Talk:Denis Avey/Archives/2011

Book title not ambiguous
I don't think the phrase "broke into" implies use of force, so needs explaining. One can "break into" a home through an unlocked door or window, for instance. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In the U.K. 'Breaking and entering' means using force to enter a premises. You can legally squat a premises if you enter through and open door or window (though the law is to be changed) but if you use force then you have committed a crime. Maybe American usage is different. I think the Book is primarily for the U.K. market. The Dutch title translates as 'The Man who wanted to go to Auschwitz' which drew my attention to this. The publishers have gone for the dramatic option - the BBC headline used a headline 'The Man who smuggled himself into Auschwitz' which was more accurate. One can only assume that the publishers decision to use 'break' for 'smuggled himself' is driven by commercial considerations and this leads us to wonder if other editorial choices in the book have been made for such reasons. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * Thanks for clarifying. I agree that marketing is important for publishers, so words are key. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wkiwatcher - thank you for being such a civilised editor and discussing before changing back. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Wikiwatcher - I know that my latest alteration could seem like a small detail, but it is one that has been given considerable prominence. Only yesterday I found a German article about this story which began "The orchestra was playing Wagner, 'ausgrechnet'" which means 'he of all people'. I can't find it any more. Also all the reader articles from the three articles in the Daily and Sunday Telegraph (UK) many of which expressed scepticism, have been taken down. Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Sections vs. facts
It seems that creating sections for relatively minor facts is unnecessary, since it adds table of contents items for details and single paragraphs, instead of topics. In any case, the use of the heading "Controversies" for a "reported" factual discrepancy creates an aura of a courtroom drama, as no one else calls this a "controversy." The date change can simply be be added to the book cite, and the other facts could be integrated, if possible. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Wikiwatcher this is a reasonable point. I had followed the Charles Coward article which has a small section called counter-claims. I think the article does need to be broken into sections but these could be of more equal size. The first part has become somewhat crowded. Sceptic1954 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * True. It could be divided at this point. Since his notability is based on an episode in his life, maybe sections relating to before, during, and after, would help. What do you think?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per above, I divided the article into a before and after period for readability. As for a few other sentences trimmed, the first, "Any discrepancy between the two reasons given for silence . . . " is not well explained. I'm not sure most readers would automatically know what discrepancies there were, and needs an explanation. The other material trimmed about another discrepancy is not clear: it stated: "The book appears not to contain Avey's claim, made previously in a newspaper article, . . .", so becomes a circular reference based on an opinion. Personally, it sounds trivial and somewhat irrelevant to the subject. Can you explain why referencing a composer is meaningful for such a brief article? In any case, it might be in the book, although the cited articles don't mention music or the other discrepencies/controversies. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

An additional "discrepancy," was trimmed for similar reasons to above, and which refers to the forthcoming book's title. You write, "The title is somewhat at variance with previous reports and pre-publication extracts . . . ." This too needs an explanation that does not require the reader to go to a number of sources to interpret your meaning. As written, it's more a personal conclusion and synthesis], which is not helpful.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher briefly (and I may return to it) I think you have too much disguised references to controversies. IMO discrepancies intwo account over when he left the camp are hardly minor. The seeming delay in publication seems pretty significant too. I started up sections anticipating that they would grow. Nobody much looked at the article yesterday but people who have ordered the book expecting to get it at the end of the week may start looking to the entry when copies don't arrive, wondering what's happening. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * As I tried to explain above, the "controversies" implied were created by a synthesis of material, not from any reliable sources. Please use such sources to support calling them "controversies," or even "discrepancies," for that matter. In any case, for someone trying to remember details of their war years 60 years earlier, any discrepancies of the type you point out might be expected. The phrasing trimmed had implied some dishonesty. The intrigue you suspect with the printing delay is unclear. To be honest, though, I even have a tough time following Sherlock Holmes stories. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher - you seem a remarkable nice person, discussing before altering and wanting to believe the best of everyone. I'm quite sure this article will look very different in the not too distant future. I can tell you that the words THE MAN WHO BROKE INTO AUSCHWITZ appear in large type at the top of the back cover of The Password is Courage 1988 about Charles Coward's experiences. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954
 * Thanks for comment. It's unfortunate that we don't have another's story called, "The Man Who Escaped from Auschwitz." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I noted a sharp increase in page view numbers yesterday and think this is quite likely this is connected with the new publication date so I think those accessing the page should readily be able to find some information on this, in case they are contemplating ordering the book. I've kept out the controversy even though I think it relevant to the new publication date. Wouldn't surprise me if there is a much bigger surge shortly - wikipaedia can be a site for breaking news! :-) Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954 Too late at night for any more changes but I definitely don't think the BBC made a documentary because of parallels with Charles Coward! Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954 The Book is now in shops despite the statement on the publisher's website.  I added material about Coward, the two account are complementary.  I used the word 'claim' not to imply disbelief but to indicate that accounts may not necessarily be substantiated. IMO as the book is not the first to make such claims it ought to refer to previous claims, but that is no criticism of the main author.Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Nor indeed is the foregoing a criticism of either author. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Doubts
People editing this article should read this.--andreasegde (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I had a half hour conversation with their sister newspaper 'The Mail on Sunday' ten days ago! Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

I'd be very interested to see publisher's rebuttal of Guy Walters claims but it isn't referenced. Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

I've removed the reference to Doug Bond. How is his suspicion of Charles Coward's completely uncorroborated story that he switched places with an inmate of Auschwitz relevant to this article? It hardly makes Brian Bishop and others' disbelief of Denis Avey's completely uncorroborated story of doing the same thing, which he first told in 2009, any less relevant. Quite the opposite! Coward told his story in 1947, and it was featured in a best-selling book in the 50s. That story is famous, and has been for over six decades. Neither Denis Avey nor Hodder nor anyone else attached to Avey's story has ever claimed that Charles Coward fabricated his claim after hearing about what Avey really did (and which he swore just two never-traced POWs to secrecy about). And if Coward was a liar, the vetting process for Heroes of the Holocaust, which both Coward and Avey have been awarded, appears suspect. But really: why is Avey's uncorroborated story of breaking into Auschwitz of 2009 any more convincing that Coward's of doing exactly the same thing in the same way, which he gave as evidence in a war crimes trial in 1947?

Ernst Lobethal's name was spelled two different ways in the article. He is called Ernst (and Ernest) Lobethall in various sources, but in The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz his name is spelled 'Lobethal', so I have changed it to that throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.147.79 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not "News"
Per guidelines to avoid reporting news (#4) items, especially in a lead, I trimmed this sentence. In any case, the sentence, Avey's agent appears to indicate that a rebuttal is forthcoming but this has yet to appear, is redundant. Not only within the same sentence, but the entire detail is implied from the preceding sentence. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

published in 14 countries
What are the 14 countries, do they include Ascension island, the British Virgin Islands, Tristran da Cunha? This sounds as though it could be some publishers hype fed to a local paper. Since when were local newspapers in the U.K. ever considered reliable? I think the previous version of Dutch and German translations gave a better idea. The U.S version is coming out in a month of two, the U.K. version already out since end March. Hardicanute (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Hardiancanute, formerly known as Sceptic 1954.
 * The writer included an email address so details can be obtained easily. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a rhetorical question so I'm not going to follow it up. I just think the idea of quoting newspapers verbatim as reliable sources doesn't make for a very good article. Hardicanute (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

use of foreign language sources
There is an interview with Avey dated 8/5/11 to be found in german at What are guidelines on quoting foreign language sources? Hardicanute (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardicanute (talk • contribs) 10:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC) this would imply that Avery had knowledge of the German language which of course is claimed in the autobiography. However this is a quote from a German newspapers translation of an interview given by Avey in English. It should be removed therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishoppeterdevon (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Bishop Peter, I can't read all of your comment. Could you re-present it. Thanks. Hardicanute (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

So he crossed the Mediterranean on a crate in an attempt to escape to Greece according to the main article. Greece at that time was occupied by Germans so how could he be escaping to Greece ? As for crossing the Mediterranean on a crate this is the sort of story children aged 5 write. The distance is over 500 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishoppeterdevon (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Watt synthesis
The material added about Donald Watt includes synthesis and original opinions, and does not belong. In addition, adding an editor's personal interpretation of a museum sound archive is not a reliable source. Just a few examples of the phrasing, many of which imply conclusions:


 * "Despite this, questions remain:"
 * "the account . . . is very different to those that he gave . . ."
 * "the most substantial of these was an interview"
 * "This can only refer to Donald Watt . . ." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

