Talk:Vidkun Quisling/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pesky (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm helping out with this review, as it is the first GAR by the above user.  Chzz  ►  16:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All done, I think

Initial review The article appears to have adequate sources, is NPOV, clean as per tags (though I'd personally like to see redlinks removed), appears stable in terms of editing (no recent vandalism, warring etc.); so not a Quick-Fail. Pesky (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Checked external links; all good. :o) Pesky (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Fixed DAB for 'pluralism' in section 'Head of the government'. Pesky (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Lede "coup d'etat" is it worth wikilinking that, or will most people know what it is, do you think?  Chzz  ►  18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Any chance of an audio for the pronunciation of the name?  Chzz  ►  18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC) NOTE: I believe Bjelleklang (talk · contribs) may be doing this at the moment.  Chzz  ►  19:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC) The audio is uploaded, and can be found over at commons. There are two versions, one with the full name, and one with the shorter but more common name. See commons:File:IPA_Vidkun_Quisling.ogg and commons:File:IPA_Vidkun_Abraham_Lauritz_Jonssøn_Quisling.ogg. Bjelleklang - talk 21:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Other/misc Please add "Short description" to PERSONDATA  Chzz  ►  18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 'Reading clarity' stuff "on account of the five years" - reword to 'because of' ? Pesky (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC) "Meanwhile, Quisling had found another job with long-time friend and fellow Norwegian Frederik Prytz in Moscow,[20] where he arrived in May 1926 to work in the unfamiliar world of business. He stayed in the job until Prytz prepared to close down his business in early 1927," ... source for this second bit? And what was the job?! (I find myself wanting to know - will other readers?) Pesky (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Split infinitives - I hiccup over them, but that may be just me! "to illegally smuggle" "to increasingly distance" Pesky (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC) The unknown attacker used pepper to overcome Quisling, who later indicated that he had been there to steal military papers recently left by Swedish Lieutenant Colonel …. " this is a bit ambiguous; suggest re-wording ? (it first-reads: "Quisling later indicated that he (Quisling)",. as opposed to "he (attacker)" ) Pesky (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC) "defeat at the Stalingrad"  ?? Remove 'the' or insert 'Battle of', as a suggestion. Pesky (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Although Quisling was independently minded made several key decisions re-word - missing 'he'? Or something else? Pesky (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Notes from Bjelleklang

Last paragraph in 2.1

Fører - "one man executive committee" This is more or less the same as what Hitler did in Germany, and should be commented on in some way. Even if it was a coincidence with no relations it should be commented on, as they shared a lot of opinions and used the exact same title (fører/fuhrer). Also, the Führerprinzip is mentioned later on but this should also be included here.

I don't think this is the right time to introduce the comparison. Being a one-man executive committee meant very little at this point. It was only over time, as he settled into the role, that the comparison in anything but title became a good one. I have drawn a brief comparison, however, so the read can watch it develop. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]}

2.2

"As an example, when he was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant in his office on 2 February 1932, instead of focusing on the attack itself, some elements of the press posited that the whole thing had been staged, while others suggested that the assailant had been the jealous husband of one of Quisling's cleaners"

I'd say that this sentence should be broken down into two sentences in order to be easier to comprehend and read, but not really a big issue. As for the pepper affair, I'd like to have some more information about the assailant; who were the suspect(s), did anything happen to them, and was an investigation ever started? (2.2, last para)

Both  Done - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

2.2-2.4

It is mentioned several places that his popularity increased, does any statistics from the time exists?

Not that I can find, sorry. Apart from the later polling results, which are included, that is. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

3.2

What was his relationship with col. Hans S. Hiorth? The second para in 3.2 mentions him as a friend in the military, while the third mentions him as an ally. Was Hiorth a member of the NS, and did his relationship with Q. end here?

Are you confusing him with the later reference to Hjort? Hiorth himself features nowhere else in either Dahl or Hoidal. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

3.3

In the third para, England is mentioned as no longer being a nordic ally. Is there any other reasons for this other than the fact that they were at war with Germany?

And harbouring the king, a suggestion I've added. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The trial

As for the trial, the Norwegian newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad has an article about Reidar Haaland [1] (in Norwegian), the first collaborator to be executed in Norway post WW2. According to the article, his trial was hurried through in order to establish a presedence for the death penalty, specifically to make sure that Quisling could be executed. This is probably relevant (if accurate), as having Quisling convicted but not executed would be unthinkable for quite a number of people.

I hope these notes have been helpful, if you have any questions please feel free to contact me on enwp or IRC! Bjelleklang - talk 21:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like an interesting suggestion. However, AFAIK neither Hayes, Hoidal nor Dahl mentions him at all, which makes it a little tricky to include. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Universism - slight conflict between lede and section?

