Talk:William Thomas Walsh

46.116.41.7 is Bazuz
full disclosure :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazuz (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

removal of section
Hello 90.215.164.21,

I see you've removed the material I added about Walsh's antisemitic historiography. Pray tell me why. As far as I see there 3 possible explanations for this:

1. You hold that Walsh did not have an antisemitic bent. 2. You agree that he did, but not in a significant degree. 3. You agree that he did to a significant degree, but a matter of principle you think that biases of historians needn't be mentioned in their biographies.

Which one is it, then? Or am I missing another explanation?

I'd really like to discuss this amicably and reach a resolution... :)

Best wishes, Bazuz (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I openly stated that 46.116.41.7 was me, right on this page. I was logged out at the time I made that edit and didn't notice it before saving.


 * Well, I got no reply, so I'll restore references to Walsh's anti-semitic approach. Actually, I'm glad that 90.215.164.21 removed my previous edit since he gave me the opportunity to do more research and find some references which I'll incorporate into the text. Bazuz (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Outrageous
"Walsh's work was set apart by its well-researched, documented, footnoted, and faithful account of history."

"Heralded for his uncompromising devotion to truth and accuracy, Walsh's frank retelling of many sensitive but nevertheless historical events elicited both acclaim as well as personal attacks from detractors within the Jewish community."

These two sentences are ridiculous, "set apart"? Which is the basis of such a subjunctive claim? Where are the arguments? There have far more important historians than this person, who contradict everything he says.

This claim is taken from Catholic Authors web page, which is far from being an objective source.

On the other hand, Cecil Roth, a well reputed historian, member of the Royal Historical Society, is slammed in this article for criticising Mr. Walsh (especially for saying that the Jewish blood rituals were founded claims!).

This does not look like a Wikipedia article, it is full of prejudice and I would even say what elese.

I would suggest Wikipedia paid more attention to this type of articles and who moderates them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyweisz (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I reverted it to an earlier version. Bazuz (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)