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

Friedrich-Wilhelm Heinz site on Brandenburgers

Hi K.e.coffman. While I do not disagree that the Friedrich-Wilhelm Heinz is somewhat laudatory and dismissive of the crimes committed by the regime under which the man served, the site is actually exhaustively informative (despite its unjustifiably glossy veneer). While you are not wrong to delete it, could it not have been described as I've done here vice its total omission? If you see its existence on there as offensive altogether, then I respect that, but it is/was very interesting to read. Moreover, it also demonstrates how such perpetrators were able to live respectable lives despite their possible complicity in atrocities (thanks at least in part to the Cold War) and is historically significant for that reason as well. While I am not going to contest your choice to omit it, I just thought you may want to take such matters into consideration as well. --Obenritter (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Obenritter: thank you for your comment. I believe you are referring to this: "Friedrich Wilhelm Heinz — A notable site chronicling the life of Friedrich-Wilhelm Heinz, who served in the Brandenburger Division."

I removed the listing as it did not appear neutral to me, as "notable site" implies approbation. The web site is not neutral either, as it presents the career of Friedrich Wilhelm Heinz in the best possible light. Note that the subject does not have a Wikipedia article, so it was not possible to place the web site material in context. If it were a web site by a historian analysing Heinz's life and career, that would have been worthwhile to include. Otherwise, I would consider this web site to be a primary source, which is also biased. I believe it would be best to keep it off the page.

BTW, I really appreciate the work you've done on the article; these are nice improvements, which were long over due, so thank you! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Roger that -- I guess I had not considered this as a primary source but it would be and yes, neutrality does pose another issue; thanks for your astute and prompt handling of the matter. This is why it is necessary to work as a team. As a historian, I am drawn to primary sources (even when they are morally suspect) -- on Wiki -- they don't belong, so great catch. From what I have seen through your editing, you have a great eye for these keen and important details and have done exemplary work in getting the Nazi fan-pages the thorough house-cleaning they deserve. Now if we could just get all these Knight's Cross references and regalia into perspective; they do not belong in my opinion. --Obenritter (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Obenritter: thanks for the feedback! Since you commented on Knight's Cross references ( :) ), here are several AfD discussions that are currently open:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Schneider (SS officer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Heinz Lichte
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Preiß (2nd nomination)

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing those K.e. Seems like these are under their deserved and proper scrutiny.--Obenritter (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well said Obenritter! Both you and K.e are doing fine work. Your collective efforts are appreciated by many in the community who watch these edits and discussions keenly.Irondome (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Irondome:. It's nice to know we're making a difference. So many articles, so little time.--Obenritter (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For many of the ones where the recipient of the award was combat related (not awarded for political reasons) and where the award can be confirmed by an RS source, then I believe a redirect of the name to list article where mentioned can be reasonable; with that said, I realize that there can be "one event" problems that also must be considered and the person's rank can also be a factor. Otherwise, at this point, for many I am not seeing notability for stand alone articles or stubs. If someone could expand them with more in depth information for the readers, it would be helpful for "keep" consideration; but that is not occurring or the information appears to not be available. BTW - the "Brandenburgers" article is much improved, thanks guys. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Kierzek:. Not that every reference to a Knight's Cross or some other significant award is a bad thing in the text of an article, I just find the articles which exist just because somebody won an award (especially Nazi awards) in poor taste. Also, the long list of awards at the end of a page for some of these known war criminals seems like unseemly glorification.--Obenritter (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That is why each article needs to be looked at in context; I agree that the "articles which exist just because somebody won an award" are not notable in and of themselves. There should be a redirect of the name to the List in which the person is included for the award or deletion of the article altogether; again each one should be considered one at a time. Kierzek (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The main point is that for many of them, there is a lack the significant coverage for a stand alone article. I think many of us agree on that; and that may be true for other high honor award winners, such as "Heroes of the Soviet Union", I don't know for I don't review those articles, but the KC winners cannot be the only ones. Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Fortification of Antwerp

You are welcome to review the progress on User:DerekvG/sandbox/edits_fortifications_Antwerp --DerekvG (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@DerekvG: thank you; I will have a look! K.e.coffman (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Manas Energy Management

Hi K.e.coffman. The page Manas Energy Management has been deleted from Wikipedia. The company is a multinational entity which is providing energy management solutions for water and electricity mostly in Africa. Please review and hopefully bring back the deleted material. If you need more references on the company from reliable sources, i will arrange it once the page is back. Thanks in advance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimakerrs (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wikimakerrs:, please contact the deleting administrator to see if they would reinstate it to a draft. The article was badly promotional and was not suitable for inclusion into the encyclopedia at this time. It would need to be completely re-written to not be deleted again. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Gurian article deletion

Hi K.e.coffman: Just curious on what facts you feel are "fiction" in the Gurian article you favor deleting? Perhaps you could reassess your recommendation in light of the rewording of the article. Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tosresearcher: I simply added the article to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements, since this is what the subject matter of Gurian's works is. I did not comment on whether the article was fictional or not. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your tireless WW2 work. CCCVCCCC (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Might not mean much coming from a once-in-a-blue-moon editor like me, but hey, at least it's not as bad as the Iron Cross!

