Talk:Denis Avey/Archives/2017

Invitation for comments on rewrite offered by Sceptic 1954

I had the article to myself yesterday but must beware of 'ownership'. I could do a lot of work which might be undone!

To Wikiwatcher. There is agreement between Mysticumswipe and me, supported by two administrators, that there is controversy, that this should be mentioned in the lead, and that New Statesman and Daily Mail are reliable sources. Mysticumswipe also agrees with me regarding those points of controversy which I have included - M would like further points and greater length. Please therefore do not revert anything which is in line with these points.

To Wikiwatcher and Mysticumswipe. As neither of you think I am being neutral I must be doing a good job of being neutral! However both of you would seem to wish for greater length. I am not a fan of great length, what is important is not whether I get to write certain things but whether people read them, the more concise the more you get read.

I would restate what I quote above from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

"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."

My idea in not having a separate section on 'controversy' was that readers would have to read the rest of the article to find it, so that they would then see what Avey said before they reached the controversy and the controversy and reaction to it should be a part of his lifestory. However I am concerned that the article should be balanced, if Wikiwatcher wants to restore some of the detail I've deleted and Mysticumswipe agrees then I have to abide by the majority, but you both agree that and Mysticumswipe wants a separate and longer 'controversy' section I'd also agree with that. So Wikiwatcher you might wish to look at the last version offered by Mysticumswipe and the version I offer and decide broadly which you prefer because in broad terms the more you don't accept mine the more I would accept his. What is most important for me is that the controversy surrounding Avey should be much more prominent than it has been for the last 16 months, and there I agree with Mysticumswipe and we have support from administrators. The article will not go back to where it has been for the last year.

To Wikiwatcher. I know I've cut a lot but I'd appreciate if you didn't simply revert - I don't like doing manual reversions! By cutting down I was able to reorder things a little, there was so much material in the previous version that the proper sequence had been obscured. I don't think you would disagree with me on that. I've put in some links which I think you'd accept. In this version I also highlight the acclaim he received, which I am sure you would agree with, and show that one of his suporters feel he is being unfairly persecuted - you might think that such persecution is continued here but at least that reaction is made clear in the article. I removed all the quotes from the book, people can buy the book if they want that, and anyway there may be a copyright issue. I also removed the word 'heroic' used in the body of the text to describe his actions. The quotes seemed designed to make Avey look heroic and so didn't seem neutral. The article should be matter of fact, just relating the bare bones of what he did and what he claimed to do and allowing readers to add their own colouring. It should not obscure the existence of the controversies but I agree should present these in a neutral tone. BTW if you are concerned by the reliability of the Daily Mail consider that the author of the article, Guy Walters has a book published by Avey's publishers, Faber.

To Mysticumswipe. I haven't seen you cite the guidelines on BLP. I think if we make too much of the criticisms the article might attract a complaint from Avey or a close associate and then the criticism would need to be given less weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet read the article after your recent changes. I've only read what you have written here at talk. Regarding BLP I have commented with reference to the other BLP page you linked us to.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see with the article now is that it has no subsections. The lead and the whole article focuses very much on just one part of his lfe viz. the few days when he claims he swapped with a Jewish inmate at Auschwitz. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

To Wikiwatcher The article ratings disappeared when I made some cjhanges but they were equivalent to those for The Man who Broke into Auschwitz and also rated by 8 users. So my remodelling seems to have found favour with readers.Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

To Mystichumwipe I think you have put too much detail in the lead. The lead is for a summary of the article. Wikwatcher might want to enter things into the lead. I think the account has only been challenged by one ex-POW. I don't think a private blog is necessarily a 'relaiable source' for wikipedia purposes, in a controversial context. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I myself do not think that just saying there is "a controversy" is enough of an explanation for a first-time uninformed reader. What controversy? About what particularly? The lead should cover the whole article and present the information neutrally. The same info can be written but in a more neutral way. As I have tried to do. E.g. his account of smuggling himself in to a part of Auschwitz by swappng with a jewish inmate. Was it to Monowitz or Birkenau? Was it Hans or Ernst? Did he go in with Ernst or by himself? The reader does not know there are different conflicting versions from Avey himself. This can be added and I would like us to do so. The same with Avey's other contradictons. The article presents only the book version as if that is fact. It makes no mention of the contradictory Imperial War Museum taped interview accounts. Using merely the BBC as a link to the controversy is also not such a good idea as they have been criticised for not being rigorous enough in checking the authenticity of the story. Therefore I have added back the three main other sources detailing the controversy. That way a reader can further research if they are interested. You had deleted these useful citations. Finally I assume you are referring to the Jeremy Duns link. External links do not need to meet the same conditions for RS as does a secondary source citation. Links to blogs, personal web pages can be accepted when written by an authority on a subject. Therefore I would include Duns (along with Walters), as being authorities on the details of the Avey controversy. Do you not agree on that then?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

To Sceptic 1954. Could you please answer the above points. E.g. You have written in the lead that he smuggled himself into Monowitz. But he himself also said it was Birkenau. So I feel you are still ignoring the obvious inconsistencies in his various accounts. The whole article can be written in a way that doesn't do that and yet does not refer all the time to controversy. I.e. we write from a neutral point of view. I.e. We don't present his versions in his book as if they are undisputed fact. So... I'm merely pointing to a question of the phrasing. I hope you understand what I am suggesting(?) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To Mysticumswipe. I'd find it easier if you put all discussions at the end of the Talk page as they seem to be all on the same theme. There would be less chance of my missing any of your points. I saw some points from you on September 29th above which I don't think I've seen before, my apology. I can't retrieve them as I write this.