General Comments
Avey is only of interest to readers of Wikipedia because of the book that he co-authored in which he claims to have surreptitiously entered the concentration camp at Auschwitz III - Monowitz. In the real world, this has proved to be a controversial claim. Whilst Avey's versions of the story have appeared unquestioned on a number of occasions on the BBC and in derivative press reporting, it must be remembered that the co-author of Avey's book - Rob Broomby - is the BBC journalist who has publicised Avey's claims on radio and TV. The reality is that since the book appeared, a number of individuals - some of whom are authorities on Auschwitz and related matters - have cast serious doubt on it in various different media. It seems odd and perverse that Wikipedia barely reflects this controversy. The fact of the matter is that a little archival research by me, at the UK National Archives in Kew and at the Imperial War Museum, has shown that some of Avey's claims about his military service prior to his capture are exaggerated, and that he has told a profoundly different, extremely unlikely and mutually exclusive version of the Auschwitz 'break-in' story on the record some ten years before the publication of his book when, one must presume, his memory was more reliable. Why is it not possible for Wikipedia to reflect this? The word 'synthesis' has been bandied around here but surely almost the whole of Wikipedia is a synthesis of information from a range of different sources. Wikiwatcher1 your edits of this article are antithetical to improving it because they seem designed to deny an important aspect of the Denis Avey 'story', that is that his claims are not believed by many people and that they have good reasons for not believing him.Griz999 (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to echo and support Griz999's additions and his comments above. The story Avey and Broomby tell in the book The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz directly contradicts, in fundamental ways, the story Avey related to the Imperial War Museum ten years previously, to the extent that at least one of them simply cannot be true. Smuggling oneself into a camp would have been an extraordinarily dangerous thing to have done - nobody could fail to remember if they did such a thing alone or accompanied. He also claimed to the Imperial War Museum that he went into a totally different camp. Again, one would probably remember which one, seeing as one was a death camp (Imperial War Museum) and one wasn't (book). If Avey's version of events in the book is the false one, clearly that book needs to be withdrawn from sale. If the Imperial War Museum version is the untrue one, the same question applies - why did Avey lie about his experiences at a POW camp during the war? He has done so either way, and whether the book remains for sale or not this is in itself notable for a number of obvious reasons, as he is now the best-selling author of a book about these experiences, which affect the history of the Holocaust. Holocaust hoaxes are a fairly big deal, generally. The additions to the article on these points are all referenced from primary sources, and are indisputable. The two versions cannot be reconciled in any way. Before deleting valuable edits for reasons of 'synthesis', I think Wikipedia editors should remember that verifiable facts should always be left alone. In this case, the facts are precisely as Griz999 has written. Rather than simply reverting back and forth, I think it would be a better idea for an encylopedia to be on the side of facts than provably untrue claims made by Denis Avey. (Not sure how to 'sign in' here, but this is Jeremy Duns.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.40.224 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As you know, Wikipedia is not a primary source, merely an encyclopedic one that must rely on outside reliable sources. Considering that you both feel you have solid evidence of a hoax, it's only logical to contact one of the 30 references cited in the article. Six of those references relate to the reactions and questions you mentioned, so the doubters have been cited. If any new published material becomes available, that too can be added in context. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, are you saying that the Imperial War Museum, which is Britain's official body for collecting war testimony, is not an outside reliable source? Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.144.142 (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Historian's claim of doubt
Wikiwatcher. The first paragraph as it stands is hardly satisfactory but as the head of the Auschwitz Birkenau museum has now come out and doubted Avey's story - and who could be more authoritative? - I think that needs to be said prominently. This has now become quite a fast-moving news story and the article will probably settle into a somewhat different form in the future. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * The article relied on to discredit Avey's claim is a weak source, at best, especially for use in the lead. In fact, the article barely mentions his "doubt" at the end. Nor does a related citation like this one add credibility to his work at the museum.  It really has no place in a brief article unless cited by more than a single Canadian newspaper, and certainly not in the lead, as it turns an isolated mention of "doubt," into a predominant major fact, when it's very value seems questionable.  Avey himself has stated that there are no living "witnesses."


 * In addition, the continual replacement of his and other source's statements, with your calling them mere "claims," throughout the article, is odd, where no one besides you has cited that word. This may be a point of view phraseology, and not of value. Your opinions and interpretation are certainly interesting, but not useful in this article. Hoping you read the linked guidelines and respond if appropriate. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

They are claims, just that, especially if there are no independent witnesses. It's not a question of how prominently the canadian article features the statement from the head of the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum, it's the fact that that person has said it. He hasn't just said there are no witnesses, he has said that such an act is highly unlikely. There can hardly be a more authoritative source. Surely wikipaedia should be about quoting authoritative sources not simply what is most prominent in the newspapers. I am not aware of adding the source on the stag weekends, it's not something I'd mean to do.

Avey is famous because of a claim he had made and because of the people who have supported him. By all means list those who might support his claim but the fact that there has been such a prominent rebuttal should be immediately available to readers. If you want take a look at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372193/The-British-soldier-broke-Auschwitz-Dennis-Avey-swapped-uniforms-Jewish-pal-witness-atrocities.html#comments which are reader comments from an online edition of British newspaper on Avey yesterday - not necessarily representative of the whole swathe of British public opinion but surely very significant. Hopefully now you will agree that we need a controversies section. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * Obviously, anonymous article comments are not acceptable in Wikipedia. And Wikipedia editors are not allowed to create controversies without valid controversial facts from reliable sources. For anyone, even a museum historian, to comment that it's "extremely risky" for anyone to break into a concentration camp, surrounded by barbed-wire and guard towers, is not a fact of any value. It makes one wonder why he would even say that. And his added comment that he "cannot see any reason for doing such an exchange," adds nothing.


 * The irony of adding such meaningless statements, apparently among the few published ones so far questioning Avey's account, it's that they enhance the validity of the events he writes about, by contrast. If the public is indeed interested in his new book, as you mention, and the media takes interest, there will be plenty of investigative journalists and writers able to support or discredit any of the details over time. I'd say let them do their work and we should simply add new material, if any, from reliable sources. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher - is that okay by you? I've simply restored the controversies section so that anyone linking to the article can see there have been objections. This section can be expanded as and when. Yes I think the journalists will do their work quick enough and then there will be some sources to cite. I think it should be clear that Avey's acount is merely a claim and it is up to individuals to decide whether to credit it or not but state for claim is okay by me. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Wikiwatcher - can you explain why you removed my last edit? I would have thought that by any account the objection raised by the Museum head is significant. Why should readers be denied knowledge of this? I haven't put it in the lead Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954
 * There is no controversy, as explained. Such unsupported section creations imply a non-neutral point of view.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't accept there is no controversy. You can rightly object to my putting the question in the opening paragraph, but to deny that questions have been raised is not to be neutral. I have one previous experience of editing a wiki article and just followed common sense, many other people were wading in citing guidelines but then a top editor intervened and effectively backed up everything I did. Would a different word than controversy be acceptable - you preferred 'state' to 'claim'? Questions regarding Avey's account. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * Saying it's "extremely risky" to break into a prison is not what's called a "controversial" statement. Nor is the fact that he "cannot see any reason for doing such an exchange." In fact, the quotes are so insignificant to the article that even a section called "Trivia" would not be valid, since they essentially say nothing worth noting. Personally, I'd doubt if he would want to be quoted saying that, especially in Wikipedia. Signing off for now. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher. I can see your point in that his words taken in isolation might seem insignificant, it is the contruction put upon them by the journalist, but there is no reason to doubt that it's a valid construction. This guy is an academic. He is also contactable by email so you or I can let him know he is being quoted in this way and he can object if he wants. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Wikiwatcher - I have tried to respond to the questions you raised and re-inserted some of the deleted material in what I hope would be a more acceptable form. I think it should be clear to anyone accessing the article that the account for which he has become famous is not universally accepted - the key thing is that someone in a position of considerable authority is reported as expressing doubt, even if the reasons for doubt as reported do not necessarily amount to much. However I have tried to set out the issues in a non-controversial way, it may be that Mr Setkiewicz thinks that Avey couldn't have entered Auschwitz in the way that he described without being caught. I have brought to the attention of Mr Setkiewicz that his statement is cited in this article Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954
 * Your revision is more balanced, but could use some toning down as it seems to be written in an overly skeptical style. His comments, quoted briefly at the end of a single news story, sound like they were not thought out, as if someone asked him about Avey and he gave a quick, off the cuff, opinion. It certainly does not take a prison historian to conclude that breaking into it was "risky." Nor would it help an article, or any professional, i.e., quoting a botanist saying that "grass is green," or an astronomer offering their opinion that "the sky is blue" or the "earth is round." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The comments in the section added should be integrated into related details, not separated, for two reasons: they are not questions, and labeling it "testimony" adds irrelevant drama. He is not on trial. No one, it seems, is questioning his personal account. His book has not been reviewed enough by neutral sources to imply that this is a controversy of any sort.  In fact, quoting the historian's minimal comments implies the exact opposite, as explained earlier. The essence of quoting the historian is that what Avey did was "incredible," but not necessarily "unbelievable," as your embellishments imply.  I'll revise to keep your personal "skepticism" in context, pending any future reliable sources. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, your changes look fine to me. Thanks again for proceding by consensus. (I was in an edit war previously) Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Further to previous I don't think that stressing that Avey's statements which are supported by others are 'claims' is unreasonable. The logic seems to be that some of his claims have been supported by others and that these show he committed acts of kindness therefore we should give him the benefit of the doubt on the rest. That's not an unreasonable, but again it's not unreasonable for anyone who might find implausabilities in the story to investigate. By using the word 'claim' in certain places it highlights the fact that his claims cannot be independently substantiated. I'm not going to revise in the light of this at present however. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * Adding the word "claims" before a statement from anyone, implies doubt. It also implies dishonesty, falsehood, ulterior motives, etc. If Avey had a son, for example, it would be strange to say that "Avey claims to have a son." Such implications should naturally be avoided unless reliable outside sources do so. The historian's comments don't come close to that level, as he simply states the obvious.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it implies lack of third party substantiation. Yes it implies doubt, but unless the claims are shown to be false not necesessarily all the other things you mention. But maybe it shouldn't be over-used. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Wikiwatcher. Re your statement > If Avey had a son, for example, it would be strange to say that "Avey claims to have a son." < I can't think of an instance where a man that a certain other man is his son and this proves controversial, but I can think of instances where a woman claims that a man is her son - the judgement of Solomon in the Bible - many instances where a woman might claim that her son is the son of a particular man is her son - for maintenace - and instances or where a man might claim a particular man to be his father - for inheritance or sucesiion - all of which are controversial. With unsopported claims which are likely to prove controversial, and there is abundant evidence from newspaper comments' boards that many people doubt Avey's claims, then the fact that they are unsupported should be made clear.

