Talk:Caroline Elkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Editors please use this page to discuss controversies about the Caroline Elkins' views and not engage in a revert war.

Elkins will not respond to her many critics, so how can a proper debate happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.53.136 (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia entry on Elkins is not a place to debate or rebut criticism. It is a place to state verifiable facts - not opinions of critics or admirers. -- Thaths 14:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"This is a place to state verifiable facts - not opinions of critics or admirers". The problem is that in Elkins case she has asserted as verifiable fact that which others dispute!

[edit] Content, not more one-liners critical of the subject

The 'Criticism of Elkins' work' section is becoming a collection of one-liners critical of Elkins' work and links to adverse reviews. Any author and book have reviewers praising them and panning them. Please let us try and not use these sections to provide a list positive and negative reviews. IMO, there is currently adequate information provided in this section to show that there is both positive and negative press surrounding Elkins' work.

Could we, instead, have more content about the Subject, please? -- Thaths 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, Caroline? 63.215.27.199 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is poor. The cliams of Elkins' critics are simply repeated near-verbatim. I'd like to see some balance. -- This unsigned comment was made by Hythlodayeus

I know next to nothing about her work, but this article assembles criticisms which, taken together, leave her reputation in tatters and make other people (Pullizer committee, Niall Ferguson) look silly. Wouldn't it be fair if someone dug out an answer to her critics? I presume one exists. Jagdfeld (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)