Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 16 September 2009

Judaism C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Alternative views C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

With regards to: # Vahakn Dadrian responds to Guenther Lewy about his denial of the Armenian Genocide

If we are going to start going down the road of calling the works of a historian clearly better qualified than anyone editing these pages an exercise in denial rather than an exercise in the study of history then this page will soon become yet another Armenia based wikipedia nonsense. By all means we can provide substantiated criticisms of the author, but such authoratitive proclaimations as if the topic is subject to empirical fact will only invalidate the page. I appreciate some of you will have a hard time realising your own ideas are not emperical fact but please come to terms with those issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.145.232.205 (talk • contribs)

I assume you are refering to the link. This is not part of the wikipage.Travb 23:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Apocolocynthosis: What kind of an edit summary is this User:82.145.232.205? Please go read WP:CIVIL and refrain from engaging in such racist attacks against Armenians!!!Apocolocynthosis 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Deleted section:

A careful reading of Lewy's America in Vietnam reveals that it is often a relatively honest account of a brutal U.S. military attack on a defenseless rural peasant population, but that everything is then "explained away." It is the "explained away" rhetoric that is quoted by other U.S. apologists for the war -- e.g. Norman Podhoretz in his book Why we were in Vietnam (Simon and Schuster, 1982). For example, at one point Lewy quotes Noam Chomsky that "these are war crimes, in the layman's sense of the term" and then goes on for twenty or more pages attempting to convince the reader that the Law of War is really a highly technical subject and so things are not as they obviously appear. See Chomsky's scathing review of America in Vietnam titled "On the aggression of South Vietnamese peasants against the United States" collected in his book Towards a New Cold War, (New York: Pantheon/Random House, 1982).

I will keep this section deleted because it is not quoted, and seems to be someone's opinion, not a quote from another historian. I will restore the Chomsky's review of America in Vietnam somewhere in the text.

Signed: Travb (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

source for "pretending"

A scientist does not research for years in an area to publish his researches to make a pretence. he - from his own point of view - wants to clarify something. though it is possible that he pretends something. but this opinion must be given by another source, for instance by another scientist. if this is the private opinion of User:Apocolocynthosis, then it should be changed. which sources have been used for "pretending" while making this assumption? until the sources are delivered, this word should be avoided (I hope for a better argument than "bok yemenin arapcasi")--Moorudd 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Book title and section titles

There has been a silly revert war going on in place of discussion, over the titles to use for article sections. Rather than do that, express an opinion on this talk page.

Travb apparently wishes to use the exact titles of Lewy's books as section titles; an anonymous editor wishes to use slightly more general paraphrases that describe the topic of each book (as well as, perhaps, including the debates by others around the same concepts).

My personal inclination would be to go with the neutral paraphrases. That feels better in keeping with other WP biographies which are more conceptual than bibliographic. LotLE×talk 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is basically what I was expressing in the edit summaries. This user has developed a habit of confounding some of my edits which are mostly routine and certainly harmless. Whether this reflects behavior towards others as well I can not say, though I am not particularly interested in it. 129.71.73.248 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't express opinions in edit summaries. Do it on the talk page. Edit wars are harmful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationales for edits are commonly given precisely in that box. If Travb were interested in compromise and collegiality (rather than explicitly announcing his intention to ignore anything I say), that would indeed be a productive route to take. 129.71.73.248 21:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If the recent Alliance for Progress edit war was also your "productive route", I am really afraid to see your unproductive one. I havent bothered to speak with you because my recent experience has shown that there is no compromise or collegiality in your edits.Travb (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You bring up an example that only further demonstrates your own obstinacy, not misbehavior on my part. I attempted to generate better, more precise content whereas you threw a tantrum. And now you wish to carry this juvenility over to this article to dispute such a minor stylistic change simply because I did it, and despite apparently being in the minority? Why? Who am I to generate such fits over banal matters? 129.71.73.248 23:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

English translation for source #25

Can we get that citation in English or translated? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

genocide denial

Regarding recent edit and the revert.

I just had a brief look at the sources. Turkish Zaman is not a reliable source, since its someone else interpreting what Lewy said. The second source concerning the Native American genocide is a valid and strong source. Its Lewy denying the Native American genocide in his own words. And his words can be attributed to him.

Adding that information to the lead may not be timely since the body of the article is missing that information. I suggest creating a section about his denial in the body and then adding it to the lead. After all Lewy became notable mainly due to his denial of the various genocides. VartanM (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Genocide denial" is hardly NPOV. Furthermore, Lewy's conception of the North American die-off is scholarly consensus, not even close to controversial.Verklempt (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename of Category

Some of you may wish to participate in the discussion on renaming the category Armenian Genocide deniers to Armenian Genocide skeptics. The discussion is here. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection and surrounding issues

Given that the page is protected now, I hope we have a good opportunity to discuss things. I'll first note that if something is in doubt, it is always best to leave it out of the article and discuss - instead of revert to include information that really should be better sourced.

This was the only sentence that we have an issue with. If this is true, we need to source it, reliably, with multiple sources. Potentially negative information should not be included in a BLP unless it is sourced using multiple verifiable sources. This is not the case for that sentence. Until that changes, it should remain out of the article. If you have other verifiable sources confirming it, we should add them and I'll have no issue with it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - a mistake on my end - as pointed out above, only one sentence is questionable here. If another admin can go to this version, and remove the sentence "Lewy later said that he could not recall if he had actually seen the alleged report or simply been told of its contents., re-add the protection tag and save, that would be good. Lets wait for User:Xenophrenic to confirm that the rest is not a part of the dispute first, however. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• C-Class Judaism articles
• Low-importance Judaism articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles