User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2017/August

International Commission for Military History

Hello, I've restored and moved the page to User:K.e.coffman/International Commission for Military History. Looks like you were planning to translate the German version (which is rather short too)? Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 02:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Walter Adolph

Can you fix these redlinks you created? Srnec (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Srnec: Thanks; I fixed the various lists. The rest of the articles were linking through a template, which I nominated for deletion at this TfD (among others). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability tag

Hello K.e.coffman,

There seems to be a consensus that Picaboo meets WP:GNG (Please see Talk:Picaboo#Debate_on_weather_this_article_meets_WP:GNG_and_if_it_violates_WP:PROMO) so I think it would now make sense to remove the notability tag from the article. If you don't agree or if you want to add any comments to the discussion you are more than welcome to share your views there. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Again, I have not received an answer to the request made at Talk:Picaboo#Debate_on_weather_this_article_meets_WP:GNG_and_if_it_violates_WP:PROMO for you to analyze the sources of the article and tell me which do you consider meet the requirements set by our general notability guidelines and which you think are not valid and why quoting the relevant guideline or policy. If you need more time to analyze the sources that's perfectly fine, but if that is the case please let me know. When we tag an article we should be willing to justify the reasons. The fact that the AfD closed with no consensus is not a valid enough reason to add a notability tag. A notability tag is justified only if WP:GNG is not met. All participants from the AfD have been pinged: Ritchie333 said that now the article is probably a keep, after a very constructive dialogue with DGG even though he pointed out another issue, he found no objections based on policy toward's it meeting GNG and Unscintillating also feels notability is clearly established. If you agree please remove the tag, if not I look forward to reading your analysis. Regards --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of TimeTiger

Hello K.e.coffman,

I appreciate your notifying me of your review of the TimeTiger article. I have edited the page to address the concerns you indicated. I have made an effort to reduce the advertorial tone in the writing and present a more neutral representation of the topic. In additional I have added references to two project management and productivity books released by major publishing houses in which TimeTiger is discussed. It is true that this page is currently my only contribution to Wikipedia, but my connection to the topic is declared in the Talk page.

I am new here, and still learning. I am open to any additional feedback you offer with respect to this page and its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Geneg1 (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Geneg1: Thank you for your message. Yes, you declared a COI, but please also see WP:COIEDIT: "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have read and understood the COI guidelines as well as the Wikipedia guidance re: WP:Strongly Discouraged. My rationale is that this article belongs in Wikipedia (there are many similar articles that describe similar products in similar ways), and there is a Comparison of time-tracking software article that aggregates and links to them. I also believe that I am uniquely qualified to have made the article submission, my declared COI notwithstanding. For articles that describe a niche commercial product, I imagine it is a challenge to find someone truly free from COI to write the article.

I believe that this article is now written in a sufficiently neutral tone and conforms to Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies. But if there is anything else you could suggest I would certainly welcome the input.

Geneg1 (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello K.e.coffman,

I have removed the proposed deletion template that would automatically delete the TimeTiger article this afternoon, and added the rationale (as above) to the article's talk page. I propose we continue the discussion there. I have left the notability template in place as my understanding of that template's COI guidelines dictate that I should not be the one to remove it. Thank you again for your feedback so far.

