Talk:My Opposition

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

My Opposition was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 14, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
May 15, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 21, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
September 14, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Archives

Archive 1

Copyright statement

My grandfather, Friedrich Kellner, gave his diary to me in 1968, two years before he died. I sent a copy of the diary and the appropriate forms to the United States Copyright Office, and the official copyright is in my name. I do not mind making public those entries I have placed on Wikiquote, but I will not be placing the entire diary there. The diary is not yet published, but it is being prepared for publication at the Justus Liebig University (referred to as the University of Giessen) in Giessen, Germany. Rskellner 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. Adjustments to the 11 items listed for review are well completed. To help the article keep its GA status, please make sure that all new information added to the article is accurate and properly cited. Altogether, the article reads well. Keep up the good work!--VS ^talk 04:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the book and original research

So, the book is unpublished? What exactly is being referenced when we have references to page numbers from the diary? Is this not original research? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. This matter has previously been resolved. This historical document, which was recently on exhibit at the United Nations, is not in the category of "original research," which Wikipedia defines this way:

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."

For current verification purposes, the Friedrich Kellner diary is at the Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and is being published by the Kellner Projekt there. --Rskellner (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of the diary

The Kellner diary article, which is about a prime source historical document, does not come under the category of "original research." For Wikipedia purposes of verification, the diary is in the same unique category with documents such as the Barack Obama presidential acceptance speech. One day the Obama speech will appear in a published book, but until then it is verified only by newspaper stories and online videos. Such temporary verification is also available for the Friedrich Kellner diary.

But the diary has something even more substantial. For reference and verification purposes, we can use the Canadian documentary, "My Opposition: the Diaries of Friedrich Kellner." Throughout the documentary, which recounts the dramatic story of Friedrich Kellner, an actor reads diary entries while the camera scans pages of the diary. This film is available at CCI Entertainment in Toronto. The documentary was shown recently at United Nations Headquarters in New York, and they have copies of the documentary available in the United Nations Department of Public Information.

Regarding the diary's publication as a book, the professors at the Kellner Project at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, are close to finishing their major task of digitizing the entire ten volumes. They are even digitizing the hundreds of newspaper clippings that are pasted into the diary. The diary should soon find its way into print.

In the meantime, numerous excerpts from the diary, both in German and English, are available at this website, and this is given as a link on the Wikipedia articles about Friedrich Kellner.

Until the diary is published, it probably would be best to follow the example of the Wikipedia article about the Obama acceptance speech, and use the Reference section in place of a Notes section.--Rskellner (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:My Opposition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I was initially concerned at the references to an unpublished book, but following the talk page discussion, I appreciate what is going on. Has the book been published yet? If so it would be good to see the references adjusted. I am happy to mainating the GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dr. Sascha Feuchert of Justus Liebig University, co-editor of the Diary of Friedrich Kellner, the diary will be published February 2010 by Wallstein Verlag (Publishers) in Göttingen, Germany. It will be published in two volumes, a total of 1,200 pages. At that time, I will include proper reference to the book. --Rskellner (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kellner Diary 25_Apr 1943_Atlantic_Wall.jpg nominated for deletion

See commons:commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kellner Diary_25 Apr_1943 Atlantic Wall.jpg.

Teofilo talk 08:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kellner diary - Apr 14 1943 radio crime.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Kellner diary - Apr 14 1943 radio crime.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on My Opposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071009052753/http://www.spd-laubach.de/7.html to http://www.spd-laubach.de/7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Opposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718044959/http://www.jpr.org.uk/Reports/CS_Reports/no_3_2000/index.htm to http://www.jpr.org.uk/Reports/CS_Reports/no_3_2000/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on My Opposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Opposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605134111/http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs057/1102308225095/archive/1103391920200.html to http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs057/1102308225095/archive/1103391920200.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI

@Rskellner: Thanks for your recent edits on this article. ~~However, from your username I am wondering if you might have a conflict of interest regarding this article. If that is the case, I suggest that you disclose your conflict~~ Edit: It looks like you disclosed your COI above, but you might consider disclosing on your user page as well. Wikipedia conflict of interest policy has evolved since you started editing and it might be a good idea to review the current standards. Catrìona (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, which I have followed; you will note that I have posted an explanatory paragraph on my user page. When I first began (many years ago) to write about Friedrich Kellner on Wikipedia, the matter of my being a relative (grandson) was quickly resolved with other Wikipedia editors. They agreed that my position as a university professor made me aware of the potential for subjectivity in my writing, and I remained very attentive to it. I was grateful that Wikipedia editors realized the importance of the diary as a historically significant primary source document about the Third Reich, and allowed me to create the pages. Again, thank you for your suggestion about adding a COI statement to my user page. Rskellner (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

The article does not contain critical commentary of the contents of the diary.
The article relies too much on block quotes in the summary of the diary.
There is uncited text about the development and translation of the diary.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, when it was promoted it hadn't received as many reviews. But now there is scholarly sources to cite for the reception.[1][2][3] (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

My Opposition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not contain critical commentary on this literature, of which possible sources were provided on the article talk page. There is also uncited text and an overreliance of block quotes. Z1720 (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Overquoting, overreliance on primary sources, and absence of analysis (reception or not). czar 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.