Open main menu

Not sure if you saw...Edit

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland - I'm of two minds. I think it will eventually reach that point, but I'm going to be so busy for the next four weeks moving that I don't need that sort of distraction. And I certainly won't be able to do it justice with evidence. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

My question in the above section is related to that. In my opinion, the users who supplemented that image with a highly anti-Semitic description, and the users who see no problem with that may be dangerous to the project. IMO, some actions are required to demonstrate that violation of formal decorum is not the only thing admin are looking at.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I just don't have the time to document it... trying to move not only a rather large book collection but also a herd of seven horses in the next month. I'm going to be busy (and many of my books are now... packed up to move). In my statement, I linked to some diffs I collected in April dealing with sourcing issues in the subject area. I've got a few more I've found, but there's no way I could do all the heavy lifting for such a case. I was involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG, which has some similarities (although only dealing with misbehavior by one editor) and that ate an insane amount of time. And I'm sure there are sockpuppets, SPAs, and banned users editing under new names throughout the whole area... but proving it... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ealdgyth and Paul Siebert: yes, it would take a lot to untangle the disputes around this topic. The suggestion to take the current disputes to ANI is a bit odd since AE (much better structured) is already unable to cope. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

AfDEdit

You previously nominated Miss Multinational for deletion. The article is currently being nominated , do you think it should be deleted?-Richie Campbell (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Richie Campbell: Looks like it's already been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multinational (2nd nomination). Thank you for starting the AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How about this one?Edit

@Ealdgyth: take a look at diff. Gravedigging was removed in progressive edits in 2013 and 2015 (and I'm not sure when the "no survivors to alert the Stalinist officials to the true significance" was added). The cited source (or rather the previous page on the cited web page - first page (1940s-1950s), second page (late 50s-90s)) - did not quite support the content - it describes a 1945 investigation (completed in 1947, handed over the Germans for their investigation in the 1950s) and also describes gravedigging, investigations into gravedigging, and publicity of gravedigging. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Our 2006 article, which was lacking inline citations (but does have reasonable sources in the sources section) had:

Due to Nazi efforts to erase evidence of the camp's existence near the war's end, almost all traces of the camp disappeared from the surface of the site. The mass graves of the camp's victims remained, however, and in the postwar years some of the local inhabitants disturbed them to look for any valuables buried with the victims. These desecrations became relatively well known all over Poland and were widely condemned in the Polish press of the time. Nevertheless, the practice continued for a number of years, and the Polish authorities were unable to put an effective stop to it. Pursuit of the perpetrators continued into the second half of the 1950s.

which is more or less an accurate rendition of current sources. The whole thing was removed (and with other bits added - e.g. falsely claiming the communists didn't investigate (they actually did - they later suppressed publicity, but they did pass it on), attributing student cleanings from the 1990s to the 1950s, etc.) in successive edits over a few years.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Icewhiz: It may be worthwhile to start a page to document such historical distortions, akin to what's I have on my user page. The entries there are mostly focused on the German war effort, although there's some overlap with the Holocaust in Europe, such as several in User:K.e.coffman#"Ah, partisanen!". Another useful format is User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks, if there's value in compiling contributions by socks who had been active in this area. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust in PolandEdit

You named changing template name to "Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" an "unneeded qualifier". There - what is "unneeded" in correcting historical lies? If you name yourself a "Nazi hunter" so proudly, you should not aid Nazi propaganda - part of which is blaming occupied Poland for the holocaust, when only ones responsible are Nazi Germans. Especially that articles in this category are all about German attrocities in Poland (that time annexed and occupied!). Meanwhile title suggests, that it happened in Poland (just like it would happen today, in the independent state on its own). Calling this category "Holocaust in Poland" is as outrageous and as untrue as calling Auschwitz-Birkenau a "Polish death camp", is a calumny against the victims of Nazi regime, and is a part of a post-war nazi propaganda to whitewash nazi crimes by attributing them to other nations. Please rethink your motives. --Kasabian (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This needs to be unified, peferably mentioned in MoS. A quick look shows no German occupied in France, but German occupied in Lithuania. Anyway, I also noticed History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Czech_Republic#The_Holocaust is rather short and terribly referenced (compare, for example, to The Holocaust in Slovakia). Maybe some other talk page stalker or you would consider stubbing this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I find the above comment malicious. Please respect other editors, who don't share your sense of humor. Many members of my family died during the war. Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comparing Italy, which was the sovereign state (at least from 1939 to 1943) to Poland, which was independent only for 1 month of 6-year long war? You must be kidding. But yeah, actually to be historically accurate the history of Holocaust on Italian lands should be split between 1939-1943 part, during which an INDEPENDENT Italian state participated in the Holocaust by organising transport of Jews to German death camps, and part 1943-1945, during which Germans organised transport of remaining Jews from then occupied Italian lands. There is no such problem in Polish case though, we may rejoice! Since the persecution of Jews started only in october 1939, which coincidentally matches the time of the fall of Poland, and installing German regime over polish land. Please don't cut yourself on those edges, though, mr. "I have no clue, but i like to pose as neo-nazi hunter cause that makes me look cool". And once more - please rethink your motives. What you do there has nothing to do with any "neonazi hunting". Will use the official route though, since "free encyclopaedia" underlies to such incopetent redactorship. --Kasabian (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Barbara EngelkingEdit