National-Anarchism

After your edits of National-Anarchism several footnotes are screwed up. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: I think I fixed it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Stuff at ANI

This happened at ANI today (permalink, thread "Possible hard-right propaganda on a user page") . Thought you might be interested since you edit all those WW2 articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Never heard or seen this editor that I am aware; but good he is gone. K.e. seems to be enjoying some other editor's attention who likes to lump us altogether as "his friends" who K.e. calls in need to rescue him, apparently. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The name of the editor looked familiar so I looked up their history, and, sure enough, it was the user edit-warring on the page of white supremacist Jared Taylor and endlessly arguing on the Talk page for various euphemisms to describe him instead of “white supremacist". It figures that he’d be blocked for having neo-Nazi content on their user page. The other editor who Kierzek is referring to (Special:Contributions/HicManebimusOptime), with their rants about my “friends” and “sympathisers”, was indef blocked too. Joyful tidings all around. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talking about "Joyful tidings" this has started again. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SwisterTwister.27s_continued_AFD_disruption. And I thought we saw the end of it a couple of weeks ago? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: By the time I had a look it was already closed (thankfully). I continue to be amazed at the heated discussion at some of the company deletion pages, as editors dump loads of dubious and / or marginally RS sources in an effort to keep these badly promotional articles.

On a related note, how's that for being (to put it delicately) POV-challenged? ANI thread: "IP editor promoting neo-Nazi author Troy Southgate": permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

POV-challenged! I like the term. That IP was literally on a promotion spree (and had been doing similar stuff since a long time). Good catch. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I am ashamed to admit though that I really don't know much about neo-Nazis and far right groups. In fact, when I first read about 1488 on the ANI, I was clueless. Later someone linked Fourteen Words which explained it (and I didn't know what fourteen words was either). Well, I guess even drama at ANI has some educational value. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You missed the previous circus? OK here, it is back again --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Wow, two open threads, and one already closed? I think we do need the WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

RFCU

I'm interested &so are others. We need an intermediate step. But lets keep this separate form individuals. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: Could you help me understand what this is about? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to send it to another ed. , but it came out of the discussion at the alternate proposal at ani. just closed [1]. Nonetheless, you may be interested. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Conservative People's Party of Estonia

The majority of sources and the widely held assessment of the party in question, EKRE, judges the party to stand for conservative and national interests and values. This is also in line with what the their party program states, the Estonian parliaments sources and the general discourse by Estonian scholars of political science. If you have differing additional knowledge or material, please do submit them at the talk page of the Conservative People's Party of Estonia before any hasted editing. Thank you! RudiLefkowitz (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@RudiLefkowitz: thank you for your message. I responded on the article's Talk page and provided some sources; please see Radical right. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Speaking generally, with respect to Wikipedia's handling of race- or religion-based discrimination, I have very seldom never seen Wikipedia editors collectively and meaningfully over-react to such conduct. Individual editors from time to time have made such errors, but Wikipedia's general bias towards inaction and freshman notions of libertarianism tend to preclude any errors on the side of sensitivity or responsiveness.

Again speaking generally, if an editor innocently expresses themselves in a way that is a) no specifically, obviously, and directly to the benefit of the project and b) gives serious offense to other editors, the mature response is to say "Oops, I definitely didn't mean it that way, but I'll be aware of how I could be (mis)understood if I say things like that, and I won't say them again." Sadly, the reaction is usually "I didn't mean it the way you heard it, so you're a whiny hyper-entitled white-, cis-, Christian-basher." *sigh* If someone is able to coherently, cogently, and reasonably express why another editor's behavior makes them uncomfortable (and especially if it is likely to make others uncomfortable as well), the basic human thing to do is to amend that behavior and not worry about whether or not we're being too politically correct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Russians

Hey, K.e.c, this is not anything of importance and I ask for no undoing of your revision, but your edit on the Leipzig page made me curious and I've looked at your page and found out that you think Russian is some kind of German POV language. It is not. Russians is a perfectly suitable demonym for Soviet citizens (note: russkie (ethnic Russians) is different from rossiianie (citizen of the Russian Nation(s), regardless of ethnicity. You can be a Chechen living in the Chechen Republic and is a rossiianie). Stalin frequently addressed his own people as the Russians1 2. Living in a communist state myself, I can say for sure that (the equivalent of) "the Russians" and "citizens of the Soviet Unions" are used much more in books rather than the "Soviets", as the Soviets sound very political and people will imagine that it is not only citizens of the Soviet Union, but "those who supported the ideal/regime." I cannot understand the complaints about "Russians"/"Soviets" instead of "Soviet forces" either, as far as I see "the Germans", "the Americans" are also widespread, in similar contexts. Deamonpen (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Deamonpen: There was a discussion on this topic at MilHist recently (link to archives), where I commented. I tend to stay away from "Russians" for two reasons:

1. its use is not in line with recent academic historiography;
2. it sounds too much like Nazi propaganda (note for example that all contemporary photos from the period have captions im Russland).

