Talk:IBM and the Holocaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Archives: 1

NPOV[edit]

Reliance on Bernstein's opinion outside the overwhelming evidence from other critics against it is highly POV. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Any suggestions on alternative sources? 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe these sources are covered in the "Revelation and Responsibility" section at the back of the book. I'll be more specific later. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Responsability" and history repeating itself[edit]

Richard Bernstein, writing for The New York Times Book Review, wrote that Black's case "is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done."

Undoubtly IBM didn't cause the holocaust, but they certainly supported it. However, some other American firms were also doing business with Nazi Germany, because Germany was "sexy" in the thirties. Therefore keep a look on Charles Lindberghs autobiography. Germany in the thirties was probably as sexy as the USA before 9/11. And nowadays many people all over the world see concentration camps like Guantanamo and think "why is the history always repeating itself?". You need to answer this question by yourself. --178.197.224.6 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTPLOT[edit]

This article took up 21,000 bytes, three quarters of which were summary of the book (see this revert, for instance). That's way too much. Moreover, it's all cited to the book itself, giving no independent indication that the plethora of detail is notable or noticeable. See WP:NOTPLOT: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." If 3/4 of the article is recap, then the balance is completely off. I'll leave it to a competent reader of the book to summarize the contents in a couple of paragraphs, and the best thing to do is to find a secondary source that treats the book and summarize or paraphrase that. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Drmies is wise. bobrayner (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the cited rationale for deletion and removal as well as the interpretation of WP:PLOT. The claim that this material has no indication of independent notability is absolutely absurd. There is no policy basis to remove a synopsis of a book. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I have now restored the synopsis in part, and reduced it to 789 words, which is well within Wikipedia's best practices for non-fiction synopses in GA and FA articles. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Ownership of IBM[edit]

In the many re-edits of the page all references to the fate of the German owned subsidary post 1933 is lacking. At some point the company was nationalized.

This omission, which was a deletion, along with the archiving of previous comments and the continual reversion and editing make me question the NPV of this article. Particularly the controversy section should be beefed up, as the thesis and conclusions of the author were controversial, and not accepted without question as the article more-or-less implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:E80:7ED:2CF8:DDB8:EDCA:571B (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that... A few years ago I tried to bring some balance to the article, which resulted in the author of the book starting a campaign to locate and "out" me in real life (stalking). I wholeheartedly agree with your comments, but I've lost interest in trying to influence change here. If you do decide to try and bring more neutrality to the article, leave me a message on me talk page. Cheers. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)