User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/April

Was this intentional?

At your Signpost contribution, you wrote "I thank The Bugle for providing me with an opportunity to share my perspective." I didn't correct it because I'm not absolutely sure it's a mistake, since maybe it's published there first or something.

By the way, very well written piece, one of the best I've copyedited. We may have to cut the "further reading" bit, but other than that, I see no problems. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting it; fixed now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: I did some additional copy-editing. "Nur-Soldat", when used in a cultural context, is often capitalised in English; example in Count Not the Dead: The Popular Image of the German Submarine. I also added a longer by-line after reading instructions on the page. Please let me know if I should adjust. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think capitalization of an "imported" German phrase really matters, it just makes me twinge a little when I see it ☆ Bri (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in March! Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thank you; I appreciate it. Happy Easter to you too. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Armin T. Wegner/GA1

K.e.coffman, were you planning to wrap this up, or were you hoping for another second opinion before making your final decision? If the latter, I can see if I can find an experienced GA reviewer to stop by. Please let me know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I'd reached out to the nom here: User_talk:Jclemens#Armin_T._Wegner. He had competing obligations but said that he'd be able to devote time to the article after April 10. If there's no movement after that, I'll probably ping you for advice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If there's no movement after that—you can allow a week or two for work to begin, as you think appropriate—then given your significant concerns about the sourcing, the only thing left is to close the nomination as unsuccessful. The review has already been open for three months; you have given ample opportunity for improvement, especially with the latest extension into mid- to late April. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Lilliana

Hi K.e.coffman, can you take a look at the article Kevin Lilliana, several anons were reverting the article to its original form, but it looks like from one person only in Indonesia. The article has several entries and some with sources cited but the entries can not be found from the sources indicated. Tags were removed by anons without addressing the concerns that were raised. Thanks!-Richie Campbell (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Richie Campbell: I requested page protection; let's see if it takes. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!-Richie Campbell (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Alleged 1RR violation

Hi You have made 3 reverts to the article

[1],[2],[3]

Please revert.--Shrike (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: I made edits to the article, which is allowed, as I understand, i.e. adhering to WP:SAID. One of my edits this one, was objected to, but I did not re-introduce it as can be seen from the article history. Can you please clarify? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was objected or not you have changed recently added text and hence a revert you also changed a name of the article which could be considered a revert too.--Shrike (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:K.e.coffman reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Closed as "No violation": permalink. Please only file reports about actual violation.s K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Your canvassing concern

You took the time to declare my notification of the Firearms project as "inappropriate notification". Perhaps you should have taken time to read it. These behaviors are listed:

1. 1)Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand: I made a single post to a related project. No spamming.
2. 2) Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.: I made a single, neutrally worked post. So no campaigning.
3. 3)Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.: Since I made a single post to an involved project, this doesn't apply either.
4. 4)Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages): No evidence of that.
5. 5)Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed. Again, no evidence of that.

• In fact, WP:APPNOTE says "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." In short, you were wrong to "warn" me about my appropriate behavior. I won't hold my breath for an apology. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Thank you for commenting here. My concern was about *selective* notification. Please see: Inappropriate notification, 3rd column: Audience | Partisan --> Votestacking. The steps to add WP:GUNS to the Talk header at Mass shootings in the United States‎ and then notify the project had an appearance of being WP:Votestacking, because only one project was notified. Predictably, two editors who commented on the thread since then had recently posted to WP:GUNS Talk page. The past comments at the project Talk page include:

• “anti-gun editors”
• “emotion over logic”
• “has repeatedly voiced anti-gun sentiment”
• “politically charged”
• “mass hysteria”
• “inflamed emotions”
• “irrational fear” etc. permalink

At another Talk page, a WP:GUNS member stated his concern over “gun confiscators” – four times. With comments like these, WP:GUNS project could hardly be perceived as a detached, non-emotional audience.

You've expressed a concern that I'am "acting like [I] own the page" when you removed my comment: [4]. I believe that the opposite is more likely. For example, you’ve edited the Talk page 34 times vs seven times for me, repeatedly making the same points and responding to each and every comment. I would urge you to head NeilN’s advice from the AE close (“More generally...”). When emotions are high, it’s easy to get into a battleground mentality, which is not helpful to building a consensus. Perhaps, that’s just the way you communicate, but hopefully, you can be more aware of how it comes across.