Geneg1 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Ace revision

Thanks K.e.coffman. I've been told in no uncertain terms by Nick-D that anything I try will be frustrated. I've tried to show that the awe of the Panzer aces is not a new thing as implied in this article. (I remember it from old 1960s movies) I've tried to include kill numbers of German tankers vs. American and Russian ones, I've tried to delete the "Nazi fan-boys" comment and I've tried to propose a list which would be simply "Top German Tank Commanders of WW2". Nick-D has called this tack a POV Fork, he has reverted all my edits as being badly sourced although I used sources from other wikipedia articles and he has threatened to put a block on my account if I edit the Panzer Aces page. How do I get others' opinions on this? I'm used to scientific article editing which has less opportunity for bias. My whole object in this is simply to give the kill numbers for each commander, a short biography and leave it at that. I don't find the sociological tract included in most articles on the Panzer guys (usually called "Analysis") to be appropriate- it is thinly disguised pro-Western, pro-USA bias. Are there others who share my feelings about this subject or did all interested parties really come up with this ungainly poorly written piece? Thanks for your help- I do not want to get out of line as Nick-D has made me feel like I'm on thin ice. He keeps telling me to try to improve the article yet reverts 99% of what I do- he also becomes quite stern as if I'm a troublemaker. I'm putting this on your Talk page because I don't want any trouble at this point. If you have suggestions please le me know, Thanks, Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Makumbe: Where would the "kill" numbers come from? Tanks are not capital ships to be able to give an accurate accounting of how many were lost to a specific crew. Separately, I find the term "tank ace" to be a misnomer, given the teamwork required. Why is only the tank commander considered an "ace"? What about the loader, gunner, driver, etc -- shouldn't we refer to them as "aces", too? Etc. As I said on the Talk page, feel free to reach out to WP:NPOVN; when Talk page discussions stall, it's a good place to seek additional input. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly right K.e.coffman- tank "Aces" are different. Where do these numbers come from? Obviously some Panzer crews were very effective and knocked out scores of tanks- right? Or is it all wartime propaganda? But I'm not talking necessarily having "Ace" anywhere in the title. How 'bout just Famous German Tankers? Or as I suggested to Nick-D- The Mythos of the German Panzer Ace? That way there is a neutral POV- one can talk about the BS propagandistic "history" surrounding Panzer "Aces" and still explain why "Nazi fan-boys" adulate them. The way the article is written now it is basically a Coat-Rack to talk about how German tankers' exploits in WW2 are exaggerated or revisionist propaganda. Hardly neutral. And I notice that no one actually disputes the high numbers of kills- even S. Zaloga says his whipping boy Michael Wittman knocked out at least 120 tanks. As far as using WP:NPOVN I'm not sure how to do it and I've pretty much been warned it will be a "drive-by tag" which is bad. You are very civil and kind to take time- I told Nick-D I'd cool it for now but I'll keep using the NPOV thing in mind. How can I bring this up on the Panzer Ace Talk page so others see it? Or has everyone just accepted the article the way it is? I'm used to editing more scientific stuff where things seem more straightforward. I've never met a hostile administrator before this experience.Makumbe (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Arjayay and myself have provided you with advice on how to constructively suggest changes to this article. Given that there hasn't been much discussion on the talk page, and you have not provided any evidence to substantiate a claim that the article doesn't reflect different viewpoints appropriately (the question being which reliable sources aren't being reflected in the article?), escalating the discussion to a central board is premature. I and others are actually pretty keen to improve the article, so if there are a broader range of reliably sourced views please provide further details on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

OK- I've been reading up on wikipedias's rules and suggestions and one is "Keep your cool". I stumbled on to this whole thing simply because out of curiosity I wanted the name of the German Panzer guy who had the most kills in WW2. There is NO such list in all of wikipedia. I go to wikipedia and CANNOT find out the answer to this simple question. Because instead I'm treated to a sociological, political and revisionist explanation of how there was really no such thing- the list has evolved into this cobbled mess. Go to wikipedia- can't find the answer. Because of "consensus". Somehow I'm not sure you had consensus- I have a feeling people just gave up. As far as sources- why don't you help me? Are S. Zaloga and Neitzel the only go-to guys? Somehow I doubt many of Zaloga's books are from original sources- Neitzel yes but his POV is overtly hostile to the Wehrmacht. You spend a lot of time degrading Zulowski- I guess he's another hero of "Nazi fan-boys"- your Neutral POV term for people like me. I told you I give up. K.e.coffman contacts me helpfully and again I'm in an imbroglio with Nick-D who claims he and Arjayay gave me suggestions. No- they did not. Reverting and nasty comments (Arjayay called me a sock puppet- Nick-D threatened consequences at least twice- said I didn't read the article which I have a dozen times) are not helpful. I have never had this trouble before on wikipedia- everyone has gone out of their way to be helpful and polite.Makumbe (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Makumbe you are correct, especially about only using Zaloga and Neitzel who are both regarded as recommended but non-neutral on the subject by the german Institut für Zeitgeschichte. I find many articles that have this problem regarding WW2 subjects on the axis side. I worked with the IFZ many times and am a historian so i'm working on adding other IFZ recgonized sources that are not biased so the articles will become more encyclopedic and less biased as sadly many articles overseen by K.e.coffman appear to be. ChartreuxCat (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of this source?

