User talk:Logicman1966
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Gerstein Report
I know that there are errors and inconsistencies in the Gerstein Report and as such I have provided a more reliable/verifiable reference to them, however, when reliable sources say XYZ, Wikipedia is entitled to say XYZ. Mattogno and Roques are not reliable sources accordingly their material has no place on Wikipedia. This is summed up quite neatly by "doctoral degree—later revoked their material". WilliamH (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] James Bacque
I don't know if Bacque is right or wrong regarding POW numbers. Postwar reconstruction and the beginning of the Cold War were one of my own PhD fields, and the only error I can see at first glance is Bacque's claim that there was no food shortage in Europe in '45-'46. It depends where you were, how much food you needed, and the state of the local transport infrastructure. There was some food, there was some surviving railway and canal infrastructure, but there was almost no coal to fuel transportation until the summer of 1946, when the mines finally started getting pumped out and some labor brought in (the slave laborers having left in the spring of 1945). I have no way of checking whether the Western Allies kept good records and/or mistreated German POWs. However, I think Bacque has made an interesting case that deserves better than to be dismissed out of hand. I have taken out much of the Ambrose material because of Ambrose' own problems and because much of it is opinion. I also took out the Keegan remark because it was nothing more than a backhand during a speech made for entertainment. I've added Joan Beaumont and expanded Jonathon Osmond. None of these people have actually re-tilled Bacque's ground, so we're left with a lot of opinion about what could or couldn't have happened. Help me keep an eye on the entry, please. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "My vandalism"
Hi. First of all removing the entire section or adding duplicate photos was entirely accidental I didn't notice that and thanks for adding it. As the founder of WikiProject Tibet I seriously doubt I would ever try to vandalise an article, quite the opposite in fact if you examine what I have actually done for the project and wikipedia. However that human rights section is potentially highly problematic and severely affects the balance and tone of the article. It gives the impression that it is "pro Tibetan" by emphasing the unpleasantries of the Chinese and is likely to be subject to edit wars and trouble with the article in the future. I'm not saying we should ignore human rights issues but writing it neutrally is very difficult to do in the circumstances. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
