User talk:Palinurus7
Just trying to get rid of the red links at the top of the page, by talking to myself.
Palinurus7, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Palinurus7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC) |
pseudo-scientist
[edit]What evidence do you have that Franz Altheim was a pseudo-scientist? It seems he may have been used as a spy for the NAZIS but he seems to have been a respected academic before the rise of the NAZIS and even after their much deserved demise. Hardyplants (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
He was heavily involved in Nazi efforts to present the Roman empire as being somehow an offshoot of Germanic civilization. For example, he interpreted certain rock drawings at Valcamonica in Italy as being similar to rock drawings in Sweden and therefore as conclusive proof of this link. Much of his work involved presenting Roman history as a racial clash between Nords and Semites (see Nazi archaeology article) The information available on Wikipedia on this currently is pretty limited but I plan on expanding his article in the near future. Heather Pringle in The Master Plan: Himmler's Scholars and the Holocaust goes into the massive extent to which he distorted the historical record to support Nazi race theory. As for why he continued to be treated as a respected academic post-Nazi, idk. He probably shouldn't have been. Palinurus7 14:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Your Franz Altheim edits
[edit]I noticed several such edits on various articles, but I am not sure if you thought about them very clearly. By removing explanations of who he was you now make him look like a normal academic (because all we are saying is that he is cited as an authority by Wolfram), which is the exact thing you were trying to avoid?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Lancaster: Unfortunately, I have to strongly disagree with adding the disparaging "Nazi" to the front of an academic for their service during this period. Such a connotation would apply to hundreds, if not thousands of academics who researched and taught during the National Socialist's dominance of the scene in Germany. Altheim wrote his dissertation BEFORE the Nazis came to power, and while he was dismissed for a time, was reinstated and taught at the Frei Universität in Berlin into the 1960s. Adding that "Nazi" moniker does a disservice to any work he did outside of those 12 years and despite that you you find him despicable for what occurred at this time, does not justify him wearing the label ubiquitously with respect to his research on ancient Germanic peoples and the Roman Empire. We do not categorize other scholars by their political party (if but temporarily) anywhere on Wikipedia, but by their nation of origin.--Obenritter (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Obenritter: Altheim's Nazi affiliations are critical to understanding his work on both Germanic and Roman peoples. A major theme of his work was building support for the pseudo-archaeological theory that Rome was a German civilization. This was a major goal of the Nazi archaeology movement to burnish German nationalism by appropriating other cultures. Unfortunately, information on this is largely lacking on his article currently but I will shortly integrate substantial information from The Master Plan: Himmler's Scholars and the Holocaust on the subject. As for judging people for "their service during this period," Altheim was a wealthy man with an international circle of well-connected contacts and was fluent in English. Had he chosen, he could have left the country with relative ease, something many thousands did. He chose to become a Nazi propagandist. If you think that isn't significant to his work and we shouldn't "disparage" him with it, idk what to tell you. Palinurus7 15:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Lancaster: I'm concerned about the various articles where Altheim is referenced without any discussion of his substantial role in Nazi propaganda. Depending on the significance of references, I've been either removing or qualifying them. If you feel it would be more appropriate to describe his research while acknowledging the influence of Nazi ideology on his work, please update the article in question to reflect that. Palinurus7 15:55, 29 September 2020 UTC
- Very likely this is a case where decent people can and should disagree. Both you are clearly decent people, who know more about this scholar than me. I think the concerns of both of you are worth considering. I hope that finding a compromise wording should be possible. Personally in the cases I had something to do with I was concerned that (as part of a bigger discussion at the time) that Wolfram's position was being presented as uncontroversial on a point where I knew there is disagreement and controversy. Whether it is justified or not Wolfram is sometimes criticized for following Nazi era historiography more than young historians tend to do (though they do not suggest that this is because he is personally a sympathizer of their politics as far as I know) and we have to try to report such things where appropriate in a fair and decent way. Sorry if these notes don't help, but I hope they do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 28
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Navigator (Cussler novel), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lycian and Phoenician. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)