I do now have an email from the Raoul Wallenberg foundation which states that Avey's witness was Eernst Lobethal. Is there any way that can be cited? Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954
 * Added it. It was included in one of the existing citations.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find it was the journalist Rob Broomby who found this tape. Lobethal didn't witess the 'break in' - that has no independent verification Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954 Wikiwatcher, I reorganised the lead paragraph so that it states what Avey is famous for. I have used the word 'claim' here and so there is no reason to go on using it throughout. Everyone who discusses this, whether they believe or not, agree that it comes down to whether or not you believe Avey so I don't think it's perjorative. You can use the words 'say' or 'state' for the remainder of his account - I would agree that repeatedly using the word 'claim' there would be expressing too much disbelief. Also, as you know how to do illustrations, can you get an english-language cover as illustration? I don't think that Avey received the award for his claim of breaking into Auschwitz but rather for giving cigarettes to Lobethal which saved Lobethal's life, the criteria for the award are that the recipient 'should have acted so as to preserve life inthe face of enemy persecution' or words to that effect. Entering Auschwitz doesn't seem to have acheived this. I hope you will think this is fair.Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * Yes, the phrasing is fair. However, any implications that because no one "witnessed his break in" there is reason for doubt, may be a bit weak. I think few British journalists would use that as a reason to undermine the events described - unless they truly dislike British war heroes, anyway.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, this is a matter of personal psychology. I think I quoted this before from the Bible 'In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.' Anything which is based on the testimony of one person only is open to doubt. As far as journalists go this story made the BBC just before the last prime minister Gordon Brown launched his 'Hero of the Holocaust Award' and immediately became the subject of a six-figure sum book deal. I've yet to see any reviews by the 'quality' British newspapers, except for a rehash of a Press Association release in the Independent. Perhaps journalists are reluctant to be seen to question it, but they haven't rushed to endorse it either.Sceptic1954 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Wikiwatcher - is it possible to insert an image of an english-language cover? I don't know how to do this. I think the image from amazon.com website might be preferable as likely to be to be the larger-selling edition. It may be likely to attract more notice in the future as Avey never claimed to have broken into the camp shown on the cover. Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954
 * Good idea. I'll try to find a replacement.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section
The 2nd paragraph of the "Authentication/Controversies" section seems to have a flaw. The first sentence concludes with "has been disputed." However, the entire rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with that conclusion or anything "disputed." This should be fixed or removed to avoid confusing the subjects. There are also various redundant phrases along with some that are implied throughout all the paragraphs. I'll trim these off. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher, I can see your point about not having 'news' in lead but I think readers should be aware when the WJC made their call for verification. Also I don't think that the 'smuggling into Auschwitz' story should appear under 'Life' as it isn't verified.  How about under 'claims'.  Not that I'm that fussed, readres get the idea from the lead.  Also have you any idea what's happening to page view stats?  the higher these are the more incentive to edit.  Sceptic1954 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * The WJC publisher request is footnote-linked to the news article which shows the date, so anyone can quickly see it. Once precise dates are added, there is no limit on how or when they are used subsequently, and the article quickly reads like a timely news story instead of a general encyclopedia. It's even unacceptable to use relative terms like "recently" or " soon" since the article becomes incorrect eventually. The "claims" and "been questioned" terms are fully announced in the lead paragraph, so there is no ambiguity by allowing his "statements." Plus there's a full section about "controversies." If the term "claims" is overused, it creates an apparent bias to readers, but this brief article seems fairly balanced at this point and has an abundance of news citations.


 * The page stats program probably has some bug. I've seen this happen about 3 times a year, but it eventually gets fixed. (P.S. To indent a paragraph or sentence, just add a colon for each tab stop.) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiwatcher, thanks for points about dates. I still think life section a bit overlong but I think people can get straight to the controversies which I imagine is the point of current interest. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Proposed tidying up + Neutral Point of View
Wikiwatcher. I think the article requires tidying up, the life section focuses too much on the entering into Auschwitz claim, which doesn't even take up 15 per cent of the book. Do you have the book, BTW? I think that the life section should differentiate between what is either ascertained fact or uncontroversial and what is claim, and most of it should be the former. For me 'neutral point of view' means neither accepting or rejecting Avey's account of having entered the camp and therefore portraying it as unverified claim. NPOV is not somewhere between acceptance and doubt, it is between acceptance and rejection. The article should reflect that. Please let me know what you think. This entry does come up first when you google Denis Avey so it's worth some effort. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * It seems that the article has more likely already slipped into a non-neutral POV balance. Of the 16 sources cited, the Daily Mail article is the only one that focuses on those who doubt the story could have happened. Note that 1/16 is about 6% of the news stories, however the "controversies" section is about 20% of the article. To be "neutral," the guidelines state:
 * Editing from a neutral point of view NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
 * The quote from the WJC seems redundant and effectively adds nothing: "We do not know if his account is correct or not . . ." Nor do the other quotes published in the Daily Mail: Setkiewicz's "do not believe," and "highly risky," Bishop's "do not believe," Lobethal's daughter, "do not believe," and Pivnik's "highly unlikely." None of those non-believers' opinions do more than accentuate their own personal doubt.  The irony is that they could have the effect of accentuating the "heroic" nature of his story.
 * Avey stated in interviews, If I was caught, the guards would have shot me out of hand as an imposter. No question at all. . . We worked alongside the striped Jews and we weren’t allowed to speak to them. If you spoke to them, the bullet. Therefore the secrecy of the events were essential, and witnesses are not expected. Hence, an opinion that Avey breaking into a concentration camp seems "unbelievable," is stating a logical conclusion, and not any great revelation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, there is a clear distinction between an action being 'unbelievable' and an action 'not having witnesses'. Whether you believe Avey or not seems it is equally a matter of opinion one way or another. I don't seem why there should be an assumption that Avey is telling the truth on matters that can't be verified. I agree there is too much repetion of the sceptic's point of view, but think equally there is too much detail of the 'break-in' which belongs to an earlier stage of the article. As for judging proportionality you could take the totality of reliable news stories from the last year or you can try to make an estimate of significant sources. Most of the news articles are repetitions of the same story and rest upon the authority of Avey/the BBC. The Daily Mail quotes some fresh sources, Piotr Setkiewicz, Ingrid Lobethal, the WJC - surely weighty authorities The WJC statement sums up the doubter's position and there is a quote from Avey in the same article - the latest to be published, which is useful. Apart from anything else the Daily Mail article and WJC statament contains some of the most recent statements and it is open to the publishers, Avey or the BBC to answer these. I would like very much to highlight that no response has been forthcoming, although one appears to have been indicated. In fact we had an unsourced edit a few days ago that the publishers had issued a rebuttal and any sourced statement should of course be included.Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * Since the lead paragraph ends with "the World Jewish Congress has asked the book's publishers to verify its accuracy," it's understood that no response has been made. The article shouldn't read like a tribunal or deposition, so nothing else is necessary. With the "controversies" section already overloaded with the opinions of non-believers, the article is heavily weighted with quotes which say, in effect, "I don't believe it." Some sceptics have even said so before the book came out or the Daily Mail article was written.


 * I'd suggest that we just let the public and writers review the book and offer their analysis instead of us. Avey has already appeared on the BBC and made other live appearances where detailed questions were asked, including Oxford and with Gordon Brown. Let's give our free press time to form their own questions and opinions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt we will get further reviews from 'quality' papers, reviewers may prefer to avoid it. I think the lack of reviews significant, but it's not something that can be cited. The controversy can be brought up to date with the latest statements from author and publisher in totallyjewish.com. As it stands it is overlong, with much repetition. Sceptic1954 (talk)sceptic1954 —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC).

I have replaced section on early life with material drawn entirely from Avey's book which sets the Auschwitz experience in the context of his whole life, I removed extensive description of the swap and included details about the cigarettes. I trust this will be thought reasonable. More amendments to follow. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Wikiwatcher, I trust this will be okay with you. I've greatly reduced the number of statements which cast doubt on Avey's account and have ended with the rebuttal from Avey's agent. For autobiography I have used his book and will supply page details if you think this okay. For those parts of the autobiography which are controversial and unsupported by external testimony I have written 'say' - after all wikipaedia is surely about using verified external sources and this indicates simply that it is unverified without I hope seeming perjorative. Anyway I hope this gives a nice structure within which we and any others can work. I don't think it needs to be too long, otherwise the essential points become lost in a mass of detail. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * I agree that some of the phrasing and bio details are simpler. However, there are too many problems with the revised article that are not usable. For one, the citations are not formatted correctly, with many sources coming from a single article; the revisions, relying on the book, are mostly against reliable source guidelines; replacing usable RSs with unreliable ones, and removing a number of other quoted sources turns the bio into an essay format (i.e. "but appears to have decided . . .")
 * Additional problems: some of the added sources are subscription only and can't be accessed; one is no longer at link. In general, a reader using the few sources will learn little about Avey from 3rd party neutral sources, but instead be presented with primarily the controversial issues. Unfortunately, fixing these on your revisions is not possible due to those guidelines. I therefore restored to the earlier status. Please also review guidelines for biographies of living person. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision format problems
Can you please be more specific about the problems. First of all it should be possible to format citations correctly - I can put in page numbers. What is the single article ? do you mean the book ? if so what could be more reliable than using Avey's own book ? I have the book - you have yet to answer as to whether you have it. Are online secondary surces to be preferred over printed primary sources ? I use 'but appears to have decided' because it the statement is slightly less than categoric, but don't see what that has to do with being like an essay. Can you specify the subscription only source - I didn't have to use any subscription and I checked all sources yesterday.

Anyway did you agree about neutral point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Further - what does this mean "In general, a reader using the few sources will learn little about Avey from 3rd party neutral sources, but instead be presented with primarily the controversial issues." Can you expand ? Most of the article is a summary of Avey's life in his own words. There doesn't seem too much controversial about the 'recognition' section. I've rather reduced the controversy section. Can you specify third paty neutral sources? I arranged the article so that Avey's agent had the last word. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * I'll try to chip away at answering all those questions (not all at once, however,) but please take a few minutes to review guidelines for biographies of living persons and adding usable citations, since we should follow them when possible. I first pointed out the problem with the completely revised citations you added, and if you compare that list with the current one, you'll see the problem visually. As for replacing some reliable sources with a single one, I was partly referring to the removal of a number of sources, such as The Telegraph, a BBC article, a Los Angeles Times article, the news story about his appearance at Oxford, or a Times Online article. However, your rewrite of the bio included such problems as listing the single, and most controversial, Daily Mail article,  as four different references, listing two different unusable sources to the publisher's statements — one showing a blank page, and another linking to an unacceptable cache file, ie. deleted by them —, or adding ex-bbc.net as a source, which appears to be a tabloid, and used twice as a reference, and using a questionable Book Brunch with a brief bit of trivia, but was subscription to read any more than a blurb. While it's understandable that you'd rely on the Daily Mail article so heavily, being that you said you spent a half hour talking to them a week before the article came out, it doesn't correct the other issues.


 * As you can see, from just the revisions and unformatted new citations, the article has shifted dramatically to using citations about the "controversial" aspects of the book, and away from his own quoted statements made to numerous other reliable sources. So the problem was not simply "fixing' citation formats so they are readable (with author, publication, date, etc) which I've fixed a number of times earlier, but the cumulative problems. No, I haven't seen the book. And as I mentioned, I did think some of your phrasings about his life details were fine. But there was no easy way for anyone to redo all the problems and simply reverting to the earlier good version was necessary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Defining "controversies"
First of all I spoke to the Mail on Sunday and do not think that had anything to do with the article the Daily Mail published. I'd rather not use the Daily Mail article as a source, except to point to the questions raised. I can give a reference to Diarmuid Jeffries straight from his book. I tried to base the autobiography section entirely on Avey's book. I am quite happy to give page numbers throughout this section and to add to them by Broomby's online articles for the BBC website, surely the next most reliable source. The publisher's agent recognises that journalistic reports of what Avey is supposed to have said may not always be totally accurate.

I think it is fair to cite the controversy caused, after all it is the Head of the Auschwitz Museum and the World Jewish Congress, which is affiliated to the U.N. who are raising queries. Avey has his supporters and a couple of them have made brief additions to the article during the last few days, which I deleted simply because they were unsourced. They are there to speak up if he feels, or they feel he is maligned. I just wish Avey's publisher would come up with the 'rebuttal' the flashed up briefly on Avey's agent's wesbite - they've had more than a week.

The specific problems with sources are not insuperable. A different ending is possible using quotes from Avey and the publisher at totallyjewish.com which would avoid the cached source. I don't see why the BBC inhouse newspaper should be problematic and it is valuable in giving an account of how the story emerged. Furthermore it is written by Avey's co-author.

The lead was toned down considerably. We could use 'questions' instead of 'controversies'. If you agree to the tripartite structure - autobiography (to 2010) - recognition - questions/criticisms I would like to rework within it. It is also absolutely chronological. I split off the last ten years of his life as clearly there is some information about how the story emerged which isn't given in Avey's book, nobody seems to dispute this. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * It seems that most of what you say is logical. I assume you agree with the need for correctly formatting reliable sources, and that except where fully redundant, including a publication cite is safer than deleting it. In any case we should not do a complete rewrite, but a portion at a time. Since many of your changes involve your original creation of the "controversies" section quite a few days ago, and you just stated above that "I think it is fair to cite the controversy caused," then that subject certainly needs clarification since it's somewhat ambiguous:


 * What exactly is the "controversy" about? Is it about whether he was actually interned?; whether he had physical or visual access to Auschwitz? whether he actually befriended Loebenthal, gave him cigarettes, helped him survive, visited his sister in London, escaped during the death march, smuggled himself into the camp, risked his life, or what?  Is it about his actually seeing with his own eyes what conditions there were like? Or is there a controversy about those conditions being as bad as he describes?  Is it because the story is similar to Coward's, thereby potential plagiarism?


 * Currently the "controversies" section is based on statements from various non-believers who did not witness Avey's internment; the WJC has asked for "verification" of the story, Yad Vashem was "unable" to confirm it. You cited an article noting that a fellow inmate of Auschwitz states, “I can’t understand how he did it." Likewise the historian you contacted couldn't understand why he would do such a thing. So a clarification of what the controversy involves is required at least. Hope you agree. If having "doubt" is equivalent to creating a "controversy," the section should explain this. If you are going to use his autobiographical book as a source, which is a logical step, then how can anyone separate verified facts from unverified facts, since he wrote his own story? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher. First having looked at guidelines I can see the need to be ‘conservative’ in tone as Avey is a living person. That’s a very different thing to writing as an ‘Avey-believer’

I did do my ‘rewrite’ in sections but you weren’t online to comment. I wouldn’t call it a complete rewrite but I did the editing work on my Word Processor rather than online. I was following the structure and material of the previous article, and trying to give it a pleasing order - it had grown very haphazard. It leaves things open for new material to be added if and when Avey’s publishers issue a rebuttal. You will notice that I had toned down the lead and given much more space to Avey’s own account.

