Talk:Ashley Rindsberg

Deleted Paragraph under "Works"

Deleted the following paragraph because 1) it was not sourced, 2) NYT never, never "reported Poland invaded Germany" and 3) William Shire never wrote any such nonsense in his book.

The book was a response to Rindsberg learning from William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that, at the outset of World War II, the New York Times reported Poland invaded Germany.

Here is a link [1] to the September 1, 1939 NYT headlines proving that NYT never "reported Poland invaded Germany" but did report Germany invaded Poland. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Read beyond the headline (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0901.html for those without a subscription): Berlin, Friday, Sept. 1--Charging that Germany had been attacked, Chancellor Hitler at 5:11 o'clock this morning issued a proclamation to the army declaring that from now on force will be met with force and calling on the armed forces "to fulfill their duty to the end.", and then the entire section under the sub-headline "Border Clashes Increase".

As to your claim that "William Shire never wrote any such nonsense in his book", I'll point you to the end of Chapter 16, in which he writes:

The "Polish attack" on Gleiwitz was used by Hitler in his speech to the Reichstag the next day and was cited as justification for the Nazi aggression by Ribbentrop, Weizsaecker and other members of the Foreign Office in their propaganda. The New York Times and other newspapers reported it, as well as similar incidents, in their issues of September 1, 1939. It remains only to be added that according to the testimony at Nuremberg of General Lahousen, of the Abwehr, all the S.S. men who wore Polish uniforms in the simulated attacks that evening were, as the General put it, "put out of the way."

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed material

@Fourthords: while poorly-sourced BLP material should be removed immediately if it's contentious, please consider using or for uncontentious material. At first glance it seems like most of the material in question is uncontroversial and might be easy to find sources for.

Regarding the revert of @I.am.a.qwerty:'s Wikipedia material in particular, there might be other arguments for not including it, but I'm not sure it technically breaks any WP:BLPSELFPUB rules? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see some of it already was tagged. With other bits the rationale for removal isn't obvious though. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, so I apologize in advance if I fail to answer what you wanted. I removed material that was wholly uncited (or unsupported by the citations present) per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I also removed material that was only cited to the subject himself, which ultimately only verified that (a) one of his grandmothers was of certain nationalities, (b) he once submitted a project proposal, (c) he wrote some books—now otherwise corroborated by third-party reliable sources, and (d) he wrote some blog posts—not otherwise corroborated by third-party reliable sources—which additionally did run into WP:BLPSELFPUB points two & three. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 09:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)