This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Andreas Hillgruber article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have found this statement to be dubious:
References
Palmer's book appears not to be WP:RS on this topic as it covers a different timeframe (1919) and a different subject matter. From Amazon write-up:
I would like to reword this to "Russian sources acknowledge the mass rapes" or something similar. Please let me know if there are objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Most of the article is reasonably well made. Hoever, this cannot be said of the Historikerstreit section, in which every effort is made to defend the subjects positions, even the most untenable, distasteful and a-historical, while alle criticism is explained away, selectively represented and slanted. For instance, it is strongly and falsely implied that his extremely favorable view of the Wehrmacht was only opposed by Marxist/hard left historians of little standing which is outrageously false. This section, in its current form, is unreasonably POV, unencyclopaedic and entirely divorced from the actual way IT is viewed by professional historians. This article cannot and must not be an apologium for its subject, and the outrageous bias I refer tot above must be dealt with. 82.176.221.176 ( talk) 10:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Andreas Hillgruber article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have found this statement to be dubious:
References
Palmer's book appears not to be WP:RS on this topic as it covers a different timeframe (1919) and a different subject matter. From Amazon write-up:
I would like to reword this to "Russian sources acknowledge the mass rapes" or something similar. Please let me know if there are objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Most of the article is reasonably well made. Hoever, this cannot be said of the Historikerstreit section, in which every effort is made to defend the subjects positions, even the most untenable, distasteful and a-historical, while alle criticism is explained away, selectively represented and slanted. For instance, it is strongly and falsely implied that his extremely favorable view of the Wehrmacht was only opposed by Marxist/hard left historians of little standing which is outrageously false. This section, in its current form, is unreasonably POV, unencyclopaedic and entirely divorced from the actual way IT is viewed by professional historians. This article cannot and must not be an apologium for its subject, and the outrageous bias I refer tot above must be dealt with. 82.176.221.176 ( talk) 10:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)