Talk:Daniel Goldhagen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 Main Entry for Book HWE 2 Please separate HWE from the author's biography 3 Disputed Tag 4 Single Author Page, Multiple Book Pages

[edit] Main Entry for Book HWE

I've moved the text in this article that focuses on the Hitler's Willing Executioners to an article under that name. I've removed the redirect on that page. The two articles now primarily focus on their own subject. Avruch 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please separate HWE from the author's biography

Almost all this article concerns the controversy about one book. How about creating an entry for the book and putting it there? There are other controversies about other books (e.g. Speer), and other aspects of the man; these should not be lost in the controversy. Coughinink 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And I don't know why the hell was the pov tag removed. It should be replaced until the article is unbiased. Presently it is biased against Goldhagen. —Cesar Tort 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm placing the tag again and if another editor removes it s/he has to state the reasons here in talk page per WP policy. —Cesar Tort 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The subarticle on "The Article in Midstream" should not be on this page. It was written by Erich Goldhagen, Daniel's father, who is also a Holocaust scholar. It was published in the early 1970s, before Daniel was even a teenager. - Jeff Benvenuto 11:34, 4 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmbenven (talk • contribs)

[edit] Disputed Tag

I've added a factual dispute tag to the section on A Moral Reckoning due to the contradictory nature of the section, the first paragraph attacking the veracity and scholarship of the book and the second paragraph approving of its scholarship. This is not to say that both viewpoints shouldn't be represented, but the obvious contradictions of the section ("Attacked by many scholars" versus "Not attacked by any well-known scholars") should be corrected. Tiger Khan 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single Author Page, Multiple Book Pages

It doesn't make sense to have an entire article, supposedly about Goldhagen, be about his second (and less notable) work. There is already a well cited article about a Moral Reckoning, why should that be pre-empted by POV and unsourced material on this page? And why do you revert the changes a week after you've obviously already noticed (and edited) the articles previous version, without discussion? That is edit-warring, and not productive. Avruch^Talk 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there is a separate article on the book - a point I was not aware of, a brief summary of the controversy which includes the basic contentions should be sufficient(not the previous summary which was too vague). As far as the matter which I reintroduced to the article, it was almost all sourced (except for the portion defending Goldhagen). I did not delay in making the change as some kind of edit warring tactic but did so because that was the first chance I had the time to really look at the matter. Mamalujo (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to do a fair abridgement/summary of the criticism of the book, feel free. Otherwise, I will do so when I get around to it. I see that a detailed criticism is contained in the article on A Moral Reckoning. Mamalujo (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. I created the article, I believe, and included and cited criticism and support. I also removed most of the detail about AMR from this article at the same time, and explained in my edit summary (although not, I don't think, on the talk page). Incidentally, I also created the HWE article for the same reason. Personally, I think the previous version that you changed (which directed readers to the main article of AMR) is more in line with policy than the current version. Avruch^Talk 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)