Talk:J. Arch Getty - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by My very best wishes (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 8 March 2015 (new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:46, 8 March 2015 by My very best wishes (talk | contribs) (new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

	Biography portal 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

University of Pennsylvania Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania 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.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Notability

It seems to me that an academic with published work and books is notable enough to warrant an article. His work seems to be standard in the field, e.g. --Atavi 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the notability notice, since no-one has responded to the point I've raised.--Atavi 10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:Notability, you need some outside independent publications about this person to justify that he is notable. I could not find any. To simply have publications is insufficient. A lot of people have a lot of professional publications. See Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). You provided a personal web page in Leeds University. It does not qualify as a reliable source.Biophys 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a little awkward for me, because I don't really care for Getty or his ideas, but I do think he is notable so here it goes.

He is described as a "noted historian" here:

More importantly, his books are part of the curriculum of many universities, other than UCLA and UC Riverside.

Here's a list of links

http://webprod1.leeds.ac.uk/banner/dynmodules.asp?Y=200708&M=HIST-5830M

http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/current_students/undergraduate/modules/level_3/hst3027-8.html http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/current_students/undergraduate/modules/hst3055.html

http://www.uga.edu/history/syllabi_pdf/HIST_7323_robertsd_0805.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/kgb/deep/kgb_deep_biblio.htm http://www.ceu.hu/crc/Syllabi/alumni/history/bashkuev1.html

http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/undergraduate/modules/module_full.php?code=HS3148 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/historyold/undergrad/modules/hi107/autumnseminars/ http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/part2/2007-2008/paper7.pdf http://www.american.edu/cas/hist/faculty/syllabii/lohr_345_f06.doc http://www.humanities.uci.edu/history/ucihp/resources/biblio10.php http://polisci.lsa.umich.edu/documents/syllibi/2007W/PS389.006W07Suny.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Political-Science/17-584Spring-2003/Readings/index.htm http://gozips.uakron.edu/~mcarley/Hist634.html http://reg.ucsc.edu/soc/aci/winter2000/poli.html http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/200/mourebib.htm

--Atavi 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So, your point is that " The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature. "." Then he perhaps qualify.Biophys 11:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what, guys.It happened in in 1950, Konrad Adenauer , a historical figure accused soviets to manipulate the numbers of Germ,an POWs in soviet camps I got such impression that soviets themselves did not know what is going on and have no idea how many POWs they have in the camps. And that is about POWs who were kept in much more better conditions in by allies inspected camps. There was no such perfect head count they were in need for slaves, they caught slaves , put them to the camps and did not care so much what happened. So how Getty so sure that he was able to publish exact data on the number of Stalin's victims. (Everyone has their own dreams...) I can not believe it. --Celasson (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss Controversy Solzhenitsyn, etc. versus Getty on Vast Gulag Death Toll Differences

Referenced in the A. Solzhenitsyn Misplaced Pages article is Getty's claims that the Gulag death tolls were about 1.5 million. This is a major controversy (as Solzhenitsyn, others estimate the Soviet death toll as many many millions higher). It calls into question Solzhenitsyn's Gulag and other works about the Gulag camp system.

As Getty's works are apparently used in various university sources, (noted in references in this article) we have a major paradigm shift from the 1970's when I was in college and the Gulag books burst onto the scene and were basically accepted as true.

On the other hand, the Misplaced Pages GULAG article provides various sourced details about the Soviet camp (gulag) system. These references would seem to generally go along with Solzhenitsyn's larger death estimates and many descriptions of abuses and murders.

Persons (like me) who are new to this controversy (Getty's LOW gulag death toll vs. Solzhenitsyn's HIGHER estimated death toll- would want to see this controversy discussed by scholars. It would be nice to see this incredible difference of mass murder numbers solved. Is Getty's very modest death number correct? Or is Solzhenitsyn's much higher numbers correct?

Or is the controversy still to be solved, but can neutral Misplaced Pages scholars summarize the main issues to be addressed?Victorianezine (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "controversy" here. Solzhenitsyn based his estimates on guesses and baseless fantasies, whereas Getty uses extensive archival data and statistics. The archives released in 1991, used by Getty in his research, disprove Solzhenitsyn's absurd estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.36.178 (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced text

This edit. Two points here.

The references to books have been provided by other users with pages. So unless you check these sources yourself (they are not easily accessible) and tell they are not telling what was claimed, this is going to stay per WP:AGF.
According to the source I checked (here), "One of Getty’s more significant contributions to revisionism was the shifting of blame for the bloody purges from Stalin to Nikolai Yezhov". He sees "Great Terror as the consequence of the USSR’s newfound social mobility and concludes that in such chaotic political flux inadvertent atrocities were bound to be committed.". If you want this be included as direct quotation, that's fine. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories: