User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/August

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it was a sockpuppet to a banned user[edit]

@K.e.coffman:the Ip is still at it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commissar_Order&action=history Jack90s15 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Maybe we should leave a note for Editor's to restore previous Version when the Ip comes Back ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commissar_Order&action=history

@K.e.coffman: it was a sockpuppet to a banned user

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Favonian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a00:23c7:cf07:c300::/64 @Jack90s15: thank you for getting to the bottom of this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Franz Kurowski[edit]

The article Franz Kurowski you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Franz Kurowski for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bot appears to have been confused: Talk:Franz Kurowski/GA2. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Meyer copyedit[edit]

Miniapolis, you did a nice ce job on the article. Kierzek (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Halder[edit]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Franz Halder has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I can find no consistency across articles in Wikipedia with respect to italicising words like wehrmacht and blitzkrieg. I found on checking a number of articles that wehrmacht in italics seemed to be used most often. I found blitzkrieg sometimes with italics but most often not. So I have used wehrmacht and blitkrieg throughout the article. If this is not standard practise please correct them for me.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Rif_War[edit]

Hey, maybe you know something about images, and maybe you can help! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Frei[edit]

Congrats on your latest GA *(I have claimed a modest participation as translator). In your current bid for GA for the Clean Wehrmacht I've done some copyediting and addressed one redlink by quickly translating Norbert Frei. If you have a moment, please check it over for me. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: thank you for letting me know; I'll have a look. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific prefixes[edit]

G'day K.e.coffman. Having ranks in infoboxes as an honorific prefix is widely done on en WP, and is supported by Template:Infobox military person/doc. I have reverted your deletions, because you need to get a wider consensus that ranks are not honorifics. The MOS is unclear on this point, and common usage indicates that there is a consensus they are. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Template:Infobox military person/doc (local consensus) does not override MOS:HONORIFIC. You first need to establish that "General", "Field marshal" is indeed an honorific. Can you point me to where this occurred? --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS clearly does not exclude ranks, it just gives examples, so it is not being overridden by a local consensus. Ranks are honorifics, and are commonly used as such. For example, generals are commonly referred to as "General Bill", just as knights are referred to as "Sir Eric". What you need to do is establish that ranks are not honorifics, as the existing consensus is that they are, and you are the one deleting them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I've started a discussion at the Talk page of MOS:HONORIFIC; it's located here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#MOS:HONORIFIC_& "honorific_prefix" in bio infoboxes. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've commented there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is this 'streamlining'?[edit]

Can you explain why you removed in [1] the paragraph mentioning the stories of Kleinmann, Grzybowski and Kafarski? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I came to realize you have removed referenced information on rescuers from a number of other ghetto articles. To me, it seems highly relevant - a part of ghetto history, which should discuss its creation, functioning, victims and survivors. It's one thing if you remove unreferenced content (even through it is hardly a red flag and usually easy to verify and source with a simple google search), but it is disturbing, to me to see referenced content (with Yad Vashem, Jewish Historical Institute, and POLIN Museum sources, etc.) removed. I would appreciate if you could explain your logic for things like [2]. PS. I hope you can restore the content you removed as unsourced in Talk:Białystok Ghetto, I provided a list of references you can double check that should cover most of the facts you removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: A given statement might be accurate, reliably sourced, relevant to the subject, and yet still not be included in an article because it's of lesser importance or including it would place too much emphasis on one aspect of the topic. I found quite a bit of material related to the Holocaust in Poland to be imbalanced. For example, see my edit here: [3]. The rather extensive article has a lead that devotes a paragraph (out of four) to rescue by ethnic Poles, emphasising their great personal cost, and half a paragraph that's about Soviet crimes. Do you consider this balanced? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of WP:UNDUE is certainly relevant, and I agree that some ghetto articles devoted too much time to irrelevant history, primarily related to Soviet invasion and or later annexation of those territories. That said, you seem to remove all and every single mention of those issues, where I'd suggest that rather than dedicated paragraph, a single sentence or at least wikilink should remain. But my concern is not about the Soviet angle, which as I said, does seem to be unduly represented in some articles, but about the discussion of the rescue efforts, which IMHO is very much due and relevant to such topics. An article about Foo-ghetto should discuss, in detail, its history, notable people, organization, resistance, escape and aid efforts. If any section becomes too long, it can be split into a dedicated subarticle, which is why I strongly oppose removal of such content from the article - it should remain until it is split. Do note that this refers to the ghetto articles, as regarding the [4] diff in Holocaust of Poland, I am fine with the removal of this mention from the lead. In my experience, this is about as irrelevant (and would be used as a counterweight) as any attempt to discuss the extent of Polish collaboration with the Holocaust (which is currently not mentioned in the lead). If one of those issues would be mentioned, so should the other. I am unsure, honestly, if the lead would be better if both those issues where mentioned or not.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experiment: Sambor Ghetto[edit]

