This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Wallechinsky article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish cultureTemplate:WikiProject Jewish cultureJewish culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
I wouldn't call him a populist. He is interested in the popularization of history and the history of popular culture. Very different. "Populist" has taken on an unpleasant political connotation and I'd like to take it out, but this is my first time on this page and it seems inappropriate of me to start changing things for reasons other than factual error.
24.13.83.67 (
talk)
09:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Larry Siegelreply
Parade list
Unless there's a secondary source specifically discussing the absence of Mubarak from Wallechinsky's list of worst dictators, there's absolutely no reason to make any mention of Mubarak in this article. It is not Wikipedia's place to analyse who is or is not on Wallechinsky's list. If some other source analyses the list, we can and should report on that here, but unless that analysis comes from someone else, we should not be doing the original research of criticising the selections. --
Jonel |
Speak14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The removed text is not criticizing the selection. It is providing further information to the reader. What the reader makes of it is the reader's choice. The issue is relevance. If you believe that the material about Mubarak is not relevant to the list, please say so.
NN15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The "further information" is clearly slanted to provide the implication that Mubarak should have been on the list. As for relevance, it doesn't really matter what you or I believe about the relevance of Mubarak to Wallechinsky's list—it matters what the sources say. As far as I can tell, there are no published sources that indicate such relevance. --
Jonel |
Speak20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)reply
If you feel that it is "slanted" you can add further information to correct the "slant". As for relevance, I do not believe that it is a Wiki requirement to have a source explicitly say that some material is relevant to some topic. If that was the policy I would hazard that much of the material in Wiki would disappear.
NN03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Surname
Paragraph about surname was self-contradictory, it read:
He is the son of author and screenwriter
Irving Wallace. When David was conducting genealogical research on his family, he discovered that the family's original last name was Wallechinsky. It had been anglicized to "Wallace" by an immigration clerk. [Wallechinsky may have believed this, but no names were changed by "immigration clerks": Immigrants' names were simply transcribed from the passenger manifests that were completed at the point of embarkation.[1] Once arrived in America, of course, a number of immigrants then decided -- on their own -- to "Americanize" their names.] He was so angered at this that he legally changed his name to "David Wallechinsky."
Parade magazine has not contained the (formerly?) annual list for the last two years (2012 & 2013) and the website only has an older version (probably 2011- Quadaffi & Kim Jon Il are mentioned as still alive). Has Wallechinsky discounted the list or has it moved to a different venue?
CFLeon (
talk)
22:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Issues with POV/Peacocking in Sections
I began editing the Career section, in the belief that there were only a couple minor instances of flowery language, although it's painfully clear that much of the article is littered with
peacock language not suitable for the encyclopedia. Would anyone be willing to chip in with revising the problematic wording?
KirkCliff2 (
talk)
15:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
BlackcurrantTea, that definitely looks much better, although I'm beginning to suspect that someone close to the subject was behind much of the controversial language. It just gives off that COI-vibe, you know? Anyhow, thanks again.
KirkCliff2 (
talk)
14:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)reply