Talk:William Thomas Walsh

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

United States

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

46.116.41.7 is Bazuz[edit]

full disclosure :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazuz (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removal of section[edit]

Hello 90.215.164.21,

I see you've removed the material I added about Walsh's antisemitic historiography. Pray tell me why. As far as I see there 3 possible explanations for this:

1. You hold that Walsh did not have an antisemitic bent. 2. You agree that he did, but not in a significant degree. 3. You agree that he did to a significant degree, but a matter of principle you think that biases of historians needn't be mentioned in their biographies.

Which one is it, then? Or am I missing another explanation?

I'd really like to discuss this amicably and reach a resolution... :)

Best wishes, Bazuz (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I openly stated that 46.116.41.7 was me, right on this page. I was logged out at the time I made that edit and didn't notice it before saving.

Well, I got no reply, so I'll restore references to Walsh's anti-semitic approach. Actually, I'm glad that 90.215.164.21 removed my previous edit since he gave me the opportunity to do more research and find some references which I'll incorporate into the text. Bazuz (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous[edit]

"Walsh's work was set apart by its well-researched, documented, footnoted, and faithful account of history."

"Heralded for his uncompromising devotion to truth and accuracy, Walsh's frank retelling of many sensitive but nevertheless historical events elicited both acclaim as well as personal attacks from detractors within the Jewish community."

These two sentences are ridiculous, "set apart"? Which is the basis of such a subjunctive claim? Where are the arguments? There have far more important historians than this person, who contradict everything he says.

This claim is taken from Catholic Authors web page, which is far from being an objective source.

On the other hand, Cecil Roth, a well reputed historian, member of the Royal Historical Society, is slammed in this article for criticising Mr. Walsh (especially for saying that the Jewish blood rituals were founded claims!).

This does not look like a Wikipedia article, it is full of prejudice and I would even say what elese.

I would suggest Wikipedia paid more attention to this type of articles and who moderates them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyweisz (talk • contribs) 10:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it to an earlier version. Bazuz (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]