I occasionally edit in the Israel-Palestine area which is also under DS sanctions. It’s a common practice to attempt to resolve concerns about behaviour on user Talk pages; see for example: 1RR @ Hasbara. That’s what I was attempting to do with my post. Again, my suggestion is to notify all relevant projects about discussions. I think it’s a reasonable request, as it does not add much of a burden and removes the perception of targeting a specific project to prevail in a disagreement. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, but because some members of a project have expressed what you feel are comments you don't like, that doesn't make it vote stacking. I made a neutral post to an involved project. If you honestly think you are right, I suggest you, to take the complain to ANI and see how well it fares. I already know how it will fare. In fact, if you want to persist in making the allegation, I'd suggest you do make the complaint. The number of edits doesn't indicate an attitude of ownership. It's your attitude. When you start warning me about things that don't apply or repeatedly link me to an Arb issue where an individual was told something specific to him, it comes across wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: I’ve expressed my concern on your talk page; you disagreed and removed my comment – I could have been resolved then and there. If you wish to continue the discussion, I’m free to express my opinion on the matter – on my own Talk page. I did not "warn" you about anything. BTW, there was no need to put "warn" in quotation marks; that was not the language I used.

I linked to the relevant AE decision because it was a reasonable assumption that you may not have seen it. Sorry, when you write that the close was only about an individual [being] told something specific to him, I need to correct this misconception. Because the close literally says (underline mine):

More generally and not directed towards [contributor X], editors editing in this area need to heed how we build consensus: "Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Furthermore guidelines by Wikiprojects are suggestions, not mandates and any consensus achieved on project pages may be changed/overturned by a wider community discussion drawing in more participants from outside the project. Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon.

If you feel that my comment on your Talk page was out of line, please file an AE request, as that would be an appropriate venue for this. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• How interesting that you suggest I go to ANI, right after I challenge you to back up your false allegation, but I'm not surprised that it is your response. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Well, you keep bringing up my alleged false allegation / warning directed at you, yet seem reluctant to take it further. It appears there's nothing else for me to do. But at least you seem to have backed off your claim that the AE close was addressed to TWC alone, so that's progress I guess. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• There's no "alleged warning", because you clearly did it. No, I don't need to run ti ANI over every little slight. I had hoped that you'd actually discuss it. I was wrong in that hope. And no, I'm not 'backing off' the bit about the AE comments. I simply decided that it wasn't worth continuing to discuss. Good day sir. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Niteshift36: Re not 'backing off' the bit about the AE - individual was told something specific to him (underline in the original), - I hoped that you'd actually acknowledge that the close was directed at editors in general. But it's apparently not worth continuing the discussion in the face of the evidence of said close's exact wording. Okay. Have a nice day. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Good essay; your work over the past few years has certainly made me more critical of the language I use in my writing. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Just read it, really excellent stuff. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer and Zawed: thank you; I'm glad you found the essay useful. There's a related discussion currently open at RSN that you may be interested in: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources in World War II GA articles. It deals with right-wing publishers and Landser-Hefte sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Flying aces with 100+ kills

I noticed you deleted and redirected many articles on flying aces with 100+ shootdowns, citing a deletion of a flying ace with 51 kills. There is a huge difference in notability of a Luftwaffe pilot that shot down ~50 Soviet planes (given the kill ratios) and a pilot with 100 or more kills. VERY few pilots have done so, and many of those flying aces shot down many American aircraft (better quality and safer than most Soviet planes). This has led to a navigation template for German flying aces with 100+ kills to be full of a bunch of redirects. While I agree that 50 kills by itself is not notable (although a person with 50+ kills can be notable for another reason, such as making an "aviation first", ex first person to fly a certain plane, etc), people with 100 or more should not be redirected.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: Re: There is a huge difference in notability of a Luftwaffe pilot shot down ~50 Soviet planes (given the kill ratios) and a pilot with 100 or more kills, could you elaborate? 100+ people are not "VERY few"; that would be perhaps a dozen. Again, why do you think that "50 kills by itself is not notable" while 100 is? I'm curious as to how you made this determination. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Those with 100 kills or more fit nicely into a single navbox (just a few dozen have done so). Adding those with 50+ would be a total mess and if they were their own list it would have to be divided up by last name letter. But the relative few with 100+ could fit on their own list. Either way, consensus was that around 50 was not notable enough, so its quite a stretch to infer 100+ is not notable and redirect based on that premise.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For perspective, the deadlist allied ace was Ivan Kozhedub with 66 kills. Having WAY more than that would be notable.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: Sorry, Those with 100 kills (...) just a few dozen have done so is not correct. More than 100 Luftwaffe pilots claimed 100+ victories each. Comparing aces across different armed forces is not useful either. Such reasoning did not find support at the RfC that was linked from the Talk page. In any case, Wikipedia determines notability based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not by a number of 'kills' picked at random. Does significant coverage exist on these pilots? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of books on the subject of aviation that include biographies of flying aces. There are even encyclopedias dedicated to aviation with heavy coverage of such material. I would suggest doing a search in google books. And don't forget that coverage is not limited to the English language.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And theres a difference between having 100+ confirmed individual kills and claiming 100+ kills including dual/team kills. Anyway, WP:Aviation and the Soviet Aviation task force do not appreciate deletionism. Many of those with 100+ kills also shot down several or more famous and celebrity aviators, adding to notability.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: Wikipedia operates on the principle of WP:ONUS; the responsibility for providing citations to reliable sources rests with those editors who wish to add disputed material. If there are "encyclopedias dedicated to aviation with heavy coverage of such material", then I'm sure you can add them. I would suggest doing a search in google books. I tried and did not find anything useful.

