Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kierzek (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 13 May 2018 (→Clean Wehrmacht tall tale: note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Nov 2015 * Dec 2015 January–February 2016 March 2016 * April 2016 May 2016 * June 2016 July 2016 * August 2016 Sept 2016 * Oct 2016 Nov 2016 * Dec 2016 January 2017 * February 2017 March 2017 * April 2017 May 2017 * June 2017 July 2017 * August 2017 Sept 2017 * October 2017 Nov 2017 * Dec 2017 January 2018 * Feb 2018 March 2018 * April 2018

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present.

Clean Wehrmacht tall tale

Inspired by the Arbcom case. See, I thought that Clean Wehrmacht was a concept about war crimes and complicity in crimes against humanity, without including military incompetence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: well, you could say that there's an overarching "Wehrmacht myth", but the "clean Wehrmacht" is such a central pillar in it, that the two are pretty much the same, in my mind. I have a section on my user page dedicated to the Three Wehrmacht alibis that covers what, when he's being less generous, the historian Jonathan House calls "the three Wehrmacht lies". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, in general I agree that the coverage of WW2 on enwiki is often fairly different from that of dewiki and often questionably so. I see from comparing de:Schlacht um Moskau with Battle of Moscow that the latter seems to take the "three alibis" you speak of far more seriously than the former (and if there is a consensus that the German command misrepresented the reasons for its defeat in Moscow, it needs to be mentioned somewhere). We don't have a page for de:KZ Osaritschi at all, and Josef Harpe does not mention any war crimes period. And I am glad that someone highlighted the misuse of "Russia(n/s)" in the context of WW2 coverage, finally. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Note the section Wehrmacht at the gates in the article, as if reaching the "gates" of Moscow was somehow an indicator that Moscow was going to fall after a knock on the door. Another popular popular post-war legend is Wehrmacht being 'within sight of the Kremlin’. The phrase appears verbatim in the 1953 publication The German General Staff: Its History and Structure 1657-1945 by Walter Görlitz: GBooks. It then found its way into a number of later works. Compare with David Stahel's Battle for Moscow (2013): GBooks. It's a very tenacious myth; its death is not to be expected any time soon. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with the "clean Wehrmacht tale" at all? --Prüm (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC) (Btw. in good weather and from an elevation and with the right equipment any German officer could have seen the few dozens of kilometers right to the Kremlin.)

@Prüm: One could say that these are adjacent myths, but they are clearly related. See for example in Stahel, pp. 296-297:

• "Part of the confusion in understanding the notion of German 'success' at the battle of Moscow have been some rather famous soldier's accounts, which claim to have seen the very spires of the Kremlin itself. This is, however, a long-standing myth. The only German soldiers who ever saw the Kremlin in the Second World War were being paraded past it as prisoners of war."

The rest is in GBooks preview. Here's how Stahel makes the connection to 'clean' Wehrmacht:

• "Over time these notoriously unreliable accounts contributed towards a new grand narrative of the war in the east, which helped establish many postwar myths, not least of which was the separation of the Wehrmacht from the crimes of the Nazi state".

K.e.coffman (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, been trying to think of a phrase to replace being “at the gates of Moscow”. See Battle of Moscow talk page, if you think of a replacement phrase for consideration. Kierzek (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Interesting example

Hi, We've both worked on the Hermann-Bernhard Ramcke article in the past, but I've had another go at it today. As shown by my changes, even after the earlier efforts to improve the article it was still rather lacking. Noticeably, the text downplayed the aggressive German attack on Italy in September 1943. The sources on the Battle of Brest make it clear that Ramcke was a hard liner determined to fight to the death (in what was a largely futile battle), and I've tried to note that as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There was also white washing of Ramcke in the GA on his opponent at Brest: . Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Thanks for your work on the article; Ramcke is quite famous for causing a furor in West Germany in 1952 when he publicly called the Western Allies "the real war criminals". That after having been released from prison early due to personal intervention of Chancellor Adenauer, who was incensed to the point of wanting to have Ramke prosecuted. That happened at a HIAG meeting, where the leaders had to backpedal and call a press conference to disavow, or something to this effect :-). --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

GAR for Rommel Myth

Hi K.e.coffman. I've closed this GAR in which you participated. I don't think the closure has any bearing on the ongoing arbitration case at all, all the information is still there, and the GAR can always be revisited down the line. Fish+Karate 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: thank you for letting me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kluge

I have not forgotten about Kluge. All of the books I requested arrived today. I will start working on the article either later today or tomorrow; I think I could start with an "Early life and career" section that covers his life prior to the Second World War.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Great to hear. I've already filled out the Battle of Moscow a bit; will look for Barbarossa next. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The book Hitler's Generals offers a lot more than I expected on his early life. I have more to write about on a plot against Hitler in 1938 where Kluge was an accomplice then I can work on Poland and France. We can move this discussion to the talk page if you prefer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: yes, we can continue on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Germany in World War II