Separately, the use of "Russians" / "Russian tanks" / "Russian Army" / "brutal Russian winter" / "Russian campaign / is the common sign of POV-challenged articles; see for example Alternate ethnography section from my user page. I thus tend to avoid this term and / or correct it when I see it. Hope this clarifiesK.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

From the Dictionary.com: (initial capital letter). Often, Soviets. a governing official or person living in the Soviet Union:

The Soviets have denied our charge.

from merriam-webster: the people and especially the political and military leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

I get the impression that even in English the focus still lies with the Soviet officials rather than the Soviet people. It sounds really forced to me to avoid Russian like plague like that and I'm pretty sure the Professors (who are usually Communist Party Members themselves, and the old ones have been usually educated in USSR) in my country are anything but influenced by Nazi propaganda. I don't think Stalin was, either. Here it is listed as demonym together with "Soviet." If it's acceptable as a demonym than I see no reason "Russian winter" is not acceptable. Minor problem that I don't care a lot about though. I just don't think it's Nazi propaganda or Nazi term the way you seem to do. Deamonpen (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You will find that many of the older RS history books used the term Russian Army and not Soviet Army, but in more recent years that has changed. The past use by these main-stream Western historians of the use of the former term did not have anything to do with being "influenced by Nazi propaganda"; the fact is over time people and terms go in and out of style as far as use and changes occur over time as far as preferences. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Deamonpen: That "Russian" would be used as a demonym to "Soviet" is either bizarre or means that I'm out touch with reality :-). "It's ahistorical to say "Russian soldiers" as there were Ukranians, Beylorussians, Tatar, etc in the Soviet armed forces. I always considered it to a Cold war era term, as in "Ruskie":

Prounciation: "Ruu-skee"

Term coined during the Crimean War. Popularized my America during the cold war as a derogatory term.

"Those damn Ruskies."

That aside, using "Russians" just seems dated. For example, up till the 1960s or so, Soviet Union was frequently referred to as "Soviet Russia" (not in a derogatory way). But I've not seen it in contemporary historiography, with a few exceptions, such as in Dennis Showalter's The Battle of Kursk which I listened to as an audio book. Every time the artist would say "Russians" it made me cringe a little. (Again, I'm probably more sensitive to it now having encountered its use numerous times on Wikipedia, and almost always in POV-challenged articles.) K.e.coffman (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

So it's basically a matter of fashion, right? I'm not a Western person and don't know about that. If it's about fashion, then such uses of words by people who read old books or are currently influenced by a non Western culture which still uses such words like me are natural. I repeat that I don't care about anyone changing such minors, but I do think that one perhaps should not promote the idea "Nazi propaganda is existing everywhere" based on such irrelevant details. Deamonpen (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Deamonpen: That is interesting: I’ve always thought of you as a German, because of your access to German language sources. In any case, I appreciate that the term has different perceptions in different parts of the world. I do not mind at all when the term is used in good faith. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Luftwaffe pilots

Can you please tell me why you keep on making sweeping deletions of the tables regarding victory lists without giving the number of editors who have worked up these articles any discussion or alert of problems arising from the information. I can see from your user page you are a prolific editor, but can you take some time to discuss your issue you have with a page before unilaterally ripping up people's research and work. I don't believe the tables are a copyright infringement, but rather an updated list of the pilots results that included data derived from several sources, NOT just a single source. For my part I have retrieved the same information from this webpage: http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/doc/victories-germany-ww2-1940.pdf which also lists the victories for all the pilots, but in chronological order, rather than by individual pilot. The same information is presented there and needs to be sorted by pilot to be of relevance - I have done that. Is that a breach of copyright to cite the same information from separate sources? If you would take time to compare the tables I set up on the Wiki pages with that at Petr's website you would see that I had not, in fact, just copied them verbatim but had augmented the data that he had listed with further information regarding the unit's basing and the pilot's commanding officer. Also, I do not see how this information can be considered copyright. It is like saying the results of a motor-race or Olympic event are copyright to the first person who publishes the information, which is plainly silly. Do you believe either or both websites are Nazi-apologist sites, glorifying the exploits of German pilots? What evidence on them would lead you to that conclusion? If you take the time to look at Jan Safarik's website, you will see he has an extensive catalogue of pilots from all nations and all forces, from many 20th century conflicts, so I don't believe he is inserting any pro-Nazi bias, intentional or otherwise. When I can look at the Sources pages on both the websites and written sources I see exactly the same references - I can't prove this to you because you don't have access to the books that we article-writers have used, and apparently you do not realise the esteem those references are held in for aviation biography for their renowned accuracy and in-depth detail. I am genuine in my request for advice on how to represent such information for the pilots, or any race or competition's results for that matter, that would be public knowledge without infringing copyright. If you can please reply and let us know your concerns before taking such unilateral action it would be very much appreciated, to give the writers a chance to remedy any issues rather than losing all their research and work Philby NZ (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Philby NZ: Thank you for your message. While I appreciate that you are doing these edits in good faith, I don’t believe that retaining the content that was recently removed from Gerhard Schöpfel and Günther Seeger is in the best interest of the project. Per WP:RS, Aces of the Luftwaffe and other similar web sites are not “reliable secondary sources”. They are in fact unreliable, self-published, tertiary sources (including the list linked to above, http://aces.safarikovi.org/). If they are citing their numbers to popular history authors such as Weal (which is a tertiary source itself) that makes them even less reliable. Moreover, such uncritical sources are largely based on war-time ‘’claims’’ which were often exaggerated for reasons of simple observation error, but also coupled with matters of prestige and propaganda. Stating in Wikipedia’s voice that these were “victories”, based on such flimsy sources, is ahistorical and misleading.

