User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/March

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

Lumsden[edit]

K.e. I am going to start (when I have time) replacing Lumsden in articles; even though for what he has been used, it is not totally objectionable; I am waiting to get back my: Browder, George C. (2004) [1996]. "Foundations of the Nazi Police State: The Formation of Sipo and SD" book; loaned it out. So have some patience. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; his website is awful. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Now I must sign off; wont be on much this weekend; busy. Kierzek (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Voice[edit]

If you are so disposed, I'd like for someone to please explain to me the difference between something that is allegedly using Wikipedia Voice and something that does not use Wikipedia Voice. Given I trust your opinion more than many others (despite your relatively recent involvement in the project), I'd prefer your explanation. Use the same information so that I will unequivocally understand the difference between the two. (Remember, I grew up speaking more than just English so perhaps I am slow on this) There have been recent references to this particular matter and I am confused as to what constitutes Wikipedia Voice. If you don't have the inclination to do so - I understand. Thanks. --Obenritter (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter: Oh sure. The way I understand the "Wikipedia voice" is that it can be used for "what, when, who and how" -- reporting on the facts in a neutral fashion. Anything that could potentially be construed as sensitive or contentious, you have to back up. For example, you probably can sense that I don't have a high opinion of the Waffen-SS post-war revisionist efforts (see HIAG), but I cannot write, in "Wikipedia's voice", that they were just a bunch of old National Social fighters who were longing for old times. Instead, I wrote:
  • The public image of the organisation was not helping either, because some of the more outspoken HIAG members sounded "alarmingly Nazi in their pronouncements".[1][2] -- in this case, it's the source that calls the members "alarmingly Nazi" and then it's neutral and non-POV, because I'm just reporting on what the source said.
Another example:
  • The unit narratives were extensive (often in several volumes) and strived for a so-called official representation of their history. MacKenzie points out that "the older or the more famous the unit, the larger the work – to the point where no less than 5 volumes and well over 2,000 pages were devoted to the doings of the 2nd Panzer Division Das Reich", authored by its former officer Otto Weidinger".[3] -- the somewhat dismissive terminology of "doings" and "no less than five volumes" comes from the source, not from me. Again, that's okay for the Wikipedia voice, because I'm giving a direct quote from a source.

References

  1. ^ MacKenzie 1997, p. 137.
  2. ^ Large 1987, p. 90.
  3. ^ MacKenzie 1997, p. 138.
You can see HIAG for more examples on how I've handled the topic.
So that's how I understand the Wikipedia voice. Hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any more questions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Here is an example you commented upon that I cannot understand then. You called the following cited statement Wikipedia Voice: Heinrich Himmler stated, "Once the Führer himself has made a decision and given the order, it must be carried out, not only according to the word and the letter, but also in spirit." [1] Cited from: Himmler, Heinrich (1936). Die Schutzstaffel als antibolschewistische Kampforganisation (in German). Munich: Franz Eher.

References

  1. ^ Himmler 1936, p. 134.
As a professional historian by education, there is some confusion on my part on how this violates the rule. This particular statement from Himmler was used to emphasize how zealous the Nazi fanatics were about anything that the little corporal had to say. Since this is a verbatim translation from Himmler's book, I do not understand why you identified this using this Wiki-nomenclature. If you would be so kind as to further clarify, it would be most appreciated. --Obenritter (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - I understand your problem with the glorification of the Waffen-SS and/or the Wehrmacht for that matter. Many of them were barbarous criminals. --Obenritter (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I had there was that Wikipedia was quoting Himmler in a similar fashion as it would a regular, secondary WP:RS source. In this case, Himmler is WP:Primary and for such as figure, he should not be quoted in, what looked to me, to be "Wikipedia's voice". Himmler is not a standard source, obviously. More appropriate, in this case, would have been to include a commentary from a reputable historian, who had looked at this statement, analyzed it and rendered their conclusions. If Wikipedia just goes ahead and quotes from Himmler, that's WP:OR in my opinion (or possibly something elsle :-)), but that's not a standard procedure. Not for such as sensitive topic as the SS.
If I went ahead and quoted from Himmler and attributed fanaticism to him based on that quote, then I'm trying to be a secondary source, performing WP:OR, while Wikipedia should be a tertiary source, based on the works of reliable, secondary sources.
Also, it was included in the caption below Himmler's studio portrait, so it almost sounded like a motto. It was not in the body of the article, so that bothered me. <<<<< That I get.
Do these explanations make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - they make some sense. The lesson hereby is that we should avoid primary sources in Wikipedia. Seems a tad strange but OK. Perhaps since I am a historian with credentials, that is something I never considered. In this case I think the amateurism attributable to the general Wiki-editor was lost on me. Thanks.--Obenritter (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that was helpful. Here's exactly the example to illustrate the need to avoid primary sources, just in time for our discussion: apologia presented as fact; no wonder, I first spotted it because it referred to the massacre as an "incident" that the unit in the division was "involved in". See what I mean about historical revisionism? If more people joined me in the efforts to remove such content, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone. The obsession with all things German militaria (circa WW2) nauseates me. Imagine being tied to these people and being disparaged throughout your lifetime due to these relationships. It's a scarlet letter of sorts when you are blonde, blue-eyed, and a German speaker living in the U.S. Oh the stories I could tell you. Often I remind people that Germans have more than 12 years of history to study.
Like you, I have taken exception with Carruthers and Lumsden as sources, among others. Your keen eye of certain publishers is also spot-on. Keep up the good work.--Obenritter (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be used at times, but it needs to be used carefully and with a critical eye. And I am not talking about Nazi apologia which should never be used. Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurowski[edit]

