Talk:David Wallechinsky

message: 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)
thread_title: Populist historian?

message: 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 | Speak 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. NN 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 | Speak 20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. NN 03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Parade'' list

message: 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.http://data.jewishgen.org/wconnect/wc.dll?jg~jgsys~archview~187279~Ellis+Island+name+changes~332;4  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."
See Ellis Island special for why the bracketed text appears to be correct. Ellsworth (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dictator List Discontinued? 

message: 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)
replies: text: , I cleaned up the career section; have a look at it now. The complete list of dictators had no business there or elsewhere in the article. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Issues with POV/Peacocking in Sections