Talk:Richard J. Green

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard J. Green article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Richard J. Green is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Occult writers and antisemitism Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, History of the Jews during World War II, Antisemitism Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess),Jewish assimilation Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded); Assess Sandy Koufax Translate: from German: Judensau
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military historiography task force

[edit] categorisation of 'Dubious Historical Resources'

212.219.189.69 removed the categorisation of 'Dubious Historical Resources' because, "without criticism, it is unjustified."

I did so not referring to Green's work but because he deals with the Leuchter report and the Rudolf report. So, IMO people browsing the cat should be able to find Green. --tickle me 13:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could give Leuchter and Rudolf the 'Dubious Historical Resources' tag and link to Green from them? I was just afraid that it might confuse some people regarding the integrity of Green's work.

[edit] Green's Response

Richard J. Green has used FIVE YEARS to answer back on Germar Rudolfs refutation of Greens report. Having studied chemistry myself I can't see how Green has refuted anything at all. Most of the chemistry articles on wikipedia are excellente, so why cant someone competent have a look?

For those who are having a hard time using Google, I'll give you the link to Green's response to Rudolph's "response" [1]. Quote:

Let's be straightforward here. Most of Rudolf's argument is rhetorical, not scientific. If we address his rhetorical points, he accuses us of being non-scientific, if we fail to address them, we are not answering a supposedly legitimate question.

The classic, "heads I win, tails you lose" approach. Innovative, but not very scientific. When Rudolf comes up with some valid scientific flaws, maybe there will be a response.

Most chemistry reports are written by people who are legitimate and accredited. Why can't revisionism find anyone other then Rudolf (or Leuchter) to support their theories? Cantankrus 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They have found several accredited chemists to validate their work - quite easy to find on the internet. I enjoyed the introduction to the article - you left out his puppy's name when he was a boy. Maybe whoever wrote this could write an introduction in a similar vein for Leuchter, Irving, Rudolf,etc. PS - Skip the above link - unless you just like slanted reviews - Rudolf's work is available on line - better than a review.159.105.80.80 11:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)