As far as reliable sources are concerned I known that Shore has done good work and can be considered an RS. On the other hand, many such accounts (esp. Weal, but also possibly Spick, Prien, etc.) are likely to be based on nomination records or uncritical self-published unit histories (or at least could be traced to those). This makes them dependent to a large extent on unreliable Nazi propaganda. Waffen-SS in popular culture article may provide a good context: it discusses how the Waffen-SS myth was developed following the war and why. Even though it’s specific to a ground force, the same principle applies to highly decorated German personnel: Luftwaffe fighter pilots (the “ace”); U-boat commanders (the “hunter”); paratroopers (the “daredevil”); and Tiger I commanders (see "Panzer ace" in popular culture).

You are welcome to start a threat at WP:RSN about acesoftheluftwaffe.cz, but I suspect that the response would not be much different. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I would commend to you Wikipedia's own article Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II which is interesting in that it addresses the issue that all the major air forces have issues with overclaiming, not just the Luftwaffe, and that the article cites in its bibliography many of the same authorities you have mentioned above as possibly unreliable and several on-line sources of self-published articles. You may wish to put your editorial pen to those pages too. In this modern age, I cannot see a difference between self-publishing in the 21st century, vs book-publishing in the 20th century. The accepted understanding among all the aerial researchers I have read is that there is a certainly a problem with over-claiming on all sides, and a "victory" is not necessarily taken as an enemy aircraft crashed or pilot killed, but more likely in the heat of battle seen falling away with near-terminal damage, but that may still reach a safe landing (and of course many of the Luftwaffe pilots successfully bailed out). And it was Luftwaffe doctrine to keep their pilots stationed on the front line, rather than rotating them into administrative duties as the Western Allied forces did. Therefore there are a sizable number of '39-'45 "first-to-last" pilots (e.g. Heinrich Bär, Gerhard Barkhorn) as well as other pilots who flew >1000 missions as their "tour of duty" (Erich Hartmann claimed his 352 victories in 1404 air missions - the highest total, with possibly the greatest number of missions flown). So it is agreed that the Luftwaffe pilots had far greater opportunity for aerial combat. Yes, the numbers may need to be taken with a grain of salt, as do all the fighter records, but as far as I am aware, it is the only context we have of comparing the pilots during this period. I am unaware of any author who has repudiated Hartmann's 352, or Galland's 104, through careful analysis of the combat records to revise the total down to an 'actual' number.

Finally, I would also just draw your attention to the A- and Good-rated Wikipedia articles of Werner Mölders, Walter Nowotny, Otto Kittel, Max-Hellmuth Ostermann written by far better Wiki-authors than myself and note that they are citing many of the same authors and references as I have looked at. Their victory totals (I don't like the term 'kill') are taken from the same standard lists and saying 'they couldn't possibly be that high, no-one else is near to that so it must be Nazi propaganda' is an outdated 20th century attitude alongside the SS-apologists and 'every tank we fought was a Tiger' and should be re-evaluated in light of the modern archival research we are getting more and more access to now. I'm just asking you not to be so quick to dismiss people's research both in Wikipedia and elsewhere on-line, but to discuss your concerns before taking arbitrary action Philby NZ (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Some of the A-class & GA rated articles on Wikipedia, especially those approved early on (say 2010) and some of those you mention, wouldn't stand up to today's standards. Check out the Otto Kittel entry on my user page; it was built largely on a work by a known fabulist Franz Kurowski. The article was recently delisted as a good article; please see: GAR:Otto Kittel. Just at a quick glance, the Walter Nowotny article contains citations to a source that's considered a far-right publication (Fraschka, Günther (1994). Knights of the Reich.)

As far as the "difference between self-publishing in the 21st century, vs book-publishing in the 20th century", Wikipedia is still in the 20th century (apparently), and requires "reliable secondary sources". Moreover, the profession of a historian is not yet obsolete; they do their research in the archives (using primary sources), and then write books, which are published by academic or otherwise reputable publishers (secondary sources). That's what Wikipedia considers appropriate for military history articles, which is reflected in the current consensus versions of WP:RS and WP:MILMOS. If you believe that a different consensus can be achieved, the place to do that would be at the Talk pages of these articles, or at WP:RSN.

