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

May
Rapeseed
	... with thanks from QAI

Archives

Draft rejections[edit]

I appreciate all the work you do at AFC and I can understand the frustration as a reviewer when it seems inundated with garbage or unencyclopedic topics but please be cautious about which drafts you outright reject. Rejection really should only be used for patently unencyclopedic submissions and repeated (especially after discussion) submissions of non-notable junk like vanity spam. Drafts like these: [1][2][3][4] have a slew of problems and more than likely aren't notable but they're mostly also first time submissions and not outright unencyclopedic. So I guess what I'm asking is maybe to refrain from using the rejection option save for special, obvious cases. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: Thank you for your message. I'm not sure I agree with the premise. I check the notability of subjects before rejecting drafts, which the rejection feature appears to be designed for: "n - topic is not notable". I generally comment on the rejections, i.e. "does not meet WP:NCORP", to give the submitter an idea of why the draft was rejected.

Whether the review is 1st or 4th, it does not make much sense to implicitly ask the author to keep working on a non-viable draft. One of the subjects you cite, DeskTime, has been deleted from mainspace twice, for example. Assessing that these drafts more than likely aren't notable but stating, via the decline template, that users are "encouraged to edit the submission" seems unkind and also disrespectful of the submitter's time and effort. Perhaps this is worth discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation as people seem to have different ideas as to what the rejection feature is for. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Police Battalion 322[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Police Battalion 322 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AugusteBlanqui -- AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Police Battalion 322[edit]

The article Police Battalion 322 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Police Battalion 322 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 AugusteBlanqui -- AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AugusteBlanqui: thank you for the quick review. I'll look at the comments you left and address, if possible. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. BTW - K.e. if you have time, take a look at the Feldgendarmerie article. It needs work, if you have time. Carry on, Kierzek (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: Off the top of my head, I don't have sources on Feldgendarmerie. Are you aware of any recent studies? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is the problem. I was hoping maybe Blood or Westermann, or one of your "Clean Wehrmacht" sources, such as Wette, might have something. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: No luck. Blood does not include it in the index, while Westermann has two very passing mentions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speer myth[edit]

Your edit referencing the Rommel myth made me think of creating User:Szzuk/Speer myth. I'm not really sure if I will proceed with it, the problem is that there is quite a lot of material in the main article so it could be suggested for a merge or deleted as a fork, as with Rommel. Good work on Rommel's myth anyway. Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: if there's more to say, then indeed the Speer myth could be spun out into a separate article. The current section in the Speer article is about the right size, so I would not add much new material there.

Speaking of myth-makers, a good article to source & rewrite would be Heinz Guderian. I've started on it a while back but got distracted. Would you be interested in collaborating on it? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. I gather he's notable for Blitzkreig. I think probably GA would be a good place to work towards, but not with any particular time frame in mind. Szzuk (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to his later life section. The source I'm using, Hart, isn't that good for myth debunking. I will have to see what else I can find. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To get a proper measure of how influential Guderian really was on German tank doctrine, you need to start with Liddell Hart, who inflated his role in exchange for a comment that he based the doctrine on Liddell Hart's theories. It's been a very long time since I've dug into this, but I'd start with Brian Bond's Liddell Hart: a study of his military thought and John Mearsheimer's Liddell Hart and the Weight of History.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that he was an average military man who was in the right time/place to advance his career. He took advantage of his links with Hitler, bigged himself up and was lucky to evade a war crimes trial. Both sources I've read use language right out of his books, so it all looks very Albert Speer like. I haven't got into the nitty gritty of the military battles yet and haven't seen much on Liddel Hart up to this point. It will be interesting to have a look. Szzuk (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The myth that Liddell Hart spread is that Guderian was practically the inventor of blitzkrieg warfare, based on his prewar publications, whereas the reality was far more complex. He was a pretty decent commander, but not great, IMO, and he did emphasize that the panzers needed radios to coordinate their efforts, which was essential to their success, also IMO. There's a large number of sources on the development of blitzkrieg tactics as it's attracted all of the academics interested in military innovation/revolution in military affairs-type stuff, so be prepared.

In the article on Rommel you claim he conspired with Nazi propaganda to create a myth about himself, including after the war (and after his own death. Did he do this from beyond the grave?). Almost all of the information on Rommel comes from his private records where he was extremely critical of himself and he blames himself for the loss in North Africa by upsetting the Italians when he lied to them previously. He admits his own faults readily and did not mythify his actions at all.

Oh, and he was force to commit suicide by Hitler and had no time to alter his records to somehow manipulate future perception. They are original records from the battlefield, not propaganda pieces.

What you are claiming is clearly untrue and is clearly disruptive editing. And this is not the only article you have done it on. You also made a similar claim about Speer, that his story about wanting to gas Hitler was made up in 1952. In reality this story was brought up years earlier during his trial when he claimed he could not access the air vents, and the other Nazis famously made jokes about "The second most powerful man in Germany didnt have a ladder". This is only one example of your claims being easily debunked. I could go on for hours after reading that article.

