Talk:The Barnes Review
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled edit
Not that I believe in Holocaust denial or such things, but the tone of this (tiny) article is extremely non-NPOV... I doubt that the Barnes Review is in fact "dedicated to historical revisionism". I assume it has extremist points of view which include Holocaust denial, but mischaracterizing their beliefs is not informative.
Though looking at the linked site I can see the reasons for the characterization - it'd probably be more realistic to say that it's an extremist reactionary historical publication with strong anti-Semitic and anti-Communist leanings. Some of the article could be fleshed out by looking at the Carto article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.147.139 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is propaganda, not the style of an encyclopedia edit
It is NOT the task of an encyclopedia to produce opinions in their readers. The ONLY task is to deliver OBJECTIVE information and to leave it to the reader to form an own opinion from these informations.
So the last sentence "The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Barnes Review as "one of the most virulent anti-Semitic organizations around".[2]" must be deleted cause it is a pure propaganda sentence of a political pressure group. I checked the website and I found historical revisionism (which imho is the permanent holy duty of EVERY serious historian, cause there is never a final or absolute truth in the historical science, but only more or less close or distant approximations to the truth), but I did not find any "antisemitism". I have several Jewish friends who don't believe everything what they were told about the holocaust, and I doubt a lot that they are antisemites. WernerBln (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- However, that is not the way Wikipedia works. We do present significant opinions such as the SPLC statement you don't like. I do love the article "Adolf Hitler—An Overlooked Candidate for the Nobel Prize"[1] - the Nobel Peace prize no less! But if you wish more evidence, there are a lot more sources pointing out the anti-semitism of the Barnes Review that we can add. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does censor sources that some of its editors consider similarily partisan then the SPLC and ADL are. --197.228.40.14 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- You mean we wouldn't use Stormfront as a source about Jews or anyone not white? Or any other neo-Nazi or antisemitic website? You're probably correct although it isn't censorship, it's just our sourcing policy. No encyclopedia could be at all credible if it had no policy on what sources can be used. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does censor sources that some of its editors consider similarily partisan then the SPLC and ADL are. --197.228.40.14 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Atrocious Propaganda edit
The presentation of an organization’s identify should never be presented by its opposition, that’s an incredible show of bad faith. Oppositional viewpoints should absolutely be featured prominently, but they should not form the basis of the article’s general summary. I’m going to do my best to give this article some semblance of neutrality. Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)