Also please see the comment below on aircraft kills. The vast majority of those with 100+ victories fought on the Eastern front; those fighting against the British and the Americans did not fair quite as well. 100+ kills on the Eastern Front was not remarkable for a German fighter pilot and not "VERY few" have done it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I will comment, but I would like to note I counted the number of aces with 100+ shootdowns and there were 113, most in the 100-125 range. Certainly those with 130+ are notable. Compare to sniper stats: Many with 100+ have articles, and even many with less than 100 have articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for Help

Hello K.e.coffman, I began with care to write some lines concerning the history of the centre of this article in Gun_laws_in_Australia#Evolution_of_Gun_laws_in_Australia, because I found a 100% fitting source. Could you help and have a look? In my opinion there is too much (not law concerned) overhead in this article grown by editing over the years. In this case to be found in the first two sections of Gun_laws_in_Australia#History. Please have a look if my grammar is correct and eliminate some overhead. Will you be so kind and help in this case? Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Gun use

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Gun use. 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. –dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: This has been quite interesting: Wikipedia_talk:Gun_use. The link at the top goes from red to blue and back again on a daily basis it seems. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. There are now five copies of it on my watchlist including one in my userspace, which is odd because I don't recall writing it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your IP-Tracker

Hello K.e.coffman, coincidentally I saw your User:K.e.coffman/IP Tracker and that there was a problematic IP from British Columbia. There are more IPs from the same area which have been identified with disruptive edits (especially one IP since 2011). May I draw your attention to User_talk:NeilN#Good_&_bad_news_...? Sorrowfully up to now I could not see whether these findings could be used so far. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ: I don't think that these are at all related. Note that the BC address was blocked as part of a mass block and it was a while ago. The topic area is also completely different. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks for your estimation. Do you think there is something to do about the Nanaimo & Victoria IPs ? --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Just letting you know.

Someone undid your creation of the redirect Rudolf von Ribbentrop and made it a full blown article again. I restored the redirect, but largely as a result of your conclusion that he was not notable. Just making sure your judgement still stands. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891: thank you. Yes, this does come up occasionally. If such articles are nominated for deletion, they mostly end up being deleted / redirected, e.g.: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnulf Abele. If the Ribbentrop page is restored again, I will probably AfD it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ray Cowdery

Could you take a look at this. I've just PRODed it, but I'd be guided by your feedback. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I think it was a correct PROD. An obscure author whose works on Nazi Germany are not used as sources on either en.wiki or de.wiki. No reviews, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

PROD was removed by creator without addressing the issues and a rather odd es. Sent to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please explain these edits; 1 & 2. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 04:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: sure, per the discussion here, you were advised "not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions (specifically, they should not take it upon themselves to maintain or "clerk" any discussions)".

With that in mind, please explain these edits: [5]; [6]; [7]. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how those edits were in any way "impeding the formation of consensus". As for the AE warning, I don't see where it says I can't participate at all, nor do I see where it appointed you as some type of admin assistant tasked with monitoring my posts and 'clerking' any discussions I take part in, which is exactly what you have done in both instances here. You still haven't explained those specific edits, and simply saying "go read the AE close" is not sufficient. - ^theWOLFchild 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Most of us have come across comments that are a bit too snarky or personal, especially in heated discussions. Editors will often guide the conversation back to the topic at hand by responding only to content that is related to improving the article. This may be sufficient to defuse the situation. We might let a minor offenses slide, or bring it to the user's talk page if it needs to be addressed. Sometimes a noticeboard post is necessary for persistent offenders. In any case, personal comments and editor behavior should never be discussed on an article talk page, even if someone else brought it up first.