As an aside, I randomly came across this post at RSN, which is relevant to this discussion:

"Removing crap sources always brings out a bit of drama, and sometimes the occasional sea lion, but it needs to be done. We have way too much material sourced to random crappy websites, vanity press books, predatory open access journals and other places where the only barrier to publication is cost." diff

So it's unclear to me whether the acceptance of self-published sources such as the "Aces of the Luftwaffe" web site would find much support. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's also worth considering the possible reasons why a certain book, especially in a popular area with many specialist publishers, has not been taken up by a proper publisher. Is the author a legitimate, credentialed expert? Does the book promote idiosyncratic theories or methodologies? One of the more important sources on Robert Hooke is a self-published book by Robert Gunther. He was an authority on the history of science and the founding curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford. His book Early Science in Oxford (all 14 volumes of it) was privately published, but he had editorial help and was, as I say, a respected scholar and, more importantly, his work has been cited by more recent scholars as an authority. We don't have to judge its worth, that has already been done for us by people who are qualified to do so. Guy (Help!) 06:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for the great work. Light2021 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Light2021: Thank you! Also thanks for nominating spam for deletion. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

On euphemismia

As an aside, I noticed your recent edits/collection on your user page. I'm not sure that the level of contempt that you're expressing regarding the terminology around "bombing" is fully warranted. While "executed attacks against" is needlessly wordy and has very little to recommend it in favor of the equivalent-but-more-concise "attacked", I don't see it as necessarily a euphemism or a whitewashing that should always be replaced with "bombed".

Rather, I read it as a broader term which includes other non-bomb activities which may have taken place in association with the bombing; everything from air-to-air combat to strafing of ground targets. Your mileage may vary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Thank you for your comment. Yes, I may have gotten a bit overenthusiastic about my edits. I was honestly surprised that none of the articles on bomber wings of Nazi Germany (and its highly decorated pilots) contained the word "bombed". Related to that, the articles provided detailed lists of targets, but these were always military installations. I only found one instance of a bomber wing destroying a non-military target: a hospital ship, with the article tersely noting that it "was sunk by this unit".

Combined with frequent references to "retaliation" (as in here, two instances in one sentence), it does begin to look like some Wikipedia articles, in the words of another editor, are "absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda; the German bomber pilot only ever hit military targets while the Allied 'terrorists' only ever hit churches, hospitals and orphanages" (from a recent GAR). This is in the best traditions of such revisionist authors as Franz Kurowski, who presented the Luftwaffe raids against purely civilian targets as "retaliation attacks".

So yeah, that's the impression I was getting with "missions over Malta" etc. I will ease off, but, as I mentioned elsewhere, being a "Hard Line Anti-Nazi"(TM) is hard work; one needs mental relief sometimes. I also hope my listing provides some entertainment value. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree that it depends on context. If terminology differs for substantially similar actions taken by two different sides of a conflict, it's definitely worthwhile to look at how to reconcile that. (Sometimes it's just because different editors work on different articles, and sometimes individual writers make particular word choices in isolation as a matter of personal writing style rather than from any tendency toward historical revision.)

"Retaliation" and "retaliatory" are more of those words that can be neutral or revisionist depending on context. (Although in the edit you pointed out, using both in the same sentence is just bad writing.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Tank ace

Actually, I was trying to improve the article based on your and other people's feedback for the "Tank Aces" page, so had removed some of the content duplicated in "Panzer ace" in popular culture. "Panzer ace" in popular culture which from the title, seems to be about German panzer aces fetished in books(???) rather than tank Aces from various countries as a whole? I would suggest that they are combined, and the "Panzer ace" in popular culture is retitled "Tank Ace" and other countries tanks aces are included. I gather there is some backstory of complex arguing about the title, which I am not involved in, but I feel strongly that the concept of tank aces should be broad and reflect tank aces generally, and not just German tank commanders (even if most of the successful ones were in fact, German. "Tank Aces" is used more commonly than "Panzer aces", and it's even used by Wikipedia in the articles about the Russian tank commanders, both of which are described as tank aces. What do you think? Do you know the backstory to the "Panzer ace" in popular culture page, and why it has such an odd title? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: Hi, the backstory of the "Panzer ace" is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German tank aces. The article under discussion is essentially a duplicate of Tank Aces, which is itself is at AfD for being a content fork of the Panzer ace, and will most likely be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tank Aces. The best approach may be for the Tank ace to be moved to draft; you could then propose that some of the content be added to the "main" article, and see what the consensus is. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks K.e.coffman... ok I'll go and read that and see what's up, and move the tank ace article to draft.. that seems easiest. Thanks for the advice. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

