Talk:Gordon Williamson (military author)

MacKenzie
I reinserted and expanded the citation from MacKenzie -- please see Google book preview of Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, I see what you are trying to achieve here, and I broadly agree with the thrust of ensuring that Williamson's uncritical approach is noted in this article (with some caveats you will find unsurprising), but with a review that says that the book in question is "too flawed to be recommended as an undergraduate text", should we really be using it to criticise Williamson's work? Surely there is a better quality source that makes this point about Williamson's work? Brown's review even points to the flaws in MacKenzie's analysis of the Waffen-SS specifically. This is particularly important given Williamson is still alive AFAIK, and this is therefore a BLP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

 * Opening message removed!
 * It is clear that neither you nor K.e.coffman read the article, and just reverted it. Can you point out in detail the parts that you consider to not be neutral. Unnecessarily (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[ reply][ reply]
 * Should I assume by your lack of response, that you agree that there is only one less than neutral edit, and it was not mine. Unnecessarily (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
 * You should rather assume WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:NODEADLINE. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[ reply]
 * You should rather assume WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:NODEADLINE. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[ reply]

I have lots of questions. First, why did you reduce his number if books that have been published? Unnecessarily (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[ reply]