Talk:David E. Kaiser

Untitled
Very well put! I am so happy to find a few knowledgeable and credible people speaking out and not afraid to tell the truth. It really disturbs me how history books are being re-written for fear of offending people who were not even involved in the events of the pre-war years. Thank you for describing our current situation so clearly and understandably. I am going to forward your comments to everyone in my address book.

12.202.77.157 (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Harriett S


 * This no doubt refers to the viral email that does not reflect Prof. Kaiser's actual views. Pechmerle (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Viral Email
The paragraph in the "Currently" section about the viral email comparing the president to Hitler should be removed from this article. Kaiser has publicly stated that he did not write it, and does not agree with it. Snopes has traced its origins elsewhere.

So what we have is a false attribution, where the only connection to Kaiser is that his name was hijacked by somebody in the chain of the viral president/Hitler email. This is a terrible reason to have something about it in this article, the biography of a living person. We do now say that it wasn't Kaiser, but we shouldn't be talking about this non-event in his life at all.

I propose to remove it. Anybody else have views on that? Pechmerle (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is better that we keep it. There are a few reliable sources that discuss this incident and also make it clear that Kaiser was a victim of somebody's false attribution. Although it is five years later, I think it would be worse to have someone stumble across the e-mail (such as the OP in the previous thread) and not find material such as this that clears his name. - Location (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the current content makes the falsity of attribution true. Any further arguments regarding due weight? - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Literary criticism from reliable sources
Literary criticism from reliable sources should not be removed from the article. Objections based on policies and guidelines can be raised here. Repeated removal of sourced content is edit warring and against other policies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also of note might be I am not sure about due weight but McAdams is notable and an expert in the field. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Another possible reference is: Like McAdams, Russo believes Oswald did it alone. Unlike McAdams, he believes there was a cover-up. Both are negative reviews. Another positive review is:  -Location (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings Location. Thank you for your input. I hope you can find the time to improve the article with these sources. I also invite the COI editor to comment. What is WP:DUE, what would improve the article? Are there other sources? Often someone with an interest in a subject is aware of additional sources. By all means post them here for consideration if there are other sources. This applies to the subject in general not just to literary criticism. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)