This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I don't deny that he's made mistakes, some big ones, but this article is far too skewed in the direction of a hit piece. It needs to be dramatically restructured if it is going to be neutral. I've made this point in the past, but the situation has actually worsened. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you speaking of the entire article or just section 3 entitled "Criticism"? Although I have only contributed to the two paragraph subsection therein on the Pacific Railroad (a subject on which I have also written several books), it seems to me in reading over the rest of the entire section that all of the criticism's noted are well referenced and properly cite objective sources that support many instances of factual errors and/or apparent plagiarism in Ambrose's published works. If you disagree then please be specific about what you mean by the article being "far too skewed in the direction of a hit piece" and provide objective sources that support your contention. Centpacrr (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about the sheer volume of space. The whole article is slanted against him. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The volume of space in the article devoted to criticism seems to me to be well justified by the significance and impact of how and why what is covered there affected his reputation as a professional historian and scholar as well as the views of fellow historians and the public of the overall reliability of his works. Centpacrr (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Criticism consumes over half the substantive text. It's overkill and "recentism" and has to be cut. Given the opposition here I've had to ask for outside views. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
There are several paragraphs that are clearly in violation of WP:SYNTH, since they lack reliable secondary sources specifically mentioning Ambrose and his work. So as a start they can be removed if no such sources can be found. User:Barsoomian has tagged the paragraphs in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Get the sense that this article is being used to advance an opinion. Although many of the controversies may reference facts many are relatively minor in nature and needn't be addressed. Similar minor controversies with other authors and personalities do not follow this pattern. Better would be a balanced view of his life and contributions. --Optomic (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, at least as far as the WWII section is concerned. Scrounging through primary documents to try to find a factual errors is original research; it would be better to find coverage of Ambrose's errors in significant secondary sources. If those can't be found, it shouldn't be in the article. Further, Ambrose was reported on and profiled extensively throughout his career; surely the article is misrepresenting those sources by devoting so much to individual criticisms from trivial sources. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
For example, one of the bits of evidence raised against Ambrose is a interview with Bob Sales in which he says Ambrose relied on other sources, including an Atlantic Monthly article, to report that a coxswain threatened soldiers with a gun; Sales says these sources were wrong and that Ambrose shouldn't have trusted them. The source is a Lynchburg, Virginia newspaper that no one's ever heard of.
There are many more high-profile stories and reviews of Ambrose that we don't include here; it seems pretty clear to me that minor sources were being selected for the specific purpose of building a case against Ambrose. I've removed the paragraph in question. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"Ambrose asserts, in several works, that the German Panther tank used an 88mm gun. In fact, it used a 75mm gun. The German Tiger I and King Tiger tanks used the 88mm gun as did the Jagdpanther ("Hunting Panther"), a turretless tank destroyer version of the Panther.[improper synthesis]"
sorry but thats not strictly true, in fact it is just as wrong as what Ambrose said the Tiger I did not share the same gun as the Tiger II and Jagdpanther as the article suggests. the 88 Kwk/Pak 43 were used on the Tiger II and Jagdpanther (an earlier version appeared on the Ferdinand/Elefant tank destroyer). Whereas the Tiger I used the 88 KwK 36 which was a completely different weapon. The gun of the Tiger I was not as powerful and quite a lot shorter.
I am not 100% sure on the facts but if I am correct can someone change it. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC))
shall I put this paragraph back in perhaps
"Ambrose asserts, in several works, that the German Panther tank used an 88 mm gun, however the only variant of the Panther tank using an 88 mm was the Jagdpanther, a turret-less tank destroyer."
I don't see any problem with having the controversy section, inaccurate/poor use/or simply not enough use of sources is a big no no. We could probably forgive him when it comes to the numbers of troops and the like because sources sometimes vary but plagiarism is unacceptable.
I will be adding new information to this page in an effort to mitigate some of the bias noted by several editors over the years. The new information provides detail on Ambrose's accomplishments, particularly regarding his efforts to document the World War II experience through the memories of veterans. I will not be altering the original intent of previous editors or removing any information, particularly as regards the "Criticism" section, though my own original research has produced more questions then certainty regarding charges made against Ambrose. I plan to add some clarifying information under "The Eisenhower controversy" sub-section to provide context, but not to challenge the information provided previously. I appreciate that Wikipedia pages are not the forum for personal opinions or long-winded explanations. My only intent is to create a better balance in the facts offered on this page by providing detail to those areas of Ambrose's life and deeds which are not in question.Whodat789 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)whodat789