Talk:Wolf Liebeschuetz

Sources

Liebeschuetz 2007 citations are all broken.

He wrote several books so you should be able to find book reviews for an independent evaluation of his work.

In particular, "Liebeschuetz has criticized these views. Although deniers of the existence of Germanic peoples frequently charge their critics of having Nazi affiliations, Liebeschuetz has accused the deniers of themselves practicing an ideologically dogmatic and flawed from of scholarship surprisingly similar to that of the Nazis, and charged them with manipulating history in an attempt to promote multiculturalism and European federalism" should not be left as-is without a secondary source. It's not clear if this is a fair characterization of the dispute, especially deniers of the existence of Germanic peoples frequently charge their critics of having Nazi affiliations which seems like a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. (t · c) buidhe 13:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: This was also not mentioned in the source cited. I have adjusted these sentences to better reflect this. Liebeschuetz is a harsh critic, but there's not nearly as much Godwin's law involved as was suggested in this article. I think a secondary source is not needed though, and I would request you to retract the tag - I suspect it will otherwise sit there basically forever, as what better (and other) source is there for the views of an author than the works of an author himself, where he explicitly states them? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)