@Piotrus: I conducted an experiment using Sambor Ghetto as a test subject. The current version of the article is structured as follows:

  • Ghetto history: 273 words
  • Deportations: 379 words
  • Escape & rescue: 452 words

The "Background" section has several issues, so I'm not counting it, but let's add 75 words. This makes 1180 words total. The portion of the last section dedicated to the rescue (exclusively by Poles, it appears) is 426 words, or 36% of the Ghetto-related content.

I've downloaded Volume II, part A of the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos; it's available with free registration from the USHMM's website. The entry on Sambor Ghetto is 2000 words; the portion on the rescue by non-Jews (Poles and Ukrainians) is 110 words:

Attempts at rescue were limited, with a few exceptions. For example, Ivan and Maria Malenkevich, a Ukrainian couple from a village near Sambor, sheltered the siblings Artur and Irina Sandauer for 14 months in their home, where they built a hiding place in the attic.12 (...)

In total, about 160 Jews from Sambor managed to survive, mostly by hiding with Poles and local peasants. For example, in Czukowa near Sambor a peasant hid 18 Jews, who were not betrayed although most of the village knew about them. One of these Jews was, however, murdered by members of the Armia Krajowa (Polish Home Army, AK) after the Soviet forces arrived.13

This makes it about 5% by word count. I'm wondering what your take on my experiment is. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 22 out of those 110 are not about saving Jews by Ukrainians and Poles, but about a murder of a Jew by Poles. Excuse me for joining your discussion without an invitation, but the Icewhiz's conflict with VM has drawn my attention to the Jewish-Polish issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you letting me know this valuable resource is available for download. My take on it is that the article is badly in needs of expansion. Some editors expanded the 'rescue' section so that it is mostly complete. If other sections are not expanded, it may create an impression of undue weight, but the solution is not to gut a well expanded section, but to expand the others. And I'll note that a relevant expansion should also include information on local population, Polish or otherwise, collaborating with the Nazis as well, if it is relevant to the topic.
I will however note that the claim "One of these Jews was, however, murdered by members of the Armia Krajowa (Polish Home Army, AK) after the Soviet forces arrived." is a bit dubious. First, after Soviets arrived AK soldiers where generally arrested and disarmed. Second, I've seen similar accounts which turned out to be cases where a said 'murdered' person died in a crossfire, or joined the Soviets who then got into a firefight with the Polish partisans, while attempting to disarm and arrest them. Of course, without more detail it is hard to know what happened here, and USHMM is generally a reliable source, but even quality sources have errors. Realistically, why would AK soldiers try to murder someone after the Soviets arrived? They shot a random Jew because they were antisemites? Or because they decided to go on a murder spree? Unlikely. Anyway, I tried searching for this incident in Google Books and like and I couldn't find it. The USHMM article sources this to "AYIH, 301/4967, testimony of Meyer Lamet, July 15,1945, in Bucharest." which does not appear online. So all we have to go with is that the (reliable) researchers writing for USHMM decided to include this testimony in the article without any further commentary... acting as a judge and jury, calling a group 'murderers', based on a single testimony. The source is reliable, but I am not sure if I would consider this sentence (their conclusion drawn from it) a high point of it, or of the career of the otherwise reliable scholars who put it in there. All that said, however, I would not remove this claim if it was added to our article, but I would caution anyone who would want to put it there to consider whether a single testimony is sufficient enough as a source for it, per WP:REDFLAG.
On the subject of undue and such, it is also interesting that the writers of this entry chose to dedicate about as much content, word-wise, to the single testimony about Poles killing a Jew as to the stories of Poles saving the other 160. Yad Vashem, for example, has entries for rescuers [5] or [6]. another incident is described here: [7]. Why wouldn't the USHMM Encyclopedia entry include at the very least a mention of those three names? Undue weigh issues indeed.
So, anyway, about the Sambor ghetto - we simply have to expand the other sections of the article to be more comprehensive, and it's great that we have the USHMM source now available for free to aid in this task. It's only a shame that the main editor who actually had time and will to write about the ghettos, Poeticbent, is no longer here to actually do it. I am not aware of anyone who has filled his shoes when it comes to serious content creation and expansion in the ghetto topic areas. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I am not familiar with the subject, the only thing I know from memoirs (primary sources) that AK soldiers were still active behind the frontline of the advancing Soviet Army at least, initially, so this argument is not working. However, I agree this particular fact hardly deserves mention. My point was that the text devoted to saving Jews by the locals is even shorter than 110 words (about 90), which gives a rough impression of a relative weight this source devoted to this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert: you are always welcome on my Talk page; I’d welcome further thoughts you may have on the matter.
@Piotrus: I would be more sympathetic to the view that the rescue section is “mostly complete” vs the rest of the article, if secondary sources on the rescue efforts by Poles were presented to establish WP:WEIGHT. Or to the view that the rest of the article is simply incomplete. For example, even if we copied Encyclopedia's entry word for word (which we cannot) we’d still be at 2000 words. With the present 485 words on the Polish rescue, this would still be a gross imbalance to how a professional (via the Encyclopedia) presented the topic. Note that at present the Ukrainian rescue is ignored in the article, so 5%is not even for Polish rescue alone.