The main elements of the controversy as raised by Walters, Setkiewicz and WJC are 1	Did the publishers take enough steps to verify the book? 2	Did he smuggle himself in? 3	Differing accounts of why he didn’t give evidence after war?

In using Avey’s book as a source: we can separated ‘widely challenged’ assertions from the rest, the former are 2 and 3 in the preceding list.

I like the new image very much and if you can find an alternative book image think it might be best at the head of the article - it shows the subject. Also he begins the book with his account of meeting Gordon Brown at Downing Street and it relates to the British Hero of the Holocaust award which we both agree should be in the lead, even before mention of the book. If the Dutch version of the book is the only one you can find then we could put that lower and link it to the text by saying the book was published in German and Dutch.

If you now appreciate the basic thinking behind the rewrite would it be acceptable to restore and rework it a section at a time ? Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Wikiwatcher. I forget to mention about Charles Coward. The question of plagarism follows for those who consider/suspect that Avey made up the 'break-in' story. I didn't put it in the revision because I was trying not to have too much on 'controversies'. My aim had been to make the total amount on 'controversies' quite small, but also to make it clear. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954
 * The section at a time editing is OK, but since the "controversy" aspect is important for a biography of a living person, or any bio for matter, we should at least clarify that topic. Your 3 controversies listed above sound more like questions, than controversies. Being literal, some synomyms for a "controversy," as defined are, altercation, bickering, dispute, embroilment, falling-out, miff, squabble. But none of the 3 you listed sound like controversies:
 * Whether any publisher makes an investigation into the truth or accuracy of a writer's autobiography doesn't sound like a controversy. Many biographies of famous people vary widely on various life issues, but the author doesn't automatically create controversy by their interpretation. I'm not even sure a publisher has a moral or legal duty to investigate the accuracy of anyone's autobiography. So this being called a controversy needs some support from at least some reliable sources, not us;
 * Whether he smuggled himself in, as he describes, can certainly be questioned or even doubted, and the article lists those who do. But those who are doubtful can't unilaterally create a controversy, only questions. If someone who played some part in the events described state that what they saw was different from what was described, and clearly "dispute" the account in a reliable source, then a "controversy" can be said to exist. There are countless stories amazing stories by people throughout history, without proof or eye-witnesses. People can doubt the event, or even say it was impossible, but that wouldn't make it a notable controversy, it appears;
 * The fact that there were differing accounts of why he didn't give evidence after the war doesn't sound like a controversy alone. It might if he had a legal duty to do so and there was some actual dispute about his not doing so. When reading about any war, or even when reading almost any news story, learning that there are "differing accounts" of the story is always assumed and expected.
 * It's worthwhile thinking this through because while you, and some reliable sources, have requested collaborating evidence of his story, and others doubt it, there seems to be no actual published "dispute," and no published "controversy." Maybe a good place to start is to find out whether Britain was required to verify Avey's story before declaring him a "hero." If they did not, for example, it's hardly incumbent upon Avey's publisher to do so. Without this minimal effort, the article could be creating a "controversy" where none exists. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher. The most recent published reference to Avey in mainstream U.K. (or any other media) contains this statement "The central claim of Denis Avey's The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz is hotly disputed by some who say he could not have got into the death camp" Please note word 'disputed' here, one of your synonyms for 'controversy'. [+ 'd', to be precise] I'm not wedded to the word 'controversy' if you think another better.

Nobody has unilaterally created a controversy, if someone disputes what Avey has asserted there is a dispute or controversy. Avey is the first party, the person disputing it the second. To my mind Avey's agent thought there was a controversy because she appears to have issued and then withdrawn a rebuttal. In fact Avey stated on the withdrawn rebuttal that he 'does not want to enter into a controversy with Coward'. I don't think Avey's supporters would dispute that Guy Walters and others have 'entered into a controversy' with Avey.

It appears that Avey received his award from the British Government for obtaining cigarettes for Lobethal. That was verified and nobody mainstream disputes that. It seems also to be accepted by Avey himself story of entering into Auschwitz is not verified. [the quote is in totallyjewish.com, but I can't reach it now] and the WJC clearly considers that the publishers should have made efforts to verify that. There is some suggestion in both the book [p.236] and withdrawn rebuttal that because Avey claims to haver seen an Arbeit macht Frei sign in Auschwitz III and so have two other people this constitutes corroboration, but I haven't found any published account of this. I think in general usage of the term there is plenty of 'controversy' surrounding this book, how wikipaedia should treat this is another matter. Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Wikiwatcher, further to the above the following appeared in a post on Amazon this morning "(Lobethal was the man who Avey helped survive by smuggling cigarettes to him and Yad Vashem have praised Avey highly for this. There is no dispute about that part of the story).Denis Avey does indeed mention the swap... " The clear implication is that the writer, a supporter of Avey's, considers there is a dispute about other parts of the story, and from the context the dispute relates to the swap. Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * 1 From your comments above, the only detail of substance that can be cited is what Avey was awarded for. You say "it appears" to be because he gave cigarettes to Lobethal. But The Telegraph article about the award says "Mr Avey, 91, exchanged places with a Jewish inmate at Auschwitz while he was a prisoner of war - gathering facts about conditions and helping an inmate survive by sharing supplies."The Telegraph Since Avey's notability rests on his heroic acts, then what he did to deserve the award is fundamental to the article. While most of the other comments you made are reasonable speculations, they are not really usable due to guidelines about original research and reliable sources. Noting that some are "disputing" his story, ie. "doubting," "questioning" or simply "not believing" it, does not make it a "controversy." Saying something is "hotly disputed," is common jargon unless a reliable source states that fact. And continuing to rely on deleted rebuttal statements from a publisher doesn't help anything.


 * If I can digress for a second, I'm a bit unclear about the "hot dispute" that is apparently going on in the U.K. To be honest, I'm not sure what's being disputed, or why. You imply that everyone agrees that Avey befriended Lobenthal and their friendship (behind bars) led to Avey bringing him cigarettes and discussing personal life details, such as Avey getting his sister's address, etc. Is the heated debate simply about whether Avey and Lobenthal also exchanged clothes so Avey could impersonate him for a few nights? Are the doubters claiming that the clothing exchange was impossible?


 * Maybe I've watched too many old war movies and have become used to other heroic war stories about "great escapes" etc. (I once had a personal hand-written love letter by America's # hero, Audie Murphy, to his girlfriend, and future wife, while he was a soldier in Europe.) But the irony of this U.K. affair is that I recently added quite a bit to the Jack Lalanne article, who did what I still feel is totally impossible, and yet there were hundreds of witnesses. For instance, at the age of 70, while he was handcuffed, shackled, and fighting strong winds and currents, he towed 70 rowboats, one with several guests, for a mile! When he was 65, he towed 10 boats carrying 77 people for over one mile in less than one hour! I've been planning on editing the Harry Houdini article for clarity, and his feats are likewise all unbelievable.  So when I read about "hot disputes" over Avey's story, even without witnesses, I  scratch my head.


 * When I was in college, Billy Hayes appeared to discuss the film based on his escape story autobiography, Midnight Express. He was an American locked in a Turkish prison for over 4 years. He escaped by putting on a prison guard's uniform and walking past a number of Turkish guards who looked at his unshaven, dirty face, and yet he finally walked out of the prison to freedom. He did this alone, and obviously had no witnesses (watch trailer). Unbelievable? Of course! But his story never became a "hotly disputed" controversy. Why should it? We believe what we want to believe. Sorry for the digression. --[User:Wikiwatcher1|Wikiwatcher1]] (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision of 4/20/2011
WW. I numbered your para 1 above. Re this It isn't 100% clear what Avey was cited for but it appears to be for the cigarettes alone. I can't find a citation but to qualify for an award the person's actions must have preserved life and the BBC house newspaper article talks about Avey winning the award without even mentioning the swap. Iwrite 'appear' not because I am vague but where there is any element of doubt. If Wikipaedia thinks that mainstream newspapers are necessarily accurate then that doesn't say much about Wikipaedia's reliability, we should use them but do so cautiously and realise there may be better authorities: newspapers are always getting things wrong. I know wiki jargon talks about 'secondary sources', well I'm educated to go to 'primary sources' of which the best are Avey's own considered words in his book and next his co-author Broomby's words. You said yesterday that 'dispute' is a synononym of 'controversy', now you appear to say completely the opposite. I find it difficult to proceed by consensus when if I consider you are chaning the meanings of words from one day to the next. I will restore the previous version but develop it with a more conservative tone. I would think that the latest version will be rather more conservative that the version to which you reverted. I will add further references later. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * I sectioned off the earlier discussion of the problems that should be corrected to keep the changes. The section includes links to how to use and format citations. Overall, once the problems are fixed, it should be better.  There were again a number of relevant cites deleted, most of which should be added back to help readers.


