User talk:Wilson44

Hitler's Mein Kampf (full text) Extensive site on Adolf Htiler

were the first two links in the hitler article on Wikipedia

Adding a link
The site you added is a weak link with some factual errors, few sources given, and it has been discussed earlier on the talk page, where there was little enthusiasm for it. It is also anonymous, with no information given as to its owner. Bytwerk 12:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

sourses are listed on the bibliography

you got four sites listed in links that used info from this site, and that does not included the BBC and The history channel that has used this as a resource

Show me a more informative site on Hitler ?


 * A whois search for the site provides no information on the owner other than a name -- a good site provides information on its owner on the site itself. There are a variety of errors, both factual (e.g., the site suggests Hitler delivered a speech on 24 February 1945, when it was in fact read for him by Hermann Esser), and grammatical (too many to list) on the site. It links to a variety of dubious neo-Nazi sites. The bibliography doesn't help in trying to determine the source of specific information on the various pages. In short, as Agathoclea suggests, it doesn't meet Wikipedia source standards. Bytwerk 14:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

adolfhitler.ws
why are you removing the http://www.adolfhitler.ws link, it has been here before you ever found wikipedia


 * That's not true: the link was added on January 5, 2004, and I started editing Wikipedia on December 13, 2003.

Tell how come other sites in your link section can use adolfhitler.ws as a source yet you remove adolfhitler.ws as a source ? Was the BBC and the History channel wrong in using material from this site ?


 * Have you got any proof that the BBC or History Channel used the site as a source? I can't see any.

The excuses used are lame, this is the second oldest link on this article and the site contains more info on Hitler than any other site on the Internet.


 * Have you read Reliable sources? Self-published sources can't be used on Wikipedia.

Please give me a link to where the decision was made to remove this link and why. It seems you re not interested in historical research rather you are more interested in a agenda


 * Here it is. If you want to add it back, please try to find a consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And prove that the site is up to Wikipedia policy. For starters where does it show who is editing the site? What are his qualifications. Blogs - Forums - and similar are no usable references except when they are the subject of the article. -- Agathoclea 22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

please note
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/hitler#papers

http://christiancadre.org/topics/hitler.html

please note, these are unacceptable as it contains original material and grammatical errors, please remove this site if you are impartial and intent to judge all sites on a equal footing

maybe you should follow the Wikipedia guidelines concerning links

"A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other neutral  Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link."

you editors have forgotten about neutrality &mdash;the preceding comment is by 17:44, 25 July 2006 - Wilson44: Please sign your posts!
 * Department of History at the University of California is certainly a reputable source. The other site is currently not available. Bytwork's site has been added by other people due to his status as historian in line with policy. Agathoclea 22:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some comments on your post on my user discussion paged. The HHM is about as close to a Neo-Nazi site as one can get without self-applying the label. Remember.org was actually distressed to learn they had so many links to the site. Most of them have been removed, and they are working on getting rid of the rest. The other links you mentioned, which I didn't think were very good, have been removed by someone else. We'll see if they stay removed. Your site is not clear as to who you are. I fact, I did a little backchecking, and find that you added your name only recently to the about page. The cached version, last I checked, didn't have your name. And simply adding a name doesn't help much. The errors are significant, and I've come across a number of them. One more as an example. On the audio section, you have "Hitler's last speech" from April 1945. That's actually the conclusion to his 30 January 1945 speech. Rempel happens to be what Wikipedia (and scholars) consider a reputable source, having published significant work on the subject. He has credibility on the subject, There is little on your site to establish your credibility as a source on the subject. Consider what the Wikipedia policies say about sources:
 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."


 * The point is not that your site is a bad one, but as you say, it is a hobby. You don't have the credibility on the subject to make your site appropriate. Bytwerk 03:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)