Talk:J. Arch Getty/Archives/2014

Notability
It seems to me that an academic with published work and books is notable enough to warrant an article. His work seems to be standard in the field, e.g. --Atavi 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the notability notice, since no-one has responded to the point I've raised.--Atavi 10:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP:Notability, you need some outside independent publications about this person to justify that he is notable. I could not find any. To simply have publications is insufficient. A lot of people have a lot of professional publications. See Notability (people). You provided a personal web page in Leeds University. It does not qualify as a reliable source.Biophys 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a little awkward for me, because I don't really care for Getty or his ideas, but I do think he is notable so here it goes.
 * He is described as a "noted historian" here:
 * More importantly, his books are part of the curriculum of many universities, other than UCLA and UC Riverside.
 * Here's a list of links

http://webprod1.leeds.ac.uk/banner/dynmodules.asp?Y=200708&M=HIST-5830M

http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/current_students/undergraduate/modules/level_3/hst3027-8.html http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/current_students/undergraduate/modules/hst3055.html

http://www.uga.edu/history/syllabi_pdf/HIST_7323_robertsd_0805.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/kgb/deep/kgb_deep_biblio.htm http://www.ceu.hu/crc/Syllabi/alumni/history/bashkuev1.html

http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/undergraduate/modules/module_full.php?code=HS3148 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/historyold/undergrad/modules/hi107/autumnseminars/ http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/part2/2007-2008/paper7.pdf http://www.american.edu/cas/hist/faculty/syllabii/lohr_345_f06.doc http://www.humanities.uci.edu/history/ucihp/resources/biblio10.php http://polisci.lsa.umich.edu/documents/syllibi/2007W/PS389.006W07Suny.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Political-Science/17-584Spring-2003/Readings/index.htm http://gozips.uakron.edu/~mcarley/Hist634.html http://reg.ucsc.edu/soc/aci/winter2000/poli.html http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/200/mourebib.htm
 * --Atavi 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So, your point is that " The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. "[Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29]." Then he perhaps qualify.Biophys 11:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what, guys.It happened in in 1950, Konrad Adenauer, a historical figure accused soviets to manipulate the numbers of Germ,an POWs in soviet camps I got such impression that soviets themselves did not know what is going on and have no idea how many POWs they have in the camps. And that is about POWs who were kept in much more better conditions in by allies inspected camps. There was no such perfect head count  they were in need for slaves, they caught slaves, put them to the  camps and did not care so much what happened. So how Getty so sure that he was able to ''publish exact data on the number of Stalin's victims. (Everyone has their own dreams...) '' I can not believe it. --Celasson (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)