Hi guys, your lede says: "Brought up as the son of a Church of Norway pastor, Quisling blended Christian fundamentalism, science and Hegelian philosophy into a new philosophical theory he called Universism," and the Universism section says: "Though he was only an amateur philosopher, he kept up with developments in the realm of quantum physics, and blended the two into a new religion he called Universism (or Universalism), loosely based on Christianity. "

The lede mentions specifically Hegelian philosophy, and Christian fundamentalism ….. the section makes no emphasis particularly on Hegel's philosophy as opposed to philosophy in general, and much less emphasis on Christianity (fundamental or otherwise) than in the lede, but does mention (specifically) quantum physics; as it stands, trying to read the two together, it's a little unclear as to what was combined with which to create Universism. I can't quite make the lede tie in with the section (although I may be being terminally thick!) Can you please clarify this? Thanks! Pesky (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The divergence is caused by the fact that the lead comes from the book's introductory blurb, whereas the section comes from the text itself. Per reuniting them, I have removed the references to Hegel and fundamentalism. I think now the section is a more specific version of the lead, appropriately. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Minister President

I'm confused by the way this is presented in the infobox, with 'predecessor' and 'successor' - it seems the role only existed for a short time, and Quisling was the only person to hold the title - at least, that is what the 'Political offices' navbox at the end indicates. It's further confusing because of the wikilink to Prime Minister of Norway which makes no mention of "Minister President", and because the predecessor is labelled as "Johan Nygaardsvold (still Prime Minister of Norway)" - clearly, he is not the current PM, so I suppose that means that the role was different. Chzz  ►  13:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's because of the Government-in-Exile thing, but not entirely sure. Pesky (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was obviously an attempt to railroad the idea of continuity into a series of appointments that was anything but. I've removed it as fairly confusing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, but, was he prime minister? I'm still unclear; as far as I can gather, he was something a little different - this "Minister President" thing - which only existed during his specific term - is that right? In which case, he doesn't have a predecessor and successor. I mean, regarding the;

Preceded by Torgeir Anderssen-Rysst

Succeeded by Jens Isak de Lange Kobro

I think this is quite a key point (a significant part of his notability), so we really do need to pin it down - in the infobox, and in the body. For the former, maybe footnotes could help; I'm not sure. But I'm worried we're claiming he was PM when he wasn't?  Chzz  ►  16:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the predecessor and successor in the role of Minister of Defence. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I think (in this specific case) that the presentation of the infobox is very misleading, with the bold wording. Despite the fact that that part is indeed headed "Minister of defence", it states;

Prime Minister: Peder Kolstad (1931–1932)

Jens Hundseid (1932–1933)

Preceded by Torgeir Anderssen-Rysst

That heading of 'prime minister' indicates that Quisling held that role. I think anyone glancing at the infobox could be confused. As the alteration of the position of PM during his time in office is so key to this article, I really think it needs to be clear in the infobox.  Chzz  ►  23:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, if Kolstad was in that office from 31-32, and Hundseid was in that office from 32-33, then how come Quisling was in it from 31-33? Doesn't make sense? Is that their prime-ministerial term? Needs clarifying.  Chzz  ►  09:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Does this just mean that he held the post of Defence Minister under the two Prime ministers? And was preceded / succeded in that post? Pesky (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess that is the meaning, but it remains confusing in the infobox; that's my point.  Chzz  ►  09:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be best, then, just to remove the references to the two Prime Ministers altogether from that box? Or do they have to be there for some reason? Pesky (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Marriage to Asja

I'm not sure we can assert that no relevant legal documentation exists - it is hard to prove a negative. I think we'd have to say none "has been discovered", or something?  Chzz  ►  13:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, It may be that the sense was changed during a copyedit or somesuch. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Little fixes

I found quite a number of missing non-breaking spaces in dates, but I think I have now managed to catch and fix them all; also the odd repetition of words, leading qualifier (just one so far). Pesky (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Fresh eyes are always good. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Paris, Ukraine and Norway

• "In January she returned to Paris where Quisling joined her in February, along with Asja, ..." This is ambiguous; did Quisling and Asja join Maria, or did Quisling join Maria and Asja? Pesky (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• "he seems to have advocated" … did he or not? :o) Pesky (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Did :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Concerns - probably fixable

Hey guys, I've been going through the article doing a number of little fixes (non-breaking spaces in dates, removal of 'hanging' qualifiers and 'hanging' phrases from the beginnings of sentences, etc.), and though I haven't yet been concentrating terribly hard on the prose meanings and leanings so far, I'm finding that am 'hovering' a little bit on the NPOV thing. I basically know nothing about the subject, so appreciate that the authors will have a far more balanced view of the over-all literature than I do. My gut-feelings may therefore be completely unjustified.