Sorry but I have never read any of his books. He wrote pulp war stories that I remember seeing in German stations forty years ago. I do recommend Decisive Battles of World War II: The German View Edited by H. A. Jacobsen and J. Rohwer. This is serious history and informative. The author is a professional historian.de:Hans-Adolf Jacobsen Check ABE books, it is a steal for $20.00.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Woogie10w: Would you mind posting to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history board? I've not read Kurowski's books either, but I believe an assessment of the source can be made based on the information presented, including the translation of the De.wiki page Draft:Franz Kurowski. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Check this out. The ending is intense. [1] --Woogie10w (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The video is about Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring an article you have edited in the past. Kurowski's POV is that German soldiers did not commit war crimes, it was the SS/SD. The guy claimed to be a historian, in fact he was a propagandist who attempted to whitewash the crimes of Hitler Germany.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Wunsche[edit]

I see that this page has had a huge amount of deductions - Can you tell me what sources you object to as I would be interested in replacing what has been lost. Obviously he has never had a biography so the sources would be many including his SS file, divisional records, interrogation files etc. I would also like to know if sources from Kurt Meyers 'Grenadiers' and Lehmann's LAH volumes are permissible. There appears to be some objection to books termed as 'revisionist', just wondering who has decided what is on the 'banned list' - personally records from both these books have enabled me to pinpoint and verify the culprit for a large civilian massacre in Jefremowka which you so kindly included in Kurt Meyers wiki page. But I would personally be disappointed if these books can only be considered valid for planting an accusation but ignoring all other facts. I would think that these books could be cited, especially if they are corroborated though other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scallywag2000 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Scallywag2000: A comprehensive biography is not needed as long as Wunsche is being mentioned in secondary, WP:RS sources. Here’s a preview of Parker’s book that I used on Kurt Meyer’s, Jochen Peiper’s and Gustav Lombards’s pages, along with HIAG. There are 15 mentions of “Max Wunsche”; could be more for simply “Wunsche”. This is an extremely well researched book (the notes section is a treasure trove by itself), so it would be a good source.
To your questions, the SS file, divisional records, etc are WP:Primary sources and their use should be limited IMO — that is, the article should not be built primarily or exclusively on primary sources, otherwise you’d be getting in a situation of {{primary sources}}. They are okay to use for basic facts — born, joined the SS, served in such and such unit, died, etc. That’s what I would limit the primary sources to.
‘’Grenadiers’’ is WP:primary, and biased at that, described as the "perhaps the boldest and most truculent of the apologist works" (cited via Charles Sydnor). Same applies to the divisional "official history" by Lehmann’s — see Unit histories. Pls also see WP:Biased for tips on how to use potentially biased sources. Interrogation files are also primary, if you have access to those (via the archives?). I suspect secondary sources discuss his interrogation files, if these were notable, in such case you’d be on firm grounds using them via the secondary sources.
In general, I think the use of primary sources is okay, as long as they align with the secondary sources and are used in combination with them, so the overall narrative presents a balanced picture. In this situation, the primary source may be useful to illustrate the point presented in WP:Secondary sources. If the narrative is based ‘’only’’ on primary sources, even though they may be corroborated with other sources, that’s problematic. Why not use them in combination with WP:RS? Or just use the reliable, secondary sources? If all of the sources for a particular statement are primary, then synthesizing them into a narrative is WP:OR and is frowned upon. Relying solely on primary sources is also WP:OR, in my understanding. We should leave this synthesis and analysis to professional historians. If no secondary, reliable sources cover a topic, then it suggests that the topic may not be notable to begin with, and this article should not exist. Wunsche appears to be notable, being discussed by Parker, so that’s where I'd start.
Hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any more questions or need additional feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable sources[edit]

