Talk:The Destruction of Dresden

2006 comment

 * This is the talk page for discussing changes to the article The Destruction of Dresden, not an Internet forum. Please note that soapboxing and other comments irrelevant to the article may be removed. --Malthusian (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vonnegut
To be fair to Vonnegut he was a POW in Dresden when it was firebombed so any reference to Irving's book is a sidebar.
 * Yeah but he did make use of Irving's book when writing Slaughterhouse-Five. Given the influence of that novel, and given its inclusion from Irving of what we now know to be inflated casualty estimates, briefly mentioning said novel on this page is justifiable. --Ismail (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Dresd 4.jpg
The image File:Dresd 4.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to set pending changes
There is a sentence in the lead of this article "The book is no longer considered to be an authoritative or reliable account of the Allied bombing and destruction of Dresden during February 1945." supported by a detailed footnote and source from a court case. The sentence and footnote has been repeatedly deleted over a number of years by editors using IP addresses, presumably either for political or commercial motives. That this deletion can last for a considerable period suggests that the page is not on many editor's watch lists.

I propose that this article should have "pending changes" set to "Require review for revisions from new and unrergistered users", because readers of this article about the book ought to be warned in the lead about its modern academic standing as many older popular histories (published in the 1960s 70s and 80s) cite it. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of the removal or alteration of this sentence the article has been stable since at least the start of 2013

Edits that affect the sentence under discussion: -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC) As there have been no objections I have protected this page by turning on "pending changes". If established editor objects please contact me either with a ping or by leaving a message on my talk page and I will revert the change. -- PBS (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * April 2012 IP 98.155.236.205 (Hawaii)
 * August 2013 IP 203.170.77.211 (Pakistan)
 * February 2014 IP 165.228.219.130 (Melbourne)-- alteration.
 * May 2014 108.213.213.70 (Columbus) -- removed note template, which removed the note that supported the sentence
 * June 2014 62.7.82.18 (Edinburgh)
 * September 2014 216.155.129.35 (Grandville, Michigan)

It is outrageous that this sentence is included at the top of the article in such a prominent fashion. One man named Evans can write a paper and suddenly Irving's book is discredited? Nonsense. If this citation should be included in the article, it should be in the middle under a criticism heading. Maybe the reason people keep deleting it is because it's so outrageous. 2601:702:4204:7820:A078:3749:8C11:91BF (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda
Why is this article anti-German propaganda? And even discussion about anything are deleted? 73.220.34.167 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There isn't any anti-German propaganda that a consensus of editors see here. It is simply a rebuttal of a Holocaust denier's book. If you do find any anti-German bias here, please articulate it in clear and rational terms. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

International best seller claim
Either provide proof and links etc for this claim or remove it from the article please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:207:E300:9894:8168:F4B6:B6EA (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"“The Destruction of Dresden,” a 1963 best-seller by David Irving, the British historian who later became notorious for his attempt to minimize the Holocaust. (The book has been largely discredited.)"

- George Packer



-- PBS (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)