Jump to content

Talk:Darryl Cooper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations for Neo-Nazism

[edit]

Sorry if I don't know the rules of wikipedia that well, there's a user here obsessively edit warring to include an uncited claim of this individual being a neonazi.

> Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

This rule implies that there needs to be a citation for a neonazi, as claiming someone is a neonazi is potentially libelous without a citation, correct? 71.179.15.198 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue has been addressed - if you aren't an obsessive Neo-Nazi yourself, then that should be sufficient. Tsarstvovanie (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I think you should take a break from the computer and cool down. 71.179.15.198 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't claim he's a Nazi and Holocaust denier because he is mentioned in a long article that has the word "Nazi" in the title. This is obvious slander. Kungigult (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody ask to get Tsarstvovanie blocked/banned? I don't know how. Kungigult (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll change it to "nazi apologist," excuse me. Is that acceptable? Tsarstvovanie (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't put information in the article without a source, especially not slander. Kungigult (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The atlantic is the source - "FDR fought on the wrong side in WW2." That's apologia for Nazism. This is all very simple, and you're being unreasonable. The cowardice of far-right agitators is so tiresome. Own your words and beliefs, please Tsarstvovanie (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1244051474 is interesting from a technical perspective as it was submitted before the extended-confirmed protection actually took effect, yet ended up multiple seconds later in the history.
I've now had a look and the source doesn't seem to directly support the term used to describe the article subject. Additionally, the source is from The Atlantic's "Ideas" section, and thus, according to current consensus documented at WP:RSP#The_Atlantic, needs to be considered an opinion piece. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"FDR fought on the wrong side in WW2." "That's apologia for Nazism." That is a false dichotomy. Please don't do that. CFPeterson (talk) 9:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Mentioned for what? Would the term "Nazi apologist" be more acceptable to you? Tsarstvovanie (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must 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."
A little help here, somebody? Kungigult (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsarstvovanie, please see MOS:LABEL; also, read WP:BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take the word of Niall Ferguson for "Nazi apologetic".[1]--Kriddl (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2024

[edit]

The article has a typo in here. "World War" is spelt wrong.

Cooper sparked controversy in September 2024 by endorsing Holocaust denial and otherwise departing from the historical consensus regarding Word War II during a Tucker on X interview Superjz (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for pointing out the error! Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t know if this is the right spot for this, but in the interview, he seemed to be talking about Operation Barbarossa, the invasion into USSR, specifically, and the unexpected war of attrition through that winter. While viral edited clip makes it unclear, but in the interview he does actually say, “Barbarossa,” “Into the East [of USSR] in 1941,” and talks about the winter starvation. There is lots he omits, sure, but he is clearly talking about the USSR invasion specifically, not the Holocaust generally. Don’t know if anyone cares about accuracy at this point. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of lies.

[edit]