Hello K.e.coffman, I got notification regarding you've tagged 'unreliable sources' to Heinz von Westernhagen. Would you please explain more in detail as for why? most importantly, would be greatly appreciated if you could let me know what to do to solve the issue? Is there a time limit to take action? (I'm rather new to WIKI, that was my 1st wiki page.) LeiShenHVW (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LeiShenHVW: Thank you for your note. I will respond in detail in the next couple of days. Meanwhile, you can read the article that can be found here: WP:RS. It deals with identifying reliable sources. Specific to Agte, a discussion on him as a source can be found here: Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte (also follow the link from there to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where Agte is discussed).
I will add further commentary about Agte and various websites that are used in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LeiShenHVW:, Here's more info:
  • I've already posted about Agte; he's been described as "neo-Nazi neo-pagan" author; you don't want a source like that for your article
It generally appears that the bulk of the citations in the article is to non WP:RS sources.
Hope this is helpful, and please let me know if you have any more questions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tulle massacre[edit]

Do you have a cite we can add for this war crime sub-section for 2nd SS. We all know it occurred, but the sub-section does not have a RS cite. Uncited since 2013. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tulle massacre is covered in Farmer, already used in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done; maybe we can sfn the cites, later. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...[edit]

...the discussion really took off at MILHIST, huh? - theWOLFchild 22:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Yes, it's now in four parts. :-) I will probably do a summary soon. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sönke Neitzel[edit]

Just a friendly reminder, when linking to youtube, like you did at Sönke Neitzel, keep WP:YOUTUBE. I don't know whether TVOntario programs are in the public domain but if they are not they can't be linked to. Regards,Calistemon (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calistemon: Thank you. I clarified as follows:
K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy states you can't link to it at all if it is copyrighted material. At least that is how I interpret Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. I only know because I reverted an IP on the Zentralstadion (1956) article yesterday when it added a link to a youtube program from a German public broadcaster and they weren't happy about it. If you could find the same program on the TVOntario website linking ot it would be fine as they hold the copyright to it, not youtube. Calistemon (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calistemon: Interesting, I interpreted Perennial: YT as okay to use YouTube as long as the video comes from the official channel:
  • As an external link: Nota bene* Sometimes. Videos from "official channels", like the United States' Naval History & Heritage Command, are more likely to be accepted than other links.
AgendaStevePaikin looks official to me. I will look at their own website. But it seems to me that if a program puts a video on their official YT channel, they want us to consume it, no? I will also look into how to use {{Template:YouTube}}. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If unsure we could always ask the question at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems for clarification. Calistemon (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on the Copyright page for clarification. But it looks like I won't be able to use a YT link on the draft I'm working on Franz_Kurowski (ah, someone just moved it into article space), because DocsOnline is probably sketchy, meh! But thanks for the heads up in this regard for sure.
@Calistemon: BTW, you are at all familiar with Kurowski, you are welcome to participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles). The thread has grown long, but the more pertinent discussion is under the main headline, and also in the subsection "Kurowski: journalism of gray and brown zone". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, never read any books of his and really never come across Kurowski before so can't contribute much. A quick search does not dig anything noteworthy up about him in online German language sources either. There is this on a government-run website on authors from Westphalia but it manly lists his works but makes no quality assessment of it. Unlike Paul Carell he does not seem to be obviously controversial in Germany. Calistemon (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurowski (2)[edit]

On second thoughts, I added the section on Stalingrad after all. Perhaps you could give that a copyedit and add the refs from the de.Wiki too. Also, I don't know which project(s) this article belongs to - MilHist? Bios? Perhaps you could add the appropriate banner(s) to the talk page. Cheers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. I will look at the sourcing/citations tomorrow. I think the article is shaping up really nicely. Another editor came along and added the projects, along with the infobox, so the article is set there. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also added the section 'Submarines' which can now use your flair for improvemrnt. I thought, well, 'in for a penny, in for a pound', so now we have a complete article - at least as far as the German original is concerned. The German text is quite difficult to translate quickly because German is not a language that lends itslf easily to collaborative writing, and that article has a lot of contributors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Archiving a talk page[edit]

K.e. here is something you may wish to consider. Makes it easier to manage. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will look into that. 2015 should probably be archived. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saubere Wehrmacht[edit]

There is an article on the German Wikipedia I recently came across titled Saubere Wehrmacht (English: Clean Wehrmacht) which, I think, falls right into your range of interests. Maybe you could convince User:Kudpung to exercise his superior translation skills on it. I think it might be an important subject this encyclopaedia is as yet lacking an article on. Regards, Calistemon (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! I have added some projects and categories as well as linked to the page from other articles but K.e.coffman got to some of them just before me. Calistemon (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung and Calistemon: Thank you both! Definitely an important article. I'll work on copyediting and adding English-language sources over the weekend. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lexikon der Wehrmacht[edit]