Your approach is the opposite: You tend to escalate the personal discussion, often drawing the conversation away from the topic at hand. This leads other editors to spend time and energy addressing your remarks instead of working toward consensus. I hope you can see how this disrupts the editing process and why it was brought to AE. I would suggest that you avoid addressing or responding to personal comments on article talk pages, and I would give any editor the same advice. By the way, thanks for bringing your concerns to K.e.coffman's talk page. This is the appropriate place for the discussion to take place. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"Your approach is the opposite"... and I am genuinely shocked, shocked!, mind you, that you would think that, but the two examples cited here say different. The "focus on content and not on editors" mantra is one that you and your friend K.e. here should pay more attention to. - ^theWOLFchild 18:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Sure, I'd be happy to explain further. Deciding what is and what isn't a personal attack and then using this judgement to modify other editors' posts sounds like 'clerking' to me. I don't see where you were appointed as some sort of a junior admin tasked with monitoring other editors' posts and redacting them, repeatedly.

If you have a problem with specific posts, please discuss with the editor directly, on their user Talk page. Turning the articles' Talk page into a venue to discuss editors not content is not what these pages are for. This derails discussions and is unnecessary. Just state your position on the issue and leave any 'clerking' and redactions to others. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"Others"...? Like you? If only you could follow the advice you so freely dispense. And parakeeting my own post back to me doesn't explain anything, it only proves this to be a waste of time. As it stands right now, I have no editing restrictions and you are in no position to impose any on me, like some probational-acting-deputy-admin-in-training, and not while you are and your friend Dl here are doing the same very same things that you keep complaining about. So again I'll say, focus on content, not other editors... surely you can do that? - ^theWOLFchild 01:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: you've come here to request an explanation for my edits, which I provided, twice. Isn't this what you wanted? Here it is, again: "Deciding what is and what isn't a personal attack and then using this judgement to modify other editors' posts sounds like 'clerking' to me."

I've not "imposed" any "editing restrictions" on you; I'm not "complaining", etc. That said, I've requested an explanation for your edits, which you are yet to provide. Stating how shocked, shocked! you are is not sufficient. Please explain these edits: [8]; [9]; [10]. Surely you can do that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

So, "sounds like clerking to me" is the only explanation you are going to provide. Got it. Like I said, trying to discuss this was a waste of time. Meanwhile, you're asking me to explain three edits (though the first two are the same) and the third is itself the explanation. So, are you really having that much difficty understanding them? Or is this just more gaslighting? Actually, strike that. No more questions, I think we're done here (at least, I am. This is your talk page, so feel free to have the last word). - ^theWOLFchild 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You have a funny way of striking your questions. Comments are usually stricken by making another edit to strike through them, not writing both your questions and "Strike that. No more questions" out in one edit: [11]. An even more efficient way of striking one's comments is to take them out before hitting "save". But I guess you really wanted to ask those questions, didn't you? Separately, why did you believe that "Not this again. That's not much of an argument. Not all of us have sat here spending our lives reading old arguments" is a personal attack? To the point of edit-warring over it?

But strike that; no more questions. [See - others can do it too.] I do appreciate you letting me have the last word. And you are welcome to post here any time. BTW, you might consider implementing the same practice on your Talk page, instead of routinely removing other editors' comments or, even more bizarrely, moving them to the article's Talk pages, so that you could continue to have your emotional outbursts there. That's what led in part to the AE. So the fact that we were having this discussion here is progress, I guess. Have a nice day. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erich Hoepner

The article Erich Hoepner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erich Hoepner for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Euryalus -- Euryalus (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Erich Hoepner and the current Arbcom case request

Hi. Your Arbcom case request includes references to the article on Erich Hoepner, as an example of the alleged issue. As you know I recently did a GA review on that article, in my capacity as a random member of Milhist. Am also in a position to vote on the case request in my capacity as a random member of Arbcom.

