Talk:Alfred Lilienthal

Untitled

Malicious edit from 24.193.47.84. He added the following lie "He dies October 7, 2008, in a suicide bomb attack in New York City. According to witnesses, Mr. Lilienthal walked into "Greenberg's," an upper east side Manhattan bakery wearing an explosive vest that he detonated. The blast killed the 92 year-old Lilienthal instantly, but, miraculously, left a glass display case of schnecken unharmed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janisary (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no indication that this indication is notable. he looks like a extremist or crank.Thomas Babbington (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]

I don't expect a reply over a decade later, but Lilienthal was, for better or worse, a prominent (if not the most prominent) "pro-Arab" voice in the United States on the Israel-Palestine conflict, at least during the 1950s-70s (e.g. in 1975 he was a guest on William F. Buckley's "Firing Line," which was not an obscure TV show.) He certainly held crank positions, like that Anne Frank's diary was a probable forgery and that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazars, and was willing to contribute to the journal of the anti-Semitic Institute for Historical Review, but his notability comes from his books and activism over the Israel-Palestine conflict, e.g. What Price Israel was reviewed in such publications as the New York Times. --Ismail (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the article is not well-organized, but it contains valuable information, and both praise and criticism of Lilienthal, albeit , most people dolt welcome praise form David Duke.

Addhoc: If you want to add more positive material or organize the page, that is acceptable. But it is irresponsible to simply cut out sourced information. Roger Warren (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Roger Warren[reply]

This article is extremely derogatory and biased against the aged living subject, a former US soldier and diplomat. Removed some of the problems, slurs and falsehoods; more remain. Next to no biographical info, easily available. "Support" only from extremists, in order to paint subject as an extremist or racist. Will continue to neutralize.John Z (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nearly 2 years since you wrote the above, but the article looks pretty well-balanced, now. Even favourable to the subject, though I'm not familiar with him. Channelwatcher (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says birthday = December 25 1915, citing a California archive. The obituary in the Washington Post says birthday = December 25 1913. http://www.legacy.com/WashingtonPost/DeathNotices.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=118604639 I couldn't decide whom to believe so I left the article alone. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal--weaselly and unsourced paragraph

The paragraph referring to Tariq Majeed was an excuse to refer and tie Lilienthal to the anti-Jewish attitues of Henry Ford--in other words, weasel wording. It was also resourced only by a reference to The Nation magazine as a whole, not one article. It's been removed. Tapered (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

@When Other Legends Are Forgotten: 4 consecutive quotes attacking a book and its author, is that really NPOV? Makeandtoss (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ~~:NPOV means we present views in proportion to their prevalence in sources. If there is more praise of him or his book, add it. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is a biography not a book contest Makeandtoss (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't understand what that means. NPOV applies on every page, and means what I wrote above. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

What I meant was, if I add 4 quotes praising him and his book, that would make his biography full of quotes..Makeandtoss (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different issue from NPOV. WP:QUOTEFARMs are not desirable, but at the moment, the quotes are short, and make a small part of the overall 'views' section. Tehy coudl also be easily paraphrased. I would be ok with you removing the Oscar Kraines section, if you must, as he's the least notable of the critics. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)