 * Yes, "controversy" and "dispute" are synonyms. But only as nouns, not verbs. When people "dispute" something, the active verb is synonymous with "doubt, question, argue, quibble, debate, challenge," etc. You explained how you combined the noun and verb, "Please note word 'disputed' here, one of your synonyms for 'controversy'. [+ 'd', to be precise]" They're related, but not the same. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * However, it would be useful to expand on the key element of his notability, if possible. I may be alone in this opinion, but it seems that a British PM declaring someone a national "hero" for giving a prisoner "cigarettes alone," as you speculate, sets a pretty low standard for heroism. Did he risk his life for that? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WW. If you listen to the interview here Avey seems to indicate there was some risk, although this didn't come across to me in the book. However the key thing to qualify appears to be having performed 'selfless actions...which preserved life'. Go to wiki article on British hero of the Holocaust. So far as I can tell Avey got the award because he obtained cigarettes for Lobethal which saved Lobethal's life. I use the words 'appears' and 'so far as I can tell' because I can't find the citation but have to assume that this is the case. Broomby's article in the BBC house journal gives the clearest indication of this. However the prisoner swap story raised Avey's profile and that of the awards. If I can set aside editorial neutrality in my view the whole thing was something a political stunt organised by the last Prime Minister just before the last general election, Avey got the award for passing on the cigarettes (verified) but the public were allowed to assume it was for the (unverified) swap. I can see why you may be confused. It's a great shame that picture wasn't allowed because it suggests the political context to all this. Avey's book opens with Avey at the Prime Minister's residence 10 Downing Street, and describes his two visits there (doesn't mention the upcoming election though). Unfortunately the mainstream media haven't picked up on this political context yet, but I am hopeful that they may, in due time.

There doesn't seem much point to discussing whether or not there is a controversy if you agree the structure and tone of the article. It is of course a basis for development, the important thing for me is to have a pleasing structure and chronological flow. Yes I mean to put in more references, to both the book and the most reliable online sources. Sceptic1954 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * One of the most detailed sources, The Sunday Times, states:
 * "With the cigarettes, Lobethall was able to buy boots and scraps of food that would later save his life. He also used them as bribes to help Avey to gain entrance to the Jewish camp.
 * "Despite the danger, I knew I had to bear witness,” Avey says. “As Albert Einstein said: the world can be an evil place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. I’ve never been one to do nothing.” (The Sunday Times)
 * This source, along with some others, is obviously valuable in expanding detail much more than the somewhat sensationalist Mail article. It also gives a more reasonable justification for his being declared a "hero," don't you think? Was there a reason they were all deleted?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgot to ask whether you are able to fix the citation formats.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My last comment written late at night. I should have made clear that the break-in story, whilst it might be considered selfless and indeed if true heroic, did not 'preserve life', therefore I conclude that it did not qualify him for the British Hero of the Holocaust' award. It does seem to be the break-in story which caused Vad Yashem to consider him - their criteria may be different.

I deleted the quotes mainly because I felt they made things overlong, that's all. The swap story takes up no more than 15% of the book. I felt it good to give a rounded picture of the life. The Times article contains such details as the camp orchetra playing Wagner, absent from the book, and the camp inmates having wooden bowls, which become metal bowls in later versions. Both these details are given in quote marks. We are better to use BBC sources and I will bring them in to supplement the book references, because they are authored by Avey's co-author. I don't quote the Daily Mail at all in the 'autobiography' section please don't look just at the list of references but what the references refer to. We could give the Times and Telegraph articles in 'See also'

Tell me which sources you think need fixing.

It might be helpful to tell you that the wiki entry article which I am using as a model is Nicholas Kollerstrom which is a biography of a living person which has been edited by a very senior Wiki editor - see history. It has a substantial 'controversy' section. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * A few comments from above:
 * It's really not the editors who conclude what he was awarded for, but only the reliable sources we cite. If they conflict somewhat, then that's more reason to cite more than one that covers the subject;
 * You may need to start an article on the book itself if you plan to cite or describe it extensively. Just click The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz, to start. Keep in mind, this is a biography and not an article about the book. They're related, but the articles will be very different;
 * The BBC is a good source, but from the previous list, many deleted, more detail can be added for readers;
 * All the citations need fixing for different reasons. Please read WP:Citations. If you need help, let me know;
 * I didn't see any similarity of the model article you pointed out. The article structure was completely different, although the citations were formatted correctly, so at least that part could be a model. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Briefly in response to the first of these I do not think I have found a source which states explicitly why Avey received the award. Why on earth are newspapers considered 'reliable sources'? they are full of inaccuracies all of them, all the time. Even Avey's book contains errors such as him saying he received his award on 22nd January, on a picture caption, when he did so on 9th March. This is significant in a book where potential verification hinges on small details. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954


 * It's somewhat of a "relative" issue. Reliable sources that come from verifiable publications are at least safer than personal opinions from random editors. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If a so-called reliable source asserts something which flies in the sense of all reason than I don't think it is safer than the considered and closely argued view of an editor. The Wikipaedia world is sure a crazy place is newspapers are considered reliable sources. Very good reason for not trusting Wikipaedia if it readers are supposed to believe everything they read in the papers.

With regard to how Avey qualified for the award we have good sources for the criteria for receiving the award, and of the two actions associated with him obtaining the award, obtaining cigarettes and swapping only one seems to qualify for the award. That is hardly personal opinion. Here's one source which says it's for the cigarettes alone This one mentions both cigarettes and the swap what does one do when 'reliable sources' conflict? Have to use a bit of logic in deciding. But logic, common sense gets derided as 'personal opinion' or 'original research'. And the Broomby article in the BBC house newspaper which you didn't think was a good source suggests very strongly it's for the cigarettes alone.

If you want to suggest the award was for entering Auschwitz you will bring the award and with it Avey into disrepute, because an awful lot of people don't believe he did enter Auschwitz. I thought you thought I was trying to do Avey down. I am actually trying to be as accurate as I can.

In fact I haven't found any source which says explicitly he received the award BECAUSE he did this. The sources generally say he received the award. He did this. they suggest but don't state explicitly what it's for. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

This is from the guidelines

> The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.< Who does the weighing? Does weighing get classed as personal opinion of a random editor? I will get fed up with this if I feel I am continually quoted guidelines in a way that flouts common sense and I have to go to the guidelines to back myself up. I had it before on the previous article, arguing for common sense against people who endlessly quoted guidelines. In the end the very senior editor came along and everything she did was in line with what I thought. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954
 * I mentioned above that if different publications give different opinions on the same issue, then citing both is appropriate. It's simple: you say publication X states this, and publication Y states something else. We add the cites and the reader takes over. They decide what to think. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a judge and jury, but only a platform for presenting third party (reliable source) information. The good news is that most intelligent readers are able to recognize a good source from a not so good source. We hope so anyway.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For the present I can't be bothered with all this so revert it as you see fit. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954 I've done my bit for the last couple of weeks so that anyone googling Denis+Avey got something other than a hagiography of him. My efforts are not going to be required for much longer. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954 I return to this having seen an absurdly precise figure of 33,771 Jews killed in a particular massacre quoted on wikipaedia. The guidelines do state "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." This doesn't state who does the assessing. If Wikipaedia is full of statements culled from newspapers with editors quite unable to apply any common sense then it is flawed. If editing wikipaedia means endless discussions about guidelines without any common sense I have better things to do with my life. All I can say is that I hope people see Wikipaedia for what it is. Good luck! 86.183.167.23 (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic 1954 WW. I have taken out everything I put in. I'm sorry that means I've taken out a few things you and others put in such as the picture. Hope it's not too much trouble to put them back in. Maybe there's someone else out there who wants to do the work. 86.183.167.23 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954
 * TEB728 Thank you for your intervention. (I am also 86.183.167.23, my auto log-in expired without my realising it) I will return to the article in a day or two. I don't want to write a separate article for the book, I created a section called 'autobiography' as this was based entirely on Avey's own account and covered the first 80 years of his life.  In the 'recognition' section I included a few additional sources.  To counter any bias I might have towards scepticism I tried to devote a good part of the article towards Avey's own account. 86.183.167.23 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

TEB728 if you want to remain involved with this fine otherwise I'll probably leave it to wikiwatcher. How he/she can put such a controversial and unverified claim into the lead beats me, it will just make a laughing stock of wikipaedia. 86.184.128.93 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

As I believe that Avey's 'break-in' claim is now very widely questioned, allowing Wikiwatcher's version to stand may give some readers a useful insight into the reliability of wikipaedia. As wikiwatcher says "The good news is that most intelligent readers are able to recognize a good source from a not so good source. We hope so anyway." Wikiwatcher go ahead and remove the last section altogether so that a reader would see no mention of doubt of Avey's story whatever. 86.173.96.114 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

I've added a reference to what is probably the most damning evidence against Avey's claim of having broken into Auschwitz II- Avey himself in a previous, detailed and lengthy interview with a professional interviewer for the Imperial War Museum. In this he gives a completely different version of which part of Auschwitz he broke into, how and why. I have done some further primary source research into Avey's claims but I'm not sure whether this is the page to publish it or whether there should be a new page specifically about the veracity of his book?Griz999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

An Alternative Account
I have added a verbatim transcript of the relevant section of Avey's interview with the Imperial war Museum. As you will notice, this is not a synthesis and is unambiguously different from the version published in his book ten years later. Griz999 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A self-published transcript from your independent research is not a reliable source. As mentioned above, you should send it to one of the cited journalists or publications. If they publish comments about it, we can then use it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher1 this is not correct. This is not 'self-publication' in the sense used in the article on reliable sources (which also enjoins editors to use their 'common sense'), it is a verbatim transcript of a primary source which is properly referenced.  The point is that anyone who cares to go the Imperial War Museum sound archive can hear Avey using those words or, if I wrongly transcribed them (which I didn't) can correct them.  This is the whole point of the citation of primary sources:  they are falsifiable.  In reality, it is Avey's published account which is 'self-published' in the sense used in the reliable sources article, and readers should be warned to this effect.  I am therefore reverting your edit.  Griz999 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By "self published," for this article, it refers to your personal transcription. There is no reasonable way to verify the transcription, hence it becomes unverifiable for practical purposes. For the same reason, even a brief summary would not be allowed. If the information is openly available and of any value, one of the writers from the references listed, most located in the U.K. should be contacted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are using the phrase 'self-published' to mean but that doesn't make you correct. There is an entirely reasonable way to verify the reference which is by contacting the Imperial War Museum sound archive and listening to it.  'For practical purposes' it is entirely verifiable:  that is the purpose of a catalogued sound archive:  it's a library of recordings.
 * I'm puzzled by the treatment that you are giving this article. Avey's claims are unverified and unverifiable and many of the media sources referenced in the article are attributable to or derivative of his co-author Rob Broomby who is a BBC broadcast journalist, or simply reflect the publicity campaign which surrounded the publication of the book without adding material verifiable facts.  in my view, the history of the Holocaust is far too important to allow guilt-ridden geriatric fantasists to insert themselves into it, which is the net effect of this article.


 * I would suggest that to make this article verifiable, reliably sourced and from a neutral point of view it needs to be cut back drastically. It needs a brief outline of the claims in his book and a brief outline of different reactions to it, including a reference to the UK Daily Mail article which suggested that it was a hoax.  At present, this article reads like a puff piece written by Avey's publicists.  It certainly does not have a neutral point of view. Griz999 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Imperial War Museum is Britain's official body for collecting war terstimony. It is surely a much more reliable source than any of those otherwise listed in the article, which include blog columns. The idea that it needs to be easily Googled is absurd. What if an article were to appear in The Times, which is behind a paywall? Many other respectable publications are not online, or rest behind paywalls. Many sources, such as the Imperial War Museum, do not have all their information online. Are we looking for reliable outside sources, or merely hyperlinked sources? I think the principle here is clearly wrong, but I also think this is a wider problem facing Wikipedia. Someone at a newspaper simply needs to publish a blog column to quanlify as a realiable source, and then that information can be used on this site, which I believe is the world's most visited, and which people - despite these obvious flaws - do tend to use as the first port of call to find out anything. But a blog column has no guarantee of being accurate, and is often simply opinion. It can also, of course, support itself by referring to things like the Imperrial War Museum. Why should respected historians have to publish elsewhere first before linking to primary reliable sources? Wikipedia should be grateful to have their direct input! And if the model of the internet shifts more towards paywalls, that leaves Wikipedia in a bit of a mess, doesn't it? Articles will become weighted to only those sources in newspapers that are freely available. In fact, that must already be the case, as no doubt lots of discussion is going on on other talk pages about how information from the Times can't be verified. 'Is it in The Telegraph yet? Publish an article on this in the Telegraph first, and then it will be a fact...' Jeremy Duns again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.144.142 (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Griz999, I agree that the world wide media is not perfect. But if you truly have the evidence that Avey's story is a fantasy and a hoax, yet seem hesitant to submit that evidence to UK publications or writers, why bring it here instead? Paywalls are not a great source, naturally, but even the NY Times is not free. However, they're less of a barrier than going to London's War Museum and listening to recorded transcripts. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher1, What makes you think I'm hesitant to publish?  I am one of the authors of the Daily Mail article which originally raised questions about Avey's story (mention of which has been suppressed in this article - mostly by you).  After publication, various threats and complaints ensued - including the rebuttal which was briefly referenced in the Avey article.  These were, in turn, rebutted and the situation, broadly, is a stalemate.  However, it is no longer a news story so not easy to air it in the mainstream media.  That's the way the media works.


 * Nevertheless, there are all kinds of verifiable and reliable sources which require a certain amount of physical effort to access. Academic journals and books are not routinely available online, and many of the more esoteric (in the broad sense) can only be accessed via libraries:  in what way is this different to a sound archive?  Perhaps you might prefer this direct link as a reference?[]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griz999 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the link as a primary source. I couldn't find any link to reels beyond the 1st one, however. Do you know if those reels are also online? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do they only count if they're online? Shall we remove all the references to books, then? Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.146.93 (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just had another look at this. All the reels are on the above-linked page, and can be listened to. Press the red buttons to go to each of the nine reels. On Reel 7, Avey recounts how he went into Birkenau, claiming that he could only snatch brief conversations with a Jewish co-worker, Ernst, and wanted to talk to him more and see what was really happening: 'I went in to Birkenau with Ernst and this stripey got into my uniform and got into E715 for the night.' In the book, he claims he went into Monowitz, several miles away from Birkenau and a labour camp, and Ernst is not said to be involved in any sort of swap. These are two very large differences: if you did something as crazy as smuggling yourself into a camp for the night, you would remember if it was a death camp or not (Birkenau was, Monowitz wasn't) - and especially if you did it accompanied by someone else or not!

On Reel 8, he claims that the purpose was to find out how the Jews were being treated in Birkenau, and that Ernst had told him about an Australian stoker in the crematoria there, who he tried repeatedly to contact but couldn't: 'I don’t know why – I couldn’t. And you know what he did? He was an escaped POW. They picked him up just going into Switzerland in civilian clothes, and they interrogated him because of the civilian clothes, and they wanted to know how he got the clothes, how he got the map, how he got the compasses and he wouldn’t tell them. He’d got my temperament and he was an Australian to boot as well. And of course he caused a lot of problems, and they beat him badly, and then they sent him to Auschwitz-Birkenau. You know what he did? He stoked the crematoria. He stoked the crematoria for twelve months. I tried to contact him after the war: I couldn’t, but then I found out he’d written a book called “Stoker”.’ This can only be Donald Watt, an Australian who claimed in his 1995 memoir 'Stoker' that he had been a stoker in the crematoria at Birkenau. 'Stoker' has since been completely debunked (as was referenced in your removed edits) by several renowned authorities on this topic, and is now a well-recognized hoax about the Holocaust.

