Talk:Eyal Sivan

Removed content

Dear Jeandré du Toit, before you simply unilaterally delete any content you don't like, don't you think it's fair to ask for sources or question its validity on the talkpage first?

Now, some of the wording in the content you removed may be interpreted as a non-encyclopaedic PoV (the "untouchable theme" and alike), but for the most part if was simply a factual account of the Eichmann documentary. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Re [1] and [2]: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." -- wp:v. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-24t15:12z

That applies only to contentious claims. I can't see what's contentious in the whole paragraph you removed. Have you seen that documentary? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it applies to challenged material. Challenged at [3], [4], and [5]. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-25t13:22z

And exactly what statement do you challenge? I watched the Eichmann documentary myself, and even had the privilege of hearing Sivan talking about it. Almost the entire paragraph is in fact based on the biography of Sivan provided ad the Croatian weblink review (which you changed from ==References== to ==External links==, why?). The whole point of the documentary was the inversion of traditional roles, to portray Eichmann as the "good guy", merely serving the regime, in the end even professing remorse for all the evil he committed. Please Jeandré, emit some concrete claims, not just links to some empty policies which, as I said, do not apply. Only contentious material can be challenged. The paragraph you removed is a pretty accurate description of the documentary. What you're doing is nothing but vandalism. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

By removing the entire unsourced paragraph, I'm challenging the entire unsourced paragraph. The Croatian page is 404 and was not an inline citation. "References" are footnoted references, "External links" are links that aren't footnoted. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-01-27t12:18z

Meaning of theoretician

What is "theoretician" supposed to mean? It's such a vague term I think it ought to be omitted. You can be a theoretician in some particular field, but just describing someone as a theoretician is meaningless. Wallace McDonald (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)