On a related note, the recent addition here [8] is problematic because of how it connects two stories:
After the ghetto liquidation, Władysław Bońkowski, also later recognized as a Righteous, a restaurant manager, offered shelter to a group of sixteen Jews who escaped from the ghetto, and successfully hid them throughout the remainder of the war.[1] Similarly, around the same time, Alojzy Plewa, also later recognized as a Righteous, and his family rescued several other Jewish individuals.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Bońkowski FAMILY". db.yadvashem.org. Retrieved 2019-06-18. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ "Plewa FAMILY". db.yadvashem.org. Retrieved 2019-06-18. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
“Similarly” indicates original research being conducted to synthesise a narrative not present in sources. This should be left to secondary sources. We are amateur editors on the internet; it’s not up to us to present a version of history not present in secondary RS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First. Feel free to remove 'similarly', through I don't consider it an SYNTH issue. But removing this word is not going damage the text (through I think the text flows better with it).
Second. It is a fallacy to assume that another source, even if it is academic or encyclopedia, is comprehensive or balanced. Few years ago I improved biographies of some sociologists like Max Weber and even Karl Marx to Good Article. To do this, I used several quality academic biographies of them (chapters in de-facto sociological encyclopedias like Standord's Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Kenneth's Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World. or Ritzer's Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics). A crucial realization I made then is that each of those texts attempting to present a comprehensive analysis of those scholars life and work was, in fact, different from others. Some had sections, big chunks devoted to some dimensions that others did not. So, why is this relevant to our discussion? Simple. The fact that the USHMM source devotes only a x% to this topic is irrelevant. Another source may devote more. Or even less. It is the beauty of Wikipedia that we can combine such accounts and offer a much more comprehensive treatment of the subject than other sources, limited by paper and/or just the fact that they have one author and can't be updated. Our articles can grow and discuss dimensions that some of those authors did not consider. Now, it seems to me like you are effectively arguing that discussions of the rescue attempts at length is WP:UNDUE. As noted, I disagree with this since I find it one of relevant dimensions, just sometimes better developed than some others (frankly, I find it hard to blame people for wanting to write about heroes and the good side of humanity...). There are others, some of them totally not covered in our article(s), like for example, the USHMM paragraph or two about post-war trials of German war criminals operating the ghetto. Rather than removing information on Polish rescuers as 'too long for the current short article', interested editors should expand the article with other information. On Ukrainian rescue, too. Or whatever else can be reliably sourced. Trying to argue that 'rescue' should be no mora than 5% or such is ridiculous, we cannot assign weight to such topics arbitrarily. Length is not an issue, the section should be comprehensive. And if it is too long once the article has been expanded with other sources, we can consider splitting it into its own subarticle. The worst thing we can do is to delete relevant information, without preserving it in an article (since nobody reads talk but us, volunteers). If you have concerns that the ghetto articles are too detailed in their coverage of rescuers, by all means, please expand such articles to be longer, so that the rescuer discussion doesn't dominate them. Build the encyclopedia, don't censor it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Still waiting for your response. However, I also have an idea for a compromise. I think we should have a new article, list of rescue attempts by ghetto (name pending). This article should effectively list each rescuer (or group) by ghetto, discussing them in depth where they are not separately notable (not all rescuers are notable). This would allow us to move possibly excessive detail from ghetto articles there. Ghetto articles could then mention a summary, like only names for non-notable rescuers. Once such a list is created and provides a valid target for moving content, I wouldn't generally object to edits like those of yours we are discussing. Until, however, we have a place to split/merge such content, I do not believe it should be removed from the article, per WP:SUMMARY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: To wrap up on Sambor: you've mentioned: "several quality academic biographies" that you've used in another article. Indeed, having several academic sources could help establish relative weight for Polish rescue (or rescue in general) in re: Sambor Ghetto. I presented one, the USHMM Encyclopedia. Can you provide other scholarly sources, specifically those that "may devote more" space to the rescue in the context of the ghetto history? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Following up... --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am still looking for sources, and I presented my idea above, to which you haven't replied for two weeks now. Anyway, there is no reason to model our articles on other encyclopedias or such, through they are a useful guide. USHMM book, while obviously useful, is not the last word on the topic, nor is it complete - it omits various details, on rescuers and other topics. Anyway, I've been meaning to ask you; there's a lot of articles with undue content right now like Błonie, Adampol, Lublin Voivodeship, Albigowa, Baranów, Lublin Voivodeship, Biała Niżna and such. It seems certainly unblanced when 50-90% of content of an article about an existing settlement focuses on a single aspect like a history of a single ethnic group living there, or their fate during WWII. What is your solution to improve those articles? I am guessing, by analogy to the ghetto and rescuers topic, you'd be recommend removing/shortening those sections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT[edit]