The claims you are making are clearly not based on facts and you are clearly making disruptive changes to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B016:5BC7:E931:90D2:7F07:9F39 (talk • contribs)

Apparent topic ban evasion[edit]

The post immediately above appears to be topic ban evasion by Special:Contributions/DbivansMCMLXXXVI. The same applies to the post further down on the page: #How do stories of anti-nazi behavior somehow serve as pro-nazi propaganda? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019[edit]

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: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations
Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

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) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do stories of anti-nazi behavior somehow serve as pro-nazi propaganda?[edit]

I have noticed that you have repeatedly stated in several articles that anti-nazi stories are in fact pro-nazi.

Please explain how stories about German soldiers opposing Hitler or the actions of the SS are pro Nazi propaganda. For instance, you repeatedly claim that Franz Kurowski's stories involving anti-nazi behavior by German soldiers are in fact pro-nazi propaganda written by the Nazi media. Why would the Nazi media push stories of resistance against themselves?

This does not seem to make any sense. Please do explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B016:5BC7:31D8:FFCB:7B75:B67B (talk • contribs) 02:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guderian[edit]

I've been trying to track down mention of his war crimes. He would be involved but there isn't much I can find. Do you have any sources? Szzuk (talk)

@Szzuk: I've added a bit from Felix Römer (2012); I'll look further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit more so I think that is ok now. His attitude towards antisemitism seems oddly benign for a high ranking Nazi. Have you seen anything else? Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: Well, he was technically not a "Nazi" (i.e. a Nazi Party member), but rather Nazi-adjacent. I found it interesting that Hart writes that Guderian's moves to Nazify the Wehrmacht in the wake of the 20 July plot suggest someone with a guilty conscience who is trying to cover his tracks. By 1944, the Nazification of the Wehrmacht was complete, with Guderian being a key contributor. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if i can fill the acting chief section today. Szzuk (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of crimes, Guderian was "lucky" not to have been in command in 1942-43, the height of the Wehrmacht criminality on the Eastern Front. So there might not be more to find. I think what's in the article is good for now. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the Invasion of Poland recently, reading it again today it looks too neutral and focussed on the military advance. I think there should be some mention of the carnage, civilian casualties etc. I'm not sure were to go with that one, as it must somehow be linked to Guderian, not a generalised thing. Szzuk (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been referenced and there are no major omissions in content that I can see. I've requested a copyedit from the guild of copyeditors and I'll start a re-write of the lead shortly. I think this is getting close to GA, what do you think? Szzuk (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: Yes, it's been a huge improvement. After the c/e, the article would be ready for GA. I might add a bit from The Myth of the Eastern Front; that's why I added it to the bibliography.

I highly recommend the book; I found it through my google books searches for information on Franz Kurowski. It's been really helpful in understanding why some Wikipedia pages look like vessels for reproducing various myths about Nazi Germany (see Albert Speer's, c. 2015). It also explains why certain myths are fiercely defended. You'll see some of that in the history of Guderian's article as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to source Myth on the Eastern Front, alas I can find no library here that will supply it to me, and it is outside my budget to buy. The content on Guderian in popular culture looks interesting, are there any online sources I could check? Szzuk (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: Bummer! Google Books preview may help: [5]. I searched: Guderian popular culture, and the book was one of the first results. I know that accessibility varies by region; I can see good chunks of the book from where I am. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can use from google books. Another thought, to those readers unaware of Clean Wehrmacht the section might be interpreted as buying into it. Szzuk (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a quote saying what the Soviets would have done if he'd been captured by them. My sources aren't saying anything, have you got anything? Szzuk (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not come across anything like this. But what's interesting is that Guderian was the only commander of a Panzer group that took part in Barbarossa (out of four) to survive the war and not to have been convicted.

@Szzuk: --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look but can't come up with anything very strong. I finished updating the lead. Szzuk (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has given the article a copyedit, it will probably be another week or two before the GOCE do theirs. I should imagine it will sail through GA, I will leave you to nominate it. I think if it went to FAC they would ask for more material, adding huge quantities isn't really my thing. Guderian was more varied than Speer. I'm going to have a read through 'smiling' Albert Kesselring. Szzuk (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: Sounds good; I will do a joint nomination. I still want to flesh out the Clean Wehrmacht section. Will get to it shortly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've got hold of a copy of "Nazi Germany Confronting the Myths" by Catherine Epstein. It summarises well and basically says Blitzkreig was irrelevant to Poland, the Poles were under prepared, only 14 of the 54 batallions were armored (most troops walked there), and up against the combined strength of Germany and the Soviet Union they never stood a chance. I will see if I can find anything else to add. Szzuk (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality please[edit]

The page Barbara Engelking is biased. Her texts have been criticized by Gontarczyk and Domański. This WIkipedia is based on cooperation, not on removal of texts you don't like or don't understand. Why don't you rather correct my editions? ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Xx236 the entry about the criticism is useless as it stands. Users are responsible for their contributions. If you want to include this material, you should provide a detailed and well referenced account of the criticism(s) and not just a link to a Polish language web site and expect readers to understand it.. Please also sign your talk page messages. That said, I suggest you continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks for your cooperation.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book[edit]