Not once in the interview did Cooper promote Holocaust denial. It's clear the creator of this page didn't watch the interview or has an agenda. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, didn't you just hate it when you're just running your country normally and millions of Jews just "ended up dead" because it's "more humane to just finish them off quickly". Happens all the time. Happened last week in Spain. AusLondonder (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not clear from the interview that he is even talking about Jews. The Nazis murdered other people besides Jews in Eastern Europe.
No where in the interview does he even mention the word “Holocaust” once. There is certainly reason to be suspicious of him for whitewashing Nazi Germany by not mentioning the Holocaust, but the current way this Wikipedia article is written is factually incorrect, and states opinions about him as fact. 24.6.34.216 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that “ended up dead” part, he specifically mentions Barbossa and the Eastern incursion. That’s the invasion into Russia, where Germany was indeed not prepared for Russia’s massive population and millions of Russians did indeed starve to death. Not the Jewish holocaust. However, even that said, it is known that mass starvation via stealing food from Russia for Germany was pre-planned for that invasion. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, USSR rather. My bad. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts at retroactive rehabilitation of reputation, especially with respect to the intent of the perpetrators, is integral to genocide denial. "Complete annihilation of a people requires the banishment of recollection and suffocation of remembrance. Falsification, deception and half-truths reduce what was, to what might have been or perhaps what was not at all."[2] Sweetstache (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a valid point, but there’s a difference between someone saying things that align with Holocaust denial, and outright denying the Holocaust.
This article as written is factually incorrect and meets the legal definition of libel.
The citations are editorials, aka statements of opinion not fact. 24.6.34.216 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) This article's subject does not meet notability criteria (WP:BIO), and the article seems to have been created because of subject's recent interview with Tucker Carlson. His career and track record outside of that does not raise to the level of notability required for a Wikipedia page.
2) In response to your libel accusation, here's a quote from the interview:
"Look, they put themselves into a position, and Adolf Hitler is chiefly responsible for this, but his whole regime is responsible for it, that when they went into the East in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that, and they just threw these people into camps, and millions of people ended up dead there."
Bolded text is blatant Holocaust denial, as it negates the clear, demonstrated, premeditated genocidal intent of the Nazi regime. Please see Einsatzgruppen, Posen speeches, Wannsee Conference, Holocaust trivialization, and many others articles (and all citations therein) for substantiation. Sweetstache (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Into the East in 1941” is Operation Barbossa. Again, he seems to be omitting (unaware?) that mass starvation was part of the plan from the get-go, but it stands that he’s talking about the USSR invasion specifically, not the Holocaust generally. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Barbarossa. Dang you, autocorrect! (Dang you laziness for trusting Autocorrect!) 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Seems to be omitting (unaware?)"
That's a rich interpretation. There aren't any caveats, there isn't any "make sure you check my sources on this."
The latitude you seek to give this individual makes as least one thing suspect: your motivations, or your knowledge of this historical period.
Why is Carlson calling him America's greatest historian?
We deal in facts and reliable sources here. Editors who are butthurt about Nazi-sympathizing edits made by others need to check their own sympathies and/or learn some history.
Article will be deleted shortly Sweetstache (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem defensive.
He literally said, “Barbarossa,” “Into the East [of USSR] in 1941,” and talks about the unexpected war of attrition through the winter, which is all noted here on Wikipedia’s article here on Operation Barbarossa.
You saw an edited clip and misunderstood, as many did. Ok?
I didn’t know who he was. But 10 months ago, he did several podcasts on Israel/Palestine (vids on YouTube)and was given praise by all political spectrums.
all I’m saying is, he was obviously talking about Operation Barbarossa specifically, not the Holocaust generally. If you are TFG to acknowledge it, man, that ain’t my issue. 2600:1005:A122:804:DC96:1BF3:6EA8:1148 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Tucker Carlson article not appropriate

[edit]

this guy might have bad credentials as a "historian" and be right wing, but he has produced a lot of content that should be looked over by the Wikipedia community a little bit if a redirect like this is to be sanctioned.

he does not necessarily warrant having his own article. but he also should not be considered dangerous just because an article in the Atlantic recently said he was.

Fear And Loathing in the New Jerusalem is lengthy audio piece he produced. it is a balanced look at the history of Palestine and Israel. in the telling of that story he briefly a few times displays a sober grasp of right and left politics as related to the early days of Zionism. it may have elements of entertainment or a kind of "dramatization" but it's not partisan misinformation in any discernible way

I hope the Wikipedia community takes some appropriate steps to determine his notability. again, I don't think he needs to have an article of his own, but I'm not against that. but the redirect to Tucker Carlson is a hasty reaction to current events

skakEL 11:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the redirect, you can take it to WP:RfD. If you disagree with the AfD closure, you can take it to WP:DRV. You can't just unilaterally blank the page and replace it with "see talk". C F A 💬 13:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: someone reverted back to this inflammatory redirect target with no consideration of any of the content substance. I stand by my initial post above as a rationale that this redirect should not point there.
I believe in time, if he becomes broadly notable (not just "current events hot" like he is right now), this will be resolved equitably. either the redirect will be fixed, or perhaps an article will be written, or perhaps redirect can be deleted. if he recedes back to low notability again, this can be fixed in a few months.
As I expressed above, I'm not taking any strong position on whether he's notable enough to have his own article, but simply that this redirect is a kind of smear, whether deliberate, or by carelessness, or ignorance about the subject.
Again, this will be resolved in a natural way over time. I'm not personally going to request a vote/discussion in RfD, cuz that shit is exhausting.
skakEL 18:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well RfD or DRV is the only way the AfD closure of redirect is likely to be overturned or the redirect deleted. I'd personally be happy to see the redirect deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect looks very appropriate to me, especially as it was discussed per process and consensus formed. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darryl_Cooper&oldid=1257565259"