Dear K.e.coffman, would you care to proofread my little makeover of the "History of Germany" article? It was so glaringly wrong that I felt immediate action was required. I'm not much of an expert for this period of German history though. It would be greatly appreciated. Greetings, --Prüm (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I worked on it some after reading the above note, but it needs additional work and cites added. I can work on it more, later when I have more time. Kierzek (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prüm and Kierzek: thank you for the edits; loved the edit summary: Clean up (what fool wrote this?). "Brilliantly successful", "stunningly successful", the obligatory "brutal Russian winter, the coldest in 500 years on record", "pesky Churchill", etc. :-) --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is so funny as you let it stand. I am dead serious on this. Get your act together or find a different venue to pull your vulture act. For someone who claims genuine concern, you're way too tongue-in-cheek. --Prüm (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Stopping by: That "fool" was an established professional historian and seasoned editor, albeit not an expert on German history/WWII, which illustrates how prevalent, among other things, the whole narrative of General Winter is. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "General Winter", whoever that's supposed to be. I'm talking about framing someone, or indeed a whole ethnic group, for abusive purposes. We are past the age of genocide. --Prüm (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prüm: Just to clear that up: I commented upon a popular narrative of the reasons for the German defeat before Moscow, not upon a narrative by some real General Winter. I was sure that you would have understood the reference, because it was a well known saying at the time. You could find it in Theodor Plivier's novel Moscow, for example, and Johannes Hürter takes that up as a key to the German remembrance of that campaign. Frankly, I do not understand what you are referring to by framing ... a whole ethnic group and so forth, but since I am already providing unsolicited comments on somebody else's talk page, it is not for me to inquire. But let me tell you this, calling other editors "fools" in your edit summary because you disgagree with the content is unlikely to be understood as dead serious, but rather as being sarcastic and that would also have been the case in German. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Prüm, wont be responding, as he has been blocked. Kierzek (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect his account was compromised in the past day or two. His editing got really strange and the account then "requested" that it be perma banned, claiming it was a longtime troll. His behavior over the past 48 hours or so doesn't at all jive with his previous editing. We've had a spate of attempted account breaches in the past couple of days, mine included. In all likelihood his was successfully taken over. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello guys, quite disturbing what you are speaking of. I had someone try to access my account this afternoon. Not sure if it will do any good, but I reported it here. -O.R. 21:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Same with me. I dealt with Prüm in the German Misplaced Pages here and there for years now and their last edits certainly were, well, eerie. I'll leave a note at the German de:Misplaced Pages:Administratoren/Notizen. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. It would explain the incoherent posts here and elsewhere. Their earlier contributions seemed fine. Here’s the ANI permalink: Ban requested. A weird development. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess I drop a quick note here: The repeated attempts to access accounts all over Misplaced Pages and Prüm's recent behavior are not related but coincidental. Regarding Prüm further details will most likely not be released for reasons of privacy. There is a reply apparently by Prüm, though, stating that he will visit a hospital. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@all: I am ublocked now. My repsonse to User:Assayer's above comment: of course I am aware what "General Winter"'s supposed to refer to. My comment was directed at the fact that the wording of the History of Germany article was so obviously slanted towards giving a false representation of Germans and Germany that I could not find a reason in my mind why nobody else had noticed this glaring fact yet or if so, taken action against it. I still cannot believe that User:K.e.coffman would respond to my attempt at rectifying the situation – at least in part and provisionally – in such a way as to give me the impression that he was mocking any such endeavour. I thank User:Kierzek for taking the time to do further work on improving the article. So much for now, --Prüm (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Prüm: sorry my comment came across the wrong way. I was in fact commending you (and Kierzek) for your efforts. This article was not on my watch list so I did not realise it contained the unfortunate content that you both revised. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning on Talk:Albert Speer‎

You recently gave me a warning on Talk:Albert Speer‎ (Personal attack removed)

The subject we are discussing has already been settled in several other pages on the subject and is properly references in all of them. (Personal attack removed) DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@DbivansMCMLXXXVI: I refer you to this. Pardon my bluntness, but it looks to me that someone needs to get a better handle on how to identify reliable sources. If you continue to shout by TYPING IN ALL CAPS, people will just tune you out. Please see WP:FOC for more advice.

You've mentioned that the matter has already been settled in several other pages. Could you let me know what these pages are? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI

"Cut it out"...? I don't know who, or what, you think you are, but I'm tired of your condescending attitide. Please keep it off my talk page, thank you. - WOLFchild 22:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Do I go on articles' Talk pages and discuss "your friend Springee" or "your friend 72bikers", as you've done here? I don't think so :-). So please do not bring your personal feelings about contributors into Talk page discussions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Query

Should you ever figure out what this is about, would you be so kind as to share with me? Not an admin, btw, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For excellent work in going above and beyond to preserve simple military facts. scope_creep (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Scope creep: thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Tag Adams

I just wondered why you showed up so vehemently as someone who wanted to delete an article about a gay porn star Cannonmc (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cannonmc: I provided my rationale here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tag Adams. There were serious BLP concerns with the entry, on top of marginal notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sandra Romain

Hi, I just deleted the article on Sandra Romain, but noticed that there's still the article List of awards and nominations received by Sandra Romain. You may want to propose that one for deletion, too. --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Randykitty: somebody beat me to it :-). It's already been deleted. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

On your piece in The Bugle

I forgot to write a comment when I first read the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading your piece on the "Clean Wehrmacht" in last month's issue of The Bugle. I don't edit much in the area of military history myself, but I'm familiar with the use of dubious literature as a source. I have a theory that users who are editing in good faith fail to realize that they're using shoddy sources because of a subconcious assumption that something is a reliable source simply because it's published/printed, despite the fact that plenty of unsavory figures and groups have access to printing presses. Obviously some users are just blatantly POV-pushing, but I think that a not unsubstantial amount of the problematic edits come from people who just need to be a little more critical toward their sources. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)