I haven't (yet) recused from the case because I don't see this piece of fairly minor content analysis as impinging on the likelihood of a fair hearing. But am keen to get your views either way, as a principal participant in the request as it stands. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Euryalus: thank you for checking. I don't have any issues with your participation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

History

Just read your Signpost article, excellent and important work. I've come across issues like this over the years in historiography topics. For a while there were editors scrubbing the early medieval articles of "Barbarian" replacing with "Germans". Or the Turkish nationalists who were adamant they were the direct genetic heirs of the Huns (historians actually believe the Huns were a brand name, like a football team, not a racial tribal division). Or those who believe the Dark Ages (historiography) were actually dark (there were some problems in the period but it was mostly a later invention by Italian Humanists to restore the glory of the Roman Empire). Wikipedia needs more historiography-focused articles (like Dark Ages (historiography)) so these issues can be stated clearly. But it's a specialized field to be sure, and they tend to be honey traps for those who disagree. -- GreenC 02:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: thank you for the comment. There's an article Historiography of World War II but it's rather poor content-wise and sort of goes on unrelated tangents. I.e. why is there a whole section dedicated to one (rather dated) book? Historiography of World War II#Taylor The Origins of the Second World War (1961). Is historiography something that you enjoy working on? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Your essay

Only just noticed it so I added a comment on the Bugle talk page. I was surprised at what you have found, even though it's been discussed on the MilHist page often enough. In my furrow obsolete texts aren't as ideologically questionable, just bad scholarship or the obsolete stuff of commercial history (the Schlieffen Plan comes to mind) endlessly repackaged like the Hitler channel. It seems to me that Wiki rules contain a conservative corollary which makes truth a matter of quantity of sources, rather than quality. Is there a nationality correlation with the sources (authors and editors) used to whitewash the Hitler regime? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: This 1992 quote from Gerhard Weinberg may explain some of what we are seeing on en.wiki:

The single most difficult task all those working on World War II in Europe and North Africa face is the need to penetrate the fog of distortion and confusion generated by the vast German memoir literature, especially that of the generals like Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein. Long the basic staple on which secondary literature was based, closer examination of these works with reference to contemporary evidence has shown the memoirs to be almost invariably inaccurate, distorted and, in some instances, simply fake… Scholars in all countries need to liberate their own minds and their own writings from a preoccupation with an enormous collection of dubious works and from the influence of an even larger mass of secondary works largely based on those memoirs.’

References

Unfortunately, the numerous sources that you mention are often questionable / hobbyist in nature, rather than historical scholarship. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wolf-Udo Ettel

In case you are not watching the page above an editor has brought it back to life. As part of NPP I have reverted to you but don't plan to get further involved in this content dispute (of there is one). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Doenitz and Raeder's pro-Nazi orders

I first read the articles on Karl Dönitz and Erich Raeder back in 2013, when I first got into Wikipedia. I recall that the articles included orders by one and/or the other issued to the U-boat force advocating Nazi discipline. I can't seem to find those entries now. As you know, the U-boat force has one of the "least Nazi" reputations of the German WWII forces, as does Doenitz, who of course was designated by Hitler as his heir. If these orders can be properly sourced, exposing his loyalty to the regime he served so well would be useful. As for aircraft kills, my recollection from years ago is that all three of the "300 club" scored more than half of their kills against unarmed Soviet transport planes, and Marseille was perhaps the only 100+ pilot with most of his kills against the UK and US. I have not looked up these "facts" in 40+ years, so I could be wrong. RobDuch (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@RobDuch: I believe that the Raeder article was split at some point, with the WWII content being largely moved to Erich Raeder during World War II. This does not make much sense to me, as Raeder is perhaps best known for WWII. I believe the order you've mentioned in that spin-out article. Should the WWII content be perhaps merged back?

"Aces"