She is a sociologist. Please write that your sources call her historian, but removal of her legal title is vandalism.
There exists Talk page, which you ignore, so I'm informing you here.Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
A content disagreement is not vandalism. I suggest you read WP:VAND in order to understand the concept of vandalism on wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
She has a title in sociology and a post of a sociologist. Removal of such information is exactly "vandalism". If you want her to be a historian, please quote reliable sources but don't remove "sociologist".Xx236 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Vasily IgnatenkoEdit

Hello, K.e.coffman,

Thanks for creating Vasily Ignatenko! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

AdoptOpenJDKEdit

Hi there, you recently marked Draft:AdoptOpenJDK as not being notable enough. I'm a little confused where this decision came from? The project is backed by several notable companies including; IBM, Microsoft, GoDaddy and Pivotal. I would ask you to reconsider your decision especially as AdoptOpenJDK is referenced in several other Wikipedia articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=adoptopenjdk&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1). Thanks for taking the time to read this and please do let me know if there is any improvements I can make to the article to rectify the problem.

--Gdams1 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gdams1: The relevant notability guideline is WP:NORG. I do not consider the topic notable. However, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Patxi Xabier Lezama PerierEdit

[1]Hello, you marked Draft: Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier as a Basque artist not remarkable enough and you asked me for at least one publication in a Spanish national newspaper. Fulfilling your request added the reference to the newspaper, along with the references of the Basque encyclopedia Auñamendi, Royal Academy of the Basque Language, etc ... I would appreciate if the article is accepted. Thank you.--85.84.195.72 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC). Hello Kecoffman, can you now remove the Draft label and publish the article of the sculptor Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier? Thank you.--85.84.35.57 (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Hello IP editor: I do not plan to review the draft again. It's in the queue and will be reviewed in due time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lezama Perier, Patxi Xabier. "Mitología a golpe de manos y palabras". Deia. Deia. Retrieved 11 June 2019.

How is this 'streamlining'?Edit

Can you explain why you removed in [2] the paragraph mentioning the stories of Kleinmann, Grzybowski and Kafarski? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

In fact I came to realize you have removed referenced information on rescuers from a number of other ghetto articles. To me, it seems highly relevant - a part of ghetto history, which should discuss its creation, functioning, victims and survivors. It's one thing if you remove unreferenced content (even through it is hardly a red flag and usually easy to verify and source with a simple google search), but it is disturbing, to me to see referenced content (with Yad Vashem, Jewish Historical Institute, and POLIN Museum sources, etc.) removed. I would appreciate if you could explain your logic for things like [3]. PS. I hope you can restore the content you removed as unsourced in Talk:Białystok Ghetto, I provided a list of references you can double check that should cover most of the facts you removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus: A given statement might be accurate, reliably sourced, relevant to the subject, and yet still not be included in an article because it's of lesser importance or including it would place too much emphasis on one aspect of the topic. I found quite a bit of material related to the Holocaust in Poland to be imbalanced. For example, see my edit here: [4]. The rather extensive article has a lead that devotes a paragraph (out of four) to rescue by ethnic Poles, emphasising their great personal cost, and half a paragraph that's about Soviet crimes. Do you consider this balanced? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The issue of WP:UNDUE is certainly relevant, and I agree that some ghetto articles devoted too much time to irrelevant history, primarily related to Soviet invasion and or later annexation of those territories. That said, you seem to remove all and every single mention of those issues, where I'd suggest that rather than dedicated paragraph, a single sentence or at least wikilink should remain. But my concern is not about the Soviet angle, which as I said, does seem to be unduly represented in some articles, but about the discussion of the rescue efforts, which IMHO is very much due and relevant to such topics. An article about Foo-ghetto should discuss, in detail, its history, notable people, organization, resistance, escape and aid efforts. If any section becomes too long, it can be split into a dedicated subarticle, which is why I strongly oppose removal of such content from the article - it should remain until it is split. Do note that this refers to the ghetto articles, as regarding the [5] diff in Holocaust of Poland, I am fine with the removal of this mention from the lead. In my experience, this is about as irrelevant (and would be used as a counterweight) as any attempt to discuss the extent of Polish collaboration with the Holocaust (which is currently not mentioned in the lead). If one of those issues would be mentioned, so should the other. I am unsure, honestly, if the lead would be better if both those issues where mentioned or not.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Experiment: Sambor GhettoEdit

