Talk:Harry Elmer Barnes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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]

I have never written anything on this website so apologise if I am doing something wrong, but I am shocked and surprised that the entry for Harry Elmer Barnes does not discuss in detail his Holocaust theories. It is not just Lipsadt - But on the subject of Lipstadt - The British courts ruled in her favour in the Irving trial - She is quite highly regarded. See also Gill Seidel - The Holocaust Denial - Antisemitism, Racism & The New Right -Published by Beyond the Pale Collective (Leeds 1986) - Also mentions Barnes. This encyclopaedia entry is a disgace if it does not cover in detail Holocaust Revisionism and Barnes's praise for Rassinier etc.

Mikey

[edit] Issues

Jacrosse, you are right - I have also not been using Talk, and people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, so lets start now. I have tried to compromise with you (agreeing to delete the Lipstadt quote about Barnes, etc.) but you are still systematically removing relevant information if it is at all negative about Barnes - the Ben Austin piece is directly about Barnes's role in Holocaust denial. Also, I am not sure why you deleted the name and dates of the journal articles you posted, which seem relevant. Finally, the Murray N. Rothbard piece is a stretch - it is a defense of revisionism, but it is not a defense of Barnes's views on the Holocaust, yet it comes after a sentence reading However, supporters of Barnes contend Lipstadt's methods to be heavy handed and the charge of holocaust denial to be a red herring, namely as a means of smearing any historian who takes a critical look at American involvement in World War II or any other war. That is pretty strong language, and pretty specific ("Lipstadt's methods [are] heavy handed" and holocaust denial as a "red herring") and they have no support at all in the Rockwell piece, especially as Lipstadt wrote her works two decades after the Rothbard essay.

I am going to restore the Austin link, but leave the Rockwell piece in for now, until we discuss it. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism and Barnes' legacy more specifically covers a lot more than just the Holocaust, but I suppose it can't quite penetrate your skull that anything should.--Jacrosse 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:Civility, please. I apologize if you have found my former comments at all abrasive (the constraints of communicating through the short edit summaries makes me seem curter than I aimed for), but there is no reason to insult me. You are also misunderstanding my object: I am not attacking historical revisionism in general, and I realize there is more to Barnes than the Holocaust, but his denial of the Holocaust is a part of his legacy, as witness by William Carto's Barnes Review, among other things, and your attempts to purge any mention of this is disturbing. Besides, in addition to insulting me, you have yet to answer my questions: 1) Why did you delete the dates and journal names from the external links? 2) How does the Rothbard piece written in the 1970s support in any way the sentence that says "Lipstadt's methods [are] heavy handed" and holocaust denial as a "red herring"? You want to defend Barnes, I understand that, but some civility and discussion would be appreciated. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You have not responded, but you continue to delete all mention of Holocaust denial in exterior links, and you are still deleting the dates and journal names from the external links - why? Also, again, how does the Rothbard piece written in the 1970s support in any way the sentence that says "Lipstadt's methods [are] heavy handed" and Holocaust denial as a "red herring"? I have not made changes to the material you added, despite the fact that you are not answering my questions and continue to make changes to material I added. Perhaps an RfC is appropriate? --Goodoldpolonius2 19:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat what I said before, the link you provided has only the most minimal discussion of Barnes, and the added information for the other links is superfluous and is not normal for external links.--Jacrosse 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is frustrating: 1) the link does talk directly about Barnes's role in Holocaust denial, you are just deleting it because you don't like anything critical of Barnes 2) many articles do include the information about the source, especially for journal articles, and why would we delete it? and 3) you still haven't answered about Rothbard. I have asked these questions multiple times, but you just keep unilaterally changing the article. I am going to restore (again) the missing bibliographic information and (as I discussed two weeks ago) delete the Rothbard link because it says nothing about Lipstadt or Holocaust denial or red herrings or anything else. I assume you will object, but you are unwilling to discuss, so I am not sure what to do. Are you okay with taking this to mediation, perhaps? --Goodoldpolonius2 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving reference

I have removed the statement, "Further, self-styled "revisionists" such as David Irving have attempted to claim Barnes for their pro-Nazi historiography, but have been generally unsuccessful," as that is an inaccurate description of Irving's agenda. - Proof Reader (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)