Talk:Gerry Gable
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Unverified Information
I have flagged this article as containing unverified information and requiring referencing. The article contains several assertions concerning Gable's dealings with the law without providing verifiable material. Paulleake 18:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
User:212.85.13.68 has now given the article some references to back up the claim Gable has worked for British security. I have edited the article slightly to ensure it still says he is 'accused' rather than he 'did' collaborate as while the source is definitely enough for the encylopedia to show that Gable has been accused, I don't think it is enough, on its own, to say in an encylcopedia entry, that Gable did work for them. Paulleake 15:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Irving
Despite being accused of Holocaust Denial both in civil litagation and convicted of such in European state (Austria) David Irving is still an established historian. Removing words to that effect and insisting he is simply a holocaust denier is unjustified, as is removing comments clearly tagged as {{Fact}} which are awaiting the addition of sources, from the entry for Gerry Gable. Unfortunately it seems politically motivated elements are moderating without any appreciation for reality.
- Irving was never an "established historian." He has no academic qualifications, and at the time you're discussing, he had written only one book, so far as I know, some key points of which were later shown to be false. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I note with interest that throughout the earliar civil trials and even during the latest trial in austria the press refered to Irving as 'British Historian David Irving'thou as soon as he was convicted all that was scrubbed and he was refered to as 'Holocaust Denier David Irving'. However many times you try and revert the entry and say he was never a historian it doesnt change the fact he is. No one was debating whether he was in fact a holocaust revisionist/denier, as that man has made numerous comments to that effect in the past.
Some {{Fact}} removed and citations added, this is a slow process as it involves looking through microfilm. Please avoid removing [citation needed] indicators because you dont agree with the comment awaiting a citation.
Despite attempts to clean up POV bias in this entry, someone constantly removes any references to David Irving being a historian. Despite the press, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm, http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/, http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-20T194417Z_01_L19135626_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AUSTRIA-IRVING.xml, http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=266392006 and even his critics [citation needed] being happy to refer to him as such. As an author of over 30 historical books, its not an unreasonable term of reference.
User: SlimVirgin, is now attempting to enforce his own form of revision by claiming my attempts to clean up and combat POV on this entry are breaking the three revert rule. Replacing valid, relevant material you spuriously delete isnt breaking the 3r rule. Please try to maintain impartiality and also please don't make threats about locking the entry/moderation.
The headlines accompanying the sources for information on Gable's arrest have been arbitrarily removed. I'll replace them once I'm back at work and can view the microfilm.
User: SlimVirgin is now attempting to revert the added material with threats under the 3 revert rule. Again for the record the citations I added can be checked and verified. Replacing citated material removed by someone sabotaging an entry doesnt violate the 3 revert rule imho.
- Yes, it does. 3RR is not content-dependent. See WP:3RR. Also, please sign your posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleting citations is sabotage imho, especially when you use the argument you were removing the information before as it was uncitated, so as soon as its citated you remove the citations and then say 'your breaking the 3r rule' when they are replaced. I think its trolling. I havent registered yet so cannot sign entries, nowhere does it say you cannot update without registering. If you check my listed sources you'll find they are real and not spurious.
re: WP:3RR This rule does not apply to: - " correction of simple vandalism "
I was correcting vandalism.