This is extremely problematic for Mr Avey's credibility (putting it mildly) because he told a reputable body that he went into Birkenau to try to find someone who it is now known was never even there - Avey, evidently not realizing this in 2001 (although it had by then been debunked) unwittingly tried to bolster his own fabrication with another man's hoax. Perhaps he realized later on that Watt had been exposed, which is why he changed his story so dramatically - he has not mentioned Stoker in any other account, and he has given quite a few, in his book but also in interviews before the book, and since its publication. Even if one chooses to believe Donald Watt's story, Denis Avey's 2001 testimony proves, incontrovertibly, that he lied about his experiences in the war, because there is *no* mention of an Australian stoker in The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz (which, incidentally is number two on this week's Sunday Times bestseller chart for general paperbacks). These two accounts by Denis Avey of how he 'broke into Auschwitz' are not simply different in fundamental ways - they are totally irreconcilable with one another. He cannot have misremembered trying to find Watt, and he and his co-author cannot be unaware that he claimed it. Avey either lied to the Imperial War Museum, lied in his book, or both. Whichever one it is, he has lied about his wartime experiences, so he is not a reliable witness to events and this in turn calls into question the advisability of his memoir remaining available.

On top of this, I suggest you also read the long article about this on page 17 of today's Sunday Times. Written by Nicholas Hellen, the article is titled 'Hero of Holocaust changed key elements of his story' and the sub-heading of it is 'Doubt hangs over a British prisoner of war's account of his swap with Jews at one of the Auschwitz concentration camps'. It points out much of what I have just done in the above three paragaphs, which Griz999 has also done repeatedly on edits to this page, and which - following research done in May in collaboration with Guy Walters and Adrian Weale - I published on my blog last month (http://jeremyduns.blogspot.com/2011/10/unbelievable-stories.html), although it fails to make the most damning point, which is that Donald Watt is himself a proven hoaxer. It is nevertheless a very damning article indeed, in what is, I hope, a fairly reliable source. You asked to see some of this in a newspaper: it is. Can we now have all this factual, important and verifiable primary source material reinstated in this article about a book that is still a massive best-seller in Britain over seven months after its publication? Primary sources are not the same thing as original research, and two of them are now readily accessible. Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.147.173 (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunday Times article
The article, assuming it's not a pure "opinion" piece, would be citable. However, it requires a subscription to read. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You jest, surely! Or perhaps not. I think you are being deliberately obstructive. Some quick points:

1. Have you now listened to the IWM material? Do you then now accept that it is, freely available in toto for anyone to listen to on its website, a primary source that can and should be cited in this article? I'd love to hear some reasons if not. Perhaps it can't be accessed in China, so doesn't count? Wifi may not work underground?

2. The Sunday Times article is not an opinion piece, but a long news item (as is very clear from the headline and subheading). You wrote above: 'But if you truly have the evidence that Avey's story is a fantasy and a hoax, yet seem hesitant to submit that evidence to UK publications or writers, why bring it here instead?' Wikipedia is the most-read site in the world, and most people get the basic facts about situations such as this from it. This evidence has now been published by the Sunday Times, which is one of the most widely read and respected newspapers in the English-speaking press. But because you can't access it behind the paywall, you believe it is not a valid source? How do you square that with your statement that blog opinion columns are valid (as long as they appear in newspapers). Verifiable and reliable primary sources do not and should not depend on whether they are hyperlinked. If so, all the books listed on Wikipedia as references should be removed. Or is it only a reliable source if you can find it on Amazon's Search Inside function? If the book is out of print or a scholarly article, or just happens not to be in Amazon's Search Inside function, as many aren't, is it then less reliable? There are German-language sources listed as references, but this is an English-speaking encyclopedia and so not everyone will understand them. Unless there is a hyperlinkable translation for them all, they should be removed. If you want them there, commission a translation and have it published in a world-respected newspaper that happens not to have a paywall. Then... maybe. This position of yours is quite obviously absurd in about fifteen different ways. The Imperial War Museum and the Sunday Times are *impeccable* primary sources.

3. I had a third point, but I did a Rick Perry and forgot it.

Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.145.127 (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your 3 points:
 * 1) The IWM taped interview (a more accurate term than "testimony") was added as a primary source to the lead paragraph of the article a few days ago. By coincidence, another editor, User:Sceptic1954, also calls Avey's comments "testimony." FYI, a "testimony" is defined as "a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official."
 * 2) I didn't imply that the Sunday Times was not a valid source. On the contrary, I said it was "citable." Nor did I say it was not a valid source because it was behind a paywall. I said I couldn't read it without subscribing. A year ago I considered subscribing for a while, before they raised their rates to $200 per year!, but I didn't like having to provide date of birth, street address, phone number, etc. to read a paper.
 * 3) Maybe Avey, at worst, also did a Rick Perry about his prison camp memories 70 years earlier. BTW, Wikipedia has very strict standards for verifiable sources when it comes to biographies of living persons. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The Imperial War Museum is an official British body for covering wartime experience, and as such it collects video, audio and other forms of testimony - it uses that word dozens of times on its own site, and it is often referred to by this word elsewhere. Not all words are used in legal contexts, and apart from being pedantic and offering no substantive progression in raising this point, you're also wrong.

2. It is citable, and therefore quotable? I just want to make sure nobody wastes time putting in a primary verified source, and you then repeatedly remove it for very obscure, overly pedantic and wrong reasons.

3. No, he did not do a Rick Perry. He said that 70 years ago he went into a death camp specifically to find an Australian stoker in the crematoria. He either did or did not. If he did, it's a problem, because he's never mentioned it since, including in his bestselling memoir - why? If he didn't, that's not poor memory, is it? It's a substantial thing to have done, and very specific. I think *your* standards for verifiable sources are such that it makes no difference what anyone writes. The Imperial War Museum is an authoritative body, and a primary source. Your complaint was that you could not listen to the recording yourself online. That's absurd, because if that were the standard thousands of references on Wikipedia would have to be deleted, citing books, newspapers articles, scholarly articles and even testimony that is not hyperlinked. Please show me the Wikipedia guideline that says that all references need to be hyperrlinked.

4. Will you now restore Griz999's entirely accurate transcription of the Imperial War Museum with Denis Avey that you needlessly deleted several times? It would be much appreciated, instead of this endless time-wasting pedantry. It would also be rather nice if you would admit you were wrong, and address the massive logical flaws in your argument. Jeremy Duns


 * With regard to sources on living persons, I would have thought that the 'living person' himself would be unimpeachable. Griz999 (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
Wikiwatcher1 I have rewritten the article as I suggested on 9 November in order to correct factual information and introduce a neutral point of view by removing quotes given by Avey and others as part of the post-publication publicity effort. Griz999 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed material from that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.
 * Your "rewrite" was reverted. It deleted fully sourced details about this biography and replaced much of it with unsourced blog-style commentary. For example, from just your statement above, your claim that quoted citations were "part of the post-publication publicity effort," implies a non-neutral POV. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to observe the policy on self-published accounts. The majority of information in this article is derived from Avey himself, either from his book or from interviews he has given about his own exploits.  It therefore does not have a neutral point of view and your frequent reversions of my edits essentially amount to a form of pedantic vandalism.Griz999 (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, you have just deleted primary sourced material from the subject of the entry, told to a public body and readily available online for all. Please do not delete this material again unless you can provide convincing reasons for doing so, and can ensure it is not simply because you cannot stand the fact that this entire page shows that you take delight in thwarting any attempt to provide the real story behind the major problems with this man's accounts of his experiences. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.41.108 (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
Wikiwatcher1 I have rewritten the article as I suggested on 9 November in order to correct factual information and introduce a neutral point of view by removing quotes given by Avey and others as part of the post-publication publicity effort. Griz999 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed material from that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.
 * Your "rewrite" was reverted. It deleted fully sourced details about this biography and replaced much of it with unsourced blog-style commentary. For example, from just your statement above, your claim that quoted citations were "part of the post-publication publicity effort," implies a non-neutral POV. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to observe the policy on self-published accounts. The majority of information in this article is derived from Avey himself, either from his book or from interviews he has given about his own exploits.  It therefore does not have a neutral point of view and your frequent reversions of my edits essentially amount to a form of pedantic vandalism.Griz999 (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, you have just deleted primary sourced material from the subject of the entry, told to a public body and readily available online for all. Please do not delete this material again unless you can provide convincing reasons for doing so, and can ensure it is not simply because you cannot stand the fact that this entire page shows that you take delight in thwarting any attempt to provide the real story behind the major problems with this man's accounts of his experiences. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. Jeremy Duns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.41.108 (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Settle down, Mr. Duns--no need to threaten. Specific argument for or against a certain position are welcomed; general statements and personal accusations are not. And if you are, as you may be, also the proud owner of a Wikipedia account, I urge you to not forget to sign in. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)