@Piotrus: On the locality articles, my position is that if there's no secondary' coverage for the WWII sections, then this material is undue and should be removed. For example, I'm not sure what the value of individual survivor stories is in Adampol#World War II:

Survivors, including Jack (Yankele) Glinzman and his uncles, Jack (Yankel), Israel (Srulka) and Joseph (Yuscha) Glincman and cousins Bob (Bollek) Becker, Pomeranc and others fled into the forest on the Belorussian border and joined up with the Parczew partisans.

Other survivors include Shaul Soroka, his wife Maryam Blima Goldman Soroka, his sons Pesach and Mottel, and his daughters Braindel and Esther.

I removed this. In the Błonie article, I could not make much sense of the section World War II history; it looks like OR / SYNTH, off-topic material, and sources not supporting the content in question. It needs to be rewritten to conform with Wiki policies.

I don't want to lose track of the Sambor ghetto & WEIGHT issue there. I'm specifically interested in secondary coverage that would dedicate more space to rescue as you alluded to. However, if you are still looking for sources, we can discuss the list in the meantime. I have some ideas I can share. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am missed something, but what do you think of my idea of splitting some of the possibly excessive (or just not covered outside sources that are possibly primary) rescue stories into a dedicated list subarticle, list of rescuers by ghetto or such? Btw, I am on holidays now so can be AFK for a while. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Would like to pick this up when you're back. My thought on the list is that it should probably be a list of Polish Righteous. Many are not independently notable but could be included on a list. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am back-ish, still need to sleep and rest after a long flight. Anyway, I'd support creating such a list and merging some content that is possibly undue into it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Do you plan to start such a list, or should I give it a try? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel like starting it, go ahead. I have no idea when I'll feel like writing this, could be next week, could be next year. Right now I am a bit on wiki holidays anyway :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List article[edit]

@Piotrus: I moved the content from Sambor Ghetto to the list I started in my sandbox: User:K.e.coffman/sandbox. The list can be easily expanded with the Righteous associated with other localities. Please let me know what you think. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, the list in your sandbox looks great and I think we should mainspace it ASAP, to avoid having encyclopedic content 'hidden' in draft-like spaces. Few notes:
  1. Why did you remove [9] this content from the draft? Is it because it is not about any particular person? Makes sense, but then such content should be restored to the article proper.
  2. Why did you remove the sentece "Several of the members of the German administration of the camp received imprisonment sentences; others did not"? Accident, I assume?
  3. Right now, the Sambor Ghetto article does not mention rescue at all'. This is just as bad bias as the one we discussed. I support moving excessive detail to a subarticle, but WP:SUMMARY, some reference to this should be retained. I'd suggest writing a short paragraph that would name prominent rescuers and rescued, and link to the summary article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I started the page in mainspace; have a look: List of Polish Righteous. Responses:

  1. I did not remove the 1943 executions from the Sambor ghetto article. It got moved up in the rearranging; see diff: [10].
  2. My bad; not sure how it happened. Restored.
  3. I've added some material from the USHMM Encyclopedia about the total number of survivors and so on: [11]. I don't feel comfortable providing a summary along the lines that you suggest, as it would be offering analysis & synthesis that secondary sources do and we are not supposed to.

Happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For now, this is my quick suggestion for a compromise, see edit summary: [12]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Banzai[edit]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please help on greater germanic reich[edit]

Did "Hitler's preoccupation with the Pan-Germanic plan began to fade, although the idea was never abandoned" or is it a fake source, is so shall the whole "Later development" part about hitler removed and the rest of the section be moved to European Confederation? Editdude93 (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

F.Y.I, articles at Hans Heidtmann & Hans-Werner Kraus have been restored over the redirects you created (if these aren't on your watchlist). MB 02:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did that. I restored 140 articles, mostly about flying aces, that are notable. I agree that the sourcing should be improved, but deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP – the fact that the articles use some sub-par sources does not mean there are no other sources available and that they do not pass WP:N. @K.e.coffman: A lot of the ace article redirects had already been reverted by Icewhiz or PlanespotterA320 in April 2017, but you had quietly turned them into redirects in September again (as an example: Wilhelm Freuwörth). Don't try this again, I'm keeping my eyes open. The deletion policy is clear: if someone disagrees with your merge, you have to go for WP:AFD or WP:MERGEPROP. --Pudeo (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pudeo: - KEC and myself reached an agreement (either on my talk page or his - don't remember) on restoring the redirects on many articles - this was done after a test AfD ended up with the deletion of a subject I restored the redirect for. Following this - I agreed with KEC that all flying aces that were less notable (based on a WP:BEFORE for available sources) than the one that got deleted - it would be fine to restore the redirect (In lieu of running dozens of individual AfDs - I conceded the point that they would be deleted as well based on sourcing available). In short - while this wasn't a project consensus, KEC was acting within consensus of all editors involved.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically User talk:Icewhiz/Archive 3#Historiography on fighter aces, and the test AfD was: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Lüddecke. Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Still, the sourcing for articles was not obviously assessed individually – many of the talk page message links to Google Books actually have sources. I don't believe in redirecting articles on an industrial scale based on one editor's judgment. They need to go to proposed merge or AfD just like any other article. I will make sure of that. --Pudeo (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make clear that what happened in September 2017 was actually after discussion (far from silent restoration). I do suggest you figure out a way of sorting this out without 140 individual AFDs (either by grouping them together in a coherent fashion, or via test cases) - while one could do 140 AfDs, that may be taxing in terms of community time. Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fighter aces receive honorable mention because they are credited with shooting down enemy planes. The ultimate source of the number of "kills" are the military authorities in question,not what we find on Google Books. Modern day authors are merely regurgitating statistical "kills" claimed during the war in Nazi Germany. These fighter aces were turned into superheros by the Goebbels propaganda ministry. Modern day authors who tout these fighter pilots follow in Goebbels footsteps.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A simplistic view. Fighter pilot claims have been a subject of fascination for people since the First World War; remember the Red Baron? And a lot of that attention is the result of wartime propaganda committed by both sides, not merely Goebbels. Modern aviation historians like Christopher Shores cross-check claims against the available data from their opponents to properly attribute and validate them as much as possible, but that doesn't mean that the older numbers aren't out there in the more populist literature.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