OK deleted the content, and moved it to draft so that it can be merged later, presumably with a retitled"Panzer ace" in popular culture. Thanks for that, I wasn't aware of the draft feature. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

hmm

seems redundant to keep it during AFD[2], but whatever floats your boat. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Schmidt

Hi K.e.coffman, Thanks for your edits to Schmidt. I have reverted them pro-tem on the basis that the material is of obvious historical interest and belongs on the page. It would be good if you could make the argument re the unreliability of Manstein (although his comment re Schmidt in Soviet jail doesn't seem to me to fall with the ambit of your point) within the article text itself, just a cited line or so, rather than simply on the talk page. I think that removing all of the Manstein quotes is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the ultimate effect being, to switch metaphors, a regrettable loss of colour. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ericoides: Thank you for your message. I responded on the article's Talk page: Talk:Arthur Schmidt (soldier)#Manstein. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Awards on SS pages

Hi, I've noticed you've visited a few pages of SS generals and blanked or otherwise severely trimmed the awards section. Please note that there has been wide consensus, since at least 2004, to include full award lists of Nazi and SS personnel, including political awards and badges. If you want to revisit this policy, I'm sure it can be discussed on the individual article talk pages. Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 17:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@OberRanks: Could you point me towards this policy? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been at least five discussions about this that I recall on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history over the past ten years and all pretty much have said full award lists are permitted on articles. There have been a few attempts by people to blank Nazi awards in the past, and all of them wound up being restored with consensus being that this is historical material appropriate for Wikipedia. Category:SS service records was also created to cover articles specifically dealing with award histories and assignments. this discussion also provides some of the earlier history on this question. -O.R.^Comms 04:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@OberRanks: Thank you for the link the discussion. If I had participated in the conversation, I probably would have commented that I considered various minor awards and badges to be “excessive intricate detail” (I.e. indiscriminate collection of information) and that I would not expect this information to be of interest to the general reader. But in any case, I believe it’s important to make a distinction between WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the core Wikipedia policies, such as NPOV, verifiability, etc. The former never trumps the latter.

On the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts, please see Talk:Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski#Wehrmachtbericht report, where it was discussed in detail and subsequently removed. The various badges, such as the SA Sports Badge in Bronze, were removed around the same timeframe.

In this most recent edit (diff), I removed the info because it was (1) uncited and (2) “intricate detail unrelated to subject’s notability”. What falls under “intricate detail” varies editor by editor, but WP:NOT applies. The requirement for the material to be cited to reliable sources is not really negotiable; please see WP:BURDEN. Specific to Bach-Zalewski, I responded on the article's Talk page: Talk:Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski#Recent edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good points. I spoke with a colleague and friend on Wikipedia and he said there is yet another round of discussions starting where people are discussing both this awards matter and Knight's Cross article issues. I keep my major publishing off Wikipedia these days so don't get involved in anything too heavy which this seems to be developing into. Whichever way community consensus goes is how the articles will eventually be I imagine. -O.R.^Comms 13:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Carlo Mattogno Lead

Posted by Special:Contributions/172.7.129.89 to my user page: The Journal of Historical Review has not been published since 2009 (check it out). My earlier edits associating him with CODOH (which does not have a journal) were correct but, as often seems to happen in Wikipedia, have been reversed, then replaced with material either wrong or badly out of date. No need to reply to me; I'm not a Wikipedia Lawyer, and have no intention of becoming one, tempting as that is.

Thank you for the clarification. I corrected "is" to "as" to indicate that Mattogno held the role in the past. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Zaostao

Hello there,

It is indeed fortunate when a Nazi is prevented from distributing his/her propaganda. On the other hand, one must notice that their work persists as long as the articles they wrote or edited are not reworded in a careful fashion.

Unfortunately, I have very limited time, as mathematics is a fun, but also fairly challenging subject (perhaps the former due to the latter). Thus, I recommend the following procedure for processing articles written by that or similar users:

1. Note all the relevant points of the article.
2. Discard the article completely.
3. Rewrite the article completely, but in your own words.

This procedure may seem overly tedious, but I think that it may be the only way of making sure that we don't miss language that is glorifying of that time or hatred-inspiring. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mathmensch: I mostly deal with the WWII history so I'm no well versed in the contemporary far-right. But I try to do my share; for example, I've edited the article on the British far-right personality Troy Southgate and the surrounding cluster. Among other things, I PRODed Southgate's (apparently neo-Nazi) band H.E.R.R., which stands for Heiliges Europa Römisches Reich. Yuk. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

In any case, when editing and simultaneously discarding, two things are achieved simultaneously: The removal of dangerous content and the creation of beneficial content. This amounts to a doubling of efficiency. I hope that pointing this out is not considered tasteless, but taken for what it is: Efficiency advice. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is a discussion happening right now about this. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rise_in_racism.2Ffascism.2Fantisemitism_on_Wikipedia.3F. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Thank you for letting me know as I do not keep the ANI page on my watch list. I suggested a new noticeboard. I think it would be a good addition. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hans Reiter