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

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

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

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

Attempts at rescue were limited, with a few exceptions. For example, Ivan and Maria Malenkevich, a Ukrainian couple from a village near Sambor, sheltered the siblings Artur and Irina Sandauer for 14 months in their home, where they built a hiding place in the attic.12 (...)
In total, about 160 Jews from Sambor managed to survive, mostly by hiding with Poles and local peasants. For example, in Czukowa near Sambor a peasant hid 18 Jews, who were not betrayed although most of the village knew about them. One of these Jews was, however, murdered by members of the Armia Krajowa (Polish Home Army, AK) after the Soviet forces arrived.13

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

Actually, 22 out of those 110 are not about saving Jews by Ukrainians and Poles, but about a murder of a Jew by Poles. Excuse me for joining your discussion without an invitation, but the Icewhiz's conflict with VM has drawn my attention to the Jewish-Polish issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you letting me know this valuable resource is available for download. My take on it is that the article is badly in needs of expansion. Some editors expanded the 'rescue' section so that it is mostly complete. If other sections are not expanded, it may create an impression of undue weight, but the solution is not to gut a well expanded section, but to expand the others. And I'll note that a relevant expansion should also include information on local population, Polish or otherwise, collaborating with the Nazis as well, if it is relevant to the topic.
I will however note that the claim "One of these Jews was, however, murdered by members of the Armia Krajowa (Polish Home Army, AK) after the Soviet forces arrived." is a bit dubious. First, after Soviets arrived AK soldiers where generally arrested and disarmed. Second, I've seen similar accounts which turned out to be cases where a said 'murdered' person died in a crossfire, or joined the Soviets who then got into a firefight with the Polish partisans, while attempting to disarm and arrest them. Of course, without more detail it is hard to know what happened here, and USHMM is generally a reliable source, but even quality sources have errors. Realistically, why would AK soldiers try to murder someone after the Soviets arrived? They shot a random Jew because they were antisemites? Or because they decided to go on a murder spree? Unlikely. Anyway, I tried searching for this incident in Google Books and like and I couldn't find it. The USHMM article sources this to "AYIH, 301/4967, testimony of Meyer Lamet, July 15,1945, in Bucharest." which does not appear online. So all we have to go with is that the (reliable) researchers writing for USHMM decided to include this testimony in the article without any further commentary... acting as a judge and jury, calling a group 'murderers', based on a single testimony. The source is reliable, but I am not sure if I would consider this sentence (their conclusion drawn from it) a high point of it, or of the career of the otherwise reliable scholars who put it in there. All that said, however, I would not remove this claim if it was added to our article, but I would caution anyone who would want to put it there to consider whether a single testimony is sufficient enough as a source for it, per WP:REDFLAG.
On the subject of undue and such, it is also interesting that the writers of this entry chose to dedicate about as much content, word-wise, to the single testimony about Poles killing a Jew as to the stories of Poles saving the other 160. Yad Vashem, for example, has entries for rescuers [6] or [7]. another incident is described here: [8]. Why wouldn't the USHMM Encyclopedia entry include at the very least a mention of those three names? Undue weigh issues indeed.
So, anyway, about the Sambor ghetto - we simply have to expand the other sections of the article to be more comprehensive, and it's great that we have the USHMM source now available for free to aid in this task. It's only a shame that the main editor who actually had time and will to write about the ghettos, Poeticbent, is no longer here to actually do it. I am not aware of anyone who has filled his shoes when it comes to serious content creation and expansion in the ghetto topic areas. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, I am not familiar with the subject, the only thing I know from memoirs (primary sources) that AK soldiers were still active behind the frontline of the advancing Soviet Army at least, initially, so this argument is not working. However, I agree this particular fact hardly deserves mention. My point was that the text devoted to saving Jews by the locals is even shorter than 110 words (about 90), which gives a rough impression of a relative weight this source devoted to this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert: you are always welcome on my Talk page; I’d welcome further thoughts you may have on the matter.