Hey! Would you mind telling me what you think about this Daily Dot article as a source or if you'd have any suggestions for better sources on this topic? Specifically the section on WWI/WWII under the heading "Is Antifa a new phenomenon?" if you scroll down a little ways. It was linked in this WaPo article, so at first I was taking for granted that WaPo would site a reliable source. Even though I don't know anything about that topic, for some reason, I was skeptical. Thank you!! —PermStrump(talk) 05:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I know you havn't asled me on my opinion but using the Daily Dot as a source is just as "reliable" as using Breitbart as a source, so not at all. Especially the section "Is Antifa a new phenomen" has several mistakes in it and reads like that leftwing groups joined forces in reaction to rightwing groups which is wrong. One source from the IFZ in Germany that is internationally regarded as unbiased would be the book Vom Weltkrieg Zum Bürgerkrieg?: Politischer Extremismus in Deutschland Und Frankreich 1918-1933/39 Berlin Und Paris Im Vergleich (Quellen Und Darstellungen Zur Zeitgeschichte) by Andreas Wirsching. - Source: I will gather reliable sources and information from both this book and others so this article can become more neutral and accurate for an encyclopedia article ChartreuxCat (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

ChartreuxCat, thanks for the info! I never heard of the Daily Dot before. I'll check out your the one you linked. Thanks again! —PermStrump(talk) 00:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Darn, I was hoping it would be on a page I could translate to English. If anyone knows of anything in English, let me know. —PermStrump(talk) 00:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Permstrump: I looked up The Daily Dot article and I would say it's a reliable source on the topics of the internet culture, a part of which the modern day 'Antifa' to some extent is. Here's another source that discusses the origins of Antifa: What is Antifa? An amorphous group takes on “fascists”, from The Economist. Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Another source from the german Institut für Zeitgeschichte would be here: You say you need something to translate to english, is this okay? Otherwise i'm sure i can find an already english source for this. ChartreuxCat (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffmanThis would relate to the Antifa movement in the USA which is completly different than the historical movement here in Germany that became a branch growing out of the Roter Frontkämpferbund which btw. i'm also working on adding other sources so the article becomes more accurate and neutral. Using american sources regarding the history of Antifa has various problems, especially considering the political climate you got in the USA right now. Recently other german historians linked to the article about Antifa from the american "The Atlantic" pointing out various mistakes. So i suggest we use non-american sources when it comes to Antifa, it's predecessors and the post-war Antifa. Even a leftwing-leaning book about Antifa history shows the Economist and The Atlantic articles on it's history are wrong. Source: ChartreuxCat (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff

You might be interested in watching the above article - an IP-hopping Nazi apologist appears to be at work. I've been keeping tabs on the situation, but another set of eyes can't hurt. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@BB-PB: Thanks for letting me know; I will keep an eye out. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a week, since our friend can't seem to help himself. If you're curious, the Huerter article that Kienle cites is available here if you have access to Jstore (and a desire to improve the Gersdorff article). Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy Thanks for pointing this article out, i'm quiet new on wikipedia but dislike either side of bias which is sadly very relevant on almost any article regarding axis WW2 related personalities. As of now i can't see anything wrong with the article but i will also keep an eye on it so the article on Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff doesn't become a biased article like many others, whether apologetic or demonizing of this person ChartreuxCat (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

Good Morning K.e.coffman,

You have marked the Wiki page for David R. Paolo for deletion, I'd like to know why you have made this request and what can be done to correct the issue. The site was created by [removed]. I have reached out to him several times but have not received a response.

Your assistance in the matter would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:aa00:9d90:b40b:5dfe:2c2:7a95 (talk)

Proposed deletion of DeSilva+Phillips

Hi. K.e.coffman. I found another article on the firm's website about their founding as a firm. "The Media Bankers" Co-Founders Reed Phillips and Roland DeSilva are on the cover and the article begins to talk about the firm on PDF page #3, article page #35 right hand column. Is this the type of independent, journalist coverage that is helpful? ---Deaconbluesx 06:53 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Kurt Knispel

I agree that Kurt Knispel is one of these mythologized axis soldiers, so i checked out his article page. What i noticed is that none of the sources use anything from the german Bundesarchiv sources nor the american NARA archive sources. So far i had one person tell me that using Bundesrachiv and NARA archives as sources is considered reliable, but again, before i add anything, can those be used? The documents i gathered on Kurt Knispel lower his number a bit but also add much more information on this man. While he was outstanding, he wasn't as outstanding as presented on his page. Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@ChartreuxCat: Wikipedia does not generally use unpublished primary sources. Secondary sources are preferred. What kind of a source do you have in mind? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)