Hi, I will follow up on your comments above some time later. For now I would like to ask for some background information concerning how things are handled in English Wikipedia. I was up to check the article on Hans Reiter, head of the German Office of Public Health from 1933 to 1945. I found him at Hans Conrad Julius Reiter, where it has been moved in January 2009. Hans Reiter is now dedicated to a, I may dare to say, virtually unknown Untersturmführer of the Waffen-SS (and KC recipient). I suspect hardly anyone who heard of the physician (there's a disease named after his last name) knows him by his full name. In Germany middle names rarely become known. Leaving aside the notability of the KC recipient, which I think is dubious, I would have expected a disambiguation page. Do I have to discuss the issue and where? Should I just proceed to nominate the KC recipient's article for deletion? I refrain from bringing up the issue on the talk page, because I would expect that it is not the most watched. Best regards, --Assayer (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Assayer: I moved the article to Hans Reiter (Waffen-SS) and updated the incoming links. Please feel free to create a disambiguation page at the original location. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Fritz Amling

Hi KE, I've reverted your changes to this article because they seem a little excessive. We don't need a citation for every sentence or phrase on Wikipedia and my research to date on this article is that even the "unreliable" sources have been correct where the facts can be corroborated against a "reliable" source. I agree we need to ensure important or contentious claims are properly supported by good sources and I thank you for pointing out those which we should place less reliance on, but these statements are not particularly controversial, and Wikipedia will be the poorer if we have to cite every last jot and tittle. We need to find a sensible middle ground. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Thank you for your message; I responded on the article's Talk page: Talk:Fritz_Amling#Thomas_.26_Wegmann. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Whpq (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi K.e.coffman, thanks for you thanks over my edit at Talk:Ronald Smelser

Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ronald Smelser has been accepted

Ronald Smelser, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Good job; you could add in some further information as to notability and I do believe some of the criticism of his Myth book (which I know exists) should be noted in a npov way with RS citing; otherwise that part comes off as too promotional. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and added to the "Myth book" review section so it is more balanced; see what you think. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Troy Southgate IP

Blocked. Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thank you for letting me know. It's good that the page is semi-protected. :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, conferring from your comments on the "Panzer aces" you are probably sympathetic to my quest, so I thought I just might drop you a note. As you might imagine, I am not really satisfied with how things are going with the "Panzer aces". I don't want to repeat my arguments here. I may have been overly optimistic and my nomination for deletion appears to have been premature in the sense that time is not yet ripe to simply do away with cherished, but ahistorical beliefs. But I predominantly contribute as an editor to German Wikipedia, where things are, well, a little different. I don't want to paint a too gloomy picture, but it seems as if familiarity with the language and therefore with German historiography helps to take a more critical stance. For example, on this talk page I read someone is considering Manstein's Lost Victories to be a RS, while another has no problem to take a proposal for a KC at face value. (Curiously enough we have here another "Panzertöter" i.e. "Panzer killer", from the Wehrmacht fashioned likewise by Wehrmacht propaganda. Maybe we should move on from the "Panzer Aces" to the "Panzer killers", but I'm getting a little carried away by sarcasm.)

I have frequently been checking articles on KC recipients in the English Wikipedia, because once and again articles on KC recipients come up for deletion in German wikipedia. All too often references are to the English Wikipedia, not at least, because, among others, webpages like feldgrau, axishistory, lexikon der wehrmacht, and various pages carrying "ritterkreuz" in its domain have been blacklisted in the German Wikipedia. Coming across various templates regarding notability and reliable sources in such articles I got the impression that things might have changed for the better in the English Wikipedia. By that I do not mean that KC recipients are now to be purged from Wikipedia for some hidden political agenda, but that a more critical, and thereby historically more accurate assessment may have gained ground. I am by training most familiar with German history, but I do not confine myself to that. Some years ago, e.g., I also did some editing on Smedley Butler. I don't think that citations for American military orders are better than German ones. Both are primary sources, should be put into context and interpreted properly by historians. That may be kicking at an already open door, but I figure that there should be some consensus about which literature is and which is not reliable, that is, which is historically most accurate. Is there a place where the pros and cons of various sources are discussed? It is tedious to repeat explanations as to why a certain source is not as reliable as it seems over and over again. Best regards,--Assayer (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Assayer: Thank you for the message and the comments at Arthur Schmidt (soldier) and Fritz Amling. Sometime people just need to hear it twice. BTW, there’s no need to apologise for posting to the articles’ Talk page threads, as they are for anyone to comment on. And please feel free to post to the threads on my Talk page at any time, as you always have insightful things to say, and have the advantage of the knowledge of the German language historiography. Speaking of which, thank you for participating in the KC winners’ AfD discussions—it was invaluable to get the perspective of German sources on the topic.

Yes, I’ve always held German Wikipedia in high regard as the sources there skew towards “less hero worship, more actual history". As an aside, I am convinced that for a while some editors believed that I was German (I assume due to my edit history), as they attempted to educate me about the differences between “de Wiki” and “en Wiki”. I took it as a compliment :-) .

