Talk:Denis Avey/Archives/2015

Detailing the points of the controversy in the article + mentioning it in the lead
Hi Sceptic1954, if you agree with my contributions to the page I invite you to undo the deletion of my edits which Wikiwatcher has reverted numerous times and for which he has been reported for edit-warring.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Mystichumwipe, I don't agree with you on everything, but I think we agree that 'controversy' should be mentioned in the lead. If it were just for me I'd cut down the length of the article drastically, who is going to want to read the whole of it?  Just the main points. I'd be happy to revert if that were the basis for some radical pruning. If you are happy with the latter I'll revert and then do some pruning and you can say whether you approve.  I left a message for you on your talk page. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954  I left it on Wikiwatcher1's Userpage instead. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954


 * Go ahead. We can discuss after you have made whatever changes you consider needful. But I can say now that I myself don't like the idea of cutting the article down excessively. As I understand it, people who want an overview can read the lead. That is what it is for. Those who want more detail on any aspect of the info in the lead can then read the rest of that in the relevant sections of the article. Why exactly do you think the article needs to be short?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Have added a sentence at end of lead too long renamed one section 'Controversies' to start with. I think the lead now too long. I will do some further changes. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954

I have reordered the lead to put things more chronologically. I think we should put what is agreed before what is controversial. I moved some description of his interview with Lyn Smith to another section of the article. I'll work on the controversies section now Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954

I've now reworked the Controversy section. I hope I've put most of what Mysticumswipe wanted to say in a single sentence, I don't think it is the amount of space you give to making a point but how succinctly you make it that is the more effective. Remember this is a BLP and also a commercially sensitive matter, too much on the controversy and someone would either object or pitch in to change it. I'm afraid there's a citation error and I need to check one or two refs but I need a break. Would welcome comments. Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954

Mysticumswipe Regarding pruning I found the following What Wikipedia is not Highlighting and upper case is mine.

>In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should NOT be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.<

Without knowing this guideline I consider this is exactly what I have been doing in the pruning. In my experience the best biographical articles on Wikipedia have all the nature of summaries, brief biographies. For a full-length biography you can buy the book. If you agree with this please say so. Otherwise another editor may seek revert my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The salient words there in my opinion are "...ALL POSSIBLE details". I do not think the article was ever remotely close to trying to include "ALL POSSIBLE details" about Avey and his problematical account of Auschwitz, and I think you have gone way, way beyond that requirement in what you have removed.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)