A book you may be interested in since you have written several articles which touch on such matters: Evans, Richard J. (1989). "In Hitler's Shadow West German Historians and the Attempt to Escape the Nazi Past." ISBN 978-0-394-57686-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierzek (talk • contribs)

Thanks; I will check it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking your input: legal threats at Axios (website)?[edit]

This is pretty concerning to me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The editor has since retracted/clarified the statement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: Thank you for letting me know. The whole situation is bizarre; it would have blown over by now if the COI editor would not have insisted on bringing it up at every opportunity. And now a suit agains HuffPo? Weird. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Frank[edit]

It is difficult getting hold of texts which are sufficiently secondary, however, I think I have one for Hans Frank. I'm going to add bits and pieces to the article. Szzuk (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: There's probably sufficient coverage of Frank given his prominent role in the GG. Here's a thought: how about working on the Franz Halder article? He's one of the main mythologists behind the legend of the clean Wehrmacht while having had a prominent role in the war of 1939 - 1941. There are some other articles that are high profile but poorly put together. I can make a few suggestions if you'd rather pass on Halder. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an article I noted in the past as one that needs work and additional RS citing, so anything you gentlemen can do would be good. It's a matter of time for me. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Halder[edit]

I will see if I can find a good source. I haven't previously looked for sources about him. Szzuk (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any meaningful biographies on him. The biblio in the article itself isn't offering any clues. Could you suggest several texts in different books, that I might be able to source, and I could patch it together? Szzuk (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Szzuk: This source (Still Fighting for the Myth: German Wehrmacht Officers' Reports for the U.S. Historical Division) lists:

Bernd Wegner, "Erschriebene Siege. Franz Halder, die 'Historical Division' und die Rekonstruktion des Zweiten Weltkrieges im Geiste des deutschen Generalstabes," in Politischer Wandel, organisierte Gewalt und nationale Sicherheit. Beitraege zur neueren Geschichte Deutschlands und Frankreichs. Festschrift fr Klaus-Juergen Mueller, eds. Ernst Willi Hansen, Gerhard Schreiber and Bernd Wegner (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1995).

I, unfortunately, don't read German, but I suspect that The Myth of the Eastern Front covers the same ground. I can source from there since you don't have access to this book. On planning and execution of Barbarossa, see David Stahel's Barbarossa, which I believe you have access too. On the pre-war planning where Halder played a substantial role, this would be a good source:

Müller, Rolf-Dieter (2015). Enemy in the East: Hitler’s Secret Plans to Invade the Soviet Union. London: I.B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1780768298. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stanislawow October 1941.jpg[edit]

We seem to have an issue with this image... see here, where the caption is given as Sept 1939... in Lviv. The supposed source for this on Commons is a redirect to a page that has nothing to do with http://www.grenadiermilitary.com/ - and that plain url is still not available. Internet archive of the site is not helpful, nor would I consider this a reliable source for information on this photo, so the upload information is suspect. Then we get to the issue of the fact that the very same photo is File:Парад в Станиславе (Ивано-Франковск) в честь визита генерал-губернатора Польши рейхсляйтера Ганса Франка 1.jpeg... which has a source that "refuses connection" (http://fotowarmotors.ru) - and Internet Archive won't hunt for that page at all. Frankly, unless we can actually find a good source for the image, it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, as we have no actual basis to assume this image is correctly labeled. Worse, it appears that other sites are now spreading the image with perhaps misleading information ... see Kyiv Post, and of course, the google image search, which shows up some scary scary sites. Frankly, I'm about to lose paitence with many of the uploads/edits in this whole area - it's like beating your head against a wall to even dip your toes into the Eastern European area with any thought of trying to remain objective and just summarize high quality sources. I'm honestly thinking of starting a YouTube channel chronicling the many ways that things get warped by wikipedia ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Agree with your concerns. October is more likely than July, given the heavy coats. Stanislavov & Galicia were incorporated into the GG in August of 1941, so it’s conceivable that Frank would be there in October for a parade. On the other hand, it’s possible that it’s an unrelated celebration and that the image would be difficult to place / date. There’s another well-known photo from the same event: lead image here. Unfortunately, I can’t find it on Commons. If you come across it, please let me know.

On a more general note, indeed, Eastern Europe’s articles are rife with off-topic soapboxing and ahistorical language, including fake image captions. It’s not surprising that this area serves as a battleground for memory politics. These pages are not well trafficked so such content lingers. I’ve been cleaning some of that up as time permits. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see WP:AN#DbivansMCMLXXXVI community ban? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thank you for compiling a thourough statement and for starting the discussion. Good riddance. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...[edit]

... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fleur Hassan-Nahoum[edit]

After making improvements in Draft:Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, seeking to upload it. Thanks for your help. Best,--Geewhiz (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilabrand: The draft, in my opinion, still fails WP:NPOL & WP:PROMO. However, if you'd like to get a review from another editor, you are welcome to resubmit the draft. I do not plan to review it again. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]