It seems that there is possibly too much in the way of 'justifications' and 'excuses' for some of Quisling's actions (again, these may be entirely correct), but as I am also noticing a lot of reliance on the Dahl source, I am wondering if perhaps Dahl's work tended towards the 'justifying, minimising, excusing' point of view, and maybe this is spilling over a little into the article. As I say, this is pretty 'borderline' - not enough for me to feel major anxiety over it, but it's just a little 'niggle' I'm getting.

Would it be possible to find a few more citable sources for the 'anti-Quisling' feelings, and perhaps give them just a little more weight? We have facts in there, sure, but maybe a quote or two from the other side of the fence?

Do let me know if I have this completely wrong - as I say, I know virtually nothing about Quisling. Cheers! Pesky (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just adding (though I probably don't need to clarify at all): we seem to have just a bit too much of "Quisling the poor misunderstood scapegoat", and not quite enough of the "Quisling the treacherous, murdering wotsit" in terms of 'feelings' expressed. :o) Pesky (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't completely disagree. Dahl is noted for his "he was bad, but not that bad" line. Where possible I have tried to reference him by name. The problem with discarding his views outright is that the Dahl biography has benefitted from 30 years of historical research and uncovered archives than, say, Høidal. If you can give me specific sections which would benefit from balancing, then of course I shall. It's just difficult to rewrite facts, and harder still to tell when facts have been deliberately omitted by writers without knowing what to look at -- it's not something I'm particularly good at, I'm afraid. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found a couple of sentences (one from the Dahl work), which I have put into the 'Personality' section, and which I feel almost certainly give enough of a 'balance' for me personally to be happy with. I know Chzz is going through doing some 'tidying' and removal of qualifiers, etc. I think by the time this is done, we are likely to be OK. Pesky (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellet. I'm going to have a crack at Chzz's comments below right now. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Misc from Chzz

• Footnote 2 "Quisling considered the fourth and constitutionally dubious" needs a reference  Done
• "The couple behaved as though they were married, and celebrated their wedding anniversary." needs a ref; I relocated it from mid-para but I'm not 100% sure which page/ref covers it  Done
• For his party, the association with Italian fascism could not have come at a worse time, given that news of illegal Italian incursions into Abyssinia was beginning to hit headlines. - why was this the worst time; I don't understand the correlation nor why it was so negative?
  •  Not done Well, with the stress on the illegal. Not sure how best to reword that.
• rewarded with an audience with the King. pls add ref  Done
• CBE revoked - please can we say WHY it was revoked (whilst I appreciate it is reasonably obvious, with WW II, it'd be nice to say why)
  •  Not done Had quick google around, can't find an explanation; sorry.
• Picture in infobox; I'm guessing the de wikipedian user scanned that in, and the quality is pretty poor; if possible, one day, it would be nice to try and improve it
  • I agree. the problem is, not many photos are public domain. The author of that one has released it into the PD, even if it is low quality it's the best we have for now. Unfortunately (I have some nice ones at home but they're not in the PD, alas. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• The stay in Paris required a temporary discharge... please add ref (probably/presumably ref 13 at end of next sentence)  Done
• ...no basis in fascism of any kind, including the National Socialism model. - ref please  Done
• Several sentences from Support for Quisling from right-wing elements thru revolutionary threat was so serious has only 1 ref at end; please add more (even if repeating)  Done
• 27,850 votes - approximately two percent please add specific ref at end of sentence {Done}}
• Para After the underwhelming election results,... could use more refs; in fact entire section "Fører of a party in decline" would benefit more refs on each sentence
  •  Done and  Not done respectively. I think the overall density is good, but I havew added one more into the specific sec tion.

The Helpful One notes that he is to blame for requesting most of the references above. ;)

Virtually all  Done - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Doing good, Jarry :o) Pesky (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Checklist

• 1) Well written : yes, the article is clear, easy to understand, complies with the MOS; spelling and grammar are OK.
• 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: it is well-referenced, with inline citations and clear bibliography; supporting notes are also clear and concise.
• 3) Broad in its coverage: yes, a good overview of the man's history, background, and pre-war activities without going into clearly superfluous detail
• 4) Neutral: gives due weight to opposing viewpoints.
• 5) Stable: Yes, non-problematic in this respect.
• 6) Illustrated: Images are relevant, suitably captioned, and copyright status is clear and OK.

There's been some stimulating and synergistic teamwork on this - I've enjoyed being a part of it :o)

. This article has passed the GA review process, and I will gladly promote it to GA status. Pesky (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)