Yes I agree that the names have changed, but I don't think there is any doubt that in all accounts he was referring to the camp where the 'Stripeys' who worked at the Buna plant slept which is NOT Birkenau. What change do you propose? (Birkenau in some accounts) or 'One of the Auschwitz camps.'

I think the changes in the identity of the person he swapped with are more significant and have put that in the first main section.

I actually don't think the article is very balanced as it stands. I put extra material into the controversies section which I thought you might like but if we are going to do that we should have some of Avey's answers. I might invite one to participate for balance sake. The trouble is the article is getting long. Wikipedia records hits but not how long people spend on a page, I'd much prefer it the article is one that people are going to read right through, that tells a story. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article isn't very balanced. But I don't agree it is for us to decide what we think is or is not "significant" and then from that personal opinion, write the article accordingly. That I think would be pushing a point of view, (my recurring issue with this article).

You wrote: "...but I don't think there is any doubt that in all accounts he was referring to..." etc., etc. That is very clearly and obviously NOT correct. There IS doubt. That is the main subject of these discussions. Perhaps this 'blindspot'(?) is the source of these points of contention between us.

You asked: "What change do you propose?" My answer is the same one I keep trying to make, viz. that we need to inform any readers of the basic facts of Avey's life while also writing with the awareness of the controversy concerning this specific episode in his biographical claims (an episode which only concerns just a few days in that life). I.e. we don't gloss over it or avoid it. We don't write as if one version of his of that episode is undisputed fact. It is NOT. Very credible organisations and people do not believe his account of that specific episode. So we write the article in a way that does not negate that, yet but does not specifically refer to a controversy all the time. Maybe I just make the changes and you will see what I mean.

Regarding answering points here on talk... we answer specific topics on the talk page. Therefore I don't think the intention is that we keep putting any new answers in a new topic so that they are at the bottom of the 'talk page'. Also when you answer in the talk page the usual practice is that we put colons before our answer so that it is easier to difeerentiate between the subsequent replies. I have taken the libert of doing r that to your previouis reply. Hope you don't mind.

Finally the idea that the page is getting too long is again only your own opinion. There is no wiki guideline on length of an article or that it must "tell a story".--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem about reverting to an old section - it takes a while for me to find it - but please try to reply only in one section if possible or I may miss it.

>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.<

How does one judge what is significant? That a judgment of significance is POV.

If you read the 'Notes on Sources' an explanation is offered regarding the AuschwitzIII/Birkenau confusion. I know of no reply from Avey's critics to that.

Avey is notable for his claim made in his book that he entered AuschwitzIII/Monowitz. He was not notable or nothing like as notable for a claim to have entered Birkenau. Controversy has arisen because his claim appears to some people to have changed. I consider we should report the latest claim and mention in the body of the article differences from previous claims. I wouldn't write and haven't written about his claim to have entered this camp as undisputed fact at all. You seem to think otherwise, and I don't know why. It's vital that we should highlight that it is just an unverified claim, I think just about everyone, including most people who believe the claim think this. I just think we should in the lead highlight his latest and most prominent claim and mention controversy. The lead is not IMO the place to amplify controversies.

Yes I think the article is unbalanced because it is too 'anti-Avey' not too 'pro-Avey'. My bias is likely to be 'anti-Avey'. I will be happy to put this up on the BLP notice board as in danger of being too much of an attack on the subject (alternatively I could bring it to the notice of Avey's publishers)

The article got some very good ratings from 8 readers at the weekend when it was newly rewritten and hadn't been changed for a while. It is a shame I can't now retrieve these. I don't know of any requirement to tell a story but I can't believe that a biography which doesn't tell a story would get to be rated as a 'good article' not do I think that one which goes on longer than the subject merits would get to be rated 'good' either.Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We will go off the side of the page sooner or later! I was thinking. We could split the life into two sections. 'The First Eighty Years' and 'A public figure' and I could abridge the present 'controversies' section and merge it into the second biography section. Then we could have an extended controversy section, where you would put all the points you put earlier, which Wikiwatcher removed and I can put replies from Avey defenders. Would that suit you? Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, in the light of the Daily Mirror 2005 article I have made some changes to the lead. However articles must still be written conservatively and should not be a forum for attack, which IMO should be reflected in the lead Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)