August
red admiral
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving articles in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Wireless Solutions[edit]

Hi,

I noticed you created a discussion for the Global Wireless Solutions page to be deleted. To give background on the page, it has been edited thoroughly to remove all advertising language as well as address the page's notability (by citing notable third-party sources such as the Washington Post and the Washington Business Journal). The page was deleted over a year ago but after assistance and advising from multiple experienced Wikipedia users, it was approved a few months ago. I am a paid contributor for the Global Wireless Solutions page, as stated in my user profile, and would greatly appreciate advice and suggestions on how to improve the page to fully meet Wikipedia's standards. In response to the notability tag, the firm is one of the largest wireless benchmarking firms in the telecommunications industry and their wireless network tests are currently the subject of a nationwide ad campaign by AT&T named "Just OK is Not OK". Furthermore, the firm is consistently featured in many notable third party news outlets and journals. Again, please let me know how I can be of assistance in this process.

Best,

Sebastian Scwiki3 (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scwiki3: I did not find that the subject meets WP:NCORP; that is why I nominated it for deletion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman The subject has been featured and profiled in many major news outlets, including the Washington Post and London Evening Standard. Furthermore, Global Wireless Solutions is the oldest and largest firm in its sector and smaller firms such as RootMetrics and OpenSignal have Wikipedia pages that have been deemed notable. Please let me know how the page can be improved to further meet the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, Scwiki3 (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Koutsoupias page[edit]

Thank you for accepting the page for Elias Koutsoupias. This was a surprise to me because you were one of the editors who decided that Cardano was not a notable blockchain or cryptocurrency. I was beginning to think anyone associated with IOHK was also banned from Wikipedia (as you have probably seen on Phil Wadler’s page, any mention of working for IOHK is immediately removed and sanctions threatened against the contributor). The involvement of prominent academics (Phil and Elias, Prof. Aggelos Kiayias, Prof. Emilios Avgouleas, Prof. Alexander Russell, Prof Simon Thompson) and Edinburgh’s Blockchain Technology Lab in developing Cardano is one of the reasons why Cardano is notable. IOHKwriter (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The March (1945)[edit]

Hi, Have you come any sources on the movements of POWs by Germany during the winter of 1944-45 and the last months of the war? The March (1945)#Blame for the marches provides a highly dubious-looking narrative which first argues that it was all the fault of an SS general who was also a Holocaust perpetrator then argues that though it wasn't really his fault at all and concludes that and he was actually a hero who stood up to Hitler. I just removed some material about how great a guy he was which was cited only to his Nuremberg testimony! As the regular German military was responsible for POW camps (I think), this all seems highly unlikely. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The Gottlob Berger article actually covers how he became responsible for the POWs, what happened etc. He appears to have been given significant credit for saving some POWs by the tribunal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The narrative in this article seems to repeat uncritically what you noted in the Berger article are largely unverified claims he made. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is looks dubious to me. The waffen ss killed hundreds of thousands of people. Berger was a central player in the creation of the waffen ss. Ergo ~ Berger is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Szzuk (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: Not of the top of my head. I'm currently listening to Ian Kershaw's The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany, 1944-1945. I'll see if there's anything relevant there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Kershaw does not discuss POW marches; he only covers the marches from concentration camps. That said, having reviewed the The March (1945)#Blame for the marches section, I believe that it can be removed entirely. Clearly, as a functionary in charge of POW affairs, Berger was responsible. The section gives undue prominence to Berger's claims and much of it is uncited. The article would be better without it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See concerns that I have put on the article talk page.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ThoughtIdRetired: thank you; I responded on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2019/August&oldid=916298866"