Talk:Richard Steigmann-Gall

Translations

I read at the very end of Steigmann-Gall's paper "Christianity and the Nazi Movement" that Holy Reich had been translated into Greek. This is also suggested here, here, and here. If anyone can confirm, just add it. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever form of entertainment the Nostradamus Effect might be, Documentary it aint.

Whatever form of entertainment the Nostradamus Effect might be, Documentary it aint. Looking at the wiki page for it, it confirms that this is the consensus judgement elsewhere on wiki, although note that is given as corroboration, not proof. This is the usual sort of Ancient Aliens drivel that has destroyed History Channel and Discovery Channels' reputations, not a serious work, Steigmann-Gall himself acknowledged that. Anmccaff (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It is sourced as a documentary.

" Kent State University (2011). "Faculty News." Department of History Newsletter (Spring): 12. "A particularly valuable lesson was learned when he agreed to appear in a History Channel documentary about Hitler."

We have to adhere to what sources say about a topic and not include our own editorializing. Do you have a source for it being a "so-called documentary"? 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed back to sourced language. "a History Channel documentary about Hitler." 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be saying it is self- described as a documentary in the initial phase of recruiting talking heads. Perhaps you can provide a scholarly review that confirms it was seen as such after the fact? (Preferable one, BTW, that doesn't 404...) Anmccaff (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need a scholarly review to know you can't say so-called documentary. I agreed and left sensationalist documentary as a compromise to show the questionable nature. You can't editorialize it into what looks like an editorial opinion. I am looking for another source. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, he has stated he regrets his involvement in "The Nostradamus Effect: Hitler's Blood Oath" you are making it sound like he agrees with the outcome. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yupp, he regrets being in a mockumentary, yupyupyupyup. Well he should. Anmccaff (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect you do need a scholarly review here; simple inspection shows it to be the usual "Hitlery Channel" (All Hitler! All the Time!) schlock. This is in "the sky is blue, (when it's clear weather in daylight, and no nearby volcanoes are vulcanizing, the the brush ain't fiery, and El Oso Smokey is safe in his woods...) class. Do you seriously believe that this crap is any sort of attempt to document an existing situation, or to accurately portray historical fact? That's what documentaries do, after all. Anmccaff (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Well you obviously have no idea what I think. I don't watch much TV and if I did, it definitely wouldn't be any sensationalist documentaries, but that doesn't matter here. What matters is the opinions of reliable sources and maintaining a scholarly article. Using "so-called" is not scholarly, it sounds boorish. This is a BLP, please don't add back "so-called" again. If anything, I would use additional sources that show he has tried to distance himself from the nonsense in that show, which would improve the article and more honestly portray his true views.. 18:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk)