Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Irving/archive2

David Irving
Self nomination, an extensive and detailed look into his controversial life and work. You can see the previous failed nomination from January here Featured article candidates/David Irving/archive1. Most of the objections from that time have been addressed and I feel we now have a genuinely NPOV, well written and well researched article on a delicate subject. GeneralPatton 01:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. The images Image:Irving Speer 01.jpg, Image:Irving Spiegel01.jpg, Image:Irving trial02.jpg, Image:Irving deported canada1992.jpg are claimed as fair use.  Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free content encyclopedia, and as such, images under "fair use" and other non-free licenses should be avoided if at all possible.  If a fair use image must be used, the image description page must list the source or current copyright holder for the image, and an explanation of why the image can be used under fair use must be provided for each page the image is used on. --Carnildo 05:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * errr... all those images are provided by Irving at his website for further use, this really is an non-issue as it has nothing to do with the content of the article itself. GeneralPatton 08:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to clarify this, you could write to him using Boilerplate request for permission. I have a feeling he would agree to release them into the public domain or GDFL at the very least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If they have nothing to do with the content of the article, then I don't suppose you'd mind if I were to remove them? --Carnildo 17:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but why? Here's the notice on Irvings website "These photographs are provided for use copyright free unless otherwise indicated" . GeneralPatton 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That text is a license grant and should be copied to the image description page. This should then be sufficient; no need to ask if it is clear that those are the licensing terms.  Mozzerati 13:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support: Despite the controversy on its talk page I feel that this article is a well written and informative account of an interesting subject.GreatGodOm
 * Support. Comprehensive, well-written and properly referenced article. I haven't bothered trying to wade through the talkpage controversies, but I've read the entire article (with some previous knowledge of both Irving and Holocaust denial) and can't see that it has tainted anything in it. / Peter Isotalo 15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Object the content is mostly good, although a section on his techniques in "historical research" such as mis-referencing, and details of how he misrepresented sources would be good. I believe that there were accusations that he stole historical sources, these should be covered.  More importantly, for an article on Irving, it is difficult to relate specific facts in the article to the sources from whch they were taken.  This is crucial in making this article verifiable, particularly days/page numbers for references taken from the trial which is difficult to search.  Some form of inline references such as Footnote3 or inote is probably the only way to achieve this. Mozzerati 13:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides trial records, is there anything in specific that needs to be more clearly referenced? I am very skeptical to this very general objecting just because an article doesn't have footnotes (which are absolutely not a criterion in of themselves). The basic rule should be not to specifically reference anything that is either very obvious or uncontroversial. / Peter Isotalo 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody is objecting "just because an article doesn't have footnotes". There are many alternatives to footnotes which could move the article towards verifiablity; it is possible to write extensively together with each source which facts it covers; it is possible to put comments inline, using for example the inote template.  Look at the work of Emmsworth (who puts comments next to his sources) or David Helvarg for examples of each.
 * The objection concerning footnotes was somewhat unspecified and since I've been noticing an alarming overusage of footnotes in FACs and I felt I needed to point this out. For example, GNAA, which is a relativly small article, contained 24 (!) footnotes that were mostly concentrated to just two or three paragraphs before I along with a few other users pointed it out at the FAC. Using the inotes and actual inline citations is much more preferable, though. I have not participated in the writing of the article, though, so I can't comment on the other objections. / Peter Isotalo 23:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * also you haven't responded to my content objections which I will break down for easier reference:
 * the article is incomplete because it a) fails to cover accusations that Irving has stolen documents b) fails to cover the recovery of documents from Irving's home by the police c) fails to cover the accusation that "if Irving can't find a supporting document, he makes one" d) fails to cover Irving's (at least partial) success in spinning the Lipstadt trial as an issue of his freedom of speech even when it was him that had initiated the trial.
 * the article is non NPOV since it states as fact facts which, whilst clearly true to most of us, are in fact disputed without giving a reference to the source of those facts a) "contributed to a variety of extremist features" b) "Today, the Dresden bombing casualty figures are estimated as most likely in the range of 25,000 to 35,000 dead" (yes, I know this is true, but that is what makes it important to reference it). c) the article describes "evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald" without reference to the common belief that he is an anti-semitic racist which, in this context seems to be quite important.
 * the article is difficult to verify, for example the statement that his figures "were repeated in many standard references and encyclopedias" appears to require a require extensive research and access to many encyclopedias, particularly to establish a causal link, but with either attribution or a simple listing could be much easier to cope with. Furthermore, FAs should "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" and Wikipedia's best work is verifiable in the extreme.
 * the article makes statements, which, without clear reference could be seen as defamatory and as such should not be kept in wikipedia, for example "during that time Irving also made a number of public statements indicating that 100,000 or more Germans had been killed" contrasted with "later editions of the book [changed] downwards to a range of 50,000 to 100,000" this is clearly implies that Irving is duplicitous; references should be given.
 * Mozzerati 19:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your suggestions, I'm working on it GeneralPatton 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Minor object. Move external links from main body to notes/references, link via footnotes. The article looks good, and it should prove the wiki strenght if we can reach NPOV on this article and FA it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in any criteria that deems it inappropriate to have external links in the text. Unless the footnotes are actually going to contain information about the source or perhaps about the footnoted paragraph, this seems quite uncalled for. It will only add to the article looking like a paper rather than an encyclopedia article. / Peter Isotalo 19:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)