@Piotrus: I would be more sympathetic to the view that the rescue section is “mostly complete” vs the rest of the article, if secondary sources on the rescue efforts by Poles were presented to establish WP:WEIGHT. Or to the view that the rest of the article is simply incomplete. For example, even if we copied Encyclopedia's entry word for word (which we cannot) we’d still be at 2000 words. With the present 485 words on the Polish rescue, this would still be a gross imbalance to how a professional (via the Encyclopedia) presented the topic. Note that at present the Ukrainian rescue is ignored in the article, so 5%is not even for Polish rescue alone.
On a related note, the recent addition here [9] is problematic because of how it connects two stories:
After the ghetto liquidation, Władysław Bońkowski, also later recognized as a Righteous, a restaurant manager, offered shelter to a group of sixteen Jews who escaped from the ghetto, and successfully hid them throughout the remainder of the war.[1] Similarly, around the same time, Alojzy Plewa, also later recognized as a Righteous, and his family rescued several other Jewish individuals.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Bońkowski FAMILY". db.yadvashem.org. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
  2. ^ "Plewa FAMILY". db.yadvashem.org. Retrieved 2019-06-18.
“Similarly” indicates original research being conducted to synthesise a narrative not present in sources. This should be left to secondary sources. We are amateur editors on the internet; it’s not up to us to present a version of history not present in secondary RS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
First. Feel free to remove 'similarly', through I don't consider it an SYNTH issue. But removing this word is not going damage the text (through I think the text flows better with it).
Second. It is a fallacy to assume that another source, even if it is academic or encyclopedia, is comprehensive or balanced. Few years ago I improved biographies of some sociologists like Max Weber and even Karl Marx to Good Article. To do this, I used several quality academic biographies of them (chapters in de-facto sociological encyclopedias like Standord's Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Kenneth's Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World. or Ritzer's Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics). A crucial realization I made then is that each of those texts attempting to present a comprehensive analysis of those scholars life and work was, in fact, different from others. Some had sections, big chunks devoted to some dimensions that others did not. So, why is this relevant to our discussion? Simple. The fact that the USHMM source devotes only a x% to this topic is irrelevant. Another source may devote more. Or even less. It is the beauty of Wikipedia that we can combine such accounts and offer a much more comprehensive treatment of the subject than other sources, limited by paper and/or just the fact that they have one author and can't be updated. Our articles can grow and discuss dimensions that some of those authors did not consider. Now, it seems to me like you are effectively arguing that discussions of the rescue attempts at length is WP:UNDUE. As noted, I disagree with this since I find it one of relevant dimensions, just sometimes better developed than some others (frankly, I find it hard to blame people for wanting to write about heroes and the good side of humanity...). There are others, some of them totally not covered in our article(s), like for example, the USHMM paragraph or two about post-war trials of German war criminals operating the ghetto. Rather than removing information on Polish rescuers as 'too long for the current short article', interested editors should expand the article with other information. On Ukrainian rescue, too. Or whatever else can be reliably sourced. Trying to argue that 'rescue' should be no mora than 5% or such is ridiculous, we cannot assign weight to such topics arbitrarily. Length is not an issue, the section should be comprehensive. And if it is too long once the article has been expanded with other sources, we can consider splitting it into its own subarticle. The worst thing we can do is to delete relevant information, without preserving it in an article (since nobody reads talk but us, volunteers). If you have concerns that the ghetto articles are too detailed in their coverage of rescuers, by all means, please expand such articles to be longer, so that the rescuer discussion doesn't dominate them. Build the encyclopedia, don't censor it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ken O'Rourke (hair stylist)Edit

I would to know why Ken O'Rourke is not a notable person. He has been in vogue as editorials just because you can find anything on google doesnt mean he isnt a person to be know about i have all his articles I believe strongly that he deserves a Wikipedia page Pin3appl385 (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The draft does not meet WP:BASIC, that's why I declined it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "K.e.coffman".