Regarding sources, it’s a long process. For example, when I came across the Otto Kittel article (2015 version), it was painfully obvious too me that Franz Kurowski was not a reliable source. But I had to create an exhaustive article on the subject to be able to start removing dubious (likely made up) material from articles. In one of my early “I-can’t-believe-this-is-happening” interactions (link), an editor suggested that “removal of sources does not help” when discussing highly dubious & POV material cited to the openly neo-Nazi Patrick Agte. In this thread, my attempt to remove a book by a Nazi journalist from Further reading was compared to book burning (with link).

It takes time & effort. Most recently, I’ve started to use WP:3O; WP:RSN and WP:NPOV with some success to deal with problematic edits / reverts. I've even used WP:FTN on some occasions. Another good way to get involved is to put MilHist Talk page on your watch list; for example, there’s an interesting discussion there on the misconceptions pertaining to the Invasion of Poland (some are “true” legends and some appear to have been made up) (link). But yeah, it does seem that I spend a lot of time debating here and on various Talk pages.

Sometimes new consensus can be reached via discussion, as was the case with the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts. Sometimes that fails and you have to find other means; for example, I was unable to convince another editor that the Aces of the Luftwaffe’ web site was not a reliable source (discussion continued above), and I got the content removed on copyvio grounds instead. With KC winners, a series of AfD was required to arrive at a new consensus. Which reminds me, I need to revisit the monster thread at Notability (People) and put forth some proposals on which articles should be evaluated for a possible redirect. I wonder if you may be interested in participating? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Another argument for the notability of KC recipients in the German Wikipedia is, that other versions, notably the English one, feature such articles. So, yes, I am interested, how their notability is weighed in the English Wikipedia. In the German Wikipedia it is consented that the simple fact that someone has reveived a KC does not generate notability and that at least there has to be information as to why someone received the award. Some take the order as such as an indication of notability, however, but that is not consented. Neither is there a consensus as to what else constitutes notability. For example, some argue that contemporary news coverage, i.e. propaganda, speaks for notability. Basically this argument assumes that if Wikipedia would have existed during WW II, these persons would have been considered notable. From a neutral standpoint, so the logic goes, there can be no objection against Nazi awards and Nazi propaganda. That argument is highly controversial. Wikipedia did not exist in 1945. Not only is "notability" in the Wikipedian sense a completely recent concept, i.e., we, as people living in the 21st century decide whom we deem notable and about whom we want to have stand-alone articles. If the community agrees, that contemporary media coverage, even if it's just propaganda, generates notability whatsoever, that's fine, but there is no inner logic within the concept of notability that compells us to do so. It is also unlikely, moreover, that KC recipients would have been deemed "notable" in 1945. Up to 1939 recipients of the Pour le Mérite, e.g., were not covered in encyclopedias. It is true that the German author Hans Möller-Witten published a sort of biographical dictionary of the Knights of the Pour le Mérite, but he was also secretary of the Knight's organization sponsoring his project. Neither was his approach decidedly encyclopedic. Instead he put an emphasis on dramatic stories, and his work should not be considered utterly reliable. On the other hand, Kurt von Priesdorff's Soldatisches Führertum (1937ff.) was a biographical dictionary only of high ranking officers, namely Prussian generals. Keeping in mind that the Pour le mérite was primarily reserved for persons of nobility, it should be clear that up to WW II class and standing had an enormous impact on the understanding of "notability". And after WW II noone bothered to write an academically sound biographical dictionary of the KC recipients. That has been the prerogative of authors outside academic military historiograpy, who ventured into compilations of data on KC recipients.

And this brings me to my main issue, which is reliablity. Let's leave aside the controversy surrounding the so called "Dönitz Erlass" and the approval process at the end of WW II. The information as to "the extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership" honored by the KC comes most often from official documents. In the case of many KC recipients we often do not know much about their biography, not even their military biography. What else did they do during the war? Their notability is linked to a single event, and about that we only have highly partisan accounts, namely the proposal and its approval. I have argued elsewhere, why these accounts are not reliable. Where there has been historical research, it has disproven many claims. Probably worse, I have frequently read articles which just tell you: He was a highly decorated rank of whatever (and probably killed some time later). Most often there is also the standard phrase: The Knight's Cross was awarded to recognise extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership. The icing on the cake is a misleading bibliography which not only features Fellgiebel and Scherzer, but also books from publishers like Stackpole which do not mention the person at all. These articles come close to constituting a directory and remind me of memorials, which, either way, Wikipedia is not.

I don't see the difference between a list of KC recipients and single articles. There is not much information to be lost and probably it makes information even more accessible. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Strange comment

When you removed the BLP prod on Ajdar Ismailov, it showed up as being vandalism on my watchlist. Well, I knew there was something shifty about you. :) Got to love those WMF beta projects. I needed a good laugh. Thank you and the WMF for it. Bgwhite (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)