You're correct about Marseille, but wrong about the others. The Germans rarely encountered Soviet transports, so virtually all of the kills by the Germans on the Eastern Front were of armed aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: According to ace (military), to be considered an "ace" one had to achieve success over an equally skilled opponent. For fighter pilots, shooting down bombers or ground attack aircraft? Not so impressive. I always chuckle when I see statements such as "All but one of his victories were claimed over the Eastern Front, including 16 Il-2 Sturmoviks. Sturmovik was a ground-attack aircraft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Even the crappiest aircraft were armed. Heck, the Night Witches usually had an anti-aircraft gun, and those were Po-2 wooden biplanes. (BTW, some Soviet aircraft were so crappy (for combat purposes because they were originally civilian planes) that they were actually very hard to shoot down. The Po-2 was a crop duster not intended for combat but crop dusting, to the point is was so slow German pilots found them nearly impossible to shoot down because they would stall while trying to line up shoot it down. Hence why the one pilot that shot down four night witch planes in one night was objectively notable, because members of the regiment's remembered it for years as the night the regiment was grounded. (And the incident has been written about in Russian a lot because it was a statistical anomaly) Point being, mass deletion is not a good idea and its better to improve/rewrite than delete in mass before fully reading the English and Russian versions. Ace may not just mean aircraft equivalent, but depends on how hard each type of plane was to shoot down. For example, in the pacific war, shooting down 5 wildcats would not be very impressive, but shooting down 5 hellcats? Very different. I could provide more examples if you would like, I might even dig up a photo of a Po-2 with an anti-aircraft gun mounted.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard that an ace had to shoot down an equally skilled opponent and I've read a lot of ace biographies over the years, although I've never gotten into the WWI aces. I'd definitely want to see the cite for that. A kill was a kill as far as they were concerned; didn't matter if it was an unarmed C-47 over Arnhem or a Typhoon V fighter over Normandy. Don't knock the Il-2, it was probably the most heavily armored aircraft of the war and was very difficult to shoot down until the Germans figured out its vulnerabilities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I was going by this, from Ace (military):

• The ace was supposed to be in control of his destiny, and could only be defeated by an equally skillful opponent. Hence, being shot down by ground anti-aircraft fire was considered to be a dishonour.

Shooting down slow-moving ground-attack aircraft or bombers does not appear to be that significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in propaganda terms, but the actual men and their organizations had absolutely no problem giving credit for shooting down observation planes and/or bombers of any kind in WWI to the best of my knowledge. That mythology may have lingered over the interwar period, but nonetheless every WWII-era air force gave credit for shooting down non-fighters. Now I'm mildly curious what exact lens Robertson is looking through, although his title seems to indicate mythologizing the "knights of the air" for the home front and ignoring the battlefront itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: The concept of "ace" and the number of aircraft shot down are different things, in my mind. I don't dispute that the airmen were given credit for shooting down observation planes, etc. But whether that makes someone an "ace (military)" is another question. The latter seems to be more of cultural phenomenon, which also includes the propaganda image. In short, Germany had too many successful (in terms of aircraft shot down) pilots; not all could become "aces" / "propaganda heros". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably so, but the tallies kept by the organizations created aces and those tallies included non-fighter aircraft, and even observation balloons at certain times and in organizations. So I'm not sure how we can feasibly separate the two given that most sources about individual pilots don't separate the two, other than to discuss war bond tours, photographs with the Führer, etc. (i.e. the most important aspects in terms of the pilot's life) The cultural aspects seem to be strongest in WW1, but that's not something that I've ever been interested in, so I really couldn't say one way or another.

The problem that I see here is that the most common usage nowadays is simply somebody who's shot down a lot of aircraft/destroyed lots of tanks, etc., whereas you're focusing on the cultural/propaganda aspects. So I think that there's a certain amount of talking past one another going on. We should probably split the article in some way, or separate the concepts somehow, although I'm uncertain what the best way to do that is. Might be best to put the cultural aspects in their own section later in the article as the tally of victories is the basis for the propaganda.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Presidency of Donald Trump

I am going to ask you self-revert this before an AE is filed for breaking consensus required. PackMecEng (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Thank you for attempting to resolve this dispute here. I do, however, see rough consensus for inclusion. According to my review of the TP discussion, here's the breakdown:

• Yes: SPECIFICO Drmies Volunteer Marek BullRangifer K.e.coffman Neutrality (6)

• No: PackMecEng Politrukki Atsme Orser67 (4)

Aquillion's position was a bit unclear, but I think it was leaning yes. So far, no one else has expressed concerns. If you still have objections, I can raise the issue on the article's Talk page and ping everyone — especially Aquillion, to clarify his position. If I miscounted or misinterpreted anything, please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You forgot Markbassett for oppose. So that would be 6 to 5, but even if it was 6 to 4 that is not enough for consenses. So one last time, I ask you self-revert. PackMecEng (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at AE

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#K.e.coffman. PackMecEng (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Closed as "no action": permalink. Please only file reports about actual violations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope you will keep what the admins said in mind and hopefully will never need to head back. PackMecEng (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I hope you will keep what the admins said in mind and hopefully will not file frivolous reports in the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)