the literature because I've not seen any evidence of that and you've not come up with any either. Your objection, let's be clear, is about the man, not the specific book in question. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- One of the problems with Irving's work - including in his 1962 book on Dresden - is the deliberate miss-translation of German documents, so he's not a reliable source on these documents. If other historians have referenced him (and especially those writing after the Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt which destroyed his reputation), then I guess it can be presumed that they made the necessary checks of these sources, or are at least convinced that Irving's claims check out. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Per Nick-D, other scholars can make a purse from a sow's ear—it is part of the magic of scholarly disciplinarity that they have the capacity to critically evaluate bad and dodgy material and produce good material from it. This is a fairly commonly known phenomena, for example, historians regularly take primary sources of dubious provenance and quality and through the magic of their disciplinary methodology produce high quality scholarly histories from material that wikipedia would never touch. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- One of the problems with Irving's work - including in his 1962 book on Dresden - is the deliberate miss-translation of German documents, so he's not a reliable source on these documents. If other historians have referenced him (and especially those writing after the Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt which destroyed his reputation), then I guess it can be presumed that they made the necessary checks of these sources, or are at least convinced that Irving's claims check out. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- The advantage of Irving (and to be fair, this was his main cachet before he turned to the dark side) is that he tells much more of the story from the German side - because he's using translations of original German documents - than anyone else. That's why he's used by other sources discussing the V-weapons. Irving gets quoted by them for what he says about what the Germans said. I might be able to find the same material in another source - but the problem is, they would be quoting Irving. Like it or not, as the people I quoted said, he did write one of the most complete and authoritative accounts of the V-weapons - you can't get away from his work when it comes to writing about them. I'll have a think about a possible footnote and discuss it with a few people, but I think it will have to be done with a light touch, if it's to be done at all. It certainly shouldn't give the impression that there is any dispute over the source in the literature because I've not seen any evidence of that and you've not come up with any either. Your objection, let's be clear, is about the man, not the specific book in question. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just answered that question ... it's the professional historians who are saying what the suggested footnote would say. If they're not putting it in a footnote, it's because they don't have to, because writers are generally credited; they can say one thing in one place, and you still know that that applies when you read a different work of theirs. Wikipedia articles aren't credited in article-space; we have to put whatever the reader needs to know in the article or, sometimes, in a link. And, to clarify, I didn't mean the footnote will be just one sentence, that was an over-simplification; we would have to say some historians cite him and here's why, others don't and here's why (and clearly, some don't cite him). There's a good chance that a carefully constructed footnote could become too much of a distraction, as you're suggesting, in which case it would be better to remove material that can't be cited to anyone else. If other historians have found his material essential and credible, as you're suggesting, then we can cite them, on their authority, rather than him. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Could you answer my question about why you want to approach it differently from professional historians? I'd genuinely like to know the answer. If they don't do what you suggest, why do we need to do it? What makes Wikipedia different? Prioryman (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Per the link you provided, the footnote says the same thing as your other sources say, and the same thing that you just said. POV would be hiding this critical information from the readers, which may affect how they choose to interpret the material. Sources in a Featured Article (per the WIAFA criteria, at least) have been vetted as "high quality"; that's a higher standard than "correct". I'm pretty sure about this one, Prioryman. And ... you completely misread me if you're saying that I don't think that this material is in any way controversial or objectionable. The same mind that wrote his other stuff wrote this stuff; that should create at least a little skepticism for any critical reader, unless they don't know about it, because we withheld the information. If you don't like the footnote, don't use him as a source. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're arguing that we should make an explicitly political point, in Wikipedia's own voice, about a particular source which reputable historians have used and continue to use. How is that compatible with either professional standards or NPOV, for that matter? You're not disputing that the source is accurate, you're not suggesting that it's in any way controversial, you're simply arguing that you don't like the author. I agree that his later works are deeply objectionable and unusable, but we have plenty of evidence that this particular work is well-regarded and well-used. Again, why are you arguing for a different approach from that taken by professional historians who have used this source? Prioryman (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, I'm opposing again. The Featured Article criteria require high-quality sources, so without a footnote, we're claiming that we believe David Irving is a high-quality source. Without an explanation, a reasonable interpretation would be that we believe he's a high-quality source in general. I don't intend to have any part, however tangential, in promoting this guy's career or his views. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've used the absolute minimum, basically just the translated quotes, but do you want me to revert the citations to the 1965 edition? (which will require changing a lot of the page numbers). I don't like the idea of putting a "footnote of shame" in the article itself – I can't think of any other article in which we would do that, and it certainly isn't consistent with how mainstream historians have treated that source. If they don't do it, we shouldn't do it. I wouldn't object to putting something on the article's talk page, though, as a record/reference on the issue. Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some of those hits do seem to suggest that people think his earlier material is necessary and reliable. I'm pretty sure others will disagree with me, but cites to his 1965 book are okay by me as long as you use the absolute minimum number necessary, and as long as you provide a footnote along these lines: "Despite being discredited as a Holocaust denier, [see for instance this link to the US public television series, and other refs from David Irving ], his earlier work continues to be cited by historians as the most complete treatment of (whatever)". Solidly source both parts of that statement, and I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The 1965 edition, which is in the British Library. The quotes referenced to the 2010 edition are unchanged from the 1965 original. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Did you consult the 1965 or the 2010 edition? - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Given Nick and Fifelfoo's last comments, I don't recommend trying to please everyone with a footnote at this point, it's probably not going to happen. If you're willing, then cite one or more credible, experienced historians who have read Irving's material. If not, then let's take this to WP:RSN. (The bar for sources at FAC is higher than the bar at RSN, of course, but that will bring more discussion and probably answer most of our questions.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that a footnote is not going to work at this point but here's the key problem. Yes, I can cite others for the same information. However, they in turn are citing Irving for that particular information. He is the one who dug it out of the German archives in the first place. If the objective here is to keep anything by Irving out of the articles on the V-weapons, that can't work, because his book has been so heavily used by writers for at least 40 years. Literally every hard-copy work I have on the topic - without exception - cites him. What you're asking me to do, in effect, is to launder Irving's information by hiding where it comes from. The bottom line is that if I cite someone else, in practice I will be citing someone who cites Irving for that particular piece of information. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This is all rather moot now, but I will say that I've never heard any criticism of The Mare's Nest as slanted history, unlike just about all of Irving's other books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)