Scanning through the Lexikon der Wehrmacht website which is used as a source on a number of articles here I found that it is actually quite reliable and certainly, while not complete, does not attempt to be revisionist. As a sample, see the article on IR 272, which talks about the execution of Jews and Partisans (without any weapons having been found on them). The site is run by the German War Graves Commission. I think, when doing your tagging of unreliable sources this might actually be a reliable one. It's not perfect but neither is it a Nazi fan site. Similar, the Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring entry confirms the war crimes in Italy that are mentioned in the article here as well as alleged war crimes. Regards, Calistemon (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calistemon: Hmm, at first glance, I don't see a connection to the German War Graves Commission, which in its turn is a private entity, not a state-run one. Could you point that out to me? It seems to be run by "Webmaster: Andreas Altenburger", has a forum, various articles, so looks more like axishistory.com rather than anything official (?). Perhaps it's a site for militaria enthusiasts?
Also, the themes of "| Terrorangriffe der Amerikaner]" that Benda-Beckmann discusses in A German Catastrophe?: "Dresden is like Coventry symbolizing the terrorist attack on noncombatants because of the attack on Dresden had no military value, especially on non-military targets outside the town was targeted, but on the overcrowded with refugees city cente." (sorry for Google translate). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about your first statement, I may have mistaken the link at the bottom of page as a statement of association but that is probably incorrect. The site just surprised me when I went through a number of articles and found them to be quite frank on war crimes. As to the latter page you linked, it's an anonymous (Only initialed KG) editorial and quite obviously somebodies private opinion. Interestingly it states that the Bombing of Wieluń was a crime as it occurred without the Polish civilians and soldiers being aware that Germany had begun waging war on Poland, without a formal declaration of war, something the article here does not state. Some bodies personal opinion, I guess. If you type in the German word for Jews, Juden, you get a good amount of search results on units involved in the extermination of Jews. It may not have scientific credentials but it is certainly not revisionist and that in itself is a surprise given the usual state of these kind of sites. Calistemon (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calistemon: Thank you. Your comment is quite poignant: "It may not have scientific credentials but it is certainly not revisionist and that in itself is a surprise given the usual state of these kind of sites." :-)
BTW, do you happen to have an opinion on this cite? "Helmut Möhlmann". Ritterkreuzträger 1939–45 (in German). Retrieved 26 September 2013. Edit: This link did not work for me, but here's a what appears to be a similar site: http://www.das-ritterkreuz.de/ ; also frequently used in Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't work for me either, looks dead. As to the second website, not much detail there. My test is to just pick one or two controverisal people see what it says. Nothing on Keitel beyond that he was executed, nothing on Kurt Meyer about war crimes. Maybe just part of the overall lack of detail, but, on the introduction page it says that the Ritterkreuz was not a Nazi order which is a strange statement when it also says that only the Führer of the Wehrmacht could award it. It looks a little to much like trying to split the Ritterkreuz from any Nazi association. Clean Wehrmacht corner without going so far as stating it outright I would say. Probably reliable in regards to dates but very likely to be original research. Calistemon (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the Lexikon der Wehrmacht article on Helmut Möhlmann and it states that he was awarded the Knights Cross for, as it later turned out, the incorrectly awarded sinking of two ships on his eighth patrol. Apparently five of his eight patrols ended without sinking a singular ship and altogether he sunk only seven ships in his eight patrols. Pretty low marks for a knights cross awardee. Calistemon (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurowski (3)[edit]

Where possible, his cited works in articles should be replaced; if you run across RS sources that can be used to switch-out cited text, then it should be done. I will do the same. Kierzek (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears that the assessment by Smelser & Davies was rather mild. Others sources were much more critical. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kierzek: Add: it appears that the Wiki search "Kurowski, Franz" is cited returns about 350 article results; and "Alman, Karl" in about 50. The Alman sources should probably be dealt with first, as by Kurowski's own admission, he reserved his pen names for "less serious work". (Correction: Kurowski appears as a source, or Further reading, but may not be actually cited). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It will take a long while and some may not be able to be replaced due to lack of other sources; but at least we can work at it. Kierzek (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Butler[edit]

I just read his article herein. I have never bought one of his books in the past because there were better RS source books out there on the same subjects. Kierzek (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waffen-SS article[edit]

In the Waffen-SS article for the Sant'Anna di Stazzema massacre in August 1944, it cites to Jewish Virtual Library. I don't have time right now, but if you can find a better RS rated cite, that would be good. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will look into that over the weekend. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

You may wish to ask for this article to undergo a peer review for Franz Kurowski and note it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history page. I know you are working towards a GA review. Kierzek (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: Great suggestion. I should probably wait on Kurowski and do the copyediting review first. It takes about a month so it will give me time to improve the article in between. But I could start with HIAG, as the article has been stable for a while. I've not requested a peer review before. Do you have any tips for me on initiating the process? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go here: Wikipedia:Peer review, but also I would add a notice on the talk:WikiProject Military history page, as to it, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2016/March&oldid=759328559"