Talk:International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
raf |
|||
Line 10:
:::::::I assumed you were talking about Bruce Minton, who wrote about the Cliveden set in Washington during WWII. I'm not sure what you mean when you say Rose refutes the Cliveden Set. Do you mean Bellant's version of the history? We can't say here "there was no Cliveden Set," unless we are quoting someone saying just that. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Yes. There was no self-conscious Cliveden Set that worked for appeasement, or tried to get England out of the war after 1939; especially not Lord Malcolm, who was then already flying for the RAF again! --LC 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::There are more problems with Bellant. For example, on p.60 he refers to a fundraising letter obtained by one [[Roger Pearson]] from Ronald Reagan. What he fails to mention there is that this fundraising letter was actually composed by one Robert Schuettinger (Racial Purist uses Reagan Plug, Washington Post, Sep 28, 1984), not by Reagan! I probably can find more examples of problematic writing by Bellant. I honestly don't Bellant's work would pass [[WP:RS]]. I am not even sure what his NY Times references on Douglas-Hamilton are trying to show. And I doubt ''In Fact'' would pass [[WP:RS]]. --LC 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
| |||